[What is capitalism? It is not about corporations or about stocks and bonds. While these are certainly outgrowths of it, the essence of it is this: the ability to freely associate for mutual benefit. It is about freedom, self-direction, and personal responsibility. It is not about Enron’s and the Tyco’s. Fraud does not figure into the model. That is why we have civil courts. Fraud fits nicely into them eventually, while (hopefully) integrity sits in the jury box…]

For centuries (millennia really) there have been two endlessly warring factions in society; the Spiritualists and the Materialists. On one side, we have the Spiritualists (whether they claimed God was their higher power, or the State), who have in their various forms and systems, proclaimed material wealth to be “evil” and basically detrimental to the soul.

Opposing them (or trying to ignore them), we have materialists (who may be entrepreneurs, small business owners, independent contractors, or corporate executives) attempting to assert their right to prosperity and a rise in the standard of living for all. Never before had their armor clanged more loudly than in the 1980’s and early 1990’s in the West. Quite frequently, this has shown up as the community vs. the individual; the We against the I. There is no need for this. The We must include the I, otherwise it is a We with significant pathology and illness. A We that cannot last and will be self-defeating unless it embraces and encourages the I.

The problem with this conflict is globally and stunningly evident. People ascribing themselves to most (if not all) spiritual belief systems have to generally ignore the natural human desire to excel in the material world; to evolve to the next highest material level; to achieve. This created, and is continuing to create, an internal conflict within these individuals, robbing them of internal harmony and peace. This is an obvious problem with repercussions ranging violent internal and personal (as well as external and eventually military) conflict.

Individuals exercising rights afforded them in a free-market economy, and their inherent desires, find themselves having to ignore the culturally taught evil-branding of what they are achieving. Or worse, operating at a level which is spiritually dead. The latter is a behavior that has produced such results as the dis-integration of Man and Nature, costing the world its environmental harmony and creating concerns over the stability of the eco-system for future generations. This should be of grave concern for both sides.

*The Integrative Consciousness*

Who is right? Both. And, neither. An integration is necessary to avoid further polarization, societal tensions, and environmental destruction. [more on this in a forthcoming piece on the topic of power and responsibility].

Where this breaks down (and can be integrated in a more whole-sum way) is by taking in the historical contexts that most of the spiritual texts were written in. Most of the spiritual texts we read today were written by people in slavery/bondage/or the inescapable class [or caste] systems. If not written by them, then for them to liberate their minds and spirits when little else could. There is nothing wrong with this. It served a beautiful and clear purpose and was in fact perhaps necessary at the time. 2000 years ago and more it was not possible to generate wealth the way it is today. You could not as easily generate wealth nor with integrity in most areas. You generated wealth by robbing the people or the land, not by innovation or offering services. You made money by levy, taxation, graft, by using slave labor, and by being born onto the right family. While some of these dynamics have not been completely evolved beyond, what is clear is that something new has emerged in the last 200 to 300 years: free enterprise.

While I am certainly not going to echo the “greed is good” speech of Michael Douglas’ character in Wall Street, I will say that the basic human desire to achieve, to better one’s self, and to live comfortably is certainly good. The desire to be compensated with value for value given is not greed: it is justice and balance, which are both “good”. I say they are good because the results they produce are “good”. In my world, anything that uplifts, increases the value of or in, assist or helps is “good”. Anything that infringes on the rights of others, damages property, life, inhibits freedoms, is “bad”. It is a delicate balance to walk, as anytime you limit the freedoms of others, is could be to defend the rights of still others, but there I go digressing again…

It is now possible for anyone of competence and vision to create wealth with integrity–at least in this Country. This…is good. You can live entirely within your own sense of spirituality AND generate wealth and prosperity for yourself and those around you.

The fact is, people possessing enlightened self-interest (which is where you realize that not only do you need to act in your own best interest, but immediately following that, the best interests of those around you–including your community at large) can embrace capitalism and be even more spiritually rich that they possibly could be otherwise. We can acquire wealth by simultaneously being a channel for spirit, or living Christ-like, or possessing the Buddha mind (whichever metaphor you prefer), thereby avoiding the internal and external conflicts I spoke to before.

How does one do this? There are four aspects that are necessary for this to occur.

First, live your life by choice. What this means it to live your life consciously and to choose. Question everything. Why do I want this car? Why do I want to buy this house? Is this necessary? Does it bring me joy? Why? Why do I want that suit of clothes, that man/woman? That job? Why do I eat the foods I do? Do they bring me what they are supposed to? What do I value and why? Am I living consciously, or out of habit and cult-ural training? Often in this first phase, the clearing of negatively charged emotions that block your intuition and color or skew your perceptions is often necessary.

Second, discover your mission or purpose. Why are you here? What can you contribute? What can you offer of value that is unique and uniquely you? Perhaps you have been called by spirit. Perhaps your inherent gift are clear and obvious and you feel no “spirit” is necessary but you have a vision of a better way/life/world/community. You want that vision to come to life–and it can.

Third, access your creativity. Your intuition. Your inspiration. Let your larger Self come out and play—freely and intentionally.

And last, access or acquire an entrepreneurial spirit. That is to say, using the previous 3 stages, and adding to it the possibilities of a free market, how can what you have to offer be of value to others? And hence, find those who would value it and market your services to them with integrity.

It is time for the dawn of a new era. A new epoch. It is time for those with access to spirit to realize the freedom they have, the necessity of their contributions, and to act with integrity and in accordance with that. I pray that new day has already dawned. Let’s awaken to it together.

“We’re one, but we are not the same.”—Bono, U2

Once I was in a train station waiting for a train with a friend. He pointed to a steel and cement column and said, “at the sub-atomic level, this column is mostly air. So are you. So am I…”. And he went on to state we were the same as the column—no difference—and no different from one another. He went on to imply that there was, therefore, no meaning to anything. I stretched my arm out, made a fist, and pushed my fist at the column until it stopped with a thud. I looked at him and I said, “that may be so, AND at the same time, the world we move through is not the sub-atomic world”.

Often we are addressed with reminders, assertions, and at times even pleas, that we are “all one”. We are all human. We are all the same at some level. We all bleed red. At the sub-atomic level, we are all made up of the same stuff. In fact, at the sub-atomic level, at least at our current level of knowledge [see String Theory for an interesting hypothesis about how we may be very different from one another indeed], not only are we all “the same” as beings, we are the same as a rock, dirt, plant life, our dog, the wall, etc.

Eastern Spiritual traditions remind us that at the ultimate level, it is all vibrations, all wavelets. “Validated” by science, at the “ultimate” level, we are all the same—“just” sub-atomic particles.

And yet, anyone with eyes, ears, a tactile sense, and a mind can tell we are all very, very different. I challenge anyone who says that the ultimate level is the only important level (“we are all one”) to Zen his or her way through me the next time we meet.

The problem with this is that most people cannot seem to contain both I.D.E.A.s intellectually, experientially, or spiritually, so then end up ignoring one or the other, or collapsing the informational and the practical. Does our having the same sub-atomic structures mean we are all the same?

Are you “the same” as a murderer? A rapist? A child molester? A terrorist? A priest? A politician? A man? A woman? A tribal leader? A shaman? A grocery clerk? A Fortune 500 CEO? Are you and I “the same” as Mozart, Bill Gates, Socrates, Thomas Jefferson, or Ayn Rand? Of course not.

And, yes.

We have differing sets of skills, intelligence, symmetry, size, shape, and color. And yet…to paraphrase Ken Wilber, “while we are all perfect manifestations of the divine—of Spirit—yet how we demonstrate that is bound by our current level of development; we are limited to our current depth”. Spiritual reductionism [we are all one and we are all perfect and we are all love] is usually accompanied by moral relativism. No act is inherently better than any other act. No world-view is more true than any other—and they are arbitrary.

I disagree.

Setting aside the performative contradiction (if no world-views are any more true than the other, then neither is that world-view—and thus it is false), compassion is better than anger because it possesses greater depth. Love is better than hate for the same reason. Grace is better than vengeance for the same reason—it requires an awareness of greater depth to exercise those choices, therefore, it is better.

Liberty is better than tyranny. Free Enterprise is better that centrally planned economies. In both cases they produce better results. Measurably better. Different beings possess different levels of awareness; different depths that that can reflect back by the development of their own depth. In this, we are very different indeed.

Is there utility in thinking we are all one—all the same? Perhaps. It can assist us in bridging potentially explosive differences in a world where differences in ideology can kill and maim. At the same time, in a world where ideologies can kill and maim, we had better keep the differences in mind as well.

In all things, be discerning, but not judgmental. Keep your mind open—but keep it working. Never allow someone to demand you turn off your common sense for their imagined utopia.

We, as a people, seem to love classifications. As humans, it is what we do best: identification. It separates us from primates. We can identify and classify things into systems, genres, classes, subclasses, and so on. This is a great skill; a skill that could even save your life some day as you classify “dangerous, not dangerous – deadly, not deadly”. The ability to identify (what is it?) and then extrapolate accurately (what does it mean?) is indeed a critical skill. A skill no less critical even as we get more and more civilized. In fact, it could be argued that the dangers get ever more complex and demanding of this skill the more complex our society becomes and the more knowledgeable we become.

When this gets interesting is when we apply and over apply this skill to other human beings where physical safety is clearly not a concern. We have all sorts of categorizations and systems of classification. We have race, sexual preferences and orientation, political party affiliation, zodiac sign, political orientation or leaning, class separation, high school cliques, enneagram number, etc., etc. These are all tools we use to classify, to categorize, and to put people into some box or drawer. At first, it may seem like we use these tools to gain a better understanding of who they are, really. Is that how we typically use them, in actuality?

The way I have seen myself and others use them is as I described above. We put them into a box. We now think we “know” them, or at least that portion of them. They are a democrat or a republican and all of a sudden, we now “know them” politically. They are a 3 on the enneagram, and all of a sudden we “know” what to expect of their behaviors; their light and beautiful side and their darker patterns. We put them into a box and we can then relax, or tense, or whatever, but some part of us relaxes. We know them; we can now relax and move on to putting another part of them into a box. Are they heterosexual or homosexual? Ah, they are bi-sexual. We can now relax (or tense [laugh]) because we now “know” who they are sexually. But do we? (It is fascinating to see someone feed their ego when they think they have “nailed” someone’s zodiac sign or enneagram number by guessing at it; excited about putting someone in a box.)

Once we put someone into a box, we then stop relating to who they are as a unique and beautiful being — we begin to relate to the box. We begin to fit all of their behaviors into that box or view their behaviors through the filter of said box. Sure, we are more comfortable ourselves once we have classified them, but the real relating begins to die a slow (or rapid) death. We now stop relating to who they are in this moment, right now, and begin to relate to what we read about them in a book, or what we see about their “type” on TV, Etc. Then what began as a tool for greater understanding and deeper relating has ended up as a wall or a barrier to greater and truer understanding – a barrier to more intimate relating; a wall around the heart. A wall and a filter we are often not even aware of.

And what are human Beings anyway? They are manifestations of the divine. Can we really classify that? Human Beings at their best and most inspirational are creative, spontaneous, dances of improvisation, which is completely unpredictable, and if we get too caught up in who we think they are, we may miss a glimpse of god as it dances right before us, right within our grasp.

While these tools for classification are useful to a certain point, they are only useful to a certain point, where if we want true relating, true intimacy, they must then be cast aside. If we truly desire peace on this planet, it will take something like this, from all sides, from all perspectives, from all lands.

From the heart, guided by the head, enveloped in Spirit,

*sigh*

So the campaign/election is finally over. From what I am hearing, one or more of several possibilities happened or are in process:

1. The Republicans “duped” America into giving away all of their civil liberties
2. The majority of Americans are stupid or misinformed
3. A mass exodus to points more “reasonable” such as Canada, France, or Costa Rica
4. America gave up its healthcare, fiscal responsibility, affordable education, etc to a fear based fantasy about evil terrorists

While I feel the pain of the “left” after a hard fought campaign, I think these views lack perspective [both historical and in terms of values], and responsibility. I can say this objectively because I am neither of the left or the right. I am, in fact, of the lower right quadrant. (And if you feel the one dimensional “left/right” political spectrum does not suit you, go to:
http://politicalcompass.org and take the 4 quadrant test yourself.)

Anyway, the inherent arrogance in the above mentioned views stuns me.

America was not duped, is not stupid, and is not operating out of fear. At least not en masse.

Additionally, America is not now “doomed” because one party or the other will be in power for another 4 years. We have survived a peaceful transition of power every 4 or 8 years [with the exception of the FDR administration] for 225 years now. Stand back and notice just how amazing that is. America is not doomed and can not be doomed by so little.

America did make a choice–and it made it decisively. America chose one collection of values over another. America chose certain priorities over others. Whether I share those priorities or not is another matter, but simply because the majority of the Country does not share my values does not mean they are stupid or have been duped by the Evil Karl Rove or some clever marketing campaign.

It means they have different priorities and value sets than I/Us. That is a cold hard reality, and it is reality. I look forward to a day when individuals can concede to the “winner” and understand the underpinnings of the constitutional republic we live in and bear “defeat” graciously and honorably.

It saddens me to hear of “battles” and “war” and “taking back America” as if America only belongs to the Left. America belongs to us all. And while I may think that the Country and the Electorate is often crazy, I wake up every day grateful I am who I am in the Country I am. One of the last bastions of Individual freedoms, individual sovereignty, and the belief the the government is only allowed to exist by the consent of the governed. A Country where we are free to create the prosperity we desire should we choose. A Country where we can express ourselves artistically without being gunned down and stabbed (as was just done in Amsterdam to a film director). A Country where we have so much abundance the question is not will someone be able to eat, but where. A Country of the future and a leader in the world.

I still do not know of anyone saying “if I could only get to Poland I could make a life for my family”.

God bless America and god bless the President of the United States. I sure as hell would not want that job in these difficult times, regardless of my party affiliation or how much I would stand to profit. Whoever he is, he needs our support (and our critiques) for the good of our common future that binds us all as Americans.

Someone once asked me: “Do we ever really fall in love with another person, or are we falling in love with the idea we have of that person. In essence, are we then not just narcissistically falling in love with ourselves?”

Some Baghwan or another said, “it is more accurate to say, ‘I experience love when I am with you’, than to say, ‘I love you’”.

What they both bring up is interesting, and I think it is accurate. Accurate, but partial.

It presupposes love is always rooted in the pre-rational level of development in s/he who is seeking or finding love. For it is in the pre-rational that narcissism is rooted and fixed. The need to have ourselves reflected back–approval from external sources given—is narcissistic. A need to be admired. Liked by Other. At all costs.

There is also a great deal of evidence in developmental psychology today that “love at first sight” is often the result of similar childhoods–parental histories specifically–somehow recognized at the unconscious level. Recognized and drawn to. A frightening thought as we look at most romantic archetypes and culturally trained patterns.

How many times have you seen people shape their behaviors so they can be loved [validated] by another? How many times have you done it? How many times have you subtly or not so subtly engaged in a dynamic intended to have them alter their behavior to fit your notion of how the love “should” look.

Unfortunately, as a culture, be it in our poetry, in the love stories, in romantic film, or in pop music, it is only the “I would die for you, I cannot live without you, I am nothing without you” [all pre-rational] that gets all the play, limelight, airtime, etc.

True (rational And beyond) esteem for the self is rooted in the rational. Self-esteem defined as the knowledge that we are fundamentally competent to handle whatever life throws at us and that we are appropriate to life, or that we deserve to be happy. There is a very real sense in which the depth of love you can give to another is limited [only] by the love you have for your Self.

At the rational level love often follows from finding people who embody your ideals. They may embody them more than you even. Is this narcissistic—which is loving your own reflection back with moral valence of “I am therefore good/bad; right/wrong”? I do not think so. I think this is gravitating toward that which you feel is worth emulating; that which you have determined produces worthwhile results in the world. Truly rational.

And the trans-rational and transcendent, where compassion, love of all sentient beings, and unconditional love begin to emerge. This does not mean the love of all behaviors of those sentient beings, but the ability to look beyond behaviors–to not confuse identity and behaviors, as they are different logical levels–and to love the being still. Love the being in the face of uninspiring–and perhaps even heinous–behaviors.

Of course, the challenge for us all is that as we develop through this spiraling ascent (or deepening of the Self, if you prefer) we can only understand the level of development we are at and below. At best, we can understand that which we have experienced. We may have experienced it for but a moment, giving us some inkling of the next level, or deepening. But that peak experience is required, in the least, to perceive it.

Perception often, truly is projection. We can only reflect the depth we have achieved and we can only reflect back the depth to which we can see. It is in this knowledge that we must look on others with fresh eyes, peering into their depths, knowing we may not be able to see all that they are…yet.