Today’s poly-crises and the collapse of our modern ways of living have been close to my heart and at the forefront of my mind while reading the various texts assigned. Certainly, Richard Tarnas’ essay describing and making sense of our era, including the possibility of a death and rebirth “rite of passage” (Tarnas, 2000, p. 18), is what spoke to me the most.
Though I agree with how the author narrates, analyzes, and interprets the events we are grappling with, I am somewhat ambivalent to assigning it the grand meaning of “rite of passage”. For each argument indicating this could be so, I could just as equally interpret it in the opposite direction. It seems that the use of rite of passage to explicate and contextualize our current moment in history is simply one possible interpretation which provides a narrative that is more hopeful and empowering. Another interpretation is that we are simply traversing a long chaotic epoch that is full of destruction and social decline, and that the other side of this need not be a grand rebirth. It is possible that the universe is capable of such random and volatile disarray without majestic meaning or destiny, and that such arbitrary havoc is indeed a natural part of the creative cosmic impulse. I recognize that such a view may be considered less hopeful or empowering, yet I personally continue holding both in me as that is what personally feels truest. The question remains: are we in a painful hopeful rite of passage? Or is this the beginning of a long aimless dark age?
One aspect of the reading that reverberated strongly in me is the author’s suggestion that part of the solution, in his view, is to “radically expand our ways of knowing” (Tarnas, 2020, p. 19). Perhaps it is because I have observed my ways of knowing softly though radically shift in the last decade or so. “What and how I know” used to be a function of: expert information gathering, deep analysis, complex synthesis, and rigorous empirical validation. This is, of course, a perfect byproduct of our left-brain western way of thinking. Yet in the recent past, important and disruptive changes have affected these various functions.
Firstly, there has been a formidable proliferation of information quantity rendering it overwhelming and paralyzing to consume. Through a decline in journalistic standards and “fake news” rhetoric, there is also an indisputable dwindling of information quality. All the while Artificial Intelligence (AI) can (and has) easily and instantaneously manufacture information and media that is completely fictitious yet astonishingly realistic. No wonder our relationship to information and knowledge has become full of suspicion, distrust, toxicity, and despair.
Secondly, when it comes to the functions of analysis and synthesis that could bring us discernment in both quantity and quality, sadly these seem to be in danger of extinction given the enormous amounts of distraction through social media, hyper consumerism, and breakneck speed ways of living.
Lastly, there seems to be a near-complete absence of spaces for empirical validation that would have otherwise enabled us to corroborate and verify knowledge. Very few opportunities seem to exist for collaborative and collegial debating of information, freely and spontaneously inferring possible implications and extrapolations, as well enabling the holding of an opinion while still cherishing our friends and fellow humans that may think differently.
As a result, I organically found myself turning away from the outward and left-brain ways of knowing and instead oriented inward. As far as I can tell, this was not a conscious move and was certainly not initiated by my mind. In this change of orientation, I found no equivalent activity for information gathering, analysis, synthesis or empirical validation in my inner world. No, there was a different kind of knowing: direct, immediate, nonstrenuous, and unconfused. There emerged visual insights, body sensations carrying qualities that inform, a feeling that suggests an irrevocable yes or no, out of character ideas upon awakening, etc. Could it be that I have been relying on my limited five senses and half a (left) brain to “know” my world when in fact I have vaster and far more potent powers of knowing through subtler organs of perception and my other half (right) brain?
I have observed that the more I go inward, the more I get to know myself, and the more I seem to perceive (though not grasp) the world and be at peace with its chaos, volatility, and constant change. The more I go inward, the more I have this sense that things are exactly where they are supposed to be (even the tumultuous ones), and that in the end all will be alright. Also paradoxically, turning inward has made me participate in my world more, not less. It has made me see more beauty and potentiality, expanding on possibilities, opportunities, and choice. This feeling of equanimity and acceptance seems to be rooted in something I can’t quite explain, but rooted, nevertheless.
Modern day science, biology, and medicine do not recognize the abovementioned subtler organs and ways of knowing. Even more, they consider them childish and dangerously superstitious. Is that true? Doesn’t the century old double-slit physics experiment prove theoretically and empirically that we are direct creators of our reality by collapsing (bringing into knowing) the wave function? Doesn’t quantum entanglement indicate that information can indeed travel faster than the speed of light making knowing instantaneous? Post modern psychology may further diagnose these ways of knowing as schizophrenic, bipolar, or even delusional. If so, why is it that Internal Family Systems (IFS) is the fastest growing psychotherapeutic modality ever recorded in history? IFS contends that we are an inner multiplicity; that we have parts that play various roles and who make sense of the word differently. Some may know with their bodies, others with their feelings, etc.
Though turning inward for knowledge feels true in my body, it is also a scary proposition. What if everyone dives in and finds their Truth to be different? What if this results in us being even more divided and camping in our corners in disagreement and judgement? Could we, as a collective, experiment with such a proposition? If so, will we find ourselves rooted in a singular Source of knowledge and emerge full of wisdom, creativity, tolerance, and sisterhood? Or will we find ourselves living in competing echo chambers, believing in different versions of reality, constantly wanting to change one another, and being stuck in anger and disapproval?
Revolutions and major societal change have always been instigated by a small group of committed and dedicated citizens. This brings me a lot of comfort, and I wonder if all we need is a group of us humans turning inward and utilizing the resources of science, the reach of media, the power of technology, the potency of connection, and the great profundity and creativity of inner worlds. Could this be the tipping point we are all craving for? You may say I am a dreamer, but I am not the only one…
Reference list:
Tarnas, R. (2000). Is the modern psyche undergoing a rite of passage? Routledge.