0 Comments
Walker writes 11/18/14:
"I think there can be an assumption that a non-dual moment must be an experience of the "One", that as subject/object duality is transcended, we enter some kind of fusion state. But obviously, the Buddha did not bump into trees as he walked around. He still knew the boundaries of his "self', but felt that self to be included within a larger "Self". I remember a curious moment with a spider, in which I felt in an intuitive and overwhelming way, that what I had in common with that spider was far greater than our differences. Rational science (ecology) of course would make that same argument very persuasively, but in this moment, it was more of a felt experience, not a deductive one." First, remember that "dualities" are not necessarily "disjunctions" (complete splits with reality). Pairings, even when there is strong tension between the "sides", are still connected. Generally, therefore, I find "pairings" (i.e., most "dualities") to be useful, or at least not showing a need for "healing". And remember we've been noticing how profoundly Western culture nurtures dualities, as well as a dysfunctional (dualistic) breaking apart of dualities. Short of a complete transformation of the culture in which we're immersed, and whose tropes, styles, even ideologies we can't help reflecting, I'd suggest it's important to "call our shots" -- be wise in focusing what crucially needs healing, and what we can live with. And I'd suggest focussing on the "real" disjunctions that are rapidly diminishing the chances that an unfettered "natural evolution" can continue: what we've been calling "the human-nature split". The very tough question for me is, just how far "into" culture is nature "natural". Is there a natural-nonnatural line that must be drawn ..... or is this it! Los Angeles as much "nature" as Kings Canyon Wilderness. Wilber, for example, sees all dualities as a function of the stages of evolution -- each stage coasting along, functioning, until it doesn't, and there's a "climb" to a higher stage, and then again, and again, through what we understand as evolutionary history. And for Wilber, immersed in various splits ("alienations", "separations", "distinctions pushed to disjunctions" , etc.) he sees the split between consciousness and "Spirit" (or what I think you're calling here a "fusion state") as the mother of all dualistic disjunctive splits, the implication that that's what we should focus on, and doing so will "heal" all these troublesome splits along the way. (This I find remarkably similar to the Christian programs of conversions -- "salvation" is present, now, with acceptance of an influx of Jesus energy. It also arouses thoughts of the Buddha Dharma -- though "enlightenment" is all present, here, now, we still have a path of progression laid out before us -- many lives in which to be incarnated before .... "fusion".) I'm all for these views, as forward references at least. Goals are great -- but I'm still immersed in the idea that "how we get there is where we're going". So, meanwhile, step by step as we progress towards ultimate salvation, or as we accept instantaneous salvation, we still, I believe, must face our collective destruction of the earth. All moral, spiritual, pragmatic, even aesthetic con- siderations would convince me of this. So, without discounting the larger "forward references", or more dogmatic here-and-now religious views, I think it right to be healing the many facets, the many disjunctions, between ourselves, and the planet out of which we've emerged. How could it be otherwise? (I'm saying, rather than occupying ourselves with doing an end run around a sickening destruction of our home planet, it is crucial that we, en masse, awaken to our delusions of free lunches, escapism, and find "transcendence" in every healing of the many, many disjunctions that comprise our sorry state of "relationship" with nature. Think of it as a path to "full enlightenment", fine; or as a necessary clearing of the decks for "bigger connections"; or as, simply, the Dharma of every- day life. And I'm asking: could "the wilderness experience" be escapism? Could the same kind of attention and "connecting" take place anywhere, on the subway in NYC? Walker also writes: "I think one of the greatest gifts of the wilderness experience is the feeling that we are part of something much bigger. Though this experience is certainly possible anywhere, I do think that it is harder to grasp when one lives completely in an environment of human fabrication. A child raised entirely among buildings, roads, and sidewalks, will inevitably come to see that context as the world. Though larger principles like Time, Space, Consciousness, Nature, Tao, God, Goddess, etc. are certainly fully present in that human-fabricated world, I think it is harder to intuit them, whereas in the wilderness, I think it is hard not to intuit them. It becomes almost self-evident that there is some vast process happening here, and the human is but a small piece therein, and furthermore, a piece like all pieces that is very much sustained by the larger whole." So yes, those of us in wealthy countries with the wherewithal to enjoy time spent in this romantic illusion of "pure nature" we call "wilderness", can find plenty of opportunity -- sweet experiences of connecting -- that shake our conformities to cultural enslavement, delusions of conquering, delusions of grandeur. And this certainly would fit my view that working to overcome (to "heal") disjunctions between "mind and nature", or "culture and nature" are worthy activities. But I think it delusional to think (1) that this view of "nature" is pure ("other than culture", as the environmental philosophers sometimes put it), and (2) that the experience taking place in cities, in buildings and automobiles, etc., is any less "natural" than wilderness. Our experiences in both realms are filtered through our culture. It is a dualism, and thus inaccurate, to think we -- our minds, psyche's, expressions of realities -- are actually separate from either realm. Both may or may not expand (connect, or "reconnect") our psyches, both may be grounds for spiritual evolution, or not. It depends on our intentions, and on the stories we are telling ourselves. I think it important for humans, from Mumbai to Memphis, to seek and find "realization" wherever they are. (One reason: if "mind" -- or "consciousness" -- is ubiquitous, and if cultures "condition" or "reduce" the experience of that consciousness to sane, manageable economic plans, say, surely healing of the separations that facilitate those reductions can happen anywhere. Any- where.) It seems to me more a manner of our privileged Western cultural histories, the circumstances we find ourselves in the West, our penchant for recoiling from the pollution and garbage of cities, the noise, our particular view of what is beautiful and what isn't -- all of these raise the stature of this romantic view of nature we find in wilderness -- to perhaps yet another vivid and trouble- some dualism we are in position to overcome. Are we (speaking generally for our species) "out of balance"? "diseased"? (a plague upon the once-heathy earth). Perhaps. I question whether we'll heal our disease, which surely involve the stories we tell ourselves about how are "minds" work , and "what nature is", by assuming that immersion in romantic views of pristine nature is "better" than .... anyplace. Anyplace! Walker ends by saying: "I think one of the greatest gifts of the wilderness experience is the feeling that we are part of something much bigger. Though this experience is certainly possible anywhere, I do think that it is harder to grasp when one lives completely in an environment of human fabrication. A child raised entirely among buildings, roads, and sidewalks, will inevitably come to see that context as the world. Though larger principles like Time, Space, Consciousness, Nature, Tao, God, Goddess, etc. are certainly fully present in that human-fabricated world, I think it is harder to intuit them, whereas in the wilderness, I think it is hard not to intuit them. It becomes almost self-evident that there is some vast process happening here, and the human is but a small piece therein, and furthermore, a piece like all pieces that is very much sustained by the larger whole." I very much doubt that when you visit the Bay Area you feel any less "in charge" than you do in "wilderness". (I think we tend to abstract out of the chaos of civilization the totemic beliefs and tools that give us apparent "power". I find the rampaging "collective" consciousness (and unconsciousness), gathered here and there, everywhere, to be as awesome and unfathomable as, say, any wilderness area. The closest I come to "control" or "full understanding" is in the practice of my "intense biodynamic" farming approach, and there I understand perhaps 2 or 3 percent of what is really going on!) And those kids on the streets -- I once advised a program designed to "get them to nature" in the country. They were terrified, but became very resonant with the idea of their own selves as "wildernesses", when shown the billions of organisms that naturally exist all over their bodies, inside and out. No, Walker, you know how much I love the wilderness, those years of ex- perience immersed in it. I would still find it "healing", a good place for yoga and for releasing our infinite share of consciousness from the culture-shaped need-crazed ego. And yes, if humans are in some way showing increasing evidence of massive "mental disease", and if that disease is indeed concentrated in urban centers, and around delusionary tools of control -- still, even there, even now, healing is present. It has to be! There would be no "wilderness" if it is only path to recover balance between human minds and natural processes. And I didn't mention "ecopsychology" once -- though I think it a worthy tool to apply to healing the human-environment relationship, anywhere! |
AuthorDiscussion between Walker Abel and Robert Greenway. Archives
January 2015
Categories |