My initial thinking about society centered around Anarchism. By Anarchism, I don’t mean “Smash the State” or wearing black clothing or ennui and depression; By Anarchism, I am referring to what I’ve called “ground zero” thinking about society: “Given a bunch of people, how can they live?” – assuming little or nothing. Starting from scratch, so to speak.
My thinking here began around 2000, in my early 20’s, inspired by the WTO. (See my LifeMap, for a sense of context.)
The basic idea was that things like Democracy, Reason, and Voluntary Action were sufficient to bring about Freedom, Joy, Happiness, and Full Expression of the individual. Aristotle’s “flourishing,” (Eudaimonia,) so to speak.
This is actually pretty fundamental to our society, as a line of thought, and not very original. I might call it “Liberalism,” the sort that people agree with in the United States, whether they call themselves a liberal or a conservative.
Over the last year, however, (and it is now 2008,) my thinking has changed dramatically to focus on spiritual community, which is the subject of this page.
It was most dramatically made known to me by my experiences at the EvolutionarySalons and the StoryfieldConference, and then extended on by my research into spiritual communities such as the FindhornFoundation, and AmagoDei, but most deeply by the FederationOfDamanhur.
(For myself, today, my family and I are practicing Jinja Shinto at the TsubakiJinja.)
The way you experiment with Anarchist ideas, is to have a commune: This is assuming that you think a successful test of a social idea should precede an actual all-encompassing revolution 1 in mass society. (Otherwise, we get things like the Russian communist disaster.) The commune is the perfect way to host a social experiment that touches on every aspect of life.
So, when I was in my early 20s, I started studying Anarchist communes – Most notably, and most well documented, TwinOaks. Twin Oaks was documented by KatKinkade?, one of the founders of Twin Oaks, in her book, “IsItUtopiaYet??”
The answer she came up with, (“Is it Utopia Yet?”), is a resounding “No.” …Even though there are a number of beautiful things about TwinOaks, and the experiment, as a whole, is impressive and positive. (My friend BlackHat tells me that he lends the book to his liberal friends who, like me, are interested in Anarchist communes. He says they report back to him that it makes them think, “I need to rethink my life.”)
My BestFriend (since 4th grade, elementary school; I must have been 8 or 9 years old when we befriended each other,) PhilPatton, thinks along similar lines as me (though he would sharply contest it,) and he actually spent a good 2 years of his life just actually living at myriad communes across the United States, and perhaps even outside as well (I don’t know.) He’s been to so many communes, I’ve totally lost track. Yes, he lived at TwinOaks.
His experiences have also informed my sense of Anarchist (and other types of) communes.
CharacteristicsOfAnarchistCommunes
My sense of Anarchist communities, Anarchist communes, is that they work, but that they don’t get people the things that I wanted.
You get Democracy, you get Reason, you get Voluntary Action, but… …mysteriously, you don’t get Freedom, you don’t get Joy, you don’t get Happiness, you don’t get Full Expression, and you don’t get Eudaimonia.
Instead, what you get is:
This is made most visible by Kat Kinkade’s efforts to inspire & hone Leaders.
In fact, leadership in general is a problem for Anarchists, and my sense and understanding is that Anarchists aren’t really quite sure what to make of it.
I am evolving a sense into an articulation, that Freedom, Real Freedom, requires the ability for people to inspire (en-spirit,) to get inspired, to get enthusiastic (en-theus,) to form groups, to undertake mission, and so on. That an individual cannot fully be an individual until an individual can flesh out in the form of a group. And what is the nature of a group? But more on this to come, some other day.
At TwinOaks, if someone becomes a leader, or tries to become a leader, there is also (almost magically,) I get the sense from the literature, – you suddenly get a bunch of people questioning, doubting, deriding the leader, and a debate forms, and then there are meetings and discussions, and then the overwhelming sense of, “Well, we don’t change, we won’t change, we don’t want to change.”
Leadership, being a leader, becoming a leader, is seen as something of someone’s individual hobby (or conceit,) of no real importance, and the iconoclasts come out and make sure that a person knows their place. I don’t get the sense that there is a cabal of people really in control, trying to make sure people don’t challenge their place in the hierarchy – rather, that it’s just fundamental to the thinking of the question “Am I Being Used?” (SamRoses?’ AIBU) at each and every turn, and to be suspicious of anything that causes one to go in a direction.
Even today, in the Anarchist movement, the papers and questions continuously fly: “Is there a place for leaders?” “Should we be against leaders?” “Do leaders matter at all?” Praise goes to MikhailBakunin? and EmmaGoldman?, and some contemporaries, who have in fact (do in fact) lead. But the question is always there, and if you’re talking about anyone who you know, the magic sort of fades, and people seem to ask themselves, “Is this person trying to use me?”
So, in summary: “Anarchist Communities are characterized by arguments, debates, continuous reasoning & counter-reasoning, meetings, frustration, and leaderlessness.”
In fact: Anti-leadership.
We do not get Freedom (outside personal freedoms,) Joy, Happiness, Eudaimonia, Full Expression.
CharacteristicsOfSpiritualCommunity
Now, let’s consider something radically different: “Spiritual” Community.
The first time I had ever heard the phrase, “Spiritual Community,” I thought, “Oh, that means a community like any other, and they are just into spiritual ideas.” Why would anyone care for such a community, unless they were already spiritual, by some specific idea of spirituality?
I’m basically not into dogmatism, so I basically wrote off the whole concept. It seems like something of a freak or aberration, perhaps more fairly a kink, mostly harmless.
This was before I participated in the EvolutionarySalons, however. (And before the StoryfieldConference.) I had not yet realized that Anarchism is a state of thinking, rather than just an open set of questions (occupying no mental space.) Since the world unfolds from our state of thought, the “idle questions” of Anarchism actually have immediate consequence for the societies that hold them…
My model for Anarchist communities is TwinOaks, and my model for Spiritual Community is the FederationOfDamanhur. (Each of these is exemplary of their respective schools.)
At the Federation of Damanhur, people live in Freedom, in Joy, in Happiness, in Eudaimonia, and in Full Expression.
However, while they are in some ways Democratic, (and support Democracy as a global government form, I believe,) and do in fact Reason with one another, and living at the commune is Voluntary, these are not (I do not believe) the defining SeedIdeas of the community.
Rather, instead, their community is founded in Spiritual Principles.
Even their Constitution, I understand, is a Spiritual expression.
Spiritual life is the rock and substance of their whole existence, and everything is measured by its spiritual impact.
They are ecologically sound (stellar, even.) They have a healthy economy. They are almost totally self-sufficient. They are enormously happy. They have a great many freedoms that we do not.
They have leaders, and even find something holy in the very idea of leadership, of bringing to fruition the creative element within the self.
I’m not going to go further into my praise of the FederationOfDamanhur here; That discussion is best done elsewhere. For the time being, let me just say: PhilPatton & I (& perhaps MattisManzel & perhaps my daughter SakuraKimbroJuliao?) are planning to visit Damanhur later this year, and I have few doubts that it will surpass my present imagination. I encourage reading their pages with an eye not to the question “Is this Literal Truth?” (Of which I hope to write more about some other day,) but with an eye to “Are these people happy? Is this social form fun? Are these people doing good for the environment, for the spirit, for their neighbors?” (And so on.) …And as well: “How does this even work at all?”
So, what’s going on here?
Why does Anarchism, rooted in Democracy, Reason, and Voluntary Action, flop? Why does “Spiritual Community,” which sounds like a community dedicated to a particular bizarre hobby, succeed marvelously?
…
What are we missing, in our LineOfThinking, such that we come to wrong expectations?
…
I haven’t ordered my thoughts on the subject, but let me list a few things right away.
I’d also like to talk about ReasonGoodAndEvil. (and also: IndigenousCulture?.)
Fundamentally, I believe that our concept of Joy is fundamentally broken, and that our concept of “What Life is All About” is fundamentally broken.
We are “stuck in our heads,” so to speak, and have forgotten about our hearts. (cf: GlobalHeart?.)
We have held such a close eye to maintaining the calculations (reasoning) of fairness and equality, that we have lost a sense of the heart, and if we do that, we lose the “What Life Is About” thing, and with it, “Joy” and “Creativity” go down the tubes.
When we talk about “alienation” in Anarchist communities, we’re talking about a real thing. But we didn’t really question whether we were alienating ourselves from our hearts, when we were planning everything out with reason.
I think a big part of the reason this happened, was because we were anti-Church. The concept of the Church has, for so long, been a force of oppression, that, with the Enlightenment, Science, and the casting off the The Church, we also threw out anything that even looked like a church, including spirituality, and “airy fairy” notions of the heart and the spirit.
Let me tell a little anecdote, too, for the sake of semi-relevant illustration, that comes from a video game (cf: MovieInterpretation, search for “video game”) I’ve been playing, called FireEmblem? (Radiant Dawn.)
In the FireEmblem? series, you have elaborate PaperScissorsRock? battles. (This is fairly common in both games and evolution.)
Or maybe I have it backwards. The detail here isn’t so important; Just as long as you see the “paper-scissors-rock” idea.
Similarly, in magic, there is a system:
And again, maybe I have it backwards. But more than just the “paper-scissors-rock” idea, see that this, their magic system, is based in nature, the natural order. Never-mind for the moment that it’s magical.
The system of “Lightening, Wind, and Fire,” is collectively called Reason. Think of Aristotle reasoning about the natural world, and there you have it: “Reason.”
It turns out that there’s also “Good” magic, and “Evil” magic.
So we have five types of magic– we have “Good”, “Evil,” and then the 3 types of “Reason” (Lightening, Wind, and Fire.)
There is a super-trinity (hang on now, I’m leading to something! We’re almost there, …) that goes like so:
… Ah-hah!
Do you see it?
…
I don’t know if it’s obvious to you, or if it means the same thing to you, but here’s what I immediately saw here; It hit me on the forehead, so powerfully strong.
“Good is strong against Evil.” Every 5 year old kid knows this.
But what of “Reason is strong against Good?”
Ah-hah! Yes, there’s the rub, isn’t it?
Anything that dare have the hubris to call itself “Good” is quickly dissipated, made short work of, by the powers of Reason and Questioning.
It’s very, very, very easy to say, “Yes, but is that actually True?” And, “What about these edge cases over here?” And: “Yes, it’s nice, but is it right for everybody?”
…and so on, and so forth.
And you will find very good reasons to dissipate just about any idea of the “good,” if you want to. Every statement can easily be taken apart.
Recall that all culture (social level,) all “mental substance” (individual level,) is fundamentally ThinkingGoo; Which is to say that it’s loosely organized, jumbled, fundamentally illogical (with the illusion of appearing logical,) and so on. In short, anything that calls itself “good” is like a feast, a ton of nicely arranged wood and kindle ready for a bonfire, before the discriminating forces of Reason.
This is how PostModern thought wrecks havoc over culture. All culture, pretty much. Without immunity, anywhere.
Post-Modernism is the cultural manifestation of the Force of Reason. Question anything and everything, emphasizing the de(con)structive side of ThePowerOfQuestions, rather than the constructive.
The only way “out” is through: By taking post-modernism head on, and recognizing its fundamental nature and truths, and then building on them. I don’t see it as a “bad” force; In many ways, it’s very positive.
Perhaps the spiritual curriculum of the 21st century will include “passage through post-modernism.” I know that the NeverEndingStory tackles a number of these thoughts head on, as well. Regardless.
The end of the “Reason, Good, and Evil,” triangle, is that:
Which is intuitively obvious. But if it’s just intuitively obvious to me alone, or if you’d just like the satisfaction of knowing that we’re on the same page about this:
Evil is very good at making use of reason to question the good, at putting the forces of reason and rationality to it’s own, selfish aims.
Reason will follow any master. If you want something, your brain will just light up, and start chugging away at it. Not to say that wants are bad (they’re not.) But somehow, Evil knows just what to do with it.
My friend BlackHat again, who votes Republican, always liked to cite, “There’s the Evil party, and there’s the Stupid party. I’m a proud member of the Evil party.” Well, I proudly believe in the Intellect and the Life of the Mind as well, but I will never celebrate evil.
Some readers may be fretting right now; They may be saying, “I dunno, Lion, … All this talk of Good & Evil, … Isn’t that how The Church has always sought to control people?” To which I have to say, “Give me a break. Please don’t use examples of evil to dismiss the concept of evil.” The question of “What is Evil?” and “What is Good?” are fair questions (of course; are there no questions that are not fair?) though there is also the caution that to ask “What is Evil?” draws one to evil, in itself. ThePowerOfQuestions is un-evadable. (Perhaps better to ask, “What is Good?”, and with a constructive eye, rather than a destructive eye.)
Regardless, if you can see the basic picture, that’s all that is necessary.
So, what the hell to do with all of this?!
We can’t very well just pick up our Enlightenment bags, head on to the local church, and make a-mens.
How can we get from here, to there? How can we apply these concepts?
…
Honestly, I don’t know “the” answer to this question. I personally believe that this sort of question is so fundamental to the cutting edge of the ZeitGeist, that it can only be answered by the passage of time.
However, I can tell you about what I am doing. Perhaps that’s indicative of a solution; Perhaps someone will see where I’m going, and know something else, that will give them a clearer concept of the answer; Whatever.
Personally, I’ve enrolled my family in the local Shinto Shrine, the TsubakiJinja. No, I don’t think everyone will, or even should, do just this. The spiritual is not just communal, it’s also personal, after all. What communicates to one person or group, won’t communicate with all people or groups. But this is working beautifully for us. Sakura, in particular, deeply loves her shrine. She consistently and regularly asks me, “Dad? Are we going back to the shrine this weekend? Can we go back? I want to see the Kami again.”
Speaking personally, I have seen a beautiful flowering with respect to the shrine, and I forsee a long future of growth, though I also forsee that something will change, because I am directing myself with the Kami of questions and the Zeitgeist. For now, I take instruction from the Kami. I am certain I will carry them forwards with me, because I have carried Christian concepts, ECKANKAR concepts, SuratShabdaYoga? concepts, even (especially?) Meg from “A Wrinkle In Time” with me. I do not forge relationships lightly, and those that are serious they stick with me for a very long time. I am presently at the very beginning of forging relationships at the local Jinja.
It was surprising to me (though I suppose it shouldn’t have) to see the artwork of EvolutionarySpirituality – galaxies and nebula, on the walls at the local shrine. When I read KamiNoMichi, I am impressed by the focus on Universalizing Shinto. Very interesting, to read of the Kami of the Big Bang, in the children’s book, up-stairs at the shrine. (More, some other time perhaps, on JinjaShinto?.)
The guiding star is not that society will all join one giant religion. Rather, one of the stars in the sky is that there will be a massive plurality of voluntary spiritual communities, all different, each unique, wherein people participate with dedication, conviction, and purpose, celebrating joys and sorrows, flourishing, creating, embodying the myriad virtues of the VirtueEthics? in different ways, with free transport and travel between them. Whereas today we shop for brands of bread and relationships with individuals, in the future, people may shop for a spiritual community. But a spiritual community is a deep commitment, far more profound than the selection of socks.
An open question for me is time.
One very common problem of the Anarchist communities, is attrition and turn-over. TwinOaks is crippled by the frequency with which college-aged people come, go “oh my God this is so totally not the way forward for society,” and then leave.
Part of the spark of hope I see with Damanhur, is that attrition is very much not a problem. People choose to stay. They have 1,100 people (if I remember right,) and there is a long wait list to join.
I will have an open eye out for the eldery when I visit Damanhur; One of the problems with pagan (and anime) communities is that they appear to be centered on youth and the young. While this can be very attractive, it does not age well; Are there old people at Damanhur? 2 There’s no reason it has to be this way – paganism is fundamentally rooted in indigenous cultures, which very much take care of their old.
My mind is starting to wander, this paper is coming to a close.
I think my basic thought is:
I hope to refine this article in the future.
Footnotes:
1. The only form of revolution I am interested in here, is a voluntary revolution. Consider the adoption of computers, for example: It is a very real revolution. So was the 1960’s counter-culture, as another example. In the United States, I strongly believe, we don’t have to kill the old system, in order to change the way we live. People can just lose interest in old methods and ways, and adopt new ones.
2. see also: Aging in Community, re: Twin Oaks
