Waving or Drowning?

Osama bin Laden and Moral Standards

Source: The Guardian

This is one of those posts. The kind you don't want to write, but you know you must. It's like an itch on your brain, and the only way to get relief is to write.

This one has a long history, from September 2001, to May 2011, to just the past couple of weeks. During the New Year break, while my city was quiet and most of my friends were out of town, I blitzed my way through Season 1 of The Newsroom. It's very powerful, and the writing is incredible. There wasn't a bad episode in the bunch, and a couple of them knocked me off my feet.

Episode 7, simply titled 5/1, was the most impactful of the season. It detailed the events of the evening the killing of Osama bin Laden was announced to the world. In the show there are two primary settings. First is the newsroom, where Will, Charlie and Mackenzie are trying to confirm what they increasingly suspect is the reason for the imminent announcement from President Barack Obama. The second is the inside of an aircraft, where Don, Sloan, Elliot, and all the other passengers are stuck on the tarmac at LaGuardia, waiting for a gate.

The writing is powerful and subdued, and Aaron Sorkin covers the necessary symbolic bases subtly and respectfully. There's the aircraft setting. A young woman who lost her father when the towers collapsed is, because of circumstances, in the newsroom, as are two NYPD officers. One of the production crew puts on an NYFD ball cap as the announcement is finally made. It was all poignant and powerful, and I was moved as I watched.

And yet. There was an underlying current that deeply troubled me, and I was transported back to May 2011, when the announcement was actually made, and when I first felt the same unease, along with a whole range of other emotions. 

Here's the thing that troubled me then, and troubles me now. Joy might be too strong a word, but it was the excitement, the happiness displayed over the death of a man.

Relief I can appreciate. Or whatever you call the feeling you get when you believe justice has been served. But back-slapping and celebrations are a whole other thing.

The death of Osama bin Laden did nothing to ease the pain and fill the void left in the lives of those who lost loved ones in 2001. The death of Osama bin Laden may have filled a need for revenge on the part of some, but it did nothing to serve justice. I would even go as far as to say that the death of Osama bin Laden did nothing to prevent further attacks. 

What the killing did do, I will respectfully suggest, is inch the United States just a little further down a road I suspect most Americans would rather not be on.

Back in 2001 one of the statements made at the time, as an attempt to answer the question "Why?", was "They hate our freedoms." It was ridiculous then and it remains so. Yet, it serves as a kind of morose benchmark; scarcely more than a decade later many of those freedoms have been effectively dismantled. 

Within a few days of watching that episode of The Newsroom I came across another item that reinforced this feeling. It was Desmond Tutu's letter to the editor published in the New York Times. He was troubled by the issue of judicial reviews for the targeted killing program of President Obama. Here's the devastating close of his letter:

I used to say of apartheid that it dehumanized its perpetrators as much as, if not more than, its victims. Your response as a society to Osama bin Laden and his followers threatens to undermine your moral standards and your humanity.

We can debate about the killing of bin Laden, about targeted killings, about drones, until we are all blue in the face. That's not my purpose here. Of course as regular readers will suspect, I see all this now through the lens of the evolution of human consciousness.

Whatever violence may have been in the past, I now see it--whether the violence of an Osama bin Laden or a President Barack Obama--as resistance to change, to growth, to evolution.

Two thousand years after Jesus signaled what the next step was to be by commanding us to love our neighbours, we might just be about ready to do it.

But somebody has to go first.

Everywhere we turn we are being presented with multiple opportunities to do just that. Look around. They're everywhere. In fact it's becoming so obvious, the only way to resist is to lash out in violence of our own.

All that is left to do is to wonder how bad it has to get before somebody, somewhere, turns the other cheek.

Experience Trumping Any Scripture or Tradition

The title of this post is a provocative statement from Fr. Richard Rohr's latest daily email, and I completely and unequivocally agree with him.

Kingdom people are history makers. They break through the small kingdoms of this world to an alternative and much larger world, God’s full creation. People who are still living in the false self are history stoppers. They use God and religion to protect their own status and the status quo of the world that sustains them. They are often fearful people, the nice, proper folks of every age who think like everybody else thinks and have no power to break through, or as Jesus’ opening words state, “to change” (Mark 1:15, Matthew 4:17) and move beyond their small agenda. Courage is certainly the foundational virtue. Without it, faith, love, and hope do not happen. It takes immense courage to trust your own experience, and to be willing to pay the price if you are wrong. And you might just be!

Yet why do we piously admire kingdom people like Mary and Joseph, and then not imitate their faith journeys, their courage, their non-reassurance by any religious system? These were two uneducated laypeople who totally trusted their inner experience of God (angels and stars) and who followed these to Bethlehem and beyond. Mary and Joseph walked in courage and blind faith that their own experience was true—with no one to reassure them they were right. Their only safety net was God’s love and mercy, a safety net they must have tried out many times or else they would never have been able to fall into it so gracefully.

Richard Rohr, Adapted from Preparing for Christmas with Richard Rohr, pp. 66-68

Jesus the Evolutionary

An evolutionary spin on John 16:12-13...

I still have a lot to teach you;
Things that I have experienced...
Things that I know.
You'll know these things too,
Some day.
But not yet.
You couldn't handle it right now,
And that is perfectly fine.

Start with love.
Just start with love.
The rest will come, as it must,
In time.

Non-Linear Thinking: The Glossary

Image: Jonah Cacioppe

I've been asked to provide some definitions for some of the words used in the original post. Again, intuitively, I know what they mean to me, but it's been a great exercise for me to put meanings to them.

These terms came straight out of the conversation between Ken Wilber and Richard Hames. However, I haven't read Richard's book yet. It's sitting in Oakville, Ontario, 12263 kms away, waiting for me. I'll pick it up at the end of March. So these are my definitions or explanations; I'm not putting words into the mouths of either of these fine gentlemen.

For your consideration...

Non-linear thinking:

Uses synthesis rather than analysis as the primary mode of understanding
Don't fight what you're seeing and experiencing! Rather than analyzing and judging, try to incorporate it all. Envision a reality were all the different parts are valid.

It is integrative of differences rather than selective 
More of the same. Try to integrate it all into your thinking, even the seemingly contradictory stuff. As opposed to choosing what you like or are comfortable with and discarding the rest. This is non-dual living.

It seeks to transcend the perception of any evolving situation, rather than just solve the problem as first perceived 
Don't just take a situation or problem at face value, but step back, rise above, and see what is driving it. As I like to say, "What is the question behind the question?"

Looks for systemic language to influence or shape the system
Try to think and speak in terms of the "big picture", of the system as a whole, and not just the individual parts. Non-linear thinking recognizes that the sum is indeed greater than the parts. Just because you understand the components doesn't mean you know what the machine does.

Seeks to question, rather than just solve, a discreet problem 
Again, don't take things at face value. Dig deeper. Not just, "What is the problem?", but also, "Why?", "How?", "What else?", and, "What are the implications?"

Leadership and community in a non-linear environment:

Is collaborative or collective 
Being integrative, not selective, but in community. Non-linear thinking recognizes that the intelligence of the group is greater than the sum of the intelligences of its members.

Requires members of the community to constantly engage in dialogue regarding their purpose and their ethics 
Recognizes that simple linear thinking can very quickly lead us away from our North Star. Constant dialogue is needed to keep us grounded.

Reflective practice replaces specification 
Reflect in broad terms, on all of our experience, rather than assessing, judging, and picking and choosing.

Inspiration replaces information
What is calling out to us for reflection and action, as opposed to simply asking what information is at hand at the moment. Choose the route that appeals to our passions, not the easy route.

Inquiry replaces assertion
Ask questions! "Why...?" "How...?" I'm reminded of how seldom Jesus, when asked a question, actually provided a direct, clear--i.e., linear--answer. The goal of questions are not answers, but better, deeper questions.

Reflecting on these definitions has pounded home for me the concept of non-dualism, and what it may look like in action. 

But in the spirit of integration and consultation, what do you think? What do these terms and ideas say to you?

Non-Linear Thinking

Image: Jonah Cacioppe

My life so far, the way I have chosen to live, and the work I have chosen to do, has taken me from Bay Street to Hastings Street to Lüling Lu. When people ask what I'm doing here in China I preface my answer by warning them that if they try to make sense of it within the dominant Western-centered, upwardly mobile, "American Dream" paradigm then they will fail miserably. I then go on to say that I am living a decidedly non-linear lifestyle.

That term has always made sense to me intuitively, but today I heard an explanation that literally stopped me in my tracks and shed a whole new light on non-linearity.

First the definition, then the source. (And yes, the irony of using bullet points isn't lost on me.)

Non-linear thinking:

• Uses synthesis rather than analysis as the primary mode of understanding  
• It is integrative of differences rather than selective 
• It seeks to transcend the perception of any evolving situation, rather than just solve the problem as first perceived 
• Looks for systemic language to influence or shape the system
• Seeks to question, rather than just solve, a discreet problem 

The explanation then goes to say that leadership in a non-linear environment:

• Is collaborative or collective 
• Requires members of the community to constantly engage in dialogue regarding their purpose and their ethics 

 And in such an environment:

• Reflective practice replaces specification 
• Inspiration replaces information 
• Inquiry replaces assertion

Now for the source. These insights came from the fascinating conversation between Ken Wilber and Richard Hames on the Integral Life site. (There is an amazing number of interviews that Ken has conducted. I've developed the habit of listening to them as I walk around Xiamen. The location definitely adds to the experience!)

Needless to say that Richard's book The Five Literacies of Global Leadership has been ordered and will be waiting for me at my sister's place in Ontario when I'm back there at the end of March. (Trust me, it's just easier that way.) I was further interested to know that Richard is an ex-pat currently living in Thailand, so I'm looking forward to more of his insights on Asia.

Here's the thing: Richard is writing primarily with business practices and leadership in mind, although he is quick to point out that these principles can and should be applied to all areas of life. Many of us are at this place on our spiritual journey, at least on an individual basis. But wouldn't it be something to be part of a community that structured itself around the non-linear environment characteristics listed above?

Contemplation As an Alternative Mind

The thought below from Richard Rohr covers it all. 

Mysticism
Contemplation
Transformation 
The Mind of Christ
Evolution

For those who grow concerned when I start talking about the evolution of human consciousness, I want to suggest that the names above are different words for the same thing.

The ability to stand back and calmly observe our inner dramas, without rushing to judgment, is foundational for spiritual seeing. It is the primary form of “dying to the self” that Jesus lived personally and the Buddha taught experientially. The growing consensus is that, whatever you call it, such calm, egoless seeing is invariably characteristic of people at the highest levels of doing and loving in all cultures and religions. They are the ones we call sages or wise women or holy men. They see like the mystics see. Many of us call it the contemplative mind, Paul calls it “the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthians 2:10-16), but have no doubt it is an alternative consciousness to our ordinary calculating mind.

Now do not let the word “mystic” scare you. It simply means one who has moved from mere belief systems or belonging systems to actual inner experience. All spiritual traditions agree that such a movement is possible, desirable, and available to everyone. In fact, Jesus seems to say that this is the whole point! (See, for example, John 10:19-38.)

Richard Rohr, Adapted from The Naked Now: Learning to See as the Mystics See, pp. 30, 32-33
See also Everything Belongs: The Gift of Contemplative Prayer, which develops the difference between the contemplative mind and the calculative mind.

I.S.S. (Is Somebody Singing?) UPDATED

I linked to this video this morning on Facebook, but I wanted to give it a place here as well.

There are several reasons why I think this one has captured my imagination. Here are a few, in no particular order:

• Chris Hadfield. Canadian astronaut and former fighter pilot. I've said elsewhere, I have a feeling he sees with the eyes of a mystic. I once had the honour of shaking hands with Marc Garneau, and I hope to do the same some day with Chris Hadfield. 

• The Barenakedladies. Seriously, that's all I need to say.

• The CBC. Despite the issues that come and go the CBC is a national treasure and I'm very thankful for it.

• We Canadians are a reserved lot, but we're proud of who we are. This video makes me proud.

• If you could see our Nation from the International Space Station
  You'd know why I want to get back soon
  Currently living the life of an expat, this line speaks to me deeply.

• You can't make out borders from up here
  Just a spinning ball within a tiny atmosphere
  In the last five or six weeks I've made the statement several times that borders only exist on maps and in politicians' minds. Preach it guys. As simplistic as this may sound, I suspect that if we all could see what Chris Hadfield sees when he looks out his window, half of the world's problems would disappear in a puff of smoke.

• What was once fuelled by fear
  Now has fifteen nations orbiting together here
  This is an incredibly poignant line. Remember Star Wars? Not that one, this one. Notwithstanding the North Koreans, this is how I know we evolve.

• That ball of shiny blue houses everybody anybody ever knew
  You know what I'm going to say here, right? We are all connected. Chris Hadfield probably understands that on a level the rest of us will never really know.

Some additional links for you:

Col. Chris Hadfield on Facebook and Twitter

Canadian Space Agency, which has several great links, including the now-famous Star Fleet Tweets.

CBC Music's first post, and additional back story, including music and lyrics.

UPDATE: I woke up this morning with an additional thought:

• Commander Hadfield is our eyes in space. Humanity's next move is to a more worldcentric mindset, and from his vantage point he is helping to push us in that direction. 

Empathy and the Power of Outrospection

A couple of thoughts by way of explanation and introduction. Feel free to skip some of this and jump back in further down the page...

I've written before about how I am addicted to footnotes in the books I read. They can expand your thinking beyond the author's original premise, and can introduce you to yet more books that need to be read. I've also talked about how following links on the net can take you down some serious rabbit holes. Well, what are hyperlinks but footnotes on speed?!

This particular trip unfolded as follows: First, I listened to the fantastic audio exchange between Ken Wilber and Kurt Johnson as they talked about Kurt's new book, The Coming Interspiritual Age. This is very exciting stuff and that book has been added to my ever-growing digital "To Read" pile. Something Kurt said in the dialogue really caught my attention. He referred to some folks on Wall Street who were thinking in terms of human consciousness and spirituality, and who were trying to bring about change in the predominantly me-focused mindset there. Given my previous life on Bay Street, and my current life of... whatever it is, I was intrigued. 

I emailed Kurt and asked him if there were people I should be paying attention to in this regard. He sent me back a kind and helpful reply, which added yet another book to the pile. He also introduced me to the work of economist/activist David Korten. Not only did that link add yet more books to the pile, it also pointed me to Yes! Magazine (where David blogs.) 

Still with me? Good. This is where the empathy idea kicks in: I subscribed to the Yes! Magazine newsletter, and the first edition that showed up in my inbox linked to the wonderful RSA video of cultural thinker Roman Krznaric discussing this fantastic concept:

 (Krznaric is a founding faculty member of London's School of Life, something I'll be looking into further.)

The idea of empathy is something that I stumbled across before finding Ken Wilber, Integral Theory, or anything to do with the evolution of human consciousness. It was Jeremy Rifkin and his book, The Empathic Civilization: The Race to Global Consciousness in a World in Crisis, that started all this for me. 

To keep things simple, I have a couple of basic definitions that I use to differentiate between sympathy, and empathy, the latter being a relatively new phenomenon in human psychology.

Sympathy is feeling for someone else.

Empathy is feeling as someone else.

The difference is critical. Sympathy is good, empathy is better. Empathy is seeing the other, experiencing the other, at a more developed level. Empathy is movement along the spectrum of loving the other. Empathy--a relatively new word in the human lexicon--is proof that we evolve. And so is this movement from introspection, a very real and necessary practice, to outrospection. From Me to We to All of Us.

This past week my sister sent me this quote from Dostoyevsky that seems fitting. These words were written in 1880... Here was a man born well ahead of his time.

Love all God's creation, the whole and every grain of sand in it.
Love every leaf, every ray of God's light.
Love the animals, love the plants, love everything.
If you love everything, you will perceive the divine mystery in things.
Once you perceive it, you will begin to understand it better every day.
And you will come at last to love the whole world with all-embracing love...
Things flow and are indirectly linked together,
and if you push here, something will move at the other end of the world.
If you strike here, something somewhere will wince;
if you sin here, something somewhere will suffer.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

Question Power. Always. II (The Sequel)

This seemed like a perfect follow up to my Question Power. Always. post, especially given the direction the few comments took.

We see in the Gospels that it’s the lame, the poor, the blind, the prostitutes, the drunkards, the tax collectors, the sinners, the outsiders, and the foreigners who tend to follow Jesus. It is those on the inside and the top who crucify him (elders, chief priests, teachers of the Law, scribes, and Roman occupiers). Shouldn’t that tell us something really important about perspective? Every viewpoint is a view from a point, and we need to critique our own perspective if we are to see and do the full truth.

We fail to appreciate liberation theology because of 1,700 years of interpreting the Scriptures from the perspective of the empowered clergy class, rather than from the perspective of the marginalized who first received the message with such excitement. Once Christianity became the established religion of the Roman Empire (after 313 AD), we largely stopped reading the Bible from the side of the poor and the oppressed. We read it from the side of the political establishment and, I am sorry to say, from the priesthood side which was often eager to keep us codependent on their ministrations, instead of from the side of people hungry for justice and truth. No wonder Jesus said, “I did not come for the healthy but for the sick” (Mark 2:17). This priority has the power to constantly detach religion from its common marriage to power, money, and self-importance.

Richard Rohr, Adapted from CAC Foundation Set: Gospel Call to Compassionate Action (Bias from the Bottom) and Contemplative Prayer

Father Richard reminds us that not only is it the power structures around us (and that we are a part) of that we need to question, but also our own positions of power, positions that we may not even recognize.