Greetings from
The Publisher . . .
Obligations & Transcending That Fundamentalist Thinking
There were some great events this past month. I got to the Snatam and Guru Ganesh concert and a few days later heard Neale Donald Walsch and Stephen Simon after a screening of Conversations with God. They were both great. The movie is excellent, very well done.
There really are a lot of opportunities to expand and celebrate; and we include as many as we can in The Light Connection . One reason I enjoy getting out is because I always see friends and meet new people. I always seem to run into someone I haven't seen for a while.
That happened again, but this time I found myself interrupted. I was catching up with Karen whom I hadn't seen for years when an “obligation” that needed to be handled appeared.
I was talking to people in line at the Snatam event and met Michele, who was telling me about an article possibility when another “hello” came along—and opps, time for tickets—more interruptions—and, where was I? Oh yes, but seats were going fast and since I was first in my group I needed to save some—and then someone else I needed to talk to appeared and then two more—and they were together—and I definitely was not, still thinking about my unfinished conversation.
I wanted to talk more, but the obligations and have-to's took over. In retrospect, everything probably would have worked without me thinking I had to do something.
A few days later at the waterfall at Quail Gardens I found myself contemplating how fundamentalist-like my thinking was.
Isn't fundamentalism thinking there is a specific “right” way to do things? That there's one way to be and act, and it's certainly obligation based. I noticed how my obligation mind-set took me away from the flow of things.
The more I looked the more it seems fundamentalism is everywhere, besides in me, I mean. Aren't there fundamentalist Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, as well as Greens, who know there is only one “right” way? Often it's the entire party platform that's right, and others platform is entirely wrong. Obviously there are fundamentalists in religion—with the most fundamentalist literally at war with each other now. Even in “New Age” spiritualism there are those who insist you have to live just so , exactly like “ this .”
What's seems consistent in fundamentalism is the idea that the right way as interpreted by The Book or whomever or Whoever—someone else— applies to all of us. When even our sense of taste and color are so different, it's asking a lot to think our complex minds should function such that we all believe and act the same.
Fundamentalism seems to be thinking we know, in advance of knowing. It's thinking there can be a preconceived plan that will work for everyone. Politics provides an abundance of thinking gone this direction. What politician has ever had all the perfect answers? When you can't adjust to new information—and fundamentalists don't budge—you can find yourself in strange positions. Supporting torture as the way end terror, for example. Isn't torture terrorizing?
It's great to see some Republicans begin to adjust on torture and we may even be about to rejoin the rest of the world by supporting the Geneva Conventions on how to treat prisoners. We shall see. What better way the gain the “hearts and minds” support of people? Well, other than actually caring.
It's interesting to think that those who claim to support the highest moral principles—and accuse others of not having any—throw everything out the window when attacked. What happens to their moral compass?
After learning that—unlike Bosnia, where simply the presence of our troops lessened violence—a troop presence in Arab countries causes unrest and violence. We've learned that. We've learned that just about every prison we know about has abused prisoners, and many prisoners have been declared innocent and released after extended, torturous stays.
We've learned that there are secret CIA prisons. What are their conventions? A Canadian citizen apprehended coming into the US was sent to a Middle East prison then later determined innocent and released—after a year of torture. We are beginning to see that is common.
We have numerous examples of how such practices radicalize the previously innocent—but the President vows to “stay the course.” Torture our course would be more accurate. Impeach a President for torture? I never would have thought that possible. What a time we live in!
After writing this, just as we were going to press, there was news of a report by intelligence agencies that the Iraq war “has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism” and increases the threat of terrorism. Ya think?]
We need leaders who aren't afraid to say “here's what we know so far” and adjust when new information comes in—not a fundamentalist (with a crystal ball?)—who thinks they know what's coming. It's not how most of us operate in life, is it? We adjust to new information.
Of course the other part of the equation is that it may be equally fundamentalist to think things should be different. The President gives us some incredible opportunities to redefine ourselves. We get pushed to look at how we/us/US want to be. He brings us almost endless opportunities to ask, “Is this who we really are?”
Projections also apply to my examples above that something was missed or incomplete when I was interrupted, or that things should have happened differently. While we usually call those expectations , not fundamentalist thinking, they do seem very similar.
The commonality is they take us away from being here no w and perhaps, actually knowing. Isn't that the bottom line?
It's very human to want to know in advance how something will turn out, and expectations and projections can get in the way. And some pleasant projections can be complete and fun just by themselves, of course. Being here now though, seems more like “no preconceptions.”.
While mulling engagement and participation, it seemed fitting to notice that the word participating started with parti . Isn't a party always more fun without thinking we have to be a certain way, we're obligated or we have to know in advance?
I'm doomed/blessed to think in terms of us/US. We live in a society with a participatory type government. We've been tagged. We're it.
The good news is we don't need all the details of a solution in advance. What plan works without adjustments? The platforms of political parties? We have a general, common destination in mind, and—remembering that happiness is a road, not simply a destination—we engage.
So is being involved in politics an obligation? As it becomes more obvious that our government is out of step with the world—with humanity—if we don't at least send a postcard or write a letter to the editor, then we have to recognize there is something worse than torture: Silently allowing it.
Political commentators think we need the perfect plan before we can take action or even propose changes. Sometimes maybe we just need to know what we don't want. We're on a tortured course right now. The agreement was that the Constitution guides us, the Administration swore to uphold it and they aren't paying attention to it. Even the Supreme Court agrees. What's left for us is not the obligation to find or do the perfect thing. It's the opportunity to define us/US. And say what rights do we want to keep. As in life, standing up requires we parti—we don't “have to” know, and we “get to” parti-cipate.
Have in a Great month,
Steve
HOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH
