The human being has two wings, the wing of universality and the wing of individuality, with which to fly above the earth and to soar into the heavens. The wing of universality grows in the awareness of selflessness, while the wing of individuality grows through the creation of selfhood. In this seeming paradox lies the secret of human evolution and of human happiness. To be universal is to be inseparably one, in the oneness of which there is no separate self. To be an individual is to be indivisibly one, in the oneness of which there is an indivisible whole self. In being universal, you come to know what Emerson calls the Over-Soul, and in being indivisibly whole, you come to realize your singular individual soul. With both wings spread freely, to soar into the whole sphere of the Universe and to fly in the entire realm of Reality is to live a Life Immortal. And that is the ecstasy of Enlightened Selfishness.

When you look at the reading list from my transformational programs, you will find books by Ayn Rand (1905-1983) and Lao Russell (1904-1988) side by side. These were two of the most powerful women of the 20th century, sharing almost identical spans of time in history. However, their philosophical outlooks are diametrically opposite to one another. Rand is an atheist and argues for the virtues of selfishness, while Russell is a theist and preaches the virtues of selflessness. People ask me how I can reconcile these two seemingly contradictory philosophical positions. A complete treatment of this question requires a formal philosophical treatise, but it will suffice here to state the following:

Ayn Rand is a philosopher of a rare genius who nonetheless never had the experience of spiritual illumination of which Lao Russell was intimately aware through her husband, Walter Russell, one of the greatest spiritual illuminates in history. Rand’s philosophy, which is a rational philosophic integration of the facts of secular human experience, does not contain anywhere in its entire philosophic equations the experiential data obtainable only through spiritual illumination. Her system, Objectivism, is quintessentially rational, but does not include the realm of the transrational. In fact, being an arch-rationalist, Ayn Rand would categorically deny the cognitive validity of such “mystical experience” as spiritual illumination or transrational awareness or kosmic (or cosmic) consciousness.

Rand’s philosophy is an attempt at constructing a rational theory of reality based solely on the absoluteness of reason and the evidence of the senses (a premise which ultimately breaks down in the kosmic awareness of Primary Reality) which can lead to the attainment of moral character and human happiness within the parameters of individuation and individuated identity. Her system, though incomplete, is consistent and coherent, giving us a rational foundation for living in the realm of life in which there is individuation, individuality, and the diremption (separation) between you and me—the realm of reality which constitutes what is called secular experience, within which we all exist as individual or individuated human beings.

See his full article for much more.

I suspect most Objectivists, and especially those who don’t have any background in Eastern teachings, will choke hard on his transrational comments. I mean, once you’ve found the value of reason, who wants to listen to someone talk about the indivisibly whole Over-Soul?

Yet, for those of us who’ve found value in the writings of teachers like Eckhart Tolle and Adyashanti — and the sense of personal liberation that comes from adopting a psychological perspective that is somewhat “outside” the self without renouncing the self in any way — there is something eerily powerful about reading Yasuhiko’s words.

It is this: It’s rare to encounter someone who can understand and embrace both worlds — and especially while actively appreciating, even loving, Rand’s perspective so fully.

Do his words make sense to you? Does his jargon get in the way?

I would love to hear your thoughts.

The purpose of Mudita Forum is to provide a stimulating, thoughtful environment for discussing Eastern consciousness-raising practices — such as meditation, mindfulness, and the cultivation of presence — while using Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism as a basic philosophical frame-of-reference.

The old group got lost when I was changing servers a couple years ago, but recently I’ve been contacted by new people wishing to join.

My hope for the new group is that it will be much like the old one: low-volume, high-quality, and stimulating on many levels.

I sent invites to many of you from the old group, but I’m sure I missed some of you. Also, Google apparently holds such invitation messages until they can review and approve them manually, so who knows when you’ll get my invitation.

Membership in the new group is by approval only, but feel free to request joining if you’re interested in the subject matter.

Feel free to browse some of my own public posts to the forum for an example of the kinds of things we discuss.

For the next two months we can expect the airwaves and blogosphere to heat up with negative rhetoric on both sides about the candidates. That is, unfortunately, the way things are in the world of politics today.

But I want to focus on something much bigger. If we all just step away from the drama for a minute I think there’s an awful lot that we can feel just plain wonderful about.

We have just nominated the first person of color — an African-American — to the presidency of the most powerful country in the world. We’ve also nominated a guy who endured — without buckling — several years of torture in a foreign prison camp, making him more qualified to discuss the evils of torture than anyone I can think of.

Also, today John McCain announced Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, as his running mate for the 2008 presidential election. Sarah Palin and her husband, an Inuit Indian, have five children including one that has Down Syndrome.

I mention Palin’s child because my oldest friend Adrienne — who is three days younger than I — just sent me an email letting me know that her first grandchild was born two months ago with Down Syndrome.

The most heartening part of this story is that Adrienne’s beautiful daughter is a special education teacher and has already designed a plan for the child’s education. Adrienne concluded the e-mail by saying that they adore their new grandson and are enjoying watching him grow.

Before we go any further let me just say that this is not going to be a discussion about the merits or problems of legal abortion. That issue is not one for which I am qualified to argue or even discuss. I grew up in the 1960s and have known many women for whom abortion has played a significant part in their lives; some have felt it was for the better and some rue the decision to abort a child to this day.

The reason I bring this up is very personal: I am thrilled that Adrienne and her daughter now have a role model in a prominent position living with similar emotional challenges as is their own family. This is also why so many people are thrilled with Barack Obama: to be mirrored in a culture that has for so long made invisible everyone but those people whom advertisers deem as worthy of emulating is a significant step in our country’s evolution. And that’s something we can all celebrate.

My late beloved guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, used to say that the leaders of a country are simply the reflection of the collective consciousness of that country. The selection of our current candidates indicate to me that we are a big, generous and wonderful society that now values human beings for more than simply the words and positions for which they stand. I hope that this year people make their political decisions based on their own beliefs and not on hostility or hatred for the opposite candidate.

I would love to see the rhetoric elevated to a higher level and policy positions discussed in great detail and depth. I would love to see the American public treated as though we have some intelligence and are not swayed by fear and envy — two emotions that are only crippling to life and growth.

And then no matter what happens, I would hope — as I have said before — that people would get on with their lives, find their own happiness and fulfillment, and stop looking for the solution to all their problems from their political leaders, who are after all just human beings like the rest of us, living out the play and display of karma.

Andrea keeps a blog at MySpace, where I also enjoyed her gentle-spirited post “Lili Fujikawa and the Perfect Apple Pie.”

Thank you, Andrea.

I don’t recall anyone arguing that Iraq was a threat, but [see correction below] I certainly remember some extremely articulate arguments to the effect that installing democracy in Iraq could, over the long-term, have a significant effect on reducing the growth of terrorism.

Not because Iraq itself was ever a hotbed of terrorism, but because installing democracy in a major country in the heart of Mesopotamia would inevitably cause the citizens in neighboring countries to begin campaigning for greater democratic freedoms themselves.

And unlike the petty theocratic dictatorships throughout most of the Middle East, democracies very rarely breed anything resembling terrorism.

In other words, Iraq was part of a long-term strategy, not a short-term fix or act of retaliation or self-defense.

For this reason, many Americans (including those who volunteer in the military) do believe their service in Iraq is in the cause of freedom.

You may disagree with them, and perhaps for very good reasons, but I don’t think you can fairly accuse them of latching onto false bromides — which seems to be the gist of your argument.

The fact that you see Iraq as a “stupid, stupid war” doesn’t mean that your perspective on the path to American freedom obviates their own perspective.

Note, please, that I’m not arguing here for or against the war in Iraq. I’m making a different point.

I’m saying: The fact you personally disagree with or disapprove of the war, does not mean those who are volunteering to fight it are not sincerely motivated by the honorable promotion of American freedoms.

I happen to appreciate their efforts and their motivations even though I often find myself having conflicted feelings about the war itself.

UPDATE: Actually, now I do recall the official arguments that Iraq posted a threat to world peace (weapons of mass destruction and all that) but I never personally saw those arguments as the more compelling ones in favor of the war, for the reasons Stephen den Beste illuminates very clearly.

Second update: (May 10) Joe felt my initial one-sentence summary of his position (“…Joe Duarte’s rant against joining the military and serving in Iraq to promote freedom…”) was a potential mischaracterization, depending on how the conjunction was read. He’s right. So I’ve updated it above with what I hope would be more clear.

In fact, Patrick’s discussion here, and his weighing of the various positions, strikes me as one that comes squarely from a second-tier perspective (in the Integral / Spiral Dynamics model of human development). …Which already says a little bit, politically, if you’re familiar with that model.

After reviewing some very sensible arguments from those who are uncomfortable with both of the labels “liberal” and “conservative” — as well as their various hack modifiers — Patrick concludes:

The problem is that all the words we use to describe political discourse in this country are hopelessly corrupted.

“Liberal” has come to mean the worst aspects of “leftist” ideology. It’s statist, progressive, victimized, new-age, anti-reason, amoral, libertine populism.

“Conservative” has come to mean the worst aspects of the ideology of the “right.” It’s statist, reactionary, bigoted, fundamentalist, anti-reason, moralistic populism.

“Libertarian” has come to mean the worst aspects of both. It’s progressive, reactionary, bigoted, victimized, new-age, fundamentalist, anti-reason, moralistic, libertine populism.

If those of us who love liberty, who cherish autonomy and personal responsibility continue to define our beliefs and allegiances with terms that lost their coherent meaning years ago, we’re dooming ourselves to irrelevance.

I’m not a liberal libertarian or a conservative constitutionalist.

We need a new name. We need a new party. Suggestions?

Good damned question.

In fact, it may be the best and most important question (for those many of us who agree with Stephens) we face in our political lifetime.

I wonder if it would help at all, if people who agreed with the above observations were to start their own project (wiki, blog, or some other format) to discuss the situation, propose constructive solutions, and weigh their respective merits.

If so — I might, as an enterprise-scale web developer, be willing to lend my technical expertise in helping create the project infrastructure.

Who’s in?

I’ve enjoyed his contributions here for many years now, because he’s one of those rare souls who lives and breathes the stuff of psychology, creativity, and personal growth.

To my delight and hearty encouragement, he has begun offering his services widely as a therapist — both as a personal coach and by providing creativity coaching for musicians.

To be clear, Andrew has been working as a therapist and personal coach for a long while now. But now he’s decided to offer his services to clients around the country, via phone consultations.

I just wrote the following recommendation for his LinkedIn profile:

Andrew has rare gift as a therapist: he understands, natively, how change operates. He’s a careful student of human nature, can be keenly insightful, and knows how to provoke real growth.

I’ve observed Andrew’s skills on many occasions during the men’s retreats we’ve attended together. Given my own background in psychology, six years as a graduate student in clinical psych, I’m acutely aware of how many therapists lack the natural talent for inspiring change. Wanting to help, even when you’re trained to help, is not the same as being naturally talented at the craft. Some people just have the juice.

In this respect, I would put Andrew in the top 1% of therapists I know. I would recommend his services for anyone who wants help evolving to the next level — whether creatively, personally, or in a relationship.

I look forward to watching Andrew’s client base grow, as more and more people come to know what I know about him.

Kathy and I have found aspects of The Secret (both the book and the movie) to be quite valuable, in our pursuit of understanding one’s own mind. At the same time, some of Davis’s criticisms sound spot-on to me.

Pithy quote:

The secret takes a statement like:

Thought can influence reality

and amplifies it to: “Thoughts create reality.” Not just any thoughts, but YOUR thoughts.

(By the way, are you a rape victim? I guess you created that reality with your thoughts. Was your family member killed in Iraq? I guessed you created that experience for yourself so you could learn from it. Wow. You are one sadistic cat.)

Bonus points if you can wade through Davis’s AQAL analysis of it all. I couldn’t.

I’m relatively new to the theory of spiral dynamics, but I too am beginning to wonder whether it actually leads to new political insights, or whether it inadvertently muddies the process of identifying more fundamental principles — such as the non-initiation of force principle — that deserve serious and abiding consideration regardless of what “color” may have first thunk it up.

For example, am I the only person who thought the following analysis was a little too accommodating to the collectivist end of the spectrum?

First let’s look at the four quadrants, which are simply the interior and exterior of the individual and collective, all of which are present in any occasion. Concerning the debate on rights versus responsibility: an emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual (rights) yields positions such as libertarianism; an emphasis on the sovereignty of the collective (responsibility) yields positions such as socialism.

As I understand it, the AQAL model, which forms the theoretical basis for the quote above, is not about “sovereignty” of the individual or the collective. (Speaking of the “sovereignty” of a collective doesn’t even make sense in this context.)

Rather, it is about ignoring one polarity or the other: ignoring the importance of self/individuality or ignoring the importance of others/interconnectedness.

As such, the true “false dichotomy” here — between a blind self-orientation and blind other-orientation — is strung between the two poles of anarchy and socialism, not capitalism and socialism.

Put simply, the political system that embodies the perspective “I can do whatever I want without regard for the impact I have on other people” is not capitalism. It is anarchy.

Free market capitalism — the social system characterized by the enforcement of individal rights — already embodies a delicate and well-conceived balance between respect for self (i.e., you may not violate my rights) and respect for others (i.e., I may not violate your rights).

Only capitalism says “Others may not initiate the use of force against you, and you may not initiate the use of force against others.”

Anarchy doesn’t say this; it says you can do whatever you want to other people. And socialism doesn’t say it either; it says that other people (with the aid of a legislator) may lock you up, or shoot you, for not allowing the welfare state to expropriate your income, run your business, and lay off your employees through minimum wage laws and other destructive regulations.

Thus, to take capitalism’s already delicately balanced self/other orientation, and argue that it should be “balanced” further with socialism’s “respect” for other people … strikes me as simply uninformed and ignorant of more fundamental dynamics in political philosophy.

So — if this is the kind of thinking that Wilber’s version of spiral dynamics and AQAL analysis leads to, then I think there’s something vital missing from the approach.

He concludes:

Also, it is vital to realize just what “Classical Liberalism” was and how it lives on in conservative circles, in various ways both simple and complex. In that way, liberalism is not dead. But that its tenents do not have much of a place in what we think of “liberalism” right now is instructive and damning.

Contemporary liberalism (see sources such as Chomsky, Zinn, Air America, Salon.com, Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, The New Yorker, The Nation, Foucault, Pacifica Radio, and many more) is dead. The party is over. If you want to participate in the contest of ideas that will shape the future of this country, then you have to let “liberalism” rest in peace.

Ideas that are authentic have consequences, and all the authentic ideas, and idea development, are in conservative circles. If you care about ideas in the political realm, quite simply, you have to go there.

My suggestion: read The Corner often, understand the dynamics beneath the surface (why, for example, Derbyshire is different than Goldberg is different than York is different than Lopez is different than Kurtz, and so on) and then let your curiousity take you where it goes.

I’ve done so for over five years now, and let me tell ya, it’s been an ‘effin instructive ride.

I believe he’s right.