Goals & Gods: Scoring Them & Saving Them

In a way I am saying that 'goals' are bad. It is all too easy... perhaps even inherent in the nature of goals that they become these encrusted 'objects' in our minds that we presume lie 'out there' in space-n-time somewhere. Again, goals become objects; that 'thing' that we pursue, and often with a fever pitch.

The side-effects of pursuing 'goals' should be listed as a series of disclaimers right inside of any self-help book. The pursuit of goals may adversely affect one's perception of reality. Reality may become distorted. Reality may take on a diametric flavour opposing that which one percieves as 'affirming/assisting one's goal-gaining' and that which 'denies/obstructs one's goal-gaining.'

You are either for my goal or against my goal. Whether we like him and his political agenda or not, we each take on a Bush/Bin Laden psychological approach when it comes to our pursuit of the proverbial 'pot of gold' at the end of the rainbow. You are either for my goal or against my goal. An ally or an enemy combatant. Who are you? Shall I love you or hate you?

If I want to know that I just ask you what you think of my 'prime objective' and then your fate is sealed in my mind. I'll interrogate you. I'll question you as to the nature of your stance towards what my number 1 goal is--then I'll know what I think of you... then I'll know what to do with you and your kind.

Suzi Gablik, authour of The Reenchantment Of Art, among other works, has written that,

Many of the difficulties and conflicts we experience... are related to the framework of beliefs and standards of behaviour provided by our culture to serve as guidelines for our individual lives. We tend to pattern ourselves and our worlk view after our culture, taking as self-evident certain beliefs, values and beahviours; thus, if our model of culture is faulty and disordered, then we ourselves are disordered in precisely the same way.

Does that mean that a goal-driven, ends-seeking, pay-any-cost, bear-any-burden culture will tend to foster a similar mentality/disposition amongst its members? I'll let you answer that one for yourself. My answer, based upon my own experience, along with my observations of others whom I happen to share a certain emerging Global Culture with--one primarily based upon standards dictated by Modernity/Western Civilization--is a resounding yes!

Before you take issue with me and my appraisal of the situation I would like you to sit for a moment and keep in mind that this investigation is just getting under way. I have barely even started to broach the topic. So bear in mind that all of the evidence is not yet in; evidence that I am going to use to support the case I am going to make for a goal-less existence.


AIMLESS WANDERING?

One of the chief fears of those more conservative types who espouse the merits of intense goal-setting is that we are bound to become slothful vagabonds wandering the Universe if we don't have a direction and set a number of goals for ourselves. How will we know where to go? How will we know what to do? The asumption inherent in such questions is that if we don't have a goal then we must somehow be imbeciles. It is as if there is a sense that goals make us intelligent! Without them we are stupid and lazy!

But is the seat of human intelligence within the goal? Does the goal make us smarter, sexier, more beautiful? Studies seem to confirm that there is at leats some truth to this in that heterosexual women tend to be more attracted to a 'man with a mission.' I mean, shoot even Charles Manson was scoring with the ladies back in the day when he was far beyond 'driven.' Having goals... and perhaps, more importantly, pursuing them... can get you laid!

Maybe it's not so much the goal-setting that is sexy as it is the fact that those with strond desires to achieve a certain goal or agenda are psychologically reassuring to us. That maybe why George W. Bush won two elections (that and the Supreme Court's deciding vote). He represents--for all of his more obvious failings--an intensely driven psychological stance that portrays a sense of stability and security in the midst of a world in tremendous flux and impermanence. His... er, uhm... rigidity and inflexibility are psychologically reassuring to an American populace. And while I would not go so far as to proclaim him a 'Hitler' I would go so far as to suggest that the time in which he won office was perhaps a time not too dissimilar to the time when Hitler won office. It was a time of uncertainty and seeming ambivalence. There was talk of a loss of values and the country 'losing its way.'

At such a time, even a man who has the wrong convictions (or I should say, potentially harmful convictions) is still a man who represents strength to a populace begging for direction and leadership.

The election of George W. Bush also points to the failings of the so-called 'Left.' The overriding sensation provided by the Left-wing to the American populace is that there is no direction. What does the Left stand for? Can you tell me? What is their claim to fame of late? Can you tell me what the convictions of the Democrats are?


POLITICS AS SEXUAL LIAISON

If a majourity of heterosexual women tell us that a 'man with a plan' is sexier and more attractive than a man without one, then perhaps such evidence suggests that we are more or less attracted psychologically to politicians who evidence some erectness of the spine (even if it in that former Yale cheerleader cum Texas cowboy wanna-be way of George W. Bush).

The truth is that both sex and politics have a lot to do with confidence--or at least the appearance of confidence. It shouldn't be surprise that more than a few women have been 'conned' by a con-man (a confidence man). Nor should it be a surprise that much the same can happen to a whole nation in political terms. We sometimes only hear what we want to hear. A woman wants to hear that she is sexy and that she is 'the only one,' just as a nation of people want to hear that they are 'being protected' and 'taken care of.'

Not on my watch baby! I won't let anything bad happen to you (just so long as you overlook that last time I was on vacation and all hell broke loose).

And the lady and the people want to believe. We want to believe that we are THAT IMPORTANT! We want to believe that a person really means what they are saying. The trouble is that that only job of the con-man is to get us to have confidence in him. Because if we are 'just believers' (hello you Conservative Christians out there!) then we shall be saved and have everlasting life.


JESUS'S FINAL COMMANDMENT: MAKE BELIEVERS OUT OF ALL NATIONS & PEOPLES

All we have to do is believe in GW. Just like we believe in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. he'll watch out for us.

In reality, though, that might be the problem. The problem might be when a cheerleader secretly wants to be the quarterback. The problem might be when a C student is forced to make decisions that even the Valedictorian would be challenged by. The problem is when we take as our example for living the life of one whose capacity far outstrips our own. The problem is when you set Christ as your goal and example, and yet get a nation to to follow you on the principle of faith in a world where facts suddenly seem to have no merit. The problem is when you gain a people's confidence, for all the wrong reasons.

The problem is that Jesus Christ is seen as a planetary saviour by the Christian faithful, and that the leader of the world's strongest military-industrial complex takes that same Jesus Christ as his political exemplar. So what does the leader of the world's strongest military-industrial complex need to do in order to be like Christ--to realize his greatest goal? Does he too need to try and become a 'world saviour?' And if so, then what is going to save the world from?

Maybe he should start with himself. Save us from you GW!! ; o )

Seriously. I truly do feel that there is a monumental problem on one's hand when one sets as one's goal that which one may not have the capacity to achieve. This is especially problematic when one is a politician of the executive order and is playing the role of leader. When we mix God and our earthly Goals in a pot we may end up with a disasterous set of circumstances on our hand because we are operating under the assumption that we have the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient capacities of God with us.

Which is maybe why it is good idea to never mention what God sees the goal of the world as being. For once we are convinced we know what God wants from the world we then go about trying to make the world conform to some bastard goal we arrogantly proclaim God as the Father of.

Me? I don't know what God wants from the world. I don't know what the goal of everything is. I do know it is time for lunch though. Care to join me?

Driven: To Achieve Success We Must.... ?

Success is something that is awfully hard to measure in a purely 'objective' way. That old saying that one person's trash is another's treasure exists for a reason. What someone considers 'valuable' another person may consider 'worthless.' The same applies to success. Just look at how women are having to redefine their notion of success in an age following the gains won by the feminist movement. Success in the workplace--or seeming success, I should say--has left more than one lady with a crisis at home, on the level of personal relationships. Problems with children. Problems with having children! Marital difficulties. Shoot... even difficulty with entering any relationship because success in the workiung-world has become a paramount achievement (I guess someone should have told the ladies that success at work is highly overrated! evidence: anyone else notice the increase in heart disease amongst women post 'equal rights?').

So does success in one area equal failure in another? I mean, we are supposed to be these integral mavens and mavericks, right? Aren't we supposed to work it all?! Aren't we supposed to be 'on top of our game' in all of the different quadrants, lines, levels, states, and stages---not to mention any other category that Ken Wilber has just included in version Wilber 5.1). Gosh, I get tired just contemplating the overwhelming task of considering the possibility of being a rousing success all across the spectrum!

I also wonder about the hubris inherent in the notion that one can be a success in multiple areas and fields given the spatial and temporal limitation that are innate to the human predicament. There are still only 24 hours in a day the last time I checked, 7 days in a week, and 365 days in a year. Perhaps this is why there is some fascination with longevity ala Ray Kurzweil and the like amongst certain sectors of the 'Integralians' to borrow a term coined by one Paul Salamone. Those folks are going to need an extra 20, 25, or 30 years to work on their pet body-mind projects!

I can imagine some 90 year-old male still trying to achieve that beloved 'six pack.' And all those ladies that will one day be the age of current nursing home residents will be getting 'boob jobs' and 'ass lifts' to celebrate their 100th birthday!

'What did you spend your social security check on this month Alice?'

'Oooohhh... nothing yet doll, I am still saving up for that pair of double D's.'


GETTING THERE

Success. What is it? is it 'getting what we want' in accordance with the shallower dictates of the ego and persona? Is it the 'boob job?' Is it 'scoring with the hot chick?' Is it becoming a rousing success in media terms? Is it fame? Is it fortune? Is it thin or fat? Is success being wealthy enough to rival Donald Trump's spending habits or Mohatma Ghandi's? How are we to define success? And as we define success are we aware and astute enough to consider the correlations of that success?

What do we sacrifice in order to be successful in any particular area of our lives? And is it worth it? For instance, how many men have been known for wishing to scale the 'greatest of mountains'--an Everest or Kilimanjaro, a McKinley or K-5--only to have a brush with death and wish for nothing more than to be at home with their family, close to the one's they love? How come so many men have to fail in their dreams and their presumed passions in order to discover where their 'Heart truly resides?'

Is there something within us that makes us pursue chimeras of our own imagination as if these were the pinnacles of human achievement, only to regret that we didn't spend enough hours under the Oak Trees playing with our children when they were young? Have we learrnt nothing from preceding generations if it is not that 'realizing our dreams' and 'achieving our goals' is often the worst thing that can ever happen to us? There is even that little saying about 'being careful what you wish for.'

You just might get it. You just might become successful and achieve your dreams. You just might become the next 'Apprentice' or win the Mega-Millions lottery. And on your deathbed you just might wish you never prayed for what you ended up receiving.

Why? Why would we regret having achieved our goals? Perhaps because our success in realizing our goals is tied in with a whole lot of ego and small-mindedness. Goal-oriented striving is like living life with blinders on. Like a race-horse we can only see what is in front of us. And that is good if you are in a race. That is all fine and dandy if you are ... uhm.... race horse! But if you are an actual living, breathing human-being then living life with blinders on can be more than just problematic. Take it from one who knows--living life with blinders on can literally render one ignorant of so many blessings and pleasant surprises surrounding one, seeking to engage us. It is as if the Hand of God is reaching out to us in the form of the 'ten-thousand things'... but we cannot see that Hand--nor the Divine Nature of what is among us (the Kingdome of Heaven anyone, the Pure Land, Heaven here and now, Buddha-Nature in trees and frogs) because our eyes (or uhm, I's) are where? On the goal? On the prize? On the 'one thing?'


Integralism As Diversity: The Democratization Of Being

Do you think it is possible that the strict adherence to a 'goal-oriented' existence is really an offshoot of 'monotheism?' You see, I have this theory that any strongly goal-oriented person is a disciple of Yahweh! The singular nature of goals seems to me to dictate a sort of archetypal overshadowing of diverse consciousness by a oneness that can become totalizing--which is to say, rigid, fixed, mechanical, hyper-masculine, and driven to the extremes that the fundamentally monotheistic are prone to--be they a Bush or a Bin Laden.

What I excites me about an 'Integral Methodology' for life and living (provided that this methodology does not become itself the 'one thing') is that it represents what I would term a 'democratization of being' that can result in the full flowering of unique human potentials within us, about us, and among us. The inherent core of the 'Integral' is that there is no 'one thing' that overshadows all other things. Every 'thing' exists in true mutuality and interdependency (which is why you cannot just work your mind without it affecting your body, and vicer versa).

The Integral Method in-forms us as to the inherent multi-dimensionality of our existence. We don't become slaves to Heaven or to Earth. Nor do we become slaves to success in any single dimension. The Integral Method can give us a deep and pervasive sense of 'lightness in life'--for we have not put all our eggs in one basket. We are democratized. We are diverse. We are a multitude--a polyphonic consciousness whose chorusing is all the sort precisely because there is no monotonous monotheism related to the striving after our 'precious one thing.'


Integral Golems

In the Lord Of The Rings trilogy the character Golem represents what can happen to us when the 'one thing' overrides all other things. We literally become sub-human. Golem represents the devolution of a human-being who has become trance-fixed on a singularity. Read that again... a singularity. A mother. A wife. A husband. A writer. A meditator. A scholar. A guru. Any apparent singularity can become an object of worship. Further, any object of worship is, by rule, a monotheism.

Singular devotion. To science. To religion. To sex. To drugs. To money. Monotheism. The secret behind monotheism to me is not that it is religious but that 'IT IS NOT!' There are closet monotheists in political office (can you say, Tom Delay?). There are closet monotheists who are avowed atheists. The equation of monotheism with religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam is blinding; it is blinding humanity to the deeper current of monotheistic tendencies that become active and expressed anytime that we make an idol out of our 'precious one thing.'


Monotheistic Murder

The blood-soaked anals of our history have been tied to the presence of the monotheistic religions. And while this is true, the larger story gets lost in only proclaiming overt religions capable of monotheistic tendencies. What I am suggesting is that a vein of monotheism runs far deeper in the human psyche than just the overtly religious impulse towards Judaism, Islam, or Christianity. I am suggesting that there is a vein of monotheism that runs through the collective consciousness of humanity, thereby predisposing one and all to monotheistic tendencies.

Anytime that we label or categorize a 'single thing' as if it were separate and distinct from the ten-thousand, thousand things' we are acting on those monotheistic tendencies. A country. A religion. An ideology--be it conservative, liberal, or anarchist. A role. A gender. A sexual orientation. Anytime we set apart a single thing from out of the Matrix of Indra's Net we are acting and behaving in a monotheistic fashion and manner. That is why an avowed pro-feminist atheist can be a monotheist.

It is such 'singularizing' of various phenomena that arise within the Totality of Infinity that makes us capable of murder. We kill for the 'one thing.' We kill in the name of the 'one thing.' We also die and become martyrs in the name of the 'one thing.'

Reclarification Of One's Vision

I am expecting to be a father any day now. Yeah, someone is going to grow up calling me 'Poppa.' How about that! It makes me smile and get all warm and fuzzy inside just thinking about it. It also leads me to other considerations pertaining to the writing that has been appearing on this blog. Most especially it has me thinking very deeply about this thing called 'vision.'

Having a child is certainly conspiring to get me to focus on more clearly and coherently on what exactly are the values and ideals--the teachings, the attitudes, the humours, the emotions, the feelings, the dreams, the possibilities... the realities even--that I see fit to share with Uriah. What, in short, is so important to me (has meant so much to me as a person) that I cannot help but share that with my son?

The irony in all of this is that rather than becoming an end to my so-called 'spiritual life' my becoming a father is resulting in a more intensely focused and clarified spiritual vision. Having a child is really cutting out the bullshit! I am only interested in what works. Meaning, I am only interested in what is going to have a beneficial impact on Uriah's development as his own person in communion with a world that will be shared with others, as well as unique to him.

Perhaps I won't be reading as many 'spiritual titles' as culled from the aisles of Borders. Perhaps I won't spend as much time surfing on the Net reading up on the latest escapades of Integral Institute, Ken Wilber, Human Potential, and Transpersonal Psychology. Perhaps I won't be meditating as much. Perhaps my waling meditations in the woods will be cut short now and then. And yet while all of this lies on the side of greatest probability, another more than likely scenario is that whatever spiritual illumination I have been blessed to glean from all of these years of investigation and practice will be refined in the fires of 'what matters most.' The wheat gets separated from the chaff.

Don't take this to mean that I am going to make Uriah's development some personal project of mine; that raising him will be a job fit for efficiency and cost-effectiveness. I understand that raising Uriah will be as much about my own personal, psychological, spiritual development as a human-being as it is his. I guess that is one of the things that I feel is too often overlooked---perhaps most by those in extreme spiritual settings: which is that becoming a parent is as much about the parent's development as it is the child's. We are, after all, no more static than a growing, developing, emerging child engaging the world fresh and anew each and everyday. Our development is at issue in our having children as much as the child's development is. We are, as parents, either realizing our deep reserves of Being, or not!--and perhaps we do so (or fail to) to the exact degree that we assist the child in the discovery of their own authenticity and genuineness.**

So, as I sit here and await the birth of Uriah I consider very deeply the 'shape of things to come.' The proverbial rubber is about to meet the road! I have a feeling that a lot of crucial distinctions are about to be made concerning what matters only peripherally, and what is of central and utmost importance. Distinctions of significance hang in the balance.

Uriah's imminent emergence into this-world is refining consciousness like no previous meditation I have had the privilege to take part in ever has. His birth according to popular spiritual (mis)conceptions is not overtly spiritual. It involves not the Himalayas or the Ganges, the River Jordan or Mecca. It is not the Wailing Wall or Sedona. It is not a loin-clothed hermit sitting alone on a mountaintop. And yet, for this man it is the spiritual blessing of a lifetime; having already done more to refine and clarify 'what is significant' vs. 'what is superficial.'



**(by the way, ever get that genuine and genuis share similar etymological roots? is being genuine being a genuis?).

Vision: The Work & Community

A powerful vision can hold people together in community perhaps like no other force. Not even necessity seems to have the social glue that 'vision' does. Think of the Mormon faithful trekking across the North American Continent to settle in what is now known as Utah. Think of the millions who have 'envisioned' for themselves and their families a better life in the 'New World.' Think of the radicals and revolutionaries who have cohered together in groups large and small in the effort to transform the world in accordance with the vision of some prophet, guru... or charlatan.

The power of such visions, though intangible and largely unseen in 'this-worldly' terms--as it cannot be touched, tasted, smelt, held physically or pointed to in space or time--are monumental in their ability to remake the world in both healthy terms and pathological ones. Perhaps the neo-conservative agenda for the remaking of the Middle East--as evidenced in the ongoing War in Iraq--is an all too stark notification to us of the consequences of envisioning on a communal basis. Visions can kill. Just as they can give birth and create new worlds--if not New World Orders.

When you go to an interview for a job at a prospective employer you may hear the following question touching upon your ears: 'How do you see yourself contributing here? What can you bring to the company?' Even the smallest, most seemingly insignificant job, can carry with it a vision of contributing to a community. The prospective employer wants to understand how you 'see yourself making an impact' to the benefit of the already established community at work. Whether a Corporation, a Church, or a College, there is this realization of how immediately powerful is the capacity for human envisioning.

If you can see yourself making a positive contribution then you probably can; just as if you can see yourself eradicating Jews from 1930's Germany when interviewing for the SS, then you probably can. That points to a law of work and life that seems to hold true no matter what: that the capacity to imagine what we can do precedes our capacity to actually do it. Vision comes first.

Why did/do Native Americans and other Indigenous Peoples send their children out to 'vision quest?' Was it because they realized that a life without a vision is a life without meaning? Was it because they understood that a contribution to the community can only come through the receiving of a Vision via the Grace of Spirit? Was it because they innately understood the primacy of vision?

The Yoga Of Uniting Effort With (Com)Passion

Yesterday I wrote about the 'Yoga of Work' and how that can be a manifestation of the potential for human transformation: that surrendering to work can be an act of devotion that literally remakes us as a person. Now, I know that me saying that can seem at odds with the experience that a helluva of a lot of people have when it comes to 'work.' I understand. I have had my fair share of jobs that I was not at all thrilled with.

I have also been involved in work that I absolutely adored, but for various reasons became less and less thrilled with my involvement in such work. Sometimes there are circumstances surrounding the 'following of our bliss' that make the experience of bliss less and less frequent. We may love our job but find ourselves surrounded by what the magus from Carlos Castaneda's books, Don Juan, termed 'petty tyrants.' Suddenly our love and passion for our work may ebb. We may find our enthusiasm waning.

Perhaps it is not that we don't enjoy our work as much as we don't enjoy those whom we work with. This is why I have mentioned that work and intimacy--work and love, our vocations and our relatedness--are congenital: they are forever joined at the hip. We can't really separate out relationship issues from work issues. The two are... well, as a Vedantic sage might put it, 'not-two.'

My experience currently is in keeping with what I was just written above. I play professionally in a rock-and-roll band. I LOVE MUSIC! And to me it is all about the music. That is why I play. Not to be cool. Not to be 'seen.' Not to be 'big-man on campus' or any of that other adolescent crap that masquerades as authenticity. I just love to be a channel through which Muse-ic comes: Muse-ic that moves people and allows them to process their own life experience in a more genuine way. I, in a way, live for those moments.

There is a problem with my 'working situation,' though. My problem currently is that I am not at all sure I am playing with others whose intent and interest are the same. The truth is that my impression of my fellow band-mates is that they are not in it for the same reasons. And because there is growing tension and conflict between us, I am left tp reason that it is the result of a what I would call 'a divergence of intent and interest.'

If we are involved intimately with someone in a romantic way and there is a divergence of intent and interest (what are we trying to get out of the relationship? what is our vision for the relationship? where is our heart really at in the relationship? just some sex? a life-long commitment? etc. and so forth) we tend to comprehend how such a relationship will eventually unravel. It will come undone sooner or later.

If we are not united--yogically speaking!--then we are moving in different directions, and that movement will cause tension in the same way that stretching a rubber-band in at least two different directions will cause tension. Eventually something (or someone!) snaps!

People inevitably quit jobs that they love--the path of their bliss takes a little detour--for no other reason than that the direction that the work is going in, according to those they are involved with, is at odds with their authentic self. 'To thine own self be true,' Shakespeare once wrote. To wit he also added that if we are true to thine own self then we can be false to no one. Sure, people may not always like us--but at least we will be legitimated by the absence of internal conflict within us, i.e., we won't be a liar to our Heart. Thus, we will be spared the consequences of living a peaceful little lie, quietly resigning ourselves to a life of unspoken desperation because we know we are not where, or with whom, we envision ourselves to be.

Am I saying I am going to 'quit the band' or 'fire the drummer?' Maybe I am. I don't know at this point. I do know that I am not going to 'sell out' on a matter so close to my heart as to be the very life-blood of any being I am blessed to have and hold. Just as I understand that sometimes 'following our bliss' may put us at odds with others from time to time. Which is a a profoundly good thing. It is good to know where our differences lie. It is good to know where there is a divergence of interest and intent; for then we can be honest with each other. And if we can be honest with each other we can beTrue... and if we are True... we shall also be Good... and if we are Good... then we shall also be Beautiful.

The Yoga Of Work

A certain degree of inertia--the quest for homeostasis, perhaps--tends to conspire within us against any incentive towards growth, change and transformation. Whether we are speaking about work or about love we are also implying that there is an ever-present possibility for our being transformed in a radical way. That is what work can do to us--it can remake us, pull new talents and possibilities out of us, help us realize our Self even.

The Hindu Wisdom Tradition points to the possibility of our being radically transformed by work through what has been called Karma Yoga. By immersing ourselves in service (read, work) we are offered the possibiliuty of being totally transformed, right to the very core of that self-contracted, narcissistic root that has been proclaimed cosmic enemy No. 1 by non other than Adi Da.

In Western-speak, though, this possibility held out by work is not often spoken of. In the West there is a tendency to speak of work in terms of what we do... and not what work does to us. The very act of work is a movement that is reciprocal in how it in-forms us and trans-forms us. Work is one of the primary means for 'realizing the Self'--even though work is often thought to be an obstacle to that same realization. In fact, my gut feeling is that there is a prejudice against work in terms of how work does not allow one to engage one's passion or dreams in the deepest sense. For far too many there are assumptions centered around as if it were far too mundane, tedious. And yet within the Wisdom Tradition we call Zen there is an appreciation of the transformational potentialities inherent within the tedious and the mundane. Hence the pithy phrase, 'Samsara is nirvana.'

Buddha-Nature resides within the tasks too often labeled as obstructions to the realization of that same Nature. Work demands something of us. Work can engage the best within us. And most of that depends on what we imagine work to be, as well as how much we bring our Self to the Yoga of Work.

Recoil: Avoiding Relationship As Avoiding Work

The crazy wise adept who has gone by various names--from Bubba Free John to Avabhasa to Adi Da--has used as one of his primary points of inquiry the question 'Avoiding relationship?' According to Da there is an inherent self-contraction within the makeup of all sentient beings that conspire to having us literally recoil from relationship and relatedness as a 'fundamental fact.' In short, there is an ongoing, near total tendency to self-contract into a desire/instinct for separation.

Cutting ourselves off from others can take on many forms--from the grossest of murders to the subtlest of slights. Each form is a way of seeking to reinforce a sense of separateness from the world around one's self.

I bring Adi Da's inquiry up because I am wondering if there is a similar tendency that plays out with regards to work--as work is a form of relationship. Might lazy and apparent lethargy be the body-mind's instinctual tendency to recoil into self-contraction? Might we not want to 'show up' because we are contracting from relationship? Might there be certain meta-physical reasons like the aforementioned behind unemmployment and tardiness? Might we refuse to work because we are refusing to relate?

And if that is the case then why this 'self-contraction' on our part? And what if anything can we do about it---whether we are talking about work or intimacy, creating or loving? Why are we given to recoil so from the world around us?

Work As Fundamental Interaction

The more that I am delving into a discussion of work it seems to me that there is less and less a distinction that can be made between loving and work--or, should I say that how we express ourselves in relationships is how we work?

Is there really any difference between the ways in which we work and deal with our ability to interact effectively with 'a world' around us and the manner in which much the same plays out in our intimate engagements with others? Isn't work itself a form of intimacy?

The primary ethos of the writings on this blog is centered around the syntegral (synonymous and integrated) aspects of love and work, play and work, love and death, and life and loss... and it is beginning to become apparent to me that there is always already a non-duality that exists in relation to these. That it is not our duty to make love and work more integrated but to realize the ways in which they already. It means to see and better understand the 'patterns both conscious and unconscious' that in-form both our loving and our working.

Building A World

Isn't 'work' really about our relationship to the world and what we are in the process of constructing moment to moment? Isn't it that we are 'creating worlds' as we work? And if that is the case then isn't 'work' reflective of our capapcity for imaging what this-world can be, what this-world is, what this-world is destined to become?

Perhaps that is why work and our notions of a career are so intimately conjoined with our passions and deepest of dreams: for work is literally the active aspect of us implementing our dreams into this-world. It is how we express what we think is possible. It is how we daily 'labour'--give birth--to what the world will become.

Isn't that how important... vital... essential... fundamental... and significant work really, truly is?

On Our Leading & Being Led

Any discussion of work necessarily includes a discussion of our capacity to lead others, as well as to follow directions and take guidance. Even if we are Donald Trump we are still in a position of having to address the needs and interests of our clients. We have to be able to listen effectively and feel where a particular job needs to go in the interest of serving the client. And for those whose task it is to 'hold the vision' there is a need to effectively communicate that vision to our comrades for the sole purpose of bringing the vision into manifestation.

As you may know, there is trouble with implementing a vision when we are dealing with large groups of people. We have egos that clash and emotional needs, there are psychological issues pertaining to Mommy and Daddy that enter the workplace. This is all pretty much inevitable. For as much as we try we cannot keep Psyche out of the workplace.

For the effective leader it may mean that he or she has to become a virtual psychologist. That leader has to understand people's predominant psychological issues. Where some thrive on a challenge--under the intense pressures of a looming deadline--others may wither. Then there are those who thrive best when they are not 'over-managed,' if you will.

No matter how we work with people, though, there is always the possibility that some are not called to greatness at this moment in time and may need some additional ripening in a different atmosphere. One can see this on the TV show starring the aforementioned Donald Trump--The Apprentice. 'The Donald,' as he is affectinately called, places the wanna-be executives in positions where their mettle is going to be put to the test. Do they rise to the occasion? Do they wither under the pressure? Do latent psychological issues--unresolved emotional obstacles that impair relationships--enter the scene? What happens in terms of one's ability to work with others: to both lead with passion and to follow another with that same enthusiasm and passion? It all gets played out before millions of viewers on the TV screen, becoming as much a study in human beahviour and a latent psychoanalysis as much as anything else.

What we see on The Apprentice--and discover in our own working atmosphere--is that some people just fall flat on their faces. 'They bomb,' as they say in the entertainment industry. They so obviously 'don't have what it takes' to realize their own peculair genuis at that time. Perhaps they need some more maturing. Perhaps they need to work on some issues in a more intensive therapeutic setting (Omarosa anyone??). Or perhaps it is just that their destiny does not lie in being Donald Trump's 'apprentice.' No matter, what is discovered is exactly 'where people are at' in terms of their capacity for work; which necessarily means their capacity to lead effectively, and be part of a team, all at the same time. After all, no matter where we work we are doing so with others.

Even if we are just a solo artist working with the medium of our choice we are following the grain of the metaphorical wood in seeking to extract a material manifestation of a 'vision' being called into being. That is why a sculptor may rummage through a whole pile of wood looking for that perfect piece that will allow him- or herself to most exquisitely bring the 'vision' into being. And I suspect that much the same happens with people: that when we are working towards the collective manifestation of a vision we may have to rummage through a whole bunch of potential comrades, up until we stumble upon those whose destiny it is to see 'the Work' through with us unto the end.

Adhering To Our Internal GPS For Greatness

If we cannot just adopt a 'bull in the china shop' approach to realizing our own peculair capacity for genuis then what approach can we adopt? After all, we don't want to be a Stalin or Pol Pot--or even the office politicker who runs roughshod over his comrades and peers in order to make a name for himself in the company--do we? Can we realize our capacity for genuis and do so in a way that does not diminish others? Can we become truly 'great' in working and loving without having to undermine someone else and his or her capacity for unique genuis? I think we can. Rather, I know we can.

My deepest intuition tells me that we can be a true genuis in a unique way ( and that the Cosmos is even calling us to do so as this is being written) without our having to compete with others in order to do so. As everyone's voice... gift... talent... genuis... is unique there does not seem to be any reason to be concerned about what others are or are not doing. Let us just worry about the further unfolding of our won genuis. Let us just focus on what we can do to actualize our capacity for greatness--in whatever way it might manifest itself in this-here-world--and know that others may or may not do the same.

Does a Miles Davis ned to worry about a Charlie Parker? Does a B.B. King need to be concerned about a Muddy Waters? Does a U2 need to worry about the new 'up and comers' in the popular music field?

The larger story seems to me to be that in as much as we are concerned about what others are or are not doing we lose our own compass. Our internal GPS is ignored--which means that our compass for greatness is given up so that we can orient oursleves to others. The problem is that we cannot be 'others;' we can only be who we are!

At work we have unique qualities that will result in our realizing some degree of success (though how that success is defined may vary according to the person in question), but only if we attend to our gifts. Maybe we are the one who is supportive of others. Maybe we are the one who encourages our fellow employees in times of stress. Maybe we are the comedian who keeps the mood light when too much tension is inhibiting our collective greatness. Or maybe we are the one who 'holds the vision' so that it is not lost sight of in a mountain of ever-shifting details and circumstances. Whatever it is, we will be rewarded for it so long as we 'stick to our guns' and don't waver from what our genuis is, even as others seek to realize their own.

Are You Enthusiastic About Your Own Potential For Greatness?

Even though there will be rebellions manifesting within us in the form of various pathologies (psycho- and otherwise) there is still within us that which seeks for comfort in the known. Maybe it is the sheer demand of those billions of years of deeply programmed incentives aimed towards survival; that one ought not dare push the envelope too far; that one ought to stay safe; that one ought to remain in Plato's Cave, if you will.

Conflicting with that, though, is a discomfort with too much stasis and non-change. Boredom sets in when there is a performance and re-enactment of too much ritualized behaviour. Our being too deeply programmed makes us little more than machines--which was the contention of the cantankerous mystic G.I. Gurdjieff. We go through our days and we say, 'Same old shit, different day.' And even while we say that we know that something precious within us is being stifled. That there is untapped greatness buried within us like some fine treasure lost at sea.

A real leader of people--either in the workplace or as a parent in the home--has to deal with the issue of seeking to extricate people from their comfortable little niches. The tendency to get caught up in a rut and therefore deny the unfolding of further possibilities and potential is, by all accounts, pandemic. Yet, the leader faces the task of inspiring others to 'rise up' out of the comfortable little ruts of their lives without offending their need to feel safe and secure. In other words, as a leader you have to push... challenge... and instigate, but not too much!

In many ways it like dealing with a car stuck in the mud. Sometimes you have to 'rock the car' back and forth in order to gather enough momentum so as to get unstuck. It does no good to just push and push and push. So you push a little and let the car fall back into the hole, and then you allow the car to become like a pendulum, only pushing when the car is moving in the direction of becoming unstuck. Finally, provided the hole is not too deep the car will emerge from where it has been stuck.

Returning to ask the question of how we are to access our own glory--or assist others in realizing their own peculiar genuis--we could use the analogy of the stuck car as a starting point. As such, our pressure is not constant. We are not challenging them all the time to get unstuck, but only giving them that little push when they are already moving in the direction of their genuis.

Back to the car. When the car is rocking back into the hole it would be foolish to push. That would be a waste of energy. But when the car starts moving forward again our little assist in pushing is just the thing that is needed to get the car unstuck. And my sense is that the same thing works with people. Don't push yourself (or others) when you (or they) appear to be regressing. Don't challenge them. Challenge them when they begin moving in the direction of their genuis. Give a little assist. Add a little energy to their own (rather than trying to fight their momentum) so that they can emerge from where they have become stuck.

Push, yes. But know when to push.

Gathering Our Glory

I'd like to revisit a question posed in the preceding entry from December 26th--which is to wonder how we can access the reserves of glory that follow us into this-world. Of course, to suggest that we come 'trailing clouds of glory' is to suggest that there are innate qualities that we carry with us into this-world as a part of character. Galen seemed to believe that we were inherently predisposed towards a specific temprament (melancholic, sanguine, irritable, anxious etc. and so forth), so that we can gather that there is a long history of affirming that there are indeed inherent propensities towards certain psychological characteristics within each of us.

Even Buddhists are aligned with the belief that we come into this-world carrying a certain amount of baggage, if you will. And while Buddhists also affirm that this baggage is not inherently ours--it is just that we have identified with that baggage as a way to 'solidify a sense of self' to the point that we become attached to certain modes of being, ways of relating, and stances towards the world--the consensus seems to be that we are not that proverbial tabula rasa others have contended.

That blank slate upon which a world comes to be a painted is not evident. For children, like adults, there appears to be more of a potential for unfolding innate tendencies towards specific ways of being that are both a blessing and a curse. For instance, a 'natural born leader' can also come across as an insufferably domineering control freak; a person who is emphatically gifted--by being able to resonate emotionally with the experiences of others--can become overwhelmed by his or her pourous psychological boundaries, which seem to make the influx of feelings too powerful to contend with.

So we can be liable to fall to forces that are in some sense our greatest of strengths. The paradoxical nature of our 'clouds of glory' is that they sometimes conspire against our own capacity for genuis. One given to adventure and exploration may end up becoming wishy-washy and unstable. Another given to self-reliance may not be able to let others near him- or herself emotionally. And that is often why in the work-place you will find the best managers of people putting their team in the best possible position so that their strengths are maximized without becoming weaknesses that bring the whole project down.