The Discoveries

Intimations of Evolution

Although 'openness and honesty' has been discussed for its own sake as it were, it is really only part of a far broader picture, in which mind and psyche become predominant. That broader picture encompasses the 'state of the world', and our concerns about that state.

It can be argued that the world is in its present state because we, the human race, are 'screwed up'. Somewhere along the way, we seem to have lost our direction.
If we are to fundamentally improve the state of the world, instead of just 'papering over the cracks', we cannot do so by further legislation, or by political or economic reforms, but only by addressing the real cause of the problem.
And that problem, largely, is the way each of us are 'in ourselves' (i.e., our own inner states of being).

The first step must be to acknowledge this surely self-evident truth; and then for us each to accept responsibility for ourselves, and responsibility for changing ourselves.
It's far too easy to lay all the blame at the door of some minority group, be it politicians, the moneymen, or whomever. Far too comfortable to blame 'society', conveniently forgetting that we, as individuals, are parts of that society. Too comfortable because, in so doing, we are effectively negating the idea that, as individuals, we need do anything at all, or make any effort whatsoever.
When we look at 'society', what we are really seeing is a reflection, scaled up, of what individuals are like inside. When we describe the shortcomings of 'society', what we are really describing are the shortcomings of ourselves, as individuals.
If we acknowledge this, we must also acknowledge that we are able to do something about those shortcomings, as individuals.

Although many may agree intellectually with this it is obvious that for most it is not yet a compelling conviction. For we still tend to talk in terms of 'me and them', condemning many facets of contemporary living without perceiving that this attitude (of divorcing oneself from the problem, thereby perceiving no fault within oneself, thus removing the need to address the task of changing oneself) is in fact symptomatic of the entire problem.
And it is this attitude that is largely the reason why, despite all legislation, reforms, etc., things don't essentially change, or if they do, then a host of unforeseen and undesirable side effects result. We fail to make the connection that what we are seeking to legislate against is actually a flaw within ourselves!

We require laws because some people behave in ways that are destructive of harmony within the community (notwithstanding the argument that laws seek to protect the interests of a privileged minority).
Instead of creating laws that try to compel such people to behave in 'acceptable' ways, shouldn't we really be tackling the problem of why they don't behave in an 'acceptable' way? If that could be successfully addressed, there would be no need for laws.
For the reality is, all forms of 'criminal' and 'antisocial' behaviour are only manifestations of an inner state of being.

Moreover, the encouragement of personal responsibility actually diminishes with increasing legislation!

In Fellowship discussions one reason given for the present 'state of the world' was that the world is over-populated, and that many of the problems we experience are an effect of the increased stresses and tensions resulting from the pressure of too many people living in too close proximity. On reflection one can do nothing other than agree. But such a realisation introduces an entirely different dimension.

Whereas an obvious 'solution' might be to substantially reduce the size of the population, it can be approached from another direction (which enables us, fortunately, to put aside all echoes of genocide, euthanasia, or mass sterilisation!).
It can be persuasively argued that, given a large population with no anticipated reduction (short of holocaust or epidemic) it becomes imperative to examine how we interact with one another. It is even more imperative to learn how to improve such interactions.
That improvement can only be achieved by modifying our behaviour toward others, which, in turn, will only be achieved if we actually want it to be.

Much of our inner state of being is geared to survival at a very primitive level, where each has to fend for themselves, and immediate family. The tribal or national consciousness, which we also embody, is little more than an extension of the primitive, although the lessons to be learned therefrom should have paved the way for the next development.
But it seems that we have not yet integrated within our consciousness our becoming a global community. Nor have we recognised that the needs that we once had should be, largely, redundant.
However, such integration will only occur, for us, if we learn how to live as a global community, where needs and potentials for achievement are fundamentally different, evolved.
For us to be a part of the emerging global community we have to recognise that the 'rules of the game' are different; those of us adhering to the 'old rules' will ultimately disappear, as a curious and extinct species - natural selection almost. In other words, we have to grow up (in which context, 'growing up' does not necessarily mean losing our innocence, but accepting our responsibilities)!
The fact that the 'new rules' are based not on dominance but on co-operation imparts a wholly new significance and immediacy to the notion that 'the meek shall inherit the earth'!

A number of factors have been identified that may contribute to the present state of the human psyche, either alongside of or as a product of the stresses and tensions brought to the surface by over-population. But the foremost is the one feature that all 'criminal' and 'antisocial' acts seem to have in common, the lowest common denominator as it were: a lack of consideration for others. This, if nothing else, provides a clue to what is truly wrong with us.
So perhaps the only way forward from the mess we find ourselves in would be to start with the principle of treating others as we, ourselves, want to be treated (i.e., the most practical application of consideration for others). This is something that the individual can do, straight away.

However, at this point in the evolution of humanity, it appears that such consideration is not instinctive, but has to be learned; it is a function of growing up.
(A baby, when new born, is completely egocentric: rightly so, for it needs to be to survive. Yet, this total dependency on others, this unthinking and uncompromising demanding of others, will, as the child grows, be replaced by awareness of those others. Later still develops awareness of the needs of those others, which is at first experienced as requirements, or expectations, of the child. In the diminishing immediacy of its struggle for survival, the child will discover it can satisfy those needs (or some of those needs) of others. The process of being fed and nurtured becomes reciprocal, and, in this reciprocity, the child learns that such interactions are mutually beneficial, and open the way to greater and more fulfilling experiences of Life. The entire process is one of growing, unfolding, evolving. It is another dimension of 'growing true and straight'.)

Parallel to the development of awareness of and consideration for others should be the coming into conscious experience the love for others.
Lack of consideration seems to cause the capacity to love, and the ability to receive love, to atrophy, or perhaps to remain undeveloped; whether they atrophy, or remain undeveloped, the effect is the same - an absence of love.

(Let us be precise. Love that is conditional, or demanding of the object loved, is not love in the sense in which the word is here used. One must be sceptical of a professed love that requires something from, or of, the object of that love, for it seems that such an emotion, though perhaps it is allied to the love to which we refer, must be tainted by less wholesome urges. That such conditional love is very often reciprocated by its passive, yet equally unwholesome, counterpart is a curiosity of the human condition. Sadly, it seems that such corrupted forms are all that many people experience in their entire lives, which is really a measure of just how much growing we have still to do. Conversely, an absence of love seems to impair the exercise of consideration for others. However, there is one significant difference; consideration for others can be cultivated and practised by exercising one's will, whereas the extent of the will's command over love seems to be confined to the creating of circumstances where love may flourish - or be stifled!).

Another way of saying that 'an absence of love impairs consideration for others' is to say that 'A characteristic of the absence of love is the excessive manifestation of egocentric behaviour'.

The ego, blamed for many ills, is in fact an essential part of our being; not least, it is a vehicle for the survival instinct. All well and good, in its proper place, but when survival is not threatened, and does not need to be secured, an overactive ego can be inappropriate.
The balancing of ego may be achieved through love for others, to the extent that their survival, well being, and interests, become at least as important as one's own. Nor should this be a contrived posture, but a spontaneous concern welling up from deep within one's own being. Ego-centred activity seems to diminish wherever such concern exists, as the requirement for ego-centred activity similarly diminishes wherever such concern is reciprocated. But the ability to experience this spontaneous 'welling up' has to be acquired, it has to be cultivated, for it is only the potential that already exists within us.
One technique for cultivating it is to practise genuine consideration for others - to train the mind out of the habit of ego-centred activity.

Intrinsic to the notion of consideration, though, is the requirement for 'openness and honesty'.
Unless the two things go hand-in-hand, nothing can be achieved other than a token, or superficial, effort; just paying lip service to the ideal. In the absence of 'openness and honesty', the only form of 'consideration for others' which seems to occur is that where there is little cost to the practitioner (where cost is measured in terms of examining and modifying one's own behaviour).
Such is equivalent to the empty act of 'charity'; the millionaire giving a pound to a starving child, not to help the child, but to assuage his own conscience, or for purposes of image. Far better, surely, the penny from the poverty-stricken tramp! (Better not to get carried away by the specious argument that a pound is of more use than a penny to the starving child. What we are considering here is not the state of the donee, but that of the donor!)
Thus, the state of closedness, and consequent dishonesty, persists, which inevitably makes efforts in all other areas, at best, inconsistent. This failure at a fundamental level can be attributed, perhaps, to not taking responsibility for oneself in terms of living in the right way.

We have to change from the dog eat dog mentality, every man for himself, do unto others before they do unto you, into a mentality that is more genuinely considering of others, if ever we are to become part of a global community, and beyond.
In fact, the very forces inherent in evolution will compel us to, so it is inevitable, unless we destroy ourselves prematurely.

Such an approach makes so much sense, and seems eminently right, so why is it that only a minority appear to see it, and even less feel its rightness strongly enough to try to bring it about?
There are of course those, perhaps the majority, whose consciousness has not yet reached a stage of evolution where such matters are of concern; they are little different from animals. Nor is anything derogatory meant by that remark; its used to suggest a state of being where behaviour is still in the realm, largely, of instinctive response. Consequently, nothing more can be expected of them.
But, as regards the others, perhaps it is because fear encroaches that this plea for common sense sometimes seems like a voice crying in the wilderness. Fear of 'others taking advantage', maybe. Fear of becoming a victim, maybe. Fear of being different, maybe. Fear of loss of material things, the possession of which gives us some illusory sense of security.
And fear engenders closedness and dishonesty.

Thus, perhaps it is fear that prevents us from making the effort, from taking responsibility; from standing up and being counted; from doing something. If not fear, then sheer laziness, maybe: 'I can't be bothered; or at least, not today'. Yet lethargy, lack of effort, is the antithesis of 'growing true and straight'; it is the antithesis of Life, and casts us back to the animal state.

We have here the Fool of the Tarot. As a race, we are on the threshold of becoming a new species almost. We are evolving into something else. But this time, the evolution is one of consciousness, rather than the physical body - perhaps it has always been that of consciousness, the development of the physical structure occurring merely to provide an increasingly superior vehicle for that consciousness. All the indications point to this.

Being on the threshold, being on the edge of the cliff, we're afraid to make the leap. We seek assurance in advance; we try to divine what is beyond the edge; we worry about all possibilities, and all permutations of possibilities.
This hesitancy, this theorising and speculating, does nothing but hold us back. It is one more manifestation of our fear. For we cannot know until we do it! So leap we must, else we will for ever be locked into this mode of being, with no way forward, and only the animal state to return to.
So, like the Fool, regardless of all 'common sense' admonitions to the contrary, uttered by the dog at our heels, who has only the vision of a dog, we must tie all our valuables in a cloth, affix it to our staff and, discarding all else, LEAP! Today! Now!

Back to The Discoveries Index

Top of Page