I'm afraid Brooks is very much in a liberal bubble and doesn't really know what the other side thinks, and neither do other establishment liberals (Brooks calls himself a conservative, but the Republicans I know would laugh at that), so when he says, "This could look like “lawsuits, mass rallies, strikes, work slowdowns, boycotts and other forms of noncooperation and resistance,"—but that just sounds like more of the same.
I keep thinking, "Well, Trump seems hell bent on ruining the economy. Maybe now, finally, Republicans will turn against him." But there's a real problem here, a problem much deeper than any rally or strike could possible speak to—there are no more shared facts or even a bottom line to appeal to. One of my Republican friends has already latched on to an excuse for price increases that haven't even happened yet by saying, "It's not Trump's tariffs that's causing price increases, it's businesses taking advantage of the situation." There's always an excuse, always someone else to blame.
To give you some idea of how bad this problem is, I stopped by a friend's house (different friend) who happened to have the 2016 inauguration playing on TV, and she said, "Aren't they classy?"
Yes, making people who have fallen into the cult change their minds is a mission impossible. It isn't worth the energy and time to try to "convert" them. And I agree that rallies and strikes won't be enough (and impeachments either!). That's why I said that "an uprising alone is like an action without a plan." The plan is that we need "positive visions" and a strategy to get people on board.
Let me outline the second aspect (the former will be discussed in a coming post).
We shouldn't conflate all Trump voters with those who are in the MAGA cult. There can be many reasons why people behave against their own interests. Call them 'naive,' or 'ignorant,' or 'people living under a rock,' but there is a segment of former Trump voters who are not in MAGA-mode and can be persuaded to change their minds. Moreover, about 36% of the voting-eligible population didn't vote in the November 2024 election. This is a significant reservoir of people who can become aware of the fact that casting a vote isn't entirely pointless and behave differently the next time. We need to maintain a conversation with these two groups. Without preaching or trying to lecture them, but with an open and calm attitude. I believe this would make a difference. After all, from a strictly electoral perspective, Trump won only by a small margin. No "great mass awakening" is necessary. A change of only a few percentage points would be enough to tilt the outcome and the balance of political power. From a sociological perspective, as I have said, this would not defeat Trumpism. But, at the very least, it could serve as a turning point, establishing a foundation for modern civilization to begin anew with a vision for a more evolved humanity.
"there is a segment of former Trump voters who are not in MAGA-mode and can be persuaded to change their minds"
Definitely. Many independents live in my neighborhood (I live in a "blue" city in a "purple" state), and I've talked to people who say they voted for Obama and then voted for Trump. As much as that boggles my mind, I see that establishment liberals have been spineless and self-defeating for quite some time now. When the choice is between someone who wants to drive the country off a cliff and another who is asleep at the wheel, well, that's hardly inspiring. I see it as imperative to vote against the former, but I can see why others might not find that choice motivating.
I'm glad you chose to bring up politics in this forum, because it gives me a chance to engage with you on these questions. I'm currently about halfway through your book _Spirit Calls Nature_ (thanks to Tina Lee Forsee's intercession), and as you may already know, I've been touching on many of the same themes in my own WordPress blog (staggeringimplications.wordpress.com) for the past four years: the failure of scientific materialism, the promise of a new awareness of being-in-the-world, the hopes for something like a Goethean science. However, I have a different view of what is actually happening in the postmodern or metamodern era-- one that blends optimism for the emerging paradigm with a certain pessimism concerning its apparent direction.
Your commenter Don Salmon has mentioned a chapter called "The Coming of the Subjective Age" in Sri Aurobindo's book _The Human Cycle_. I haven't read it, but I'm alert to what some have called the "subjective turn" in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and I think "subjectivity" is a good way to characterize the new awareness. To my mind, Kierkegaard's observation in _Concluding Unscientific Postscript_ that "truth is subjectivity" is the earliest, and in ways still the most telling, formulation. For Kierkegaard, objective ways of seeing leave out something extremely important: the subject. This realization, which was also at the heart of the Romantic movement, has continued to develop until the present day. It accelerated dramatically in the 1960's, began to find philosophical expression late in the century in works as varied as Nagel's _The View From Nowhere_, Goleman's _Emotional Intelligence_,and Damasio's _Descartes' Error_, and has lately found social and political expression in postmodern and metamodern attitudes. Succinctly, Kierkegaard's "truth is subjectivity" has evolved into the idea, once considered shocking but now considered commonplace and even admirable, that truth has a personal aspect: that we may, and indeed we must, speak of "my truth" and "your truth."
Despite appearances, this development is not confined to the political left. While you have suggested in your essay above, following David Brooks, that Trumpism represents a reactionary regression against a higher form of perception, my contention is that the change in perception is happening across the board; that it involves this renewed sense of "truth as subjectivity;" and that unfortunately it has begun to manifest, on both the political right and left, in regressive rather than progressive ways. This is the explanation, not only of the reassertion of "family values," the distorted Christianity, the violent selfishness, and such like seen on the right, but also of "cancel culture," the impatient perversion of the values of modernity (such as equality and freedom), and indeed, the violent selfishness to be observed among the more extreme factions of the left. What the two have in common is the rejection of "objectivity" as a dangerous and erroneous attitude that interferes with the necessary expression of their subjective truth.
In the terms that Owen Barfield used in _Saving the Appearances_, we have resurrected "participation" as a mode of being, but we have also regressed, as I think he feared, to the "original participation" that preceded the age of abstraction and idolatry. We ought instead to be progressing toward what he called a "final participation," in which our advances over original participation are maintained and enhanced. In Goethean terms, we might say that we have embraced a new, intuitive way of seeing, but we have failed to preserve the alternative rational way of seeing; thus, rather than advancing beyond an impoverished materialistic science into a richer and better one, we are in danger of jettisoning our progress so far, and simply letting the pendulum swing back the other way, into a new Dark Age.
These are my concerns, and since we are starting from the same observations about a sea change at the end of modernity, I wanted to raise them with you. I do not mean to discourage or oppose your own views, or to impose my own in their place. I hope only to find a way to work through the current social and political crisis toward a successful resolution. I do not see this as a contest between the old and new ways of seeing, but as a failure to reconcile them: a failure to begin seeing, to use a metaphor I favour, with both eyes.
I don't think your understanding differs much from mine. I guess we are just seeing the same thing from different angles. From your blog, I infer that you have a much stronger foothold in Western philosophy than I do, while I'm more inclined toward the Eastern spiritual perspective. There is no mutual exclusivity; rather, there is complementarity.
If we take an evolutionary perspective that looks upon the course of history in terms of the psychological and social development of humankind (sort of O. Barfield's, J. Gebser's, R. Steiner's, or T. de Chardin's natural+psychological history bird's-eye view), those aspects that previously seemed irreconcilable may find their natural place in the order of things. I agree that presently the change of perception, as the renewed sense of "truth as subjectivity" manifests in regressive rather than progressive ways. But this need not necessarily be in contrast with the idea that Trumpism represents a reactionary regression against a higher form of perception. Because higher forms of perception are (almost always) preceded and prepared in the evolutionary pathway by an apparent regression or 'fall' backward due to the reaction of crystallized habits and ancestral unconscious layers that resist that progression. If we want to be able to deal with subjective truths, we must learn (usually, but not necessarily, the hard way) to harmonize them with their objective counterparts. The first reaction is mostly one of rejecting either one in favor of the other and, thereby, plunging oneself into a cognitive crisis. That's where we are, actually. The collective is now (more subconsciously than consciously) perceiving the coming of the final participatory cognitive mode but is still lacking the clarity of mind and sense of critical discrimination that can harmonize it with the original participation and the onlooker consciousness, without rejecting them or making a messy mix out of it.
In other words, what appears as a regression is more of a relapse with a bounce-back effect. This is consistent with all that we know from evolutionary natural history. The evolution of consciousness has never been a linear march toward more complex forms of life and cognition but rather more of a bumpy ride with lots of evolutionary crises that, however, in the long run, prepared us for a shift toward the next evolutionary step.
And yes, this might eventually imply that we will have to fall back into some sort of dark age. It is conceivable that human spiritual evolution will (apparently) regress and stagnate for a couple of centuries. However, as far as I can see, this is a possibility but not an inevitability. Precisely because the human being is the first animal that could, so to speak, 'participate in the participation.' The distinctive aspect of homo sapiens is that we are not just organisms that must submit to the blind clash of forces of Nature but can, at least in part, frame our own destiny according to less harsh processes that led our species to this point. It is up to us which path we will choose. This is why, at the end of the present post, I pointed out that we need “positive visions” that give meaning and purpose and find out how to get on board a critical mass of people to avoid this relapse. This is, after all, the whole meaning of the struggle we are experiencing worldwide.
A new spiritual vision that can reach masses of people - I am looking forward to how you will articulate this.
Toward the end of “The Human Cycle,” Sri Aurobindo said, in terms of what the mind has to offer, there is no greater need than an offering of a truly evolutionary vision that is understood to be not in conflict with science AND in a form that can reach “the mass mind of humanity” - i am eagerly anticipating how you articulate this.
Nothing (or very little) can be more important than this.
You mean the last chapter on the religion of human unity? Or do you have a particular citation in mind? It would be interesting that we articulate this together...
It's from "The Human Cycle" in the chapter "The Advent and progress of the Spiritual Age"
The whole chapter is magnificent. "The Coming of the Subjective Age" (the chapter before it) is also a masterpiece.
Page 265
Therefore the individuals who will most help the future of humanity in the new age will be those who will recognise a spiritual evolution as the destiny and therefore the great need of the human being. Even as the animal man has been largely converted into a mentalised and at the top a highly mentalised humanity, so too now or in the future an evolution or con- version—it does not greatly matter which figure we use or what theory we adopt to support it — of the present type of humanity into a spiritualised humanity is the need of the race and surely the intention of Nature; that evolution or conversion will be their ideal and endeavour.
They will be comparatively indifferent to particular belief and form and leave men to resort to the beliefs and forms to which they are naturally drawn. They will only hold as essential the faith in this spiritual conversion, the attempt to live it out and whatever knowledge — the form of opinion into which it is thrown does not so much matter — can be converted into this living.
They will especially not make the mistake of thinking that this change can be effected by machinery and outward institutions; they will know and never forget that it has to be lived out by each man inwardly or it can never be made a reality for the kind. They will adopt in its heart of meaning the inward view of the East which bids man seek the secret of his destiny and salvation within; but also they will accept, though with a different turn given to it, the importance which the West rightly attaches to life and to the making the best we know and can attain the general rule of all life.
They will not make society a shadowy background to a few luminous spiritual figures or a rigidly fenced and earth-bound root for the growth of a comparatively rare and sterile flower of ascetic spirituality. They will not accept the theory that the many must necessarily remain for ever on the lower ranges of life and only a few climb into the free air and the light, but will start from the standpoint of the great spirits who have striven to regenerate the life of the earth and held that faith in spite of all previous failure.
Failures must be originally numerous in everything great and difficult, but the time comes when the experience of past failures can be profitably used and the gate that so long resisted opens. In this as in all great human aspirations and endeavours, an a priori declaration of impossibility is a sign of ignorance and weakness, and the motto of the aspirant’s endeavour must be the solvitur ambulando of the discoverer. For by the doing the difficulty will be solved. A true beginning has to be made; the rest is a work for Time in its sudden achievements or its long patient labour.
The message I believe can resonate is that new ideals and visions "must be lived out inwardly," and we must finally realize that we should not make "the mistake of thinking that this change can be effected by machinery and outward institutions."
However, I suspect that the rest will need to be framed in a language that resonates more with the "mass mind." Simply citing Sri Aurobindo and discussing a "spiritual evolution as the destiny and therefore the great need of the human being," along with the spiritual conversion of "the present type of humanity into a spiritualized humanity" as the "sure intention of Nature," may not be accessible to the masses—or even to many intellectuals who have become entrenched in a physicalist and rationalist worldview.
I will try to come up with ideas/ideals/visions in one of the upcoming posts that, hopefully, will make this more intelligible. Eventually, we might develop it together, with you as co-author, if interested.
Not only am I interested - have I not mentioned our upcoming project?
It looks like some time in the next few months I will have access to a Mighty Network (that's where our sleep class took place).
At the present time, I'm thinking of dividing it into numerous categories;
(1) the works of Mother and Sri Aurobindo, starting with (from Sri Aurobindo) The Life Divine, Human Cycle/Ideal of Human Unity and Synthesis of Yoga. From the Mother: Her writings on education, and the 4 austerities.
I will be going through the books chapter by chapter, writing summaries in VERY simple, accessible everyday language.
(2) Topics;
(a) Socio-political evolution.
(b) Individual development (at the egoic, ordinary level)
(c) Psychic awakening and transformaiton
(d) spiritual awakening and tansfomraiton
(e) the evolution of consciousness (using all that we know from physics, biology, neuroscience/psychology) in STORY form as much as possible (all of it - even the commentary on Sri Aurobindo and the Mother's writings - will be much more in story form than exegesis/commentary - I'm not aware of anyone in the IY tradition who has done this; not only do I want it simple, story like, but also practical, and for much of these topics, with NO IY language or quotes (I may have a section within each topic relating it to Their writings though)
(3) Other authors
(a) Dan Siegel
(B) Bernardo Kastrup
(c) Marco Masi
(d) David Bentley Hart
(e) Itay Shani
and many more. I want to take 1 or more of their works and go through and outline them also, chapter by chapter.
No doubt even at the beginning of this comment you're thinking, "This will take lifetimes"
I'm assuming Jan and I have about another 20 years or so, and I expect to be continuing this for those 2 decades. I'm assuming, optimistically, I can find AT LEAST 50 others who share the same aspirations.
Anyway, one of the most passionate goals I have is getting across the story of evolution - the past evolution of consciousness, and very very much as you just illustrated so well in your recent substack posts - the only thing that really makes sense of the conflicts and struggle of visions at this time is the impending evolutionary breakthroughs.
I honestly believe this can be stated in a way which can reach many; but not in typical Aurobindonian language and without jargon. I think it needs to be as much if not more done through video and other kinds of art forms, but writing will certainly be a part of it.
Great. I will certainly participate. Even though, I would prefer to write rather than participating in regular Zoom meetings (except for few occasional ones.)
But, for the time being, I was referring to co-authoring an article on Substack. This won't take 20 years! I already copied and pasted some of your statements ;) Will let you know soon.
The Mighty Network will be MOSTly through writing, not zoom.
As far as an article, we could probably do it in 20 minutes:>)) I just wanted to give you a heads up on what's "coming down the pike' (don't know if there's a German or Italian equivalent of that - what's coming soon:>)
whenever you're ready, let us know (Jan will definitely take part in the editing and writing, if that's ok - it's a subject we talk about a lot)
I'm afraid Brooks is very much in a liberal bubble and doesn't really know what the other side thinks, and neither do other establishment liberals (Brooks calls himself a conservative, but the Republicans I know would laugh at that), so when he says, "This could look like “lawsuits, mass rallies, strikes, work slowdowns, boycotts and other forms of noncooperation and resistance,"—but that just sounds like more of the same.
I keep thinking, "Well, Trump seems hell bent on ruining the economy. Maybe now, finally, Republicans will turn against him." But there's a real problem here, a problem much deeper than any rally or strike could possible speak to—there are no more shared facts or even a bottom line to appeal to. One of my Republican friends has already latched on to an excuse for price increases that haven't even happened yet by saying, "It's not Trump's tariffs that's causing price increases, it's businesses taking advantage of the situation." There's always an excuse, always someone else to blame.
To give you some idea of how bad this problem is, I stopped by a friend's house (different friend) who happened to have the 2016 inauguration playing on TV, and she said, "Aren't they classy?"
Classy. That was the exact word she used.
Yes, making people who have fallen into the cult change their minds is a mission impossible. It isn't worth the energy and time to try to "convert" them. And I agree that rallies and strikes won't be enough (and impeachments either!). That's why I said that "an uprising alone is like an action without a plan." The plan is that we need "positive visions" and a strategy to get people on board.
Let me outline the second aspect (the former will be discussed in a coming post).
We shouldn't conflate all Trump voters with those who are in the MAGA cult. There can be many reasons why people behave against their own interests. Call them 'naive,' or 'ignorant,' or 'people living under a rock,' but there is a segment of former Trump voters who are not in MAGA-mode and can be persuaded to change their minds. Moreover, about 36% of the voting-eligible population didn't vote in the November 2024 election. This is a significant reservoir of people who can become aware of the fact that casting a vote isn't entirely pointless and behave differently the next time. We need to maintain a conversation with these two groups. Without preaching or trying to lecture them, but with an open and calm attitude. I believe this would make a difference. After all, from a strictly electoral perspective, Trump won only by a small margin. No "great mass awakening" is necessary. A change of only a few percentage points would be enough to tilt the outcome and the balance of political power. From a sociological perspective, as I have said, this would not defeat Trumpism. But, at the very least, it could serve as a turning point, establishing a foundation for modern civilization to begin anew with a vision for a more evolved humanity.
"there is a segment of former Trump voters who are not in MAGA-mode and can be persuaded to change their minds"
Definitely. Many independents live in my neighborhood (I live in a "blue" city in a "purple" state), and I've talked to people who say they voted for Obama and then voted for Trump. As much as that boggles my mind, I see that establishment liberals have been spineless and self-defeating for quite some time now. When the choice is between someone who wants to drive the country off a cliff and another who is asleep at the wheel, well, that's hardly inspiring. I see it as imperative to vote against the former, but I can see why others might not find that choice motivating.
Looking forward to hearing your positive vision!
I'm glad you chose to bring up politics in this forum, because it gives me a chance to engage with you on these questions. I'm currently about halfway through your book _Spirit Calls Nature_ (thanks to Tina Lee Forsee's intercession), and as you may already know, I've been touching on many of the same themes in my own WordPress blog (staggeringimplications.wordpress.com) for the past four years: the failure of scientific materialism, the promise of a new awareness of being-in-the-world, the hopes for something like a Goethean science. However, I have a different view of what is actually happening in the postmodern or metamodern era-- one that blends optimism for the emerging paradigm with a certain pessimism concerning its apparent direction.
Your commenter Don Salmon has mentioned a chapter called "The Coming of the Subjective Age" in Sri Aurobindo's book _The Human Cycle_. I haven't read it, but I'm alert to what some have called the "subjective turn" in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and I think "subjectivity" is a good way to characterize the new awareness. To my mind, Kierkegaard's observation in _Concluding Unscientific Postscript_ that "truth is subjectivity" is the earliest, and in ways still the most telling, formulation. For Kierkegaard, objective ways of seeing leave out something extremely important: the subject. This realization, which was also at the heart of the Romantic movement, has continued to develop until the present day. It accelerated dramatically in the 1960's, began to find philosophical expression late in the century in works as varied as Nagel's _The View From Nowhere_, Goleman's _Emotional Intelligence_,and Damasio's _Descartes' Error_, and has lately found social and political expression in postmodern and metamodern attitudes. Succinctly, Kierkegaard's "truth is subjectivity" has evolved into the idea, once considered shocking but now considered commonplace and even admirable, that truth has a personal aspect: that we may, and indeed we must, speak of "my truth" and "your truth."
Despite appearances, this development is not confined to the political left. While you have suggested in your essay above, following David Brooks, that Trumpism represents a reactionary regression against a higher form of perception, my contention is that the change in perception is happening across the board; that it involves this renewed sense of "truth as subjectivity;" and that unfortunately it has begun to manifest, on both the political right and left, in regressive rather than progressive ways. This is the explanation, not only of the reassertion of "family values," the distorted Christianity, the violent selfishness, and such like seen on the right, but also of "cancel culture," the impatient perversion of the values of modernity (such as equality and freedom), and indeed, the violent selfishness to be observed among the more extreme factions of the left. What the two have in common is the rejection of "objectivity" as a dangerous and erroneous attitude that interferes with the necessary expression of their subjective truth.
In the terms that Owen Barfield used in _Saving the Appearances_, we have resurrected "participation" as a mode of being, but we have also regressed, as I think he feared, to the "original participation" that preceded the age of abstraction and idolatry. We ought instead to be progressing toward what he called a "final participation," in which our advances over original participation are maintained and enhanced. In Goethean terms, we might say that we have embraced a new, intuitive way of seeing, but we have failed to preserve the alternative rational way of seeing; thus, rather than advancing beyond an impoverished materialistic science into a richer and better one, we are in danger of jettisoning our progress so far, and simply letting the pendulum swing back the other way, into a new Dark Age.
These are my concerns, and since we are starting from the same observations about a sea change at the end of modernity, I wanted to raise them with you. I do not mean to discourage or oppose your own views, or to impose my own in their place. I hope only to find a way to work through the current social and political crisis toward a successful resolution. I do not see this as a contest between the old and new ways of seeing, but as a failure to reconcile them: a failure to begin seeing, to use a metaphor I favour, with both eyes.
I don't think your understanding differs much from mine. I guess we are just seeing the same thing from different angles. From your blog, I infer that you have a much stronger foothold in Western philosophy than I do, while I'm more inclined toward the Eastern spiritual perspective. There is no mutual exclusivity; rather, there is complementarity.
If we take an evolutionary perspective that looks upon the course of history in terms of the psychological and social development of humankind (sort of O. Barfield's, J. Gebser's, R. Steiner's, or T. de Chardin's natural+psychological history bird's-eye view), those aspects that previously seemed irreconcilable may find their natural place in the order of things. I agree that presently the change of perception, as the renewed sense of "truth as subjectivity" manifests in regressive rather than progressive ways. But this need not necessarily be in contrast with the idea that Trumpism represents a reactionary regression against a higher form of perception. Because higher forms of perception are (almost always) preceded and prepared in the evolutionary pathway by an apparent regression or 'fall' backward due to the reaction of crystallized habits and ancestral unconscious layers that resist that progression. If we want to be able to deal with subjective truths, we must learn (usually, but not necessarily, the hard way) to harmonize them with their objective counterparts. The first reaction is mostly one of rejecting either one in favor of the other and, thereby, plunging oneself into a cognitive crisis. That's where we are, actually. The collective is now (more subconsciously than consciously) perceiving the coming of the final participatory cognitive mode but is still lacking the clarity of mind and sense of critical discrimination that can harmonize it with the original participation and the onlooker consciousness, without rejecting them or making a messy mix out of it.
In other words, what appears as a regression is more of a relapse with a bounce-back effect. This is consistent with all that we know from evolutionary natural history. The evolution of consciousness has never been a linear march toward more complex forms of life and cognition but rather more of a bumpy ride with lots of evolutionary crises that, however, in the long run, prepared us for a shift toward the next evolutionary step.
And yes, this might eventually imply that we will have to fall back into some sort of dark age. It is conceivable that human spiritual evolution will (apparently) regress and stagnate for a couple of centuries. However, as far as I can see, this is a possibility but not an inevitability. Precisely because the human being is the first animal that could, so to speak, 'participate in the participation.' The distinctive aspect of homo sapiens is that we are not just organisms that must submit to the blind clash of forces of Nature but can, at least in part, frame our own destiny according to less harsh processes that led our species to this point. It is up to us which path we will choose. This is why, at the end of the present post, I pointed out that we need “positive visions” that give meaning and purpose and find out how to get on board a critical mass of people to avoid this relapse. This is, after all, the whole meaning of the struggle we are experiencing worldwide.
A new spiritual vision that can reach masses of people - I am looking forward to how you will articulate this.
Toward the end of “The Human Cycle,” Sri Aurobindo said, in terms of what the mind has to offer, there is no greater need than an offering of a truly evolutionary vision that is understood to be not in conflict with science AND in a form that can reach “the mass mind of humanity” - i am eagerly anticipating how you articulate this.
Nothing (or very little) can be more important than this.
You mean the last chapter on the religion of human unity? Or do you have a particular citation in mind? It would be interesting that we articulate this together...
It's from "The Human Cycle" in the chapter "The Advent and progress of the Spiritual Age"
The whole chapter is magnificent. "The Coming of the Subjective Age" (the chapter before it) is also a masterpiece.
Page 265
Therefore the individuals who will most help the future of humanity in the new age will be those who will recognise a spiritual evolution as the destiny and therefore the great need of the human being. Even as the animal man has been largely converted into a mentalised and at the top a highly mentalised humanity, so too now or in the future an evolution or con- version—it does not greatly matter which figure we use or what theory we adopt to support it — of the present type of humanity into a spiritualised humanity is the need of the race and surely the intention of Nature; that evolution or conversion will be their ideal and endeavour.
They will be comparatively indifferent to particular belief and form and leave men to resort to the beliefs and forms to which they are naturally drawn. They will only hold as essential the faith in this spiritual conversion, the attempt to live it out and whatever knowledge — the form of opinion into which it is thrown does not so much matter — can be converted into this living.
They will especially not make the mistake of thinking that this change can be effected by machinery and outward institutions; they will know and never forget that it has to be lived out by each man inwardly or it can never be made a reality for the kind. They will adopt in its heart of meaning the inward view of the East which bids man seek the secret of his destiny and salvation within; but also they will accept, though with a different turn given to it, the importance which the West rightly attaches to life and to the making the best we know and can attain the general rule of all life.
They will not make society a shadowy background to a few luminous spiritual figures or a rigidly fenced and earth-bound root for the growth of a comparatively rare and sterile flower of ascetic spirituality. They will not accept the theory that the many must necessarily remain for ever on the lower ranges of life and only a few climb into the free air and the light, but will start from the standpoint of the great spirits who have striven to regenerate the life of the earth and held that faith in spite of all previous failure.
Failures must be originally numerous in everything great and difficult, but the time comes when the experience of past failures can be profitably used and the gate that so long resisted opens. In this as in all great human aspirations and endeavours, an a priori declaration of impossibility is a sign of ignorance and weakness, and the motto of the aspirant’s endeavour must be the solvitur ambulando of the discoverer. For by the doing the difficulty will be solved. A true beginning has to be made; the rest is a work for Time in its sudden achievements or its long patient labour.
Perfect. This could be a starting point.
The message I believe can resonate is that new ideals and visions "must be lived out inwardly," and we must finally realize that we should not make "the mistake of thinking that this change can be effected by machinery and outward institutions."
However, I suspect that the rest will need to be framed in a language that resonates more with the "mass mind." Simply citing Sri Aurobindo and discussing a "spiritual evolution as the destiny and therefore the great need of the human being," along with the spiritual conversion of "the present type of humanity into a spiritualized humanity" as the "sure intention of Nature," may not be accessible to the masses—or even to many intellectuals who have become entrenched in a physicalist and rationalist worldview.
I will try to come up with ideas/ideals/visions in one of the upcoming posts that, hopefully, will make this more intelligible. Eventually, we might develop it together, with you as co-author, if interested.
Not only am I interested - have I not mentioned our upcoming project?
It looks like some time in the next few months I will have access to a Mighty Network (that's where our sleep class took place).
At the present time, I'm thinking of dividing it into numerous categories;
(1) the works of Mother and Sri Aurobindo, starting with (from Sri Aurobindo) The Life Divine, Human Cycle/Ideal of Human Unity and Synthesis of Yoga. From the Mother: Her writings on education, and the 4 austerities.
I will be going through the books chapter by chapter, writing summaries in VERY simple, accessible everyday language.
(2) Topics;
(a) Socio-political evolution.
(b) Individual development (at the egoic, ordinary level)
(c) Psychic awakening and transformaiton
(d) spiritual awakening and tansfomraiton
(e) the evolution of consciousness (using all that we know from physics, biology, neuroscience/psychology) in STORY form as much as possible (all of it - even the commentary on Sri Aurobindo and the Mother's writings - will be much more in story form than exegesis/commentary - I'm not aware of anyone in the IY tradition who has done this; not only do I want it simple, story like, but also practical, and for much of these topics, with NO IY language or quotes (I may have a section within each topic relating it to Their writings though)
(3) Other authors
(a) Dan Siegel
(B) Bernardo Kastrup
(c) Marco Masi
(d) David Bentley Hart
(e) Itay Shani
and many more. I want to take 1 or more of their works and go through and outline them also, chapter by chapter.
No doubt even at the beginning of this comment you're thinking, "This will take lifetimes"
I'm assuming Jan and I have about another 20 years or so, and I expect to be continuing this for those 2 decades. I'm assuming, optimistically, I can find AT LEAST 50 others who share the same aspirations.
Anyway, one of the most passionate goals I have is getting across the story of evolution - the past evolution of consciousness, and very very much as you just illustrated so well in your recent substack posts - the only thing that really makes sense of the conflicts and struggle of visions at this time is the impending evolutionary breakthroughs.
I honestly believe this can be stated in a way which can reach many; but not in typical Aurobindonian language and without jargon. I think it needs to be as much if not more done through video and other kinds of art forms, but writing will certainly be a part of it.
Great. I will certainly participate. Even though, I would prefer to write rather than participating in regular Zoom meetings (except for few occasional ones.)
But, for the time being, I was referring to co-authoring an article on Substack. This won't take 20 years! I already copied and pasted some of your statements ;) Will let you know soon.
Of course.
The Mighty Network will be MOSTly through writing, not zoom.
As far as an article, we could probably do it in 20 minutes:>)) I just wanted to give you a heads up on what's "coming down the pike' (don't know if there's a German or Italian equivalent of that - what's coming soon:>)
whenever you're ready, let us know (Jan will definitely take part in the editing and writing, if that's ok - it's a subject we talk about a lot)