(Important note regarding the mind set from which this series is written
and from how it is intended to be read)
The DOMINATING INFLUENCE OF
CLOSED CONSCIOUSNESS PARADIGMS
In Part 4, we looked at world views associated with both open and closed consciousness. In the course of doing that, I introduced the idea of metaphysical spirituality as a perspective that incorporates open consciousness. Let me reemphasize before proceeding, that metaphysical spirituality (let's also use "ms" for the convenience of brevity) is a phrase - not a thought system or school of thought or a wisdom tradition. It is a phrase that refers to a platform from which open consciousness can be appreciated and practiced.
A fundamental presumption of this series is that the problems, greed and violence of the world are related to the limited, ego driven perspective of mass consciousness, and that the mass consciousness is not very open. The mass consciousness is consumed by conventional wisdom and preference for doctrine, creeds, rules, circumscription of ideas, etc.
When we come to understand that the dominating world views are dominating precisely because they are a manifestation of the mass consciousness, then we are at the door of some meaningful insights. If we consider Einstein's idea that problems cannot be solved from the same level that they exist, it becomes all the more clear why the stubborn, restrictive and fixed ideas of the dominating paradigms can only be changed at the level of consciousness. That is to say, that the problems of limited and restrictive world views cannot be changed or resolved at the level of taking a hammer to the world views. They can only be changed by increasing love and decreasing ego. That, essentially, is a good definition of a rise in consciousness.
An example of the sort of approach of attacking the "problem" at the same level of the "problem" is the Christian Conservative declaration of a culture war. More dramatic examples would be any radical movements, whether religious or ideological, to convert or change societies or the world through force and violence. In both of these cases (though to different degrees) the intention is to impose the rules and moral standards of the ideology or religion upon the society at large. It is the expression of group ego to make others conform to its reality.
While the actions of both of the examples just cited reflect the level of consciousness from which they come (as is, in fact, the case with every action and every effect in the universe), they are not acting at the level of consciousness as we mean the phrase. Neither comes from a stance of open consciousness nor is the intention of their actions to raise or open consciousness. The intention is to limit or restrict, thereby revealing that the paradigm from which they are acting is one of closed consciousness. Such intentions come from a point within the spectrum of consciousness where one cannot really conceive of affecting change at the level of consciousness. That's because ego fixation is simply characteristic of that point of consciousness. And in ego consciousness, attacking at the level of the problem seems the only possible way.
Our quest here is to discover why closed consciousness is so persistently dominating and so clinging to closed world views. There is a sort of circular pattern here: closed consciousness brings about and supports closed world views, and then the closed world views, in their embrace of dogma and maintaining tradition and conventional wisdom, causes a persistence of closed consciousness.
To bring to your attention what I mean about closed world views being dominant, consider that when it comes to matters of transcendence -- that whole category of life that we might call the "ultimate issues" which includes ideas about god and spirituality -- it is always framed in a dichotomy of belief in god or no belief in god. It is always religion vs. atheists. Both sides of this dichotomy are striking examples of closed consciousness.
As a current example of how this dichotomy plays out, consider some present day goings on in the world of ideas that is drawing a fair amount of attention. You may be aware that there are a number of controversial but bestselling books that have been published within the last couple of years on the subject at hand: Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion; Sam Harris' The End of Faith, and most recently, Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great. There are others as well. These books are essentially critical of religion and make the case for the atheistic view.
I mention the controversy these books have spawned because it points out so glaringly the dominating influence of the dichotomy I am speaking of. The current closed world views are so overshadowing that the whole debate is limited exclusively to a contest of religion vs. atheism - god or no god. Totally neglected in the shadow of that dichotomy is a far more important question, "what is the nature of that referred to as god". This is the significant question from the perspective of metaphysical spirituality, and one that is perfectly fitting with the posture of open consciousness.
The domination is such that any perspective like the concept of metaphysical spirituality is so far below the awareness level of most people that in discussions of the ultimate issues it is not even considered as one of the possible portrayals of what the Universe is about. You see, the question is NOT whether or not god exists. Our open consciousness question presumes an Infinite Intelligence, but it turns the discussion to the nature of the Infinite Oneness. And the thing we can say up front, and unequivocally so, is that the portrayal is not a personification, it is not one of an emotion fueled supreme authoritarian separate from and above us. On the other hand, the dichotomy argument - god or no god -- presumes that particular perspective of god as described in religious scriptures. Realize that even the atheistic argument against god is about that god of religion.
I have been paying more and more attention to this over the years, and despite the fact that some personalities like Deepak Chopra may have occasional appearances on a television program like Larry King (for my international readers, a popular television interview program in the USA), I am still perplexed that the discussion remains so firmly established as one of god or no god. The reason this is important is that the domination of this closed paradigm is what restricts a rise in the mass consciousness. In maintaining its tight grasp on tradition and conventional wisdom, it keeps the mass consciousness stubbornly static. The movement of planetary consciousness remains stuck in a horizontal swirl, with very minor vertical dips and rises.
Those who are oriented toward expanding their own state of consciousness and who thereby resonate with some form of metaphysical spirituality (msers, for short) often find themselves in an odd place. Atheists lump msers with the religious and scoff at them for believing in a transcendent Intelligence that cannot be revealed by scientific method. The religious dismiss and scoff at msers as new age loonies and lump them with atheists as being anti-religious apostates. Think about the mass these two groups of the dichotomy represent and you can see why it so overshadows any ms perspective. A very high percentage (80-90% range depending upon the poll) of the population in the USA claim a belief in the Biblical god of the mainstream religions. Eighty percent claim to be Christian.
Considering that mass by the way, is it not rather ironic then that Christians complain so vehemently that they are the most attacked group of any? It would seem that msers could far more legitimately make that claim if they were inclined toward that sort of victim hood complaint. (But they aren't inclined that way because they see all phenomena in their lives as manifestations of who they are within. We may speak more about that in future installments.)
The subject at hand is the overshadowing power of the dominating closed paradigms, which of course includes more than religion. It persists in all ideological aspects of humanity - political, social and cultural. It shows up as deep devotion to convention combined with a reflexive tendency to reject ideas outside of the convention.
We can see this in comparing opportunities for presentation of conventional views and ms views. Consider the phenomenon of the growth of the mega-churches, and the reach and power of the various Christian broadcasting networks. They reach many millions of people, and to that audience they preach that the perspectives of god that msers hold are evil, the sure sign of satanic possession. Consider too the popularity of Christian book titles like the Left Behind series or The Purpose Driven Life. And with churches on nearly every other block of our communities, there are endless opportunities for anyone who wants to preach or teach Biblical doctrine.
By comparison, there are very few opportunities where people can gather to share and speak about the ideas of open consciousness. Sadly, this is the case even in the New Thought churches such as Science of Mind or Unity. I say this from repeated personal experience. They talk about new thought ideas that on the face of it are open, but then continually refer to god as though he were a separate entity wanting to provide and care for us. In their favor, at least they do not teach the eternal punishment stuff of mainstream religions. But they refuse to allow anyone but their own ministers or trained congregants to present ideas about the nature of that Infinite Intelligence referred to as God. By doing that, they are not much different than mainstream churches that limit all discussion to their own doctrine.
For those concerned about raising the consciousness of the planet, what I have described may sound dispiriting. But there is also another side to this which we will discuss in the coming Part. Meanwhile, it is important for us to be bluntly honest about the current state of affairs. We make a big mistake to in any way think that raising consciousness includes meekness and passive acceptance of closed consciousness. To the contrary, it is the very reticence to speak bluntly about the current state of overall consciousness and the paradigms that feed it, that inhibits any rise in the mass consciousness.
For far too long aware people have been living in this dream state relying upon such entrancing phrases as, "The consciousness of the planet will rise when a critical mass (or tipping point) is reached". We should not delude ourselves into thinking that the rise is going to occur all by itself without any higher consciousness activity. We have been doing it that way for all these centuries; and the result is a mass consciousness that barely budges.
Remember, we are individualized expressions of Universal Subconscious Mind. So, aware individuals should take up their role and express!! From their elevated point within the spectrum, we can be assured that the energy of that expression is going to be everything that open consciousness entails. Rather than the energy of ego, it will be the higher energy of light and love. It means action; it does not mean meek.
Aware individuals must consider showing up in active outward expression of higher consciousness. If they are attending the services of Unity and Science of Mind churches, they should be conscious of what they are hearing there, and not sit in passive acceptance of separatist teaching. We could just as well go down the street to the Baptist church and hear that kind of stuff. We should be standing up and demanding more openness from those church leaders. We should be demanding that if they are sincere in their claims to advance consciousness, that they go beyond mere words and demonstrate it by actively providing forums for presentation of open consciiosness concepts, and, thereby opening the way for the tipping point to occur. If such churches are no more than just contributing to the same old horizontal swirl of limited consciousness, then aware people should consciously ask themselves why they are continuing to provide financial support to that.
End of Part 5; look for Part 6, coming.
Copyright ©, 2007, William Gunderson
All Rights Reserved
No
part of this article may be reproduced for distribution without
the express permission and consent of the author. To obtain permission,
contact the author via email.
< Proceed to Part 6 |