Forgiveness

Note: The original title of this had been "Perpetuating Our Miscommunications, Feeding Our Own Fears, and Clinging to Old Karma." After finishing the post, I felt a little different about it. I no longer felt like it focused on those characteristics, but rather on leaving them behind.

Heh, I must admit, my Ho’oponopono recitation (*see footer) was helpful the moment I realized that's what this was.

---

A friend of mine recently posted on Facebook an amused and politely annoyed update regarding his family and the commentary he overheard about him regarding his dislike of Fox News. As I started my comment, I failed to really ever stop typing, and wound up with a long observational blog update. (In fact, I accidentally sent him most of the entire post by accident. Just kept typing and typing and pressed Enter to skip a line, only to submit the comment. My bad!)

It's just such a sad thing, really. I imagine the disruptive members of Fox news, along with that image we often pull up of the cliched "viewer," have all the best intentions despite how dishonest and hateful they can be. They think those who aren't "there" with them are just going down the wrong path or something. And we look at them and get so frustrated. We inadvertently feed them the picture of those who are bitterly in denial, and the two groups sort of miserably react along this same cycle of misunderstandings and misinformation. We feed each other the bad things we expect from each other, and perpetuate a problem.

It's a great micro-sociology representation of so many of our problems, utilizing simple media preferences. That situation is the result of the interactions between a deeper mix of ideologies, and how they manifest themselves in our information sources (and therefore how we reenforce our most familiar and easily-digested reality.) Arguably, this mini-situation illustrates the way in which we develop, exist-within, reenforce, and viciously protect our reality and sense of self. Even with a solution in sight, we're likely more concerned with not losing this personal identity than we are concerned with solving society's (and therefore the world's) problems. How disappointing.

If we didn't function on such extremes at the moment, we might be able to recognize this objective narrative of our constant fear, knee-jerk reactions, self destruction, finger-pointing, judgment, assumptions, and hate. If we'd stop reenforcing our own behaviors and fighting so hard to be right, or be the best, or be the richest, or be the most powerful, then maybe we could finally cut the karmic cycle. If we could just admit that discovering the truth is more important than being right, then we might not be so afraid of ever being wrong. What the hell are we afraid of...

If everyone could just STOP, and decide "I'm done," and start the hell over--no focus on past deeds or past disagreements, no constant search for a reason to distrust, no insecurities about the past or about our lives (which rules out a need to search for worth or meaning outside of our own growth and goodness)--then maybe we'd be on to something.

If we were all willing to forgive. Everything, including ourselves. Most importantly ourselves...

...then I think we'd fix it.

We have to be willing to be wrong about anything, and we have to care. About everyone. Everything. Specifically, we have to respect everything, because we can recognize it.

We have a huge responsibility, being so aware.

We have been granted the ability to be aware of the possibility of a reality outside of our own, while simultaneously being a part of those other realities, while simultaneously observing those other realities. We can imagine the "other side," the rest that isn't "me" or "you." We can grow and learn outside of ourselves, essentially knowing and being aware of everything, even the stuff that isn't us. WE COULD BE EVERYTHING, TOGETHER. This isn't pro-science or anti-universal-oneness (as that is what I view to be the underlying message of our highly symbolic and abused religions. I chose not to use the word "religion" for a reason; I don't want to give the impression that I think there is a man with a white beard in outer space.)

This is the culminating potential of existing. Not one of us is entirely right or entirely wrong. None of us have a complete image of our universe or what we're doing. We have various explanations for the reality outside of ourselves, and what we should do with that information. (I won't lie, I feel some of these explanations are more reliable and constructive than others.) We're capable of breaking the boundaries between our realities. We're the only things stopping ourselves. Don't you feel empowered?

If we'd just stop and remember our potential, and how hard we worked and fought to get this far in our biological and therefore psychological development, maybe we'd stop taking it for granted. Maybe we'd stop telling ourselves that with all this power, intelligence, ingenuity, curiosity, and freedom, that we also therefore have no need to try any harder.

Too often we live just for us, because in being aware of perspectives outside of my own, I suddenly feel very naked and insignificant. I have too much freedom and only tend to respond when not doing so will cause me immediate harm. Without any barriers, I HAVE SO MUCH TO DO. It's a lot of responsibility, isn't it?

Too often we close up into our own like-minded groups and do everything we can to retain our very limited worldview. We're not even aware that we're doing it. We think we're happiest when we have a nice, dependable, guided existence. It limits our abilities because it limits our purpose (be it to go to heaven or be fleeting and rot in a casket), and therefore there is no great impetus to KEEP IMPROVING. After all, we already know the outcome, and we don't wanna have to do *too* much work when surviving is already work enough as it is. Especially with all these pesky assholes who keep threatening to make me question my worldview!

So we say, "screw everyone/everything else. I'm living for my comfort."

And that isn't to say everyone feels this way, nor does it so that those who do feel it 100% of the time. That's what's so important. All of it is fear and misinterpretations, and we shouldn't make wide assumptions about anyone. We shouldn't hate someone who doesn't know what they're doing, let alone how to stop. In reacting so negatively and perpetuating the sense of distrust and disapproval by projecting that ourselves, we prove to be just as afraid and just as flawed. All we do is worsen that feeling of an imposing threat upon their person in some way, and they retreat from any possible revelations all the more vehemently. Forgiveness and maturity and a desire to be harmonious can't be one-sided, here.

So I asked, what if we just decided to stop, and to be intelligent, empathetic adults? What if we forgave everything as part of living this human experience, and stopped expecting more disappointments? It's difficult to imagine it because our experiences up until the present have sculpted us. We can't change our functioning reality at the drop of a hat. It takes a lot of work and dedication, and is a lifelong effort.

It's the process of seeing yourself in others, and seeing how we all effect everything else. It's the process of absolute forgiveness and unconditional love, to use a pair of overused but no less accurate phrases. It's the process of an ever evolving sense of self and sense of the universe. It's the process of enlightenment.

It's time we remembered to keep participating. So many already are, did you know? It's already happening. You're reading this. You're ready to do it. We're doing it.

I’m sorry.

Please forgive me.

Thank You.

Ho’oponopono.

---

And with that ending, I'd like to point out that this posting was purposefully ambiguous (for the most part) regarding which "mindset" I was speaking about the most. Yes, I am part of this human experience, too, so I have my own perspective on it. Clearly, I find myself more on the "anti-Fox-news," "pro-science" side of the fence. But once again, being a human being doesn't stop me from seeing and fully understanding other human beings. The message is poignant for all readers. Turn it back on yourself and see the way some of the observations may fit parts of your life. (It was certainly therapeutic for me to write it.) I could be speaking about fundamentalist Christians, radical Islamists, Mormons, or Atheists, for example. We all hate to be wrong, and therefore we all think we are the ones who are "right." Some are more open to correction than others, true. (And there again my personal perspectives and biases against the oppressive extremes of most religions rears its human head.) But let me be clear, I've seen some really angry, mean-spirited, self destructive extremes in atheism and obsession with any one particular "branch" of science. Once again, drawing into another extreme perpetuates this internal and external schism.

Point being, I think this blog post can be read to/for multiple kinds of people. Think of it as objectively biased, I suppose? Remember that it comes from my perspective and so it will contain my version of things. That doesn't mean the story of self-preservation doesn't apply to everyone.

This is a group effort that begins within each of us.

(*) For more information about Ho'oponopono, "ancient Hawaiian practice of reconciliation and forgiveness," see this Wikipedia article on the subject for a general understanding of the concept, and see this interview with Dr. Hew Len regarding his experience with the practice in a mental hospital.

Avoiding the Trap of Logical Fallacies While Fighting the Good Fight.

Lately I feel as though a part of my personality of which I have been ashamed in the past has matured and morphed (through no small effort) into something far more useful and worthwhile. Much of my childhood and young adulthood was experienced through very judgmental eyes. It was never enough just to experience the world around me; I had to have an opinion on it! In fact I would argue that constantly thinking and branching into dozens of possible reactions/happenings/sources/explanations has kept me from truly focusing on the matter at hand. I consider myself to have an overly active (and often uselessly analytical) mind, with perhaps a dash of ADD. I wouldn't be surprised if this is why it's so hard for me to remember anything.

I have a reason for sharing this somewhat troublesome self discovery, of course. Coinciding with my “adult” efforts to curtail my judgmental personality—and therefore be a more peaceful and likable person—is a growing desire to see situations from as many perspectives as possible. While this often results in seeking a highly objective perspective (which really sounds too oxymoronic to be used accurately), it also leads to playing the part of the Devil's advocate from time to time. I like to think that what was once a knee-jerk reaction to what I found to be unpleasant behavioral characteristics has become a permanent, empathetic sociological and/or psychological study. (Side note: I find it's harder to hate people when you can see their perspective, no matter how you may disagree with their behavior; that is a very freeing state of mind, I must say.) None of this is to say that I don't fall back into my old judgments, of course. I am a human being with much to learn and experience, after all.

I have, however, noticed a great deal about human behavior.

That having been said, I'd like to talk for a moment about the kind of thinking that I've witnessed in the last year or so of activism and really paying attention to the world around me. This will come in sections as a series of updates to this first post, as it turns out I have a lot more to say than I had originally thought (now that I've started writing and am returning to this paragraph some time later to make this addendum.)

I'd like to preface this post with the following: I make these blog posts to share my thoughts, in the hopes that it will serve others in some way. I know that I “use my words well,” and that my obsessive desire to express myself as clearly as possible may in fact help clarify some things for some people who find themselves perplexed by or perhaps even unaware of some of the behaviors around them. Perhaps readers will learn something about themselves. It's certainly been an enlightening experience for me. Understanding how and why we behave the way we do is often more important than just the behavior itself. I sometimes think about this not because I want to point out people's mistakes, but because I want to be helpful. I understand perfectly well that can be hard to believe, and I also understand just why that is. Knowing that, however, won't stop me from trying.

The subject of this “discussion” is the common use of logical fallacies to form arguments or even whole philosophies. I could spend days dredging up every single flawed argument I've heard in just the last few months, so I'll likely stick with those which have stood at the most and therefore come to mind most readily. I'd also like to add that I don't actually partake in these arguments very often. I really dislike confrontation. That isn't to say I'm particularly afraid of being wrong (though no one likes that feeling.) Rather, the confrontation itself makes me extremely anxious, as though I'm at the risk of being physically attacked at any given moment. I'd need a whole other blog post (or two) to explain from where my general anxiety stems. I'm pretty familiar with it (thanks a lot, Childhood Repercussions.)

• The Slippery Slope Argument, in which one asserts that allowing one thing to happen will inevitably and unavoidably lead to another, previously unforeseen result, and therefore that first thing must not be allowed. This is both fully self explainable and worthy of an entire blog post in and of itself. Simply put, the use of this fallacy requires one to draw a number of assumptions—assumptions which I have found to be based more out of personal fear than any real fact. Now that their fears are apparently right at the back door, that fear rules the rest of the conversation. There can be no focus on how far from reality their argument has been taken. The only focus, now, is the supposedly imminent danger brought about by the idea in the first place. The most obvious example of this fallacy at work is within the gay marriage debate. A broadened definition of the concept of “marriage” clearly leads to bestiality and, eventually, legal marriage between species. This must be true, despite the fact that those two fears have nothing to do with the matter at hand: the fact that two consenting human adult homosexuals want to have the same legal and social rights as consenting human adult heterosexuals. The leap to bestiality has absolutely no basis in the reality of the original argument, but that Slippery Slope argument consistently stops progress on the discussion as though it actually means anything.
  
  Not to mention the fact that this argument assumes that every possible idea/demand that every member of the public could ever possible conjure up must immediately be accepted by the law, and that there's no possible way such a legislative decision might be avoided do to its complete illegitimacy.


• The Strawman Argument, in which someone's argument is misrepresented in order to make it easier to attack them. I see this constantly. Common examples include the belief that wanting universal healthcare for all makes you an democracy-hating communist/socialist; the belief that women who speak out against misogyny are men-hating feminists (helping to create the resultant belief that “feminism” has a direct correlation with “hating men,” and thereby producing the “straw-feminist”); and the belief that those who speak out against the present plutocratic state of America (protesting the abuse of resources and privileges made by the wealthy both in terms of economic and government affairs) are either too lazy/unmotivated to work hard enough to earn true (i.e. monetary) success, or hate capitalism and money and therefore probably America (or all of these things, simultaneously.)
  
  At the same time, I also have seen—and have personally participated in—the reverse of that last fallacious argument. It's so easy to assume everyone who speaks out against public spending, true religious freedom, or sacrificing personal luxuries for the sake of making the world a better place (e.g. reducing/eliminating pollution, reducing material waste, preserving our resources, protecting other species, respecting other species, etc) feels that way for purely selfish, possibly even vindictive reasons, and that they are therefore bad, heartless people. It's easy to pigeonhole them into an inaccurate caricature and hate them.
  
  But if we consider the perspective of the person trying to help free the world from powerful corporations, of the person trying to awaken the public to sexism in what is its most popular and institutionalized form at the present, and of the person trying to encourage more effort be exerted by everyone in order to be less of a constant cancer on the Earth (rather than instantly writing them off and assuming they have no idea what they're talking about or specifically want to hurt you), then we may just be able to fix some of our problems. After all, things have only continued to get worse with our current way of doing things. Trying something else, *gasp!* may actually be a pretty good idea.
  
  Meanwhile, activists can't fall back on hating those who don't believe them. I've spoken extensively on the need to forgive and empathize, and to consider the preceding lifetime of every individual presently participating in these global conversations. Everyone feels the way they do for a reason. When we take the time to understand those reasons, we can then avoid boiling a whole person with a whole history which has made him who he is today, down into a simplified and hopeless strawman—and nothing more.


• The Tu Quoque Argument (Latin for "You, also"), in which Person A avoids facing criticism provided by Person B by pointing out how Person B has made the same mistake(s) in the past. An appeal to hypocrisy should not be allowed to derail a conversation. Just because both (or all) parties have fallen into behaviors against which they are presently speaking out, that does not make those behaviors any less acceptable. Equal guilt doesn't negate the act itself. I saw an example of this very early on in the Occupy movement, when onlookers, news anchors, pundits, and internet comments appeared to take great joy in pointing out that so many of the folks protesting corporate greed and blind consumerism were utilizing the tools purchased in that same corporate environment.
  
  Separately, there are actually three things wrong with that, however. The most obvious issue is the Tu Quoque Fallacy at work, which I have already explained. Another issue is the assumption that buying goods is itself a hypocritical act in that particular situation (which in a way is the Strawman Fallacy at work again, simplifying the demands and rallies of the masses to a simple “owning stuff and having money is bad!”) A third issue is the assumption that it is a) viable to avoid all of these products by also assuming there are comparable alternatives, and also b) hypocritical to use the devices of the “machine” in order to “get back at it.” In a world where instantly worldwide digital communication is often a person's only security against irreparable police brutality and “cover-ups,” there are literally no other options but to use these tools.


• The Black-or-White Argument, in which someone creates and/or defends the illusion that there are only two possible solutions (or sides) to a given problem. Sometimes this is used to increase his/her chances of successfully “winning” the debate. It misleads those trying to partake, and suppresses what might otherwise have been a rational appeal to other circumstances, perspectives, variables, etc. Sometimes it's interesting to see how eager people are to limit themselves in this way, particularly when the only two sides/solutions they can see fail to serve them in any way. For many, there are only two options: Materialism of religion (which for some boils down to Science or Not Science); economic success or a failed life; Capitalism or Dictatorship (as communism and socialism are often perceived as forms of absolute control, and therefore little more than a “group dictatorship.”)
  
  It doesn't occur to us to consider that maybe something that doesn't presently fit most obviously with our individual view of science can in fact be “scientific.” It doesn't occur to us that there may still be things beyond our current comprehension, or at the very least, outside of our current pool of ideas. It doesn't occur to us that we can be more happy with less, if we value quality over quantity. It doesn't occur to us that money is still just a tool, and therefore we control it, and therefore we can do whatever we want to with it, and so are not limited to just the (failed) attempts at a long term, stable economy thus far attempted by mankind. We limit ourselves, and harm ourselves in so doing.


• The Anecdotal Argument, which I have discussed at length in a previous post, recently reposted here: Personal Anecdotes Often Do Not Negate an Argument.
  
  I'd like to add, here, that I have another example for the Anecdotal Argument that I did not mention in that blog post, and that is the assumption that because someone has not personally experienced something, it is therefore impossible. I was involved with (but mostly witnessed) a discussion within a group regarding bringing barter and trade systems back into local communities, rather than relying entirely on currencies. An individual assumed that because he personally could not recall a time in which people were satisfied with a good deed without monetary repayment (which he later realized was entirely untrue), he assumed therefore that deeds would only be done if money was promised in return, regardless of the necessity of the deed. This ignored the fact that with all of the people, labor, and resources available to a community, and with all needs met, there's little reason that a well structured community of empathetic individuals would be unable to function effectively and assist those in need. People assume that it's money that drives all good deeds, not merely because it's the right thing to do and they are more than capable of doing it.


• The Bandwagon Argument, in which it is assumed that popularity makes something true, as though an idea's popularity automatically makes that argument more valid. (It is at times very similar to the Appeal to Authority fallacy, as we will notice.) I see this most recently in the form of quotes from famous political, social, and religious figures/texts. This is not to say that using a quote or reference from a reputable source is wrong. It also doesn't mean that it's wrong to share ideas or sources of inspiration via quotes. Not at all. When we have looked long and hard at an issue and find that a quote from a related, reputable source happens to speak this idea very well, that quote can be a very useful tool. However, simply relying on these quotes to decide an entire ideology, make whole decisions, or sway masses of people is not at all an intelligent way to solve problems or sculpt ones own philosophies. Just because someone says something well doesn't mean what they said was accurate, and it doesn't even mean that their words apply to the situation at hand. It seems to me that we rely on such quotes too often, rather than having meaningful discussions.
  
  I'd like to stress one last time that there is nothing wrong with using quotes. Sometimes someone else says something we feel/think very poignantly, after all, and sharing a quote from a respectable source can really help make people think twice about the validity of their stance. People must always think for themselves, however. Quotes do not “win” an argument.


• The Special Pleading Argument, in which the rules/guideposts of someone's argument constantly change in order to work around and therefore avoid any proof that is placed in the way of their reasoning. (At times similar to the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.) I see this put into play all the time. While everyone uses fallacious thinking at some point in their lives, the Special Pleading fallacy is one which I would assume is particularly common for us. After all, we hate to be wrong.
  
  The most obvious and immediate example I have for this involves arguments in which religion is used as a “reason” for someone's decisions and/or morals. It's actually a comical use of the fallacy, as the bible and other Christian works are so inclusively and exclusively contradictory that someone could go 'round and 'round a subject forever using excerpts to “prove” how something is right or wrong. Jesus said to love thy neighbor, to turn the other cheek, and not to condemn others to hell. That is what is expected of others when dealing with the speaker. But when it's time for the speaker to offer the same thoughtful self control, then it's time for “the bible says homosexuality is a sin,” or “it's my duty as a Christian to try to convert nonbelievers or inform sinners,” or “God says to destroy my non-christian neighbor, take his wife, and murder his children and livestock.” (Actually that last one isn't very popular, and I find that hilarious.)

There are so many more fallacies to discuss, but this has taken forever to write already and the ones listed above are the most obvious to me at the moment. I encourage everyone to take a look at this list of logical fallacies and to consider the ways in which you or people around you have relied on them in the past. (For an even longer list, check out this link.)Take care not to assume everything is a fallacy, of course. The goal is to learn, not to flay ourselves or others.

"Honorary mention" goes to the Argumentum ad Logicam, or "The Fallacy" Fallacy, in which one assumes that because a fallacy has been made, the entire argument is incorrect. (This is similar both to the Tu Quoque [above] and False Analogy fallacies [in which someone uses an analogy as proof of something, rather than as an illustration of something.]) I see this utilized most commonly when someone is searching for a reason to no longer have to absorb information which goes against the grain of his/her own beliefs, and so uses a person's bad choice of words or bad argument as a reason to ignore the truth.

I find it to be closely linked to a fallacious appeal to intelligence, in which a speaker might say "obviously this is the case," or "anyone can see that such-and-such is true." In making such a statement, the speaker urges listeners to assume intelligent people would have "gotten it," and because they may have thought otherwise, they must not be intelligent enough to "get it." This one is extremely common.

But please, don't abuse what you think you know about fallacies in order to stop listening to others, and don't judge yourself too harshly. It's all a learning process.

Repost: An "Insider" Perspective on the Enlightenment

    In February 2011, I began an educational journey to overcome a crippling death anxiety and resultant depression. With the help of my wife, it was decided that my limited grasp of life and the universe needed to be dealt with as the core problem, rather than sequestering the resultant effects (anxiety and depression) and simply treating them with therapy and pharmaceuticals. It was the most important decision of my life, surpassing even my decision to begin the slow and expensive process of gender reassignment. I have not regretted a moment of this eye-opening journey. For the sake of this writing, I will loosely refer to this as a journey toward enlightenment.

    This piece is not entirely about my experiences, however—though discussing them to at least some extent is inevitable, as certain understandings are required before progressing to resultant observations. Rather, this piece focuses primarily on what I perceive as a problem—largely temporary—with the state of this eternal voyage toward an ever-broadening understanding of the universe and what it means to Be. It is my hope that sharing these observations with others may do for them what noticing them in the first place has done for me.

    I have learned a great deal about others who are also moving in this direction (and I have learned that even those who stick stubbornly to their narrow worldview are also unwittingly participating.) In paying attention to others, I learn and understand things about myself. I would like to elaborate a little on this rather common revelation. While I often agree with the paraphrase “what you dislike in someone is really something you dislike in yourself,” I would like to add to this idea: I needn't actively exhibit a behavior in order to know I would not like that behavior in myself. Though often entirely correct, people sometimes take the “you're just hating a part of yourself” statement very literally and therefore can write off someone's criticisms as “a personal problem, bro,” rather than taking a moment to consider that the criticisms may well hold some weight and be worth some introspection. I ask that readers avoid leaping to that dismissive conclusion, here.
   

* * * * * * * * *

PART 1

    In the development of “everything,”—from potential, to impetus/activity, to photons and what we perceive as material, to subatomic and atomic particles, all the way through to single celled and eventually into multicellular organisms—the evolution of consciousness to become aware of and look back on itself has provided it (us, everything) with the ability to ask “why” and “how.” Over time, we have developed numerous modalities to answer these questions with varying levels of complication and accuracy (between which there does not necessarily always exist a correlation.) Now we stand in an extremely exciting point of this developmental process, where we can better judge the worth of these modalities and come to understand the ways in which so many of them express many of the same universal truths.

    While the purpose of this writing is not to compare dogmatic scientific materialism with dogmatic and self-restricting religions, it must be said that they do share some problems and limitations. In fact, more important are the insights these two modalities share. But again, comparisons are not my goal. I merely wish to point out that entirely relying on one “system” for all of the answers can often lead to grave mistakes and massive assumptions. It's easy to draw up examples of religions behaving this way or encouraging this willfully ignorant behavior. It is harder to describe examples of this in science. However, science often falls victim to the preferred drives and limitations of the society in which it exists. A prevailing paradigm is very difficult to shift when it becomes the primary (or worse, the only) frame of reference for a culture's understanding of the world. When we define our sciences as limited to the material while simultaneously claiming that only the material exists and only the material is real, we are making massive assumptions and benefiting from how simple and confined that makes our realm of study. (These terms are of course relative, as the universe is unimaginably massive and complicated.) From here we can behave like children and roll our eyes at all other modalities, while making amazing discoveries about the universe around us and therefore “proving ourselves right once again.” It is incredibly difficult to open ourselves to other systems of thought, from this standpoint. This, of course, is an extreme—though it is a very real and pervasive extreme. Let us direct our attention to another problem with limiting one's understanding to one or two schools of thought.

    Currently, there is great upheaval in systems of government and culture all over the world. This in large part stems from two clashing extremes: a dangerous overflow of greed, fear, inequality, and apathy, with an incredible growth of introspection, realization of the worth of life, and empathy. In the middle of a terrifying Dark Age, our species is blossoming. Right on cue, our knowledge of the universe and reality is expanding, and that information is readily available all over the internet in the form of lectures, books, documentaries, blogs, and impassioned discussions. Change in our minds—individually and as a whole—is happening more and more rapidly. Gradually, people are awakening to the truth: each of us is tied to everyone else, and we are more than just a small part of the universe. We are the universe, within itself, experiencing itself. There is no room for hate when everything is One.

    So what's the problem? This avalanche of information comes during a period of severe oversimplification (or complication?) and misunderstanding of the self—that is, inflation of the ego. It also comes during a period of very limited (read: discouraged and expensive) education and narrow worldviews. People fail to realize that even a limited vocabulary greatly limits the way in which a person can absorb and understand these concepts--concepts which otherwise are really rather simple. In these times, it is common for people to take this information and repackage it for maximum profit, seemingly missing the message entirely.

At the same time, the kindest and most deserving of people, empowered with all the best intentions, are presented with the end result of these profound truths before having the opportunity to actually discover it themselves--or at least think about it a while. Just as with many religions and with materialism, people are presented with a single perspective without a full background, and begin to draw massive assumptions with it. They take this two-dimensional, barely understood perspective and run with it, presenting these assumptions as facts. Unfortunately, so long as someone’s heart is in the right place, they assume they can do no wrong. The falsehood of that statement should be obvious after even a precursory glance. Because these “nouveau gurus” feel they have the “absolute truth” in their hands, all critics are clearly unenlightened fools. An education of this sort, as all-encompassing as it is, cannot leave out chapters and skip to the answers. I feel there must be a personal learning process, and it must involve more than simply obsessing with one modality. After all, we cannot skip the root chakra and skyrocket straight to the crown.

A common result of “skipped steps” and retaining a diehard dedication to one modality while remaining purposefully ignorant of other layers/levels/modalities of truth is a dramatization of someone's limitedly perceived reality. Currently, massive numbers of people are so desperate for a better understanding of the universe and for a better way of life that they consume these incomplete, melodramatic teachings like gospel. In their own ignorance and zeal, they are often incapable of arguing against or even properly digesting a well-developed, well-presented thesis. That kind of thoughtless consumption can be dangerous. Luckily, the subject matter is generally so positive and well-meaning that it's often not worth pointing out a person's uneducated statements.

    Now let us be clear: a sweeping change in understanding and involvement with the self is inevitable, regardless of the many paths these changes can take or the potholes we might hit along the way. That inevitability does not make discussion of the matters at hand superfluous, however. The idea that addressing a visible shortcoming is unnecessary because “the universe is perfect” is as flawed as the claim “I don't have to try to better myself because God loves me just the way I am,” and “you're a hater.” It's often a lazy excuse used to avoid reflection. In these instances, people recycle words they have heard elsewhere while understanding very little of the meaning (or lack of meaning) behind them. Just because we think something does not make that thought absolute truth. I'd also like to point out that one needn't have a solution in order to remonstrate a problem, and one needn't be perfect to notice imperfections.

* * * * * * * * *

PART 2

    At last we arrive at the driving motivation for this piece: the archetypes which appear most obvious to me on my journey toward enlightenment. The problems described in Part One have of course affected the ways in which people move along their path toward enlightenment, and I felt it was prudent to describe what I’ve noticed during my own journey. I certainly don't think these are the only kinds of people which exist around me in this process, let alone all over the world. I would also like to preface this list with this: I do not for a moment think that any of these people are “bad people.” While I know that true objectivity is impossible, I stress that these are observations (perhaps occasionally peppered with hints of joy or disappointment. I am, after all, a human being.) Following this list will be a meticulous explanation of each archetype. (I wish I could have made it an even ten-item list, but after working away at it I wound up settling with eleven.)

I. Unshakable zealots/skeptics

II. Flexible skeptics/agnostics

III. Disinterested/distracted

IV. Curious but incapable

V. Curious but unable to relate/trust

VI. Awakening but uncertain of the future

VII. Awakening but “skipping steps” to turn a profit, missing the point

VIII. Awakening but obsessed, dramatizing, and possibly skipping steps

IX. Awakening and comfortable with human limitations/limited modalities

X. Awakening/awake and connecting all information/modalities without attachments

XI. Awake? Finished? Difficult to define. Discussion almost unnecessary.

* * * * * * * * *

I.    Unshakable zealots/skeptics

    While I had originally listed religious zealots and atheistic skeptics separately, I realized that it was fitting to group them together for the sake of this list. I know that very sentence sounds dangerous and dismissive, but for reasons explained earlier in this writing, they are analogous enough in relation to this subject matter (and perhaps only in reference to this subject matter.) I can easily draw similarities between judgmental Southern Baptists and famed scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking, when I focus on their dogmatic loyalty to only one modality for understanding the universe (Christianity and Materialism, respectively.) A vast majority of people appear to think that the truth is up for grabs between religion and science, that one must be entirely correct and the other entirely false, and that they cannot coexist in any form. And so, the battle for “proper education” is waged between these two groups (which also break down into numerous subgroups.)

    I understand these individuals quite well, considering I grew up in the religious south and spent most of my life seeking answers only through materialist science. I not only turned my nose up at alternative explanations but actually refused to so much as look at them or listen to them. I would literally forget the details of experiences which I could not readily explain. My ego is a very fine-tuned filter. “Don't talk to me about non-local communication, near-death experiences, or the documented feats of enlightened gurus; there is a scientific explanation for each of those.” (As if a systematic explanation makes those things any less amazing or real!) Just as the church found no need to look into Galileo's telescope because the appearance of something unconfirmed by the bible quite simply could not be real and therefore need not be “discovered,” so too do many people of science assume that no good will ever come from broadening the scope of what is considered “worthy of scientific inquiry.” After all, we clearly have all of the answers! I think it's important to realize that anything can exist within the realm of science. Just because it does not fit within the current paradigm does not mean it isn't real. If we expanded the paradigm (or altered it entirely, as we have done throughout history), we would find that the mainstream view of reality is very different from the truth. I recently watched a video which addresses this hesitancy in the scientific community. Peter Russel presented a fine lecture which spends some time on this and more. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-primacy-of-consciousness/

    But enough of my thoughts on stubborn skeptics.

* * * * * * * * *

II.    Flexible skeptics/agnostics

    These individuals, in my opinion most flatteringly represented by men like Neil deGrasse Tyson, feel that they have found the best modality, but do not necessarily scoff at other systems so long as said systems utilize a relatable sort of reasoning and do not attempt to negate the Flexible Skeptic's model of the universe. They may even attempt to bridge certain modalities with their own. I have witnessed this as an attempt to spread “truth” to more people, and also because the Flexible Skeptic is aware that they literally cannot 100% definitively disprove all over modalities, and that therefore there is the possibility that there may be something more to the universe beyond their own understanding. Still, their universe is the “most complete” universe.

* * * * * * * * *

III.    Disinterested/distracted

    An alarming number of people have no interest in asking questions about who they are or why they do the things they do or feel the things they feel. They have absolutely no interest in the nature of life and the universe—or worse, they are afraid of thinking that much or in that direction because it would require a kind of deep introspection which they may never before have attempted, and it may bring about a painful realization that their life choices up to that point have done nothing but waste their time and efforts. They are far too distracted by the desires of their egos to take a moment to sit in silence or discuss something more meaningful than their own daily distractions. None of this makes them bad people, of course. Sometimes these types are just very busy (or manic) or highly driven toward the kind of success that they were raised to seek out. Perhaps they are focused on constantly serving others. Unfortunately, a majority of the Disinterested/Distracted that I see around me are too busy seeking simple pleasures and failing to think of anyone but themselves to ever dare consider what the discovery of Multiple Universes could ever possibly “mean” to them. My wife and I came across a depressing example of this very recently. We passed a young man living in stereotypical financial and moral straits for undereducated inner-city youths, walking down the road in a T-shirt which read the following:

MONEY

OVER

EVERYTHING

This young man is a product of his environment, and this environment makes it very difficult to talk to the average person about the reality which quantum physics is opening up to us. If it's not on television or does not directly relate to their daily lives, it may as well not exist.

* * * * * * * * *

IV.    Curious but incapable

    I am close with several kind, intelligent people who know that the world around them is not quite right and who know that modern science is on to some amazing things in its description of the universe. But these curious people of which I speak simply are not in a place in which they can even begin to dedicate any part of their day to furthering their understanding of the Self and the universe. After all, people often exist in whatever reality their immediate society has presented to them; this reality is difficult and stressful and full of terrifying risks. If people are too wrapped up in this to see the “machinery” which makes that reality at all possible in the first place, I can only wish them the very best in that reality and be glad that they know, deep down, that there may be “something more.” What's more, if they are finally reaching a point in their lives in which they can slow down and enjoy the fruits of their labors, they have every right to want to stop their thought processes right there and simply bask. In another time under different circumstances, these folks would be eager to explore what it means to Be. For the time being, seeking happiness is their priority, and I certainly cannot fault them for that!

    Note: there is a lot of “grey area” in this archetype, and many people here may actually fit more accurately into a combination of this and Archetype #9. Being truly happy and grounded in one's relationship with the earth and with one's own place in life is a surprising rarity, and I would venture to say it is closer to “true living” than many others may ever experience.

* * * * * * * * *

V.    Curious but unable to relate/trust

    This is a frame of mind with which I am deeply familiar, and at times still find myself falling into. I find there are generally four things which keep the Curious But Unable from readily relating-to or trusting-in the arising perspectives regarding the truth of the universe. For one, despite being constantly presented with information which should regularly turn my world upside down, the stark contrast from the “truth” that I grew up with makes it very difficult to swallow sometimes. A second factor is the sources from which this information often comes. When a person doubts the sanity, sincerity, intelligence, objectivity, or logical reasoning of his/her instructor (be the instructor an actual teacher, a guru, the written word, a series of videos, or whatever else), he/she will struggle to swallow what's being fed to them. A third factor affecting the ready absorption and consideration of new truths is the sometimes irritating New Age subculture which often surrounds it (with the fourth factor being the backlash of the mainstream culture, and how easy it can be to fall back in line with the mainstream.) I elaborate further on parts of the aforementioned subculture in upcoming archetypes.

* * * * * * * * *

VI.    Awakening but uncertain of the future/the self

    Recently I find myself relating most with this archetype. I can readily share a broadening understanding of the universe with my peers, but struggle to live these truths regularly and am unsure of what to strive for. I met many people in a similar situation at the “local branch” of Occupy Wall Street. We saw the truth of the world around us, we knew that equality and freedom were more important than “playing it safe,” we knew that we were drawn to this event and to each other for a reason, and we knew then that the world was changing—both because it is an inevitable part of nature, and because we are the part of the universe that is driving this change. At the same time, despite knowing just how at-home and right it all was, many of us were extremely uncertain of exactly what to do or precisely where to place our confidence. I feel that far more often than not, now, merely about how I should be living and what I should be doing. I am struggling to balance what I know with living normally in the world around me, while simultaneously being faced with my own human limitations. I am unhappy with the world, but I also know that everything is technically alright and always will be. I am always seeking more information but often don't know who to trust or what conclusions to draw. While I know it is entirely untrue, I also sometimes feel like I am the only person I know who feels this way!

* * * * * * * * *

VII.    Awakening but “skipping steps,” missing the point, trapped in the ego

    This and the next archetype are the two which frustrate me the most, particularly because they make it harder for a blend of modalities to be accepted by the majority. I also feel that these two archetypes blend together for many people, particularly those of the “New Age” subculture. My best example for those who are aware of some truth but not enough of it, and who utilize this narrow frame of reference for personal attention, are a great number of “self-help” authors/lecturers, such as David Icke (www.davidicke.com) and Rhonda Byrne (author of The Secret, www.thesecret.tv.) Icke, in particular, often uses fear and insult (and a touch of Crazy) to spread his message. His ego-involvement is clear from the beginning. Byrne has a slightly different subject matter and utilizes a more positive message. They both are helpful and damaging in different ways. I'm not speaking of all self-help authors, of course. For many people seeking to help the general public with matters of their own psychology, marketing this information as “self-help” may be the best (if not the only) method of reaching those who do in fact need that assistance.

A problem arises when folks like Ms. Byrne repackage already widely available information and sell it as a rare and special product which will help its readers manifest things like wealth. The authors seek and teach ego validation. It is damaging, but the readers feel (and are told) that they are one step closer to Enlightenment. Following is a list of steps to produce one of these self-help personae:

1. You know enough about this already and you know that others should know these truths, too. You see no problem with making money for providing a useful product, so why not make a huge profit for huge information? Unfortunately, you don’t know enough to provide “hude information,” so you you’ll have to make it look huge. First, research other authors/yogis/scientists/philosophers to beef up your repertoire.
2. Strip the information down to the barest essentials. This way you won't have to understand the incredible connections with all levels of modern science—especially quantum physics (considering the fact that science is a method for Man to describe things in his reality, be those things chemistry or consciousness.) It's better that your audience not be too well informed anyway, otherwise they'll clearly see through your ruse. A full-circle understanding isn't necessary to turn a profit. Let's not forget, if you go too far, you may start to question your own motivations, and as we are functioning from a place of ego, we can't go questioning that ego!
3. Present the information as a means to manifest their desires, rather than as a way of understanding and truly interacting with their own lives and the universe around and within them. Make wealth and material possession a key focus. If you can, mention the version of Buddhism (or was it Hinduism? Who cares!) which became popular with American celebrities for manifesting money and cars. Describe the Law of Attraction as a mystical force which will give them wealth if they meditate on that desire and sincerely believe it is theirs. Money is your goal; why can't it also be theirs? It's the one thing that's sure to hook a potential buyer.
4. Tell your audience that this information is very special. Meanwhile, also tell them that everyone is capable of doing this. It's true, after all, and that way they'll feel a sort of guarantee for having purchased your product/service.
5. Surround the information with lots of drama and intrigue. Throw in some references to angels, if you can, to grab the attention of Christians who might be interested in the product.
6. Repackage all of this simple information into your “special product.” Make a movie out of it if you can. Go on a lecture tour (for a hefty fee). Provide counseling (for a hefty fee.) When people accuse you of selling snake oil, swear up and down that you are only trying to help people. Remind everyone that you are merely being a source of positive thinking, that you are not a doctor (unless you are), and that you make no guarantees.
7. Upon success, bask in the glory of your bloated ego and feel good about it.

    I have a feeling that many of these people are not acting maliciously. They think they “get it,” and so they deserve to have what they want since they are capable of controlling their lives, regardless of the risk it may pose to others. (After all, you create your own reality!) They want to manifest wealth by selling the idea of manifesting to others. It's helpful, right?

    For the record, I do not think it's wrong to charge money for teaching the nature of reality. In this society, we need money to survive. If you are actually helping people and spreading the truth, you certainly deserve to be able to survive with that teaching/counseling profession. Money, after all, is not evil. Online researcher David Wilcock (www.divinecosmos.com) is a fine example of someone who does not fit this ego-driven archetype, in my opinion. Yes, he is a little strange and dramatic as a person, but he keeps nothing hidden and is very down to earth and uplifting in the way he delivers his information. He has a book for sale and delivers paid lectures all over the world. Everything in his printed book and in-person lectures is available for free on his website in the form of videos, articles, and e-books. Sharing the information is his goal. He charges money for some things so that he can survive.

* * * * * * * * *

VIII.    Awakening but obsessed, dramatizing, and possibly skipping steps

    This archetype sounds very similar to the one described previously, but there are a few key differences. This person is generally more “correct” and complete in their understanding of the universe than Archetype 7. They often seek to help others and can be extremely positive, loving people. They also tend to cling to a select few modalities in their understanding of the universe. Granted, there is not necessarily anything wrong with utilizing just a few methods. The problem arises when one tries to utilize this limited understanding to describe things beyond the realm of those modalities—especially if they try to teach others in that way. Just as I cannot use biology to account for physics, I also cannot use a book on the Law of Attraction to account for the development of consciousness. However, if I bring together an understanding of biology, physics, and introspection (meditation) on the nature of Being, I can see the ways in which these things come together to paint a broader image of the universe and how I fit into it (and I can therefore explain it to many different kinds of people because I can relate to their familiar modalities)

    I want to stress that I do not dislike those of this archetype. Far from it. As I said before, these folks are incredibly positive and pleasant and often work very hard to help make the world a better place. We literally need Archetype 8’s (although arguably, we need all kinds of people, equally.) I would say that I am just frustrated because of how dramatic they make the universe out to be. Given their limited understanding (and sometimes this is simply the result of a limited education and/or limited vocabulary), things which should otherwise be simple and obvious are disproportionately heralded as flabbergasting examples of magnificent divinity. Yes, everything is beautiful. Yes, everything is just as important as anything else. But because of that, we should be able to appreciate something without becoming ungrounded.

You know what makes taking up meditation so hard for people? Authors on the subject claim it will be an amazing, life-changing experience, and that the peace you’ll feel will keep you eagerly coming back to your meditation pillow. This is true, over time and in varying degrees, but for the most part I experienced none of that. This dramatic flair can make people skeptical, or worse, can make them feel lied to.

From a personal perspective, because I don't tend to enjoy this kind of scattered mindset, I am viewed as “less in-touch” or “speaking from the ego” when I try to distance myself or encourage more mindful consideration and less ignorant wonderment (keyword “ignorant,” as there is certainly nothing wrong with wonderment.)

This archetype also tends to cram whole concepts for the human condition/human potential into single phrases. For example, “be the change you wish to see in the world” has become one of the most overused and therefore useless phrases on the internet, bumper stickers, and motivational posters. The phrase is beautifully true, of course, but it literally cannot be applied to every situation. Sometimes a person is not in a place in which he/she can utilize the core message of such phrases. In fact, sometimes it's a lazy response. Rather than trying to “blow my mind” with something that is actually painfully obvious, consider going through the effort of understanding me and having a discussion with me. Anything less risks being insulting. We still live human lives in this human world, and we still must go through a process before we can handle all of our problems so easily. If we could all snap our fingers and be gurus... (well, I wouldn’t be sharing this essay with you.)

Of course, I pick my confrontations carefully and really am not too bothered by all this. These folks are my friends and my family. I know tons of them, and am so grateful. I love them, regardless of their abuse of hackneyed “positive phrases.”

* * * * * * * * *

IX.    Awakening and comfortable with human limitations/limited modalities

    I find this archetype to be truly inspiring. I think of earth-conscious Native Americans, Mayans, and Druids, who while only being privy to a limited understanding of the universe, understood well their place within it and the nature of reality. I also think of people that I know personally, today. These are people who are generally aware of the nature of things to some extent and know there are higher states of consciousness which they are not necessarily actively seeking at the moment. They know that technically they no longer have to focus on their worldly lives quite so fervently, as they could be focusing on inner peace instead. But they are also happy with their lives and with living somewhat normally in society. They have not turned their backs on the struggles and frustrations of everyday living. Perhaps they want to be teachers or counselors or artists or assist the homeless or participate in any number of positive occupations. They are aware of their limitations in this life, and rather than constantly seeking to surpass them, they seek to be the best they can be as they are now, while helping others do the same. (This certainly does not mean this archetype doesn't seek self-improvement, however.)

* * * * * * * * *

X.    Awakening/awake and connecting all information/modalities without attachments

    I am lucky enough to be very close with someone of this archetype. My wife studies several schools of thought in regards to the nature of the universe. She is a huge proponent of using science to describe things which others might consider indescribable in scientific terms—not specifically to falsify them, but to understand them within the scientific context. At the same time, she can appreciate and utilize other modalities to interact with the universe, including yoga, tarot cards, pendulums, meditation, dreams, entheogens, homeopathy, and positive reinforcement/manifestation. She understands how each of these methods work “scientifically” (or, objectively.) She is not an enlightened guru, and she's certainly comfortable with that.

    Having studied and considered how these modalities work and fit together, my wife also knows when a modality is being forced to fit into reality and is failing to succeed. For example, the author and New Age marketer Doreen Virtue (www.angeltherapy.com) sells a plethora of goods with fabricated methodologies, mixing astrology, angels, unicorns, mermaids, etc, for maximum profit. For as much as Doreen's audience would love to believe Ms. Virtue is Archetype 10, she appears to be floundering between Archetypes 7 and 8. Rather, for a real combination of modalities and selfless presentation thereof, check out Wilcock's book The Source Field Investigations.

* * * * * * * * *

XI.    Awake? Finished? Difficult to define.

    There is little I can say in regards to this archetype, because I don't think it is something easily described. I may well know someone like this, or I may not. Someone who lives and breathes and thinks the totality of the truth of the universe may no longer be of this earthly plane, for all I know! I think my point in including this was admitting that I can't possibly assume to know much about anyone, especially in terms of universal understanding. Everything I have written here has been my response to what I observe in the world around me as I learn and grow (particularly after long discussions with others who have expressed themselves similarly.)

Admittedly, I nearly had to finish this essay in order to understand just why I had written it in the first place (and so I had to revise the introduction.) In looking back over the people I’ve met or simply become aware of during my personal journey toward a better understanding of myself and reality, it's helpful for me to “lay it all out on the table” in order to see how temporary our struggles are on our way to what many call Ascension. It can be helpful to see how it plays out in the lives of those around us. We learn a great deal about ourselves when we look at human beings in general. I hope that doing so helps any readers learn a little about themselves and the people around them, either for self improvement or simple understanding.

Finally, I should add that I don’t dislike any of the archetypes I described above. On the contrary, I have learned that everyone “serves their purpose,” so the speak, and that I should love all of them unconditionally. If you feel you fit into one of the aforementioned archetypes, please remember that I made these up. Also remember that I did not include all of the archetypes I’ve ever thought of, nor all of the kinds of people in my life. Most importantly, I certainly did not attempt to fit everyone I know into an archetype. I may not have ever attempted to “understand” you in this way. That having been said, if you think you are described by one of these archetypes, what does that mean to you?

Note: Please forgive all of the personal pronouns in this piece. It is, after all, all about my observations.