I hate to use the adjective "disinterested" observer, but "objective" doesn't quite capture it either. Maybe "dispassionate" is the word I'm looking for. This is the attitude of "Well, there's really nothing that can be done to prevent the collapse, but it's going to make for a hell of an interesting spectacle. I might as well kick back and watch the show. It should be fascinating."

This if like the attitude of a person, who having lost his footing while climbing a mountain, finds himself falling thousands of feet toward the ground. There's nothing to be done but enjoy the experience of free fall.

This ancient Zen story related by D.T. Suzuki sums it up:

One day while walking through the wilderness a man stumbled upon a vicious tiger. He ran but soon came to the edge of a high cliff. Desperate to save himself, he climbed down a vine and dangled over the fatal precipice. As he hung there, two mice appeared from a hole in the cliff and began gnawing on the vine. Suddenly, he noticed on the vine a plump wild strawberry. He plucked it and popped it in his mouth. It was incredibly delicious!

The deepest plunge into Western Psyche I've tried to read has been Heidegger's reading of Aristotle. To make long story short, Aristotle considers highest form of living philosophically bios theoretikos, the role of non-attached observer. That is a good position, well know advice also from Eastern philosophies: especially the meditative practice of letting your thoughts just pass by without giving them emotional power, while staying aware of all sensual events including body-sense. Theory comes from the Greek word 'theorizein', to watch, from which also 'theater' is derived.

Heidegger does not agree with Aristotle but considers "fronizein", sometimes translated as 'practical wisdom' the highest position of good life. "Fronimos" comes from the word 'fren', which means solar plexus or something thereabouts. That is also the chackra area where Zen meditation seems to concentrate and produces most results, according to testimonies from people who practice zen but are less observant and/or doubtfull of so called "chackra".

The man in your Zen story is 'fronimos'. Instead of fatalist and detached observation of the the vine and two mice, the body-mind follows what the tummy wills and eats and tastes the plump wild strawberry.

I think I first heard that from Ram Das in the seventies in one of his follow ups to Be Here Now.

I can identify with your dispassionate view of the situation. When all is said and done, I have planned around a garden and a very simple existence, that I refuse to have attachment to. If someone wants to steal the physical, have at it, I won't protect it with violence. It is just as easy for me to enter an 'acceptance of whatever' phase. But when I think of how infinitesimal the human existence is beyond the ego, in comparison to the universe ever expanding in all directions; whatever happens on the third rock from the sun isn't that arresting in the bigger game. For me, here in is borne, the dispassionate vista.

He also serves who only sits and spins. (Or something like that.)

whispers the words and actions of the Mahatma. hrh

I'm cultivating the ability to be dispassionate about potential future outcomes, no matter how dire or enticing they may seem. At the same time I'm trying to remain fully engaged in the world as it is around me right now. In that sense I feel very much like the man in the parable: he is unattached to the possibility of imminent death, and because of this he is able to fully experience the sight of the mice and the taste of the strawberry.

The loss of fear is the supreme gift of nonattachment. Losing the fear makes it possible to be fully present to the strawberries around us.

As non-attached and impartial you may imagine yourself, you are breathing with as, sharing your words and experiences.

Show me a father or mother who is not in the slightest afraid of worried for the future and well being of their children. They can be, if they are, let them speak up. Show them.

Personal fear of death? What else is fear? What fear is not from love?

We are all works in progress. Liberation is an ideal, a worthy goal, but the work towards it is the real reward.

I don't think that all fears stem from the fear of personal death. Most of the fear I've had to face in my shadow work is the fear of losing love or approval.

We all know how prior opinions color what we see. Confirmation bias is part of human nature. So it follows, as was pointed out by the Buddha, that only if you are detached from outcomes and hold no opinions are you capable of seeing the truth objectively.

But as humans we wish to survive and we wish to have our species survive, and that bias probably makes it impossible to really see the truth about what is happening.

Now, Confirmation bias is indeed a problem for all factions of our side, very true. But from my observations, this problem definitely seems to be most heavily concentrated amongst those who believe that humanity is doomed, there are no solutions, etc.

And there's absolutely no bias in pointing out that humanity will not die out because of climate change alone. And in fact, it's really a sure thing that we will survive; to what extent is quite debatable, but we will survive; if our ancestors could survive Toba, with a far more drastic and far more sudden change......well, you can figure it out.

Too many people are looking at this problem through an incredibly bleak perspective, and if we want to make progress, we must remain grounded in reality.

Hey, what do you know? That's what confirmation bias looks like. You're only proving my point.

As I said, confirmation bias is a problem we ALL have to deal with at times, myself included. However, though, I can say what I said with a fair degree of certainty based on what I've observed.

Confirmation bias: "People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position."

Your statement: "I can say what I said with a fair degree of certainty based on what I've observed."

You have observed that which supports your position. You openly admit confirmation bias. Q.E.D.

I too have confirmation bias, and for me (to quote you) "I can say what I said with a fair degree of certainty based on what I've observed."

Since we both say what we say with a fair degree of certainty, and we both say the same about what we have observed about what we believe then we both have about the same degree of confirmation bias, which again, is just what I originally said.

What you are trying to tell me is that my confirmation bias IS confirmation bias and your confirmation bias IS NOT confirmation bias.

I've been watching with interest (that word in now inescapable what has seemed to me relapse into some sort of non-attached and (almost!) carefree doomerism.

This echoes with something that another friend called "resting immobile at the bottom of the stream", which comes after the "breaking of the surface" -transformations and lot of struggle in the stream, as well as the better know metaphors of taking the raft over the stream and leaving it behind.

Guess what this song is about:

I don't think Google translate quite catches the nuances As well as I can make out, it's about life (or time?) being a river that we return to and emerge from as all the different people we are parts of, in the different times we have experienced.

It makes me think of the Seth-ian metaphysical concept of the Oversoul, the extra-dimensional "higher self" that releases fragments of itself into different times and places as different people, in order to have experiences and learn lessons that are returned to the Oversoul upon death. This is the cosmological system I prefer to the mistaken notion of reincarnation that relies on the equally mistaken notion of the unidirectional linearity of time.

The raft is a very powerful metaphor. I wrote an allegorical piece about it a month ago when I was going through an awakening. It's posted as my most recent FB note, if anyone wants to see it.

the Stream (whether bohmian theoretic 'holomovement' or direct shamanistic experience) is not just a metaphor, it's the essence of metaphor in it self. Shift to other. Our paths take us to different positions vis a vis the Stream, to experience it more fully - but never totally, as we always remain relative participants, not outsiders of Whole of Being. No matter the relative and comparative state of our Enlightment steps towards more full and comprehensive Enlightment.

The Journey to the Top of the Hill is beautiful and important, to get the Owl's view of world. But Once you are in the center and find the Center in your heart and every heart, you remember again that you are just a drop of water in the stream.

The title and refrain of the song can be translated both as "I flow back" and "Back to the Flow". It's funny that way, in it's duality of third party interpreter deciding or trying not to decide. So it flows.

I think I'm a combo of the outer and inner path, with a little something extra in my own particular dimension. Within the two paths I also have a philosophical calm of realization, and a dispassionate view that our physical and metaphysical journeys are but a miniscule speck in an ever expanding universe.

Thank for your post. hrh

A framework like this doesn't define us, instead it gives us tools for self-exploration and self-recognition.

In the area of responses especially, we are each a unique blend of our particular history, psychology and circumstances. As my teacher was fond of saying, "There are no wrong answers."

A very healthy peaceful path. Namaste

However, I don’t think it is particularly helpful for the rest of the planet, unless, achieving that “inner peace” helps you to better navigate an “outer path.” Then, it is good. Religion is full of examples of great leaders who retreated so they could lead. (Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Gandhi, King…)

Gandhi (for example) found inner peace, and then organized the efforts of his fellow Indians, eventually leading them to freedom through non-violence.


The advantage of “organized religion” is that… well… it’s organized. (Or at least it should be.) That organization makes it possible for an enlightened individual to accomplish greater tasks by working within the context of a larger group.

While organization does not require religion, religion certainly can serve as a way to organize people’s efforts. Through organized religion people have accomplished tremendous things (as well as some terrible things.)

As long as I question, Am I at Inner Peace?, I'm questioning, not in peace. Which is no biggie and nothing to worry about. Just the way it is for most or some of us. At times.

You are no less wise or less "enlightened" than any of the "great leaders" you mention. Those forces that enjoy less peace just lead you to believe otherwise, which is fine also.

This said (which no doubt is far out) there are simple things to comprehend. As long as I feel miserable and powerless, I'm less help to others and the whole. When I feel self confident as in self accepting (warts and all, universe and what else), I feel like fulfilling the whole fucking purpose, for this part.

I have a "religion" of sorts, based on experience. If you need, are ready for and request the experience of total love in your heart, my religion says and promises that you will experience what you wish and need.

I'm not a "great leader" and don't want to be, but with all my heart I can tell that I have experienced this. And it does not make me anything special, more than others.

If I am at peace within myself I am more able to do effortlessly anything I wish to do.

One of the foundation stones of our Western culture and psychology is the idea that there is an "out there" and an "in here", and that the "out there" takes priority. I'm frankly no longer certain of either of those precepts. Nevertheless I continue to act, and my actions apparently continue to have an effect on whatever is apparently "out there".

We each get to decide what worldview seems most appropriate and helpful to us. What you may see as not being particularly helpful for the rest of the planet, I may see as being essential.

"Strive in all matters to do the right thing." As long as our choice of what is "right" is conscious and mindful, we are being helpful to the planet, and all beings on it - even if your idea of the right thing is totally different from mine.

Both what you do or don't and my condemnation of it.

Just sumfink Mother Ayahuasca battered into my skull the nicest way possible. Don't disagree with her in that respect.

It's all precious.

Thank the goddess my teacher didn't make me puke my guts up as the price of the lesson, but we all pay for wisdom in our own ways.

But I've taken special vomitivos for that purpose. But I've seen and heard the Lady do that to many people, one of my best times was lying down in bliss and feeling how great it was to clean up your own puke, with a help from a friend. The compassion thingy, ya know

Puking and shitting and swetting and farting and etc. bodily functions are not a "pay" for "wisdom". Just precious...

I gave examples of individuals who found inner peace, and with that foundation proceeded to outer accomplishment.

I merely reserve the right for any individual who has found inner peace NOT to work for outer accomplishment if that is their preference. Their enlightenment doesn't lose value in my eyes if that's their choice. In fact, I think the enlightenment itself is essential for the future of the planet, and anything that flows from it is gravy.