We come from one another

 

I like this piece.  I am thinking about it too  with heartmind.
”a person is a person through other persons”
namaste,
mimi

 

Kind of like the looking glass self  by Charles Horton Cooley (for those not familiar with his work) Yeah, I know, I used wikipedia.  It's late :)  That picture just upped my baby meter…btw, my family thinks adoption's a cool idea and they're researching this as I blog :-D
hugs and baby coos,
sprite

 

I'm with Descartes (to clarify, I'm with what I read in Descartes' words, not sure if the author of that above quote had ever read him, he sure doesn't seem to get it).  But that is not how most people I know think of themselves.  Most of the people I know think of such a thinking “self” as something bad, that being unique and individual is a horrible fate, worse than hell.  Most of the people I know have never had an original idea in their lives, they would much rather regurgitate someone else's thoughts.  Most of the people I know view their “social self” (what other people think of you) as more important than anything else.  They might say “what's inside is what counts” but I know very very few people who act as though they believe it.  To most people, conformity and unquestioning obedience are virtues, while standing alone and proud of who you are is a horrible horrible sin.

 

Hi friendstacy, thank you for pointing this out. I should clarify that I was referring to the quote 'Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu' (a person is a person through other persons).  Oops, I am still new at blogging and didn't realize people would not know what in Martha's blog I was responding to :) 

In my field of study (social sciences) from my perspective, deviance (and labeling something good/bad) is not inherent in any act, it is society that determines that and acts accordingly.  We are social, most people cannot survive without human contact (children and failure to thrive, stories of elderly living alone, pysch studies on the need for 12 hugs a day), and thus, because of this need, we act in socially acceptable ways to some degree.  Even when we stand alone, I believe we find others who stand alone and come to some consensus, and we come together.  There are those who choose to become hermits.

I also believe that what's inside counts, I realize the power of the group intermeshed with ones needs, and I look at the consistency of one's actions, is what they are saying jive with what they are doing? I am fascinated by people and group behavior (I guess that's why I'm a pyscho-sociologist :))

(p.s. Stacy, you may know this stuff-Martha, I know you do-and I'm putting it out there for those who may be unfamiliar.)

For any society to function and flow, some conformity and obedience is necessary (structural functional paradigm).  Yet, with too much conformity and obedience, society would stagnate, so we also need some chaos (conflict pardigm).  We swing like a pendulum from one to the other trying to find a balance between the needs of the group and the needs of one.  Studies show people tend not to like change, and hence, focus on the person/s standing alone as the cause of the problem, make them the scapegoat.  I believe it takes someone with a strong belief in self to stand in defiance of the group pressure to conform.  And I believe one voice, one person can make a difference.  Now, whether that difference is good or bad depends :)

As for Descartes, that's a whole other blog and, Martha, I apologize for taking so much space on yours, not enough coffee yet (or, hmmm, too much) :-D

Hugs and peaches,
Sprite

 

cool, Sprite.  I was replying directly to the quote, though, not your comment.  :-)
a self-governing populace, IMO, would not be chaos.  take a good look at my ancestors.  it wasn't until the notion of obedience and conformity was brought to them by the Christian Europeans, that their problems began.

 

Hi friendstacy, hee hee, spirit spoke anyway (even though your response had nothing to do with me:) I do have to take a little more time in how I respond to my and others posts as, in the written word without actually seeing the person, i am never quite certain if I am conveying what I am thinking.

I would love to hear more about your thoughts on non-chaotic self-governance where a society still continues to evolve.  I would like to think this is possible for self and for groups, but, sigh, I still wrestle with that concept.

 

I would like to hear more about UBunthu & uMunthu as a concept and how the people practise this, how they arrange themselves,  how their society  is using this concept.

There are many ways for communities to arrange themselves.  For instance, In Bhutan, the people love the King.  He declared that  the most important thing was GNH - Gross National Happiness.  Attempts to “democratize” Bhutan are  not getting much support from the Bhutanese people.  They like things the way they are.  “Things as it is” -S. Suzuki

Martha, please tell me more.  Do you have further thoughts on UBunthu? Is it is something Western society should take a decent look at and perhaps consider.  Is there something similar being pracised in the West already?

peace,
mimi

 

I googled and finally found this which i think is a good explanation of uMunthu

http://blogs.uct.ac.za/blog/umunthu_psychology   (sorry, link challenged ;>(

“…uMunthu also means humaness.  Individuals who strive for and fully embrace the notion of uMunthu as their goal, are driven by a humanist concern for treating Others with fairness, which is crucual to personal well-being.

…encourages co-operation not competition, character takes priority to achievement, and embraces tolerance over condemnation….

Fabulous! 

 

OH!  That's something totally entirely different than what I thought the quote from Malcolm MacLachlan was talking about!!  Thanks Mimi!!  Makes all the difference in the world.  :-)
see, I wasn't disagreeing with the idea, just the way in which he was talking about it!

 

hey martha. It is true. I was thinking about my mother. She irritates me but heck she gave birth to me and I wouldn't be here without her. I better give her a call. love jen

 

interesting post, martha.  i concur with eckhardt tolle's view that descartes had it all wrong…the thinker represents the little artificial “me” in each of us, the self created ego, or how we usually think of ourselves.  i believe our spirit or essence more accurately represents our true identity, and in that respect we are all one.  so, therefore, rather than coming from each other, i believe we are each other! 

 

Paul, I really liked what you wrote.  Perhaps we are first ego driven, and accumulate knowledge and material stuff.  Maurice Sendak quote–”“There must be more to life than having everything.”   I think most people have some spiritual longing  - and they start on a spiritual path.


When one embarks on a spiritual path, there are many twists and turns, awakenings, teachers, fasle prophets, inspiration, ups and downs.  Sometimes, it is hard to suspend ego, intellectual thinking,  and reasoning to explain and understand spiritual matters because it comes from a different place - heartmind . 

We all have a spiritual essence - we just have to get in touch with it.  It lies within.  Ego might talk you out of it.  Intellect and ego  might gang up on spiritual essence.  But once you you do connect, allow,  and experience that spiritual essence, you know that we are One/The Oneness.  There is no separation.

I wouldn't overthink the words used to describe Umuntha, but rather go with the spirit of
The people who practise it described it.   I think it is great concept.

 

the way it works for me is through my belief that each of us shares a small piece of a divine spirit which is our soul, or essence.  it's this spirit that we all share that connects us to each other.  i believe that the mind and body are temporary incarnations of this divine spirit.  i try to come from my heart (spirit) rather than my mind as much as possible, trying to use the mind as a tool rather than my identity.  it's been my experience that materialism and egoistic pursuits are superficial and generally unsatisfying.  how long does the thrill of the new car, outfit or jewelry last?  i'll stick with the joy of being i realize by quieting my mind though mediation and remaining present in the moment.

 

namaste,
mimi

 

wow… I really want to reply, but I need to digest it for a while first.  I completely agree that we should look within to find the divinity that we are.  BUT… well, all I can say right now is that my perspective on this is TOTALLY different from Paul's.  I need to find the right words.  Interesting that I'm having two other conversations here at zaadz on this same topic.  Check out CG's blog.

 

Great discussion…sorry I missed this when it first was posted!

 

Martha…an absolutely wonderful conversation to introduce!!!!!!
Thank you!.

                    It seems quite certain that since humans are social entities (whether interacting with others in our presence or in our thought, we are being social), then we can only be defined with the inclusion of others. I heard an Alan Watts lecture that said that one could not accurately define “walking” to someone completely without the concept without defining what we walk up, how we move in relation to something, etc, etc,…

                    I find myself sometimes questioned with “how did you…” when some expression of myself does not seem to match what would be implied by my background, education, etc. My natural (internal, intuitive) reaction is “I am what you make me.”
                    Now, my first egoic response (to my own words) is to take offense because–to the ego–this would imply that I am simply some byproduct, not “my own person” (very objectionable to ego). However, I have long recognized that my own “natural/intuitive words” are introductions to learning that is to follow-higher consciousness speaking to waking consciousness.

                    I have been lazy in dealing with this “I am what you make me” lesson, but your article on uBunthu is going to force the issue a little further for me, Martha (Thanks!). “Not-thinking” on this has not developed much yet, so the ‘knowledge' of it is very initially intuitive and has not translated to the consciousness very well, so I am going to just try to ease into this and see where it goes. —I am sure my friends here in Zaadz, will help me with this…

  

               Ok… “a person is a person through others”/”I am what you make me” seems to me to take place in different levels, all tied to one another, mutable to the response to current experience:

1) environmental: I would act/think very differently in the fostering environment I participate in at this moment, than I would act/think if dropped into a war zone. In my more hostile environment, though I may maintain degrees of evidence of my current “center” for some period of time, the longer I an in an environment where that definition of focus is not immediately my concern (Maslow's pyramid) the more the “peaceful” identity will go into shadow. —after all (back to the holograph) all aspects exist, but the environment surfaces the most appropriate/compatible (as assessed by some level of our consciousness). Unable to escape such a transition otherwise, we are forced to either transform to an environmentally compatible (primary) identity, or die.

–therefore my current environment has a hand in “what I am”

2) psychological: we are defined by the input of others. The degree of our acceptance of these externally defined identity depends on input received at defenseless points in our life (parental input to young children, being the most critical).

If I am defined as a liar as a young child by someone whom I have no psychological defenses against (or at some place in defenselessness), I will accept this description as self-definition and will experience self-fulfilling prophesy.

Even if I have developed a very strong “self-defined” identity, and am called a liar, though I may disregard the assessment as false, I am very likely set-off in some degree of psychological defense. Though not the same degree of psychological impact as the defenseless would have experienced, I am affected.-and this does not even enter into the metaphysical implication of the power of words and the connection of All…..'

http://www.urbanmonk.net/138/freedom-from-judgement-the-beginning-of-compassion/     Albert Foong

–therefore others have had a hand (and continue to do so) in “what I am”

3) perceptual, others: I may perform an act or speak words that are to me (an intended to be) simple (or pure gibberish) and it will be the assessments of the onlookers that will determine if I am wise or fool. Even one could know they conveyed the words of the “Absolute,” these words would be trash in not understandable by the listeners—back to environmental

–therefore, “what I am” is defined what others see

4) metaphysical: Even individuals such as Buddha and Jesus (or Hitler) can only be (in our experience) what we can comprehend and have given collective consent to exist. -there are things/those that exist, but have only our consent to exist in a currently unperceivable context. Meenakshi looks into this in her blog, Making of an avatar, Master, or God on earth

From my perspective, in any manifestation, we have collectively consented and the manifestation/person that we experience happens to be the most receptive point of expression at that time-not some rarefied “separateness”, from us.

–therefore “what I am”, ‘good' or ‘bad' is by collective agreement. I am the receptive point for this expression of the Absolute.

               All in all, it brings some expanded implication of what we are connotatively defining about the whole when we say “I am….” or “S/he is…”

 

Update to Meenakshi's Blog
How does a person become a god

 

Thanks for this link, C.G. I have enjoyed the conversation here. Martha, who would've thought those few words would prove so powerful! The discussion is longer than the blog that started it.
Once again, in this I see the power of the collective voice. In this case, for bringing power to words spoken in a far off land [to many] in far off times.

 

Martha, you have really made an impression on me by giving word to something my spirit knew, but my conscious mind needed to be again reawaken to.
Thank you, dear one,
CG