Purpose, Ego and Rationality
My conclusion (see links below) that purpose will arrive on its own only when the bonds of both ego and rationality have been transcended enough to allow you to heed its call leaves unanswered the question, “What should I do?” The question is asked by those seeking purpose as well as by coaches and counselors who are trying to help others discover purpose.
I will be speaking to groups of both kinds of people in the next few months, and want to give them some advice about what to do. I have created two slides to address that. The material is adapted from Hawkins’ Power vs Force and from other sources, including my personal experience and my experience coaching people who are seeking purpose. The slides describe in a general way what we need to “find” and “let go of” in order to transcend ego and rationality and allow purpose to show up.
The two slides are “first drafts” so I will appreciate your thoughts.
◊ Send this post to someone who will thank you for it »
◊ Filed in: Life Purpose
Drop-down feed menu
September 15th, 2006 at 6:43 am
This has been a great series. I think you’ve captured the essence of the approach very well in the slides.
One thing that I’ve found is that though initially letting go of any ego-based (perceived) control can be extremely difficult, it actually gets a little easier each time. There can also be setbacks, where old patterns of thinking and reacting resurface. But once they are recognized and viewed clearly, they tend to drop away.
I can’t wait to hear about the feedback from the different groups. Should be interesting.
September 15th, 2006 at 8:39 am
Tony,
Letting go of ego-based control needs does get easier. For me, the setbacks occur in instances of perceived psychic danger or in situations where I feel blindsided and defensiveness rears its head.
Hawkins offered an interesting exercise in one of his books. He said that if you want to see the drama of human ego as it plays out in the world, watch the news on TV. It is ALL about ego.
September 15th, 2006 at 9:08 am
Great point. I’ve always found Hawkins to be interesting.
I think it also has to do with how we (or more precisely our egos) view the world and the models we choose. If we can choose better models, or even combine them, you end up with a better view.
I’ve been thinking a lot about modeling techniques of late. I wrote a post yesterday on one way of modeling.
I suppose the better tools we have, the better our results can be.
September 15th, 2006 at 9:39 am
RE: I suppose the better tools we have, the better our results can be.
Amen! And then we have to learn when and how to use them.
September 16th, 2006 at 6:44 am
Dick, I believe there is an edge in this that can easily be lost. Especially if you’re tempted to plunge into answers.
In my life I’ve always felt a deep drive to resolve new ways of understanding - I fought for granularity when I’d only built a superficial understanding. What you’ve described in the previous posts suggests something more graceful than the paths Hawkins suggested.
Dissecting wholemindedness into a myriad practices might distract from the simplicity and beauty of what you have begun to understand.
Can’t you say to future audiences that this is a perfect example of where your genius and purpose align? This is a point at which Creating Clarity is the heart of your interest. And in that pursuit you’re delighted to reveal that clarity (simplicity) remains elusive - that many have revealed aspects of purpose but have settled for distracting and unrefined versions of the way to purpose. You’re on the hunt, and the audience is part of the journey, to refine that understanding.
September 16th, 2006 at 8:12 am
Thanks Jeremy - right on all counts. First, lists tend to suggest a comprehesiveness that I don’t intend. I’m not trying here to be definitive, but to offer a sense of what needs to be found and let go of. The material would be better presented as two clouds rather than two lists.
Second, I do appreciate the “clarity remains elusive” notion and the notion of alignment between my own genius and purpose — come to my party! It suggests experiences that I might offer to audiences: “Here are examples of what people need to find and let go of. How about discussing what you need to find and let go of?”
I am trying at this stage to find a middle ground between terms such as “wholemindedness”, which, although they make sense to you and me, are very abstract (and can be misleading or off-putting to some audiences) and a thorough delineation.
Thanks for your input. Can you say a bit more about “more graceful than the paths Hawkins suggested”? Why is that so?
September 17th, 2006 at 7:37 am
I don’t think Hawkins was after what you are starting to see. Hawkins, whether he recognized it or not, was describing disciplines of perspective - a kind of seeing. And if he intended to describe purpose, he stopped short of expressing it.
What Hawkins provided is a series of dance steps. Each is a beautiful and wondrous action or decision. This of course fits with what you are currently aiming at: the things to do in a pursuit of purpose. Describing steps seems appropriate.
Yet, as Alan Watts illustrated, a dance is not a journey. In a journey we are constantly seeking our destination. One hour more today is an hour less to spend tomorrow. One last step now is a step I’ll never have to take again. But in a dance we aren’t seeking the end. We are seeking the moment.
We don’t dance to get anywhere; we don’t sing to finish songs. We do these things for the joy they bring to our moments. And anyone focused on some climactic conclusion will miss the brilliance of the moments.
Reviewing what you wrote so far - you recognized that purpose is not a destination. Purpose is a way of being beyond ego and rationality. Now you want to share that new understanding with others and have set out to describe what can be done to discover that way. In that pursuit you have highlighted the steps described by Hawkins.
But purpose isn’t a perspective. It isn’t a discipline. It isn’t a decision.
Purpose is unfiltered reality. It is naked and raw truth. It is my strength and my weakness in a world of needs.
Describing purpose by describing its parts threatens to turn a dance into a journey. I think you will lose the whole among the pieces.
If discovering purpose is a kind of enlightenment then teaching trancendence must be based on wholes. The only way to describe wholes is through metaphor.
Purpose is as water. It is a candle’s flame. It is a garden.
If enlightenment is an emerging understanding of the whole then discipline your thinking to remain at this level. Purpose is misunderstood because we’re so ready to break it down. It is messy, complex, and enormously challenging - leave it that way. Instead describe its dance, its elegance, its grace - its light.
When discovering purpose do we need an education or an invitation?
September 18th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Jeremy,
Thanks once again.
RE: “When discovering purpose do we need an education or an invitation?” We need an invitation, and we also need to be prepared to recognize it as such and to accept it.
I am not trying to describe steps to finding purpose, nor to subject purpose to reductionist analysis. I am seeking to describe the frame within which experience must be viewed in order for purpose to emerge. That frame is described by the terms under “finding” in the slides: faith, peace of mind, confidence, etc. Hawkins would call it a “level of consciousness.”
Armed with such a frame (and skill), those who wish to help others discover purpose (most of my audience over the next few months) can help their clients re-frame experiences by helping them let go of victimization, self-centeredness, resentment, etc. In this way the person becomes more and more prepared to recognize and accept the invitation if and when it arrives.
For this audience it is a matter of recognizing sometimes fleeting “teachable moments” (rather than steps) and capturing them. Then we arrive at what you call “a way of being beyond ego and rationality.”
I don’t fully agree that I need to “discipline your thinking to remain at this level.” I think my job is to leap between levels–where we are and where we want to go–and guide willing people as they take their own leap. I’m mixing metaphors here, but that leaping/guiding is my “dance.” It was reflected in the past by a corporate client who said I am good at, “Talking hard about soft stuff.” In this instance I want to do something like, “Talking mundane about enlightenment stuff.”
September 18th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
Although I realize that this blog is not intended to present one religious frame of reference, I felt that some of the readers may have an interest in a point which is part of the religion of Christ as it relates to one of your charts.
The second chart reminded me of Romans 12:1,2.
The next to the last word in Romans 12:1 has suffered two hindrances to modern understanding among the english speaking world. First, the english language has changed definitions since 1611 and secondly, modern “translations” have abandoned “Formal Equivalence” for “Dynamic Equivalence” which is an approach that attempts to filter the meaning of a passage through the pre-conceived bias of the translator as to the overall meaning of a context instead of focusing on each individual word. (Wikipedia Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_equivalence )
The greek word refers to that part of the mind which has the capacity to analyze and reason. The idea which is elaborated on further in verse 2, is that unless a person is willing to “let go” to the analytiical criteria of this “present world” - his moind will not be able to be transformed and if his mind is not transformed then he will not be able to look at things from God’s perspective and if he can not look at things from God’s perspective then he will not have the capacity to establish through this transformed mental state “what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”
September 18th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
James,
All “religious frames of reference” are welcome here. Not to worry.
And just so the rest of you don’t need to thumb through various bibles, differing versions of Romans 12:1 offer “reasonable” or “spiritual” as the next to the last word. In any case, I certainly agree with, “…unless a person is willing to “let go” to the analytical criteria of this “present world” - his mind will not be able to be transformed…” You are right, James: that is what I intend in the second slide, so long as “present world” is understood as a world steeped in the worship of and identification with rationality.
In that context, the equation spiritual=reasonable is decidedly odd, isn’t it?
September 18th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Dick, it seems I misunderstood the nature of this last post. I thought it was a summary of the others. I thought it was the big picture. For that purpose, Hawkins’ list seemed a bit … tactical.
But based on your intention to build a frame through which to view experience - I understand what you’re up to. You’re creating a filter.
I also understand the function of speaking deliberately and plainly about something so spectacular and intangible as enlightenment. It is absolutely one of your great strengths.
When I was reading the book, your way of writing about these things kind of unleashed me. It helped me let go. In the midst of the structure there was always the freedom to veer into truth - I wasn’t driven into it.
So, no doubt you’ll find your way into expressing these things is such a way too. I’m looking forward to it.
Thanks again for writing your book.
September 19th, 2006 at 8:00 am
That’s it Jeremy–a filter. I can now say with confidence that, in order to facilitate someone’s search for purpose, one can help them recognize life experiences that have meaning, then view those experiences through a certain kind of frame (or filter). The first part of that is in the book, the second is what all of these posts have been about.
In your words–one can help others prepare to recognize and accept the invitation. All of this assumes, of course, a certain level of consciousness below which purpose simply cannot show up.
One never knows when and where the invitation will be delivered, so the idea that a person can find purpose at a particular time in his or her life (say, a weekend workshop), or through a particular process, makes no sense at all. One can till and fertilize, but experience plants the seed.