Category: Philosophical

Posted on

Reflections on radical acceptance

While I was jogging this morning a few thoughts floated through my mind related to the notion of radical acceptance. Whenever I start thinking about such things, it’s all too easy to get stuck in semantics, allowing the rules of grammar and the limitations of linear thinking to distract me from the heart of the matter. For instance, I often describe the state of radical acceptance as one characterized by a “letting things happen of their own accord” as opposed to “me making things happen or me resisting things as a willful agent.” Obviously, this sets up a dichotomy between me, on the one hand, and experience, on the other. Once the dichotomy is set up, I too often get lost in a confused attempt to philosophically reconcile to the two poles, forgetting that the dividing line between the two is non-existent, except as way of perceiving experience from a particular perspective, namely the perspective of ego identification, which implicitly entails a certain degree of disidentification with non-egoic dimensions of experience. From the perspective of ego identification, I have experiences; experiences happen to me.

When I move into a state of radical acceptance, I’m moving from a state of relative non-acceptance where I’m fighting against life, trying to deny what is, hoping to somehow transform it into what I want it to be. So, at first, the shift to acceptance feels as if there is an I who is allowing experience or life to happen without any interference or resistance from me. This dividing line between myself and the flow of life experience begins to blur as I move deeper into a state of acceptance, eventually bringing me to state of being where such distinctions no longer hold sway, no longer make sense, and no longer characterize how I feel. The “problem” of ego identification isn’t really solved. It just disappears (temporarily). The differentiation between myself and life ceases to seem relevant, if only for a moment.

Consider the following reflections (Yes, this is really what I thought about during my jog!):

You need to find your way to a soccer field that is located on the border of two towns. You pull out your trusty road map and make your way there. The lines on the map are useful for finding your way to the field, but once you get there, they are no longer relevant to your next objective, i.e. to play a game of soccer with your friends. The town line cutting the field in half helped you get there, but once you get onto the field it disappears from your mind, and now the only relevant lines are the ones marking the field. After the game, you might decide to have a picnic on the field, or maybe later that evening an outdoor concert will be held there. At that point, the markings on the field also become irrelevant. They, like the lines on the map, were useful conventions in a specific context, served a function in pursuit of a specific purpose, but during the concert they lose all relevance. I think ego identification is like lines on a map or lines on a field. The distinction between me and my experience has relevance and reality only from the perspective of ego identification, and that perspective is merely a convention, like lines on a map or a field, that is useful for certain objectives and not useful for others.

The problem with being stuck in a state of ego identification is that you get stuck with the sense of separation and disconnection from life that goes hand in hand with the state. Differentiating and separating out a me from the rest of life (not-me) is the action of attention that defines and generates the sense of being a self. When we are engaged in purposeful activities, when we’re “getting things done,” it’s probably useful to set down some imaginary lines to create an image of oneself as distinct from the flow of life. But when the job is done, the destination reached, it just confuses matters to keep generating those imaginary lines, as it would be confusing to play soccer on a field marked with lines not relevant to the rules of soccer — i.e. football yard markers, town borders, and/or concert rows. Radical acceptance, like other deployments of attention that might be considered meditative, can be strengthened through practice to the point where it becomes an enduring pattern, a healthy habit, an available perspective through which we can experience life in its seamless glory.

My intention as I began my jog this morning? To stay aware of bodily sensations and to avoid getting lost in thought! And just in case anybody’s wondering: Normally I get lost in far more mundane mental distractions, like fantasies of winning Olympic medals or snippets of random pop songs from the 80s.

Posted on

Erich Fromm interviewed by Mike Wallace, 1958

[Crossposted @ Integral Health Resources.com]

The Society for Humanistic Psychology blog posted the following video of Erich Fromm being interviewed by Mike Wallace in 1958. [A complete transcript of the interview can be accessed via the Harry Ransom Center (University of Texas at Austin) website.] A couple of things stuck me as I watched this fascinating exchange. First, Fromm’s essential critique of modern society is as relevant today as it was fifty years ago. Second, I find it difficult to imagine any news program today featuring this kind of in-depth, philosophical discussion. We’ll see weeks of non-stop news coverage on say, the death of Michael Jackson, but when it comes to exchanging thoughtful perspectives on our most pressing societal problems, we’re offered little more than partisan sound-bites and propaganda disguised as journalism.

The program below is introduced as a “Special series discussing the problems of survival and freedom in America”. Mike Wallace begins by saying that his aim in talking with Fromm is to “try to measure the impact of our free society on us as individuals. Whether we’re as happy as we like to think we are, or as free to think and to feel.” Imagine Bill O’Reilly or Brian Williams or Katie Couric devoting an entire program to such questions! These kinds of questions are incredibly important, yet conspicuously absent from public discourse. In terms of Integral Health, it is simply impossible to understand individual health and happiness without understanding the way our individual lives are shaped by societal forces.

During the discussion, Fromm talks about the “marketing orientation” of the American citizenry of the 1950s: “Our main way of relating ourselves to others is like things relate themselves to things on the market. We want to exchange our own personality – or as one says sometimes, our ‘personality package’ – for something.” Fromm (I’m paraphrasing here) goes on to describe modern social relationships as shallow, with real intimacy being hidden by a superficial friendliness. He suggests that the average American is only genuinely concerned with private affairs, never losing sleep about the pressing societal problems which threaten our very existence. He says the average person prefers to leave such things to specialists in the government, talking about problems shown on the news with friends and coworkers, but with no more sense of urgency than one would talk about a car that needs repair. Fromm asserts that, despite our apparent preoccupation with it, true love remains a relatively rare phenomenon. He laments that it is all too common that the most important things we talk about on Sundays are the very things that we pay relatively little attention to in our everyday lives. Again, he’s talking about life in the 1950s, but it’s easy to be struck with how little things have changed, at least in many respects. Like when he says: “I think our danger is that we talk one thing, and we feel and act another thing. I mean, we talk about equality, about happiness, about freedom – and about the spiritual values of religion, and about God – and in our daily life, we act on principles which are different, and partly contradictory.”

Speaking of the “religious renaissance” he was seeing back then, Fromm describes it as “the greatest danger that true religious experience has ever been confronted with.” He goes on to say that man today, being concerned with production and consumption as ends in themselves, has very little energy and time to devote himself to the true religious experience, which Fromm defines (in response to Wallace) as “the capacity to feel deep love and oneness with others and nature.” Wallace also asks Fromm to define “happiness” and “democracy”. Regarding happiness, Fromm offers: “People today seem to define happiness as the experience of unlimited consumption. Happiness should be something which results from the creative, genuine, intense relatedness – awareness, responsiveness, to everything in life – to man, to nature.” Regarding democracy he says: “Democracy once meant an organizational society and a state, in which the individual citizen is – feels – responsible, and acts responsibly, and participates in decision-making. I think what democracy means today, in reality, is to a large extent, manipulated consent – not forced consent, manipulated consent -and manipulated more and more with the help of Madison Avenue.” Fromm adds, “We have a mass man, a mass bureaucracy, a manipulation of everyone to act smoothly but with an illusion that he follows his own decisions and opinions.”

Fromm gives Wallace–and the people watching this ABC News Special–a lot to chew on. Again, I think many of Fromm’s concerns and observations are just as relevant today as they were fifty years ago. Without further ado:



Posted on

Has Ken Wilber jumped the shark?

Yeah, I know, that’s a pretty lame Wilber/Fonzie photoshop job, but I couldn’t resist. And I want to make clear right from the start that Ken Wilber has authored several of my all-time favorite nonfiction books. I dig a lot of his work and use his “four quadrants” to frame my own understanding of Integral Health. I remember reading Wilber’s Sex, Ecology, Spirituality and thinking to myself, “This guy is the shit!” Yesterday, however, after reading Wilber’s latest blog post (A Narrative on Guruji), I couldn’t help but think, “This guy has lost his shit!”

The first thing that struck me as odd about Wilber’s post was the style of presentation, which was riddled with rambling redundancies, poor reasoning, and flat-out bad writing. This from a man capable of exquisitely lucid prose. Now, maybe he meant it as an off-the-cuff type of thing and I’m being a bit unfair, but this is a guy who rarely posts on his own blog, so I was surprised he’d go on record with this scattered post. Then there’s the content of the post, which is a strong public endorsement of a spiritual teacher named Mahendra Kumar Trivedi. From Wilber:

What I am claiming—and supporting—is that Guruji’s capacity to conduct and transmit universal spiritual energy (or “shakti”) is utterly remarkable, as proven by scientific experiments themselves. It is these direct, specific, scientific experiments and their results that I am reporting, and on which I am basing my endorsement. This is a scientific conclusion, not a spiritual one (although, of course, you are free to make those as well—but I am reporting the direct science, which is indeed astonishing).

[…] To put it briefly, Mr. Trivedi has an empirically demonstrated capacity to alter the atomic and molecular structure of phenomena simply through his conscious intentionality. The number of experiments done on this capacity (known in Sanskrit as shaktipat) that have been done in coordination with Mr. Trivedi is quite extraordinary—so far, over 5,000 empirical studies by universities and scientific research organizations all over the world (including the world renowned materials scientist Dr. Rustum Roy at the University of Pennsylvania).

Wilber takes great pains to stress that he’s basing his endorsement of “Guruji” (as he is affectionately known) on SCIENCE: “the reason is based entirely on direct, specific, scientific evidence. This evidence is so astonishing that I myself have never seen anything quite like it.” In fact, Wilber drives this point home at least a dozen times in his fairly short post. When I went to Trivedi’s website to check out the evidence, I found plenty of information and claims, but not a mention of peer-reviewed evaluation of results or independent research corroborating the findings. I would expect a scientifically-based endorsement to have higher standards, although as a non-scientist myself, I confess I am not qualified to pass authoritative judgment on such matters. Wilber seems to have a lot of confidence in the conclusions of one researcher in particular, the “world renowned” Dr. Rustum Roy. It should be noted, however, that Roy, like his associate Deepak Chopra, is not exactly lauded by mainstream scientists, as I’ve seen his name (perhaps unfairly) paired with words like “woo” and “pseudoscience” on more than one occasion (for instance here and here). Of course, there are plenty of science-based crusaders out there who would tear me apart, along with many of my intellectual heroes, so that kind of criticism in-and-of-itself doesn’t put Wilber’s endorsement on shaky ground. Rather, it’s Wilber’s credulity and weak justifications that have me scratching my head, and even cringing in embarrassment at times.

For example, Wilber offers this: “Especially if you see photos of these results, you can’t help but be struck by the rather intense capacity for this transmission demonstrated by Guruji.” Really? Photos on the internet? Wilber seems to be all-too-willing to validate anything and everything that supports his own view of the universe. We all do this, of course, but we’re not all hailed as “the Einstein of consciousness research.” And Wilber seems also to be all-to-willing to indulge in highly speculative conclusions based solely on the alleged abilities of a single man:

Several of us have been predicting for some time that a significant new transformation is beginning on Earth at this time. Various psychological tests and sociological indications tend to show that there is the beginning emergence of a new type of consciousness. […] It might be that the Energy that Guruji is working with is the energetic support or correlate of this new Integral transformation. And that’s really pretty extraordinary. It’s pretty amazing that that might be happening.

And:

The point is that various psychological and sociological tests have verified the emergence of a new level of consciousness-again, one generally referred to as ” integrative” or ” integral.” In other words, this is not just some hair-brained academic theory, but a reality disclosed by specific testing. What hasn’t been disclosed is the new Life Energy that would be expected to underlie this new level of consciousness (what Integral Theory calls the Upper-Right quadrant aspect that would correlate with the newly emergent Upper-Left quadrant reality). But it is this new Integral energy that seems to be what Guruji is transmitting.

Notice Wilber’s highly dubious claim that “various psychological and sociological tests” have verified his theory of integral consciousness to the point of disclosing it as reality. It’s no wonder, based on that kind of flimsy reasoning, that Wilber would so readily endorse Trivedi as the real deal. The fact that a real scientist (Rustum Roy) affiliated with real universities supports Wilber’s thinking seems to be all the scientific confirmation Wilber needs to (tentatively) verify as real and true another brick in his Great Wall of Integral Theory. Throw in a little circular logic, and there’s nothing likely to keep Wilber from moving from tentative acceptance to total acceptance in the near future:

Guruji says that individuals have to be open for this, and I think that’s exactly right. You can’t force people to be free. It’s a choice they have to make, if they have evolved enough. Not even God can force a human to be free. That would just defeat the whole purpose. So whatever percentage of people are actually open to this-ten percent, twenty percent, fifty percent, whatever-we’ll find out. But if there is a really strong doubt and negativity, then it doesn’t surprise me that this transmission doesn’t have a chance. So right now we’re waiting to see the percentage of people that can become open to this type of transmission.

This is becoming an all-too-familiar gambit in Integral circles, that you have to be “evolved enough” to really grasp the truth of what Wilber claims. Furthermore, if Trivedi’s super spiritual transmission can’t transmit through doubt and negativity, then why even bother putting it through the rigors of scientific confirmation and peer review? Too bad we can’t all be like the open-minded plants that Trivedi has blessed into realignment with the new Earth Energy!

It’s not as if Trivedi is the first person on the block with supposed mystical super powers. What about John of God and Sathya Sai Baba? Many claims have been made, yet James Randi’s One Million Dollar Prize
 for “anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event” has yet to be claimed.

Ken Wilber has contributed much to the advancement of integral, integrative, holistic approaches to life’s most intractable challenges. I don’t want to diminish that fact with this rant. But I’m frustrated. I’ve been trying to make the case to mainstream mental health professionals and health educators that Wilber’s work should be taken seriously. This is already an uphill battle, given the New Age label that is often associated with Wilber’s writing and his institute. But add to that the whole Wyatt Earpy episode, Wilber’s endorsements of ethically suspect individuals like Andrew Cohen and Marc Gafni, and now this latest Guruji head-scratcher, and I’m not sure I should be taking him seriously anymore.

Earth (Energy) to Ken: Please start making sense again!

Posted on

Integral Health?

[This is cross-posted @ IntegralHealthResources.com]

Question: What does “Integral” mean? What’s the difference between integral, integrative, holistic, mind/body, wellness, etc.?

My answer: As I use the term, “integral” refers to any approach that brings together multiple perspectives in an effort to address the multiple dimensions of human life. In this sense, the term “integral” is basically interchangeable with “integrative” and “holistic.” As a matter of personal preference, I like the term “integral.” I graduated from the California Institute of Integral Studies, which is grounded in the Integral Psychology of founder Haridas Chaudhuri, and I’m also a big fan of Ken Wilber’s “four quadrant” integral theory.

In general, however, the terms integral, integrative, holistic, mind/body, and wellness are all meant to convey “whole person” approaches to health and healing, as opposed to the disease-focused system associated with conventional medicine.

Keeping in mind that most, if not all, healthcare practitioners—whether in conventional settings or integrative health centers—would claim to be treating the “whole person,” I agree with the following distinctions Dr. Elliott Dacher makes between conventional, complimentary and alternative, integrative, and integral approaches:

[Article featured on Davi Nikent.org]

The evolution of medicine in modern times has been from allopathic or conventional, to alternative and complementary, to integrative and now to integral.

These can be defined as:

Conventional: The traditional approaches of medical science.
Alternative and Complementary: Healing approaches outside of the mainstream of western medical science.
Integrative: The merging of conventional, alternative and complementary approaches under a single “umbrella” of care.

Each of the preceding approaches, as they are currently and predominantly practiced in western culture, primarily focus on the biological or physical aspects of healing, emphasizing the role of professionals and their specialties, remedies and therapies in the treatment of physical disturbances. It is the recognition that these approaches have not addressed the whole person and therefore limit what can be achieved in health and healing that has driven the development of an integral approach.

Integral: The expansion of the health and healing process to address the entire range of the human experience: biological, psychospiritual, relational and cultural. All are seen to contribute to the disease process and to health and healing. The expansion of consciousness, the inner aspect of healing, rather than the outer “medical tool kit” is a central aspect of the integral approach. The aim of integral medicine is broader than all preceding approaches to health and healing. The aim is to gain freedom from suffering and to experience the flourishing of the full potential of our humanity – the natural arising of an inner peace, wholeness, love, compassion and joy – that can sustain itself throughout the life cycle irrespective of the presence or absence of disease. This can only be achieved with an integral approach to healing that considers all aspects of the human condition.

From the Practitioner’s Perspective:

As a conventional practitioner I would approach the individual from the perspective of the physical symptom and disease, limiting my diagnosis and treatment options to those of western science. As an alternative and complementary practitioner I would approach the physical symptom and disease from the perspective of my particular training (acupuncture, chiropractic, nutritional, etc.) and formulate a diagnostic and treatment plan in relationship to my specialty. An integrative care approach combines conventional and alternative approaches to offer a broader spectrum of choices when treating the individual’s symptoms or disease. As an Integral practitioner I would approach the patient first looking at their entire life circumstance – biological, psychosocial, relational and cultural – focusing on the whole person rather than the disease, symptom, or my particular specialty, my diagnosis would include concerns in each of these areas of life and my healing plan would cover the broad range of needs and possible approaches necessary to move towards a larger health of the whole person. Because as an integral practitioner my vision is broader so also is that which can be achieved, a human flourishing vs. a physical healing. As an integral healer I must be in a transformative process myself as the driving force for a larger healing is not merely biological knowledge but an understanding and growth into a larger consciousness. An expanding consciousness is a key ingredient of an integral process.

Elliott Dacher, MD
March 2005

Posted on

Anything plus ignorance equals crap

religulous

So I watched Bill Maher’s “Religulous” movie the other day and, for the most part, I had the typical “non-believer” response—a general feeling of smug superiority coupled with a diminished sense of hope for the human race. Of course, Maher presents mostly the kookiest nut-jobs he could find (which unfortunately includes Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor), sidestepping the undeniable fact that there are many, many highly intelligent religious people who hold nuanced beliefs that are not so easy to dismiss. I know several people who are smarter and more sensitive than I am who are down with Jesus, so that right there takes the stance “religious people are morons” right off the table.

I get Maher’s main point though, and I agree with it: People believe some crazy shit! But ignorance and stupidity are hardly limited to religious beliefs. How about politics? And yes, even science! We all pay attention to certain things and ignore other things, depending on cultural conditioning, unconscious processes, choices, and whatever other random shit. “Paying” attention is an apt metaphor too, because there are multiple vendors competing to make a sale, and we’re always buying what someone is selling. Critical thinking skills and self-awareness are a couple of the tools we use to make sense out of what we’ve paid attention to, fashioning the whole ball of wax into what we believe. Whatever we are unaware or ignorant of won’t be included in our belief system, and the less that’s included, the more distorted the belief system.

Most of the yahoos interviewed by Maher were ignorant of the basic content and history of their own religions. A lot of them seemed dimwitted to boot. They had whacky religious views, sure, but I bet their understanding of politics and science is a little off too. So, it’s not religion per se that’s problematic. The problem, as I see it, is that ignorance and dimwittedness are and always have been part and parcel of human societies. This cluelessness is encouraged and exploited by multiple institutions, including religions, governments, and even scientific research departments at universities. We always hear that religion and politics are all about money and power, but few want to acknowledge just how “ridiculous” science can be, and is, when corrupted by those same dark forces.

It’s fashionable these days to pit science against religion, as if the former represented objective truth and the latter blind faith. This is off the mark, as far as I’m concerned. Take psychiatry, for instance. You see all these authoritative figures in hospitals and universities, dressed up in white coats sometimes, preaching from their “Bible” of mental disorders, The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). All these “leading scientists” from the “leading institutions” releasing their latest studies showing how our personal problems—like anxiety, depression, bipolar disorder, substance abuse, our inattentive children—are essentially matters of faulty brain chemistry or bad genes. They show us the brain scans to prove it, and assure us that the latest drug treatment has been shown to be effective. Scientific and objective, right? Yet this article in The Washington Post leads off with: “Every psychiatric expert involved in writing the standard diagnostic criteria for disorders such as depression and schizophrenia has had financial ties to drug companies that sell medications for those illnesses”. Gee, I wonder if that set-up distorts the scientific process any?

Now, I’m not saying that science is a religion or any crap like that. I’m just saying that science plus ignorance equals bad science, just as religion plus ignorance equals bad religion. In my personal experience, most of what passes for religion in our society is bad religion. As a naturally curious and philosophically inclined person, I’ve engaged hundreds of people in dialogues about their religious beliefs. My general conclusion is that most people believe what they do simply because some authority figure told them it was so. No critical thinking, no compelling reasons, no real dialogue possible. Whatever. People believe whatever keeps them most comfortable, it seems. The believer’s anxiety is assuaged and the preacher’s car has heated leather seats. It’s a win – win.

Unfortunately, the “science” of psychiatry is sliding into the same pile of horse-poop. For instance, “Say it ain’t so Joe” Biden introduced the “Recognizing Addiction as a Disease Act of 2007,” in which he declared “addiction is a chronic, relapsing brain disease.” The National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Alcohol, and Twelve Step groups all over the country already endorse the same general disease model, so it must be true, right? Well, Stanton Peele, for one, doesn’t think so, and neither do I. The notion that chemical imbalances or “brain diseases” cause psychological problems takes a partial truth (namely, that all subjective experience correlates with some pattern of neurological/biological activity), ignores several other partial truths (like that life experiences can and do shape the structure and function of the brain), and arrives at a badly distorted conclusion that keeps drug companies rolling in dough, certain researchers rolling in grant money, and the rest of us blissfully ignorant as we hand over the reins of our health and happiness to authority figures. Sound familiar?

End of rant.

Posted on

Relaxing with our true condition

Pema Chodron

Pema Chödrön writes and talks about stuff like Buddhism, meditation and mindfulness. I saw this quote over at Integral Options Café, and it really gets at the core of so many of my issues these days:

The average human being thinks that happiness lies in stability, in tying up all the loose ends and having things under control. But actually, happiness lies in being able to relax with our true condition, which is basically fleeting, dynamic, fluid, not in any way solid, not in any way permanent. It’s transient by nature.

Posted on

Bill Maher on Politics and Religion

Just because.

This political season is turning me increasingly bitter as other peoples’ points of view clash with my own on a daily basis. I get a vicarious release through Maher’s rants. My friend Julian tipped me off to the video, and below are his astute comments:

i think it becomes essential that we differentiate “meaning” from projected fantasy – an intelligent and honest search for meaning doesn’t stop at made-up place holders, but rather pushes bravely forward and looks into the meaning of “meaning” as well, as part of the inquiry – it also dares to face the existential abyss, death, meaningless suffering etc.. and in light of that contrast goes deeper into “meaning” – finding perhaps love, generosity, integrity, awareness, truth, beauty, goodness etc as being more deeply meaningful precisely because the made-up place-holder religious fantasies are bankrupt, we all die at the end, millions suffer for no reason and evolution is an imperfect miracle.

is there something spiritual? yes. but it is found in an ever deepening embrace of our humanity, mortality and imperfection, as well as a genuine sense of awe for life itself and the kosmos at large (as revealed by broad scientific method in all four quadrants) – none of this requires the “spiritual” fantasy of afterlife, discarnate beings or a big parental god responsible for the majestic catastrophe around and within us. though many believe these things in ways that seem on the surface to enhance their personalities and actions, i would argue that these beliefs (because of their delusional nature and projection of meaning and sacredness into a non-existent domain) actually cheapen and desacralize human existence – as evidenced by the extreme version of their consequences on the world stage.

we still haven’t grown up.

but lets keep this on track with the real issue, beyond the philosophizing:

george bush believes that god has given him instruction on how to enact foreign policy.

john mccain believes in the transcendent struggle of our time between good and evil against the forces of islamic terrorism. (so do they)

palin thinks the war in iraq is us doing god’s work and that women who are raped or incested should have to pay for their own $1200 “rape kits” to test their claims and should not have the choice of an abortion because she believes life begins at conception and abortion breaks god’s commandment against murder.

all three of these high profile leaders (as well as the Islamic fundamentalist extremist they oppose) find “meaning ” in their metaphysical fantasy faith. but it is a phoney “meaning” and we should not dignify it.

now they have a “right to believe” whatever they would like but a) this has no place in politics and governance and b) our culture needs to wake up and see that these kind of crazy beliefs should actually disqualify someone from having access to the kind of power that the u.s. president has over our lives and history itself….rather than make them (falsely) appear decent, spiritual and patriotic.

Posted on

Loose threads

The older I get, the more I understand why we long to be in the company of those who share our beliefs. I choose certain friends. I watch certain TV shows. I visit certain websites. An illusion of consensus is generated, one that can be very comforting in this life fraught with uncertainty. I’m also coming to understand how differences in opinion and perspective can freak us out, make us extremely upset, and even drive us to aggressive and self-destructive actions. Threaten my core beliefs and you may as well be pointing a gun at my head. At least that’s how it can feel sometimes.

I am both fascinated and horrified by the lack of mutual understanding on display everywhere — between countries, religions, political parties, neighbors, spouses — and by the tenuousness of the ties that somehow hold the works together enough so that many of us can still live in relative peace and harmony.

The possibility of change through authentic relationship is what drives me to carry on, and it’s what inspires me to write, dialogue, and create. As I get settled in to my new life in North Carolina, I’m hoping to weave together the loose threads of my many interests and intentions, both here on this blog and in my daily life. There’s something connecting all this stuff about politics, religion, psychology, music, humor, etc., and it has something to do with the possibility of what my friend Julian Walker calls a “21st Century Spirituality.”

This is just a rambling way of clarifying my thoughts in the midst of a hectic couple of weeks. One of these days I will engage this blog thing with some focus and commitment.

Posted on

Conversational Intolerance

I used to be merely indifferent to organized religion, never quite understanding how anyone could buy into it. I was raised without it, and I’m a “damned” good guy, if I do say so myself. I value the transpersonal or spiritual dimension of experience above all else, I treat others with respect and courtesy, and everyone who knows me considers me a “good person.” I’ve never had need of religion, while having a more or less “live and let live” attitude when it comes to what others believe. But the irrationality and downright insane thinking that characterizes religious fundamentalism of all stripes is on the rise, and has so infected politics and public discourse that maybe it’s time for reasonable people to say “Enough is enough.” The last straw for me was watching Barak Obama pander to the crowd at the Saddleback Mega-Church.

When Obama talked about Jesus dying for his sins and all that, I nearly puked. Now, this is a pretty strong reaction I must admit, but there was something about the whole atmosphere of the forum, with the flock applauding on cue, and Obama parsing his words just so, that pushed my buttons and filled me with dread. First off, I have been rooting for Obama throughout this campaign season, but lately (and this isn’t necessarily a bad thing) I’ve been disillusioned, disappointed, and disenchanted with him and his “meet the new boss, same as the old boss” sucking up to an electorate that proves time and again that ignorance and thoughtlessness are now part and parcel of American society.

The whole question of faith, belief, or lack thereof, is particularly troubling to me. The fact of the matter is, if Obama or any other politician shares MY worldview, he or she would have to lie through their teeth about it in order to be elected to public office. And that’s exactly what I think Obama did by portraying himself as a devout believer, when this does not fit at all with the rest of his vibe. I could be wrong, of course, but that doesn’t change the fact that an America that requires its leaders to take part in organized religion is an America that I am losing faith in. I mean, if you think that a literal reading of the Bible and the theory of evolution represent equally valid perspectives of the development of life on earth, then you are not someone who should be running a large, powerful country in an increasingly complex global society. Such a display of distorted thinking should disqualify a person from being elected to public office, but in the United States — in the year 2008!!! — it’s a prerequisite that you at least pretend such beliefs are worthy of respect, and it’s certainly a prerequisite that you claim to be a believer in God Almighty.

I watched some TV preacher this morning talk about how THE most important thing anyone can do for their children is to teach them to believe in the Bible as the absolutely true Word of God. And here I am feeling just as certain that this is one of THE WORST things anyone could do to their child, that it’s a form of spiritual abuse to indoctrinate someone in this way. And these differences in belief have major consequences, from who is president to whether or not we wage war. So why do so many of us bite our tongues? Well, speaking for myself, it’s because so many of my friends and family members believe things I find very troubling, and I fear that speaking my mind will forever damage these valuable relationships. And so I blog anonymously and hope certain people don’t find me out.

I find myself more and more appreciating the ballsy efforts of the likes of Sam Harris and Bill Maher, and their use of “conversational intolerance,” which is simply a refusal to grant “off limits” status to matters of faith when assessing the validity of relative points of view. And yeah, there’s a certain sense of urgency involved that might ruffle some feathers. Some are more skilled than others, as Sam Harris has had numerous respectful debates with believers, including Saddleback’s Rick Warren, while Richard Dawkins comes across as a total dick most of the time.

True dialogue, true open-ended conversation is so rare, so precious. Do we really expect anyone — ourselves included — will have a change of heart as the so-called “Culture War” rages on? How is it that women ever got the right to vote? How can we bring change in a world that resists it at every turn? Should we fight harder or just lay down our arms? I don’t know. The whole thing is just religulous:

Posted on

Drapetomania

According to Encyclopedia.com, drapetomania is form of mania supposedly affecting slaves in the nineteenth century, manifested by an uncontrollable impulse to wander or run away from their white masters, preventable by regular whipping.

An extreme example of pseudoscientific psychologism, to be sure. But the shit that psychologists, psychiatrists and drug companies peddle through the media these days is just as shameful, as far as I’m concerned. The fact that highly educated and otherwise reasonable people parrot back this “psychological problems = brain dysfunction” nonsense is upsetting, to say the least. If I were hooked up to brain scan machines, just thinking about this crap would undoubtedly set off a flurry of glucose consumption somewhere in my head, and the trippy colors on the screen could then be used as proof positive that I am suffering from a chemical imbalance of alarming proportions.

I’ve ranted on this too many times before [See Brain Rape and Anxiety and Elephants, Parts One, Two, Three, and Four] to say another word. Here’s Thomas Szasz making the point far better than I can: