I am not sure that I exist, actually.
I am all the writers that I have read, all the people that I have met, all the
women that I have loved; all the cities I have visited.
―Jorge
Luis Borges
A recognition of alliance is growing
among people in diverse arenas of activism, whether political, social, or
spiritual. The holistic acupuncturist and the sea turtle rescuer may not be
able to explain the feeling, “We are serving the same thing,” but they are. Both
are in service to an emerging Story of the People that is the defining
mythology of a new kind of civilization.
I will call it the Story of
Interbeing, the Age of Reunion, the ecological age, the world of the gift. It
offers an entirely different set of answers to the defining questions of life.
Here are some of the principles of the new story:
·
That my being partakes of your being
and that of all beings. This goes beyond interdependency—our very existence is
relational.
·
That, therefore, what we do to another,
we do to ourselves.
·
That each of us has a unique and
necessary gift to give the world.
·
That the purpose of life is to
express our gifts.
·
That every act is significant and has
an effect on the cosmos.
·
That we are fundamentally unseparate
from each other, from all beings, and from the universe.
·
That every person we encounter and
every experience we have mirrors something in ourselves.
·
That humanity is meant to join fully
the tribe of all life on Earth, offering our uniquely human gifts toward the
well-being and development of the whole.
·
That purpose, consciousness, and
intelligence are innate properties of matter and the universe.
The more we share with each other
this kind of knowledge, the stronger we are in it, the less alone. It needn’t
depend on the denial of science, because science is undergoing parallel
paradigm shifts. It needn’t endure the denial of livelihood, because from a
trust in gift we find unexpected sources of sustenance. It needn’t withstand
the denial of everyone around us, because more and more people are living from
the new story, each in his or her own way, inducing a growing feeling of
camaraderie. Nor is it a turning away from the world that is still mired in
Separation, because from the new story we access new and powerful ways to effect
change.
The fundamental precept of the new
story is that we are in separate from the universe, and our being partakes in
the being of everyone and everything else. Why should we believe this? Let’s
start with the obvious: This interbeing is something we can feel. Why does it
hurt when we hear of another person coming to harm? Why, when we read of mass
die-offs of the coral reefs and see their bleached skeletons, do we feel like
we’ve sustained a blow? It is because it is literally happening to ourselves,
our extended selves. The separate self-wonders, “How could this affect me?” The
pain is irrational, to be explained away, perhaps, as the misfiring of some
genetically coded empathy circuit meant to protect those who share our DNA. But
why does it extend so easily to strangers, even to other species? Why do we
desire so strongly to serve the good of all? Why, when we achieve a maximum of
personal security and comfort, are we still dissatisfied? Certainly, as a
little introspection will reveal, our desire to help is not coming from a
rational calculation that this injustice or that ecological disaster will
somehow, someday, threaten our personal well-being. The pain is more direct,
more visceral than that. The reason it hurts is because it is literally happening
to ourselves.
The science of Separation offers
another explanation of what it calls “altruistic behavior.” Maybe it is a kind
of mating display, which demonstrates one’s “phenotypic quality” to prospective
mates (i.e., it shows that one is so “fit” that he can afford to squander
resources on others). But this explanation takes as an un-examined premise
another assumption of the worldview of Separation: a scarcity of mating
opportunities and a competition for mates. As anthropology, reviewed in books
like Sex at Dawn, has
discovered though, this view of primitive life is more a projection of our own
social experience onto the past than it is an accurate description of
hunter-gatherer life, which was communal. A more sophisticated explanation
draws on game theoretic calculations of the relative advantages of being a
strong reciprocator, weak reciprocator, etc., in situations of mutual
dependency. Such theories are actually a step closer to an evolutionary biology
of interbeing, as they break down the idea that “self-interest” can ever exist
independently of the interest of others.
The desire to serve something
transcending the separate self and the pain we feel from the suffering of
others are two sides of the same coin. Both bespeak our interbeingness. The
emerging science that seeks to explain them, whether it invokes mirror neurons,
horizontal gene transfer, group evolution, morphic fields, or something further
out, doesn’t explain them away, but merely illustrates a general principle of
connection or, dare I say it, oneness. The science is beginning to confirm what
we have intuitively known all along: we are greater than what we have been
told. We are not just a skin-encapsulated ego, a soul encased in flesh. We are
each other and we are the world.
Our society runs in large part on the
denial of that truth. Only by interposing ideological and systemic blinders
between ourselves and the victims of industrial civilization can we bear to
carry on. Few of us would personally rob a hungry three-year-old of his last
crust or abduct his mother at gunpoint to work in a textile factory, but simply
through our consumption habits and our participation in the economy, we do the
equivalent every day. And everything that is happening to the world is
happening to ourselves. Distanced from the dying forests, the destitute
workers, the hungry children, we do not know the source of our pain, but make
no mistake—just because we don’t know the source doesn’t mean we don’t feel the
pain. One who commits a direct act of violence will, if and when she realizes
what she has done, feel remorse, a word that literally means “biting back.”
Even to witness such an act is painful. But most of us cannot feel remorse for,
say, the ecological harm that the mining of rare earth minerals for our cell
phones does in Brazil. The pain from that, and from all the invisible violence
of the Machine of industrial civilization, is more diffuse. It pervades our
lives so completely that we barely know what it is like to feel good.
Occasionally, we get a brief respite from it, maybe by grace, or through drugs,
or being in love, and we believe in those moments that this is what it is
supposed to feel like to be alive. Rarely, though, do we stay there for very
long, immersed as we are in a sea of pain.
Our situation is much like that of a
little girl who was taken by her mother to visit a chiropractor friend of mine.
Her mother said, “I think something is wrong with my daughter. She is a very
quiet little girl and always well behaved, but never once have I heard her
laugh. In fact, she rarely even smiles.”
My friend examined her and discovered
a spinal misalignment that, she judged, would give the girl a terrific headache
all the time. Fortunately, it was one of those misalignments that a
chiropractor can correct easily and permanently. She made the adjustment—and
the girl broke into a big laugh, the first her mother had ever heard. The
omnipresent pain in her head, which she had come to accept as normal, was
miraculously gone.
Many of you might doubt that we live
in a “sea of pain.” I feel pretty good right now myself. But I also carry a
memory of a far more profound state of well-being, connectedness, and intensity
of awareness that felt, at the time, like my birthright. Which state is normal?
Could it be that we are bravely making the best of things?
How much of our dysfunctional,
consumptive behavior is simply a futile attempt to run away from a pain that is
in fact everywhere? Running from one purchase to another, one addictive fix to
the next, a new car, a new cause, a new spiritual idea, a new self-help book, a
bigger number in the bank account, the next news story, we gain each time a
brief respite from feeling pain. The wound at its source never vanishes though.
In the absence of distraction—those moments of what we call “boredom”—we can
feel its discomfort.
Of course, any behaviour that
alleviates pain without healing its source can become addictive. We should
therefore hesitate to cast judgment on anyone exhibiting addictive behaviour (a
category that probably includes nearly all of us). What we see as greed or
weakness might merely be fumbling attempts to meet a need, when the true object
of that need is unavailable. In that case the usual prescriptions for more
discipline, self-control, or responsibility are counterproductive.
Notice whether, when I described
people “running from one purchase to another,” you felt any contempt or
smugness. That too is a kind of separation. The transition we are entering is a
transition to a story in which contempt and smugness no longer have a home. It
is a story in which we cannot see ourselves as better than any other human
being. It is a story in which we no longer use fear of self-contempt to drive
our ethics. And we will inhabit this story not in aspiration to an ideal of
virtuous nonjudgment, forgiveness, etc., but in sober recognition of the truth
of nonseparation.
In Sacred Economics I made the point that what we perceive
as greed might be an attempt to expand the separate self in compensation for
the lost connections that compose the self of interbeing; that the objects of
our selfish desires are but substitutes for what we really want. Advertisers
play on this all the time, selling sports cars as a substitute for freedom,
junk food and soda as a substitute for excitement, “brands” as a substitute for
social identity, and pretty much everything as a substitute for sex, itself a
proxy for the intimacy that is so lacking in modern life. We might also see
sports hero worship as a substitute for the expression of one’s own greatness,
amusement parks as a substitute for the transcending of boundaries, pornography
as a substitute for self-love, and overeating as a substitute for connection or
the feeling of being present. What we really need is nearly unavailable in the
lives that society offers us. You see, even the behaviour’s that seem to
exemplify selfishness may also be interpreted as our striving to regain our
interbeingness.
Another non-scientific indication of
our true nature is visible in yet another apparent manifestation of greed: the
endless pursuit of wealth and power. What are we to make of the fact that for
many of the very rich, no amount of money is enough? Nor can any amount of
power satisfy the ambitious. Perhaps what is happening is that the desire to
serve the common good is being channelled toward a substitute, and of course,
no amount of the substitute can equal the authentic article.
Upon each of us, the wound of
Separation, the pain of the world, lands in a different way. We seek our
medicine according to the configuration of that wound. To judge someone for
doing that would be like to condemn a baby for crying. To condemn what we see
as selfish, greedy, egoic, or evil behaviour and to seek to suppress it by
force without addressing the underlying wound is futile: the pain will always
find another expression. Herein lies a key realization of interbeing. It says,
“I would do as you do, if I were you.” We are one.
The new Story of the People, then, is
a Story of Interbeing, of reunion. In its personal expression, it proclaims our
deep interdependency on other beings, not only for the sake of surviving but
also even to exist. It knows that my being is more for your being. In its
collective expression, the new story says the same thing about humanity’s role
on Earth and relationship to the rest of nature. It is this story that unites
us across so many areas of activism and healing. The more we act from it, the
better able we are to create a world that reflects it. The more we act from
Separation, the more we helplessly create more of that, too.
Source: “Interbeing”, from The More
Beautiful World Our Hearts Know is Possible, by Charles Eisenstein
No comments:
Post a Comment