The reason it's hard, in my view, is because we are all caught up in language: we tend to react to the words people use and to the manner in which they express their thoughts, rather than to the essence, the heart of the person, which is far more significant than their words, their language.
In fact, much of the time we are not even aware that the other person, and ourselves, are anything other than what the words express. It's only by means of intuition - that mysterious faculty which is, and isn't, to do with thinking - that we sometimes wonder: who is the person behind these words? What is he/she really communicating?
If you look at the conflicts between people, whether on the personal or the global scale, so many of them are based on language misunderstandings ( I don't mean literally foreign languages, although that might also be a factor sometimes) and the unwillingness or inability to look at the person, the essence beyond the words.
If this all sounds rather vague, let me give a concrete example:
I read your current message and my immediate language-response, my
computer-brain response is: impatience. Must I hack my way through
a forest of concepts?
Then I step back from the computer-brain reaction and go into intuitive-mode,
and my impatience disappears. I start to sense rather than to think about
what you are communicating. And it's intuition, rather than thought, which
gives me a translation of your language so that I can assimilate it.
So now I can interpret, in my own words, what I sense that you are saying
(tell me if I'm wrong?):
A MIDNIGHT MANIFESTO
1. God contains Everything but is also beyond Everything
since he is Everything's creator.
2. We, as part of Everything, are contained within God.
3. But what we ourselves contain are needs, doubts, expectations
and trials.
4. So the 'Everything' that we are aware of is clouded by these
needs, doubts, expectations and trials.
5. So our awareness of God is also clouded.
6. So if we want to be fully aware of the presence of God
in Everything and in ourselves, we have to make an emptiness, clear the
air of needs, doubts, expectations, trials.
7. This is very difficult because we are human.
8. So the goal is to create a structure, both symbolically and
concretely, within which we can function effectively as human beings,
with our needs, doubts,etc. but no longer controlled by them,
because the structure provides an 'empty space' within which we can experience
God's presence.
9. Some will say that the churches or temples of the various
faiths provide such a space and that the religions themselves provide a
structure.
10. But even if some of us belong to a particular church and religion,
we still feel the need for building a different kind of structure, one
that would incorporate the Everything, the Entirety that is God and ourselves.
And so goodnight.
Natalie
This is like a game, except it's very serious. I call it "step
in, step
out". In a conversation, which may have several people, you "step
in"
when you engage an idea, rely on your subjective experience, your
intuition, your feelings. You "step out" when you watch, you
observe,
the dynamics of the conversation, how are the ideas unfolding, how
are
they related? You can't do both at the same time, so you need
some kind
of extension of your mind, which might be other people, or God.
Or it
might be something like writing, or even a system of truths, but if
there aren't other people, if it's just you, then I think you have
to
have God. Somebody by whom you can step out of the shadow of
your own
experience, be flexible, like a person in general.
Does it make sense what I'm saying? These are the conversations
where
there is a spiritual flutter, which I think is most heightened when
there is a rapid change of who is stepping in, who is stepping out.
You
can't orchestrate it very much, because when you're stepped in, you're
so swept up in what you're saying and feeling that you can't control
yourself all that much. Then we let go of that, and we can look
around
at where the conversation is moving. You can help a conversation
by
switching back and forth between the two. And when people do
this, then
this spiritual flutter kicks in. It's very real, and I think,
from a
Christian point of view, I think it's fair to call that the Holy Spirit.
I've felt this in small "charismatic" churches that I've visited, when
people simply pray together. I think the above description works,
people are switching back and forth between stepping in, immersing
themselves in prayer, and stepping out, sensing the atmosphere of
prayer. The prayer might be silent, or they might be speaking
in
tongues. It's disturbing, in a positive way. I also sense
this in my
friend Shuhong's, and his brother Tong's little Chinese church in San
Diego, at their bible study. They read a section, and then mostly
they
just talk what they feel inspired to "share", which may or may not
play
off of the text. In Chicago, I'm in the choir at my parish, St.Benedict
the African's, and some times we'll hit a song where that happens,
where
there is a feedback in the atmosphere, and many times we don't.
You're
singing away, but then you step out, and help the song move, and you
then you find yourself back in, and it's flickering through the whole
church. Dee - Davretta! - is our choir director, tremendously
great
leader, and she improvises what we'll do, so we have to follow her,
and
be mindful.
I think it also happens here, in our discussion group. You write:
"I read your current message and my immediate language-response, my
computer-brain response is: impatience. Must I hack my way through
a
forest of concepts? Then I step back from the computer-brain reaction
and go into intuitive-mode, and my impatience disappears. I start to
sense rather than to think about what you are communicating. And it's
intuition, rather than thought, which gives me a translation of your
language so that I can assimilate it. So now I can interpret,
in my own
words, what I sense that you are saying (tell me if I'm wrong?)"
Something happened there, I don't know what, and maybe we can't know.
I
think it involves switches from stepping in to stepping out, or the
other way around. You read my letter again, you think, it's not so
hard
to just look for the flow, where is Andrius going? You understand,
that
a lot of the words that I or Steve or others use are just markers for
concepts, reference points that we want to be able to come back to.
We
want to capture the structure that we're mapping, as it unfolds.
So the
writing can sound awkward and mechanical. I may find that my
own
structures are very helpful and potent, and then for me it all crashes
down, it loses touch with reality, it just becomes a bunch of
squiggles. Then I realize that I have to go back to real life,
get back
in touch with real issues, tap into life. Everyday life is the
best.
You translated my letter back into everyday life. This is very helpful
for me, because it let's me check whether I've gone too far adrift.
There's also all kinds of questions that spring up, trying to explain
my
feelings why I wouldn't choose the words you do, I might not mark them
the way you do. You give me new feelings to explore.
For me, that's very productive, if we can, through our letters, both
step in, and step out. That's a reason to have a laboratory like
Minciu
Sodas, and discussion groups like this one. It's also a reason
for
worrying, how do we structure such a laboratory, and such groups, so
that this happens? It does seem helpful to have people who care
to read
our letters, and writers who support each other, and leaders who worry
that we move forward. We have people who are open to each other.
My project in life, as best as I know, above
and beyond my basic duty as
a human, is to make tangible, with a system of truths, that spiritual
flutter, that Holy Spirit. As I wrote above, we can talk with
a system
of Truth, we can step in and step out, just as we do with other people.
The system of Truth is always open to us, unlike people, who may be
closed. In every day words, the Truth is open to us, but people
may be
closed. "The truth will set you free". If the Truth is
just a
spiritual flutter, then even an honest person might dismiss it, as
not
quite real enough. But suppose the Truth is tangible, if it is
a system
of truths that we can apply wonderfully to all of life. Suppose
that we
can turn to it at any step. After a while, we probably wouldn't
turn to
it all that often, but we'd know it's always there. Annette asked
me,
what is my key concept, and here it is, what I meant by "all knowledge
is available". Maybe simpler is to say, "the Truth is
open to us, but
people may be closed".
I want to add something that I think is more important than this
spiritual flutter, Holy Spirit, Truth. Did you ever go to church,
or
temple, or synagogue, or other place, and spiritually feel alone?
I'm
Roman Catholic, and I always feel that way at church, in the end.
I
feel that people are closed to me. But I also feel God is open
to me,
and I can be with God, as much as I can, and the rest doesn't matter
one
bit. And that's much more important than any of that flutter,
because
that is the one God. So, from this point of view, most important
is to
be open to God.
But, second, it's important to be open to each other, because that way
we can step out from what makes us particular. I think that's
what
Jesus taught, and I think what he meant when he said, "If you hold
to my
teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth,
and
the truth will set you free." If we are open to each other, then
we are
open to this spiritual flutter, and we will know the truth, and we
are
open to all truth. Something like that, I'm just "marking" this.
Furthermore, I feel that, if there is somebody honest, they have the
right to dismiss that spiritual flutter. But then, how can they
be
touched by truth? Only if the truth is tangible, something that
they
can touch. I have the right to bring to them tangible truth,
that they
may have it. I care that I myself be honest, so I might be able
to
bring it, and they certainly should check me regarding that.
But if
they are honest, then I want to have tangible truth to bring them.
My
expectation of God is that this tangible truth be available.
If that's
right, then we don't have to obey - be open to God, we don't have to
believe - be open to each other, we just have to be honest - be open
to
the truth, and the rest will follow. If we're not honest, what
more can
be done? If we're not honest, then who are we?
I don't know how this makes sense within your own faith. But in
my
faith, I know the Bible has a lot of "loose cannons", and the one that
strikes me, that gives authority, is at the Last Supper, in the Gospel
of John, where Jesus says: "I have much more to say, but you
cannot
bear it now. But when the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide
you into
all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will only speak
what he
hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring
glory to
me by taking what is mine and making it known to you. All that
belongs
to the Father is mine. That's why I said that the Spirit will take
from
what's mine and make it known to you."
The funny thing about that passage is that we never find out, to my
knowledge, what we couldn't bear that he had to say? I've never
met
anybody who wondered what that was!
Just an aside, I try to decode what Jesus says, what are the "markers"
that he thinks in terms of. For example, when he says that X
is a child
of Y, then he'll say that he means that X does just like Y does.
If you
were a child of Abraham, then you'd do what Abraham did, etc.!
But if
he says that X is a Son of Y, then he'll say that he means that Y has
shown X how to do it. I think that's the difference when he says
he's
the Son of God, that God showed him how to do it, and the Son of Man,
that Man showed him how to do it; in other words, he knew of the plight
of and the ways of man, because man showed him. So up above,
by that
logic, we'd be the Sons of Truth, if Truth showed us how to do it.
So I'm glad I could share so much of my outlook, because it's so hard,
without any context. Annette and Marjorie wrote several months
ago
about the dangers of extreme honesty. I do think that honesty
is
apocalyptic, because it doesn't leave any room for options. Another
thing Christ said, as to why he spoke in parables to the crowd, to
those
who did not yet believe, is so that they CAN not-believe. In
other
words, they can choose to understand it, or they can choose to not
understand, to the degree they wish. The churches, I think, all
read it
differently, so that they CAN-NOT believe! That doesn't make
any sense!
and I'd be bold enough to challenge God on that, as Job did.
There's
things worth challenging God over, even though it just means that he
sets us straight. I myself do believe in extreme honesty, because
it
forces me to be open to others, and to God, by showing all my
weaknesses. It doesn't make sense to me that God could put us
in a
situation where we'd have to be dishonest.
I want to relate this back to "caring about thinking", and "caring about
God", and "caring about others". These are all markers, concepts
that
make sense within a system.
First: "caring about thinking". If you divide Everything into
three
parts, then I think you'll always come up with, in one form or another:
1) taking a stand 2) following through 3) reflecting You can
picture
this in, I think, four different ways: A) being, doing, thinking, B)
as
many, as one, as all, C) on object, on process, on subject D)
necessarily, actually, possibly. We also have terms that go beyond
the
pictures, back to the underlying unity of the pictures, such as: 1)
God
the Father, 2) the Son, 3) the Holy Spirit. Here's it's important
that
some things in our minds we do picture, and some things we don't.
This
kind of stuff is extremely slippery because we have to be on our toes,
because there's a tremendous difference between the underlying idea
and
the expression = picture = representation of that idea. The trick
is to
slow our minds down to a creep, and then walk through our thinking.
This kind of technique is called introspection, looking within yourself,
and it's very error-prone, as soon as we let sneak in a layer of
reflection. But in every day words, walking through a system
of ideas,
and making sure they feel right, is a powerful thing to do.
Introspection of the kind I describe is where you keep trying to guess
what the system must be like, and then check by trying to walk through,
to see if it's true. It's probably another form of this "step
in",
"step out" thing.
Anyways, "caring about being", "caring about doing", "caring about
thinking" are three different angles. I think they are related
to,
obedience, belief, honesty, in some complex way. What I've written
above makes me think that obedience is being open to God, belief is
being open to each other, and honesty is being open to ourselves, the
connection between God and others. Also, "caring" is tightly
related to
love, to supporting something so that it is alive.
If we cared about being, then we'd be obedient. And if we cared
about
doing, then we'd be believers. So maybe if we care about thinking,
at
least we'll be honest. And if we're truly honest, then we'll
believe
and obey.
If we care about God, then I imagine that we want to make an opening
for
God, maybe by stepping back. I wrote about this in my last letter.
If
I care about others, then I imagine that as a big chimney, an upsidedown
funnel, that goes through me from the narrow end, up above that ends
with God, who I can't actually see, but I can talk with, down wide
to
earth, where we are surrounded by the world. So we want to keep
this
clear, and open. Maybe we do this by stepping in. I don't
know, this
is where I wanted to go next, in my thoughts. But I think, here
too, we
care for others by being open to them. We are open to them perhaps
by
offering ourselves as an open channel. So with others, we let
them go
through us, but with God we step aside, so he can be there, directly.
I
don't know, but I think this will be a fruitful thing to think through.
Of course, it's been very helpful to have taken these unexpected turns.
Thank you, Natalie!
If you have thoughts on any of this, you are very welcome to write,
or
to launch off in other directions. If you feel the wish to express
yourself in terms of your faith, or sources for your faith, please
do
so. I have found that I have trouble reading spiritual texts
of other
traditions, important books like the Koran, or Buddhist or Hindu texts,
without the insight from a believer. I tell myself that books
of faith
wish to be read with belief, with investment, and at that point I feel
that I should invest myself in the books of my own faith. I do
wish to
be more open, but it certainly would be so much simpler if you shared
your faith, and then we can look for our "markers" and what they mean,
and why they are there, and what is the reality behind them.
When I started up the laboratory almost three years ago, I didn't have
any of this in mind. But certainly most of what I myself have
gotten
has been from progress made on these issues. It's great to write
to
you, and also to continuously work on the overall structure of the
laboratory, which is a mirror for all of life, at least everything
worth
thinking about. In any event, these matters are of practical
importance, because this is one way that I figure out what's the right
structure for the Minciu Sodas laboratory, and the system of endeavors
that we might pursue. Another way is simply if you or I suggest
endeavors, which I think should yield the same results. So I
hope to
work on both at the same time. Thank you, Natalie, for sparking
this
letter!
Andrius
Andrius Kulikauskas
Minciu Sodas
ms@ms.lt
http://www.ms.lt