Monthly Archive for April, 2008

Eckhart Tolle’s “Approaching the Self”: III

Last night was the last in the series of Tolle’s DVD presentation. The first two installments are here and here. Following are a few brief thoughts from the session:

“Who is becoming aware of awareness?” Our language produces duality. A better wording is: “The awareness that is the essence of who I am becomes aware of itself.” I.e. self-realization.

Consciousness is no longer trapped in the form.

Tolle talked about reincarnation but from a different spin. Our sense of self gets mixed up with forms of thought and emotion and you are reincarnated in that form. That is, there is no awareness in the background—there is only the form. Therefore, desiring to end reincarnation means to free oneself from identifying with form.

Of course, you cannot reject all forms altogether. The goal is to see something hiding in every form that is one with my essence.

He talked about labels and how we slap a label on something and then go on to the next thing. Once we label something, we think we know it. But, all we really know is a word—the label. We can’t go any deeper than the label to know the thing more deeply. Perception is much closer to the unmanifested, to being, than thought. Whenever something new enters our awareness, there is a second or two of no labeling and pure perception. After that, we slap a label on it and think about it and the perception is gone.

“True love is the recognition of the formless in the other—the recognition of yourself in the other.”

Death is the dissolving of a form. What’s left is the formless. Similarly, all endings are a form of death so we should embrace endings as they help us let go of forms.

There was a question about laughter and Tolle had a great quote: “Beware of any spiritual teacher who is dreadfully serious.”

Sphere: Related Content

Total understanding: an unattainable goal

An ideal understanding would ultimately result in each party’s unthinkingly going along with the other’s experience—a state of uncritical passivity coupled with the most complete subjectivity and lack of social responsibility. Understanding carried to such lengths is in any case impossible, for it would require the virtual identification of two different individuals. Sooner or later the relationship reaches a point where one partner feels he is being forced to sacrifice his own individuality so that it may be assimilated by that of the other. This inevitable consequence breaks the understanding, for understanding presupposes the integral preservation of the individuality of both partners. It is therefore advisable to carry understanding only to the point where the balance between understanding and knowledge is reached, for understanding at all costs is injurious to both partners. [C.G. Jung, The Undiscovered Self, pp. 63-64, emphasis mine]

Understanding and knowledge are, in a way, complementary. When you try to understand someone’s point of view, you begin by applying “principles based on general experience.” But, inevitably, you will find that these principles do not completely describe the particular situation at hand. There are always outside factors and other variables to consider. The more you seek an understanding the further away from principles—the foundation of objective knowledge—you must go and the more subjective the situation becomes. This subjectification is what “feels” like understanding but it is, at the same time, a disadvantage because it isolates you from the environment. This is not a desirable result because it removes knowledge from the equation altogether—the only thing that is relevant is the subjective experiences of the other. There is no longer a balance between understanding and knowledge.

So, what does it all mean? For me to really, truly understand your point of view, I will need to take on all your biases, prejudices, preconceptions, etc.—all your subjective content—which will necessarily require me to throw out all objective knowledge. In essence, I must become identified with you—assimilated by your individuality—so that I no longer exist. Only then can I have total understanding. But this is, needless to say, highly undesirable.

The rub is, as Jung points out, we have a preconception, an expectation, that we can reach an understanding without losing our individuality but this is not the case. We think that total understanding is an attainable goal and fuss and fret (or worse) when it’s not reached but we resist at each step along the way the very understanding we desire by demanding that we retain our individuality.

So, what is the answer? Ultimately, I think, the answer is to adjust our expectations and, rather than seek complete understanding, seek a balance (this “tension of the opposites” is classic Jung) between knowledge and understanding. Of course, this will hardly seem a very satisfying answer to most for there really is no resolution in this goal. No one has changed their mind; no one has been convinced they are wrong; we still have two individuals with differing opinions instead of a consensus. We still have Darwinists and Creationists. We still have Atheists and Evangelicals. We still have Capitalists and Communists. But, is it not better to have two individuals living in a balance between understanding and knowledge than to have one individual totally assimilated—totally against his will—into the other?

Sphere: Related Content

Putting your convictions where your Big Mac used to be

A post (via challies.com) about Rick Pearcey’s McDonald’s boycott. He does not agree with some decisions that McDondald’s has made and is therefore not going to frequent their restaurants anymore. Good for him. This type of thing is not done enough. I boycotted Amazon.com many years ago (the embargo is still mostly in effect, today) but the reasons were not so noble as Rick’s. I wrote them a letter and everything. It felt good but at the same time rather anti-climactic. And I haven’t done it since. Why?

  • It takes time and energy: I have to stay up to date with things so that I know what kinds of bad things companies are doing. Then, I also feel I have the ethical responsibility to make sure I lift the boycott if they amend their ways. Keeping up with the situation takes even more time and energy.
  • It feels useless. What possible difference could Rick’s buying a Big Mac make to a multi billion (trillion?) dollar company? That’s the anti-climactic piece I mentioned above. I told Amazon.com I wasn’t buying any more books from them and I feel they felt bad for a second then took out their bank statements, lit a cigar, kicked off their shoes and just laughed and laughed and laughed.
  • The alternative is inconvenient and, most likely, more expensive. Yes, Amazon.com has great customer service, great selection and great prices. So, If I’m not buying books from them I’ll need to either pay more money or more sanity to deal with another company. Paying a dollar or so more for a different fast food item once a week may not seem that inconvenient, but what if you’re paying $3 more a book and you buy many books a month? What if you have to pay $2000 more for a car? The inconvenience and additional expense of following your convictions can be daunting in some cases.
  • The alternative is sometimes worse. What if this company whose policies I cannot accept does happen to make one thing I really do need and the only other place to buy it is from a warehouse in NJ who ships it from Chile after being assembled in China? Is that better than supporting a company who goes against your beliefs? So, not only do you have to investigate the company you’re boycotting but you now have to track your alternate source.
  • It makes me look arbitrary. “Oh,” people will say, “you’ll boycott Blah Blah Widgets because they think yada yada yada so why not boycott Foo Bar Tech and Baz Woo Cosmetics and Flip Flop Toys? They do this and that and the other.” It’s impossible to boycott everyone with whom you disagree. So where do you draw the line? Is the important thing that a line is drawn — somewhere, anywhere — or is the important thing that everything on my side of the line has been checked out 100%?

The other thing I found myself doing (both in the Amazon.com case and after I quit smoking) was that I’d get up on my soapbox and demand that everyone else follow my convictions and for the same reason. Talk about annoying! These are my convictions — not yours. Obviously, McDonald’s and Amazon.com have different convictions and don’t they have the right to express what they believe? It’s a touchy situation — equal rights for expressing our convictions and beliefs. I don’t think anyone really has a good answer for how to handle it.

It’s not easy to back up your convictions. So, why do it at all? Is Rick going to change McDonald’s? Did I change Amazon.com? I know, I know. “It all has to start somewhere.” “It’s the principle of the thing.” “What if everyone said that?” It’s this cliche and that hackneyed expression. But really all I’m going to get out of it (in the vast majority of cases) is the self-respect that comes from following my convictions. The question is, is that enough to offset all the negatives and inconveniences and additional costs of the alternative?

So, yes, I applaud Rick for taking a stand. I think more people need to speak up about companies who have made poor decisions and support the wrong things but we also need to act. And that is the real issue here. How far are you willing to go to demonstrate your beliefs? How much would you give up? If you had to put a time and money figure on it, what would it be? How much effort are you willing to put into investigating the companies with which you do business? How much extra cost are you willing to incur to shop an alternative, less convenient option? What if you had to give up listening to your favorite music artist? Or give up using your current cell phone company/provider? Or switch MP3 players? Or buy a different make car? Or do business with another bank? Would you be willing to institute the boycott and stick with it? Or do we just avoid looking too carefully at these major things in our lives so that we can continue using them with a “clear” conscience?

Sphere: Related Content

Just because you’re hated doesn’t mean you’re right

Bobby Maddex at Sign of the Times is as mad as hell and he’s not going to take it anymore. And he does make some valid points. He and “those … who champion moral absolutes, human dignity, the traditional family, and a transcendent reality” are held to a different standard and are not allowed to take cheap shots, distribute deceitful propaganda, and are very often criticized for their stance. So, it’s natural and reasonable they they should want to fight back and do unto others as gets done unto them.

And, for the record, I don’t agree with Dawkins and the neuvo atheists. Hell, I don’t even agree with the old atheists like Bertrand Russell. I think there is something — a LOT of somethings — beyond science. But I also don’t agree with Maddex. And I’ve written a bit about Russell so now it’s Maddex’s turn.

First of all, the use of righteous anger is VERY dangerous and hubristic. James 1:20 says: “For the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.” To be truly righteous anger, you have to be truly right — don’t you? And it’s very easy to say and think that you are right but are you? Truly right? Calling your anger righteous just because you think God is on your side is tricky. A lot of people think God is on their side and so they all have the right to call their anger righteous.

Second is the old corollary to “they will know we are Christians by our love” which is “we will know we are Christians by their hate.” Listen. Just because you’re hated doesn’t mean God is on your side! Yes, Jesus said that those who follow him will be hated. But taking hate from the world as an “affirmation” that you are right is not the same thing. It’s kind of like: every human will die and, therefore, everything that dies is human. Wrong!

So, go ahead and parody, satirize, and poke fun at those who hold different viewpoints because they are doing it to you. I think this world would be a much, much, much better place if we could all laugh at each other and ourselves more often. And I do think that we all have the right to believe what we believe and everyone else just better “deal with it.” But, at the end of the day, we still have to live on the same tiny speck of dust as the other person. We still have to live next door to an atheist or an evangelical. We still have to elect a single president over both atheists and evangelicals. We still have to send our kids to school with atheists and evangelicals and figure out what they are going to be taught. We have to live our mundane lives between two diametrically opposed, antagonistic viewpoints and still get eight hours of sleep every night. Looking at it from this perspective, is the best answer the answer that both sides seem all too keen on? Is continued hostility and escalating aggression going to get us anywhere? Neither side is going to convince the other side it’s wrong no matter how many jib-jab-like parodies are produced. It’s not going to work, folks. So, let’s come up with an alternate solution, shall we?

Sphere: Related Content

Fundamentalism is …

The last gasp of a religion that has forsaken its contemplative heritage is fundamentalism, which throws logic to the wind and defends its beliefs with a raw appeal to authority. All forms of fundamentalism, religious and scientific, regard themselves as self-sufficient, displaying no interest or concern for external challenges to their dogmas. The contamination of science with scientism and of religion with fundamentalism constitutes a lethal infection, which, if left unchecked, is bound to result in the death of its host; and the aftermath of that fatality bears little resemblance to any genuine science or religion.

B. Alan Wallace, The Taboo Of Subjectivity (via Exploring Our Matrix)

Sphere: Related Content

God begins to learn who He is

I offer you a personal fantasy. Suppose the universe consists of an omniscient mind containing total and absolute knowledge, But it is asleep. Slowly it stirs, stretches and starts to awaken. It begins to ask questions. What am I? — but no answer comes. Then it thinks, I shall consult my fantasy, I shall do active imagination. With that, galaxies and solar systems spring into being. The fantasy focuses on earth. It becomes autonomous and life appears. Now the Divine mind wants dialogue and man emerges to answer that need. The deity is straining for Self-knowledge and the noblest representatives of mankind have the burden of that divine urgency imposed on them. Many are broken by the weight. A few survive and incorporate the fruits of their divine encounter in mighty works of religion and art and human knowledge. These then generate new ages and civilizations in the history of mankind. Slowly, as this process unfolds, God begins to learn who He is.

Edward F. Edinger, The Creation of Consciousness

Sphere: Related Content

Favorite sentences from children’s books: I

That very night in Max’s room a forest grew
and grew—
and grew until his ceiling hung with vines
and the walls became the world all around
and an ocean tumbled by with a private boat for Max
and he sailed off through night and day
and in and out of weeks
and almost over a year
to where the wild things are.

Where the Wild Things Are, Maurice Sendak

What’s your favorite sentence from a children’s book?

Sphere: Related Content

The Creation of Consciousness: IV

We know turn to the meaning of consciousness. Etymology indicates that consciousness is made up of two factors: knowing and withness. That is, it is the experience of knowing together with an other.

Edinger tackles the act of knowing from a psychological-empirical approach rather than a philosophical approach. Through the former approach, says Edinger, “the experience of knowing can be at least descriptively elaborated.”

The psychological function of knowing or seeing requires first of all that undifferentiated, diffuse experience be split into a subject and an object, the knower and the known. . . . As [Erich] Neumann says, “This act of cognition, of conscious discrimination, sunders the world into opposites, for experience of the world is only possible through opposites.”

This is exactly Jung’s individuation process which is realized through the experience of the tension of the opposites. Each new increment of consciousness that we collect requires a repetition of this same process of separating object from subject. Schopenhauer talks about the ability for a man to step away from his struggling, suffering life and observe it as if he is a spectator to a play. All the things that were intensely emotion are now cold, foreign, and strange. It is this process that turns an “unconscious complex which has one by the throat into an object of knowledge” and is “an extremely important aspect for increasing consciousness.” The myth of Perseus and Medusa also demonstrates the power of reflection. Once cannot look upon Medusa directly but one can view her via the mirror-shield — the process of human culture or art.

Being known as object is the other half of the process of knowledge. The ego as “knower” is only providing simple knowing. “To achieve authentic consciousness the ego must also go through the experience of being the object of knowledge, with the function of the knowing subject residing in the ‘other’.” This “other” must ultimately be the inner “knowing one,” i.e., the Self or inner God-image. The “Last Judgment” is the ultimate experience of being the object of knowledge. It “can be understood psychologically as a projection into the afterlife of the ego’s encounter with the Self and the archetypal experience of being the known object of a transpersonal subject; it is an awesome experience, as the myths make clear, an experience that man has understandably tried to postpone as long as possible by transferring it to the afterlife.”

We all begin as the known object and slowly, as the ego develops, become the knowing subject. This is a tranquil and powerful state since the subject dominates the object and the object is the victim of the knower. But we must give up our relative freedom as we realize that we are also the known object, once again, to the Self. So, we alternately must play the role of subject and object. The real key to the process is the realization of the “dynamism of connectedness, the relationship principle” that is knowing with. It is a coniunctio, a union, of Logos (knowing) and Eros (withness) and, as such, we are simultaneously playing both parts. Furthermore, this process also applies to the Self which must also be the known object to the ego’s subject. In Answer to Job, Jung says:

Existence is only real when it is conscious to somebody. That is why the Creator needs conscious man even though, from sheer unconsciousness, he would like to prevent him from becoming conscious.

What we see in Job is that “because Job has seen Yahweh’s amoral nature, Yahweh is obliged to change.” In other words, God — or the Self — needs man to promote the Self’s consciousness.

This reciprocal relation between the ego and the Self — in which both are object and subject — has some interesting implications. The unconscious provides the material of our dream life and thus the Self becomes visible to the ego. But what if the life dramas of the ego are the dreams of the Self, the process of God becoming aware of himself?

In this modern age, religion is the Eros, or withness, factor and seeks the maintain man’s connectedness with God and is Self-oriented. Science is the Logos, or ego-oriented, factor and seeks human knowledge at the expense of the connection with the other. Science alone inadequate to the needs of the whole man and the intellectually naive standpoint of religious faith is equally inappropriate for us today. It is the synthesis and linking of these two factors that will increase consciousness in the universe.

Sphere: Related Content

The Creation of Consiousness: III

[ Finally getting back to this book. I actually lost it for a while in the black hole residing in the center of my office. But I've managed to rescue it from the event horizon and now we'll continue... ]

It is the union of opposites that is the essential feature:

Consciousness is the third thing that emerges out of the conflict of twoness. Out of the ego as subject versus the ego as object; out of the ego as active agent versus the ego as passive victim; out of the ego as praiseworthy and good versus the ego as damnable and bad; out of a conflict of mutually exclusive duties — out of all such paralyzing conflicts can emerge the third, transcendent condition which is a new quantum of consciousness.

It is in “paralyzing conflicts” that we grow, learn, and mature. It is the no-win situation that makes us confront our passive, un-examined beliefs and prejudices and figure out what we truly believe. Being in a rut — physically, emotionally, mentally — simply atrophies our being. Nothing new comes from one-track thinking and avoiding to actually make the tough decisions.

Edinger then goes on to talk about the Trinity and how the Holy Spirit could only come after Jesus’ death in which the opposites of the Father and the Son collided on the cross. In this respect, the Holy Spirit embodies the creation of consciousness and thus the indwelling of the Parachlete “thus anticipates the new myth which sees each individual ego as potentially a vessel to carry transpersonal consciousness.”

As two archetypal figures who both represent the idea of a carrier of consciousness, Christ and Buddha give us the opportunity for comparison and objectivity.

As long as there is but one figure embodying supreme value he can only be worshipped but not understood. With the presence of two we can discover the separate third thing which they both share; understanding and greater consciousness then become possible.

I think this is exactly the situation of the Old Testament God versus the new Testament God. In the Old Testament, there was only the one God and so he could only be worshiped; there was no point of comparison from which he could be understood. It took Jesus, as the wrathful, jealous God’s opposite in order for us to be able to put them both in perspective.

The new myth suggests that man is an experiment in the process of creating consciousness; “that the sum total of consciousness created by each individual in his lifetime is deposited as a permanent addition in the collective treasury of the archetypal psyche.” There are many mythical images that talk about the transfer from the personal life of the ego to the eternal realm: the early Egyptian idea of the dead being turned into stars and the translation of dead kings to the heavenly realm; Christian symbolism of the righteous ascending into Heaven; the promise in Revelation that the victorious will be a pillar in the temple of God.

This new myth gives meaning to our mundane life:

Every human experience, to the extent that it is lived in awareness, augments the sum total of consciousness in the universe. This face provides the meaning for every experience and gives each individual a role in the on-going world-drama of creation.

Sphere: Related Content

McSpelling Lesson

Sheesh! As if we don’t already have too many people calling it eXpresso.

Expresso