Individualism Won’t Get Us There
by: Nancy Vedder-Shults on July 31st, 2009 | 14 Comments »
Dave Belden’s last post “So What’s a Spiritual Progressive to Do?” stuck with me all last night. Dave’s voice rings with urgency, an urgency to which all of us spiritual progressives respond. Who doesn’t know that we have to make change now? At least as quickly as humanly possible?
But those two — now and as quickly as humanly possible — are different animals. Now would have been yesterday for Dave, since he wrote his piece on the 30th. And humanly possible…that’s the rub for us. Humanly possible should be yesterday as well. But there are a lot of us humans, and we spiritual progressives have to educate many before the changes can be made.
All those “others” is what frustrates us, but it’s also our liberation in a paradoxical sense. I know that I can’t do this myself. And I can’t do it all. Each of us has to do what we can. And that means that some of us will work more locally, while others work more nationally. It means that some us will be learning how to more effective, while others are putting that knowledge into action. It means that some of us will take a spiritual retreat to rejuvenate ourselves, while others throw themselves into the middle of change-making.
“Spiritual progressive” as a term is only problematic when we look at it from an individualistic perspective, when we somehow expect everything to come together in each person, rather than in an entire movement. I don’t fault Dave for that understanding. It’s mine, too. I’ve been molded by the most individualistic culture in the world, that of the United States of America.
Part of the reason for American individualism lies in how all-emcompassing work has become during the last half of the twentieth century. With two-career families and greatly expanded work hours, Americans can no longer involve themselves in their communities or in political activism as they did in the 1960s and before. Many of us who are white and middle class have also become much more separated from our extended families than our ancestors during the first half the century, having traveled long distances to advance our careers. This throws us back on the resources of our nuclear families to a degree that is unhealthy. We’re busier, and, as a result, we end up hiring people to perform tasks that in earlier days would have been carried out by friends or relatives. Grandma doesn’t babysit anymore, because she’s living in Florida or Arizona. Instead we pay a child care provider, shifting one more relationship to the individualistic values of the marketplace.
For most of us in North America, community is fleeting or elusive. In the U.S. we move on average every 4 years, so how can we put down roots? We spend far too much time alone or with our families in front of the TV set or the computer, twittering or texting, time that used to be spent talking or getting together with friends and extended family. In fact, a recent study of the high-tech families of Silicon Valley found that they used technology to skip face-to-face contact, subsituting pagers, cell phones, faxes and e-mails to schedule their non-stop meetings, social functions, school time and errands.
We also live, if we can afford it, in hermetically-sealed boxes so that we don’t have to see or hear our neighbors nor smell what they’re cooking for dinner. The last item on this list became as plain as the nose on my face when I did a “lit drop” for my twenty-two year-old nephew when he was running for county supervisor in his student district in Madison. One of the apartment buildings I canvassed was full of foreign students, something that was immediately apparent when I opened the door to the building, and the smells of Indian and Chinese cuisine alternately tantalized and assailed my nostrils. When I walk in my neighborhood of small to medium-sized private homes, I can occasionally tell when someone is doing the laundry, because the air from their dryer is vented to the outdoors, but unless it’s summer and someone is grilling, I rarely know what’s for dinner.
All of this, plus more, makes the United States the most individualistic culture in the world. Harry Triandis did a survey of the the research on individualistic and communal cultures in 1972 and concluded the U.S. had the dubious distinction of being the most individualistic. And we haven’t become more communal since then. Just look at the fact that prospective students write smear letters about competitors in order to increase their chances of getting a spot at the university of their choice.
I almost always look at things from a personal, individualistic point of view. When I think about women and our position in society, I think in larger terms. But that’s because I was a Women’s Studies researcher for decades. When I think about nature and the environment, I do as well. And that’s because I practice Wicca, and experience myself as a part of the allness of the universe. But in other areas of my life my fallback position is often very personal.
In fact, the only way I came to this change in my thinking last night was that it bothered me –personally — so much that I had to reach a different conclusion. I’ve burned out a number of times. Why? Because I had to do it all myself, and immediately. Change the world or else! I know Dave wasn’t talking in those terms, but the urgency in his post caught fire in my veins, and that’s where I went.
Instead we need to know that we have help along the way. That we have a movement to depend on. That people will care for each other on the way, restore each others’ spirits on the way, not just when we burn out or get to the utopian end of the road when a Global Marshall Plan has been instituted and world governments look out for the world, not just their little neck of the woods.
The small scale is powerful, because it’s the one we live in and know. We live in our communities, with people we know. We can effect tangible change there. But we can also effect tangible change in our spiritual progressive movement if we don’t forget to ask for help, to enjoy the people we’re working with, and to breathe deeply with each other.
I know how to balance my life best when I’m actively involved in peace work, because peace activism attracts people who often know that they need peace in their personal lives as well as in their families, their communities, and in the world. We won’t get there with either/or. We will get there with both/and/and/and. “I get by with a little help from my friends.”



Good point. I don’t think we have to worry about those who think Spiritual Progressives think they are better than…. (Sorry about that sentence.) We need a movement within which many people play many roles. The term “Spiritual Progressive” provides a way to identify one another so that even those who don’t join movements know that there are kindred spirits out there.
This is a very real cause in progressvism today. Spiritual or otherwise. There are a lot of good people doing very good works all over this country. But as you pointed out, most are doing it alone or with very little resources.
I know so well how that can become a dissapointing factor in any ‘movement’. The issue for one may not be the ‘issue’ for another. Our priorities must be succinct in scope and action. There are so many pressing problems, as some point out, that we are diluting our energies trying to ‘do it all’ now. Or in some areas, not doing anything, for lack of others help.
It is my perseption that if we garner all our resources around one issue, that has the greatest impact on the many, we may advance our goals more effectively. But, unfourtunatly most do not share this vision. Some would rather plod along for their issue, no matter the effectiveness or outcome. Still others have left disgusted and dishearten.
I feel my role has become more and more sisyphean in these endevors. But, I keep trying.
Thank you and Dave for these articles, I too have begun to re-think my part.
I was surprised by some of your response to my post, Nancy. Especially this: “when we somehow expect everything to come together in each person, rather than in an entire movement. I don’t fault Dave for that understanding. It’s mine, too.” I really didn’t think I was saying that I expect everyone to do everything! But I was talking about the importance and the lure of the small scale, and making a case for the big scale political work.
Women’s rights and such LGBT rights as we have have been secured by a mix of the very local and the big scale political work. If it had only been a movement of personal awareness, change and struggle in homes and neighborhoods and workplaces, without national political organizers like NOW, then laws would never have been changed. But if it had only been political organizers in DC, without a national movement of awareness passing from person to person, laws would not have been changed either. I’m not saying laws are everything but they do make a huge difference! So in that history a great many more people have done the personal courageous work of coming out and challenging sexism in daily life than ever did much national organizing: everyone’s contributions were needed.
It’s just that even in progressive spiritual / religious circles it surprises me how little tough-minded national political organizing is going on. There are many reasons for that, and I don’t have time right now to say more about what I am thinking, as I am behind on my deadlines for getting Tikkun magazine’s next issue out, so it’s a working weekend for me. I just hope that more of us who have been drawn into the real work of building spiritual community and caring for people within reach, could get the energy and call, to use a religious word, to do the national organizing. The fact that we need to invent ways to do it that are more compatible with our experiences of spiritual community-building than is traditional political organizing could be part of what might make it exciting.
Dave,
I’m glad to hear your clarification. It may very well have been the urgency of your post that I was responding to rather than your intent. I should have known that the “personal is political” for you just as much as it is for me, and, of course, the “political is personal,” too, i.e. that it’s false dichotomy to split them.
And by the way, I will probably finish _To Warm the Earth_. I’m really enjoying it!
Warm regards,
Nancy
Dave,
I’m glad to hear your clarification. It may very well have been the urgency of your post that I was responding to rather than your intent. I should have known that the “personal is political” for you just as much as it is for me, and, of course, the “political is personal,” too, i.e. that it’s false dichotomy to split them.
And by the way, I will probably finish _To Warm the Earth_ today. I’m really enjoying it!
Warm regards,
Nancy
I have loved reading this whole long exchange between you (Nancy), Dave, and so many others commenting on this and Dave’s post.
Your identification of individualism as a problem, Nancy, seems key, and I would expand it a bit to call it “self-interest” or “self-preservation.” I work in the nonprofit sector. Talk about laboring alone with few resources! There are so many good organizations doing good work, but without knowing about each other or talking to each other, much less sharing resources and planning collaborative action. The reason? We are in competition for resources presumed to be scarce. (Whether they are scarce or not I can’t say; my answer depends on the strength of my faith on any given day!) That competition sends us into survival mode, where the survival of our own institutions as discrete institutions begins to trump even the good work we are trying to do. What does “laying down your life for your friends,” as Jesus says, look like on an organizational scale?
Sorry to be such a heretic; but individuals (and individualism) are the bedrock of America. You are taking the one country in history that was built on individuals and value and changing it into a society built on groups and need. Such a society is doomed to fail.
All the communes established in the 60s under these ideals all failed… yet thousands of free, open societies built on individuals and free enterprise have dotted the American landscape since it’s founding and remain prosperous until this day. All over the world, there are hundreds of mediocre, stagnant, zero-growth, zero-idea, going nowhere socialist utopias. You obviously idolize them… so why not move there? Why take the last bastion of hope for the individual and crush it under your boot of collectivism? That’s what I don’t understand – you have this zeal to turn this great pace which spread freedom around the world into another Zimbabwe. You are openly pursuing and advocating nothing less than the destruction of America.
Collectivism is a fraud. Groups – in the larger sense of the word – do not exist. All there are are individuals. A group cannot have any more rights than the individuals in it, and in order to maintain the “rights” of the groups, you will have to sacrifice the rights of the individuals in it. Or outside of it. Or, usually, both.
The smallest minority of all is the individual, and it’s the one you care least about. The fact that Ms. Torbett (above) actually asks, “What does “laying down your life for your friends,” as Jesus says, look like on an organizational scale?” should frighten anyone. I don’t want to know what that looks like, why would you?
Jesus didn’t mean it in a collective sense because it was never meant in a collective way. Laying down one’s life for your friends is one thing – if its an individual’s choice. He never wanted to consider laying down life on an organizational scale. But that’s what collectivism does – sacrifices individuals for the good of the “group”; then turns it into a “manufacturing process”. It always leads to the worse sorts of horrors in human history: japanese internment camps, jewish extermination camps, stalinstic purges… and this time will be no different. (And all of those efforts were implemented by collective, progressive, ideals.)
The notion of securing rights is another crossroads. Consider Mr Belden (above):
Women’s rights and such LGBT rights as we have have been secured by a mix of the very local and the big scale political work. If it had only been a movement of personal awareness, change and struggle in homes and neighborhoods and workplaces, without national political organizers like NOW, then laws would never have been changed. But if it had only been political organizers in DC, without a national movement of awareness passing from person to person, laws would not have been changed either.
According to our individualistic constitution, rights are something we have already. But because you are collectivist, you need the order from central command before you can consider granting rights to one group or another. So you pass laws to force individuals to recognize rights in other groups of individuals that may or may not already exist. (Sometimes collectivists call things “rights” that are more properly called “wishes”, in my opinion.) But what changes?
You passed “rights” for blacks and “rights” for gays and “rights” for women and “rights” for every other groups you can think of… but society doesn’t change, does it? Do we still have racism? Sexism? Homophobia? The problem is, it always comes down to individuals, not groups. You can legislate rights all you want, you can righteously march on the mall every May 1st, but until individuals change, it’s all just talk.
People on the right believe that social change comes from the bottom up, through free acceptance by each individual, persuaded by ideas and open debate. People on the left believe that social change is coerced from a central authority, with each individual being forced to accept whatever they are/aren’t ready to accept. That’s not social change, that’s social imposition… resulting in an oppressive group of people forcing the rest of the population to do it the right way. It’s not change, it’s the appearance of change… but collectivists rarely notice. After receiving the central command, it always becomes and issue of compliance and conformity for collectivists.
That’s why after you pass your precious laws “granting rights” to gays, you still see the job as half done – the individuals seemingly haven’t gotten the message. Then you focus on getting everyone in line with the new thinking, and lament about how homophobic and backwards everyone is. But if you spent your time trying to convince individuals… the laws would be unnecessary in the end. Society would change without them.
Contrary to the title of this piece, individualism not only will get us there, it is the only way to get us there. Everything else is just a delusion; and a dangerous one at that. I’m sure you’re all very learned and keep up on the latest progressive thought… how about you read Ayn Rand and learn a bit about individuals before you crush them?
Quoting from Wikipedia: “Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals.”
Mr. Robinson has stated the “Collectivism is a fraud” and uses this perspective to justify the opposite point of view, that individualism should take precedence and that ” it is the only way to get us there.” He also accuses liberal collectivists of needing an “order from central command.”
Going back to the Wikipedia page on collectivism, though, it is pointed out that: “Collectivism can be typified as “horizontal collectivism”, wherein equality is emphasized and people engage in sharing and cooperation, or “vertical collectivism”, wherein hierarchy is emphasized and people submit to authorities to the point of self-sacrifice. Horizontal collectivism is based on the assumption that each individual is more or less equal, while vertical collectivism assumes that individuals are fundamentally different from each other.” It is also pointed out that: “Horizontal collectivists tend to favour democratic decision-making, while vertical collectivists believe in a strict chain of command. Horizontal collectivism stresses common goals, interdependence and sociability. Vertical collectivism stresses the integrity of the in-group (e.g. the family or the nation), expects individuals to sacrifice themselves for the in-group if necessary, and promotes competition between different in-groups.”
So, Mr. Robinson is arguing against vertical collectivism, which seems to also be what is implied in the basic definition of collectivism provided at the top of the Wikipedia article. In contrast to that, it seems to me that those others of you who have been sharing your comments here have been doing so from a point of view more akin to horizontal collectivism “wherein equality is emphasized and people engage in sharing and cooperation.” This is certainly more in line with my thoughts and feelings. And I’m more inclined towards the term “community” rather than “collectivism” and thinking of community in an ecological sense as “a group of interdependent organisms inhabiting the same region and interacting with each other.” The “same region” is a relative term which can include anything from perhaps a group living together in the same household all the way up to all of us beings living together here on Earth.
Emphasizing the individual above community, without maintaining an awareness and understanding of our interdependence and highly valuing and promoting our harmoniously cooperative relationships, results in an imbalance that only temporarily empowers the individual and ultimately leads to the demise of individuals. On the other hand, emphasizing community at the expense of any or all of the individuals ultimately weakens the community because the real and lasting strength of community arises from the strengths of the diversities that make up the community.
As Mr. Robinson pointed out, real change does come “from the bottom up, through free acceptance by each individual” but it does not come about because people are “persuaded by ideas and open debate.” Instead, it arises from the hearts of individuals who are responding to the call and guidance of their inner voices – through their spiritual guidance. And this is definitely not something that can ever be imposed by authority from authority – from central command. Yet, until everyone learns to listen their inner voices and respond to the call of the One – the Unity that underlies all the diversity of existence – it can be helpful to have laws in place to serve as reminders to all individuals that our ideal is to learn to live together harmoniously, to love and serve one another.
The role of the spiritual progressive is, I believe, to help work towards this ideal by helping structure the laws we impose upon ourselves and upon each other in such a manner that these laws protect everyone and also encourage everyone to see beyond their own, individualistically narrow points of view towards the larger view of working together, each developing and using his or her individual strengths to enrich and strengthen the whole community.
The great conundrum, of course, is that we need to evolve as individuals in order for our communities (at all scales) to evolve, yet we also need to evolve our communities in order to help us evolve as individuals. Therefore, we progress and regress and progress some more in fits and starts, swinging back and forth between left and right, liberal and conservative, as we search and struggle for solutions to our problems and for freedom from our limitations. Awareness of past failures does not mean that the ideals that we were striving towards were necessarily wrong, only that our attempts to reach them were flawed by misunderstandings, and perhaps also that our visions of our ideals have been somewhat limited and unclear. The ones who can help envision our highest ideals and help guide us towards them are the spiritual progressives.
Mr Karasti, I must say I cringed a bit when I started reading because I felt you were going to split hairs in terms of debate… but I must say it was actually quite beautiful. The only thing I would add I guess would be how Ayn Rand viewed this argument. She didn’t recognize between different types of collectivism – her premise is that individuals, behaving from their own rational self-interest, would naturally cooperate; forming the sort of horizontal collectivism you describe naturally… only she wouldn’t call that collectivism, because the individuals voluntary agree to cooperate. I tend to agree with her – the only problem being that people cannot always be expected to act rationally under all circumstances.
This sort of “collective undercurrent” manifests in many ways: polls have shown that people on the left, for example, give far less to charity than people on the right. This makes sense when one considers than collectivists will assume the group (aka someone else) will take care of a social problem, while individualists will assume that they have to do it themselves.
It also shows up in things like the Katrina response… the first people on the scene were individuals, who banded into ad-hoc groups to rescue people and bring supplies. The government (the collective solution) failed in this response. When that happened, the individualists just shrugged; they know government doesn’t work and they don’t rely on it. But the collectivists were outraged that the group let them down, and they wanted heads to roll.
Also take gay marriage, often cited as a progressive ideal. The whole concept of marriage is religious in origin; government codified it because of its usefulness to building a stable society. To gain individual acceptance of gay marriage; one should have gone through individuals and their voluntary associations (churches in this case). At the turn of the century, a handful of churches were slowly starting to marry gay couples. Given time, this would have spread… and acceptance through the churches would have naturally lead to acceptance through government, since that was the original trajectory of marriage itself.
But gay activists didn’t go that route. Perhaps they felt it would take too long. Perhaps they thought government was “their church/God”. So they appealed to courts and referendums to create the law so they could force all the other individuals accept their point of view. Is it no wonder that the situation is as messy as it is? Now we have gay activists actually getting violent and harassing churchfolk for their “lack of acceptance”… as if you can force people to accept you.
Taking the route of government approval rather than individual approval set the entire movement back a decade I think, and has only caused unnecessary friction and a backlash against such progress. I myself am for equality and gay rights… but I also shake my head at the way this whole issue has evolved. This is a good example, I think, of what happens when you ignore individuals.
Thank you, Mr. Robinson, and I appreciate your openness to my views as well as your further observations and comments. And perhaps you will appreciate my switching from “collectivism” to “community” to try to avoid any limitations that might be inherent in the term “collectivism” whether from Ayn Rand or from you or from anyone else. I prefer to view things as openly and as freely as I possibly can. I also have found that the view through the eyes of my heart is much broader, much more encompassing and inclusive than the view through the eyes of my mind.
I think you are probably correct about collectivists tending to assume that someone else (or the system) will take care of a social problem, but I offer that individuals who are truly living as heart-felt members of a community would each see themselves as the one who needs to act in a loving and compassionate manner towards any and all who are in need from a knowing that “I am my brother’s/sister’s keeper.” It is the mind that imposes limitations on the ability of the heart to act. The rational mind limits awareness, it limits possibilities, it limits thoughts, feelings and actions. It can be used (or it can use us) to justify anything and it loves to debate and argue. The mind is really only capable of understanding in terms of duality: left-right; up-down; yes-no; right-wrong; black-white. It is only the heart that has the ability to understand all the gradations in the gray areas of life and to really know what is right. It is only the heart that can begin to fathom the mysteries of Life. And the heart is ultimately motivated only by Love. A man named Samuel L. Lewis once wisely observed that “Love is the glue that holds everything together.” The corollary to this is that wherever Love is lacking, things begin to fall apart – the distinctions and differences that divide and separate become more important than the commonalities that unite.
It is this heart-felt Love that is missing from all the concepts and theories that our rational minds continually attempt to formulate in our struggles to know and understand life, from our most primitive needs for survival to our loftiest and most idyllic visions and through our constant search for purpose and meaning. Yet it is this heart-felt Love that is essential to knowing the answers to all of these struggles and questions. And it is this heart-felt Love that must be nurtured and encouraged in order to evolve a community within which individuals will be able to truly realize their fullest potentials and their fullest freedom. And one of these potentials – one of these ideals – is to learn how to use our minds in service to our hearts rather than being dominated by our minds at the expense of our hearts. Any community that is grounded in mind-based concepts will be destined to fail, whereas a community that finally arises through the Love of hearts working together in harmonious unity will be destined to succeed. All truly successful motivation must arise from the depths of the heart as Love and be manifested lovingly.
In the meantime, we struggle along with each individual on his or her own page, with most tending to think that he or she is the whole novel and that everyone else either is or should be on his or her page. And, yes, there are also others who seem to feel they are their own, unique novel. So we play this game of creating customs, putting forth guidelines, and making rules and laws to try to encourage and enforce some sense of togetherness and cooperation. Yet if we’re all reading this novel of Life together but each stuck on our own pages and ignoring and even denying the existence of all the other pages, there can only be constant struggle as we keep bumping into things that don’t fit on our own pages.
The solution is that we each need to back off from our narrowly focused views. We each need to broaden our vision and become more open the “other” so we can begin to better understand the value and validity of the experiences of others. This means, of course, letting go of much of what we are each attached to; much of what we think defines who we are. And that’s pretty scary stuff, because it appears to threaten our very survival as an individual, even though it really doesn’t. Instead, it ultimately opens us to discovering who we really are as well as who we were meant to become in this experience of material Life. And this is where the spiritual enters in, and the role of the spiritual progressive is to help and encourage this process of self discovery; this process of personal evolution.
Ayn Rand considered how individuals would naturally behave from their own rational self-interest but that isn’t how we behave, yet that’s not a problem because we only get ourselves into trouble whenever we try to do that. Instead, we behave according to our physical and emotional responses to things and to events. Then, afterwards, we think about our responses and try to rationalize about them. We would do much better to learn to listen to the voices of our hearts to help us develop our awareness of who we are, who we can become and how we should behave. The essence of our nature is that we are joyful, loving, boundless, spiritual beings of light immersed in this material experience we call life, yet we tend to bury ourselves under multiple layers that weigh us down and limit our potentials in the most painful ways. True freedom means crawling out from beneath all of these unnecessary coverings we have taken on, and learning to live our lives more fully and more completely. That is the essence of every true spiritual path.
One significant obstacle (of many) to our progress, however, is that people get impatient. We want change we can believe in and we want it right NOW! But it’s not going to happen that way. It’s not going to happen in our lifetimes. It’s not going to happen in our children’s lifetimes nor in the lifetimes of their children. It’s going to take a long time. But is the role and the privilege and the responsibility of spiritual progressives to help facilitate this process of evolution, with every thought, with every feeling, with every action, regardless of how seemingly insignificant any such effort might appear to be.
Truly one of the more interesting conversations I’ve had lately; thank you.
If you get a chance someday, reading Atlas Shrugged or something else of Rand’s might provide you an interesting take on the idea of individuals and love. She found no division between rationality and love… in fact she found the two as inseparable, and that social problems arise when one is asked to separate them, usually through the altruistic morality. This passage comes to mind from Atlas:
To love is to value. The man who tells you that it is possible to value without values, to love those whom you appraise as worthless, is the man who tells you that it is possible to grow rich by consuming without producing and that paper money is as valuable as gold. [...] When it comes to love, the highest of emotions, you permit them to shriek at you accusingly that you are a moral delinquent if you’re incapable of feeling causeless love. When a man feels fear without reason, you call him to the attention of a psychiatrist; you are not so careful to protect the meaning, the nature and the dignity of love.
Love is the expression of one’s values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another. Your morality demands that you divorce your love from values and hand it down to any vagrant, not as response to his worth, but as response to his need, not as reward, but as alms, not as a payment for virtues, but as a blank check on vices. Your morality tells you that the purpose of love is to set you free of the bonds of morality, that love is superior to moral judgment, that true love transcends, forgives and survives every manner of evil in its object, and the greater the love the greater the depravity it permits to the loved. To love a man for his virtues is paltry and human, it tells you; to love him for his flaws is divine. To love those who are worthy of it is self-interest; to love the unworthy is sacrifice. You owe your love to those who don’t deserve it, and the less they deserve it, the more love you owe them – the more loathsome the object, the nobler your love – the more unfastidious your love, the greater your virtue – and if you can bring your soul to the state of a dump heap that welcomes anything on equal terms, if you can cease to value moral values, you have achieved the state of moral perfection.
Rand looked at rational self-interest as a goal worthy of achieving… and she saw the lack of it as a problem. She believed a group of individuals freely cooperating under the auspices of their own rational self-interest not only would not have any conflicts, but they would naturally form the community you so desire. Harmony.
Such a goal may end up being as utopian as any leftist’s dream, but no one has to sacrifice their freedom or individuality along the way.
The secret, I guess, is learning to draw the line when community begins to errode your individuality, and when your individuality stands in the way of community… because one thing Rand despised was sacrifice, which she felt was unacceptable in any circumstance. She saw sacrifice as a sure sign that something was inherently wrong with the transaction taking place.
Thank you, Mr. Robinson. In spite of my described distinctions between the mind and the heart, they are in some ways one and the same, yet they do actually represent different aspects of the same thing. One of my teachers has quite aptly described them thus: “The mind is the surface of the heart and the heart is the depth of the mind.” He also compared the mind to the surface of the ocean and the heart to the depths of the ocean. On the surface, there is often turmoil caused by breezes, winds and storms that rile up ripples and waves, just as thoughts, worries and fears rile our minds. In the depths, there is a vast, embracing capacity that remains calm regardless of the superficial turmoil, and the limitless nature of our hearts is similarly the source of our own inner calmness as well as our capacity to embrace and love all that is – unconditionally.
The capacity to love absolutely unconditionally is really the only kind of love there is – anything else is a distortion and limitation of this capacity. And that seems to me to be what Rand is describing in the passage you shared. I’m not seeing rationality of the mind in that passage, only love of the heart. There is a type of love that the mind manifests, but it is quite different. It is the love of learning and of puzzling and figuring things out in an intellectual sort of way; the love of playing with, exercising and expanding the capacity of the mind. But morality does not arise from any processes of the mind. Morality arises from the capacities of the heart and is a manifestation of Love, which means high morals represent the flow of Love as it is manifested in life, through one’s thoughts, feelings and actions in the world.
Rational self-interest can be a goal worthy of achieving, but ultimately only if the rational mind is operating in service to the capacities of the heart. If the rational mind is operating in a self-serving manner – in service to the ego – then it’s ability to operate morally will be limited and inconsistent because there is no real constancy to the mind – no consistently available basis from which it can operate because everything is relative and relativity changes depending on changing conditions and situations. In contrast, the basis from which the heart operates at its depths is Love – what we usually call unconditional love – and that never changes, regardless of what conditions and situations we encounter. So, it is in the depths of our loving hearts where our only consistent values and morals are based, and it is from our hearts that our real and dependable values and morals rise to the surface, into the consciousness of our minds where our awareness can be transformed in to loving actions in the world. And where we can talk about them.
We can talk about all of this heart stuff rationally, just as I am attempting to do here, but all these words of mine are simply my way of trying to point at what I have learned of Love through my heart felt experiences of life, aided by the inspiration and guidance of some very helpful spiritual teachers. If my words inspire and help you or others to in some way experience Love and your inner voices more clearly, then perhaps I am being a teacher of sorts. If I am able to manifest Love in my life, how I live my life in this world, my way of being, will also point towards my inner realization of Love, and perhaps some of those around me may notice my behaviors and be inspired and guided by my efforts to be a more loving person, in which case I will be an exemplar of sorts. There is a risk, though, in talking about the heart and Love with all these words and all this rationality. The risk is that the reality of the heart and of Love can easily become more obfuscated, more deeply buried under various layers of stuff (due to the limitations of words and language), so as to cover over our actual experiences of feeling the Love and hearing the voice of the heart. There is an apt phrase that applies well here, that all of this is really “better caught than taught.”
The problem with relying only on rationality is that it depends on processing information. It depends on gathering and analyzing data, of which there is an endless amount available, yet we can only gather so much before we run out of capacity and time to accumulate, sort and analyze. Then there comes the moment in which a decision has to be made, based on whatever data we have to work with. Also, our ability to sort and analyze it all is limited. On the other hand, the beauty of the knowing of the loving heart is that it is a holistic process that happens instantaneously and yet is unerringly accurate. While the data gathering and processing of the mind can take forever, the heart already knows and we simply need to learn to be quiet and listen within for the revealed answer. And this is the real goal of meditation – to learn to be still and quiet within and to attune to the inner voice. Then, when the answer rises into our awareness, we can determine how best to carry out the wishes of our heart in a loving manner.
During this process personal evolution, there is one significant sacrifice which does need to be made, but the personal reward for that sacrifice is immeasurably greater. We initially develop our egos, our personalities, in order to get along in this world, and then we tend to become enslaved to them – they take over our lives while our true nature remains hidden and undeveloped. A true spiritual path is a way of escaping this enslavement and attaining real freedom – freedom to become who we were meant to be. Although “sacrifice” is a pretty common term that is used, I actually don’t usually use it myself. Instead, I prefer to describe this as a transformation because we do still need an ego/personality to be in this world. What actually happens is the small ego or small self is transformed into what is often termed the Higher Ego or the Higher Self, which is what acts in service of the guidance of the heart. At this level of being, there would never any question of community eroding individuality because it would be inherently understood that the strength of community can only be based on the strengths of the diverse individuals who comprise the community.
Thank you, John and Carl. I agree with John Robinson that the conversation between the two of you (John Robinson and Carl Karasti) is truly one of the more interesting I’ve been able to listen in on. Thank you both. It has sparked several other posts in my mind that I hope to write, at least one about the need for a new myth in our culture and one about ego.
Head and heart, both/and, I think I saw it in action in these posts. Thanks, Nancy
Thanks, Nancy – and John Robinson! – I’ve been enjoying this conversation, too, and I’ll look forward to your further postings.
I also just found Rabbi Lerner’s “Spiritual Wisdom of the Week” where he offers a quotation from Steve McIntosh’s book “Integral Consciousness and the Future of Evolution” that fits in very well with my comments in our above discussion. I recommend reading the quotation: http://www.tikkun.org/tikkundaily/2009/08/05/spiritual-wisdom-of-the-week-6/