A video journal about my particular journey through life.
Let it be insightful for you, if it feels right.
I had been reading about the world monetary system, and I had asked a few of the participants at a conference on Rethinking Development Studies at Chiang Mai University last weekend what they thought the effect of money was on development theory. No one, it seems, has considered it in depth. They either did not understand me, or they thought that all currencies would be about the same. I am beginning to realise that development without currency and interest payment policy cannot have maximum effectiveness.
1. Academic circles in sociology have scarcely researched or tested attempts to investigate alternatives to the present monitory system. The kind of system that organises a society determines to a very large degree the measure of freedom and development, and mutual human relationships. The most prevalent reason for not thinking about the money system is the conviction that it cannot be changed. A money system has consequences that rise to the surface in human values. A system where greed and exploitation are built in, ends up destroying itself. It promotes the negative side of human beings with all its consequences rather than the positive side.
… globalization, the most thoroughgoing socioeconomic upheaval since the Industrial Revolution, which has set off a pandemic of retrogressive nationalism, regional separatism, and religious extremism. —Martin Filler
The world of humans and the individuals in it, run their lives upon a narrative. Individually we could call it our beliefs, whether expressed or unconscious. Collectively that narrative is the motivation for our collective actions, and the explanation for our past acts, along with their justification, a spin and a possible cover-up. It’s the intentional distortion of history. We refer to that narrative as the truth, or the lack of truth, depending on whether we are the dominant power or the marginalised group.
In order to run any organisation or any country or government an ideal narrative must be constructed. We can acknowledge that it is impossible to follow any narrative to the letter, and that those ideals should still be set high. All action is interpreted through beliefs, so that people may sincerely believe what they see and as they interpret it. We also know that many people distort the narrative to gain personal or national advantage, and to keep on doing what they are now illicitly doing. When the narrative and the perceived acts don’t align, we call it hypocrisy.
The study of how human identity is moulded is a big concern of social science because nations continually manage their rhetoric that “we are one national identity”. They know that being identified with something gives commitment toward that object of identification. Or at least they know that not feeling part of a social structure or a social process is the cause of much dissension.
A field that has studied identity is called Symbolic Interactionist Theory. It posits that without a relationship, without that human mirror, there is little that we can know about our own identity. Maybe in a non social situation (in isolation) identity is meaningless, or at least useless. Can we say that we have no identity in that situation?
What are these identities? They are centred in action and reaction and are based in thought, speech, belief, emotion, level of conviction, repetitive or non repetitive patterns, our seemingly closed or open attitudes, and how the other perceives that these identities impinge upon them. The identities are also in a hierarchy of importance to us and those not so important to us, (by how much we are identified with them). Another classification could be that they are “core identities”, which we may or may not be able to articulate, or social identities, group identities, roles that we play, or our own self image summed up from the recurrent patterns of all of the above.
(Or we go to any absurdity to escape a feeling.)
Let’s consider a few attributes of identity that are often separated as independent (or a semi-dependent) systems.
- Our bodily control system. The body functions pretty much by itself.
- Our bodily reporting system, pain, heat and cold, feelings of dis-ease, and other layers of feeling emotion, fear or alarm.
- Thoughts and the explanatory system.
- Memories and the repetitive system.
- The feelings and emotions that are evoked by thought and memory
- Our various calls to action and/or to hesitation, or to prudent avoidance of default action.
Actually our identity is the process of all these systems functioning together. Some system might be dominant for a period. We might try to deny certain of these partitions. (I call them partitions instead of parts, because that is what we are investigating.)
So many of our forum discussions are really about identity, and we have many theories and much to say about it, which we defend adamantly.
First let me address those who insist that there is no identity. I view that first as a discourse, and second as just another identity. Just look around at how you live life. If you are a no-identity person and need some easy demonstrations, you function through many discourses of identity, and never function as a no identity. In fact no-identity is non-functional in the life that we know.
Because you continually use identities, they are your truth. Kind of like “what you see (do) is what you get (who you are)”. At least you are not separable from an identity, so you might as well engage fully with it.
1. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that we are born into a discourse of identity. We are born into a family, society, often a religion, maybe our nation is dominant in our lives, especially if it is repressive, or at war. In our formative years we are rewarded if we imitate the prevailing discourses of identity. Our family want’s us to behave in a certain way. We must memorize (and practice) the tenants of our family religion. We get educated (or don’t) according to the habits and traditions in our area. We are continually told that we are the identity that is transmitted by that discourse.
What really distinguishes the non-duality crowd is that they are willing to deny what is absolutely most obvious to all 8 billion of the outsiders to this group. From their detached point of view they rely on logical constructs instead of empirical constructs. Here I won't go into how that might have occurred. "No doing, no doer, no time, no process, all appearances are projected mind”) Although I am not so sure that all of this is non-duality. Whether they deny process, or just deny “my process”, and it is true that all appearances do have A COMPONENT of projected mind. That’s the interpretation fraction. Even if that fraction is very big, who can know that is all there is? But non-duality is not saying there is nothing “out there”. It is only saying that it may be unapproachable in any pure state? This part gets confused.
Let’s investigate what ground of beliefs could bring someone to declare something that flies in the face of their own perceptions of every moment of life.
First is the notion of NOW. Now is a useful term when contrasted to the abuses of my childhood (the past) and my fear of next year’s tax returns, (the future). But I am sure that NOW is not very useful when speaking of one second gone by, or the next second approaching (or even micro-second).
We might believe that there are many varied motivations that inspire us to do what we do, and especially if we hold ourselves in high regard we may think that our personal motivations are very sophisticated and honorable. Thus we complicate and obscure the most simple. (If you're personally convinced that there is no "you" to be motivated, go to point six.)
I would find it of great value to bring the motivation equation down to the most simple terms, or to the lowest common denominator.
- First we are motivated into action by a feeling.
- If there was no feeling, nothing would appear on the radar of our awareness.
- (In this regard, our status quo is also a feeling.)
- We find ourselves acting to satisfy that feeling, to prolong it or to make it go away.
- Therefore I think it can be said that we act only to fix our lives. At least try this definition on for size while reading this post.
- Then the different “tastes” of action become defined from our belief structures.
Let’s just pull in real tight so that we have a concrete example, and talk about what motivates us to post on this forum. We read a post, “Oh, is that what he thinks about that? Interesting.”
For 8 - 10 years I have maintained a public platform where people can exchange views on what might be new ideas for them, (this Never Not Here). I have never really investigated my own motives for doing it, and perhaps they are as simple as “I can do it”.
You might say that you are breathing, and there is no verbal underpinning to that. It is just happening. I am not talking about that level of action.
Take engagement with non-duality as a good example, (teaching it, or being taught). The verbal underpinnings that are accepted by both parties are three.
- There is a such a thing as personal awakening that can appear as an event.
- I teacher, declare that I have it.
- I teacher declare that you will some day have it too (or someday know that you have it).
"My life experience as a teacher and my point of view, (perhaps a view from no-point) is assuredly more complete than yours. I know because I used to live like you."
Wow - is this a useful construction? Let’s see what its effect is.
Some things became apparent when people started suggesting that negating is a way to find your “true self”. I wouldn’t know about that. I do know that negating is the preoccupation of billions of the world’s people, and for them it has only brought them the world as it is. Anything that is life affirming, seems to be counter balanced with something horrid somewhere else in the world. I should just say “juxtaposed” not to intend an actual balance with any equity.
Do we need a personal event to start to shift those gears? Of course my first and most consistent action point is on myself. I have values (or I don’t) and I can apply them to my actions where I now can. I can also investigate them to see if they are truly life affirming, and change them accordingly. Values and the conscious stopping of my negating is in my hands, but only if I want to define it as a worthwhile pursuit.
!!What other possible way can the world shift, except by you shifting yourself!! I have never found one.