A Far Distant Howl

Now we will count to twelve
And we’ll all keep still.

This one time upon the earth
let’s not speak in any language,
let’s stop for one second,
we won’t move our arms so much.

It would be a fragrant minute,
without hurry, without locomotives,
we would all be together
in one instantaneous restlessness.

The fishermen of the cold sea
wouldn’t harm the whales
and the worker of salt
would look at his broken hands.

Those who prepare green wars,
wars of gas, wars of fire,
victory without survivors,
will put on clean clothes
and walk alongside their brothers
in the shade, without doing anything.

Don’t confuse what I want
with definitive inaction:
life is the only thing that matters,
I don’t want anything to do with death.

If we weren’t unanimous
moving our lives so much,
perhaps we could do nothing for once,
perhaps a great silence can
interrupt this sadness,
this never understanding ourselves,
and threatening ourselves with death,
perhaps the earth will teach us
when everything seems dead
and then everything was alive.

Now I will count till 12
and you be quiet and I will go.

~Pablo Neruda

Belief

"What fills everything, above, below and around, itself Being - Consciousness - Bliss, non-dual, infinite, eternal, one only, know that to be Brahman (GOD)"

Ramana, Shankara and the Forty Verses

The mind is only the substance of our own creation. From birth we mould our thoughts according to firstly, the way our parents respond to life, and then secondly, to how outside influences affect us. We build up our belief system by what we fear and by what we desire. For instance, if our parents teach us that fire is bad, then, until we understand the nature of fire we will believe that we should be frightened of it. One upon the next, we layer our beliefs like playing cards. Our fears are triggered when we experience an event that is related to one of our beliefs. Our mind pulls out the relevant card and says to you, "ah, the last time we heard about fire, we felt that we should be afraid. So, let us now experience fear." The body responds and we feel fear. This in itself would not be a problem. However, we as individuals are afraid of the feeling of fear - one of life's little ironies! - and so we push it as far away as we can. This is like cutting our skin, letting a scar form and then cutting it again (for want of a better example!!) The fear, like scar tissue becomes harder and more firmly rooted within our psyche. The only way to remove this scar is to identify the source of the belief and understand it. We find the first time when we had the experience and try to "know" how we felt at the time. Then, by accepting the fear, we resolve the issue. So in other words, instead of pushing the fear away, we embrace it. When we learn about the nature of our beliefs then we are not governed by them but rather we become the governors.

Through constant appraisal of our mind - the beliefs (and the fears and desires that feed them) - we are able to acknowledge that none of our emotional experiences are solid i.e. they are each flexible and thus can be dissolved through our own will. When we choose to do this, our minds become more and more in our control.

Mar. 21, 2006 | For a man who's obsessed with tiny critters, Edward O. Wilson has a strange knack for stirring up controversy about life's biggest questions. The Harvard biologist is a renowned expert on insects, co-author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book "The Ants." But it was his seminal 1975 book "Sociobiology," which laid the groundwork for the new field of evolutionary psychology, that made Wilson a scientific luminary -- and a major intellectual force in America. That book, along with its Pulitzer Prize-winning sequel, "On Human Nature," argued that many human behaviors -- including aggression, altruism and hypocrisy -- are shaped by evolution. Wilson's tilt toward nature in the age-old nature/nurture debate may have put him on the map, but it also made plenty of enemies. Fellow Harvard biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin denounced sociobiology, saying it provided a genetic justification for racism and Nazi ideology. Wilson's classes were picketed. In one famous incident, demonstrators at a scientific meeting stormed the stage where he was speaking and dumped a pitcher of water over his head, chanting, "Wilson, you're all wet!"

Over the years, sociobiology -- once so controversial -- became a widely accepted branch of science. Ultimately, Wilson won the National Medal of Science for his scholarship. And his own popularity soared when he emerged as a champion of biodiversity and a passionate advocate for endangered species. His 1992 book "The Diversity of Life" became a bestseller. But he stirred up more trouble in the late '90s with another book, "Consilience." This was his attempt to outline a unified theory of knowledge, which had the effect of elevating science at the expense of religion and the arts. In his view, knowledge of the world ultimately comes down to chemistry, biology and -- above all -- physics; people are just extremely complicated machines. Wendell Berry, among other critics, railed against Wilson's scientific reductionism, calling it a "modern superstition."

Wilson is now retired, though -- at 76 -- he still spends plenty of time at his Harvard lab. And he continues to write and lecture. He recently edited a collection of Charles Darwin's books titled "From So Simple a Beginning" (W.W. Norton). In person, Wilson is a courtly Southerner. He's an affable man who laughs easily and -- unlike many scientists -- is quite willing to speculate on the most cosmic questions. This was evident when he stopped by my radio studio before giving a sold-out lecture at the University of Wisconsin. We talked about Darwin and the growing rift between science and religion, as well as Wilson's own take on religion -- his "provisional deism" and his personal horror of an eternal afterlife in heaven.

What were the personal and intellectual qualities that made Darwin such a great scientist?

A relentlessly inquiring mind, a love of natural history acquired as a child, the extraordinary opportunity presented by the voyage of the Beagle to travel around the world at exactly the right age when the mind is opening, the opportunity in the scientific world to make a major discovery, and -- I should not overlook -- being a country squire with no economic pressures.

Did he have any particular agenda when he set out on his voyage on the Beagle?

I don't think so. He was a deeply religious man. He hadn't thought about evolution at all. What he was was an all-purpose observer, with a particular interest in natural history, and of course in beetles, which were the love of his life.

And it's worth pointing out that when Darwin first set out on the Beagle, he brought his own Bible. He had to overturn his whole upbringing to come up with this revolutionary idea.

Darwin departed England a devout Bible literalist. After failing his effort to become a doctor, he had in fact trained as a minister at Cambridge University. As he says in his autobiography, he would even pull out the Bible to settle some argument with other members of the ship's crew. But then as the trip went on, for reasons Darwin really never disclosed but I don't think had to do with the idea of evolution, he gradually dropped his Christian beliefs. Becoming a man of the world and much more aware of other cultures and religious beliefs, he realized that the stories of the Bible were basically no different than the stories of these other religions.

But what really turned him against religion was the doctrine of damnation. He said if the Bible is true, you must be redeemed in Christ and be a believer in order to go to heaven. And others will be condemned. And that includes my brothers and all my best friends. And he said that is a damnable doctrine. Those are his words.

Darwin's own transformation from devout Christian to non-believer obviously raises significant questions in our own time. It raises a very provocative question: If you fully accept the theory of evolution by natural selection, does that logically lead you to atheism?

Well, it does up to the origin of the mind and spirit. And one of the Vatican's scientific spokesmen, incidentally, just recently turned thumbs down on intelligent design. John Paul II took the position that evolution's been pretty well proved, and certainly was acceptable as God's way of creating the diversity of life. But the human soul was injected by God. So that's a kind of compromise position that a lot of devoutly religious people have taken.

By Steve Paulson

Read On . . .

We're all interested in sex. After all, it's the third appetite � drink, food and sex, and despite this powerful taboos exist around sex. It's not a simple matter. Some people experience discomfort when talking about it or doing it. It is also clearly connected to spirituality - yet some religions have an anti-sex morality�

So what might integral theory suggest about sex?

At the end of the 19th century a number of writers had begun to question the prevailing Western attitudes toward sex. One pioneering writer was Havelock Ellis. He wrote a book suggesting that homosexuality was simple a natural variation. He also pioneered the idea that women can and ought to enjoy sex. Space does not allow me to go into detail but it is well known that there were some very peculiar ideas about sex: orgasm in women was regarded as a sign of hysteria, masturbation was regarded as morally and physically weakening and homosexuality was seen as aberrant. All of this was challenged by a group of thinkers who argued that the study of sexuality should be pursued scientifically, independent of moral prejudice. This field became known as sexology.

At the same time anthropology began to be developed as a discipline. The colonialist expansion introduced Europeans to a wide variety of cultural practices, including radically different views toward sex. Havelock Ellis[1] wrote the forword to a ground breaking book by Stanislav Malinowski[2] called 'The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia'. This book explored the sexual practices of the Trobriand Islanders and it revealed the dynamics of a very liberal and open approach. Malinowski challenged Freud's theory of the Oedipus complex and sexual libertarians found evidence in his work that much of the European attitude was based on a false and irrational moral fear.

These new approaches led to the creation of The World League for Sexual Reform,[3] which included Ellis, Freud, Wilhelm Reich and the writers Aldous Huxley and DH Lawrence. This group was founded by Magnus Hirschfeld[4] who also started the first institute devoted to the discipline of sexology, the Institute for Sexual Research in Berlin.

The rise of the Nazis and the Second World War interrupted research into sexology (The Nazis destroyed the ISR in 1933 � many of the images of Nazis burning books are of them destroying the ISR library). The work of sexology lay dormant until Alfred Kinsey[5] and afterwards, Masters and Johnson[6]. The field of sexology is now fairly well established.

How can integral theory add to this discipline? Is there an integral sexology?

Now an entire generation has grown up with a different set of games than any before it - and it plays these games in different ways. Just watch a kid with a new videogame. The last thing they do is read the manual. Instead, they pick up the controller and start mashing buttons to see what happens. This isn't a random process; it's the essence of the scientific method. Through trial and error, players build a model of the underlying game based on empirical evidence collected through play. As the players refine this model, they begin to master the game world. It's a rapid cycle of hypothesis, experiment, and analysis. And it's a fundamentally different take on problem-solving than the linear, read-the-manual-first approach of their parents.

In an era of structured education and standardized testing, this generational difference might not yet be evident. But the gamers' mindset - the fact that they are learning in a totally new way - means they'll treat the world as a place for creation, not consumption. This is the true impact videogames will have on our culture.

Society, however, notices only the negative. Most people on the far side of the generational divide - elders - look at games and see a list of ills (they're violent, addictive, childish, worthless). Some of these labels may be deserved. But the positive aspects of gaming - creativity, community, self-esteem, problem-solving - are somehow less visible to nongamers.

I think part of this stems from the fact that watching someone play a game is a different experience than actually holding the controller and playing it yourself. Vastly different. Imagine that all you knew about movies was gleaned through observing the audience in a theater - but that you had never watched a film. You would conclude that movies induce lethargy and junk-food binges. That may be true, but you're missing the big picture.

So it's time to reconsider games, to recognize what's different about them and how they benefit - not denigrate - culture. Consider, for instance, their "possibility space": Games usually start at a well-defined state (the setup in chess, for instance) and end when a specific state is reached (the king is checkmated). Players navigate this possibility space by their choices and actions; every player's path is unique.

By Will Wright
Continue reading . . .

Spiritual development is moral development. It's the movement from division to wholeness. Most of us are deeply divided, which means we have mixed motives. This is why most of us are untrustworthy. Under pressure, the self divides and suddenly you don't know who a person is; you don't know what they are going to do. So when we become interested in evolving, we have to begin to face this deep division within ourselves. We have to confront the darkest motives that exist within us, the deeply unwholesome drives of the ego, and we have to emotionally get in touch with the effect we have on those around us when we act from those motives.

As we evolve, we become a lot more sensitive to the deeply destructive nature of ego, in ourselves and in others. That's the awakening of conscience—a higher conscience that has nothing to do with ego but comes from the level of the soul. But it takes humility to develop at this level. Most of us cherish a self-image that has very little to do with how we really are. When the true picture is revealed, some people come to their knees in humility. Others fall into a narcissistic rage, unable to bear the truth. It's at moments like these, when there is tremendous evolutionary pressure, that the self divides.

If you make a decision to remain whole under pressure, to face the truth without wavering, what emerges is literally a new human being. You discover self-confidence, spiritual and moral strength, self-respect and dignity. That's soul development. But it takes a tremendous commitment and a deep surrender to resist the temptation to divide. If the self doesn't divide under pressure, then evolution takes place in real time.

Andrew Cohen

I find it impossible to remember to be
aware,or to be aware I am aware.
So what do you do to remember to
be present?
Is it just something you do and then
do more of?  
How does a person grow in
Mindfulness?  
Thanks, Paul