The Great Reconstruction

Part Seven: Converting candidates for the hereafter into students of the world

The aim of this series is to spark the deconstruction of the beliefs, mindsets, narratives and ideologies that prevent individual, societal and planetary flourishing, and reconstruct a path forward that empowers a wholesale remaking of the world.

Not a small thing, I know. It’s a compossible tale ripe in the making, with all the emergent properties in place. In case “compossible” is an unfamiliar word, it’s the capacity for things to be together, to co-exist, and to foster a sense of interconnectedness and possibility in a way that promotes well-being and flourishing.

If you haven’t been able to read and absorb the previous installments of this series, I encourage you to do so. These articles will eventually become an eBook, and you are getting the first crack at it now, piece by piece. The objective is not to cram our heads with more content and ideas, but to take under serious consideration the steps each of us must take in light of the themes discussed.

Here’s the ground we have covered so far, with a corresponding question for further reflection :

Part One: Everything is not okay... but life is the greatest good

Examining how religion, spirituality and philosophy can promote denial, avoidance and escapism from the givens of human existence.

To what extent does your current religious, spiritual or philosophical beliefs or outlook foster denial, avoidance or bypassing of the discomforting facts of human existence?

Part Two: What if the meaning of life is... life?

Taking under consideration that life’s meaning is inherent to itself, and doesn’t necessitate supernatural deities or metaphysical realms to find it.

To what extent does your valuing of life and the lived human experience require a higher or ultimate reality that can only be found outside of or beyond it?

Part Three: Is the world worth saving?

Debunking the common religious narrative that the world is a problem that can’t be solved and the ultimate solution or alternative is outside it.

To what extent is your commitment to building the best possible world tempered now tempered by the hope or faith that the ideal world or reality is awaiting in another dimension or afterlife?

Part Four: In Search of Existential Health in a Defective World

A no-nonsense discussion of cultivating existential or philosophical health in the real world.

To what extent have you cultivated a philosophy of life that fosters coherence between your thinking, speaking, and acting, and is your own perspective, framework, or worldview through which you process life in a meaningful and compossible way?

Part Five: Put Down Your Holy Grail and ToE and Grab a Shovel

The need to shift from finding grandiose otherworldly theories to explain everything, and taking up the hard work of reconstituting the world from the ground up.

To what extent have you become beholden to fantastical ideas and theories about the evolution and transformation of the world, rather than taking up the hard work of a different way of being in the trenches of real life?

Part Six: Is the metasolution for the metacrisis... inner anarchy?

Understanding the necessity of dethroning toxic beliefs, mindsets, narratives and ideologies governing our lives from within, divesting ourselves from systems and structures based upon them, and changing the rules of the game to empower flourishing.

To what extent have you examined and liberated yourself from the governing software indoctrinated into your head by societal institutions, and forging a different way of being in the world that no longer plays those games?

Being Responsible for Our beliefs

Religion is perhaps the greatest dispensary of beliefs on earth, definitively answering all of life’s ultimate questions. One’s personal and cultural identity, existential security, social network, and blueprint for living is tied to one’s religion.

In the forthcoming discussion of religion, I offer the caveat that “religion” is not a monolithic enterprise. There are several world religions. Even within the Christian religion, there are over 45,000 different Christian denominations worldwide. For some people, “religion” has been meaningful and nourishing, for others it has been toxic and traumatic.

What I mean by “religion” is not any particular religious tradition but the underlying premise that humankind is separated from God, and only through defined beliefs, behavior and practices can one achieve and maintain good standing with God. These are typically organized into a system of gatherings, programs, classes, activities, budgets and buildings. Religious professionals are hired to teach doctrine, shepherd parishioners, and manage the enterprise.

Someone recently asked me if I thought religion overall does more harm than good. If you skim off the top 10% of those for whom religion inspires love, compassion, justice and virtue, and skim off the bottom 10% of those who use religion to foster hatred, prejudice, animosity and injustice, you are left with the middle 80% of people practicing religion. For those 80%, does religion do more harm than good?

There are a few features associated with almost all religion that can be problematic. I’ll mention a few. Before I do, I want to underscore that it’s not my aim to talk you out of your current beliefs or prod you into new or different ones. What I’m after is for all of us to take responsibility for the beliefs that govern our lives.

We typically think of a religion as a fixed belief-system that one either accepts or rejects. Even outside religion, we are often confronted with the choice to adopt or decline a ready-made value system. In my view, this is not a responsible way of approaching one’s beliefs.

For example, if you are an Evangelical Christian you are bound to believe X, Y and Z. But while “X” might hold value, what if “Y” is absurd and “Z” is harmful? The could be said of all world’s religions, West and East. Even atheism can be irresponsible to the extent that it makes science a religion, writes-off all spiritual or religious experience, or seeks to enforce it’s unbelief on the whole of society.

It’s not good enough to simply claim “I am a Christian… Buddhist… Atheist… Hegelian…” as if these systems of thought hold ultimate authority over our lives. The reality is that you are the sole and ultimate authority over your life, beliefs and values. You bear full responsibility for what you believe and the effects and consequences of those beliefs.

I’m saying this quite strongly to break the spell. Of course I realize that all of us are initially conditioned into our beliefs through a matrix of societal institutions, and many of us have been victims of unrelenting indoctrination. But I’m assuming if you are reading this right now that you are capable of independent, critical and free thinking.

In my view, here are some questionable reasons for holding a religious, spiritual or philosophical belief:

• The belief is part of a tradition

• One’s religion requires the belief

• You and others have always held the belief

• One’s teacher or guru imparted the belief

• The belief is taken from a sacred book

• One’s denial of the belief will bring rejection

• Wish-fulfillment are the grounds for the belief

• One’s reputation rests upon consent to the belief

Taking responsibility for one’s beliefs involves at least these four components:

1. Deeply examining and deliberatively deconstructing the content and consequences of one’s current beliefs thorough rigorous self-reflection, critical thinking, and moral conscience.

2. Exercising the intellectual courage to think freely and independently for oneself without the constraint of teacher, tradition, friends, family, community or the status quo.

3. Cultivating a concise, coherent, and personalized framework of beliefs, values, and principles that guides our understanding of the world, our approach to life, and our specific actions.

4. Being mindful of the interdependent web of all existence and the power of human solidarity, and evaluating one’s beliefs based upon their merit in aiding individual, societal and planetary flourishing.

With respect to religious thinking, I’d like to take a few fundamental beliefs under brief review:

1. God as the “Big Other”

It’s near impossible to evoke the word “God” without implying a “Big Other”. It’s most prominent in theism, which posits a literal supernatural deity that is separate from humankind and the universe. Pantheism identifies “God” with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of “God”. Panentheism is a synthesis of the two - “God” is intertwined in/with the world but also extends beyond it. A less religious approach might drop the word “God” entirely and speak of a “higher power” or “source”. Either way, all of these gesture toward a distinct something that is different or beyond what we naturally are as Homo sapiens.

A possible shift in the “God” conversation is to think of “God” as a verb rather than a noun. In other words, “God” is not a thing but a process or dynamic - the process of evolution, becoming, etc. A criticism of this idea is that if one strips the God-concept of theism and essentially defines “God” inclusively as everything that happens, what additionally does the idea of “God” really add to the equation. It’s a similar problem if one says, “God is love”, which would mean love is God… which means that “God” doesn’t mean anything more than what we understand to be the best of “love”.

For me personally, it seems there can’t be much harm in thinking of “God” as the ground of all being, process of evolution and becoming, or love. It’s definitely an improvement from “God” as a tyrant in the sky. I have written on the subject of God in previous articles:

• The “God” of Philosophy

• The Either/Or Problem with God

• The Post-Religion "God" Dilemma

It should also be noted that in last week’s article, Is the metasolution for the metacrisis... inner anarchy?, I discuss an interpretation of Christianity that posits that the incarnation and crucifixion of Jesus was meant to be understood as vanquishing the myth of God as the “Big Other”, and the resurrection as symbolizing the transfer of ultimate power and authority from a sky-God to the people.

Almost by definition, if you are a religious person you hold some belief in “God”. I’m not trying to convince you one way or another with respect to your beliefs. My objective is to encourage you to examine exactly what explicitly or subtly is woven into your idea of “God”. Here are a few questions to consider in your investigation:

• If you were to write a one-sentence personal definition of “God” as you understand “God”, what would it be?

• To what degree is “God” something different or separate from what you are?

• According to your view, what specifically makes “God” different, better, beyond or higher than you, quantitatively or qualitatively? In other words, what qualities or attributes do you ascribe to “God” that you would not ascribe to yourself?

• According to your view, what would be the effects or consequences if the “God” you believe in did not exist or ceased to exist?

• If your belief is that you are “one with God”, what is the “you”-part and what is the “God”-part?

• In your view, what aspects of the lived human experience would require something imparted by “God” that you wouldn’t naturally have yourself?

I mentioned that common features of religious thinking can be “problematic”? The potential downside of “God” as “Big Other” could be a misplaced dependency on an external referent or source as the pivotal player in affairs of the highest importance. It could create a disempowerment and lack of responsibility/accountability with respect to our role or relative significance in the condition of our lives and world.

Who is the prime mover in your life - God or you? Who is the prime mover in the world - God or us? You can play around with the answer by the addition of a variety of prepositions. Who is the prime mover - “God in me”, “God through me”, “God as me.” But in all these cases, the language still identifies a distinct “God” and a “you”, which leaves the question of who does what part and who is ultimately responsible. Does the buck stop with “God” or us?

Another problem that occupies this space is how the question of “God” is often framed as something to be “right” or “wrong” about. It is wise to remember that anything we claim to know about God, even the notion that there is a God, is a projection of our psyche. In other words, even if you assume there is a “God” independent of our mind, this “God” can only be understood through the limitations of our mind and human experience.

It’s a peculiar feature that religion often claims that God is incomprehensible and unfathomable, and yet defines God in great detail and claims definitively to be “right”.

You might be someone who finds belief in “God” meaningful but you are not prone toward the traditional religious view. One option is rather than taking the word “God” to indicate a separate and distinct deity or entity, perhaps the word “God” could be a gesture toward:

• what we most instinctually and universally know is good such as love, compassion, justice and integrity

• the power to transcend our current reality to build the best of all possible worlds

• the capacity to be instruments of caring, healing, restoration, solidarity and nourishing with one another

• the actualization of our highest possibilities and potentialities, individually and collectively

Ludwig Feuerbach, in Lectures on the Essence of Religion, wrote:

“My only wish is to transform friends of God into friends of man, believers into thinkers, devotees of prayer into devotees of work, candidates for the hereafter into students of the world, Christians who, by their own procession and admission, are ‘half animal, half angel’ into persons, into whole persons.”

The point here is that you take responsibility for whatever beliefs you hold about “God”, as well as the effects and consequences of those beliefs.

2. The Afterlife Narrative

It’s a common religious idea that the best possible reality is beyond this world and lifetime. The afterlife narrative offers a solution to the discomforting facts of human mortality (reality of death) and human insatiability (unhappiness and suffering). Perhaps the idea of “Heaven” is the most obvious narrative of this sort, which I discuss at length in this article, as well as my article, Is Eternal Life Real? In Buddhism, this superior realm is often referred to as nirvana, while the idea of reincarnation opens the possibility for many lifetimes. The religious afterlife narrative typically refutes the “one and done”, “this is all there is” or “food for worms” ideas of human life and death.

Some useful questions to ask yourself about your afterlife views might be:

• What specifically does your view of the afterlife offer you that is valuable or what fear does it resolve?

• To what degree does your belief in an afterlife mean that the best possible world cannot be found or realized in our current time and place?

• Does your view of the afterlife imply the inevitability of the world’s decline and demise?

• Does the long view of life extending eternally or through many lifetimes diminish your valuing of your current life, and passion to embrace life with no reserve, no retreat and no regrets?

• What are the obstacles, barriers and deterrents to your happiness and wellbeing in the world that your view of the afterlife would remove or solve?

Part of the value of these kinds of questions is better understanding not what you believe (your position or doctrine) but why (motivations and benefits) you believe it or want to believe it. In other words, why do you want Heaven to be true? What fears does it resolve? I discuss this at greater link in my article, Do you fear death? How to cultivate healthy death acceptance.

For those who find the idea of the “afterlife” meaningful but don’t subscribe to traditional religious thinking on the subject, one might think of the term “afterlife” as a gesture toward:

• the timeless and eternal nature of life itself

• the life we create and live as human beings “after” the gift of birth

• the qualities of deep freedom, peace, and transcendence that we touch and metabolize in peak and unitive experiences

• a primordial sense, tacit understanding or deep trust that life itself never ends and its fundamental algorithm is expressionary and evolutionary

3. The Human Condition

Another belief you often find in religion is the dilemma of being a human being. This is perhaps most definitively expressed in the traditional Christian doctrine of “original sin”. The basic idea is that human beings have a fundamental spiritual or psychic flaw that leaves us limited, lacking and prone to wickedness. I refute the Christian doctrine of “original sin” in this article. The Evangelical gospel revolves around this so-called sin problem that estranges human beings from God and dooms them to eternal conscious torment. In these articles I refute repentance theology and the doctrine of hell.

Eastern spirituality can sometimes imply that the prize we’re really after is a reality that lies beyond the temporality, impermanence and fragility of the human body-mind and the material world. Though I don’t have the time to excavate the deep wisdom and practical value of Buddhist philosophy in this article, with a slight misunderstanding of Buddhism here and there, a person might conclude that our body-mind and material world are not worthy of our devotion. I previously wrote articles on Eastern spirituality and Buddhist philosophy:

The Buddhist Cure for Human Suffering

The No-Self for Dummies

Hindu philosophy as a useful deconstruction framework

A few questions with respect to your valuation of human nature might be:

• What would be your one-sentence answer to the question, “What does it mean to be human?”

• If picking a side on whether our human nature is fundamentally “good” or “bad” is an example of false and incomplete binary thinking, what word would you use that better captures it?

• Rather than a self-concept built upon on our limitations and perceived shortcomings, what would it mean to value our natural capacities, skills and tools with greater respect and regard?

In my view, it’s not necessary to be born-again because we were born just fine the first time. We were born as human beings, with all it’s upside and downside. This is what we were meant to be - Homo possibilis. Being human means operating within an infinite field of potential and possibility for actualizing the fullness of what we are and can be.

I refute the notion that we are born with a condition that deserves separation from ultimate reality, and eternal punishment. Stop thinking there is something “wrong” or “bad” about you because you were born human, and stop judging yourself for the range of normal and universal human feelings and experiences. In my view, one of the greatest religious falsehoods is that human beings are born sinners and need to be saved from themselves in order to live whole and principled lives.

In my fourth book, Notes from (Over) the Edge I wrote:

“Each of us were born into the story of the False Self. The False Self is a separated self – separated from God, separated from love and peace, separated from worth and value. The False Self is a guilty, condemned. incurably broken, flawed, deficient, inadequate, lacking, not-good-enough… self.

None of this is true or real, except in our own head. Transformation is having a radical change of mind, perception and awareness of what you are. It’s forgiving yourself for having created and lived a False Self, and choosing to lay hold of the truth of what you are.

Religion offers what people think they need – a remedy, solution or salvation from the False Self. We are quite an inventive lot – we create the False Self, which is not real, and then we devise a cure to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.

Why would you seek to remedy something that is a figment of your imagination? By doing so, you are only giving it more credence. That’s why typical religious thinking doesn’t work. In all it’s effort to fight the False Self, it only empowers it further.

Spiritual growth is burying the illusion of the False Self and becoming who you really are and always have been. That’s the baptism we need – going down into the waters to relinquish the story of a self we never were, and rising up into the self we always have been.”

As human persons, we were born with the capacity to be instruments of goodness, love, virtue, compassion, courage, generosity, and kindness in the world, or people of malice, hate, judgment, indifference, greed, and wrongdoing.

We are responsible for our actions and their consequences. Our life experiences wound us in ways that contribute to the harmful things we do to others. We can take responsibility for our personal growth and wholeness by addressing our wounds and facing the root causes of our chronic unhappiness and disharmony. An aspect of taking responsibility for ourselves may include seeking professional help and support without shame.

We have the power and ability to take purposeful and deliberate action to live a meaningful and whole life. This involves taking into account both our light and our darkness. We are capable of cultivating a vital relationship with ourselves as the foundation of our life, including self-awareness, self-acceptance, self-compassion, self-care, and self-respect.

We will not pull-off being human flawlessly, but we can make a good-faith effort each day to live our life well. Even on the best days we will stumble and see ways we have fallen short, but we can offer acceptance, patience, and compassion to ourselves, knowing that self-love and not self-condemnation will aid our growth and wholeness.

We accept that all human beings are in the same boat and we can offer compassion and support to others in their challenges and struggles to be the best human being they can be.

Reconstructing Spirituality

Based upon my own life experience and spiritual direction work with others, there are several deficiencies in our spirituality that don’t serve us well. Here are a few:

Our spirituality is not big or deep enough to offer a meaningful place of hospitality for the totality of the lived human experience, including the shitstorms and the rough-and-tumble realities of real life.

Our spirituality is based upon a set of fundamentally flawed, unrealistic, and unobtainable premises, which sabotage any effort to know true peace, harmony, and happiness.

Our spirituality is too shallow or cosmetic, and we fear or avoid digging into the root causes of our personal suffering and disharmony.

Our spirituality fails to show us how to cultivate true self-acceptance, which is the cornerstone of peace, wholeness, happiness and well-being.

Our spirituality becomes a hobby, business, persona and memes, rather than a way of being in life.

Our spirituality becomes a heady, intelligentsia, trendy, modish, elitist competition.

Yes, we probably all do some of these along the way. The point is to cultivate a spirituality that is big and deep enough for the entirety of the lived human experience. I previously published an article on this subject, Why Spirituality Fails.

You don’t need to find a spiritual path. Your life is your spiritual path. The next moment is your teacher. Whatever arises next, this is your spiritual path. Your life and all it entails in each moment and how you participate in it, is your spiritual path. A life is either all spiritual or not spiritual at all.

What would mean for you to cultivate a more authentic, robust, meaningful, inclusive, empowering and courageous spirituality in your life? Here are a few items to consider as you cultivate a spirituality that is meaningful for you:

• investigating and exploring your deepest nature and true self

• cultivating an inner sanctum for experiences of serenity and peace

• staying connected to your inner life - your thoughts, feelings, hopes, fears, hurts

• opening yourself to the energy, pulse and soul-nourishing qualities in nature

• reprogramming negative and limiting beliefs about yourself

• experiencing peak moments of oneness with all of life

• giving yourself love, compassion, acceptance and grace

• detaching from the frenetic pace of life’s activities, demands, and expectations

• self-reflection and deeply processing life experiences and events

• centering yourself in your deepest truths, beliefs and values

• letting go of the thoughts, concerns, fears, attitudes and burdens that weigh you down

• deep listening and deep seeing into the meaning behind or within familiar sights and sounds

• experiencing a felt-relationship with the deepest meanings or powers governing life

• being present and finding to rest, calm and equanimity in the here and now

• investigating the root causes of your chronic unhappiness and disharmony

• adopting a posture of indiscriminate compassion and love for all human beings

• discovering what makes you come alive, brings you joy, centers you, and feel connected to yourself

In the context of this series, I am discussing these matters because apart from cultivating greater existential or philosophical health and a more real and robust spirituality, we lack the inner life to reconstruct society.

A few books that are useful toward that end are:

• Philosophical Health: A Practical Introduction by Luis de Miranda

• The Listening Society by Hanzi Freinacht

• The Religion of the Future by Roberto Unger

In Summary

• The aim of this series is to spark the deconstruction of the beliefs, mindsets, narratives and ideologies that prevent individual, societal and planetary flourishing, and reconstruct a path forward that empowers a wholesale remaking of the world.

• Each of us bears full responsibility for what we believe and the effects and consequences of those beliefs.

• It’s a peculiar feature that religion often claims that God is incomprehensible and unfathomable, and yet defines God in great detail and claims definitively to be “right”.

• Stop thinking there is something “wrong” or “bad” about you because you were born human, and stop judging yourself for the range of normal and universal human feelings and experiences.

• Your life is your spiritual path.

“We must ask ourselves: what should we demand of ourselves, given the imperfections of politics and the disappointments of history.”
- Roberto Mangabeira Unger