The Poem and The Path

We stand shivering at the door,
terrified and panicked
that we have lost the key.
We waste lifetimes
in the waiting
because in the haze,
the painted fog
of our fear, we forget
to check the handle
and discover
it has never been locked
at all.

Untitled by Tyler Knott Gregson

I very much enjoy poems that have lessons for living. Ones that do so through metaphor, as this one does, are even more pleasurable. We hardly think of metaphors except as used in poems and prose, as Shakespeare did, copiously. But we employ them constantly in everyday life. He has the heart of a lion, the interview went swimmingly, in our company he is king of the mountain, are just a few mundane examples. 

There is an interesting story about Houdini, which could be apocryphal, in which he tried to escape from a prison cell without success, only to find at the end that the door was never locked. True or not, the image is compelling and this poem somewhat echoes that story. Houdini’s mistake was not based in fear, which is the driving force in the poem, but in his failure to conceive of an unlikely alternative because he was certain he understood the game. Although not identical to Houdini’s situation, the poem also addresses the failure to examine, and perhaps pursue, life options or alternatives. 

Fear as a driving force is something I have mentioned in a number of earlier posts. My goal in those examples was to address the many ways that fear, whether on the surface or in the unconscious, controls our behavior, often to our detriment. This is not an argument for being reckless, or for ignoring the need for caution. Nor is it an argument for not feeling fear, or the anxiety it often produces when lodged in the unconscious. It is a comment on the importance for us to see when our fears are getting in the way of our becoming better human beings.  

The poem begins with a reference to possibly having lost the key to a door. Clearly, the key is not literal, nor is the door, and there are many ways to interpret this situation. In simple terms, the door can be considered a hurdle or barrier to some aspect of personal progress. The key may be seen as the way to get by that hurdle. The implication is that we had something before (the key) and lost it, misplaced it. That may well be true. But we can also see the key as something we never lost because we never knew we had it---the spirit of fearlessness and openness, with the courage to open any door. That spirit has been part of us from our beginning and (re)discovering it is the way we move beyond our fear and the suffering that often accompanies it.

So what happens when we find the key, when we divest ourselves of our fears and open the door? The path awaits us, surely. But is there a path? A saying in Taoism refers to “the pathless path.” Although appearing to be senseless, the saying embodies a great truth. The paths that matter aren’t straight lines, nor are they defined in any way in the world. When we see the path as something real, we run into the problem of seeing it as an Answer---if only I could find my Path, all will be well. Sadly, this is a lost cause. Seeing the Path as a way to an outcome, a destination to be arrived at, misses the essence of pathless---it is the journey that matters, not the arrival. But the journey to where? Like the key we always had and may not have known it, the path was always there, and there is nowhere to go. The journey is realizing what we knew all along---who we really are, still, silent, and present.

 

 

I Am Effective!! Or Am I??

Like most people, when I think about whether I am effective at something I am the one who makes the judgment. If it were not, who would it be?  

Effectiveness in the general sense is about getting a job or task done, whether it’s repairing a computer, developing a budget, learning Spanish, supporting a loved one, or engaging in self-reflection. And it need not imply a final completion, although it certainly may. Finishing preparing a budget represents a final outcome, but learning Spanish does not, unless, of course, one becomes totally fluent. I progress in learning a language gradually---achieving incremental levels of effectiveness over time. 

Some people confuse effort with effectiveness, a distinctly unwise view. Effort, regardless of quality, is an input. It is often vitally necessary, but cannot be seen as the end point. For example, I know people who say they are on a path to self-awareness---surely an admirable goal. Unfortunately, the inputs are as far as they seem to get. I asked one of these individuals what his goals were, and he stated that he wanted to better understand himself and the things that motivated him. I asked how he thought that was going, and his response was, “excellent.” Inquiring further, I wondered how he was measuring that, and his answer was simple---I am doing all the right things. That is, he is reading the right books, attending the right lectures, belonging to the right groups, etc. Not a thing wrong with what he is doing, but in 15 years he has made essentially no progress in understanding himself, if his behavior is any judge. It is as though he has mistaken the inputs (his efforts) as being equivalent to the actual outcome, greater self understanding. The really important effort, the very hard work of disciplined practice for years, is thus unneeded.  

All effectiveness is determined by the comparison of an outcome (even if partial) with a standard or goal, which can be informal or quite formal. I assess my improvement in learning Spanish on my own very informally, and quite casually, while a boss may assess the work outputs of an employee using various strictly defined methods. In the first case I decide how effective I have become, and in the second the boss (for the most part) decides the employee’s effectiveness. 

This last example addresses the role of others in the determination of effectiveness. Certainly there are aspects of life where I can determine my effectiveness without reference to others. As mentioned above, if I self-study Spanish, I need only please myself. And if I repair my computer, the virus is either gone or it is not. The input of others is not needed to determine if the problem is solved. But many aspects of life call for others to have a role in the effectiveness determination, something we may well dislike because it can contradict how we see ourselves.  

If I have a Spanish teacher, he may have a view of my language progress that does not match mine. Or, consider a real-life example. In the past I offered to help my wife make the bed after the sheets had been washed and dried. She took me up on this, but soon dispensed with my help. My concept of effectiveness in doing the bed did not match hers; in fact, she saw mine as distinctly inferior and, upon reflection, I saw that it was. 

As a consultant to organizations over many years in the area of leader behavior, I have witnessed many examples related to who determines if a particular manager is a good leader. Most managers, regardless of level, think only they (and possibly their boss) determine if they are a quality leader. It is clear on the face of it that this is incomplete at best, and destructive at worst---destructive because the manager may be living an illusion, and he acts on that in dealing with his staff. Without the input of others, mainly those who report to him, he exists as a legend in his own mind. In the minds and hearts of his employees, however, he may be a walking disaster. Managers often discount the opinions of employees, but they do so at their peril. A misbehaving manager, even if good at his job, will not generate the commitment and loyalty needed to produce great outcomes---he will not be a quality leader.  

A question of significant personal import is whether I determine if I am a good husband, an effective one. Surely I cannot unilaterally decide that. Imagine I tell my wife that I am indeed a fine husband, and imagine further that she has decidedly different views. If I insist that my view prevail, I have likely confirmed her view just by that simple act---an undesirable outcome. What happens in many cases with this question? Simply: How can my wife possibly see me as a flawed husband, when I see myself as the pinnacle? I uncritically accept my laudatory view of myself, to which I am deeply attached. She, obviously, has to be wrong. This means that my wife must be led, by any means needed, to see the “correct” view. You can imagine where this little effort is going to go! But that is what happens when we cannot stand the light of reality, when we are unable to give up our precious, and often biased, opinions of ourselves. I cannot become a better husband unless I accept and deal with my wife’s views. That does not mean she is unilaterally correct. But the perceptual difference does mean that something is up between us, and the only way to get at it is for me to let down all the protective barriers. 

You and I, but only to a modest extent, determine our effectiveness when others are involved, whether those are life partners, friends, relatives, or colleagues. But those others usually play a significant role in the determination because they have a vested interest in our behavior. I am not suggesting that others automatically have a more accurate view of our behavior than we do, but the chances are very good that they have an edge on us, mainly because we are remarkably resistant to a true understanding of our own motives and actions, some of which look rather unpleasant.  

Inputs from others, even flawed ones, are vital to becoming a better person. But it takes considerable courage to behave properly when we are the receiving end of undesirable news. Thus, before we can become a more effective spouse or leader, we have to become a more effective listener.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You Can't Get There From Here

"Once you have found the center
and achieve harmony,
heaven and earth will take their proper places
and all things are fully nourished."

The Second Book of the Tao, by Stephen Mitchell.  

Who can disagree with this? Certainly not anyone I know. And there are good reasons for our welcome and acceptance of such wisdom. At its best, Eastern wisdom like this encourages us to unflinchingly look at ourselves and how we interact with the world, with the eye of developing within us the ability to flow with the world and not against it---the essence of Taoism.  

This short passage emphasizes the importance of harmony, a state that most of us surely aspire to achieve, but which relatively few of us actually achieve. Disharmony is clearly visible in individuals, families, offices, churches, governments, and nations. Simple observations of what is happening today point to a profound sense of dis-ease among people in Western societies, especially the US. Structures and moral systems that provided some sense of certainty and support have been uprooted. Young people seem lost and without much sense of reality, often living in social media and looking for continued affirmation as they struggle with their identities. Civility is disappearing and dis-respect on the ascendance. Violence is increasing. Poverty and racism remain disturbing aspects, as does hunger. 

Many well-intentioned people want very much to solve these problems, and often are active in efforts to remediate them. Unfortunately, despite all their efforts, and those of the government as well, progress has been spotty at best. Why the intractability?  

Clearly there are many reasons why we have not eliminated poverty or racism, for just two of many societal problems---from entrenched attitudes or beliefs to inadequately designed or implemented governmental programs. Important though those may be, I am going to suggest another causal factor, one that perhaps gets at the root of intractability for at least some of these large challenges. 

The Tao quote seems to be referring to us as individuals---to our own personal harmony. And it is fair to read it that way, but there is more to it than that. “Heaven and earth will take their proper places” also says that harmony can be about more than just us. If our actions are in accord with the Tao, “all things will be fully nourished,” meaning that aspects of the world beyond our immediate existence can be positively impacted. The quote permits a linkage between the personal and the general, or the societal, and this is the key to my suggestion. 

The idea is very simple: a person or group will have little luck transforming certain societal problems if he has failed to first transform himself. In other words, making a true impact on societal problems often depends on a pre-existing condition in which the person is working on his own tendency to misbehave. My belief is that all greater (local, national, international) dis-harmony arises from each individual’s disharmony. Large-scale socially detrimental things such as racism, homo-phobia, incivility, intolerance and violence will not be successfully addressed until individuals heal their own malfunctions. I believe that the origins of all these distressing and very challenging societal problems are in each of us, not in the large-scale society, which only picks them up after the fact as we collectivize our dis-harmony. 

What matters most are not the grand, mega-societal efforts to change people or solve problems, although those can be useful, but the day-to-day way in which we interact with those we don’t like or with whom we disagree. Before we can truly help with the large-scale societal challenges, we must do a bit of work on ourselves. As David R. Loy says in his fine book, A New Buddhist Path “…we cannot expect either the economic or the ecological transformations we need to succeed without personal transformations as well,…” Failing to make the fundamental personal change means our intentions and motives are open to serious question. In our minds, unfortunately, we are paragons of virtue when in reality we are acting at cross-purposes.  

An example involves the decline in civility and the efforts good people want to make to improve it. But a person who has not mastered his own incivility, and yes plenty of well-intentioned folks have failed, will be fostering good at one level---the societal---and diminishing it at another level---the personal. That is not in sync with the Tao and will mean that the person is actually sabotaging his own efforts. This self-defeating aspect is also vividly evident in the idea of tolerance, a subject I have mentioned a number of times. Just like the civility issue, we cannot be tolerant of some and intolerant of others and expect that our efforts to improve tolerance overall will succeed.  

This post addresses the challenge of getting from “here” (our current personal condition) to “there” (correction of a social problem) when the “here” is flawed by our own less-desirable behavior. Essentially, you can’t get “there” without a changed “here.” Thinking so is an illusion, and results in little to no good coming from considerable effort. 

A further problem is that work done at the societal level is often that of form, as opposed to substance, or outcome. Committees are formed, debates are held, admonishments are tendered, bills are passed, celebrities add their names, and administrative structures are constructed. Well-intentioned people admirably commit their energies to these activities.  

Yet if even well-intentioned people fail to hold themselves and others who group with them accountable for inappropriate behavior, it is clear that the inputs, as good as they might be, will prove essentially useless. Political discourse, for one arena, is a disgrace today (each side often arguing maniacally, and uncivily, that it is the other side that is uncivil---I have earlier discussed illusory existences). And the reason for this disgrace is very simple. For politically prominent people (anyone, really) to change their awful tactics they have to be held accountable by their very own. How useful is it for a Republican to hold a Democrat accountable, or the reverse? Not at all. But when both Democrats and Republicans hold their own members and partisans accountable, well then we might have some action. Unfortunately, given the wildly irrational state of our society, don’t count on much on any large scale. But as individuals, we can take up the effort, both to reform our own mis-behavior and to hold our friends and associates accountable for their unpleasant and undesirable behavior. It all starts at home, and that is where the leverage for large-scale social change is.

 

Utopiates

The title refers to folks whose view of the world is driven by a need, of desperate, to have an Answer---an enormously powerful preference which I addressed a bit in the last post on order and disorder. Each individual (or group) with this need has the Answer to which he subscribes, which brings order to his life, and to which he clings with a death-like grip. I call these people Utopiates because they seek a utopian existence or utopian-like Answers that will solve all human problems and mysteries, and because they seem addicted to the view and its potential accomplishment. But this view is not just a good idea to such folks---it MUST happen! It is mandatory that their Answer be implemented at all costs. Failure cannot be contemplated and deviants will be punished.

In the last blog I mentioned political partisans as a group, regardless of views, having a very high need for order in the form of litanies that explain absolutely why they are good and right, and why the "others" are bad and wrong---a singular Answer with many sub-sets that leads them to making outrageous statements and acting out in particularly vicious ways, all completely justified by their view, their Answer.

Another group is social utopians, people who believe that the world and humans are amenable to alteration to such a degree that they can be made nearly perfect---the Answer to the world's problems. With the right social and psychological engineering---see Aldous Huxley's Brave New World---there will be no wars, no racism, no bad corporations, no global warming, and no conflict of any sort. We will all be happy and polite, if likely sedated, individuals.

An interesting group also falling into the utopiate classification is Darwinists, scientists many of whom are espousing what in physics is called the Grand Unified Theory (GUT), one that unites all the main forces in the universe. The Darwinists' GUT is that evolution will explain every organic thing on earth, most particularly human behavior and consciousness and, perhaps most importantly, human morality. This view is exemplified by the philosopher and cognitive scientist, Daniel Dennett, who says that natural selection is the GUT of biology that unites "...the realm of life, meaning and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law." No grandiosity missing here.

Theodore Dalrymple, a retired psychiatrist with the British health care system, has a view I find more intriguing and informative than Dennett's. In his delightful short book, Admiral Evasions: How Psychology Undermines Morality, he says regarding evolution and its connection to human morality: "If evolution is a directionless, purposeless, natural phenomenon that is all explanatory, then human behavior just is, it is neither moral nor immoral; if, on the other hand, it is moral or immoral, then either the process of evolution is directed by a moral intelligence in the direction of greater morality (precisely the view that Neo-Darwinists wish to escape), or the process of evolution is not all explanatory, and has led to something that escapes it, as a rocket escapes the earth's atmosphere, namely human conceptions of morality."

Speaking of science, a view held by many with great rigor is that science will eventually explain everything, a position known as scientism. It is as comprehensive and as firm a view that one can hold, right along the lines of Dennett, and another example of the search for the Answer. The amusing thing is that such scientists (and lots of lay folks as well), who properly value proof and falsification, haven't a single bit of proof backing up their claim. It is totally a matter of belief. The fact that science has indeed explained a lot of things says nothing about whether it will be able to explain everything since, for one, we have no idea what everything entails.

Another group, in a vein similar to that of the Darwinists, is the neuro-scientists. Many of them believe that they will eventually be able to completely account for consciousness and all the things that make humans unique, such as meaning, transcendence, purpose, and belief through understanding the brain as they might understand a washing machine. In their minds, everything human is reducible to neurons and their connections.

The arena of cosmology is not without its Answer adherents. An interesting idea in this realm is floated by Rupert Sheldrake in his terrific and provocative book, Science Set Free, and is addressed to cosmologists. The latter properly allege that the universe is not static and is evolving, although the nature of the process is not clear. We have some evidence that the universe is "moving" in more than one sense. At the same time, these scientists think that the laws of nature, referring mainly to the cosmological constants, are in fact unchanging, a view Sheldrake finds incompatible with an evolving universe. There is some measurement data that might confirm Sheldrake's view that the constants may not be.

Some climate scientists and fellow-travelers are so taken with their view of climate change---the grand Answer---that the mere thought that another scientist might question their measurement techniques or models (not that climate change is not occurring, but why and what can we legitimately predict) is enough to send them into paroxysms of agitation amazing to behold. They insist, with terminal absurdity, that the "science is settled." Near the end of the 19th century the great physicist, Lord Kelvin, in a rare moment of hubris and gargantuan error, stated: "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." Tracking along this frame was a contemporary of Kelvin's, the astronomer Simon Newcomb, who said, "We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy." Both of these statements are laughable today, except for those for whom the science is settled, a condition that says a great deal about them, and virtually nothing about the issue.

To show how utopiates can act when they feel threatened, consider Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island and other political and scientific personages (yes, even scientists!). They have recommended using the RICO statutes to prosecute climate change "deniers," including some of the reputable scientists who question the efficacy of the proponents' models. Naturally, some corporations are indictable as well. Given that science proceeds in part on disconfirmation and falsification, this is truly astonishing. But it does demonstrate what utopiates will do to get their Answers. Shortly after jail, of course, comes "off with their heads." As I said above, deviants will be punished.

I am not arguing that searches for more humane societal arrangements or for new scientific advancements in understanding the world and universe are bad. It is entirely possible that some aspects of these various utopiates' views will prove correct, although I doubt very much that any of them will yield an Answer. Certainly in the realm of science, if not in the social world, as more answers are provided, we are faced with more questions. This may be the ultimate mystery of existence---the are no Answers, but there are answers, temporary weigh stations that lead to yet more discoveries which lead to yet more questions. I see no End, and prefer that by a long shot to everything being answered.

 

Order and Disorder

Most of us have distinct views on order and disorder, generally with a strong tendency to prefer the former. Disorder presents us with ambiguity, a condition often giving rise to feelings of uncertainty, which many of us dislike. Order provides comfort, security and regularity, and the desire for it is understandable.

Although clearly different, order and disorder cannot be seen as completely separate concepts, nor can they be seen as absolutely good or bad. A certain amount of disorder is needed for us to grow, as when our bodies are stressed at the gym or in running. Lifting the same weight endlessly or running the same distance at the same speed does not produce growth. As with physical growth, so it is with our spiritual, emotional, and intellectual lives. To move forward, in whatever realm and however we define this, we must be temporarily off balance---subject to some disorder. As the author Gail Sheehy put it in slightly different terms, “Growth demands a temporary surrender of security.” 

The desire for order and disorder co-exist simultaneously in the same person, although in different ways. Additionally, these two elements can be seen as occupying a continuum with total order on one end and total disorder on the other. While we all have a “set point” on the continuum where we customarily reside, we will move back and forth from this point to some degree as a situation, our mood or time pressure changes. Each of us has a unique need for less or more order. 

Investigators have determined that humans have a very interesting psychological process known as the need for closure. Quoting from Jamie Holmes’ fine book, Nonsense: The Power of Not Knowing: “Developed by a brilliant psychologist named Arie Kruglanski, a person’s need for closure measures a particular ‘desire for a definite answer on some topic, any answer as opposed to confusion and ambiguity.’”  

The need for closure partly expresses a person’s level of desire (often unconscious) for structure or order. This desire is normal and, like most human characteristics, is a matter of degree. Some folks with a very low tolerance for ambiguity actively, often aggressively, seek closure in the form of definitive answers. Those with higher tolerances will search less actively for answers or will be quite happy with open-ended conditions. But things are more complicated than this because any person will not have the same tolerance level for all situations. For example, I am very comfortable with disorder in my writing, actively enjoying it. I don’t work from any sort of grand plan, but allow thoughts to emerge around a general theme for a chapter or the blog. Initially I am unconcerned about whether those thoughts fit or not. This high tolerance has both beneficial and undesirable sides. It does allow me to productively fiddle with seemingly unrelated concepts, but it also can cause me to move very slowly and occasionally to get really stuck. 

On the other hand, I am quite intolerant of ambiguity when I think there is conflict or emotional distress between me and another person. I want that resolved as quickly as possible. This is helpful in the sense of moving toward what I hope is a healthy resolution. But if I am not careful, I can become too active in trying to create a non-ambiguous solution with the other person, in essence forcing an outcome.  

As a consultant I have had a number of experiences related to a person’s need for order. Once when conducting a workshop for a company, I had the group engage in brainstorming, a free-wheeling discussion where no idea is off limits and where the goal is to generate as many ideas as possible in a given time. One man had a very high need for closure and showed it by continually trying to force the group to a decision before we had heard all the ideas. It clearly distressed him that he could not get to a conclusion. Interestingly, when I spoke to him privately about his efforts, he was unaware of the challenge and trouble he was creating for the rest of us. Instead, he defended himself by saying that he was really trying to help, which he sincerely believed. 

On a broader stage, political partisans of any persuasion appear to have a great need for closure—for answers that tell them exactly what they should (and want to) believe about their and the others’ parties. This definitiveness means that thought is not needed, and is in fact an impediment to creating and maintaining a fictional world---a process aided greatly by continual recitations of the given liturgy on any topic. These liturgies provide certainty; they provide THE answers. The more frequently this recitation occurs, with oneself or with others, the more pronounced is the sense of moral and practical rightness. However, since the world is hardly a simple place, amenable to simplistic and consistent answers, this partisan behavior is clearly damaging both to the believers and the society as a whole---reality will out.  

There is no absolute level of tolerance of ambiguity, or desire for closure, that is considered optimum. The key for our well-being is to know our closure propensities in various situations, and to understand how and why they work or do not work, taking into account not just our own needs, but those of others. As I said in the last post, this understanding is often best arrived at by getting help from others, our mirrors. Regrettably, while desperately needed by many of us, we usually recoil from such engagements because they create emotional disorder, paradoxically the very thing we need for emotional growth.

 

"Insult"

"The real function of a spiritual friend is to insult you." From a great 20th century Buddhist teacher, Choggyam Trungpa Rinpoche.

We are very sensitive today, always on the lookout for slings or slights, troubled mainly by taking ourselves too seriously, and thus exposing our fragile egos. Should we have the courage, and it takes a lot, a remedy is at hand, provided by the Rinpoche. We all need someone to aid us in periodically re-orienting ourselves, to give us a whack upside the head and tell us to get less self-absorbed---the "insult that isn't." This speaks to the Buddhist's desire to eliminate all illusions, the most damaging of which those we have constructed, mostly unconsciously, to protect us from knowledge of our own shallow egos and of the real world, and to make us seem bigger and better than we are.

The quote exemplifies the role that each person can play for another in continual spiritual development, which is how the Rinpoche meant it. But I think it goes farther than spiritual development, and includes other aspects of personal development. Friends or relatives, or even a stranger, can help us overcome our unwarranted assumptions and views, false beliefs, and exaggerated sense of superiority or self righteousness. They are our mirrors, and we ignore them at our cost, as I learned rather painfully.

I recall going to a group meditation on compassion many years ago. After finishing I was talking to a woman who had immediately launched into a vitriolic condemnation of another woman in the group she did not like. Much like this woman, I was similar in my failure to understand that there is no necessary correlation between experiencing a fine compassion-oriented (or any other) meditation and actually being compassionate. For much of my life I could claim with great pride that I had read this many spiritual books, gone to this many retreats, and heard this many spiritual leaders. I was sure I understood all that Buddhism and Zen had to teach me. I did not see for decades that the only thing that matters is whether I had changed my behavior because of what I had seen and heard, whether, in fact, I had become a better person in the eyes of others. I could have learned something from the woman's comments and demeanor---she was a mirror for me, but I saw nothing.

Living with the Rinpoche's quote means giving up any attachment to a fixed "self," accepting instead the fluidity of spiritual and personal movement that requires constant attention and reformulation. But no progress will be made without fearlessness, and without eliminating the reflexive actions of "counter-punching," a regrettable tactic common among people whose egos are stuck on themselves. We will hear from our "insulting" friend news we might prefer to be left buried under a ten-ton
stone---news that often elicits from us an unpleasant reaction as we try desperately to protect our cherished illusions. Counter-punching is all about defense, rigidity, closure, protection and rejection, exemplifying what the fine American Buddhist nun and teacher Pema Chodron calls the "frozen mind."

Having no one to aid us in snapping out of our illusions means that we continue to believe what we think about ourselves and about the world, and we are monumentally, and highly emotionally, attached to these beliefs. Even the thought of asking someone close to us to expose our false beliefs is a non-starter. After all, we can "easily" live in denial. When is the last time (if ever) any of us really opened up this way? Even if we want to, what friend or relative would take the chance of getting the crap kicked out of him or her for being honest with us? Unknowingly, we have broadcast our stories (illusions) so effectively that no sensible person would trust us to behave properly.

Hearing the "insults" is a major challenge for any of us, changing even harder. But it is the price we have to pay to REALLY move spiritually and practically. For those willing to "take the empty-handed leap into the void," the result is openness, expansion, flexibility, inner peace, compassion and love, and a connection with the world as it really is (not as we want it to be) that any Taoist would delight in.

The great American spiritual philosopher, Ken Wilbur, says that climbing the spiritual ladder is impossible until we have started dealing with our demon, including our illusions and attachments. We can easily pretend that we are making spiritual progress, as I did, but that's all it is---pretend. Another illusion. Until we go after the demons with "a little help from our friends," we are fakes, whether this is in spiritual matters or practical living ones.

Religion and Society II

In the last post I started the conversation with one aspect of religion’s role in society---as a cohesive force and a repository of moral strictures and order, recognizing that there were some unpleasant aspects to this order. I ended with a reference to the societal changes we have see since the 60’s, in particular elevation of the cult of individualism to pre-eminence, what I see as a major factor in the disintegration of shared moral values in the US.

The cult of the individual emphasizes the person and what he wants above all. If it feels good, it is good, and the impact on others is irrelevant. As a moral system unique unto himself, the individualist sees a shared moral order as one detrimental to his well being, as it asks for behavioral restraint in the form of curbing self interest, a distasteful concept to the individualist.

As the great Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said, “A stable society is achieved not by balancing opposing forces but by conscious self-limitation….” The latter is a function of healthy societies, but is anathema to the individual concerned only with himself. We are living in a societal setting in which the shared healthy strictures (granted some were not) that once bound us together, whether formal and informal, are coming undone. Much of that seems due to the failure of self-limitation.

As shared moral order is lost, social anomie sets in. The word means normlessness (Emile Durkheim) and implies social instability and lethargy, which I think are increasing in Western society. At the same time, religious connections, including church/synagogue attendance and belief in God, and the moral order supplied by those, have weakened. I am not saying that the decline in religious conviction or in attendance at services themselves have directly caused the anomie, although that may be the case, or even the reverse. I am saying the rise of the individual at the expense of the group coupled with the decline in religious observance have at least contributed to a dissolving social entity.

Some argue that even if religions were a necessary outcome of human existence in early history, they are of no consequence today. In their view, secular associations will fill the void and be a source of moral order once religions are gone and humanistic principles are in play. But there are a couple of hurdles to overcome with this view. One is that the only examples we have of large-scale secular, “religion-free” systems were the communist ones of the 20^th century, and those look quite bad in retrospect. A second is that today’s Western humanists/secularists grew up in a Judeo-Christian ethical system, and cannot easily divorce their humanist leanings from those offered by that system. In other words, such folks can certainly act morally, in their mind due to  following humanist principles. Perhaps. But it is also distinctly possible that they are acting with moral correctness because of the Judeo-Christian culture within which they were raised, even if they reject the ethic.

A third hurdle is that most of the proponents of eliminating religion are atheists, understandably enough. But they are also part of the camp that has elevated the individual to near deity-like status. Thus, secular associations are very likely to fall prey to that very cult of the individual, the dictates of which overwhelm loyalty to any shared group standards, thus undermining group cohesion and at higher levels, societal cohesion. Without self-restraint, group cohesion is impossible, humanist principles notwithstanding.

A fourth hurdle is moral relativism, a view related to the cult of the individual. Moral relativism says that nothing is fixed and each person must decide for himself what are moral actions and what are not, and that those often switch places whenever the person wants a different outcome. Such a person is obligated to no consistency, and he is the sole determinant of what is right for him, meaning he can never make a moral mistake---an upside-down “moral” view if there ever was one. The views of others, as would be the case within a religious group, matter not one bit. An island unto himself, in his mind he is accountable to no one.

A possible fifth hurdle is that secular associations, while often beneficial, usually lack one of the three critical aspects of religion. The three, as defined by Haidt, are belonging, doing and believing, and secular associations can do quite well on the first two but not well on the third. Is it possible that the transcendent meaning derived from one’s religious beliefs is a key ingredient for adherence to a self-limiting moral code?

So the biggest question of all---Is there something (or more than one thing) that religion possesses that enables it to offer for its members a solid sense of connection and proper moral behavior based in part on voluntary restrictions in behavior? As we all know, many religions in the past and some today are not exactly exemplars of quality moral behavior. Nonetheless, the question still stands.

Are we morally better off with religion and its flaws than without it?