Process - Postscript

Which brings us full-circle back to where we started, Professor.

Correct – except that in your prior summary of Process, you omitted what I feel is an important idea that preceded my conclusion, to wit:

‘Humans come of age are totally responsible for what they are and what they do.  We are free to do whatever we like within the limits of our several abilities.  We need only face the consequences.’  Which is to say that we have the freedom and ability to change the world around us but we have no one to blame for the outcomes but ourselves.

Well, that may be true, Professor, if we could control all of the outcomes from a particular sequence of events that our actions might set in motion, but we can’t.  Why do you say that we must be responsible?

We’re responsible because we can anticipate, observe, and respond if we choose to.  We’re not oblivious to the implications of our actions, unless we choose to be.  Do you sit in your car in the middle of a busy intersection and ignore the horns of your irritated fellows, or do you move so they can get through?  Better yet, do you anticipate that someone may be coming along before you have a chance to clear the intersection so it’d be a good idea not to block it?  Even still, do you recall from your age-old driver’s ed training that blocking an intersection is not permitted so you make a point to leave it clear automatically?  It’s true that we are unable to anticipate all of the possible outcomes, but where there is causation there is responsibility.  What I’m suggesting we should be applying is available knowledge and accumulated wisdom that helps us to anticipate undesirable environmental outcomes and to avoid behaviors that are likely to cause them.  Where medical science demonstrates linkage between eating red meat and heart disease or smoking cigarettes and lung cancer, we can choose to alter our behaviors to lessen the potential for such negative impacts.  When science demonstrates that inhalation exposure to benzene increases the likelihood of cancers in rats, we can choose to regulate sources of such emissions and protect the public from such exposures.

Or not.

Precisely – or not.  And in that case, who do we have to blame for our problems but ourselves?

And don’t you think that we have taken responsibility for our actions?

In some cases, certainly, but in many cases, I think the long-established TRADITION has been to ignore issues and “block the intersection” so to speak while the warning horns blare around us.  It’s just much easier to avoid problems than to face them unless we’re forced to, don’t you think?

Well, I think that many people have plenty of issues to be responsible for on a day-to-day basis and that it’s too hard to sort out issues that don’t elicit themselves obviously in front of their eyes – like global warming.  I think the tendency is to feel that the individual contributions to solving large-scale societal or environmental problems are insignificant.

Yes, individual efforts can be insignificant and unnoticed but as we saw in Tiananmen Square, they can also be very powerful.  As we’ve seen recently in the Middle East – profound changes can occur when people focus their attention on something important.  As we saw in July of 1969, when our efforts are focused by a clear vision, amazing feats can be achieved.

"A vision without a task is but a dream.
A task without vision is but drudgery.
A vision with a task is the hope of the world." - anon

Process - Part 8

I don’t know, Professor.  But does it really matter how my story plays out?  I mean with global population at about 7 billion people, what difference can my story make anyway?

Yes, I understand feelings of futility at such a daunting challenge, but I tell myself to make a difference for myself, my family, and those close to me first.  There’s no need to feel that a messianic quest to change the world in some dramatic fashion could be orchestrated.  I feel it’s more important to do what you can, where and when you can – the rest will take care of itself.  Ok, let’s bring this recitation to a close before we continue with what’s next.

Fair enough.   

“Humanity stands poised on a new frontier of evolutionary possibility.  An abyss is there to cross at cost, a door is there to unlock.  Humans have both the bridge and the key; they have awareness and the capability.  The question is, ‘do they have the courage?’

“Through higher levels of consciousness and behaviors consistent with them, Nature’s Process can express itself yet more fully through them.  Climbing this mountain, crossing this chasm, opening this door, can extend their sojourn within this phase of Process’ vastness to perhaps as successful a run as their brothers the cockroaches have enjoyed.  Without such awareness and behavior, little time remains before their slumber is rent and they are absorbed and erased from the scene – a very minor disruption in the remedial comings and goings of eternal Process.

“As one recent thinker suggested, ‘we have only ourselves and one another.  That may not be much, but that’s all there is.’  Another might reply, ‘that’s all there is, and that’s plenty.’  Therewith humanity must not only be content, but creative.

“It is most important to run out of gods, immovable national traditions, and other hindrances.  For better or worse, we are what we have called ‘God.’  It’s time we act that way and risk the terrible dangers inherent in the pursuit of the good unconditionally in ourselves and others – even to the extent of discovering the bad in ourselves and others.

“Humans come of age are totally responsible for what they are and what they do.  We are free to do whatever we like within the limits of our several abilities.  We need only face the consequences.

“If there be hope for mankind – if Process, once having become conscious, is to evolve into ever higher levels, the way must be shown by those who have demonstrated a capacity for a knowledgeable partnership with Nature in the making of things, yet whose making is softened by a wiser intuition that keeps them from making too much, too fast, and at too great a cost.   

Process - Part 7

“But Process, meanwhile, works intuitively within them, pulling them toward interdependence and union and mutuality.  Their minds are beginning to comprehend that they are not alone…that they are part of everything and everything is part of them…and that all things (including them) depend dynamically upon all other things and contribute to the common ‘becoming’ that is the nature of Nature.

“The trouble is that they don’t have a story as yet to tie up all these new insights and emerging intuitions.  But good stories tend to take on a life of their own once the key elements are discovered.  The question is, what story will unfold from these elements?

1. There are only superficial differences among human beings, whatever their gender, race, politics, socioeconomic status, educational background, or religion.
2. People are not superior in kind, but only in degree from other forms of life which are their co-sojourners in the endless dance of evolving Process.
3. This awareness is not demeaning, but rather magnificently enhancing – they are related directly to everything and the Whole of which they are a conscious part, has a common destiny.
4. Without embarrassment, they can embrace a dog and call it ‘brother,’ and lie in the moss and call it ‘cousin.’
5. The human preoccupation with tearing from Nature the wherewithal to fabricate things necessitated their learning how Nature works and what they have discovered discloses to them the truth that they might better work with her than against her.
6. Humanity emerged from the cosmic process as a unique intelligence, they were not placed here as a special creation.
7. There is no sharp boundary between transcendence and immanence - everything is interpenetrated by everything else.
8. Reality is infinitely relational.
9. All things are constantly in a state of becoming and that change, not stasis, is a primary state of things.
10. Nature’s processes are remedial and transformative.
11. Nature is not willfully coercive nor consciously hateful, it is one, balanced, organic Whole.
12. Embedded in Nature is directionality:  the principle that preserves the identity of each thing while it simultaneously undergoes change and modification, an observation that has them rethinking the notion of a Supreme Cosmic Plan.

“In possession of this information, they’re doing pretty well with dogs, moss, and whales, and tree toads, and landscapes, and dolphins and seashells, and hybrid tomatoes, but they’re still very cautious with their fellow humans.  Most of them don’t believe the old stories anymore, but they think they do, and insist on building their lifestyles, societal styles, institutional styles, and national styles upon them.  They know the dangers inherent in openness, in giving, in telling, in feeling, in touching, in listening, or experimenting too much.  Their tendency is to think it safer to give only conditionally, to tell only partially, to do as little as possible, to feel only sparingly, to listen selectively, and to touch only if necessary. 

“One recent false prophet summed up the anti-interdependent inclinations with the phrase, ‘nice guys finish last.’  Another said, ‘being nice is how a person pays his way into the party if he hasn’t the guts to be tough or the class to be brilliant.’  They both miss the point, but it sounds right because that’s what they’ve learned through harsh experience.

So let me stop here before I conclude the recitation of Process, and pose a question to you:  what story will you write?

Process - Part 6

But, we’re getting a bit ahead of the story.  Let’s return to Industrialized Humans.

 “They had no plan but the one they made in the morning, to be discarded at noon.  And they took pride in being impertinent and reactionary and never crossed their bridge till they came to it.  And they were perpetually on the move, but they mostly moved over and not with what was around them, until they had pretty well covered everything green with pavement and railroad tracks, and telephone lines and sewage disposal plants, and runways, and parking lots, and shopping malls, and hamburger stands which sold billions because one had to stop neither to pick them up nor to eat them, and that suited people on the move just fine.

“But the voices of poets and philosophers who had tried to learn from Nature rather than conquer Her, were eventually heard.  One had built a shack by a pond and spent considerable time in jail for not paying his taxes.

“Another asked that we:

‘Think me not unkind and rude

That I walk alone in grove and glen;

I go to the god of the wood

To fetch his word to men.’

“Another

‘…retired into a silent bay…’

‘…to cut across the reflex of a star…’ and

‘…reclining back upon my heels,

Stopped short, yet still the solitary cliffs

Wheeled by me – even as if the earth had rolled

With visible motion her diurnal round.”

“One had watched, ‘a noiseless, patient spider.’  Another told of ‘The sniff of green leaves and dry leaves, and of the shore, and dark-color’d sea-rocks, and of hay in the barn.’  Still another told of us ‘stopping by woods on a snowy evening.’  And perhaps they all heard ancient Varuna say:

‘I move with roaring, howling, and radiant might,
I move with the infinite and nature’s powers.
I hold the love of the Lord of Lords, I hold
The fire of the soul, I hold life and healing.’

“But most people did not hear this voice.  Or, if they heard, they did not embrace the message and so they continued to do to Nature, not with her.  But where once they were prouder of this power over Nature than they were appreciative of Her wonders, they’ve begun to recognize that their science and technology and fabricating genius combine with their unique personal contradictions to produce the premier danger that they and the rest of Earth Process have encountered thus far:  the trinity of science, technology, and ethical contradiction.

“And they have become afraid once again.  Once they were afraid of their powerlessness.  Now they are afraid of their power.  They realize that they have been conscious in Process and resident on this expression of it for only a moment of cosmic time.  And they realize that their terminal potentialities have existed for only the last split moment.  They realize that answers offered by their charming old stories are inadequate, but they are afraid to pursue new ones and their implications.  As far as they are concerned, their ancestors did well enough with the old stories – they provided a sense of supremacy and meaning and direction and destiny.  They set humans apart and made them “special.”  They even released people from ultimate dependence upon their earth footing, and that release freed them from responsibility for other aspects of Process around them.  After all, their stories told them:  ‘this world is not our home – we’re just a passin through.’  They thought, ‘our real home is up there somewhere.’  And, so it is that industrialized humans’ selfish individualism and tendency toward separation persists in this behavior.  They’ve been raised on competition, hierarchies, and getting to the top and what happens here in the meantime doesn’t really matter because The Earth is so incredibly vast.”

What “ethical contradiction” are you referring to, Professor – and why is it so dangerous?

I’m talking about an ethical dilemma caused by the awareness that time-honored TRADITIONS, behaviors they were convinced were right and just, are producing results that they know to be wrong and unjust.  For example, the knowledge that through their scientific and technological manipulation of the world to achieve material satisfaction (something they’ve been told is good), they are altering the environment into which they and countless living things have evolved and are dependent upon now and into the future (something that is most certainly wrong).     

And you say that while they recognize this, they’re afraid to replace the old TRADITIONS, I suppose we could say philosophies too, with new ones because they’re unable to accept the implication that their lifestyles and behaviors are unsustainable?

Correct, their selfish individualism encourages them to destroy more, consume more, and discard more.  They manipulate the world around them to create short-term material satisfaction while discovering little of the beauty and spirituality of the world around them.  They seek to have the most toys while destroying community, interdependence, and personal interaction.   Ironically, their pursuit of individual satisfaction promotes lifestyles and behaviors that are unsustainable for themselves and the whole.

Process - Part 5

“And many decided that doing was more fun than thinking, so they up and did.  And they made strong alloys by adding a weak metal to a weaker metal…and that didn’t make any sense, but who cared as long as it worked?  And they designed the Holy Roman Empire, which wasn’t holy or Roman or an empire, but who cared because it almost worked?  And they made marvelous machines to describe the movement of the planets around the earth…which they don’t, but somebody with a lot of TRADITION behind them said they did, so the machines ground on by God, and over anybody who said otherwise, and it worked for a while.  And they made the calculus, and discovered oxygen, and invented telescopes, and understood physics, and defined Greenwich Mean Time, and created Divine Kings, ‘demonic parliaments,’ and cities, agricultural farming, marriage, books and libraries to hold them, schools, the 24-hour day, hospitals, divorce, representative democracy and a republic to hold it, circuit judges, compulsory education, trade unions, unemployment insurance, Presbyterians, kindergartens, social security, sit-ins, and some revolutions and lots of special and separate TRADITIONS all of which were absolutely true because they worked for those who made them.

“And religion (another of their inventions) became the defender of TRADITION which frequently thereafter forbade them to make any more inventions – which is funny, but so are they.  A whole bunch of religions were started in the desert by chauvinist goatherds and camel drivers.  The God they made told them that Mother Nature was to be subdued and conquered so most of their inventions went in that direction.  The decided to conquer the hostile old bitch and build and build and build.  They built lightning rods, stoves, and bifocals (to see both inductively and deductively).  They fabricated,

            ‘Box-cars, clocks, steam-shovels, churns, pistons, boilers, scissors’ and

            ‘Steel barb-wire around The Works.

            ‘Steel guns in the holsters of the guards at the gates of The Works,’

“And they made corporations, and designed the first duties of the day, or so they were called – the really real TRADITIONS of:

            ‘Wealth, order, travel, shelter, products, plenty,’

“And summed these up in one all pervading symbol – the Cadillac Seville, to be earned in the…

            ‘Stormy, husky, brawling…

Bareheaded,
Shoveling,
Wrecking,
Planning,
Building, breaking, rebuilding,’

"…which came to epitomize the unfathomable accident called, Industrialized Human."

           

Pardon me Professor, but if I may say, it doesn’t seem that you’re too big on tradition.

Oh, quite to the contrary.  Some traditions are wonderful, it’s the adherence to TRADITION for the sake of TRADITION that gets me riled.  We’re creatures of habit, yes?  And, we get comfortable doing things in certain ways.  We follow routines in how we act, how we communicate, and how we think.  Call it socialization or indoctrination, it all makes for an orderly and functional system.  But what happens when the following of these routines, these TRADITIONS, leads us to do, say, or think in ways that don’t make sense any more?  Well, by damned, some would have us put on the blinders and forge ahead.  Others might question such behaviors and ways of thinking and be ostracized for breaking with TRADITION.

I see.  Alright, what about the statement, “The God they made…”  

What is it about the statement that you’d like to discuss?

I’m not sure, don’t you believe in God?

I think that the point of this discussion, the point of the work we’re discussing, is that I believe in Process.  The question as to how or why Process was initiated is one that troubles many people, but not me.  I find no particular value to belaboring the point.  It simply is.  That’s not to say I am not awestruck by the elegance of a blade of grass, the purity of a rain drop, or the unfathomable depths of the cosmos.  But I see no particular reason to attribute responsibility for our existence or what happens to us to an entity other than that which we are all a part - Process.  But we’re getting ahead of ourselves.  We'll get back to this at the end.  Shall we continue?

Please do.

Process - Part 4

I understand your description of evolutionary experiments “differing from one another only in degree and not in kind” such as the various stages of horse evolution from a miniature version to the horse of today – clearly not different in kind, but certainly different in degree, from mini to magnum if you will.  But, can you elaborate on what you said about them attaining their differences only through active interrelationships?

The point I was driving at there has to do with living communities of organisms and how their dynamic interactions produced evolutionary changes that further differentiated organisms from each other.  Fast forwarding to human relationships, you might consider the collaborative nature of human enterprises and how our differing strengths and weaknesses gain expression through those interactions.  By relating to, associating with, or referring to others, we’re able to differentiate and distinguish ourselves as individuals.  

Whereas in isolation?

Whereas in isolation, it really doesn’t matter what the individual’s strengths or weaknesses are does it?  If they’re kept locked away where no one can see, then what do they contribute to the party?  Plus, if they are sequestered away like some lonely organism at an evolutionary dead end, there’ll be no procreation and no continuation of that gene pool – and that’s no fun.  

Alright, that helps.  Then you said, something about the arrival of humans representing a “species with an open future.”  What do you mean by that?

Well, as I say, this mutant possessed options and alternatives.  Those possibilities were available by virtue of our unique minds.  The distinction being the inevitable future that all living things share compared to the “open” future that humans were and are capable of constructing for ourselves.

Thank you, would you care to continue?

Indeed.  Let’s see, we’d been asking questions…

“And the answers they gave themselves depended on where they grew up, what their lives were like, and what their special needs were.

“Where the earth was rich and gave forth its fruits in abundance, answers related to a primordial Earth Mother with large soft breast who had begun it all and was sustaining it all through a round of regular seasons, all 28 days long or multiples thereof.

 “But where the earth was harsh and dry and yielded not easily to their touch, and had to be poked and prodded hard to yield anything at all, they sought answers in the sky.  They became sharp, rigid, and direct like a phallus and they related to a primordial Father who was a pretty stern fellow and who did a lot of punishing.

“But wherever they lived and whatever the gender of their god, humans discovered that they had two things in common with others of their kind:  their feelings of being terribly alone and alienated from the mysterious powers around them, from even their closest friends, and from themselves.

“And even worse:  a gut fear of their own ambiguity - so kind and gentle on one hand and so cruel and brutal on the other.  Being unable to live with this contradiction, regardless of the environments where they lived, they chose to divide themselves into parts and attribute the causes of those contradictory feelings to powers beyond themselves…beyond their own consciousness…to scapegoats out there somewhere.

“Because they felt inferior to the other creatures in so many ways, they decided to make themselves superior in some way.  So, they told themselves that they were created ‘special’ by something SUPER SPECIAL that lived way out there beyond the horizon.

“Their enormous potential for Good was shortened and called “God” (or the REALLY SPECIAL GOOD).  And they gave it a gender, a dwelling place, and a nature composed of the best they knew or could imagine in themselves.

“And they did the same with their enormous potential for evil.  They lengthened it, because it seemed sometimes the stronger force in them, and called it “Devil” (or the REALLY SPECIAL BAD), and gave this too a gender and a dwelling place and a nature composed of the worst they knew or could imagine in themselves.”

OK, sorry – time out for a minute Professor.  Umm, I’ve never heard that the word “god” is derived from the word good, or devil from evil.

Fair enough, grant me poetic license again.  You’re correct – I don’t think you’ll find etymologists tracing the word “god” back to the same root as “good.”  If anything, it’s vice versa.  Nor will you find obvious connections between “evil” and “devil.”  The point of this word exercise is not the literal connection of the words, but the act of creating these entities to help us deal with this internal conflict.

I understand, thank you.  Sorry for the interruption.

“And they attempted for the first time to live with one another, and thus began their super confusion.

“And they sat down

And stood up

And prostrated themselves for being composed by the Devil

And praised themselves for being composed by God

And domesticated animals

And masturbated

And cried

And built

And farted

And made charms and temples and rituals and priests and priestesses

And mutilated their flesh

And stood on one leg

And designed elaborate rituals

And belched

And stood on the other leg

And made love

And made love again because it was very good

And then decided something that very good had to be very bad

And worried about that

And made art

And stuck a finger in their ear

And composed music

And scratched their asses

And killed millions of their kind who were not so “special” as they

And tried to live caught on hooks between their good side and their bad side

And found it very difficult to please their good side while appeasing their bad side

So they composed many stories to explain why they were so “special” and felt so rotten about it.

“Although the stories were charming, many of them were too simple.  But they were the best they could do with the mysteries given the circumstances.  And, since any explanation is better than none, they told their children, and they told theirs, and so on, and so on, until all these stories became HISTORICAL AND ETERNAL TRUTHS and GENUINE FACTS and they were written down in very small handwriting in very heavy books and surrounded by cult and dances and rituals and symbols and buildings and hierarchies and politics and TRADITION and everyone knows that you never break with TRADITION so they were stuck with it.

“As people matured in experience, they knew their stories needed to be interpreted and corrected and that there were better explanations for the mysteries perplexing them, but they were afraid to investigate them because such investigation wasn’t considered polite by the majority and certainly was not approved by the watchdogs of TRADITION.

 “So it was that carrying their burden of ambivalence, ambiguity, and contradiction, and in possession of a pretty fair bagful of charming stories which failed increasingly to answer the miserable questions they had been posing; humanity stumbled over their philosophers and prophets and tried to use logic and reason to understand that which isn’t logical or reasonable.  Some of those philosophers and prophets looked around and refused to see things the way everyone else did, and that’s the best way there is to get into trouble.

Process - Part 3

“From possibilities, actual things emerged:  the roots of an enormous tree of Life whose topmost branches stretch outward infinitely far, while its roots plunge infinitely deep – both the outward and the inward journey fraught with mystery far beyond the comprehension of the forms of life clustered high and low.”

Umm, sorry Professor, but do you really mean ‘infinitely’?  I guess I’ll grant you poetic license there, but wouldn’t ‘immeasurably’ convey the same meaning and be more accurate?

Sure, ‘immeasurable’ is fine too and perhaps more accurate.  The point is that we’ll never know how many different expressions of Life there have been or will be.  So, for purposes of discussion, the tree of Life may as well be thought of as having roots of impenetrable antiquity and branches that reach out with incomprehensible complexity.

Fair enough.

On we go.

“Many of Process’ experiments at union failed.  Many more reached termini and ceased to evolve further:  yet all were, and are, and will be permeated by the basic stuff of the cosmos, differing from one another only in degree and not in kind:  attaining their apparent differences only through active interrelationships.”

“This primordial drive toward greater and greater union produced Whole structures and communities in the sea which, oh so gradually, sought the light and then more light and then more yet.”

"On the face of the earth clock, single-celled organisms appeared about 4 AM…primitive invertebrates not until much later - about 8 or 9 PM.  Land plants blossomed just before 10 PM and there was oxygen.  Dinosaurs arrived about 11 PM and just before midnight on this 4.5-billion year long day, there was a remarkable emergence in the turbulent stream of Life in Process…'humanoids' woke up in a world they did not understand.  The cosmic process became conscious – a mutant possessing options and seeking questions.  A species with an open future.”

“And as they became more aware, they became afraid of their many choices, of their freedom, of their enormous potential for good, and of their equally enormous potential for evil.  And their freedom was their Hell and they were envious of their fellow creatures that had no future because they had no past – only the vaguest awareness of the present, and nowhere near as much freedom as humans had.”

“The other creatures felt no guilt, because they could not do other than they did.  But humans could; and humans did.  And they became the first questioners of their own being.  And Process for the first time asked questions of itself:

• Who am I?
• Where did I come from?
• Why am I different from other creatures around here?
• Why do I smile and laugh?
• Why do I like to play?
• Why do I frown and cry?
• Why must I work so hard all the time?
• Where do different languages come from?
• How is it that some of my kind are black, others white, others yellow and red and all shades in between?
• Why do some of us live in tents and others in huts of straw and still others in walled cities?
• Where am I going?
• Do I have a destiny?
• Will I survive death?
• Does anybody out there love me, or care for me, or am I all alone?
• Why do I ask these questions?
• Why do I do bad things when I know better, and if I am so bad, how is it that I know the good?"

“And the answers Humans gave themselves depended upon where they grew up, what their lives were like, and what their special needs were.”

Let me stop you there again, Professor.

Process - Part 2

“The rebirth of things in Process is stormy, violent, and mindless.  Creating passion is not logical or reasonable or conventional.  It is capricious, and random, and accidental, and governed not at all unless Chance be the Governor.  Reason and logic come only late in time as passions cool and maturation begins (and human consciousness attempts to make sense of it all).  But even then, logic teeters precariously on the edge of passion’s mysteries.”

May I stop you there?

Of course.

Why “rebirth?  Why not just, ‘The birth of things?’

“Birth” seems too singular an event.  From this continuous Process, things emerge and disappear only to be recreated in another form in another place and time – cosmic recycling on a billion-year scale.

 So the cosmic cocktail is shaken and left to coalesce into meaningful forms if conditions allow?

That’s how I see it – a collection of energy and elements adhering to fundamental laws over millennia and eventually taking form.  Shall I proceed?

Please do. 

“Process needs its wild, flamboyant, sensual, and erotic stage.  It needs it over and over again, for creation never ceases, and Eros too is love:  without it there would be no birth at all.

“As stage gives way to stage, the time for stabilizing and organizing and systematizing arrives.  So that stage arrived within one miniscule expression of Process, set inconspicuously in the vastness of its greater Self.

“First, that which is called 'earth,' and later that which is called 'water,' emerged as new expressions of Process in this place.  There was 'light' to stimulate new possibilities:  earth, water, and light, the local trinity from which everything on Earth emerged and upon which the continuing novelties of Process depend.

“And Process moved more deliberately…more slowly but still at random:  one huge, unconscious experiment with interrelationships and interdependencies, active in the trinity of earth, water, and light until simplicities gathered to form marvelous complexities while keeping their own identities intact…a joining in which the individual was improved in the company of other individuals and not erased by such associations.  Simple systems produced more intricate ones until these yielded to systemic Wholes capable of replicating themselves…AND THERE WAS LIFE…a vibrating new possibility for Process to express itself.”

Order out of chaos then, right Professor?  “One huge unconscious experiment,” that could have turned out completely differently and perhaps did elsewhere depending on the material, the conditions, and random burps along the way.

What appears chaotic to one may seem perfectly orchestrated to another and vice versa.  Regardless of how such interrelationships were instigated, the final result was that Process achieved the ability to recreate itself and stepped beyond the inanimate to the animate.

Please continue.

Process - Part 1

Professor, do you mind if we go back to the beginning of your work, Process, so I can ask you some questions?

Of course not - how about if I read it to you and you stop me when you have a question?

That would be great.

Alright then, here we go.

Process - A Spiritual Journey to a Partnership with Nature
by Robert A. Macoskey © 2000 by Vivas Macoskey, reprinted and adapted with permission

"AND THERE WAS PROCESS

In the beginning was Process;

and Process was both joining and separating;

and Process was not personal;

but personality was hidden inside awaiting only the appearance of persons,

and Process had no beginning.

It was, and is, and will be:  worlds, and solar systems and galaxies, and all they contain.

Transitions without endings.

"And Process moves from simple things and events to complex things and events and back again:  one vast coming and going interconnected and pulsating Whole.

“In the endless course of transition, there are side plays on the cosmic stage when the simplest of things (which are anything but simple) slow their outward journey.  But Process allows only a short rest before drawing them back together.  These simplest of things mix.  Their mixing creates new combinations and as their union becomes more intimate, the tempo increases causing heat, light, and solids to pirouette outward in frenzied whirlings toward infinitely novel destinies – which are designed on the way.  ‘The Law of Heaven and Truth were born of conscious fervor set on fire.’”

Okay, let’s stop there.  So, this is obviously a creation story.

Well, not entirely, but I figured I’d start at the beginning.

And what you’re referring to as “Process” is a representation of the totality of existence?

I’ve chosen to call reality “Process” because I wanted to emphasize the “endless course of transition” or what you have referred to in your Philosophy of Sustainability as the tenet of Impermanence.

And the phrase, 'The laws of Heaven and Truth were born of conscious fervor set on fire."  Where is that from?

From 3 or 4 thousand years ago as contained in the Hymn of Origin from the Rig-Veda.

Please continue.

Process

In the concluding statement of Process you say:  “If there is hope for humankind…the way must be shown by those who have demonstrated a capacity for a knowledgeable partnership with Nature in the making of things, yet whose making is softened by a wiser intuition that keeps them from making too much, too fast, and at too great a cost.”

What did you mean Professor?

I think that we are on the ‘verge of the edge.’  We’re at one of von Bertalanffy’s bifurcation points.  We’re at Robert Johnson’s crossroads.  We have an opportunity to recognize the errors and weaknesses of the trail we’ve blazed since embarking in 1793 on the Industrial Revolution.  We have an opportunity to redirect our talent for manipulating Nature toward sustainable enterprises and that if we do not, society, as Western cultures have come to expect it, could very quickly revert to something for which we are ill prepared.

What sort of a “partnership with Nature” do you propose?

Let’s think about the world ‘partnership.’  The American Heritage dictionary offers the definition:  “A relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility, as for the achievement of a specified goal.”  The idea apparently derives from the late 13^th century when the concept of a partner or joint heir found expression relative to partitioning property.  While partitioning derives from the Latin partire meaning to divide and from pars meaning a part, the point is that a partnership implies a sharing of responsibility for the parts of the whole.  As anyone who has been in a relationship knows, a partnership requires give and take – each party benefits from the cooperation, sharing, devotion, and attention of the other – we look out for each other, we help each other, we love each other.

Now think about our relationship with the world around us.  It is the source of all our wealth and material satisfaction.  We extract, consume, fabricate, and contaminate.  We take, take, take, but what do we give back?  This is not a partnership – this is, as many recognize, symptomatic of cancer – growth at the detriment of the host.

That seems pretty extreme Professor.  The Earth is a passive participant in this partnership – it’s not so much that it gives and we take, it’s like Thomas Mann’s character Felix Krull observed ‘…we came out of this Earth, we didn’t come into it…’ We’re a part of it so how can we help but consume and fulfill our needs?  What are we supposed to give back?

The idea isn’t to give back to the planet.  You’re right, we consist of what has come from the Earth and all that we are will return to it when we die.  Since we can’t give anything back that wasn’t already here, the idea is really about not preventing others now and in the future from having the opportunity to experience this world as we and prior generations have.  We should fulfill our needs to the best of our knowledge and ability, without preventing current and future living things from doing the same.