Bcc: contributors. ============================================================================ Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001 23:57:33 -0400 To: •••@••.••• From: Jay Fenello <•••@••.•••> Subject: A New Mythology Cc: •••@••.••• someone said > In my opinion, without commonly accepted moral and spiritual values and a universal ideology going beyond harmonization, a positive movement for radical socio-economic transformation will not get very far What's really needed is a new mythology, one that helps people understand where they are, and where they are going. Jay ========= Dear Jay, Joseph Campbell talked about this. He said our myths are out of date with our culture, leaving us mythless and rudderless. I believed him at the time, and was a bit dismayed. A society cannot simply ~adopt~ a mythology, and pure rationality - as a 'way of understanding the world' - seemed not very promising. The Age of Reason, after all, was one of the main contributors to our current mess. So what was to be done?? Quinn's big contribution, I believe, is reminding us that WE DO HAVE AN ACTIVE, NEARLY UNIVERSAL MYTHOLOGY - we are not rudderless at all! That mythology is called 'go forth and conquer the world'. It is perfectly in synch with our culture, and it tells us where we are going: WE ARE ~PROGRESSING~ TOWARD AN EVER MORE PERFECT WORLD. This was drummed into us in school and by all of our religions (including Humanism) as we grew up. Capitalism embraces it wholeheartedly as have nearly all reformers, including radicals like Marx - who wanted to change which 'class' was at the helm of conquest. Even many of today's radicals emphasize 'redistribution' under 'sustainable growth', which again perpetuates the myth. For myself, learning that our culture ~does~ have an active mythology had a deep significance. When I became conscious of the myth, I could consciously abandon it - and I found that added an emotional, mythological depth to the conclusions I had reached by other means. Quinn helped me understand that there is a mainstream human cultural tradition that seeks harmony with the world. Reconnecting to this mainstream provides all the roots we need - it tells us who we are and where we are going. We are part of the Earth; we are blessed by existence itself; and our role is to behave responsibly as part of the community of life. I don't think we need any new mythologies. One of the main functions served by mythologies has been to tell people what the universe is, and how we came to be in it. With what we now know about cosmology and evolution, we don't need myths to answer those questions. And for those who want to believe in a creator being, there are already more than enough myths around. regards, rkm http://cyberjournal.org ============================================================================ To: •••@••.•••, •••@••.••• Cc: •••@••.••• Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 23:44:02 -0700 Subject: Re: A New Mythology From: •••@••.••• I read this essay by Thomas Berry [below] over and over again. There are so many forces that seem to be opposed to restoring the earth and living sustainably -- it's all about selfishness and lack of concern in so many places; or its about just economic gain. There are so many times when I want to give up -- walk away from it all because it seems so hopeless. I have to have something to hold on to and these words help. I've posted parts of this message before, but I don't think I've posted the entire piece. marguerite THOMAS BERRY'S PRINCIPLES OF THE ECOZOIC ERA by Jed Swift "We will go into the future as a single sacred community, or we will all perish in the desert." --------------- For most cultures, generally, their creation story of the universe and the human role in the universe is the primary source of intelligibility and value. Only through this story of how the universe came to be in the beginning does a person come to appreciate the meaning of life or to derive the psychic energy needed to deal effectively with those crises moments that occur in the life of the individual and society. Such stories are the basis of ritual initiations throughout the world. They communicate the most sacred of mysteries. We are in-between stories now. We are lacking an Origin story, even though we [do] have a Genesis story. We need a story which offers badly needed images of hope. Is it the emerging scientific paradigm, coupled with deepening human spirituality that will help us create a new story of the universe? The human is the being in whom the Earth has become spiritually aware, has awakened into consciousness, has become self-aware and self-reflective. We are the Earth reflecting upon itself. Or, as Teilhard de Chardin said, "the human person is 15 billion years of unbroken evolution now thinking about itself. How I think effects the whole: the earth thinks as you think. The Earth thinks as all of us think. And the Earth is in a process of coming out of its adolescent fixation with itself and its powers, into a whole new level of maturity. And to the degree that you and I make that jump, the Earth makes that jump. It's as simple and profound as that. The universe is not a collection of objects--it's a communion of subjects. The Earth is primary and humans are derivative. The well-being of the Earth is paramount. Human well-being is secondary. This primacy applies to every mode of human activity: economics, education, law, medicine, religion. The human, in its every aspect, is a sub-system of the Earth system: we prosper or we decline together. Can we have healthy people in a sick enviroment? The Earth is a one time endowment. This planet will never again function as it has in its ancient past; we must do what we can to accept, recover, protect, and heal all that is present with us. A mutually enhancing human presence is needed now on Earth. Celebration is the single best expression for the universe. Our own special role is to enable this entire community to reflect on and to celebrate itself and its deepest mystery in a special mode of conscious self-awareness. The universe is the primary revelatory experience, how the divine comes to the human and how we meet it. The destruction of our outer world has come with a corresponding loss to the inner world of humans -- we have lost our poetry, our souls. --------------- Jed Swift, who reproduced this as an article entitled: "Contemplating the Eco-Cosmology of Father Thomas Berry" for the Spring/Summer Issue of "The Shavano Letter" published by the Shavano Institute in Boulder, Colorado, offers insight into how this effects us. He writes: According to Berry, understanding this new cosmology causes us to do three things. First is to come home. We literally are stars thinking about themselves. "How will we baptise our children with toxic water and tell them about God?" Second, we've got ourselves organized into some 150 odd nations states. We must face what this competition is doing. We need a new revelation and sense of our destiny. Third, we must change our lives so that we live in alignment with the greater message and meaning of the universe. For information on the Shavano Institute see: <http://www.shavano.org>http://www.shavano.org Marguerite Hampton Executive Director - Turtle Island Institute http://tii-kokopellispirit.org ================= Dear Marguerite, Thanks for forwarding a very inspiring article. I cannot tell if the words are meant to be Berry's own, or whether they are paraphrases by Jed Swift. I do think it is off the mark to refer to the ideas as being ~Berry's~ Eco-Cosmology, because they are in fact the "emerging scientific paradigm". What Berry seems to be doing is articulating those ideas poetically, and wrapping them up so as to appeal to Christian-oriented audiences. That's a very worthwhile objective, and hopefully will help build bridges between the religious, spiritual, and humanist communities. He says > We are in-between stories now. We are lacking an Origin story, even though we [do] have a Genesis story. We need a story which offers badly needed images of hope. I believe this statement has a different meaning for Jews and Christians than it has for others. For the believers, Berry seems to be seeking a gap in scripture which will create an opening for these new scientific understandings. For non-believers, such a gap is unnecessary - they can embrace the new understanding without creating a conflict in their beliefs. And while believers may be unwilling to reject the Genesis story altogether, the others don't have that problem. all the best, rkm ============================================================================ Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 21:08:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Jessica Markland <•••@••.•••> Subject: Harmonization To: •••@••.••• Cc: •••@••.••• I hadn't consciously realized the word "harmonization" was giving me a problem until I read what others wrote in returning to the garden 5. Perhaps this will help? Think of harmonization as in a symphony. All the instruments play different tunes, and come in and out at different times, but they are all heading in the same direction with the purpose of creating a 'harmonious' performance. And usually they end up in the same place at the same time. I think we have all had similar experiences of a lot of small groups trying to do similar things (like save the environment) but never being able to combine their strengths and resources. I believe the ISPO concept is the closest I have seen, yet, to achieving a way of "harmonizing' our efforts and reaping the enormous benefit of numbers, without limiting or confining people into one ideology. [http://www.simpol.org] It also makes sense, as our numbers grow, to organize ourselves in the same geographic areas as political ridings. That way, we can influence the parties to adopt ISPO, and be able to prove how many people in that riding believe in it. =================== Dear Jessica, Yes, the harmonization metaphor comes from music, and the blending of voices. But I would be careful of the word 'symphony', since a symphony orchestra is under the direction of a conductor and follows a written score. A conductor is like a 'central authority' and the score is a like a 'fixed ideology'. The kind of harmonization we need is more like jazz improv. The 'harmonization initiative' is the idea that we should be making music together - but it must be an evolving music of our own creation. I'm glad you mentioned ISPO, because I would like our readers to be reminded of that initiative. I put the web address above in your message, so people can check it out. The basic idea behind ISPO is expressed in a soon-to-be-published book by John Bunzl, "The Simultaneous Policy". He argues that no government can escape from the out-of-control global economy by itself - all must do so together at one time. In order to build pressure on governments to move in this direction, ISPO seeks to enlist millions of 'adopters' of the SP (Simultaneous Policy) vision. These adopters would pledge to vote for any candidate that promises to support the SP policies, thus supplying 'pressure from below' on governments to get on board the SP bandwagon. By the way, John will sometimes send a free pre-publication copy of the book to those who express interest - '•••@••.•••'. What I find lacking in the ISPO philosophy is a proper understanding of ISPO's relationship to the larger movement. I think it is unrealistic to think that the 'millions of adopters' strategy can work. That's the strategy that the Sierra Club and many other organizations have used. They publish voting records of politicians to their members, and presumably the members take that into account when voting. This has indeed given such organizations some clout, but it hasn't been nearly enough to make any real difference in the long run. Given its current approach, ISPO is likely to become just one more lobby group, trading on its membership numbers. Is John's book compelling enough to make ISPO significantly more successful than the Sierra Club has been? I doubt it, even though it's a good book, with many good insights. As I've said before, history shows us that the kind of pressure we need today can only come from a mass movement, and a mass movement is not a matter of gathering signatures. The anti-globalization movement is not quite the movement we need - yet. It is a very promising sprout, but it has yet to blossom into full movement-hood. I believe it will do that, and if it doesn't we are in deep trouble. One way to help the movement forward is for each of us, in our separate efforts, to ~align ourselves~ with movement success. I believe Nader had that spirit, in his Presidential campaign. He knew he was unlikely to win the election, but that in no way deterred him. He was using that campaign to build connections between people, to build a sense of empowerment, and to encourage people to think positively about 'making a real difference'. In that way his efforts (and those of his supporters!) became a successful contribution to movement building, rather than a failure in electioneering. In the case of ISPO, what might 'aligning with the movement' look like? I believe it would start with an acknowledgement that a mass movement will be needed to generate the necessary grass-roots constituency for radical change. Next, would be an acknowledgement that ISPO, with its adoption campaign, is not going to be the center-point of that mass movement. The movement finds its roots in many struggles, with many centers, around a variety of visions. This is its strength and its promise. I think the adoption campaign does make sense, ~if~ the objective is framed less ambitiously. By having a large (but not necessarily HUGE) number of adopters, that gives ISPO standing as an NGO. It can then participate with other NGOs on an equal footing at the UN and in international conferences. I believe that the wisest strategy for ISPO would be to focus its campaign in the NGO community. There is already sympathy there for the kinds of objectives SP has in mind, and there is already an understanding of the nature of the out-of-control economy. Within the NGO community, ISPO could act as a facilitator for building a general NGO consensus around a package of radical reform policies. ISPO would be promoting a harmonization culture within the NGO community, like that which is emerging in the movement generally. Indeed, the objective would be to help turn the NGOs into a real 'community', rather than a 'pseudo community', as those terms are defined in John's book. By this strategy, ISPO would be aligning itself with the larger movement. It would in fact be carrying the movement process to the NGO community, and helping that community prepare itself for the day when the larger movement begins developing a mass constituency for change. I wish ISPO every success, and these are my two cents. best regards, rkm ============================================================================ Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:36:58 -0400 To: •••@••.••• From: Bruce Buchanan <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: harmonization etc. rkm writes (2 April): > I think we need to look to the roots that have brought about our current circumstances. If we prune some of the bad branches, but leave the roots intact, then the same problems will come back to haunt our grandchildren. What those 'roots' are is of course open to discussion, and that is one of the things the movement needs to seek greater shared understanding about. > My own investigations have led me to the conclusion that these 'roots' include: > * hierarchical political and economic structures * societal factionalism * capitalism * the Taker paradigm of 'go forth and multiply' and 'dominate the world and its creatures' While not disagreeing with the above, even more fundamental may be psychological factors which motivate individual attitudes and behaviors from which these structures are in part derived and on which they depend. Such individual factors are also sustained by the (societal) Taker paradigm. But they reflect psychological development arrested at an adolescent stage of competitive self-aggrandizement which cannot see beyond itself. A society will reflect a preponderance of such elements in the structures which are accepted. Many so-called "leaders" might be more accurately described as opportunists who exploit for their personal advantage whatever situation they find themselves in, to this end preserving the appearances of team players. Such people (personal Takers) have regularly subverted and destroyed social movements, communities and societies throughout history. (Aldous Huxley has described this history even at the level of small religious communities in some detail in "Tomorrow and Tomorrow"; the sheep are very slow to recognize the reality of wolves among them.) Without some mechanisms to identify and neutralize such internal and external threats (comparable to that of the living body as it rejects foreign invaders threatening to take over metabolic processes) it is difficult to see how an unprotected harmonization could actually work. An organism (or a society) only remains healthy as long as its defenses (detectors of danger and feedback/response) are prompt and effective. Now, as in the human body, inappropriate and over-response may be more dangerous than the perceived threat. A root problem may be: How to distinguish genuine threats from creative innovations! For this we may need more discriminating criteria than mere personal impressions. (But that is another big subject !) Cheers. Bruce B Toronto, Ontario http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/buchanan/homepageBB.htm ================= Dear Bruce, You raise many interesting issues. Let's consider the relationship between culture and psychology. People are born with a basic psychological makeup, and their culture then attempts to mold that psychology around the values and ethics of the culture. Some cultures have values and ethics which don't fit very well with people's basic psychologies, and those cultures must employ punishment and coercion to force people into the desired mold. Our culture is so blatantly contrary to human nature that the culture - in order to survive - must imprison children in force-fed 'education' systems until they are 18 or so, and then bombard them for the rest of their lives with a hundred channels of propaganda. And with all that, the culture still needs massive police forces and numerous prisons to keep control. From an early age we are taught to push ourselves ahead as individuals, and to live in fear of poverty if we don't succeed. Thus our culture arrests our development in a certain warped kind of insecure and dependent adolescence, as you point out. Despite all this intensive cultural programming, we remain round organic pegs in square economic holes, and the fit is a very bad one. As a result, millions of people experience high degrees of stress, and seek relief in all kinds of ways - including drugs, soap operas, workaholism, fundamentalist religions, new age distractions, Internet conversations, and the analyst's couch. I think it is a fundamental error to blame people's psychology for the effects of cultural programming. This reverses the cart and horse. What we know about psychology is that it is extremely flexible and moldable. The same baby could be placed in a family in any society in the world, at any point in recorded history, and it would grow up a full-fledged member of that culture. (Assuming that the baby has no major physical characteristics that might be rejected by the society, such as the 'wrong' skin color.) This flexibility gives us great hope and optimism. It means that we are only one generation away from having a world population whose psychology is in tune with their society and with the world. When we build a culture of inclusiveness, consensus, sustainability, and empowerment, then the rest will follow. The movement is starting out that way, and that is why I see it as a very promising sprout. Not only a 'movement' sprout, but a 'new society' sprout. --- Now lets' consider power-seeking leaders and the movement's immune system. Partly out of fear of infiltration, and partly out of past experience with harmful leaders and organizations, the sprouting movement is following a paradigm of affinity groups, consensus, and decentralized decision making. Self-aggrandizing leaders are not encouraged in this kind of culture, and they are not given a perch from which to exercise power. If they have good ideas to offer, they can do so, and they are appreciated, but there is no hierarchical power-ladder for them to climb up and dominate. I see this as a very healthy immune system, and one grounded in common sense. regards, rkm ============================================================================