|
Do unto others. For more information, contact: Gary Schouborg, PhD (925) 932-1982 |
Schouborg, Gary
(1994). "Dialogue:
A Mystic's Approach to Social Healing". Dialogue A Mystic's
Approach to Social Healing by Gary Schouborg In the
mid-90s, I participated for two years in Dialogue (D) groups inspired by
David Bohm, the renowned physicist. Over a 20-year period, he engaged in a
famous series of conversations with Krishnamurti, one of the century's
preeminent mystics and exponents of non-dual consciousness. I never attended
a D group where we were clear what we were doing. In every session, someone
complained that she had been to several and still did not know what D was. Or
someone observed that "we are not in D" and tried to get the group
back on track. I believe the reason for this confusion is that D is very
subtle (indeed, it is at the heart of all mystical traditions) and can take
many forms. The key
to understanding D is Bohm's statement that it is not just a suspended
attention to one's "thoughts," a term he uses generically to
include beliefs, images, memories, feelings, emotions, desires, intentions,
decisions, or any other conscious process. What is more fundamental, D
attends to the process behind thoughts so that deeper, collective meanings
can unfold. Similarly, for centuries individuals have employed Vipassana
or Insight Meditation (IM) to develop a suspended awareness of one's ordinary
conscious processes (functions of the ego or self) to allow a universal Self
to emerge. The unique and important contribution of D is that it extends
to groups what has been primarily an individual path toward enlightenment.
It is therefore helpful to first understand IM on its own terms before trying
to understand D as an application of it to groups. Furthermore, doing so
allows practitioners of D to learn from centuries of experience with IM. Insight Meditation Put
simply, IM is "just sitting": being alone and still, while allowing
any thoughts that emerge to just occur, without clinging to or being engaged
by them. (For convenience, I will use "thoughts" in Bohm's generic
sense.) Think of transmission gears in neutral----moving but not engaged, so
the car stays still. Similarly, while "just sitting," I allow any
thoughts to pass through my awareness without engaging them: without
inquiring about them, drawing conclusions, making decisions based upon them,
trying to put them out of my mind, or deliberately taking any other action,
mental or physical. Although
I engage in the process of meditation for a reason (instrumental goal),
I have no aim within the process itself (intrinsic goal): I do not
cling to anything in the process. What, then, is the instrumental goal of IM?
To develop a non-clinging, conscious relationship to my thoughts----a
relationship that I can eventually extend to ordinary activities. The aim
is not to withdraw from the ordinary world, though that may be
temporarily necessary until I become sufficiently skilled at getting out of
the way so this consciousness can emerge. The primary benefit is a joyful,
loving awareness of life in the moment, the deepest possible answer to the
question of the meaning of life. The secondary benefit is that such an awareness
makes me as productive and efficient as possible by pushing aside the
defensive clinging that unnecessarily clutters up my efforts to achieve my
goals. In
being intrinsically non-directed, IM is distinct from all intrinsically
goal-directed processes such as: stress reduction techniques, creative
fantasy, psychotherapy, mindfulness or other kinds of concentrative
meditation. IM
instrumentally reduces stress insofar as it reduces clinging, which is itself
stressful; however, it is distinct from the usual stress reduction
techniques, which are intrinsically goal-directed (e.g., chopping wood,
aerobics, guided fantasy). Chopping wood to reduce stress is a series of
actions intrinsically structured to produce chopped wood, but instrumentally
employed to reduce stress. Aerobics is intrinsically structured to exercise
the cardiovascular system, but instrumentally structured to reduce current
stress as well as to develop the cardiovascular system so it can respond
efficiently to future stress. Guided fantasy may be used for various
instrumental reasons, such as to reduce stress, facilitate creative thinking,
or explore psychodynamic causes of anxiety. Although relatively unstructured,
it nevertheless intrinsically aims to achieve specific goals. For example, I might
relax (instrumental goal) by directing my imagination to produce a vivid,
felt scene of me floating on a cloud (intrinsic goal). IM is
distinct from creative fantasy, which, though less structured than guided
fantasy, nevertheless intrinsically aims at some creative product. Although I
give my imagination very free rein, I nevertheless structure it according to
the product desired. For example, I might freely associate around a theme or
event in a short story that I am writing. IM, on the other hand, sets no
agenda whatever for what passes through consciousness. IM is
distinct from psychotherapy, which employs a variety of techniques with
vastly different degrees of intrinsic goal-directedness, from free
association to a tightly organized set of behaviors. Ultimately, however, any
psychotherapeutic process is intrinsically structured to ameliorate or
resolve some targeted problem. IM is
distinct from Mindfulness (M) and other kinds of concentrative meditations,
which control thoughts to achieve specific mental states. For example, I
might try to take on the viewpoint of someone I find particularly annoying,
so I can transform my hostility into compassion. Some meditation teachers use
the terms IM and M interchangeably. I am distinguishing them by using M to
refer to meditation that focuses on a particular object of consciousness.
Whether you call this sort of meditation M or use M and IM synonymously is
not crucial; what is important, however, is to distinguish two distinct
processes: M, a process of dual consciousness in which the self focuses on an
object of consciousness that it experiences as outside itself; and IM, a
process of non-dual consciousness that experiences objects within an
enveloping Self that has emerged through the non-clinging process of IM
itself. Although
IM and goal-directed processes are distinct, they can mutually support each
other. Goal-directed processes can facilitate IM insofar as they undermine
clinging in specific forms. Think of such processes as way stations along a
path that ultimately leads to the non-dual consciousness (ND) that emerges
through IM. I am in ND when I cling to nothing. Short of that, I am somewhere
along the path: desperately clinging to some things, strongly clinging to
others, weakly clinging to still others, and free of certain other
attachments. Along this continuum of clinging, goal-directed processes can
help me let go of specific attachments and thereby prepare the way for the
complete letting go that is ND. Stress reduction techniques can help me become
aware of habitual ways in which I tense my muscles to stop a natural flow of
energy throughout my body, and thereby allow me to relax the specific muscle
and perhaps even to stop the psychological clinging that is behind it.
Creative fantasy can provide an alternative to my ordinary thinking, opening
my world to less structure and thereby to possibilities of less clinging.
Psychotherapy can help resolve painful memories that I am clinging to, so I
can let go of them and move on. Concentrative meditations, which include the
prayers of various religious traditions, can produce a series of increasingly
subtle mental states that are proportionately easier and easier to let go of. IM, on
the other hand, can facilitate goal-directed processes. By letting go of
clinging in any of its forms, IM attacks the root cause of all stress. It
also undermines the defensive denial that inhibits: forging new paths in
creative daydreaming; remembering painful experiences, understanding them in
more constructive ways, or developing new behaviors in psychotherapy; or the
control that one seeks in concentrative meditation. IM as
well as any goal-directed process is only a means toward the goal of ND, a
non-clinging awareness that exists in every waking activity. Any of these
means can help move me toward ND, depending on circumstances. None is
necessary, however, because anyone can achieve ND in this instant
independently of any of them. The difference between a master and the rest of
us is the depth of ND and how long it lasts. For most of us, it is fleeting;
the press of ordinary reality easily triggers defensive clinging, which takes
us out of ND and into ordinary consciousness. The reason is that for most of
us the non-clinging state we experience is only the conscious tip of the
iceberg; beneath the surface is a world of clinging habits or dispositions of
thought that are ready to pounce at a moment's notice. Unlike us, the master
has rooted out a significant portion of that clinging underworld, either
through a lifetime of ruthless effort or, in rare instances, a sudden radical
transformation. That underworld can be an extremely complex mix of chronic
muscle tension, protective thinking processes, defensive beliefs and
attitudes, and conceptual confusion----which accounts for the variety of
methods, from shamanism to academic philosophy, that have been created before
and since the dawn of human history to cope with the human condition. None of
them would have lasted to this day if it did not work to some extent under
certain conditions. The task for each individual is to discover what works
for her----and when. Another
way to think of ND is as a ship that can weather any storm. Sailing in a ship
that is foundering (living a life dominated by clinging), I rebuild it to
weather any storm (to achieve ND). Many people in that situation will
continue foundering, unaware that they are not really getting anywhere
(grasping only part of their situation, they take it for the whole of
reality). A few will recognize that they are foundering (are unenlightened)
and will want to rebuild (to achieve ND). Few of them will be able to rebuild
while at sea (achieve ND while involved in the marketplace of ordinary
activities); most will have to take it into dry-dock (withdraw temporarily
from the marketplace). Some will become so enamored with rebuilding the ship
that they will never return to sea (permanent withdrawal); they may even so
forget their original purpose that they consider dry-dock to be inherently
superior to the sea (the cave or monastery as a higher calling than the
marketplace). Others will return to sea too soon and sink (forget the
possibility of a non-clinging presence); or maybe just founder and have to
return to dry-dock (surprised by the clinging they thought they had overcome,
they withdraw to strengthen their skills). A very, very few will completely
rebuild the ship in dry-dock and then sail successfully to sea, able to
weather any storm (remain non-clinging no matter what the provocation). A few
will return to sea gradually. They will take the rebuilt ship through a
series of tests in increasingly larger and more challenging waters (take on
increasing responsibilities), until they are ready for the open sea (full
involvement in the marketplace). Dialogue: Extending Insight Meditation into Groups We can
take everything said previously in the context of individual mental processes
and straightforwardly apply it to D by restating it in a group context. Whereas
IM is "just sitting," D is "just
talking"----communicating orally in a group without intrinsically aiming
to solve some problem, to obtain consensus, to be entertaining, to be
intellectually stimulating, or to pursue any other task people usually engage
in when they get together. D's equivalent to my letting go is my refusal to
persuade others that my opinion is true, and my willingness to examine my
assumptions and to attend to the process behind my thoughts. Like IM, D in
its purest form has only an instrumental goal, an awareness of Self that
envelops the group. Like IM, D's objective has the primary benefit of being
gratifying and meaningful in itself; however, as a group process D has a
secondary benefit of social healing. Like IM, D's goal is radical but can be
attained in degrees. Like IM, D allows of a huge variety of methods that help
different individuals achieve different degrees of D under different
conditions. Just as
IM is distinct from goal-directed processes like stress reduction techniques,
creative fantasy, psychotherapy, M or other kinds of concentrative
meditation; D is distinct from goal-directed group processes such as bonding,
group brainstorming, group therapy, or group ritual. Bonding
is an instrumental outcome but not the intrinsic aim of D, which allows
feelings of harmony or of conflict to arise as they may. D is after bigger
game: an awareness of Self that envelops both the group and the collective
meanings that participant selves share. (To my knowledge, "collective
meanings" has never been adequately explained. I take it to mean that
participants come to know and accept----but not necessarily agree
with----assumptions held by other group members.) I must not try for
agreement; indeed, I must be particularly wary of it, because it easily
seduces me into using the opinions of others so I can support and cling to my
assumptions rather than suspend and examine them. I must not try to resolve
conflict, but allow my feelings of conflict to act as a goad to identify my assumptions and especially to awaken to
the process of forming them. Examining
my assumptions does not necessarily mean abandoning them. D's intrinsic goal
is not to discover the truth, but to become aware of what my thought
processes are and, particularly, the process that is behind them. D allows me
to take responsibility for what I believe or feel. If I am angered by someone
who speaks dogmatically, I can pay enough attention to myself to see that the
person's dogmatism is my perception and that my anger is my response
to the individual's (perceived) dogmatism, not that her (perceived) dogmatism
made me angry. This path of greater self-awareness makes me freer than
I would otherwise be to repeat my angry response or revise it in similar
situations; in short, it can make voluntary what was otherwise involuntary. D is
also distinct from brainstorming, although new ways of thinking are a
possible instrumental outcome. Although brainstorming can be very
unstructured, it is still intrinsically structured to address the issue being
brainstormed. D, on the other hand, has no agenda, no topic to be discussed. Similarly,
D is distinct from group therapy, which employs methods that vary from
extremely unstructured to extremely structured. In every case, however, the
process intrinsically serves some therapeutic goal. By its radical, intrinsic
non-directedness, D does not. Finally,
D is distinct from group ritual (secular or religious), which intrinsically
aims for group cohesion. Again, because of its radical, intrinsic non-directedness,
D does not. Like
IM, D and intrinsic goal-directed processes can mutually support each other.
Goal-directed processes can facilitate D insofar as they promote an awareness
of my assumptions. Bonding may require me to accommodate the thinking of others.
Brainstorming may promote new thinking. Group therapy may reveal unconscious
assumptions and challenge conscious ones. Group ritual may promote certain
behaviors and thoughts that facilitate a non-clinging awareness of my
thinking; its group nature may also require me to accommodate the thinking of
others. D, on
the other hand, can facilitate goal-directed processes insofar as a
non-clinging awareness of my thoughts and the process behind them allow
thoughts and behaviors to occur that defensive clinging would otherwise
inhibit. By becoming aware of my assumptions, I can change those that prevent
bonding. I can also let go of those assumptions that narrow my thinking and
reduce the effectiveness of brainstorming. Similarly, in group therapy I can
move on from assumptions that made sense earlier in my life, but which are
now non-productive. Finally, I can discern which rituals facilitate awareness
and which inhibit it. Like
IM, D has guidelines about what practices tend to work. Some examples that I
have heard in D groups, offered sometimes as suggestions and sometimes as
rigid rules, are: Express yourself in I-statements (e.g., instead of saying,
"Men are pigs," try saying, "I have this really deep
conviction that men are pigs"). If you wish to speak, leave a few moments of silence after the
person currently speaking finishes. If you tend to talk a lot, give others a chance to speak. Speak from your heart. Listen from your heart. Don't agree or disagree with others. Just speak your own truth
in your own way. I have
never been in a group where the D police did not show up: participants who
were concerned that what was going on was not really D. I have played that
role myself. Some participants are grateful that someone has had the courage
to speak up and get the group back on track; others object that there is no
room for D police, since whatever is going on is D. They point to the fact
that someone can use I-statements disingenuously while dogmatically clinging
to their belief, or speak dogmatically while really being open to another's
point of view, or react defensively at the moment but later consider the
issue fairly, when they have collected themselves (interesting expression, isn't
it; makes me think of "Self-remembering" used further on). Here,
again, there is a clear parallel with IM. Sitting in the full lotus position
my whole life will not by itself assure me of ND, and assuming a different
position will not by itself keep me from it. Effective guides will have a
rich toolkit of suggestions that I can try; but ultimately I alone must
travel my unique path, and must therefore be the final judge of what works
for me and what does not. Similarly, there is no royal road to D, nor any
guaranteed blind alley. Guidelines like those bulleted above can be helpful,
but ultimately each D group must find its own way. I must
take care not to let the parallels between IM and D mislead me into thinking
of a D group as simply a room of individuals each doing IM. Participants are
affected by one another's attitudes and behaviors. That truth is probably
behind the question about whether the group is in D; participants assume that
they are benefited if it is and harmed if it is not. However, I must clearly
understand the nature of that mutual influence. Rather than ask whether the
group is in D, it is usually better to ask if I am. After all, that is the
question I must constantly ask myself if I am to participate authentically in
D, since I can be in D even if no one else in the group is. That is, even if
everyone else is dogmatically clinging to her assumptions, I can examine mine
without clinging to them. Others cannot take me out of D; I can only respond
to their not being in D by taking myself out of it. That is, if everyone else
is defensive, I may become defensive in turn; but that is my response----they
did not make me defensive. That having been said, it remains
importantly true that by being in D others can help me get into or maintain
it. They can model it for me and their energy can inspire and feed my
efforts. Like
IM, D's instrumental goal may be just the tip of an iceberg. A vast complex
of thoughts usually lies beneath the surface for each participant.
Consequently, involvement in D can take many forms that appear to be
incompatible with one another and with D itself, but that may be working for
a particular individual. D can itself open me to seeing that there are many
valid paths other than my own. But as the group continues in D and the skills
of the participants grow, the group should increasingly feel in D together.
However, this group development does not last forever, since D is only meant
to be transitional. Bohm warns against institutionalizing D by making any
group permanent. In terms of ship rebuilding, D is only dry-dock, a
relatively protected environment in which to begin communicating in a
non-clinging way. Eventually, I should move on not only by starting other
groups as Bohm suggests (start other dry-docks with new rebuilders); I
should, according to the inner logic of D itself, begin to communicate in
increasingly challenging situations in the marketplace (test my ship's
seaworthiness in increasingly larger and more challenging waters). This is
possible because others do not have to be in D for me to engage them in open,
non-clinging communication; on the contrary, their defensiveness can be an
excellent goad for me to acknowledge my own assumptions. Hopefully, by being
open myself, I can encourage them to be open as well. We never have to call
ourselves a D group for improved communication to grow. Rabbit Trails I can
clearly grasp the nature of IM and D only from the perspective of the
non-directed awareness that is their instrumental goal. The less experienced
and adept I am in them----that is, the less clearly I experience non-clinging
awareness----the likelier I am to mistakenly take paths that will
unnecessarily delay or prevent my progress. Some rabbit trails are:
misunderstanding non-clinging, misunderstanding pain, misunderstanding the
universal Self, an all or nothing mentality, and misunderstanding rabbit
trails themselves. Misunderstanding
non-clinging.
The instrumental goal of IM is to develop a non-clinging awareness that
can exist even during ordinary activities. The object is not to
withdraw from the ordinary world, though that may be temporarily necessary
until one becomes sufficiently acquainted with one's conscious processes. The
false impression that withdrawal is the ultimate goal of meditation or the
ultimate result of enlightenment has two sources. First, practitioners can
easily confuse non-clinging with defensive aversion. The latter,
however, is only a negative version of clinging: to avoid clinging, I push
away or withdraw from the object that I am clinging to. Either way, I disrupt
the natural flow of conscious processes. Second, the usual English
translations of enlightenment have misleading connotations that support that
confusion. The state of "no-desire" suggests a non-caring, unemotional,
non-involved passivity. So does "detachment,"
"non-engagement," or (less so) "suspended awareness."
Non-clinging, however, is true involvement, in which I allow conscious
processes (including setting goals and pursuing them) to run their
course. The reason this is difficult to do is that no process is permanent,
as I discover in IM. Clinging tries to maintain a desirable or satisfying
experience, whereas defensive aversion inhibits another experience from
supplanting it or wards off an anticipated unpleasant experience. Either
strategy is disruptive of natural process flow. Activists
who misinterpret ND as withdrawal from the ordinary world will not even begin
IM or D. They need to understand two things. First, it is possible, though
still rare, for non-clinging consciousness to be maintained in ordinary
activities----in other words, non-clinging awareness is in principle
compatible with activism. Second, short of that ideal, some Self-awareness,
even if it requires temporary withdrawals from the ordinary world, is
necessary to distinguish true involvement (non-clinging awareness that I have
freely chosen) from hypnotic involvement (a highly focused awareness of an
object in which self-awareness is lost) and from obsessive involvement
(fanaticism, in which I am possessed by what I am involved with). History
shows that obsessively involved, unenlightened activists often cause more
harm than good. Hitler and his minions were activists. Those
who insufficiently understand ND may be seduced into stopping at way stations
such as (for IM) relaxation exercises, creative fantasizing, psychotherapy, M
or other concentrative meditations; or (for D) support groups, brainstorming,
group therapy, or group ritual. As already indicated, any of these processes
can facilitate letting go. But if I do not clearly understand the radical
nature of letting go, I can mistake any of them for the goal rather than the
way stations they really are. On the other hand, if I have a deep and clear
understanding of the goal I can remain committed to it through the most
intense periods of confusion and suffering, understanding that these are
inevitable obstacles along the path and are not to be taken seriously. Misunderstanding
pain. A common
misunderstanding is that if I can rid myself of all clinging I will rid
myself of all pain. Alas, this is untrue. Yes, I can escape much pain that I
now unnecessarily cause myself by overestimating the importance of things to
my happiness. Nevertheless, non-clinging is not a desensitization that is
unmoved by stepping on glass or having my leg blown off by a mine; nor is it
unmoved by the suffering of others, whether unnecessarily self-inflicted or
not. As true involvement, non-clinging leaves me open to any pain that
occurs, but it simultaneously opens me to healing resources that my clinging
would otherwise inhibit. Misunderstanding
universal Self.
Although "universal Self" sounds exotic, the experience to which it
refers is profoundly ordinary. Yes, it is different from the ordinary
awareness that I usually experience while conducting my everyday affairs. And
because it is not an experience that we all have ready access to, it is
difficult to describe. Nevertheless, masters from every tradition assure us
that it is an awareness found in the most ordinary events of life. It is an
experience of mySelf that is universal in that other beings are enveloped
within it----unlike the ordinary experience of myself in everyday life, in
which I experience others as separate from me. As I write this passage in ND,
I can intellectually distinguish among my typing fingers, the computer
screen, the prospective reader, and me the writer. However, I do not
experience them as separate, as being at arm's length from one another; I
experience all of them as enveloped within, and in that regard
indistinguishable from, mySelf. Failure
to understand universal Self will mislead me into confusing the emergence of
Self with self-development. The latter involves the development of skills
which enable me to cope with and enjoy ordinary reality. That enjoyment,
however, is never completely satisfying, because the reality is ever changing
and the self constantly thirsts for more. In contrast, the emergence of Self
is a Self-awareness that is absolutely satisfying, which is why the image of
returning home is so often used to describe it. In self-development, letting
go is a grief and replacement process in which I first deny and struggle
against some loss, then decide to accept the loss and make up for it with
something new (hopefully, better). For the emerging Self, on the other hand,
letting go is an awareness (an experience, not a belief) of a need that
cannot be satisfied by ordinary, changing, conditioned reality----a need that
is both recognized and met only in Self-awareness itself. As the Self
emerges, clinging proportionately decreases----not because I decide to let go
but because I increasingly see a preferable alternative, one which
paradoxically is attained only if not clung to. This is not an alternative to
ordinary reality, but an alternative to clinging; it is a different way of
being in this world, not an abandonment of it. All
or nothing mentality. Americans, especially, like to hit the home run. Although there
are occasional dramatic steps forward, non-clinging usually begins and
proceeds in small steps. I may see this as a dreary series of bunts, become
faint-hearted, and give up the journey. I need to understand that achieving
the permanent ND of the master is not the only kind of home run. The
opportunity for enlightenment, for hitting a home run, is now! I can
stop clinging this very moment. True, I may relapse the very next second; but
is that any reason to opt for anything less than liberation right now, when
it is available? I should remember that I am unaware of most of my clinging
and that the first step to awakening is becoming aware of my plight.
Therefore, my very discouragement is the harbinger of awakening, since it is
the very awareness of the depth and constancy of my clinging. In that
awareness is the possibility to wake up and let go----to hit a home run right
now! Most of the time I dont have that choice, because I am not aware that I
am not aware. With
the proper guidance, anyone can achieve this radical non-clinging awareness
in this instant. The problem is that she usually cannot maintain it. It is
not so much that the enlightened master is experiencing something entirely
different from the rest of us. It is that she experiences (strictly,
non-clinging is not something that she does) such non-clinging over
time, in situations that are extraordinarily stimulating or frightening. The
novice, on the other hand, can experience very temporary glimpses of
non-clinging awareness, but usually in relatively safe and low-key situations
(like typing this article) where any danger is not so great as to cause
defensive aversion (negative clinging) or where pleasure is not so great as
to cause a clinging possessiveness. There are those rare experiences when joy
or danger is so great or of such a nature (for example, near-death
experiences), that individuals have experienced an extraordinary,
non-clinging awareness. But these, again, usually do not last, even when they
have lasting effects, like a change in one's priorities (for example, realizing
that one's family is more important than one's career; or, in the case of
some creative geniuses, that one's gift is more important than one's family).
In this light, the path to ND is not so much going from ordinary conscious to
some extraordinary awareness as it is going from brief glimpses of
non-clinging consciousness to the same state extended over time and
maintained in the face of stronger and stronger stimulation from the outside
world. I traverse such a path by letting go often and in different situations,
so that what was important to me is now less so in light of the perspective
achieved by previously letting go, and by building both physical and mental
habits that support that process. Misunderstanding
rabbit trails themselves. If I have mistakenly taken a literal rabbit trail, I must
laboriously reverse my steps until I get back on the right path. If, on the
other hand, I am on a metaphorical rabbit trail on my way to ND, all I must
do to get back on track is recognize the fact (hit a home run). Understanding
this allows me to avoid a lot of self-recrimination and anguish over wasted
effort. After all, the wasted effort is now past and no longer exists.
I could not recognize that I am on a rabbit trail unless I simultaneously
experience ND, however dimly, because it is necessary for me to recognize
that I am off track in the first place. Recognizing a rabbit trail is
therefore an experience of Self-remembering, a cause for celebration like the
return of the prodigal son, not a time for self-recrimination (another rabbit
trail). The Future of Dialogue As a movement,
the future of D is absolutely predictable. It follows the basic law of the
universe, entropy: all processes wind down. Every human movement in history
begins with a creative impulse followed by a deteriorating process like the
slowly fading ripples on a pond. First there is the initial impulse from
within some creative genius, which disciples in turn understand to varying
degrees. In their attempt to assure themselves that they understand the
"true message" and are following the "right path," they
develop formulations (much like this article) as guides. Some find the guides
helpful in supporting this creative impulse within themselves. Others are not
sure they properly understand the guides, so they formulate guides for the
guides. This process continues until the guides are helpful to no one,
because they have created an impenetrable jungle of verbiage standing between
the seeker and the original creative impulse. In some cases, guides are
turned into rigid formulas for behavior. Untouched by any creative impulse
from within, the rule-dominated individual hopes to achieve true discipleship
or authenticity by imitating the behavior of the movement's founder and
leaders. But is
entropy the final word? I do not believe so, but the antidote is neither
renewal nor a new movement. Renewal of the current movement is an illusory
solution. For the creative impulse behind it will be subject to the same law
of entropy. Disciples will have to know if the creative impulse is orthodox
or heretical, and answers will involve formulating guides to distinguish one
from the other, with the ensuing process being simply a variation on the
theme just outlined. A new movement only repeats the process----though
repeated cycles of creative impulse and deterioration are better than just
one instance. The
reason why repeated cycles are desirable is found in the creative impulse
itself. Repeated enough times, creative impulses may reach a critical mass
and begin to feed on one another. This is not a movement, where I measure
my authenticity against the founder's creative impulse. In this non-movement,
my standard is within my own creativity. Insofar as you and I have access to
our own creativity, we can be open to and feed upon each other's to create a
synergy that will be greater and more satisfying than the awareness that
either of us could achieve alone. Neither of us is disciple of the other,
because each of us has his or her own standard of authenticity, of enlightened
awareness. Yet here we learn from each other more deeply than a disciple
learns from the master, because we process what we learn not through our
normal, relatively external self-awareness, but through our creative
Self-awareness. By taking us beyond IM, D opens us to the possibility of such
synergy. Although
deteriorating movements are already being spawned from Bohm's words, D is not
essentially a movement, as is clear from Bohm's admonition against
institutionalizing groups. D is an invitation to creators to convene and
create a synergy that will carry them to who knows where. There is no
guarantee that such a synergy will emerge, but creators leave guarantees to
movements. Instead, they follow their own inner guide, a process which D
attempts to facilitate. |
