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.