Economic Act of God?

Okay, so the global economic situation looks increasingly more bleak everyday. I posted recently the idea that The Great Depression 2 was essential to the destruction of the current monetary value paradigm.

I feel this ties in somewhat with Robert Rubin's (ex-treasury secretary and director of CitiBank) recent statement that the demise (gradual) of CitiBank (world's 7th largest bank) was not the fault of anyone at Citi, but was "an unforeseeable act of God."

HA!

My friends, when an ex-treasury secretary and director of one of the largest monetary institutions in the world, blames God for greed and corruption, we know we are in for some tough times ahead.

The monetary value paradigm has claimed another life as Wal-Mart shoppers trample a security guard to death in order to continue their bargain shopping. In fact, after breaking through the plate glass windows and trampling to death the guard, all the shoppers were then asked to leave by crying store clerks, but they refused and just kept on 'shopping.'

The monetary value paradigm is dying a slow death, but it will take many victims before its complete demise. The stock market exhibits extreme rising and falling as those who have made billions refuse to give up on the financial beast. It will be interesting to see what replaces our pervasive lust for money and symbolic possessions. What value paradigm will rise to the top to replace monetary and ownership values? Who will be the vanguard of this altered vMeme or new value system?

I look forward to the next 5 years as a time of great upheaval on the road to global peace.

Many predict that next Christmas, 'food' will be the gift of choice.

Peace Angels,
mikeS

Is Our Addiction to Money 'Bottoming-Out'?

I’ve been following the stock market rather intensely, as of lately. I seem to be waiting for this “bottoming-out,” or collapse of the market, that many educated investors seem to claim is fast approaching. A few even claim that we are approaching another 'bottom' as profound as the “Great Depression” (during that period unemployment reached over 20%, while we have a mere 6.5% as of today). Alas, I sense that we just might be heading in that general direction.

I have always had a feeling of aversion to our materialist society of monetary valuation that we have become accustomed to, while at the same time hustling for dollars like the everybody else. I recall telling my wife a couple of years ago that the only thing that could ever bring this money obsessed country to its knees would be another Great Depression in which dollars virtually disappeared. Only then would we have little choice but to turn from our worship of material wealth and seek to envision a different paradigm or value system to base one's life on; one that does not base personal value solely on the size of bank accounts or the material possessions you own and display to symbolize the size of your bank account. We dearly need a deeper and more comprehensive and “spiritual” value system to buffer our shallow “pursuit of happiness” through monetary values. Monetary values that we currently idolize and seem to almost worship as a religion.

This brings to mind my years as a drug/alcohol counselor (which followed many years of my own drug addiction) and the counseling industry’s decade’s long use of the "Jellinek Recovery Curve" in charting recovery and healing from alcohol dependency. Could this curve have relevance to the current societal crisis that certainly seems impending for our future? Has our addiction to material wealth made us impoverished spiritually and, if so, when will we “hit bottom”? Does the "Recovery Curve" map out, not only the slow decline into sickness, but our rise from the bottom into recovery?

The Jellinek Curve illustrates a steady downward progression of alcoholism symptoms equally indicative of increased monetary dependency, such as "failed efforts at control" and "Grandiose and aggressive behaviors." We then sink even lower with "loss of will power," "moral deterioration," "impaired thinking," and finally to bottom-out when "all alibis have been exhausted" and "complete defeat has been admitted."

It seems this criterion aptly describes our current situation. We certainly have failed to control our appetite for the acquisition of ‘things’ to possess in order to demonstrate our social status and personal value. Our monetary wealth has made us very self centered and “grandiose” to the point that competition for money and monetary-based resources has become downright “aggressive.” In fact, we seem to be running on autopilot in our drive for more money and possessions. So much so that family values and intimate relationships seem to pale in comparison, as the divorce rate climbs, but so do the figures in our bank account. While we work increasingly more hours to support our lifestyles, children are left to fend for themselves; frequently ending up in the criminal justice system. Of course, we have our “alibis,” or excuses, since acquisition of wealth requires increased time in order to participate in all the "wealth building" games.

The question is, are we finally getting closer to admitting “complete defeat.” When lucrative, high paid employment ends (or even that low-paying job, for that matter) with little chance of returning to the seemingly infinite flow of before, will we seek other values through which to define ourselves? Will we look to our intimate relationships for fulfillment and will we again find joy in our childrens just being, rather than appeasing them and attempting to gain their love through Ipods and Nintendos?

AFTER HITTING BOTTOM

The "Recovery Curve" illustrates a precipitous upswing on the recovery side (right side) of the curve as "right thinking begins" with an "onset of new hope," and "facts are faced with courage." As we move farther up the recovery side of the curve we gain an "appreciation of possibilities of new way of life" and begin "realistic thinking" with a "return of self esteem." At the top of the upswing we find that "an enlightened and interesting way of life opens up with road ahead to higher levels than ever before"

The question is, when will we hit bottom so we can swing upward to a more “enlightened” life? I suppose this is what the stock market represents to me. The end of material dependency, monetary value systems and shallow self-concepts. The beginning of a spiritual renewal, a value system that holds others in high regard and a self-concept that aids us in rising ever higher than before. The rise of Deep Spirit.

Actually, alcoholism or drug addiction is really no different than monetary materialism in the destruction it wreaks. Whereas alcohol dependency destroys individuals and whole families, material dependency destroys nations and whole societies. Now if we could only speed up this “hitting bottom,” so that more of us might be around long enough to see our rise to the top of the "Jellinek Recovery Curve."

Peace Angels

The Need to Continue Playing Spiritual Games

My thanks to those who have sent me emails telling me how much they have enjoyed the recent posts. However, I've also received a few emails from those adverse to the ideas presented. My thanks to those folks, too.

For the serious player my opinions are almost sacrilege. How dare I impugn the sacred. Even for the devout spiritualist there are rules that must not be questioned. Unfortunately, the "sacred" is as much a game as any other.

Nevertheless, The definition of" game," as presented by Webster has all the ingredients of the modern spiritual game. It is often engaged for "amusement" or "diversion" (since how many of us live in a monastery or ashram like many serious players) and is often a very shady "racket" with numerous racketeers (gurus, priests, saints, teachers, masters, etc).

It has numerous strict rules and often involves a great deal of suffering (for many suffering, sacrifice and burden are paramount and the most important rule of play). Of course, there is also a great deal of "derisive or making jests" by the competing teams (Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, Advaitist, Integralist, New Age, etc, etc) and there is always the institutional field of "expertise," codified either through text or "lineage" and expressed by those chosen as expert by a consensus of serious players (and, of course, all serious players want the title of expert, teacher, master, ambassador, spokesperson, etc, so it behooves them to identify other masters who can pass on the title to them. This is called the guru-master racket).

However, I love playing the spiritual game as well (it's "fun") and, therefore, I have no intention of stopping play as I revel in it. For me the problem are the rules we tend to set depending on what team you play on. Many religions and spiritual ideologies adhere to such rules and thus, the play is no longer surprising, but serious players get points for adhering to the rules. Problem is this tends to limit the players who wish to bend the rules and so, they tend to move on.

I'm all for rules, since, in the game of life, we play by rules. The problem is when the rules become rigid and finite, allowing no transformation or transcendence from the rules. This tends to result in stagnation (and little opportunity for surprise) because folks tend to forget that it is a game that they have willingly chosen to play. Once you forget that you are playing a game, you become a serious player following serious rules that must not be changed. Centuries of war have erupted in just such a way.

Actually, I enjoy playing the game with serious players, but they often don't like playing with me.

Nevertheless, Never stop playing!

Peace Angels,
mike S

Live in the Expectation of Surprise!

In the austere, often esoteric, world of spiritual paths, practices and ideologies, we seek to be go beyond what we are in realization of a becoming. This ‘realization' is often referred to as enlightenment, awakening, revelation, heaven, nirvana etc, etc, and religious/spiritual paths teach us what that might be and how to get it.

These special concepts were created to define this ‘other than' or higher, better, improved state of being. Each religion or spiritual ideology is essentially founded and supported primarily by these specialized concepts. Take away enlightenment, awakening, or any of these beliefs in transcendence, and the paths and practices crumble under their own oppressive weight, which of course is the weight of sacrifice and struggle. In order to attain the ‘realization' they teach, one must sacrifice in this way or that but don't worry, we are told, the goal is worthy just press on in the struggle to "attainment."

These concepts seem to leave our normal everyday existing in the dust. We are taught by the ancient, and so-called modern, ‘masters' that our everyday states of existing are heavily laden in ego desires and thus, can only accrue suffering, therefore, we must learn to 'transcend.'

But are we surprised that we suffer? Of course not, it's expected! (and if centuries of cultural indoctrination through religious ideology had not taught us that we suffer....would we?)

Locked into the Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Integral, etc, etc, teachings, we expect enlightenment/awakening and therefore, we spend hours and years meditating and contemplating within those tired, old, worn-out methodologies, passed down through the ages and tweaked in "neo" fashion for the postmodern practitioner.

However, by expecting that our experience conform to the teachings, do we thus, obstruct it? If higher thought is bracketed and corralled by specific ideologies and their practices, how high can thought go? Possibly, only as high as we have been taught and no higher.

WHAT IF SURPRISE WERE THE GOAL?

What if we were to cease all reliance on what the masters taught, or teach, thereby ending all expectations of what somebody else taught us is the gospel, the word, the way and, hence, "the truth". What if we were to believe that it could never be the way they have taught, since what they taught based on their experience, was for them and no one else? What if it "truth" were always meant to be a surprise, unique to each individual mind?

In such unfettered pursuit could we then free ourselves from our trained and conditioned expectations and expect only to be surprised? To be surprised not just in our meditation or in our practices, but in our everyday life. Life is now lived in the expectation of surprise and nothing else.

Living with the expectation of surprise at any moment, no matter what we are doing, thinking or saying, no matter the circumstances. What would life be like if there were no expectation of an outcome that conformed to past learning, but the expectation of surprise exclusive to each and every individual mind that chooses simply to await surprise in the ultimate desire to be surprised?

What if you knew that at any moment you could be lifted up into a sense of intense joy, never before comprehended or defined by thought (in fact, I hesitate to think about it). How would a life lived in that expectation, a life that does not rely on past teaching, or lofty expressions of so-called masters, be experienced? Would just the expectation of surprise create a life of unavoidable joy? Nobody can say, since it's a surprise!

Preparation impedes surprise. Preparation is based on prediction, through text or teacher, of what you seek based on past precedent. It is no wonder spiritual practices attempt to prepare, since all our lives are spent in preparation for something and spirituality simply conforms to that need. Is surprise all we really seek and can we be surprised if we spend our lives preparing for it? (seems counterproductive to me).

Preparing for surprise requires NO training since surprise requires NO learning. We know it well and we will certainly 'realize' it when it comes upon us. But, of course, if our spiritual practice has defined what surprise IS, then we may miss it, since it is expected to take only a specific form based on what we were taught.

Can we envision death as surprise? If we can, then that may significantly reduce our fears in life, since we fear nothing more than our death (because religion has taught it is the 'end' of life). No longer must we prepare for death, since we expect to be, literally, swallowed up in surprise.

Let enlightenment or awakening take you by surprise. Of course, the only way to do that is to stop preparing for it and seek to be surprised in every moment of your life and death.

I suppose we can't blame the masters for the fact that we don't like being surprised. But if we did, they'd be out of a job. So I imagine it's not a popular subject to those preparing for enlightenment.

SPIRITUALITY: A Serious Game for Serious Players

It's interesting how some folks tend to take the spiritual game very seriously.

You see them all over the internet often informing others about what "spirituality" is all about; what you must do or not do, say or not say. They tend to apply strict rules to the spiritual game, and woe be it, to any who break with those rules. (no doubt the rules were learned from some teacher somewhere).

They don't take kindly to conflict or disagreement of any kind (especially when it conflicts with the principles they espouse as "the truth"). When you do present an opposing viewpoint, they often attack you personally attempting to highlight any character defect that may have shown through your typed words (because obviously those who do not play by the rules must be a deviant of some kind)

Nevertheless, it is of the utmost importance that you take the rules seriously.

The problem with rules is that they tend to make the game finite, allowing for little change. Rules demand conformity to some teacher or text and they tend to box you into a belief system that allows little freedom of movement (the irony is that many of these serious dogmas actually claim that they will "set you free").

But for the serious player, there must be rules because there must be winners and losers that we can easily identify. Of course, to be a winner in the spirituality game means you have attained the desired outcome. For some that outcome is simply to attain the title of teacher, guru, yogi, etc, etc. Obviously to win that title you must play by the rules that your guru followed, else you will not win.

Therefore, all the rules are fairly evident (though often unspoken) and based on past precedent. In other words, to be "awakened" like your guru, you must adhere to the strict practices and procedures as set forth by your guru's guru and his guru before him, etc, etc. Those that play the game by these rules may one day be granted the title of "awakened" (yet the rules do state that there can only be a limited number of winners) and will be afforded the reverence that the title deserves (based on the rules for the un-awakened).

However, there is another type of player that, although they recognize it's all a game, they love playing anyway. For those folks the object of the game is simply to continue playing by engaging as many players as possible. The only rule for those players is that there are NO RULES and the game is never-ending. As if there were only one finite way or path to realize the infinite. LOL!

Happy Trails!

Victim of Circumstances or Inside-Out/Oustide-In

Looks like the economy is collapsing and a lot of people are gonna be seriously hurting in the coming months and even years (this definitely includes me). But I sense that this discomfort will depend primarily on how you define yourself. Do you define yourself through external circumstances or from some sense of self only to be found deep within?

If your intrinsic self-value is contingent on the clothes you wear, the car you drive, the size house you live in, the size of your bank account, etc, etc, etc, then you might soon realize yourself as a victim of circumstances.

Because when all that’s gone who and what will you be? What values will you turn to in redefining your “self’ when the world no longer permits your current definition? Or will you simply crumble into hopelessness?

Therefore, the question is do the circumstances define you or do you define the circumstances? Keep in mind, circumstances are always outside 'you.' However, the defining takes part inside. This makes the question even easier to frame:

Do you define yourself from the outside-in or the inside-out?

Many define themselves almost entirely from external circumstances. They feel they have little choice in determining direction, since circumstances determine direction for them. They often become easily depressed, discouraged and disappointed for long periods of time by what they SEE happening outside their head. They tend to get anxious and even panicky about the concepts of loss, lack and scarcity, which are constructed entirely from circumstances they SEE outside their mind. They are easily influenced by apocalyptic prophesies because they still live by the adage that SEEING IS BELIEVING.

However, there are others who seem as if they were made to thrive peacefully, and even joyfully, through whatever circumstances are occurring. They have somehow learned that BELIEVING IS SEEING and, therefore, they are impervious to adversity because there never is any.

They don’t define themselves on mental states that result from external circumstances. However, it is important to keep in mind that these folks can feel anxiety, discouragement, depression, etc, but it's brief and easily extinguished often with nothing but a thought from deep 'within' (any idea what that thought might be?).

The important point is that they do NOT define the ‘self’ based on these states of mind and thus are not victim to circumstances outside the mind. The thoughts that do define them, are open to change and, in fact, they expect it.

Their expectation for change even incorporates major life and death issues. They tend not to believe in death the way most of us do and this tends to significantly alter how they see life. They know that to cognitively reframe their belief about death is to live life with little care for circumstances and thus in a very joyful state of mind. They have peeked through the conditioned veil the rest of us are blinded by.

They know they are FREE from all circumstances and therefore, they exude confidence IN all circumstances.

Maybe this is YOU!

Peace Angels,
mike

Infinite Surprise (Finite and Inifinte Games, pt 3)

Since finite games are played to be won, players make every move in a game in order to win it. Whatever is not done in the interest of winning is not part of the game. The constant attentiveness of finite players to the progress of the competition can lead them to believe that every move they make they must make. (James Carse, Finite and Infinite Games, p13)

It’s important that we arrive to work on time because staying employed is winning, while unemployment is losing. We clock in and play the employee game through a mask that hides other values. We may show different masks to coworkers, however, to win at promotion games we may have to compete with those same coworkers. We could choose not to play competitive employment games by reducing the seriousness of promotions or raises. We could play as if we do not care. But pretending to not care, while deep down winning is still imperative, is a game as well. Many play such a denial game.

Finite games include competition but infinite games do not, since winning is not the object of the game. Yet, although infinite games are noncompetitive, they do invite as many players as possible. Finite games often compete for scarce resources. Only those with large incomes can compete for luxury resources like, Mediterranean cruises, HDTVs, Cadillac Escalades, etc. These are symbolic of winning. Ownership of resources are indicative of winning and are usually associated with titles like CEO, president, manager, director, supervisor, etc. Not to care about winning is to play an infinite game and be less concerned about such resources.

The CEO arrives to work on time because winning means remaining CEO. To remain CEO is to win because being asked to resign means losing (although bonuses may be large, future corporate positions may be curtailed due to resignation). Therefore, CEO's must model winning behaviors. Employees may compete to become CEOs and this would be indicative of winning, but CEO’s rarely wish to become employees as this would indicate loss. In a finite game every single move is calculated toward winning.

The issue is whether we are ever willing to drop the veil and openly acknowledge, if only to ourselves, that we have freely chosen to face the world through a mask At which point do we confront the fact that we live one life and perform another, or others, attempting to make our momentary forgetting true and lasting forgetting? (p16-17)

Rarely will a CEO forget that he/she is CEO, especially while around those not CEOs. In fact, those not CEOs may be more aware of the CEO and the deference that title requires based on the rules of the game concerning players of lower rank. Diminished veiling, or removing of masks, may be apparent around friends and family. However, a CEO may fail to surrender the CEO mask, thereby forgetting that the mask is freely chosen. This finite seriousness may impair family relationships and impede friendships. Typically, movies portray such solidified finite players, when winning the game is all that matters, as lonely and unhappy. Friends and family win by claiming the inherited spoils of a dead finite player. A dead infinite player may only leave infinite memories.

To forget that one plays a finite game is to make life very serious. When life is lived from the perspective of a finite game, fear and anxiety is pervasive since there is so little time for which to go about winning. Therefore, every move must be a winning move, no matter the consequences to others, since the finite player sees all others as only more finite players.

Since finite games can be played within an infinite game, infinite players do not eschew the performed roles of finite play. On the contrary, they enter into finite games with all the appropriate energy and self-veiling, but they do so without the seriousness of finite players. They embrace the abstractness of finite games as abstractness, and therefore take them up not seriously but playfully. They freely use masks in their social engagements, but not without acknowledging to themselves and others that they are masked.

Infinite players can willingly play finite games. However, the mode of play is altered because the roles are seen as willingly chosen. To play CEO or employee, and know that it is a game, is to play the game with an expectation of change and a lack of seriousness.

The seriousness expected while wearing the mask of CEO, is not present for an infinite player. Infinite players tend to have less formalized roles even while participating in finite games. They often surprise others in their interactions with those finite players of less status and through their encouragement that others never stop playing.

Mother Teresa played the finite game of religion. Yet she altered the rules of that game by asking all to play even with no expectation of winning, thereby becoming an infinite player. In addition, Martin Luther King demonstrated himself to be an infinite player by inviting poor whites to attend his famous march on Washington. His ultimate desire was that all play continue infinitely by everyone.

Infinite players show up on time, but rarely experience the stress of being late. Infinite players recognize status, but replace deference and reverence with a general kindness extended to all players no matter the game.infinite players respect, but never idolize.

Infinite players understand that they may lose in games based on finite rules of winning. However, they also realize that their losing may open opportunities for continued play elsewhere. They rarely experience the disappointment and discouragement that attends losers, but they never stop playing.

For infinite players, continued play means that finite games are not played with any degree of seriousness, but with an openness and expectation for change. The expectation for change insures that rules such as dogma, norms,procedures, policies, pretenses, laws, doctrines, etc, etc, do not become solidified expectations or rules. To expect that it be done this way or that way is to lose the capacity to play freely and to become oppressed by the past. To be oppressed by the past is to base every move you make on the rules set previously and to no longer be surprised.

Infinite players thrive on surprise and seek opportunities through which to be surprised. Barack Obama is a “surprise” (in General Powell's endorsment of Obama, he claimed Obama exhibited an "intellectual curiosity"). This is because he has broken with finite rules simply through his election to play the game of president. This has disturbed many who rely on strict and rigid rules of play. Even so, many will demand he immediately play by the rules established for that game because finite players loathe surprise. Yet those who play infinite games see Obama as an epitome of surprise and feel invigorated over the possibility of future surprises :

Infinite players, on the other hand, continue their play in the expectation of being surprised. If surprise is no longer possible, all play ceases.

Surprise causes finite play to end; it is the reason for infinite play to continue.

Surprise in infinite play is the triumph of the future over the past.

The infinite player does not expect to be amused by surprise, but to be transformed by it, for surprise does not alter some abstract past, but one’s own personal past. (P.22-23)

You Teach Yourself

In an illusory world that only SEEMS to reflect separation, there is only YOU teaching YOU.

Therefore, YOU have left yourself clues in the form of "realized masters" that YOU have 'manifested' (or made 'real') in order to take YOU beyond what they teach is posible.

Essentially, if there is only YOU teaching YOU, can there ever really be anything to learn?

"Truly, truly, I say to you, He who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and Greater Works than These will he do...(John 14)

So in the presence of your "realized master," be more grateful to yourself for the method of learning YOU chose to teach yourself through 'another.'

Because there are no 'others.'

As Mother Teresa advocated, "It's not about them."

So, thanks for writing this short reminder post. I'm sure we enjoyed it immensely! (however, we did note that you misspelled 'possible' in the second sentence).

Peace Angels,
mike S

Fear is the Disease, Anger is Merely Symptom

You might wish to consider the idea that there is no such thing as "anger" and only FEAR obstructs the direction your contemplative practices will naturally take you. "The path from suffering is to abandon" FEAR. Striving results from fear since incompletion is fearful and demands that you strive for what you believe you lack. Anger is merely symptomatic of fear. Fear is the disease that ails us.

I believe that if you closely analyze all the names we apply to varying states of "negative emotion" you may find that these are merely symptoms of none other than fear and to alleviate the symptoms one must cure the disease.

Intrinsic fear (in all its varying levels) can only be experienced as a mind-in-conflict and therefore, is an impediment to the peace that any contemplative practice requires in order to fully evolve to fruition. Therefore, to my mind, the only approach is to ask "what could I possibly fear in this moment that obstructs my natural state of peace."

The answer will come to the truly honest and persistent questioner and thus in the recognition of the origin of fear, one's perspective and state of mind can be altered to allow fear to dissipate and peace to be resumed thus, absolving conflict and continuing a more effective contemplative practice.

However, this approach requires a BELIEF that peace and joy are one's natural state, or God-given inheritance. Therefore, the process of reinforcing that natural state is part of the contemplative process, which can only evolve through an ever increasing absence of fear.

Peace Angels,
mike S