Wednesday, February 14, 2001
J. Harmon Grahn, Editor
Back to The New Paradigm Index
|
Happy Valentine's Day, boys and girls! It's no more than a coincidence, but possibly appropriate nevertheless that the following remarks, primarily about human relationships, should be distributed on this day associated in many minds with romantic love. What follows is a continuation of the "New Beginnings" series that commenced 8 December 2000, vol. IV, #1, with a preliminary overview of some of the features of an imagined "new paradigm" civilization. The series now continues with some thoughts about human relationships. [Editorial Note: The following essay is the third of what has developed (so far) into a five-part series. The "Table of Contents" for the entire series follows.]
Having made a number of speculations about the possible nature of "new paradigm" technology, and having taken a speculative look in the direction of some of the technologies that may be on the horizon, currently cloaked in deepest secrecy,1 the discussion of our (or at any rate, my) imaginary "new paradigm" world arrived fairly abruptly at the interim "conclusion" that "The core of the 'new paradigm' world ... is not technology, but human relationship." I feel this is an important point, and deserves underlining. In venturing predictions or speculations about the "future," such as in the traditions of "science fiction," or "futurology," it is practically a matter of course to focus attention almost exclusively upon technology, or upon systems of political, economic, or social organization (which are also technologies), and the possibilities suggested by sophisticated tools and implements hovering beyond contemporary horizons. Without neglecting or minimizing the importance of such speculations, I wish to draw attention to the point that the vital element that "makes it all go" is the individual human mind, heart, and spirit, in relationship with other individual human minds, hearts, and spirits. So; being in the mode of speculating about such things, what will human relationships be like in a "new paradigm" world? I suggest, as I have before, that "new paradigm" human relationships are characterized by unconditional love,2 honor, respect, and mutual recognition of Individual Sovereignty. In order for these conditions to obtain in relation to others, I submit they must first be established in relation to one's self; and herein lies the principle "obstacle" to realization of a "new paradigm" world. Such matters cannot, by their very nature, be "legislated." That approach has been attempted in endless variety for thousands of years, invariably in vain. The "ticket to ride," if I may term it so, for participation in a "new paradigm" world is the realization, from internal sources, that All are One; or as it was expressed in an earlier age, "I and my Father are one." 3 This has always been the arch heresy of the "old paradigm" world, which depends upon universal division and strife as its bedrock foundation; however, Oneness is fundamental to any "new paradigm" world. From the principles that All are One, and Each is Sovereign, follow the collateral principles of what might be called "fundamentals of 'new paradigm' law:"
As discussed earlier,4 these principles are not "enforced" by the action of any overarching "authority," but by the Sovereign self-interest of each "new paradigm" Individual. Nor are they particularly "new." Two thousand years ago, they were expressed like this:
In relation to our "old paradigm" heritage and habits, these principles hold profound implications for the nature of "new paradigm" human relationships. Perhaps the most spectacular contrast between "old paradigm" and "new paradigm" relationships is that the latter are never characterized by ownership of any Individual by any other, or group of other Individuals. There are no "Lords" or "Ladies" in "new paradigm" society, no "superiors" or "inferiors," no "nobility" or "commoners," no "bosses" or "subordinates," and of course no "masters" or "slaves." No one issues "commands" or carries out "orders." "Then how on Earth do you ever expect to get anything done?" asks the incredulous "old paradigm" mentality. Simple: no "new paradigm" human relationship of any kind forms without the voluntary mutual interest and intent of all participants. In all such groups it will be found that each Individual has something unique to offer which advances the mutual interest of the group as a whole. Masters, not of other persons, but of various useful crafts, spontaneously emerge, and the less skilled in such crafts naturally take assistant / apprentice positions in relation to those of more developed skill. Cooperation and spontaneously self-coordinated effort toward achieving a common goal characterize such group efforts. No one is "boss," or "foreman," yet the project develops swiftly and efficiently, for each participant is keen to aid its progress in every possible way, within a context of constant flux and fluidity. If these expectations sound like "pie-in-the-sky" daydreams of a hard-core dreamer, perhaps the work of Richard Stallman, Eric Raymond,5 and others may be illuminating. In particular, the spontaneously coordinated efforts of a widely dispersed global network of independent programmers and systems developers have over the course of the past two decades produced the highly successful and increasingly popular GNU/Linux Operating System, and an expanding library of fully functional Free Software applications that run under GNU/Linux. Free Software is non-proprietary, in distinction from the highly proprietary products available from most software developers. I won't go into the intricacies of the project and its rationale here; suffice to say that it is a "real world" example of a highly successful, highly complex, long-term project that demonstrates "bottom line" market effectiveness of the "new paradigm" principles of group dynamics under discussion here. The concern, however, of "getting something done" in an orderly, expeditious manner is probably not at the root of "old paradigm" skepticism of the "new paradigm" vision. What really alarms the "old paradigm" mentality about the "new paradigm" vision has much more to do with their sense of self identity. "If there are no 'bosses' or 'subordinates'," wonders the "old paradigm" "boss" of his particular little "empire," "where does that leave me?" For one of the "grand illusions" of the "old paradigm," experienced everywhere, is the error of misidentifying oneself with one's "occupation," or more generally, with one's ego identity. "John P. Jones, Butcher," or "Baker," or "Candlestick Maker: that's who I am; none better." Ah, excuse me, Mr. Jones? That isn't really who you are, although it may be the part you are very ably playing at the moment. What happens, however, if someone invents, say, a light bulb, and the bottom drops out of the market for candles, and you can no longer profitably follow your occupation as a Candlestick Maker? You may have to "become someone else;" yet will you not still be you? By imagining yourself to be only a "Butcher," or "Baker," or "Candlestick Maker," or "Ph.D. in Physics," or "Corporate Vice President," or "Pope," or "Grand Larceny of the Planetary Bank," or whatever..., you are automatically selling yourself infinitely short of Who You really Are. For You Are.... See practically any edition of The New Paradigm for further elaboration.6 Another domain of human relationships I imagine to be of widespread interest is that of relationships among the sexes. This too has been discussed at some length in these pages before,7 however that does not preclude its further discussion here. Again, the Sovereign fact that no "new paradigm" relationship involves ownership in any form may lead to some surprising conclusions for those habituated to "old paradigm" expectations and social patterns. "Traditional marriage," for instance, as practiced typically almost everywhere in the world, is based upon the concept of ownership of one person by another; which is certainly not consistent with universal recognition of Individual Sovereignty. "My wife;" "my husband;" "my woman;" "my man;" are all declarations of ownership, on a par with "my car;" "my wristwatch;" "my fountain pen." "Things" can be owned - maybe. Sovereigns cannot - certainly. The "God" Who speaks in Conversations with God has some rather trenchant remarks about "marriage," which I suggest bear pondering:
So, if "traditional marriage" is out in the "new paradigm" world, what will take its place? Surely there must be families? Couples will be drawn together, will they not, into lasting, meaningful relationships, just as has always been? Children must be conceived, born, nurtured, and raised? How will these things come about? My speculative answer is, "Far more naturally than is today even imaginable." Speculative, because it is difficult to imagine natural familial relationships when all one has experienced, in life and in history, are unnatural relationships. It may even be that to a casual observer, very little difference is evident between a typical "new paradigm" community and its "old paradigm" counterpart; for only one difference is crucial: in a "new paradigm" society no one owns anyone else. That is all. The rest takes its course following the preferences (i.e. what works) for all participants. Finding what works may require a little, or a lot, of mutual self-discovery and/or experimentation. This is hardly surprising, for no one has ever yet experienced life on Earth in a "new paradigm" civilization. It will be up to "new paradigm" Sovereign Individuals to invent and/or discover "new paradigm" civilization. Therefore, anything I may have to say about any of this is entirely speculative, to which I can make no more legitimate claim than might anyone else to the validity of their speculations. I expect "new paradigm" civilization to be in a constant state of flux, discovery, and reinvention, reflective of the self-discovery and reinvention of each Individual by and of her or his Sovereign Self. As to relationships among the sexes, the only element that strikes me as consistent with the "new paradigm" ideals stated above and elsewhere is that of allowance of any and all practices that are mutually satisfactory to the participants. By nature, biological, conjugal sex is possibly one of the most versatile, non-discriminatory practices known to humanity; as is food preparation and consumption. There are hardly any two or more humans on the planet who are not at least potential sexual partners, or dining partners; and even this does not exhaust the spectrum of possibilities. Certain sexual practices are abhorrent to some, just as certain foods are unpalatable to some, yet are relished by others. In "old paradigm" society, in matters of sexual, though less often of culinary taste, this has been widely construed to create a "problem." Why should it be so? For what "Fundamental Cosmic Reason" are sexual tastes and appetites distinguished from culinary tastes and appetites, such that the dictum, "If it does not appeal to you, do not partake of it," is not sufficient for every imaginable situation among Sovereign Individuals? There is no such "Fundamental Cosmic Reason" discernable to me. Please, someone, if I err, do correct me. Now, situations in which one's Sovereignty is violated are an entirely different matter. When one is coerced, or fraudulently tricked, or surreptitiously maneuvered into participation, against one's fully informed, voluntary will, into a relationship, be it sexual, culinary, commercial, or otherwise, one is justified in taking whatever measures are necessary or appropriate to remedy the situation. Furthermore, the perpetrator of any such coercion, fraud, or manipulation thereby forfeits his, her, or its entire claim to legitimacy or Sovereign Cosmic Right, and shall bear the burden of any and all consequences to his, her, or its self. This is so because, All being One, the "rules" one applies to oneself, apply likewise to all with whom one deals. That is, if you act to prejudice the Sovereignty of another, you likewise prejudice your own before the entire universe. It will therefore be found in a "new paradigm" society populated by Sovereigns, that endeavoring by any means to compromise the Sovereignty of another is absolutely the most "dangerous" and self-defeating game one can possibly play. At the moment, it is "the only game in town" in "old paradigm" society, which is precisely why "old paradigm" society is at this very moment in the final stage of self-destruction. The only reason such widespread usurpation has been possible at all is that most of the human race have surrendered, or utterly failed to grasp, their inherent Individual Sovereignty. This is now rapidly changing. Nothing so far stated, or suggested, precludes the formation of healthy, stable families, highly effective child rearing, extended families, functional communities, expanding into broader social units, as desired or required by their constituents. Only the original axiom holds: No one owns anyone else. Period. Full stop. As to how children will be raised in a "new paradigm" society, that too remains to be discovered and/or invented. Certain aspects of this were discussed at some length earlier in this series,9 at which point "education" was the primary topic of discussion. Given that a "new paradigm" society is by definition one whose constituents embrace the "fundamental principles of 'new paradigm' law" discussed above, many child-rearing practices not deemed at all workable in an "old paradigm" society, may work very well in a "new paradigm" society. Children, after all, are not the "property" of their parents, but are Sovereign Creations, no less than their parents, of That Which Creates "All That Is." This is so because, although our parents were crucially instrumental in the birthing of each of us, they are not in any sense our Creators. In entering this world as helpless infants, everyone "born of woman," makes an heroic leap of faith and trust, in That Which Creates and Orders "All That Is," in the nurturing care of the parents who conceived and birthed us; and in ourselves, in our ability to cope and prosper in an unpredictable life-adventure. In considering that no one enters this world but by deliberate Sovereign choice, and that each of us chooses the circumstances into which we are born, it is evident that the presence here of the seemingly "least significant" among us is literally a marvel of enterprise, heroism, and raw courage. Why would anyone choose to be born handicapped, for instance, or into an abusive family, or in any station in life less exalted than that of a rajah, or a princess? Perhaps because one has already "been there, done that," and feels the need, or desire, to experience life "with the shoe on the other foot," so to speak. Somewhere within us, in any case, each of us knows why we are here; why we chose to come here; when, where, and in the manner we chose to come; and what we are "supposed" to do, by our own choice, while here. Rediscovery of our forgotten purpose, and our forgotten choices, may be a fair summing up of "what Life is all about." You are not obligated to believe any of this, of course; it just makes intuitive sense to me. It makes sense because if we did not somehow deliberately choose to come into this life under the circumstances in which we were in fact born, then it must be so that we are not really by nature Sovereign after all, but are the product instead of forces entirely beyond our ken or control. If that were so, however, then the entire concept of Sovereignty would be for us utterly beyond conception, and the present discussion would not be possible. For example, we were not born with the ability to fly, however we were able to observe birds and flying insects, and to imagine ourselves flying likewise; which we have in fact done. Do you think pigs, observing the same birds and insects, might themselves entertain parallel dreams of flying someday too? If pigs had wings.... However, we, regardless how enslaved or oppressed we may have been in the past, or are at the moment, are fully capable of imagining Sovereignty, and of working toward it with purposeful deliberation. I maintain, therefore, that Sovereignty is the eventual destiny of every human being, for experience teaches clearly that nothing less will work. It is the bedrock prerequisite for true civilization - which has not been observed on this planet within historical human memory. It is the foundation for sound human relationships, of every kind, at every level of complexity and scale. It can be achieved by each Individual for shimself only, and cannot be bestowed upon anyone by anyone else. Therefore I submit to your consideration and evaluation the following proposition:
How does one go about doing that? No one can instruct you in this. Each of us must discover for ourselves how, and in what ways, every part of ourselves either is or is not owned by ourselves, and take appropriate measures accordingly. Perhaps some ideas on this will be forthcoming in a sequel at a later date. Perhaps some of those reading this will have such ideas to share. If so, they will be welcome. Until then,
1. In "WingMakers, Revisited, Part I," tnp vol. IV, #5, 1/11/01. 2. An exposition on unconditional love by an unknown source was recently brought to our attention by Dale Reece, in tnp vol. IV, #3, 12/22/00. See also "I Love You," vol. IV #11, 5/1/01. 3. John 10:30, et seq. Note that Jesus goes on to quote Psalms 82:6, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." I mention the fact here because someone once registered a theological objection over this very point, as recorded on the (Mostly) Kudos page. 4. In "New Beginnings, Part I," vol. IV #1, 12/8/00, and "New Beginnings, Part II," vol. IV #2, 12/18/00. 5. See "The GNU Project" by Richard Stallman, and The Cathedral and the Bazaar by Eric Raymond. These are in-depth analyses of the Free Software / Open Source development process. 6. A good place to begin might be "The Ego and the Self," vol. I #11, 1/31/98. 7. In "Sex," vol. II #8, 3/26/99, and "Eros and Agape," vol. II #14, 6/17/99. 8. Conversations with God: an uncommon dialogue by Neale Donald Walsch, Hampton Roads Publishing Company, Inc., Charlottesville, Virginia, 1995, 1997, 1998, quoted at greater length in "Eros and Agape." 9. In "New Beginnings, Part II," vol. IV #2, 12/18/00.
|
Back to The New Paradigm Index