A Notification Of Impending Experiments

I have decided to make of this life an experiment. My sense is that there is a need for me (for others?) to explore more deeply the potential inherent in standard, traditional forms of spirituality. What I am getting as it whether or not there are any objective indicators of the effectiveness of traditional transformative practices.

What do I mean by objective indicators of effectiveness? Am I talking about 'measurement' here? Yes. Yes I am. The 'reign of quantity' is not over. The process of objectification can have its place; it does have its merits.

For example, say I am going to pray for a month straight. Say I endeavour to engage in a prayer-full spirit for 30 days. Now, let me ask you what kinds of measurements can I take before those 30 days commence and after? What kinds of measurable quantities exist in life that might give me an indication of the effectiveness of prayer, the neutrality of prayer (no change), or the maleficence of prayer (harmful consequences/results)? Should I just take into account the numbers that exist under my name in the Credit Union as a measurable form of data? Should I wiegh myself before and after? Should I do a BMI (Body-Mass Index) to check my % of bodyfat pre- and post experiment?

Maybe I could have my blood drawn and have a series of labs done to check the status of the various bio-markers that are signs of health and/or disease? That is an objective, measurable form of data, isn't it?

Why?

I just want to know what works. I am interested in 'results' at this point. No. Not the mystical language and the poetic rimunations on the Non-Dual Source and Suchness of the Cosmos (Kosmos anyone?). I just want an effective form of existing; which includes being able to deal more effectively with difficulty and hardship. Not to mention I tend to prefer pleasurable states. So, how can these be generated. Is prayer a process whereby we can be strengthened in soul, spirit, mind, and body? Is prayer helpful when it comes to living?

Simply put, DOES PRAYER WORK!

How?

How am I going to conduct this experiment? What are the experimental parameters that I am going to be employing? What is the 'T-factor?' How much time am I going to invest in praying?

My interest is not so much in setting aside an allotted time for parying as much as my interest is in maintaining a prayer-full mode of being at all times! As it is put in the Bible by the Apostle Paul, I am going to 'pray without ceasing.' It is not so much about the 5 minute quickie prayer or the marathon retreat session of prayer on bended knee. After all, if prayer is going to be effective--i.e., it is going to manifest beneficial results for simple, ordinary human beings like you and I (oh, you are not simple and ordinary? sorry!)--then the experimental envelope in which prayer is being subjected to for analysis and inquiry has to be the same as the average living conditions we expect to encounter on most days. It does no good to set up 'special conditions' to pray while in experimental mode and then have no indication of whether or not those conditions will translate into the lives of the non-experimenting layperson (you and I, Tom and Sue, Steve and Ahmed).

Where?

Because our lives do not exist in isolation I see no merit in studying prayer as an effective transformational avenue in the laboratory sealed off from the messiness of the world. In fact, what we want to do is study and experiment with prayer in the midst of the messiness, chaos, and tumult of the world. Again, if prayer is going to be effective then it needs to be effective for the single-parent working two jobs and trying to support three kids as it is for the lone, hermit recluse on the mountaintop, or the monk at the Abbey.

So, with that in mind, I will experiment with prayer where prayer needs to work--provided it can work! And that is right in the midst of rush-hour traffic and cranky bosses who obviously didn't 'get any' over the weekend! ; o )

Who?

Who am I going to be praying to, you now ask. Allah? YHWH? Zeus? Cronos? Ganesh? Vishnu? Jesus? Who exactly am I going to direct my prayers to? Where is He/She? Who is He/She? Who am I hoping will hear my prayers?

In answering this the understanding gets really cool. I am so excited to be explaining this that I can barely contain myself. Really! This is awesome. It is awesome that I am going to be directing prayer to no one in particular and everyone in particular all at the same time. How so? Because there is no separation inherent in the nature and make-up of our existence in this-world (the Cosmos is a seamless energetic/informational Whole) any and all prayers are non-local the moment they are uttered. And the 'utterance' I take to be crucial. The emittance of sound-waves are akin to being the local corollary to the non-local nature of information.

It is as there is a reverbation of what we utter in our immediate surroundings---which by rule of natural law will make an immediate impact. So the utterance becomes the local and immediate expression of a non-local phenomena that has Cosmic implications. This is why I am saying that I am not going to be praying to a 'God' and yet I am going to be praying to 'just that God' and everyone and everything else at the same time!

For example, Buddhists often pray (yeah, Buddhists pray too!) for the 'liberation of all sentient beings.' His Holiness the Dalai Lama has confessed to praying for the 'happiness of everyone.' It is in that same spirit that I intend to pray during the experiment I am about to conduct.

A Prayer For The Cosmos Is A Prayer For Everyone

This isn't my attempt to get all 'New Age' and 'foo-foo' on ya'all. Hard-core, mainstream science conducted in state of the art laboratories with the latest technology, inquiring into the basest of elemental energies has revealed the permeability of what were once deemed static boundaries. We are shot through with the 'stuff of Stars.' And I don't mean Britney Spears and Brad Pitt! I mean that the Cosmos is a Field of Information and Energy that only appears to be frozen, fixed, and solid because of the normal manner in which so-called 'things' are perceived by us humans. At far subtler levels it is revealed to us that the apparent solidity is just an 'appearance' and not 'reality.' Reality is far more fluid in fact than it appears to us to be at first glance.

It is that fluidity of fact--rather than fiction--that allows for our transformation here on Earth as it is in Heaven. Apart from that fluidity we would be totally 'fixed.' And not 'fixed' in a good way either!! We would be incapable of growth. We would not be able to be transformed. If we were lost we would be lost forever. That condition would be unchanging. Thankfully it is not so. Transformation is possible. And my Heart of Hearts tells me that there are exceedingly 'traditional avenues of transformation' that have yet to receive the acclaim and merit that they deserve. That is why I am doing this. Because I want to know if prayer works firsthand. I don't want it to be a part of my life because Momma or Daddy said it was good for me; or because the Pope does it! Instead, I will be a 'lamp unto myself' for then there will be no doubt. I will know that prayer is effective or not. I will no beyond a shadow of a doubt.



Note: I'd like to thank Paul Salamone for his entries on his experience with the Integral Lie Practice Kit. He has proved himself both informational and inspirational. Thanks Paul (I just hope it was not a 'work requirement' that you do so!). ; o )

Urgency

When you lay down at night, ready to drift off to sleep, waiting for the sandman to come, what burns in you to be lived?

What colours to you want to use to paint life with? What have you yet to taste? Whose smile beckons you in the still of the night? What visions captivate you, somewhat hauntingly, making you wonder if you will ever experience the 'life you seem meant for?'

This is a powerful experience of reflection we are all capable of: take into account what is transpiring in consciousness as you prepare to sleep and you will realize where you have an urgent need/desire to travel in the direction of. Maybe you want to express more affection and love for those close to you. Perhaps you want to be less sensitive and touchy, as you seem to be afflicted with generating 'drama' unnecessarily. Or maybe you just know that the life you are living now is not fulfilling you, not feeding you, not sustaining you, not anywhere near offering you the kind of nourishment and support that you need in order to continue.

So, I say, don't dream of dying and escaping from what has become of your life--no matter what the difficulties may be--but, instead, dream of that which is urging you to live. Find the fire in your soul. Find the bounce in the body. Find the melody in the mind. Find the song in the spirit of that which conspires to leave you contented at night. For it is present, whispering to you now in quiet, breathing life into your lungs, preparing you to fly above and beyond all that you may think is possible of holding you back. But nothing is. Nothing can hold back the one who knows the urgency of a life aching to be lived.

You can. You wouldn't even be 'aware of it' if you were not capable of it. That dream. That transformation. That vision. That 'you' that awaits in the distance that is no distance at all. Unite with the promise of that 'you.'

A Day of Utter Fulfillment

I often wonder what the ideal day would be like. Would we find ourselves wholly activated in as many sectors as we exist in? Would all of our 'chakras' be alive, spinning, and fired up? Wouldn't we find ourselves stimulated in the best sense of that word on all planes/dimensions of our being--physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual? Wouldn't we be in such a state as one in which we are not able to deny any aspect of our beingness because that beingness would be 'called forth' in our day?

Would we go to work knowing that we didn't have to 'deny' some part of ourselves? And wouldn't that be lovely--to rise in the morning knowing that 'all of us' is welcomed into this-world once again?

Diverse Needs & Forms Of Expression

I suspect that if we were only 'emotional' beings then the mere expression of our emotions would be totally satisfying. Likewise would intellectual pursuits leave us completely contented if we were only 'mental' beings. But we are not are we? We are not 'just this' or 'just that.' We are 'just this... and then some!'

It may be why drugs and psychedelic experiences leave us dry after a time. It could be why sex for the sake of sex is an inevitable dead-end. It could be why total immersion in any one single area of human endeavour is bound to leave us 'empty' inside.

And so, if the proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes, then have we not come to understand that no 'single thing' can ever satisfy the necessity bourne of our multi-dimensional nature? Do we not know enough to know that we can't find happiness in monotheism; where we make idols of romance, work, sex, drugs, mystical experiences, enlightenment, truth, philosophy, science, spirituality, guys, girls, children, lovers, and roles we hope will be 'The Answer?'

The Living Experience Is??

One? None? Many? Neither?

What are we privileging? Are we able to formulate an unbiased opinion on the nature of sentient existence? Might our being raised in a culture of monotheistic leanings predispose us to a view of 'singleness' and 'essence' that indicates to us that we are a 'one?' And would we see ourselves differently and judge reality according to a different set of criteria if we grew up in a culture that had multiplicity as its existential basis?

How can we know? How can we determine the most factual basis for our existence? That is the real question I am begging to ask here: What is the real basis for our existence?

What view or perspepctive is going to best accord with Reality? How are we to establish that basis? Or, check that... how are we to best realize the perspective on our existence that most accords with what is Real?


Deep Subjects

For many the topic itself is just too deep to bother with. Just 'getting by' and 'making ends meet' is worry enough. There isn't time or inclination to consider such matters--even if such matters bear an ultimate weight and importance upon our lives. Therefore, many people just come to adopt the creeds of their forefathers. Those who, you guessed it, adopted the creed of their forefathers... who... so... on and so forth... on down the line, through the generations.

That seems to me to say much for what has come to be the case for humanity. The fact that we are faced with the bare, and often brute, facts of existence in this-world leaves us in a position where we cannot examine our basis for existence. That is left to others. It is all fine and well to do so if others are to be trusted. But if others have ulteriour motives then it is not fine. We can end up duped. We can end up victims of our own inability or unwillingness to realize 1) who we are, 2) how we came to be here, and 3) what that all means.

So... are we these single substances... these enduring monads? Are we an essence of some sort that is sure and certain, solid and unshakable?

Or... might we be a community that is in constant flux, flow, and exchange? A collective of entities that only seems to have some 'essence' in relation to the organization of the many parts that make us up into an apparent 'I?'

The Living Lab

Where can we go to begin such a study? Where is there a truly open and uncharted field of investigation that does not have its own already established creeds and methods? If we go the contemplative route and adopt the tenets of Zen Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, or any of the Christian Monastic Orders then are we really going to be answering that most vital of questions? Or, will we just be getting an answer that is already implied at the beginning; due to the innate assumptions of each of those systems?

I wonder if it is truly possible to be like the American maverick Henry David Thoreau any longer? Can we live life raw and strip existence down to the bone in order to arrive at what is essential? Or is that just a fool's game?

Was Thoreau--and others like him-naive? Or could have Thoreau been a wayfarer of something totally historic: a prime example of a non-dogmatic, creedless investigation that strives to discover first things through unmediated, direct experience, rather than through the second-hand of approved literature and/or popular opinion?

One & Many

Houston we have a problem!

Anytime that we are going to propose a solution to the dilemmas of a living existence in a world such as this-one we are liable to run into a difficulty or two. For the monotheistic psychology based upon 'the One' that difficulty can be felt in a certain tightness and rigidity--a narrowness and constriction--that appears to deny multiplicity and difference for the sake of 'the One.'

A polytheistic psychology has its own problem, though. I don't suspect it could be termed a panacea for what ails us. The long-noted problem inherent in a polytheistic psyche is that of 'integration.' How shall the various gods get along? What shall bring us direction and order? We can't just have a cacophony of voices can we? We need some ordering principle do we not? We need 'the One,' right?

The Monophonic Self... Or The Polyphonic Self

What Do You Mean? I have So Little Time On My Hands As It Is!

When I got make the argument that the Renaissance stands as some sort of human potential landmark that would serve us all well to consider more thoughtfully I am sure to get a few skeptics wondering how the hell they are going to fit more considerations into an alreayd overwhelmed existence. This is understandable. I mean, how can we be a world-class sculptor and painter ala Michelangelo? Isn't that a bit much to ask?

Maybe looking at it that way is to miss the point. Maybe looking at it from an 'achievment perspective' is the exact opposite of what I am getting at.

So, 'What am I getting at then?' you may ask. Well, I am getting at the psychology of the Renaissance. It is that same psychology--or, paradigm, if you will--that seems to have informed the Samurai of Japan, the greatest era of Liberal Arts Education as found in Europe and the Americas, and, I am contending, the burgeoning Integral Movement championed by the likes of the late India sage, Sri Aurobindo, Esalen's Michael Murhpy, and the contemporary philosopher Ken Wilber.

Despite the noticable differences in each of the philosophies, paradigms, psychology's espoused by the above, there is a common theme that each contends holds true: namely, that we are multi-dimensional beings; beings that we exist on mutliple levels of reality. Some put in the terms of the Perrenial Philosophy, stating that we are constituted of body, mind, soul, and spirit. Others delineate us according to quadrants, lines, levels (Ken Wilber). Someone like Sri Aurobindo suggest that the human-being is a multiplicity of potential 'states of consciousness' that unfold progressively through stages.

Like I said, there is a common thread that runs throughout each of these 'maps' or 'systems' that seeks to explain who we are. Each 'map' converges on the theme of our inherent multiplicity as human-beings.


The Efficiencies Of the Monophonic Self

Maybe it was the assertion of the sciences of increasing reductionism--those which sought to discover the 'essence of all things;' to find the 'lowest common denominator' of our humanness. Perhaps it was the Judeo-Christian concept of the soul as this inviolable substance that went far beyond the gates of heaven and hell in its existence; that was the 'one thing' we most certainly are. Whatever it was--the prime cause--there has come to be an emphasis on discovering 'who we are.' 'What is my True Self?' has been one of the chief questions of the past 50 years or so. People in the developed nations of the world have been asking this question with an intensity that has grown to the point that 'Self-Help' books are being found in supermarket checkout lines.

The Answer. What is The Answer? Who am I? Why am I here? What am I here for?

There is an assumption behind these sorts of questions that presumes there is a single answer! Can't you feel it? Can't you feel that assumption? Haven't you felt it? Hasn't each of us, in our own way, been on a search for the One Big Thing? The One Big Thing in the form of a wife or husband, a job or a mission, a plan or an idea, a winfall or a lottery-prize? Aren't we all seduced by the prime tenet of Monotheistic Pscyhology: that there is really only ONE!?!


What's Wrong With The One?

So many of us spend so much time looking for 'the One.' We bounce around from relationship to relationship, from town to town, from city to city, from bed to bed, from bar to bar--all in search of the 'that One.' Job after job and house after house we never seem to be able to settle. There is a perpetual agony with the search it seems to me. Shoot! I am no better and have spent a good portion of my time searching for 'the One' too!

The thing is, not unlike yourself, I wanted it to stop. I wanted to fine 'the One.' I wanted to locate 'the One' in space and time--i.e., in a job or a lover or a town or a guru or a philosophical system. I wanted to find 'the One!' I wanted my restless search to be over. I wanted the game of life as a game of musical chairs to end! I was dying to find 'the One.'

I don't think it is at all a stretch of my own imagination--nor anyone else's for that matter--to imply that this search... this desperate ache for 'the One'... is not just my own. I think it is pandemic. I personally have come to conclude that this desperate desire to discover 'the One' and fuse with 'it,' whatever 'it' might be, is a logical consequence of monotheism. And following from that conclusion I am daring to contend that there is a possibility of relief from the agonies/ecstasies of the search (or should I say agonies and false hopes?) in investigating the history of polyphonic humanity in the form of the Renaissance, the Sumarai, and the potential seemingly offered by the burgeoning Integral Movement.

Most of my evidence for contending that there is relief to be found from the cultural norm of 'monotheistic psychology' is founded on this logic:

1) If we are a multiplicity--a multidimensional species, a diverse conglomeration of varius entities, a community, a polyphony.. then...

2) no 'single thing' is bound to result in satisfaction, contentment, fulfillment, happiness, or what have you.

In other words, no 'thing' can be 'the ONE!'

According to that logic it would appear to indicate that monotheistic psychologies are inherently unsatisfying. That is an apparent truth that seems to be corroborated by the glorious degree of consumption of goods, services, commodities, and relationships that the Judeo-Christian West is infamous for--and all to no avail!

Balance, Symmetry & The Fully Human Being

When I hold the image of the Renaissance in my mind's eye and consider the merit of the ideals espoused by those artisans and philosopher-kings that made the Renaissance what it is/was I am drawn to opening towards the possibility that the 'era of specialization' has as its congenital twin an inherent degree of inevitable pathology. In short, when we specialize we limit ourselves. We become imbalanced. We become assymmetrical.

Perhaps that is one of the reasons why there is such a devastating lack of the Feminine throughout the Age of Enlightenment. It is as if Modernity was an age of assymetrical human endeavours devoid of such qualities as emotion, feeling, intuition, sense and sensuality. It was a time when 'specialization' and its compadre' we call 'compartmentalization' held court. And I don't think we even have an inkling of how tremendous has the impact of these tendencies been on upon us and the world we have socially constructed upon their basis.

As I mentioned in the previous piece in this series (Might The Integral Be the Beginnings Of a New Renaissance?), there is sense that we as human-beings are only supposed to be 'one thing' and 'one-thing-alone.' A teacher. A auto mechanic. A drug dealer. A pharmacist. A father. The question posed to children is 'What do you wanna be?' And it is posed with a tone and tenour that suggests to a child that there is only 'one right answer!'

The foundation of such questions is established upon the basis of assumptions that tend to go unexamined. I want to look more closely at those assumtpions: what is their impact? are they tru? are they the best assumptions we can have? do we need them? might we better off without them? I would like to dig into the geological strata of such assumptions and discover what resides there. If only because my gut is telling me that we can do far better without such assumptions (and the type of existence/realtionships they lead to) than with them.


Subjective Experience, Objective Facts

I would be willing to bet (and I would even bet that it would be a safe bet!) that there are untold numbers of people just like me: people who have experienced the same difficulty in ultimately deciding and determing 'who they are?' and 'what they are meant to do?'

Again, monotheism. One god. One right way. One thing to do. One right answer.

The oneness can be paralyzing. It can be defeating. It can be crippling. I mean, shoot, where can we go in one-dimension? Who are we as a singularity? And why is diversity and difference viewed as problematic from a spiritual/religious/metaphysical perspective?

I am asking whether the whole foundational metaphysics underlying Western Civilization, which suppose that we are 'made in the image and likeness of God' are not themselves responsible for some less than benign consequences. Is the that way we both view our existence, and later come to live it, informed by a monotheistic psychology that we have not examined with a critical eye/I nearly enough? I propose that the answer is a resounding 'Yes!'--just in case you hadn't figured that much out yourself.


James Hillman & Ken Wilber

Not much, if any, discussion about a New Renaissance has included the mention of James Hillman and Ken Wilber in the same breath. And while their noticable differences from a philosophical perspective may be reason enough not to sing their praises in the same breath, I would beg to differ. Both the Archetypal Psychology of James Hillman and the Integral Philosophy of Ken Wilber point to the problematic nature of so 'singular a vision' that it becomes not just limiting, but pathological, in extremis. Hillman, in his many works has pointed to the detrimental effects of a 'monotheistic psychology' that undermines life's inherent diversity (up to and including the inherent diversity of the Psyche). Wilber, in his own inter-disciplinary way, has done much the same in contending that one of the graver issues before us is this matter of the 'flatland': the 'monochromatic' ... 'monological gaze' that has rendered many with a sense that there is only 'one-dimension' that matters in life.

While Wilber has gone his own way in naming the assailants perpetrating crimes against the human potential for a well-balanced, symmetrical existence (remember, Satan as a-symmetry?) I have drawn from his work, with much thanks, while taking a different approach in suggesting that the 'monotheistic tendency' is not locatable in a single field of human endeavour--be it Science or Spirit--as much as it is the tendency itself to bias a single dimensional perspective over all others.

In other words, monotheism is not a religious problem as much as it is a problem of consciousness. Monotheism is itself the creation of an idol in the vertical dimension (spirit) or an idol in the horizontal dimension (science).

What Is A Subjective Experience Of Goal-lessness Like?

I know it is all well and good to rant on and on about the disasterous (or at least potentially disasterous) consequences of strict adherence to certain goals. This I have done of late and will also continue to do in the future as more evidence reveals itself through a deeper, more penetrating analysis of goal-makings side-effects--both long-term and short-term.

All of that being said I am also aware that one needs to present an alternative vision. If a goal-setting existence is not up to par than what is, or might be considered, worthy of one's devotion?
I say that because the one thing that I don't want to get into is a rant-fest where all sorts of criticism is offered and a constant finger is being pointed in the direction of this, that, and the other thing... but... and here is the big issue as far as I see it... there is no alternative presented that we find appealing, or even compelling.

It is a bit like someone having cancer and being told that chemotherapy has a very limited effectiveness in treating cancer, and offering that patient nothing else. If I am going to go out on a limb and expose a goal-setting existence for what it is (which I consider to be far less than benign) then I have to be able to present another option. So, if not the chemotherapy of 'setting goals' then what?


Who You Gonna Be Boy?

I have to admit that I really had no idea who or what I wanted to be (as if I were no one unless I decided to be someone--someone or something specific, e.g., a fireman, a footballer, etc. and so forth) when I was young. It didn't mean that I didn't have talents or gifts like we all do. I just couldn't decide on what I wanted to do. That 'one thing' that was precious to me above all other things--'My precious' in the words of the character Gollum from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings--was not evident to me. I was, I suppose a polytheist, a panentheist. God... the Divine... the Sacred... the Numinous resided in many apparent 'things.' I couldn't just have one Beloved.

For most of my teens and twenties (and I should add the first half of my 30's) I struggled with feelings of ineptitude. It was as if I was cursed. I saw so many people easily deciding on a career path, on a choice of lifestyle and vocation. I saw so many people easily realizing what it is that they wanted to do in life, while I continued to struggle with not-knowing.


Inherited Cultural Assumptions

It was not until recently that I began to consider the possibility that that 'not-knowing' was a gift rather than a curse. I didn't have to know what I was supposed to do because I didn't need to choose. The whole idea of choosing itself, at least to me, came under intense scrutiny. I realized that I had inherited the cultural assumptions which indicate that we are supposed to be this 'one thing' and 'only this one thing.' I inherited the fruits of the Modern West's Monotheism. That we are supposed to be a writer or a teacher. But only a writer or a teacher. That we are supposed to be a doctor or a mother. But only a doctor or a mother. I had been infected by the cultural assumption that states we must choose a 'single path' and adhere to that 'single path' (ala George W. Bush in case anyone hasn't noticed), because the failure not to do so is interpreted as both a sign of uncertainty and a sign of weakness.


The Cultural Secret: The Pathologies of Monotheism

There is so much that faces us in a direct and immediate manner, which indicates to us the virtues of adopting a more polytheistic stance towards our own existence. Even what appears to us to be a 'single-person' constituted of a 'single-mind/body' is not really so. Upon closer examination what is revealed is a community. A network of relationships made of distinct differences gives rise to a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. It is as if in order to have the appearance of a singularity we need a multiplicity. It is the old chicken and the egg dilemma: which came first?

Anthropologists have pointed to what appears to have been a far more polytheistic past predating the monotheistic leanings of the present age of humanity (a monotheism that still holds court, I would contend--ala Islam, Christianity, and Judiasm). Before monotheism held such favour in the hearts and minds of human-beings, not to mention the cultures and civilizations constructed upon the basis of monotheistic leanings, there was more an emphasis on the polyphonic diversity of both the sacred and the profane. In fact, the polyphonic diversity of totemistic Paganism, the Greek pantheon of the Gods, and Hinduism all realized the presence of the Sacred (the One) within/as the profane (the Many). As a result there tended not to be such a separatist mentality that we see in the consequences of monotheism.

For instance, you ever notice how the Monotheists want to have a 'place unto themselves.' The Jews are a prime example of this. Their homeland is a singularity. There is only one Jerusalem. And in a sense they are right--there is only one Jerusalem. The problem for them is that Jerusalem is a place claimed by many peoples at many times throughout history. Jerusalem was even the home of prehistoric sea-dwelling creatures who crapped right in the place where the most sacred of locales is held to be for Jews the world over.

That is what Monotheism does. It locks in the vision and freezes the consciousness to the point where ignorance attempts to pass itself off as knowledge. The analogue of Manyness--of polytheism--on the other hand, allows us the privilege of realizing that Jerusalem is not just meant to be 'one thing' for 'one peoples' anymore than any other locale in space and time is.


The Just Itness Of Monotheism

If we are being psychjologically informed by monotheistic tendencies then we are prone to being these creatures who attempt to strictly 'define' what things are. It is as if monotheism and atomism go hand-in-hand. Seeking to 'define what a thing is' and 'reducing things to their singular essence' are both the result of monotheism's psychological impact upon humanity (or, at the very least this is what I am contending). A thing--any thing... a person a plant and place... are just 'one things' and 'only one things.'

Good or evil? You make the call. Right or wrong? You decide. What is a thing? Who are you?

Remember, according to monotheism there is only ONE RIGHT ANSWER!! There can, after all, only be one.


Flying In The Face Of The Renaissance

I have intimated before that the Integral Movement for the Age of Globalization is akin to what the Rennaissance was for Europe several centuries ago. The Renaissance was the bridge that took Europe from the medival world to the modern world. Between, roughly, 1400 and 1600 there was a flowering of diverse accomplishments in art, literature, science, learning, and architecture. Some of humanity's greatest achievements took place in that time. And one of the prime reasons this was so is because there was a lessening of emphasis on the 'cult of monotheism' and a rebirth of a polytheistic perspective, as drawn from the Greeks--as well as from all the travels and adventures of explorers who began criss-crossing the oceans in search of 'new lands,' while bringing back tales and artifacts from those lands.

It was as if the closed-world of medival Europe was opening up. And as that physical landscape opened up so, too, did the psychological landscape of those persons who have become synonymous with the word 'Renaissance.' Da Vinci. Michelangelo. Donatello. Ficino. Paracelsus.

The Renaissance was a time when the diverse array of human potential flowered. It WAS NOT AN AGE OF SPECIALIZATION! Strict adherence to roles and rules slackened just enough to allow certain exceptional people to explore the polyphonic nature of their own being. It was an age marked by those people who stood in stark contrast to what is portrayed in Herbert Marcuse's book One-Dimensional Man.

Think about it for just a moment: an age where a sculptor was also a scientist and an inventor was also a poet. It was a time when a priest was also a physician and an alchemist was also a writer. It was a time when we saw how exquisite a dance of the Feminine and Masculine Faces of the Divine can be. It was as if we saw a cultural example emerging of Shiva and Shakti in delicate embrace. And while there were still tragedies and pitfalls associated with that Age I do believe firmly in my mind that the burgeoning Integral Movement can give birth to a similar (though unique in its own right) culture of that which could resemble yet another reassertion of polyphonic humanity.