The Words of the Dey Family
|
|
The Words of the Dey Family |
There was an interesting weekend workshop with Rev An in Copenhagen on 17-18th November. His lineage links to Chu Hsi the Chinese philosopher, described as a Neo-Confucianist and reformer. Chu Hsi's philosophy looked at the Way or Heaven from which heart-mind emerges. Then for humanity it is a question of cultivating this ethical nature or falling back to archaic and primitive behaviors. It probably sounds familiar to some. Rev An's first ancestor sat at the feet of this master then returned to Korea to teach. He set up Rev. An's ancestral home still inhabited today by his family and extended family.
One great complaint voiced by a few, was leveled at the culture of obedience, leaders and followers which failed in the cultivation of ethical character / original nature and the original mind for many in the past. The old structure of Unification Church was full of this, though not necessarily by design. There was in fact ample opportunity via teaching, leadership, home church, 40 day witnessing where one would wander off to an area and get stuck in, the development of projects, and so on. But many missed this; various opportunities for personal learning and development.
The recent posts of Mothers words, raised the specter of this dynamic one again. The idea of dropping everything and just going out witnessing in a mode of obeisance was seen by quite a few as a reversal to old ways-a clinical pathology of constellated behaviors. However this is not the case. After mentioning a few personal projects, Rev An saw nothing wrong with this and saw Mothers directions as referring simply to getting engaged, getting active, and doing something to produce results in any area.
The word responsibility was used, again throwing many back into this archaic and terrifying memory of the old regime. However the term responsibility was defined by activities which produced personal growth. By personal responsibility we engage in various activities which promote growth in self and others – this is the nature of real freedom.
The age of settlement has not been cancelled, and looks for the creation of roots, growth, and personal commitment. It also seeks creativity – the individual's response -- not a directive to 'obey and get in the van' so to speak. The van has been parked. There is no real restriction on what anyone chooses to do, just the plea to do it with a bit of passion and to create something substantial within one's lifetime – something one can be proud of and rooted in the nature of one's own character – not lie on one's back.
I don't care to have this used as an official doctrine because its not, but we also discussed the failure of Korea. Korea made a remarkable journey from destruction to prosperity but in the discovery of wealth and luxury they missed the internal point. So that's where things stand at the moment and why.
Most of this got me thinking about my own work but after more discussion we agreed the internal issue concerns a deeper sense of authenticity. This means authenticity, in personal behaviors, in our families, and in creating an extended family we need to be true to values. All this pointed back to an old idea regarding 'the natural surrender' a little of Esau to Jacob so to speak. How shall we attract people. In any venture the question leads to this same thing -- authenticity – a quality of authenticity which others might surrender to voluntarily -- interesting challenge there!.
So do we need organized religion – only in part – only so with a light footprint. Principle doesn't look to government or other various structures of rule. The Freedom Society states less is more- true self and true creativity establish their own natural networks. Responsibility and growth ultimately replaces chains of command. In that, freedom, the true self, and true creativity, stand in its place. Then organizers can go look for another job.
The Freedom Society, a recent topic of discussion, introduces the idea of 'less is more' in terms of governance and organization. Principles of freedom hark back to ideas relating to early mankind set in an ideal environment. The myth/reality of 'the garden of Eden' story describes a paradisical environment where organization is necessarily limited and freedom and creativity are necessarily optimized.
Currently the world is disenchanted with doing business based on the old models hence the crises of our times. Economic structures and indeed democracy has walked a well trodden path only to come up short, related inadequately, as it were, to the greater complexities arising from modern consciousness. Spiral consciousness and models relating to this theory suggests we are moving from a classical age to increasing integral models including holistic ways of existence. One might call this a principled era or period of deep ecologies. Without proper understanding of this shift, there are still those who seek to "organize" this; to hold on to archaic models of structuring including 'Platonic censorship' which posits a definition of 'untoward' types by mental constructs and the world of relativity; a world of exclusivities.
A person not involved in principle cannot define principle, likewise a lower order of consciousness cannot comprehend fully the nature of a higher order.
However, the innate nature of the true self is the model for holistic levels of consciousness and natural principles of organization. Innate refers to the deeply embedded structures of the psyche, its architecture, and functions, including development, growth, and the bringing forth of innate talents. Simply put, we are looking at character and calling embedded within the self as a unique signature of design rooted in the seed. In the development of such characteristics the term responsibility has been used which in turn is tied to the concept of freedom. The term responsibility is easily misconstrued. However if it is related to the will we see that growth is necessarily referred to the activities of the will. It is in doing that we grow, realize, change, develop, discover talents, and so forth; so will is actually the engine of change in this model; and in growth and in the fullest expression of innate nature and talents lie authentic freedoms. This is the nature of responsibilities, not law and order, but processes of emergence.
The self is not seen now in the sciences as a single structure. Self emerges from a relational field. It does so from its roots in the 'motherhood constellation' as some call it -- the relational matrix which involves the family triad; mother, child, and father, from which we extract values from our early experiences. From good parents we extract ethics, empathies, cultural forms, and idealizations, which persist through life. From good enough, or from bad, there is obviously issues usually pointing to the fact that there is some work to be done.
What does the true self seek to manifest in terms of such a natural order. The term holons and holarchies apply here if one also describes these as emotional and simple physical feeling. A N Whitehead the philosopher, described feeling as his primary description of his universe. So did Christ, as does principles, our contemporary or integral age. Indeed the infant-mother relationship is also primarily emotional and it is from the right hemisphere of the brain, the emotional side, attachments are developed.
The intellect and the left brain develop as a secondary process most probably with the later emergence of language. Innate nature, defined by its feeling or emotional content and empathies / attachments is sometimes described as a holon. Thus the innate self, complexities bound within a unitary system of dynamics, moves to holarchies – to the broader relational field where 'societies of occasions' make themselves felt. Such networks are not defined by structures of control or organization but emerge from natural affinities and natural respect. Holarchies or societies therefore emerge from an ecological field and are defined locally or globally in social or larger communal enterprises. This is not organized from outside but experienced and inhered to via natural networks and internal processes of creative responses and essential freedoms belonging to the self and empathic proclivities. These ethical natural processes belong to a world of authenticity and this is the primary concern of self.
The model of self and others, is related to the development of structures and societies of neurons which define the mind. Mirror neurons support empathy as does positive levels of oxytocin within the womb. This is our chemistry and structure of empathic gestures, responses, attachments, and relatedness. The one way model of neuron pathways represents the self and the individual mind. It is how information and understanding emerges along pathways within the mind but there is another model. The feedforward-feedback neural networks, exhibit complex developed networks of a social-global nature. (Whitehead called this a nexus or society of actual entities – in other words the principles of organization are perceived as a natural outcome of preexistent ideas which the true self appropriates via consciousness) This series of organized patterns of behaviors, neuronal structures and experiences, are a foundation for extensive and social and global fields of participation. It is from within, that the innate nature of the human psyche unfolds and where we seek to manifest innate talents and character. It is from this same source we look to social and global interactions expressions of innate structures and character.
External models such as business pyramids or various forms of established authoritarian structures no longer serve the community in any meaningful way. Only minimal regulation is required for authentic and creative networks of interaction. Rather than organized models or even democracy, what we now seek is organic principle, integral, or models of holarchies defined by limited authority and natural emergent ethics which defines the nature of true freedom and true creativity.