Hola
Everybody,
One can tease out political differences quite simply. How individuals view the role of government, define freedom, and what they consider a just society is directly related to their level of moral reasoning. In addition, knowing where people stand in terms of their capacity for moral reasoning allows for more collaboration.
One can tease out political differences quite simply. How individuals view the role of government, define freedom, and what they consider a just society is directly related to their level of moral reasoning. In addition, knowing where people stand in terms of their capacity for moral reasoning allows for more collaboration.
I
was at two interviews today. Wish me luck. Also please consider supporting my
writing and advocacy work by donating whatever you can HERE. I’ll be frank
here, at this point, your generosity helps me with carfare so I can ride the
subway to job interviews and decide whether I will lose my cellphone service or
my property in storage.
But!
I kid you not… life is good (if difficult at times).
Moral Development
... Aim above morality. Be not simply good,
be good for something.
-- Henry David Thoreau
-- Henry David Thoreau
Not
too long ago, I participated as part of a panel with a woman. We were
addressing college students, and what struck me about this particular woman was
the extent of her self-centeredness. I found it interesting because she sought
me out before we spoke and mentioned that she too was a “practicing Buddhist.”
Her version of Buddhism, it seemed to me, was simply meditation. I had a
teacher who once joked that practicing Buddhism without ethics was like trying
to row a boat without first untying it from the pier.
From
what I gathered, her whole existence centered on her and she was
oblivious to how she was connected to her environment; how her actions
reverberated and caused ripples. In her world, what mattered was the conscious
cultivation of her ego. In fact she could actually see the “logic” in
the needless death of an infant. You may have heard of the moral dilemma that
if the death of one infant would save hundreds, it was morally justified? This
woman would gleefully strangle such a child. This is what happens when you mix
Ayn Rand with meditation! LOL Nothing could be further from my vision of
Buddhist practice.
Two
people, two different worlds.
This
got me to thinking and I have come to realization that “practicing meditation”
or any set of mechanics isn’t enough. I have come to realize that we create our
world according to our level of consciousness/ awareness. It’s the same with
love. For some people, love’s reason is the satisfaction of the individual.
Love is something that you go “out there” to get in order to satisfy a hunger
for connection. Similarly, religion and everything else is filtered --
distilled -- according to where you stand in terms of your level of moral
reasoning.
I’ll
explain. Let’s look at moral development as a starting off point. Let’s say,
for the sake of this post, that moral development has three distinct stages. At
birth an infant hasn’t been socialized into its culture’s ethics, standards,
and conventions; let’s call this the preconventional stage. It’s also
known as the egocentric, in that the infant’s awareness is largely
consumed with self -- self-absorbed. But as the young child begins to learn its
culture’s rules and norms, it grows into the conventional stage of
morals. This stage is also known as ethnocentric, in that it’s focused
on the child’s particular group, tribe, clan, or nation, and therefore tends to
exclude those not of its group. But at the next major stage of moral
development, the post-conventional stage, the individual’s identity
expands to include care and concern for all peoples, regardless of race, color,
sexual orientation, or creed, which is why this stage is also known as worldcentric.
If
you’re still with me, you can see that moral development tends to move from
“me” (egocentric) to “us” (ethnocentric) to “all of us” (worldcentric). This is
an example of unfolding waves of consciousness.
Using
this consciousness map as a framework to understand reality one can see how
religion (or love) will manifest itself differently in a person who’s at the
egocentric stage than a person who’s at a worldcentric stage. Both people can
be just as devout (or “in love”), but spiritual practice will evolve according
to any one individual’s level of moral development.
To
further illustrate, imagine love from a morally egocentric perspective.
Love at this stage resembles a yearning -- something like an addict's need for
a fix -- an ego boost. Same thing with almost anything you look at in life:
perception and meaning changes according to what level you are engaging the
world. Religion from an egocentric perspective resembles the global wave of
fundamentalism currently threatening our existence. And I mention
fundamentalism in all its manifestations -- including our own home-grown
Christian fundamentalism.
I
find all this quite interesting because a lot of my work involves advocating
for systemic change that is essentially an attempt to move collectively from one stage to another. But it’s also interesting
because it helps me tease out the idiosyncrasies when someone says, “I love
you.” Perhaps we need to know a little more about others and ourselves as we
travel on our journey. For what may sound like “I love you” may in
actuality mean “I love me.”
What
would our national or geopolitical dialog resemble as people moved up the
ladder of the stages of moral reasoning?
My name is Eddie and I'm in recovery from civilization...
No comments:
Post a Comment
What say you?