There is a myth, sometimes widespread, that a person need only do inner work, in order to be alive like this; that a man is entirely responsible for his own problems; and that to cure himself, he need only change himself. This teaching has some value, since it is so easy for a man to imagine that his problems are caused by "others." But it is a one-sided and mistaken view which also maintains the arrogance of the belief that the individual is self-sufficient, and not dependent in any essential way on his surroundings. The fact is, a person is so far formed by his surroundings, that his state of harmony depends entirely on his harmony with his surroundings. Some kinds of physical and social circumstances help a person come to life. Others make it very difficult.--CA
When I was sixteen I was introduced to the literary genre of inner work. I took to it immediately, always feeling that I had a responsibility for my state of mind. If I had an unhappy mood, thought, or circumstance, it was my own creation. If I was maladjusted, I needed to recalibrate my mind so that I could be at ease with the environment. If distress were still present, it meant I had more inner work to do. This "arrogance" as Christopher Alexander calls it, stayed with me for many years. It led me to psychology in college. I had a passion to learn about the internal workings of people and myself to see how we and society at large are created from the inside out. One class, though, put a chink in that assumption. It was a class in sociology on deviance and conformity. And the classic Zimbardo experiment. Still, I was rather entrenched in my inner work orientation so I continued on mostly the same path, except for some seeds of doubt.
Circumstances in my life (throughout my twenties) became much more hostile, on many fronts (financial, academic, political), and my confidence in my ability to place myself in a state of perpetual contentment eroded. I learned that I couldn't be the "master of my universe" no matter how diligent or honest I was. Perhaps most people understand this instinctively, but I did not. I thought that no matter how deplorable the conditions were around me, I could find a way (if I were wise enough) not to let those conditions affect me inside. In other words, I could encase my inner being in a cocoon of peace.
Life loves to teach us many lessons, particularly those that show us how wrong we can be. To adapt to my new understanding, I got more involved in "social activism." I wanted to help change the circumstances that warp us and create so much conflict. I saw the circumstances around me that are structural and that hurt me and wanted to begin the work to change them. The most appealing organization with a comprehensive approach that I could find was The Zeitgeist Movement.
I see, though, some tendencies of people involved not to recognize the importance of inner work. Since the ZM truly depends on a value shift in people, the "resource-based economy" cannot manifest as an imposition. It must emerge through an understanding of the inner and outer. A person must grow out of their need for domination and greed (insecurity) and understand that a social structure that promotes those qualities must be changed. The problem isn't just "inside" or "outside." It is in the relationship between the two. In fact, the division itself is part of the problem.
Just as scientists (and the public) are now understanding epigenetics, we see that it is the relationship between the environment and genes that matters. In the Timeless Way of Building, Christopher speaks about "patterns" as the fundamental building blocks of architecture, of society. All doors are different, but there are relationship patterns common to all, which allow us to recognize and use them as doors. We relate to each other, to objects, to nature. It is in these relationship patterns that we either make ourselves dead or alive.
When I was sixteen I was introduced to the literary genre of inner work. I took to it immediately, always feeling that I had a responsibility for my state of mind. If I had an unhappy mood, thought, or circumstance, it was my own creation. If I was maladjusted, I needed to recalibrate my mind so that I could be at ease with the environment. If distress were still present, it meant I had more inner work to do. This "arrogance" as Christopher Alexander calls it, stayed with me for many years. It led me to psychology in college. I had a passion to learn about the internal workings of people and myself to see how we and society at large are created from the inside out. One class, though, put a chink in that assumption. It was a class in sociology on deviance and conformity. And the classic Zimbardo experiment. Still, I was rather entrenched in my inner work orientation so I continued on mostly the same path, except for some seeds of doubt.
Circumstances in my life (throughout my twenties) became much more hostile, on many fronts (financial, academic, political), and my confidence in my ability to place myself in a state of perpetual contentment eroded. I learned that I couldn't be the "master of my universe" no matter how diligent or honest I was. Perhaps most people understand this instinctively, but I did not. I thought that no matter how deplorable the conditions were around me, I could find a way (if I were wise enough) not to let those conditions affect me inside. In other words, I could encase my inner being in a cocoon of peace.
Life loves to teach us many lessons, particularly those that show us how wrong we can be. To adapt to my new understanding, I got more involved in "social activism." I wanted to help change the circumstances that warp us and create so much conflict. I saw the circumstances around me that are structural and that hurt me and wanted to begin the work to change them. The most appealing organization with a comprehensive approach that I could find was The Zeitgeist Movement.
I see, though, some tendencies of people involved not to recognize the importance of inner work. Since the ZM truly depends on a value shift in people, the "resource-based economy" cannot manifest as an imposition. It must emerge through an understanding of the inner and outer. A person must grow out of their need for domination and greed (insecurity) and understand that a social structure that promotes those qualities must be changed. The problem isn't just "inside" or "outside." It is in the relationship between the two. In fact, the division itself is part of the problem.
Just as scientists (and the public) are now understanding epigenetics, we see that it is the relationship between the environment and genes that matters. In the Timeless Way of Building, Christopher speaks about "patterns" as the fundamental building blocks of architecture, of society. All doors are different, but there are relationship patterns common to all, which allow us to recognize and use them as doors. We relate to each other, to objects, to nature. It is in these relationship patterns that we either make ourselves dead or alive.
No comments:
Post a Comment