Engaging oneself and the world: a divine marriage?

Walking Elven Pathways: enactivating the pattern that connects (Part #9)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

Is there yet another trap to such "de-scription" of a possibility? There is an implication that realization of such possibilities -- such as the (re)discovery of a lost language -- is dependent on consensus on collective action by powerful others, appropriately funded. But "de-scription" obscures our individual capacity to create such a "script". In particular it neutralizes our capacity to become that script -- to become the "writing on the wall", that effectively creates the wall in the moment.

In this context, the sceptic's case for despair, despite the availability of the world's wisdom, has been beautifully articulated in the classic poem of Omar Khayyám (1048-1131) containing the much-cited verse:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

The whole poem is effectively an excellent "de-scription" of the trap for many. As noted by an early policy scientist, Geoffrey Vickers: "A trap is a function of the nature of the trapped" (Freedom in a rocking boat: changing values in an unstable society, 1972). The poem clarifies, but obscures, that which is entrapped by the de-scription -- namely the "script" reader, buying into a status as a victim of circumstances on the "wheel of life and death". Identifying with the writer, however, one is then free to "de-pict" a different reality -- and able then to "move on" to engender a different future. This is dependent on detachment from any particular writing of the "moving finger" one embodies.

Missing from any such framing of the role of detachment is the complementary process of "engagement". In engendering the future, and relating to it, there is a need to engage both with onself and with the world -- and to ensure (as "match-maker") an engagement between the two. This might be understood as the prelude to a "divine marriage" -- a "marriage made in heaven" -- by which the future is then engendered.

A reframing of the challenge, based on such engagement, can be applied to a number of the core challenges of governance -- but especially to how one governs the use of one's own energy. In this respect, it is both curious and tragic how collective progress has been intimately associated with individual disempowerment. Consider the following possibilities for the future of dynamic relationships of an individual to the world:

• employment: the status of being "employed", with all its associations (in contrast to being "unemployed"), is now subject to recognition by national tax authorities. Without such recognition people cannot legitimately describe themselves as employed irrespective of how their time is used -- an issue only recently acknowledged in the case of homemakers and carers, for example. The perversion is perhaps greatest in the case of a peasant farmer who, being "unemployed", may be assumed not to be "working". A contemplative monk, for example, cannot currently be considered to be engaged in meaningful work any more than a person caring for their own garden. Both are however free to frame the situation otherwise in working to elaborate their own future. (cf Sustainable Occupation beyond the Economic Rationale: Reframing employment, non-profit-making and voluntary, 1998)
• education: whether a person is to be considered "educated" is similarly determined by "certification" through which "qualifications" are confirmed by society as having been acquired (irrespective of any deception). An individual is however free to pursue a variety of experiences framed as constituting an education, through which qualities and maturity are acquired -- relevant to the individual's own comprehension of a desirable future. (cf Attitude Entrainment: Communicating thrival skills and insights, 2004)
• energy: as might be expected, society frames "energy" in "gnomish" terms typically relating to energy that can be derived from the earth (coal, oil, geothermal, water, nuclear, etc) and primarily by large corporate enterprises. Only reluctantly is recognition accorded to sources of energy more freely available (biomass, solar, wind). Legislation may typically inhibit individuals from obtaining energy of their own accord. More problematic is the complete failure to recognize the forms of psychosocial energy on which individuals and communities may be dependent for their survival when utilities fail to deliver -- notably in disaster situations. Individuals are however free to empower themselves through recognition of their own personal energy, possibly enhanced by that of others, as the primary factor in their survival and thrival. (cf Reframing Sustainable Sources of Energy for the Future: the vital role of psychosocial variants, 2006)
• economics: society typically focuses exclusively on the transactions with and between corporate entities -- constraining those between individuals. Little recognition is accorded to initiatives like local exchange trading systems (LETS) that frame themselves as complementary to any broader system. Typically legislation may inhibit or prohibit such initiatives -- especially in the case of complementary currencies. Individuals are however free to frame their situation differently, if only in barter mode or in the exchange of "friendly favours" -- below any institutional radar. (cf Sustaining a pattern of alternative community initiatives: based on their differences from the conventional economic rationale, 1998)
• entertainment: whether challenged by the problems of survival, or faced with how to cultivate an enhanced quality of life in the midst of plenty, the opportunities for entertainment are becoming increasingly commodified. This creates a high degree of dependency on society and a significant problem of isolation for many (notably the elderly). This process marginalizes those forms of entertainment that do not call extensively on economic resources. Individuals are however free to reframe their understanding of meaningful entertainment -- notably by cultivating their exploration of "elven pathways". In this context, understood as "re-creation", entertainment offers the opportunity of "re-invention" to the individual. (cf Humour and Play-Fullness: essential integrative processes in governance, religion and transdisciplinarity, 2005)

Similar opportunities could be detailed with respect to the future of contextual relationships, in contrast with the dynamic relationships above. Briefly:

• environment: preoccupation with the "environment" has been reframed by society to lie beyond the scope of the individual. The individual is however free to frame the environment, whether immediate or distant, as a cognitive extension of awareness -- the future of which then calls upon their own creative initiatives (cf My Reflecting Mirror World: making Joburg worthwhile, 2002 )
• security: this has now been framed as a collective challenge, despite the personal sense of insecurity nevertheless experienced by many. Again individuals are however free to frame their security situation otherwise, as is creatively and courageously explored by many in borderline situations (cf Alternative Approaches to Security: towards well-being and psychological dimensions of sustainability, 2004 )
• shelter: the lack of shelter, meeting standards promoted by the building industry, has been framed to undermine the sense of dignity that is strikingly characteristic of many in marginal situations -- in marked contrast to the lack of dignity of many in dwellings framed as acceptable, however alienating. The challenge is further misrepresented by tendencies to relocate people away from their traditional homeland with which the meaning in their lives is intimately associated. Individuals are however free radically to reframe as "home" any context they inhabit -- as many have learnt to do in a society of high mobility and problematic personal circumstances.
• health: this has now been framed by society as a matter of dependency on health services and pharmaceutical products. Legislation is formulated to inhibit any other approaches to care -- whether or not health needs can be met with dignity by society in a timely manner. Again individuals are free to understand health in a more holistic manner (or not) and to recognize the efficacy of any remedy they choose.

In engaging with oneself and with the world, it is through one's own understanding of the engagement between these complementary understandings that the divine marriage is to be achieved. There is of course scope to frame oneself as the "innocent beauty" and society as the "ugly beast". It is also possible to favour the alternative scenario of oneself as "sinner" and society as "benevolent". As in any courtship, both have their place in the dynamic prelude to the divine marriage. The challenge may well be best understood in mythopoeic terms (cf Poetry-making and Policy-making: arranging a marriage between Beauty and the Beast, 1993).

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]