Thursday, February 11, 2010

'God' is a Warm, Cuddly Platitude

Finite players seek outcomes in spiritual games. Finite players make spirituality finite, simply because a finite player plays for effect.

The greater the effect the greater the reward. Finite players do not care for uncertainty. Therefore, in order to attain an effect, they employ concepts that have become known to evoke an effect from listeners. Listeners experience an effect simply because they have learned that this is expected.

If one employs the concept of “beingness” then an effective response should be exhibited by the audience. If one employs the concept of “God” this too, is managed for a desired effect from the listener which, in turn, results in a reward to the speaker.

Thus, we have the platitudes of “divine,” “universal,” “energy,” “being,” “healing,” “journey,” "oneness," etc, etc, etc,  pronounced with profound repetition in spiritual circles in order to evoke emotional responses from the listeners (audience). These concepts are steeped in antiquity and thus, have historical precedence as a foundation and are entirely based on the past. Unfortunately, over time they have been stripped of any genuine meaning, becoming nothing more than platitudes. Listeners may feel incumbent to respond accordingly, but this is usually scripted and easily predicted as the expected response when such platitudes are spoken.

Platitudes are surface concepts. They have little substantive depth and have proven to be entirely inconsequential to evolving consciousness, simply because they engage only the surface mind. Nevertheless, those devoted to platitudes are resistant to give them up, since they still bring the speaker a reward for the speaking and the ego is very reward driven.

Post-Modern spirituality requires a new lexicon of evocative dialogue. A dialogue that does not rigidly conform to the antiquity of axial age proclamations and that leads both listener and speaker to infinitely play the game of spirituality.

Spirituality is IN relationship and is not a solitary egocentric engagement. We “journey” together and not alone (as much as we may like to think that we "journey" alone).

The dialogue of relationship speaks to depth in allowing depth to be discovered between minds. It breaks from surface platitudes and engages in an existential “lived-experience” that is full of Deep Spirit substance. It is dramatic, spontaneous, unscripted and real. It often surrenders masks and roles to become something quite surprising and unprepared for, but it can be a frightening experience for an ego-self, secluded and confined in its 'selfhood.'

We can easily identify the surface shadows that impede growth. But the shadows that lie in the depths of consciousness are not plumbed through the repetitive mouthing of spiritual platitudes. The shadows that roam your depths are only realized in the depth of fully engaged relationship. This dialogue is not a dialogue of Gaia, since to engage in a relationship with nature we must first learn to relate to one another. Nature is counting on this saving grace, because it is only when we can learn to fully engage with each other that we can learn to fully engage with nature. Until then nature (earth) is as doomed as we are, since we will most likely take it with us in our surface, self-destruction.

The post-modern spirituality is a spirituality of relationship, endorsing a full engagement with others and the world. It is often NOT warm and cuddly, because in the depths the shadows are much more rigid and reified and have yet to be realized. However, when we engage fully, the unknown rises up for full inspection.
To fear those depths is to control relationships in avoidance of a deeper truth. It is a fear of intimacy and a fear of exposure. Because of this fear the dialogue is often enmeshed in warm and cuddly platitudes. Yet, this is often the fate of most intimate relationships, in which a fear of exposure impedes going deeper and ultimately leads to perpetual alienation and estrangement.

Look beyond the spiritual platitudes and you will often find a frightened ego running from a history of failed relationships and fearing for its 'life.' It's not others that you fear, but what they can show you about your 'self.'

The appearance of depth through scripted dialogue is very deceiving. But scripted roles attest to the need for specific outcomes. The actors following a script are fully prepared for the anticipated outcome and thus, are rarely surprised. The ego easily adapts to expectations that help it remain on the surface, forever avoiding what could be discovered in the depth.

If you wish to plumb the depths of yourself, then let go of your need to control direction. The need to control is nothing more than an egocentric fear of what can be learned about the self by fully engaging with others. We may not like what we find, but it's there' to be found....

like it or not....


Artwork by David Stoupakis - "untitled"

17 comments:

  1. The thing with platitudes is that they reflect either what is desired or projected from what already exists in the story. Fear is taken from what already exists (rewards and punishment)and given to the platitudes about God. Obviously, this comes from our earliest relationships...parental on up the ladder and how the script is replayed through their eyes and eventually through our own. This has been the destructiveness of reward and punishment theosophy throughout the ages and even though a collective may think (or strives)to free itself from hope and hell in a theosophical respect, it still plays out the story in daily existence. It almost becomes part of the genetic pool. We want the great eternal to tuck us in a night and pray it takes us home should we die in our very sleep. We want so badly to matter to something, but only on our own terms, dreams and wishes.

    All that Nature is, is relationship, so yes, I would agree that it waits on the saving grace of humankind to deeply understand that. The New Age adherents speak of connectedness as only another platitude, yes, rather than an actual relationship (and all its terrible beauty of wilderness)in the deepest sense of the reality, or so I have witnessed the growing lackluster of saying it without seeming to comprehend that very reality or attempting to live/act/relate more fully in the actual relationship. Then again, what do I know.

    Is the infinite player who stands before all possibilities, essentially a breaker of the rule of inflicted barriers, then? I don't know, but it would seem so.

    Thoughtful post, Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  2. or perhaps something called God - is the naming of that sense of depth - that cannot be explained at all well.... you know - the groans of the longing... and that are those who, when searching for words to describe experience will reluctantly use "oneness" or "universal" or "divine" (reluctantly because words do not contain experience and words are interpretted according to conditioned experience)... not because they are attempting to impress - but rather because there is a longing to share some heart felt experience - to make it NOT a testament to personal identity and importance or hidden personal agenda - but rather to give it away as an act of relatedness - to make it an act of generosity... an attempt to use words to convey something that words describe... a pointer to experience....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Mike, I tried to post a comment earlier, either it didn't "take" or you decided it was inappropriate! Assuming the former...

    I thought "energy" and "oneness" WERE postmodern! ANYTHING but "lovingkindness".

    I don't think Gaia has anything to worry about. She will survive, whether humanity does or not...and somehow, that is a comforting thought.

    I love the whole premise of this post. It goes well with your one about honesty between people. We're afraid to offend anyone...which might mean rejection (of the ego)...which the ego hates! It needs that validation from the outside to comfort itself, which is all the surface interaction you talk about.

    It seems to me that any idea of control is a complete illusion...on so, so many levels. The letting go, however, is not nearly as scary as people seem to think.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Is the infinite player who stands before all possibilities, essentially a breaker of the rule of inflicted barriers, then?"

    Could be....I think the infinite player may simply increase awareness of the rules which act as barrier. Since most tend to play as if the rules were sacrosanct and unchangeable. I suppose the infinite player just demonstrates that the rules are not as impermeable as we might think.

    Thanks,
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Christine,

    "but rather to give it away as an act of relatedness - to make it an act of generosity... an attempt to use words to convey something that words describe... a pointer to experience...."

    Indeed. No doubt I've used platitudes before and so this whole post makes me a hypocrite.
    However, the pointers no longer seem valid and most are stripped of meaning.
    In this post I attempted to suggest a new diction with the dialogue of relationship as the new "pointers."
    Not sure what it would consist of, so that's why I merely suggest. However, I do believe, as you probably have guessed, that 'God' is found in the depth of relationship (and not any place else).


    Thanks!
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dearest No One,

    Please be assured, I would NEVER delete anything you post, so it must have been a glitch of some sort. Your brilliance is always appropriate....

    "It seems to me that any idea of control is a complete illusion...on so, so many levels. The letting go, however, is not nearly as scary as people seem to think."

    yes, but attempting to engage in non-controlling thought is still a form of control. Controlling the mind so as not to cling is a form of clinging in itself...
    "Letting-go" demands a particular form of holding-on.

    No?
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  7. That control, as well, is out of "our" control. There is no control, not even controlled controlling of control!

    ReplyDelete
  8. "That control, as well, is out of "our" control. There is no control, not even controlled controlling of control!"

    Indeed! Which, culminates in demonstrating that you have always been in control (just in ways "you" may not be aware of)

    Thanks!
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Whatever you say Dude. Define "you"!"

    C'mon, you know!...a Dude.

    Good grief, don't be gettin' all righteous on me, Suzanne.

    Righteousness makes the game serious...

    Are you a serious player?
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  10. Some people tend to go into their shells because of their lack of trust in society as a whole. This stems from as simple as the person who greets you when you go to the local grocer to the mail you receive from businesses when you arrive home. It's not really that small of an error in one's psyche when you look at the whole picture.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Mike

    I think how you ended this article is often the experience I find myself. Certainly, I'm not going to claim I haven't gone into relationship expecting x,y or z as an outcome. Conversely, the moments or interactions proving to be the most satisfying, maybe even at times profound, are the unstructured, uncontrolled, unexpected. Like you said, the grace nature counts on. If only I could remain in grace, what a lovely, way-out-there kind of dream that appears to be. Then sometimes exactly the opposite, maybe what's meant to be?

    In the meantime, the time when dreams are only dreams, I count on the moments when they occur.

    Barbara

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dr Sha,

    "It's not really that small of an error in one's psyche when you look at the whole picture."

    Indeed. It may in fact be the whole psyche.

    Thanks,
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete
  13. Barbara,

    "...the grace nature counts on."

    Good point. What outcome does nature expect?

    Nada...

    Maybe that is all grace is...surrendering all expectations and allowing a natural unfolding.

    Thanks,
    mikeS

    ReplyDelete