Sunday, February 26, 2006

Not Cynical, Exactly

In the personals ad that L answered, I asked something about how my meditation practice might inform an understanding of international relations. Could an understanding of human nature gleaned from meditation be applied to an area in which nations generally behave in rather naked self-interest? I was, at the time, slightly hopeful that I might gain some insight which could be applied for the betterment of the world. However, instead of my being able to use my meditation practice, my practice has "converted" me.

First, having looked more at the grasping nature of the "small self" with which we do most everything, I no longer think there's such a large dichotomy between interpersonal relationships and international ones. Pretty much, we do what we like and avoid what we don't like, and we get as much of what we like as we can without provoking negative consequences we don't like. (BTW, I thought the movie Kids made this kind of statement very well.) A lot of those negative consequences are those put in place by our society, enforced by general agreement and, at last resort, by violence. Nations, although more complex, don't seem to be fundamentally different. They're all angling for what gets them advantage relative to other nations and will do anything possible as long as the negative consequences aren't too bad. The "societal punishments" around for nations aren't as effective as those around for you and me, and thus nations often behave much worse than you or I do.

Second and related, I used to think of those with power as corrupted by that power, and that these people should by fought by those not in power. Now, however, I'm less sure that the powerless are so virtuous. For example, President Carter's calls for energy efficiency didn't make him very popular. If there were an informed, popular vote about, say, increasing vehicle fuel efficiency standards, would Americans really vote to give up their SUV's? Even with the effects of global warming becoming more clear, would they have done so without the high gas prices of late? I'm a little doubtful. It's not that I no longer think that those in power need to be challenged, but I'm more of the opinion that humans in general have a hard time doing what they (might) know they should. I'm still hopeful, though, that decisions can be optimized under these limitations through good information and inclusive discussions, if those can be brought about. (I'm still supporting Clean Money.)

I write this all with an additional sense of frustration because I'm a bit stuck in my meditation practice. I don't really understand what's going on, but what it appears to be is this. I could continue to expand my awareness beyond my "small self", but this larger awareness appears very threatening. It feels like I'd have to give up all the things I dearly love, such as wine. (I think this is where the motif of wrathful gods originates.) This fear has interrupted my practices a few times now, no matter from how many angles I rationally argue to myself what I need to do.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is a complex post; you are saying many things which I think I'll need time to process, as I haven't had the time to think about these issues at the level that you have. Also, perhaps because you are speaking at such an "evolved" meditative level, I don't understand everything. Translation needed.

Anonymous said...

Like the poster above, I'm confused--but mostly about that last paragraph.
WRT the 3rd para, having recently gotten to know an unemployed American who stresses out over a $40 vet bill and is now struggling to pay her tax bill, I'm realizing how true it is that we in the Bay Area don't really understand concerns of much of middle America---which are fundamentally economic. Reflecting on this has made me believe that the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas" hit the nail on the head. The liberals/left wing will only ever appeal to middle America if they address their basic economic concerns--not just one of them (e.g. health care), or at least not any of them other than employment/jobs.
-jm(different poster than above)

pahoehoe said...

About the last paragraph... The well-worn Buddhist phrase is "giving up our attachments". All I'm trying to say is that this very difficult for me. First, there are plenty of self-defining things I really don't want to give up. Second, the very process by which I could actively "give up" something is most likely the same process by which I cling to them in the first place. (I'd just switch from clinging to the original item to clinging to my "virtuous act" of giving it up.) Finding the "right way" to let go of my attachments is thus rather tricky.

The answer I've settled on is that I should, for the moment, use my small self to actively "give up" some of my attachments so that maybe I will fear letting go of attachments less in general. That translates into trying not to buy any new wine, but only drinking up my collection. We'll see how it goes.