Ambivalence
Prior to doing a little unpacking, let me propose that the descriptions in the previous post point to a major contradiction, or ambivalence in our nature. That is, the struggle we have in making a clear choice.
And how will I describe ambivalence?
In this context, it is our ability to complain about traffic when we are driving our car, or complain about shops closing down while we buy on line, or having social media accounts and wanting privacy, or desperately wanting our species to survive but risking extinction by prioritising comfort and convenience over necessity. (Here are a few other examples).
Very often, ambivalence in you is labelled as hypocrisy by me who might judge you harshly – and in particular if I don’t like you, or if I don’t want your decision to be carried out, or I don’t like your opinion etc. etc.
Some years ago in Ireland we had a very emotional debate on abortion, prior to a referendum. I knew people who are principled and sincere who supported the legalisation of abortion and would be appalled at the prospect of a country going to war, and/or would be opposed to the arms industry. Similarly I knew people who were were also principled and sincere who were opposed to the legislation of abortion and would be quite militaristic in their attitude to world politics. And, of course, I knew people who were against abortion and were also against war.
I am not judging here – I’m just using the example to demonstrate our tendency to be ambivalent.
So, while a machine is characterised by either/or, we humans are characterised by ambivalence, or and. In fact, to complicate it further, we can be ambivalent and either/or when it suits us.
I’m ambivalent therefore I am seems to be more fitting for us than Descartes famous statement describing the essence of being human I think therefore I am.
That is, are we deep or shallow? Are we nice or nasty? Are we responsible or irresponsible? Fundamentally, are we true or false?
Ambivalence as I just described it, on the one hand causes us great problems and yet must have an evolutionary or developmental role.
So, in a way, accommodating it should not be a problem for humanity!
The Unpacking- Ambivalence and Spirituality
We could probably argue forever as to whether we are Of-Course-It-Is or Not-A-Bit – i.e. which way do we lean.
Even though Of-Course-It-Is and Not-A-Bit are in contrast to each other they are both largely true statements when it comes to human behaviour.
And since time immemorial Of-Course-It-Is would probably have been associated with good for us and Not-A-Bit would have been leaning towards bad for us.
That is to say – as is probably obvious to anyone who reflects a little – we tend to downplay the Not-A-Bit if we notice it in our lives, or criticise it if we notice it in other people’s lives – ambivalence again – and we tend to hold the Of-Course-It-Is in high esteem. Or, to put it another way, for most of us, Of-Course-It-Is is what we like to portray to the world and as for Not-A-Bit? Well – we might keep that side of us hidden, or we might not even be aware of it!
This interests me because as I am writing this post and thinking about it a bit I notice that I associate Not-A-Bit with competition, comparison, conflict and suchlike tendencies, and Of-Course-It-Is with cooperation, collaboration, empathy and living harmoniously. What I mean is, when I start competing I begin to adopt the Not-A-Bit way of living – though I might pretend not to.
And I also am of the opinion that much of the Of-Course-It-Is way of living would be thought to be associated with spirituality.
This is important because if I am interested in or knowledgeable about spirituality it gives me an edge when it comes to promoting a particular point of view.
As an exercise, and to try and figure out how the intellectual types always seem to have the upper hand in the world, let us look at the metaphorical/symbolic nature of the Gospels where Jesus‘s words and parables are suggestive rather than absolutely clear.
In an earlier Chapter on Power and Control in Society, (the post on Biblical Influences), I mentioned the Gospel message to turn the other cheek.
Now, so that the Christian Churches can hold their head high in the 21st Century we are informed that turning the other cheek (or, offering the other cheek to be precise – yes – I checked it out) doesn’t really mean that we tell a vulnerable woman who reports to us that her husband slaps her on the cheek to go home and offer him the other cheek.
Contrast that to love thy neighbour as thyself, or, judge not and you shall not be judged, or, faith without good works is of no avail. They are far clearer messages. They don’t really have to be interpreted. They mean what they say.
We are encouraged to interpret the messages of the New Testament by thinking deeply about them – which people who are highly educated do with literature.
The fact that something mightn’t mean what it says is a great opportunity for the educated to keep the uneducated in their place. That is to say; the educated, intellectual, spiritual types know what it really means and it has to be interpreted for the great ocean of uneducated humans who might take it literally.
Would it not be far better if we, who wish to be thought of as Christians, said that Jesus wasn’t always right, and also said that he should have been absolutely clear on his opinion on violence, not give some sort of obscure message that could be interpreted by evil people for their own ends. If we base our entire philosophy and methodology on something that cannot be contradicted or challenged because it’s the word of God there are bound to be people who will distort it.
But this, of course, would raise the appalling vista that Jesus could be wrong – which he can’t be – because he is God!
Once again, I believe that it is proof of 1): the power of intellectual/spiritual types that perpetuate the mystique of the Gospel being always right; – and; 2): the extent of our grooming; that we, the ordinary people, don’t see this clearly!
And, just as an aside, consider this. We Christians promote the idea that we are leaders in doing good in the world. Is it good leadership to base all our decisions on a belief system that can never be criticised?
And as another aside, isn’t it interesting that, as far as I am aware, nothing in the New Testament extols the virtues of competition. In fact the entire message of the New Testament (check out the Sermon On The Mount) is that if you lose you win, but is this message vigorously promoted by the established churches that have billions of followers worldwide?
I just ask the question ……….
Other Thoughts On Spirituality
In the Chapter on Anthropology I wondered why we evolved into a species that is nasty to each other quite a lot when it would appear to be easier for everyone around us, including ourselves, if we were nice.
And in the Chapter on Leadership I described a phenomenon which I refer to as the domination of the fast processors which may give some pointers in respect of how we became what we are.
The two opposites in the previous post (Of-Course-It-Is and Not-A-Bit) say more about the paradox of being human than about spirituality per se – but ……. and I cannot get away from this ….. humans are spiritual beings!
I hope that the relevance of the paradox to our understanding of, experience of, and exercise of spirituality will become clear as the rest of this Sub-Chapter is read.
Because, looking at the world in general, and particularly when it comes to power distribution, the Not-A-Bit side always seems to be in the ascendancy.
After all, almost all of the world’s problems could be solved by a little Of-Course-It-Is generosity. But who will be generous first? Generosity – particularly in the unforgiving hothouse of corporate competition – might appear to be weakness – so we are generous on our terms only. Surely this fear of generosity (that is, fear of working together for the collective good because we might lose power) constantly promotes the dominance of the Not-A-Bit tendency.
The truly spiritual side is often deemed to be less important, or even manifests in what the majority of humanity label as eccentricity or crankiness. This may lead us who deem ourselves to be spiritual to dilute our spirituality a little (or maybe a lot – or maybe suppress it altogether) so that it will be acceptable to the majority.
Most of the bigger established Christian Churches are manifestations of this.
We know that if we really promote Of-Course-It-Is it will not be acceptable to the majority of the population so we water down the message a bit so we can support exclusive fee-paying boarding schools, be involved in militaristic displays, foster a kind of hierarchy that mirrors the structures of the Pillars, be overt supporters of a grossly unjust system such as royalty or imperialism, and/or maintain an obscenely wealthy central authority such as the Vatican.
In some ways it reminds me of socialism. Like true spiritual types, true left-leaning socialists are always on the fringes. When socialism becomes mainstream it turns out like the Soviet Union – a central top-down hierarchical establishment that is obsessed with power and control – probably for the same reasons that Churches are.
Once again, I am not really criticising or denigrating the Churches (or even the Soviet Union) here, I am merely pointing out what I observe (or in the case of the Soviet Union), observed.
Perhaps it takes energy to be spiritual!
And is spirituality, in addition to being the creative force, also the voice of warning – the teacher within? The voice that we get a glimpse of from time to time and that some people take more seriously than others.
Sometimes, in this respect, I think that spirituality is a burden. It’s like our spiritual part can see what’s wrong with the world and can see where humanity is headed, and wants to change it, but our non-spiritual part doesn’t care enough.
Finally, in the dance between the deep or shallow, nice or nasty, responsible or irresponsible poles, I believe that it is interesting how we have this amazing ability to create and then cling on to the belief that even if what we have created is causing us distress – and contributing to our own level of anxiety – it is improving our lives!