This is a fine contribution to thinking about freeorder, i.e. to thinking about quest serving balances (within us and among us) of spontaneous and designed orders. The idea of a bounding agreement (a design) containing actions that occur within a space created by that agreement (wherein a spontaneous order emerges) is expressed by Yasuhiko Genku Kimura's wonderful phrase, "alignment beyond agreement", which alignment is, in Max's terms, simply agreement sufficiently rarefied to permit much disagreement without ripping the membrane upon which well-being relies. Phrases "designed for emergence" and "emergent by design" come to mind (look for articles by Venessa Hall, or formerly, Venessa Miemis — there are a couple of links to article by Venessa in the draft of "Threads of Freeorder" for June — explorersfoundation.org/threads.html).
Operationalize? Yes, I think that is a fair question.
The first thing that comes to mind is something I read or heard from J. Krishnamurti. At the time, he was traveling around with the physicist David Bohm while they were working on a joint idea of theirs to introduce a particular method of "Dialogue." I am not sure if this came up in one of their public sessions or if Krishnamurti simply suggested it on his own somewhere. It has been a while and I cannot find the exact text or recording for it.
Someone in the audience asked K., How does one go about getting to this particular frame of mind that he had been describing? It was something kind of similar to my comment about reality vs. illusion. K. responded that first of all, it isn't about getting there to do something with it, using it, or some such; instead, it is about just knowing what is real so that illusion is more obvious and less compelling. [My words of course, not his.]
Second, it is not about getting 'there' somehow. We are talking about reality, and so we are already there! It is about how did we get tangled up again in the illusions, in the workings of the mind, all these ideas. How did we forget? It isn't a place one goes to and does something, it is illusion where we imagine we have to go to a place and we have to do things. We may think that if we do not go somewhere and do things, then everything will all fall apart and it will all become very terrible or something. It isn't like that. The world will go on quite well whether or not we imagine we have to go somewhere and we have to do something. We will still go places and things will still get done, but we will understand it all a lot better without being entangled in all of these contradictory illusions and imaginings. It will be less painful, less fearful, less miserable.
Wonderful. I have tried to wrap my head around Bohm and have been inspired by the idea of the implicate order. I have always wondered about his relationship with Krishnamurti and will look deeper into that. Thank you for the kind engagement. (Note you might well enjoy the Grey Robes more than this -- greyrobes.substack.com)
This is a fine contribution to thinking about freeorder, i.e. to thinking about quest serving balances (within us and among us) of spontaneous and designed orders. The idea of a bounding agreement (a design) containing actions that occur within a space created by that agreement (wherein a spontaneous order emerges) is expressed by Yasuhiko Genku Kimura's wonderful phrase, "alignment beyond agreement", which alignment is, in Max's terms, simply agreement sufficiently rarefied to permit much disagreement without ripping the membrane upon which well-being relies. Phrases "designed for emergence" and "emergent by design" come to mind (look for articles by Venessa Hall, or formerly, Venessa Miemis — there are a couple of links to article by Venessa in the draft of "Threads of Freeorder" for June — explorersfoundation.org/threads.html).
Maintaining the illusion of the individual is necessary to maintaining the illusion of the surface.
Maintaining the illusion of the surface is necessary to maintaining the illusion of the community.
Maintaining the illusion of the community is necessary to maintaining the illusion of security.
Maintaining the illusion of security is necessary to maintaining the illusion of threat.
Maintaining the illusion of threat is necessary to maintaining the illusion of control.
Maintaining the illusion of control is necessary to maintaining the illusion of the individual.
-- -- --
Maintaining the illusion of reality is necessary for denying the reality of illusion.
Illusion is real illusion, while reality itself is not illusion.
We are reality itself. Absolutely so.
We allow within us these illusions to which we imagine we are addicted.
The path to freedom is to see the reality of all illusion.
We are the reality. All illusion is only within us.
We are not bound by any of these illusions.
We bind these illusions together into our worlds ...
Just because we can ...
Just to awaken again and again to reality ...
Just to once again transcend illusion ...
Even the illusions of time and place, of one and many, of good and evil, and of reality and illusion.
This is interesting and lofty, but now: How does one operationalize this?
Operationalize? Yes, I think that is a fair question.
The first thing that comes to mind is something I read or heard from J. Krishnamurti. At the time, he was traveling around with the physicist David Bohm while they were working on a joint idea of theirs to introduce a particular method of "Dialogue." I am not sure if this came up in one of their public sessions or if Krishnamurti simply suggested it on his own somewhere. It has been a while and I cannot find the exact text or recording for it.
Someone in the audience asked K., How does one go about getting to this particular frame of mind that he had been describing? It was something kind of similar to my comment about reality vs. illusion. K. responded that first of all, it isn't about getting there to do something with it, using it, or some such; instead, it is about just knowing what is real so that illusion is more obvious and less compelling. [My words of course, not his.]
Second, it is not about getting 'there' somehow. We are talking about reality, and so we are already there! It is about how did we get tangled up again in the illusions, in the workings of the mind, all these ideas. How did we forget? It isn't a place one goes to and does something, it is illusion where we imagine we have to go to a place and we have to do things. We may think that if we do not go somewhere and do things, then everything will all fall apart and it will all become very terrible or something. It isn't like that. The world will go on quite well whether or not we imagine we have to go somewhere and we have to do something. We will still go places and things will still get done, but we will understand it all a lot better without being entangled in all of these contradictory illusions and imaginings. It will be less painful, less fearful, less miserable.
This is an interesting dialogue between K and Bohm that probably explains some ideas better than I can do it in retrospect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rju186_mE20
Not that I am promoting Krishnamurti in particular. It is just that he was pretty articulate on the subject when talking about it with Bohm.
Wonderful. I have tried to wrap my head around Bohm and have been inspired by the idea of the implicate order. I have always wondered about his relationship with Krishnamurti and will look deeper into that. Thank you for the kind engagement. (Note you might well enjoy the Grey Robes more than this -- greyrobes.substack.com)
have never trusted nor supported "activists" of any stripe
warned my granddaughters going to college to be immediately suspicious of activists.
Good on you, Sharon. I'm staring this down with my own kids as they grow.