Winning the Game (Finite and Infinite Games, pt. 2)

"A finite game has a precise beginning and end, and has clear spatial and numerical boundaries. There must be at least one opponent. In a finite game there can be only one winner, but other players may be ranked at the end of play." (James Carse, 'Finite and Infinite Games')

Many play the game of life as if it had a “precise beginning and end.” This applies a finite rule, making all games conform to a finite outcome of winning. You may not win a career game, however, you may generate enough points to facilitate a higher position within the boundaries of the game.

You may play the game of "simple country doctor" and improve the lives of many or play the game of "famous surgeon" inventing an artificial heart that saves lives. The country doctor may receive little public accolade, while the surgeon is awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. However, if the country doctor plays an infinite game there is no need for external rewards because he/she internally values the continuation of play. While the surgeon may play to win and go on to greater external rewards. A problem may arise should the surgeon lose his skills.

To be a doctor requires obedience to time parameters as far as education, internship, licensing, practice, etc, etc. Spatially, such games must be played within the society or country that sets the rules for winning. These rules are often predetermined by winners of past doctor games. You may win the prestige of being called a doctor by those who are not doctors, however, doctors play other games through which to voluntarily compete amongst themselves. Often times this may include monetary games. To play a finite game of "cosmetic surgeon" may have higher monetary value than the game of "podiatrist" even though both are "doctors."

Since there can only be one winner (or winning team) we play many different games to increase our chances of winning. Academic games, played in colleges and universities, have numerous finite games through which to compete for ranking and even possibly win. To win demands you attain the highest prestige in your specified intellectual domain. Universities are often rated on the accumulation of academic winners, thereby improving the universities chances of winning.

Infinite games have no boundaries, such as space and time, and although we all play games within space and time, infinite games are not determined by those boundaries. Religious and spiritual games may be played within space/time boundaries but may not necessarily be limited by those boundaries.

For instance there are many who play the "enlightenment game" and become regarded as enlightened gurus and saints within space/time. However, if their “enlightenment” transcends space/time boundaries and thus, they are not restricted by those rules, they can continue to play "enlightenment" infinitely, with no predetermined rules and no winners.

Enlightenment is as much a game as being a doctor. However, doctors must conform to the predetermined rules as a requirement of play. Gurus and saints play infinite games by setting their own rules, which must allow that rules can be changed as they go along. However, once rules are demanded, the game is finite and a winner is required. Many gurus and saints play finite games and if your particular spiritual teacher plays by specific rules of "enlightenment" you may wish to seek out another teacher. Or else, play the required finite game within an infinite game. But this may require much internal skill and fortitude, especially when taught to follow the rules.

Finite games can engender competing through a team or alone in which the body is stretched to its limits. Although many go beyond what was done before, we all agree that there are limits to what one can do. You may break records in running a 3 minute mile, but never in less than 2 minutes. We all have agreed on that being a rule. Until, of course, someone refuses to agree and runs a 2 minute mile and then the rules must change.

"Other than the principle of voluntarism, infinite games are the opposite of finite games in every way. Infinite games have no spatial, temporal, or numerical boundaries, and no winners or rankings. Finite games are externally defined; infinite games are internally defined."

We all choose to play. Denying that we choose is often a rule of finite games so that the game will be taken seriously and thus the rules strictly followed. On the other hand, infinite games lack seriousness simply because they are internally defined and cannot be won, but allow for voluntary, continued play.

Deepak Chopra is trained in the finite rules of playing a doctor and must have externally exhibited a seriousness for the rules in order to win that finite game and attain the prestige of being called "doctor." However, he has gone beyond those rules internally and thus changed the rules of play thereby developing new rules through which to play “doctor” by not remaining bound to the rules of that finite game. As long as he continues to change the rules, and is not bound by any rules, the game will remain infinite. Yet, at anytime the play is defined as demanding certain rules, the game is then defined as finite, meaning someone must win.

Visionaries and radicals often play infinite games. However, they can eventually become predisposed to a specific set of rules (often their own) requiring the game be finite and a winner determined.

Hitler went beyond finite rules, but demanded rigid conformance to his own finite rules of conquest. His game was terminated by others who refused to play by his rules, thereby desiring that an infinite game be played which included freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, the new players imposed their own external rules and so, infinite play could only be accessed internally while finite geopolitical games continue on, even today.

Infinite games are often hard to recognize in our postmodern advanced society, even by those who look to play infinitely and this is because of the internal nature of infinite games. Many modern spiritual games seem infinite on face value, but it soon becomes apparent that often one must do it this way or that way in order to play and potentially win.

Infinite games can have no winner, but only never-ending play. For most, this seems virtually impossible as all games are usually played with space/time boundaries. A winner is expected and losers are ranked according to how close they come to winning. Many live in complete disregard for the finite games we expect all participants of society to play and we often refer to non-players as "losers."

This finite social conditioning tends to make infinite games incredibly difficult to envision and require leaps of consciousness from which to break from finite rules. Yet, many do experience that freedom on a daily basis.

"The time of an infinite game is determined in the game itself. Finite games can be played within an infinite game, but no infinite game can be played within a finite game. The rules of a finite game are predetermined and fixed. The rules of an infinite game must change in the course of play, to avoid a finite outcome. The rules of an infinite game are changed to prevent anyone from winning and to bring as many persons as possible into the play."

Playing a finite game within an infinite game necessarily changes the finite rules thereby altering the game itself, but only internally. I can play at being a doctor and conform to fixed rules, while at the same time anticipating infinite play within that finite game. This can only be done internally and often must be veiled externally from those who demand finite rules so that winners and losers can be determined. Eventually, infinite players are identified and loved or hated.

Infinite games can adhere to time restrictions but only in order to continue playing and not to end the game by announcing a winner. Infinite players do not take winners very seriously simply because they continue to play internally and have no expectation of outcome other than continued play.

A priest or minister may externally demonstrate adherence to finite rules, while internally playing an infinite game, thereby taking his congregation beyond the predetermined dogma. Such a visionary individual may eventually be barred from continuing, but by then it may be too late and the congregation will take on a life of its own outside church walls. Such "churches" are open to all denominations and religions allowing no restrictions based on sex, gender, or anything else for that matter.

Clearly, a doctor who delights in saving lives, or a politician who revels in going against his party to end suffering, would be playing a finite game within an infinite game. This would be true as long as the rules never become rigidly determined. These individuals then become models for saving more lives, by encouraging more participants to play the game in ending more suffering in more creative ways. This abundance has no end (hence, the term infinite), but only within infinite games can this process occur since there are no winners to end the game and no rules to bar other ways of playing the 'more' game.

Abraham Lincoln’s campaign platform demanded the continuation of slavery. However, internally he did not adhere to those rules and merely waited for the correct time to externally declare an “emancipation proclamation.” This is an example of an infinite game in which time “is determined in the game itself.” Ending the institution of slavery was a finite game that has never ended and is therefore, infinite.

Currently, Barack Obama has refused to comply with the rules of campaign finance and has been severely criticized by the opposing party for breaking those rules. However, his refusing to abide by predetermined rules changes the rules forever. Yet, if he is elected and demands other rules regarding campaign finance, he would thereby alter an infinite game back into a finite game with strict rules.

Of course, visionaries will be condemned for ignoring finite boundaries and rules (loss of license or party affiliation, or even assassination) by those who play finite games. But they will be seen as visionary by those who play infinite games and will be remembered long after they are gone.

History teaches about those who refused to be bound by the rules of finite games. The fact that there are so few models, per capita, illustrates our pressing need to have defined boundaries and rigid rules so that we can evaluate who the winners and losers are and thus, possibly win ourselves.

A finite game must have a winner. What games do you play to win?

The Game of Life ("Finite and Infinite Games," pt 1).

Everybody has considered at one time or another, the idea that “life is a game." Well, James Carse has written a book about such considerations called Finite and Infinite Games. This is one of those profound little books that I return to frequently (my paperback is old tattered and devoid of margins due to my consistent editing and markings) in trying to make sense of the absurdities of living.

This next series of blog posts will examine that book’s general thesis and main points. Of course, this is only my interpretation and I would hope that you read the book yourself in order to get the full value of the ideas.

“There are at least two kinds of games. One could be called finite, the other infinite. A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play. There is no game, finite or infinite, unless the players freely agree to play it. No one can play who is forced to play. This is an invariable principle of all play. Whoever must play, cannot play. If a finite game is to be won by someone, it must come to a definitive end. It will come to an end when someone has won. Winning is determined by agreement of the players.” (italics the authors)

It's interesting how we believe there are so many things we must do in life. Like death and taxes, we feel we have no choice in the matter. Of course, this denies the nature of “play” and that we have chosen to play by the rules of a particular game.

I have freely chosen to participate in the game of paying taxes since I could just as easily refuse to play. Certainly, there would be consequences based on the rules of that game, but the fact is, many choose NOT to pay taxes and thus not to play by the collectively agreed upon rules. You may feel you must play the game of paying taxes, but clearly ‘choice’ is built into the game and, make no mistake, you have chosen to play by the rules. Complaints about the game of paying taxes, is part of the rules of that game.

Our games tend to be interwoven. In paying taxes we also play the game of "United States citizen," which is a much broader game and tends to include within it’s rules various other games, including taxes. For instance, "Patriot" is a game many play and therefore, not paying taxes would be unpatriotic and would be essentially not to play by the rules of the game of patriot. We choose to play by the rules of the game of patriotism, because we wish to win. To win at being a patriot means to acquire the titles that we all agree are indicative of winning the game of patriotism (we will review the concept of “titles” in another post).

Presidential candidate John McCain has won the game of patriotism and most agree that he has won, so he is free to use his title of patriot in the game of presidential candidate. His winning the game of patriotism makes the game finite since his winning is NOT to be questioned. To question his title to 'patriotism' and thus, his winning, would be to keep the game in play and thus alter the game from finite, or having a definitive end, to infinite with the continuation of play.

If McCain were to win the game of presidential election, we would agree that the game of “presidential election” has concluded by reaching a definitive end and all further need to play has ended. However, many may attempt to alter this finite game by questioning the designated winner and the rules that resulted in that game being won, seeking to create an infinite game serving to continue the play. In fact, many may choose not to play the game of paying taxes, since they refuse to recognize the game of presidential election as being won.

THE GAME OF LIFE

Many people feel that the game of 'life' is a finite game, since it does reach a definitive end which we agree to call “death.” Thus, life has finite rules which serve to allow play until death ends the game and we go to heaven or whatever 'place' we determine within the rules as we choose to play. Therefore, all the rules we play by in life include the belief that the game does end. Because of that definitive ending, life games take on an air of sophistication and seriousness, that tend to cause us to deny that we have freely chosen to play.

Often, due to the seriousness of life games, many choose not to take it serious and some, through suicide, choose not to play at all (unfortunately suicide is also a game that can be either finite or infinite). Many believe that if they can acquire a great deal of property, financial resources and game titles (like president, chairman, chief, CEO, retired, grandfather, etc) they have played the game of life well and have therefore won the game. But of course, winning stops play for that particular player within the boundaries of the finite nature of the game of life. This is because the life game includes all lesser games, such as work, career, marriage, citizenship, money, real estate, friendship, old age, religion, parenting, etc, etc, within its boundaries. There are infinite games that can be played in life, but most choose to play only specific finite games since they play life as though it were finite and had a definitive end to all play. Any game that can be won and thus ended, becomes a serious endeavor often with tragic costs. Yet, tragedy is also a game.

Many discard the rules of death and choose to continue play after death. This obviously changes the rules of the game of life because death is no longer considered an end to play and therefore, the game of life has no end and is open-ended. Life is then engaged as a game with no winners or losers, but as simply the ongoing continuation of play. In other words, many alter the rules of death to include continued play therefore essentially negating the game of death and infinitely extending the game of life.

Spiritual/religious paths are often such rule-benders by requiring that the spiritual game be played by choice just as the finite game of life is played by choice. I can freely choose to discard the seriousness of life by conceptually negating death as a finite conclusion to life. Now I am open to play by different rules, which may or may not include the acquisition of titles and property to signify my winning the game of life. This is because as an infinite game, life has no winners or rules other than that all players must continue play indefinitely. This is why many who live in abject poverty are often happier than millionaires.

We cannot deny the freedom inherent to infinite games in that the only rule is to continue play. Thus, lesser games within an infinite game of life no longer take on profound significance through the rules of winning, simply because there can be NO winners or losers and that rule is agreed upon by all who choose to play infinitely.

The next installment of this exposition of Infinite and Finite games will continue the current theme with additional quotes from the book and further discussion.

The Poor are Lazy Bums!

I came across this commentary by Eric Bolling a market pundit from The Street.com.

"I was doing my regular Saturday morning television show "Bulls & Bears" on Fox. The topic was taxes and I was trying to explain why I disliked presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's "spread the wealth around" comment to Joe the Plumber. A friend and professor at Temple University, Marc Lamont Hill, joined us to defend the democrat's side of the issue.

The discussion came back around to me and an analogy popped into my mind. I said, "Marc, let me see if I can put this in terms you can relate to. Being a professor, how would your students feel if you decided to implement the following -- all the hard working, late-night studying, social-life sacrificing 'A' students had to give the bottom dwelling 'D' students some of their high scores? The 'D's' would come up to 'C's' and the 'A's' would come down to 'C's.' You would be removing the incentive to work hard, succeed and get rewarded."

"I strongly disagree," is all Marc could say. No follow up or defense. I really respect Marc, but there is little defense of "spreading the wealth" in a financial conversation.

In essence, the Obama tax plan does just this. It takes from the hardest working and, no coincidence, highest-earning Americans and gives to the people who earn less.

And "the people who earn less" are lazy, deficient "bottom dwelling ‘D' students." They're not "hard working" and fail to sacrifice their social lives (they party way too much!). This Wall Street pundit has clearly encapsulated the essence of democratic capitalism and the indoctrinated beliefs this paradigm installs in the collective mind (public) in which individuals base intrinsic self-value on wealth or lack thereof.

Notice his final summation of Obama's tax plan: "It takes from the hardest working and, no coincidence, highest earning Americans and gives to people who earn less."

Nurses work hard, but they don't make what stock brokers earn. Thus, based on Eric's analogy, they are deficient and essentially lazy.

There is no peace in this perspective, only dissension and bigotry and one of the highest poverty and infant mortality rates of all industrialized countries.

This ideology bolsters capitalism, but unfortunately erodes away democracy. Eric demands we maintain the "incentive to work hard" or else he fears we will become a country of lazy "D students." Maybe we are a country of "D students" (literally) because we are all beginning to realize that "hard-working" does NOT equate with reward, because the system is fixed and fails to adequately reward those who work hard, but over-compensates those who attain riches by hardly working.

Those who see from Deep Spirit have a different vision that does not simply perpetuate ever greater chasms of separation based on monetary value as the most empowering force. They see equalizing forces, as opposed to market forces, bringing people together based on compassion and love in which value is not determined on the size of your bank account.

I wish I could talk with Eric Boller and try to get him to break free of his socially conditioned viewpoint. Try to help him see beyond his capitalist perspective to a deeper vision. But, there is very little chance of that since Eric is a "hard working" member of several stock exchange boards and I'm just a lazy social worker.

Peace Angels
mike S

Sharing is Un-American

The final McCain/Obama debates attempted to highlight the average American through the caricaturing of a real American, aptly named "Joe plumber." The debates seemed to center on how Joe's successful accumulation of business wealth (through "plumbing") will be taxed.

This morning, Rick Davis, the McCain campaign chief executive, made this comment in an interview on an MSNBC morning show: "The fact that Joe plumber should be sharing his wealth with other people just because he's been successful is crazy, it's not the American way..."

Hmmm...to my mind this comment encapsulates the essence of democratic capitalism:

The capacity to build financial wealth and share as little of it as possible.

The comment was ignored by the news show anchors, and this attests to the matter-of-fact nature of the comment and how deeply this idea is embedded in the American collective psyche. The idea that Joe plumber should share his wealth with the rest of us, as we in turn share our wealth with him, is absolutely ludicrous to the collective American psyche conditioned to individualistic acquisition and hoarding (or "the American way").

In fact, it seems that "share the wealth" is a radical and almost revolutionary concept. When Obama reportedly used the statement in a conversation with a voter, the McCain campaign immediately snatched it up as an indictment against Obama and as a distinct difference between both candidates.

Surely, the American people will NOT agree to any such concept of wealth that includes "sharing."

HA!

I often wonder if another "Great Depression" is what we need. But only if the collective consciousness has evolved enough to learn from it. Did the first Great Depression simply serve to further stimulate and reinforce capitalistic acquisition and hoarding? Will it take another Great Depression to stimulate and reinforce a better idea, or are we destined to compulsively repeat our individual and collective dysfunctions and thus fail to correspond with Deep Spirit, together.

As our wise leader once said "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."

As our gradually decomposing financial system symbolizes our future misery and the need to re-examine all our deeply held materialistic values, I wonder if we will get fooled again?

Peace Angels,
mike S

The Roller Coaster of Contrasts

The fantasy perpetrated by your separate ego seems to demonstrate constant vigilance for distinctions through which to lower and raise itself. Up and down we ride the Roller Coaster of Contrasts. I am more than him, but less than her or he is brighter, smarter, prettier, stronger, than her and me and, etc, etc, on and on ad infinitum.

The ego loves such distinctions since it grounds "you" down into abject littleness and impotency, thereby insuring ITS existence. And what would you be without an ego-self to refer to as 'I' and 'me'?

How 'bout this, 'You ARE God.' Roll that thought around in your head, in an attempt to believe it and watch what comes up, since the ego will always rebel against the truth since that is its ONLY purpose. In fact, there is absolutely no way you could truly believe this unless you made a complete psychotic break with reality. The ancient and modern masters did just that, only the thought employed was "I AM."

Explore the need to seek out such distinctions by recognizing they do not exist in a truly spirit-unified world within and then be free of the suffering that comes from the need to compare and contrast. In understanding this you may find less agony with your own mistakes and your erroneous judgments of others by recognizing "I AM he as you are he as you are me and we are all together." (Lennon).

In the grand scheme of Infinite Oneness, everything counts and nothing can be left out and that includes ALL your Fuck-ups as well, yours, mine and everyone's.

God or Infinite Source embraces your Fuck-ups. So why do you condemn!
And make no mistake, a mind that creates standards of happiness through past memory will never forget past mistakes and thus can only maintain condemnation upon the 'self' and world.

That's the paradox. If your ARE, and ARE NOT, "fucked up" then what are you? What else is there?

Your Source applies a "global evaluation" upon you and nothing you do could alter perfection judging perfection. In fact, perfection judging perfection is a "global contradiction" simply because the capacity or need to judge is a concept signifying imperfection. Perfection could NOT possibly SEE imperfection through contrasts.

Can you both reject and accept every experience you encounter, no matter what the content, at the exact moment of encounter?

This is the paradox of non-dualism that the masters teach. It's not indifference, yet it lacks the conditions (values) that you have SET in determining what you SEE and, therefore, judge as different, (whether you look at others or yourself).

Is this confusing? That's because this makes no sense whatsoever to the mind that believes it must discriminate between opposites using signifiers like right and wrong, or good and bad, beautiful and ugly, etc, etc, etc.

The Biblical "Judge not lest ye be judged" points to this paradox and a post-modern interpretation may realize that the "judgment" the Christ message speaks about is NOT simply judgment that rejects, but acceptance as well.

To accept one part means that another part is automatically rejected.

However, if you can accept all of it (or, in other words, 'love') then Christ Consciousness/Buddha Mind is yours and so it should be since the message is also, "Truly, truly, I say to you, He who believes in me [or "as I believe"] will also do the works that I do; and Greater Works than These will he do...(John 14)

Peace Angels,
mike S

Is the End of Suffering CERTAIN?

Many tend to claim that we can choose to end our suffering.

If this is true, based on what time frame? In the 2000+ years since that guy called "Christ,"it seems rather incredible that we continue to choose suffering and project that suffering onto others (the more the merrier, right?).

Don't you think that odd? Especially considering that it's supposed to be as easy as choosing NOT to suffer.

Do we really believe suffering is contingent on something as simple as "choice"? Of course, such a choice presupposes that we have the free-will TO choose. And if we have the free-will to choose, what are we waiting for? Another 2000 years?

HA!

Nope... no free-will, no choice, no authentic thought, no unique ideas exclusive to the thinker (god, how we love to think our thoughts). Do we really believe that the thoughts in our "brains" are unique and exclusive to our 'self'? Or does our thinking merely give us comfort, amidst our suffering, until death annihilates the thinker?

So forget all those theories you've been happily dreaming up because, alas, I have come to reveal "The Secret":

Not one thought in your head is yours and everything you think you 'know' has been given TO you by someone, somewhere, at some time in the past. God did NOT give you free-will and the impression of freely conjuring up 'thoughts' exclusive to your mind is completely illusional. Its all been thought before and every thought will be thought again and again and again, on ad infinitum, because there is no end to our repetitive compulsion to think thoughts already thought of.

So sit back and enjoy the ride...there is really nothing you NEED do and this is because there is nothing you CAN do, since everything is CERTAIN.

But how can that be?

Your creation is certain and provable by the very fact of your BEING. Therefore, it makes no sense to consider NOT Being, since Being is perfect as a stand alone concept and can not be embellished or augmented in any way (otherwise, it would 'be something,' rather than just Being). However, you can add to the concept and we all do add to it when we conceptualize 'death' as NOT Being. But since Being can never Be anything other than what it IS, Being remains perfect and can NOT be diluted, distorted or made imperfect in anyway.

The moment you cease to consider NOT Being, you have essentially freed your mind of the concept of death (which generates all kinds of "NOT Being" fears, or those repetitive thoughts we keep thinking over and over again).
Therefore, if Being is all there is as a perfect concept, and you are most certainly Being right this moment, you must Be perfect and thus, you will never Be anything other than Being (perfect) and that is CERTAIN.

Thank goodness we can finally be free of all those death and dying thoughts and finally LIVE completely free from our choice to suffer!

Peace Angels,
mike S

Is "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" Destroying the World?

It seems fundamentally evident that, in order to aspire to a career in politics, one must eventually seek ‘votes’ to advance one’s career to ever higher office. Seeking votes means essentially being liked and to be elected to political office means being liked by more people than others seeking the same office.

This requires the acute and finely detailed tailoring of one’s ‘self’ in order to be liked, as opposed to NOT liked. This process easily eliminates those who are unable, for whatever reason, to tailor the ‘self’ in a way that generates votes through ‘likability.’ This tailoring process seems so deeply inherent to a political career, that the political aspirant may need to compromise his or her longstanding values and standards to achieve votes. A career in politics is not necessarily compatible with higher values like integrity (maybe this is why so much corruption exists in the field).

In fact, if standards and values are not to some degree compromised in order to increase ‘likability’ and collect votes, then the politician will eventually be eliminated from the field or at the least stuck in less esteemed positions. This elimination process, particularly in seeking the highest offices in which more votes are required, tends to produce a specific character type that, in many cases, may be inclined toward personality or character dysfunction almost to the point of a full-blown personality disorder.

I have found that the specific character disorder frequently exhibited by political aspirants is labeled Narcissistic Personality Disorder by the American Psychiatric Association, APA, (In fact, the spiritual philosopher, Ken Wilber, believes that “narcissism” is one of the most significant impediments to Deep Spirit, although his “narcissism” is a bit more complicated that the APA’s definition).

The APA has never, to my knowledge, made any psychological classification of politicians. However, I believe it is warranted. The problem is that in the field of politics it can be very difficult or almost impossible to identify those politicians with the disorder, since we all realize and tend to accept that politics is often a personality competition of celebrity proportions. Therefore, we could be witnessing a full-blown Narcissistic disordered personality right before our eyes, yet fail to recognize the symptoms of the disorder due to the very nature of politics in this postmodern age.

My point in this essay is in relation to the appearance of Deep Spirit and not necessarily, the appearance of narcissistic symptoms. However, Narcissism impedes Deep Spirit, particularly in those exhibiting symptoms of the disorder, and is generated primarily from fear. More specifically, in politics the fear is of not attaining votes because more voters dislike the political candidate. This is the fear of un-likability, that we all on some level experience. Yet my being disliked by many people may not result in the need to tailor my personality in order to be more liked so as to enhance my career, but for the politician this tailoring is crucial to career enhancement.

Narcissism is a personality or “character” disorder actually diagnosable through the psychiatric model of mental disorders as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual or Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). The officially accepted criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder according to the DSM-IV is as follows :

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

(1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

(2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

(3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

(4) requires excessive admiration

(5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

(6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

(7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

(8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

(9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Although Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a classification of the psychiatric model of mental disorders, the condition is pervasive to the personality or ‘self’ and is essentially impervious to medications, and most psychotherapies. In other words, if you are afflicted with this ‘disorder,’ narcissistic personality is what you ARE and you most likely can be NO different since the core ‘self’ IS the disorder and will not change (at least, not in this lifetime, anyway). This is different from psychiatric mental disorders which are primarily due to brain or neurochemicals imbalances and can be treated through medications

As the symptoms reveal, there is an almost complete self-absorption with little regard for others or the suffering of others. In fact, others are seen as only means to greater enhancement, or advancement, of the ‘self.’ Therefore, any spiritual perspective of ‘oneness,’ any unity of perception or converging of perspectives to include the collective as opposed to the Narcissistic individual, is essentially absent or at the least, greatly minimized.

I contend that many of our national leaders meet, if not all the criteria, many of the symptoms of this character disorder (notice that only 5 of the 9 symptoms need be met for the diagnosis to be applied).
Based on the limited research available regarding Narcissistic Personality Disorder it appears to be the result of early childhood deprivation or neglect in terms of building healthy psychological ego-self structures. Based on current statistics, only a very small percentage of the U.S. population is afflicted with this disorder (many medical statistics claim only 1% of the population, however, since narcissists rarely admit to the symptoms of this disorder they rarely attend treatment and thus fail to be statistically counted).

POLITICAL NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER

Due to the grandiose nature of politics, individual politicians must be predisposed to acquiring high public esteem and self-glorification through the acquisition of ‘votes’ related to election and re-election. This election process tends to funnel, collect and lump together those who may be prone to narcissistic personality disorder, particularly at the highest political levels. This is a bit different then celebrity status, although certainly there are many narcissistic personalities in that field as well. Yet, since celebrities tend to be esteemed based on some artistic talent and exist primarily to entertain, politicians need not exhibit any specific talent other than that of tailoring the personality so as to attain the greatest number of votes thereby beating opposition. In addition, a movie or rock star can enhance their celebrity status through controversy, while a politician’s career can be completely derailed through anything less than a perfect personality and a stellar past. Therefore, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, though evident in other careers, is abundantly manifest in politics at the highest or national level.

However, this is not to assume that all politicians exhibit the full-fledged disorder with most of the symptoms. It may be more indicative of a greater possibility of manifesting the “traits” or “styles” of the disorder. Some politicians will be more narcissistically disordered, while others may be less afflicted. But I contend that due to the nature of the career, most will exhibit symptoms even those who seem to appear the most “honest” (I hate to say it, but George Bush tends to conform quite adequately to this model of narcissism)

One thing is certain however, the higher the office the greater the likelihood that those elected will exhibit symptoms of the disorder as opposed to merely traits or styles. Therefore, we will suffer, more or less, dependent on the degree of Narcissistic Personality symptoms the elected office holder is afflicted by.

Based on this, and my strong belief that regardless of one's professed religion, seekers of Deep Inner Spirit tend to be more inclined to a more generous “worldcentric” perspective and a vision that integrates all levels of our evolving global society. This vision is completely opposite of narcissism and actually demands the clearing of narcissistic symptoms (traits and styles) in order for others, as opposed to ‘self,’ to be even considered, let alone considered through a correspondence with a deeper Spirit within.

However, Narcissistic individuals are very adept at “lip-service” or telling us what they believe we want to hear regardless of the truth factor (this is why outright 'lies' are referred to “mis-stating” the facts) in order to enhance likability and acquire votes . Due to this magnified self-absorption, they tend to lack a “worldcentric” perspective and are terminally ‘stuck’ in an egocentric view of the world and others. In fact, they tend NOT to be capable of considering any other perspective but their own (unless, of course, other perspectives are similar). The Narcissistic personality is dysfunctionally self-absorbed and wholly self-oriented and obviously not amenable to the progress of an evolutionary collective consciousness that seeks to encompass all perspectives, all the time.

So, when you cast your vote this November, stop to consider which of the politicians seeking office seem to meet the above psychiatric criteria. This may help to insure that you are not voting for a candidate who is Narcissistic Personality Disordered having one chief value in mind above all others and that is the glorification of self. If this is the primary perspective they hold, then most likely they should not hold public office.

Clearly, we are approaching difficult times ahead and the leaders we choose will need a foundation of Deep Spirit in order to help us seek that same foundation within ourselves. If we elect officials, no matter what party, who are personality/character disordered, we have no one to blame but ourselves for the disorder and corresponding symptoms we will no doubt experience. Of course, this statement may initiate an examination of the two-term election of George Bush and the question:

Can a large segment of a national population be Narcissistic Personality Disordered? I’ll leave that to brighter minds than mine, but the implications are bone-chilling.

GUILT: The Death of Intimacy

Of all the symptoms of fear, (anxiety, depression, anger, etc) guilt is the most deep-seated and often the hardest to penetrate, particularly because, as opposed to other undesired emotions, it is entirely internal with little exterior manifestation and, as such, it is very difficult to observe. In fact, many claim guilt to be the origin of all negative emotions, as listed above, and many have also claimed that it is NOT an emotion at all, but more endemic to the whole personality or ‘self.’

Guilt is the shadow of all the shadow-zones that we seek to eradicate in order to further spiritual evolution. Therefore, a total all-encompassing ‘innocence’ is the final point of all spiritual evolution. Yet, how many of us could claim such complete innocence or even claim it for another. Maybe, this is why “sorry, seems to be the hardest word” (Elton John).

We float and plod through our “meaningful,’ but erratic, lifestyles, acutely aware of all the misfortune and suffering that surrounds us (not to mention our own) and feel helpless to stem the flow of that suffering. But what can we do? Oh sure, we give to our favorite charities, volunteer our time and some even become activists. But, alas, suffering continues almost unabated and deep within the contours of our mind, beyond all our comforting rationalizations, how can we NOT experience guilt? So how do we minimize the guilt of our helplessness that leads to inaction? How do we accept that we can only provide so much; that we have only so much to give? What rationale do we think up to assuage our guilt and comfort us as we walk on by?

There is a poignant discomfort to our individual and collective guilt that sinks even deeper than our normal everyday lies, deceptions and self-protective strategies. On the deepest level, guilt pervades our very Being simply because we realize (but deny) that we are NOT Being as we were ‘created’ or meant to BE. Whereas you might cognitively extinguish your anger and medicate your depression, guilt is impervious to such methods due to its primordial nature.

It’s as if we are impostors living in ways NOT reflective of our true nature. Deep down we recognize that, in some strange sense, we are not ‘real’ and all our busy endeavors and 'productive' projects only magnify this sense of unreality and fraud. This ‘unreality’ is exhibited more in our relationships with others than in any other function we assign ourselves. Thus, we have “small talk” to aid in remaining in the shallows of deep interpersonal understanding and intimacy, for fear of the 'exposure' that might reveal our guilt.

We can easily blame the world and others in dealing with our anxieties, what depresses us, and even all the things that make us angry. But guilt is completely intrinsic to the belief in an exclusive, autonomous 'self' and often makes us very, very 'bad' in our own eyes, more so then any attempts by others to devalue our ‘self.’ It may take us many years and much excruciatingly painful honesty, to even start the process of facing our guilt and this is primarily due to the layers of guilt that serve as foundation for further guilt-building.

From childhood lies to adult deceptions, we seem unable to shake free of this self-constructed mass of guilt that tends to weigh us down and makes progress through life so difficult and often wrought with suffering. Each idea of spiritual progress we rejoice in often seems laden down and blunted by an inner core of pervasive guilt in the realization that all our worldly ‘successes” may never be enough to assuage our guilt.

With the oppressive/depressive weight of guilt bearing down on us, is it any wonder that free-floating, non-situational depression is becoming the most diagnosed mental illness in the world. But does the treatment only provide minimal comfort from our symptomatic inner suffering, while the disease of guilt only continues to fester, eating away at the core of ‘self,’ thereby impeding access to Spirit?

INTERPERSONAL GUILT PROJECTION

In our conflicts, you are always prepared for my indictment because guilt is the one thing you must avoid at all costs, since it only activates your deeper self-guilt. In the name of self-protection, your defenses are sharpened to perfection, as you cut me to pieces before I have the chance to defend my ‘self.’ However, I am acutely aware, often even more than you, of your weaknesses or, more specifically, that for which you claim guilt (those parts of ‘self,’ which you would like to forget).

Therefore, our mutual attacks draw deep emotional blood and each combative episode, like every puff of the cigarette, slowly subtracts time from our lives as life-giving intimacy and deep understanding dissolves away, often never to return. I find it interesting that people are often more ‘intimate’ with their pets then with the people they profess to “love.” This clearly reflects the lack of guilt transference patterns with animals and nature, since no matter how many times Fido soils the carpet, innocence is retained forever to that living ‘being’ that has no ‘self’ except that which we project onto it. (I’ve tried for years to project my 'ideals' onto my wife, but to no avail as she adamantly resists to be what I want her to be).

The problem is that guilt is so utterly inherent to human beings (as opposed to human Being), that we tend NOT to engage with it, but simply allow it to fester and grow into the ‘stress’ that saps life and eventually results in all sorts of internal ailments, disorders and diseases. The medical establishment informs us that stress is the number one killer and this is because stress is nothing more than years of impacted guilt for every decision you ever made that impeded your desire for the perfection of Spirit within. In every period of your life, what you did to impede evolution (and what you failed to do) follows and defines your 'self.'

We seem unable to shake free of our guilt or that deep sense of somehow being wholly unworthy of our very ‘existence.’ The body is target to unending layers of guilt since it can never meet our concepts of perfection. You indict your body as easily as you indict the body of others. Too fat, too skinny, tall, short, ugly, deformed, defective, etc, etc, etc. Our demand for the perfection of Source/God (your choice) is erroneously transferred to the body in denial that God is not limited by such forms and that the body can never be more than a symbol of imperfection.

We sense an ‘ideal’ of perfection (Plato' "Forms"), and in contrast to that ideal we recognize how radically defective we really are, with all the body’s obscene functions, diseases, disorders and absurd self-created purposes and actions. We are virtually incarcerated in our concepts of imperfection and guilty as charged. No matter how spiritually driven we are to offset such awareness through worldly distractions, deep meditation and continuing our absurd functions, we live with our imperfection through a deep-seated guilt. Guilt rides piggy-back upon the ‘self’ and it seems our only option to shedding this heavy burden, that “old, rugged cross,” is to project that guilt onto others. In this way, by projecting your guilt onto me, you thereby enhance your innocence. Of course, this means you must deny your undifferentiated unity, oneness and almost absolute sameness with me. The world is a reflection of such collective denial.

There are spiritual teachers who state that our guilt is the origin of all our emotional suffering and since we indict ourselves as guilty, we indict others as "guilty by association." This is an aspect of our unified “oneness,” that does not escape us no matter how hard we judge others in order to reinforce our own innocence. If you are dripping with guilt, since you and I are the same in our humanity, I must be just as guilty. However, you delude yourself into belief that I am not aware of your guilt, since you keep it tucked up in the inner folds of your mind, and so even your own awareness of it is rare.

But, I am distinctly aware of your guilt because it is mine, although I too believe my indictment of your many transgressions allows me a facade of innocence. Thus, we can blast away at each other and demand justice for violations of ‘self,’ while claiming innocence through secrecy of mind. This is why the contents of our mind must remain sealed, for if I were to learn the full truth of all your guilt, you believe I could destroy you. We both MUST protect against such exposure and it would seem as though our very life depends upon it. Such is the deadly dance of relationship.

Such is the death of intimacy.

Guilt impedes intimacy and demands your defenses be forever at the ready. I must NOT expose you, else your righteousness would be ineffective in offsetting your guilt. My identifying your guilt means you must face what I SEE and this you cannot allow. So you will crush me and I know you can, as you know I can, and this locks us into the brutality and unpredictability of emotional combat. You may lose a round, but in recognition of the ongoing never-ending war, you will rejoin the battle with ever more destructive conceptual armaments.

Like storm clouds gathering on the horizon, our conceptual combat is barely perceptible except to the most acute outside observer. In fact, we have become so adept and skillful in our psychic battle strategies that, to the uninitiated, your attacks seem almost charitable. But you are conditioned to my subtle brutalities and prepared to perpetuate your own, in awareness of my subterfuge. So utterly instantaneous and barely perceptible will be our mutual attacks, that often none but the actual combatants perceive the parameters of “another battle in our dirty little war” (Springsteen). This does not matter though, because we are always prepared and ready simply because I know your past and you know mine. The past is that aspect of ‘self’ we seek desperately to escape and is the one thing you recognize could destroy me and reduce me to inadequacy and impotency. But, I know your past and in recognition of your attacks on my past, I make note of those aspects of your past ‘self’ that will deeply wound you.

In fact, many teach that our guilt holds us securely in the past, since guilt is always in reference to a past ‘self’ and is never NOW. They say that our little 'guilt trips' are nothing compared to the guilt we experience in our failure to correspond with Spirit which is always NOW and never THEN. Not to live from that unconditional awareness seems to make us very guilty indeed and we then simply add to it.

If your declaration of war against me, made secretly to yourself, is based on my past attacks, will you recognize that my attack of you is no different than your emotional assaults on me? Which came first, the chicken or the egg, is an analogy relevant to our 'loving' warfare. This is because in your eyes I am the ‘original sin,’ which is my 'loss of grace' and is the origin of your need for self-protection. But, in my eyes, you are the origin of my suffering and make no mistake, you will pay, as "vengeance is mine sayeth the lord."

In fact, I’ve even met with couples who, after years of conflict and attack, in which each mutually pound blame upon the other, will actually reference perceived attacks that occurred even before the marriage vows were taken. The tally was begun long before the union was officially sanctioned. Was this preparation for battle in order to shake free of guilt, a lesson of childhood? Are we so afraid to look at our guilt that we learn from our parents the most effective means of guilt projection as the only way to achieve innocence and grace?

FORGIVE TO FORGET

There is only one way out of this virtual self-created hell and that is, of course, “forgiveness.” However, as opposed to the world’s rendition of forgiveness, Spirit forgives to forget. This is because, if you are NOT living from Spirit you are essentially NOT living. Therefore, contrary to your experience of ‘real,’ how can what is NOT living be ‘real.’ In such a world of ‘unreality,’ who is victim and who is victimizer? Who is guilty and who innocent? (Perfect non-dualism makes no such distinctions, but we do)

In the ‘real’ world’s value system, your forgiving me my transgressions exalts you above me and clearly sets a hierarchy of value between us. Although you may grant me reprieve from your hate, neither you nor I have forgotten my guilt and therefore, it remains to eat at the core of intimacy. Thus I will not lose sight of what your forgiveness really means. In fact, the moment I lose sight of the fact that YOU are the exalted one who has forgiven ME, you will immediately resume your indictment with all the vengeance at your disposal. In this sense, forgiveness is simply another subtle form of victimization.

Couples perform this mirage of forgiveness quite often, depending on how many years of living separately-together has transpired. However, if forgiveness does NOT forget then, although your forgiveness seems authentic based on what the world teaches, your progression to Spirit is significantly delayed and obstructed. Deep down, in our moments of clarity, we all realize this fact.

Nevertheless, eventually, guilt is reestablished intrinsically in you and therefore, sooner or later, you will extrinsically indict me once again. Unless my transgression is completely absolved from memory, as yours are absolved from my mind, we cannot go further together and, although we may remain together as bodies, we will die apart in Spirit since the Union with Spirit was never realized. Spirit is NOT offered alone and cannot be discovered in solitude. This is because only TWO or more, engaged in that pursuit together, can make such a profound discovery.

Peace Angels,
mike S

Accomodating the Spiritual "Busyman" (and Woman)

Over the past year I've been politely informed by many readers that my posts (on both blogs) are to long and complicated (plus, not enough pictures). They take too long to read and consider. People lead busy lives and don't have the time to read long drawn out blog posts contemplating spiritual ideas. They want short chunks of relevancy, not discursive cause and effect considerations. There's no need to explain the reason why, just get me to the spiritual 'fix.'

I suppose this works well for those that believe that thoughts cannot be controlled and they arise and fall with no assistance from the mind whatsoever. Thus, why consider anything since you have no volition as to what thoughts you will consider since they come and go of their own accord. However, this blunts free-will and seems to allow a disorganized complexity to roam freely in the individual and collective consciousness.

Nevertheless, many of the spiritual blogs I currently read are condensing and abridging their essays or posts in order to draw in the "busy-man" (hyphenated to denote unity, since there really is NO purpose to the 'busyness' other than just the illusion of purpose). Of course, the "busy-man," and woman (recall the Tao of Pooh's "busybacksoon" caricature) are the ones Thoreau lamented as leading lives of "quiet desperation." As long as you attach to 'purpose' you can continue to ignore your underlying desperation which silently waits to engulf you through the consideration of your eventual death. But who wants to really consider that? And so we don't.

Is this contemplative expediency of the postmodern spiritual blogger the result of a desire for increased financial gain or is Spirit not worthy of long dissertations and thus more easily accessible through pithy platitudes of "infinite, divine, oneness"?

Many ancient masters claim that silence is the most appropriate means of apprehending Spirit. So why talk at all? Yet, we love to talk and hear our words. Now all we need do, as spiritual bloggers, is conform our words to the attention deficit inherent to the talking masses. If I can catch your attention with fancy spiritual slogans like "God IS" or "God Sucks" you just might read my first paragraph, but If I don't continue to provoke you and manipulate your attention-deficit, I will inevitably lose you.

The attention-deficient "busy-man" is always on the go and always seeking to maximize time with the goal of increasing productivity. Productive to 'what,' is not as important as simply displaying productivity. Therefore, any contemplative rambling will be seen as unproductive and thus, summarily dismissed as useless. This is why, at this point you should most likely cease reading this post as it as no productive goal whatsoever. Bye!

In fact, many of the spiritual blogs I have enjoyed in the past have substituted their usual deep inquiry into spiritual content with brief productive posts in order to accommodate the busy-man's need for quick and easily accessible 'forms' of spirituality (in fact, earlier on, I was also guilty of such abbreviated musings). Now, instead of deeply contemplating and considering the illusory nature of 'self' we have, "10 ways to recognize the illusory self" or "5 tips on letting go of self" (Of course, I blame Buddha and his damn "Noble Eight-Fold Path").

In these instances, Deep Spirit takes a back seat to the needs of the attention-deficient masses, increased website traffic and lofty one word expressions of the "Divine Mind." As if God, Nirvana or pure awareness is simply something to put on your "To Do" list. Sort of like "No. 8: Seek God" listed after "No.7: Balance Checkbook." Of course, this is primarily an American phenomenon, but it does seem to be catching on globally as "American Idol" gains a larger foreign audience.

But, who knows, maybe God should be abridged, compartmentalized and made to fit the "busyman" paradigm of productivity. Maybe the problem all along is that God/Source has been made inaccessible by the complex and complicated doctrines and dogmas of religion and austere spiritual practices. Obviously, the common "busyman" doesn't have time for that!

Of course, this would go against centuries of ancient spiritual tradition. But, as the brilliant Ken Wilber claims, we need a spirituality for the postmodern man. One that incorporates and utilizes the evolved mind of post-modern thinkers to substitute for the dogma of prerational mythology. However, I have found Wilber's "Integral Spirituality" to be as complex and complicated as many of the ancient practices and ideologies and a post-modern form of intellectual complexity that often seems as scientifically mythical as any Buddhist-Zen doctrine or Christian dogma.

Maybe postmodern man equates God with increased complexity and thus, as inaccessible to all but the most intellectually astute of us. But this is not to deny the complexity of prerational religions. Maybe transrational spirituality will evolve as short and to the point, thereby skipping all the intellectual musings and deep contemplating of the mystic.

The archaic mysticism of the past has been scientifically debunked and many astute postmodern thinkers are becoming atheists in response. Atheism is becoming the 'religion' of the intellectual and, of course, this means that science now predominates as the alter of our worship and fills the void, that our discarding of the archaic religions, leave behind.

We don't necessarily need to contemplate science in order to hold it in high esteem and essentially 'worship' it. You may feel somewhat bereft and guilty, if you have not chanted your Hail Mary's, meditated to the 'aum' or missed church the past two Sundays, but lose your electricity for long periods and you will experience an existential panic and dread that makes missing spiritual practices pale in comparison.

Yet, although we worship science, we rarely have an understanding of what electricity really is in terms of electromagnetic fields, watts, volts, etc, etc, but we do know we desperately need it. Therefore, the question is, do we really need God like we need electricity? The ancient and postmodern masters say unequivocally, YES. But our science worshipping society tends to demonstrate, NO, we're just fine without it, thank you.

Seems to me we can get along quite well without thoughts of the Divine, since as opposed to electricity many would claim that religion has been nothing but trouble from the start. Others would state that electricity is no less innocent in the suffering it has caused. Yet, we seem to easily accept the suffering caused by electricity or the sudden lack thereof (if the bill wasn't paid). We have NOT accepted the suffering caused by religion and thus, evolved consciousness ignores ancient mythological presentations of God for intellectual atheistic science.

So now we have spiritual bloggers conforming to science in getting the "good word" out. We don’t understand the basic tenets of science but we know we need it. We don’t understand the basic tenets of complicated religious-spiritual doctrines and we seem to feel it doesn’t matter because we really do NOT need it. Therefore, short controversial posts about Spirit should grab the attention, or lack thereof, of the public and bring in the almighty dollar. Because, let’s face it, even more than science, Mammon, the god of riches, seems at present to be our highest ideal and we worship that in deep meditative focus even more than science. Our failing economy deserves deep contemplation and concise strategic measures to increase productivity, while deep spiritual contemplation merely dissolves into nothingness.

Damn! Looks like I’ve gone and written too much again...

Thanks,
mike S