Embracing Nondual Thinking

If we can get here, we can de-polarize.

Hi friends. Ready for another installment in the Ken Wilber, Father Richard Rohr, Cynthia Bourgeault worldview? We’re going to bring in some Lynne Twist and Amanda Ripley, too. Ripley is the author of High Conflict—I loved our podcast conversation about the way we tend to get stuck in tar pits of our own creation when we find ourselves in conflict. We bear down until we’re so stuck we calcify. (This works from the macro to the micro.)

Gustav Klimt’s “The Sunflower.” Prints available at MoMA.

In case you missed earlier installments, I first wrote about Ken Wilber’s paradigm of all paradigms, and his theory of holons and holarchies—that we are each whole in of ourselves, and also a part of something bigger. And that we are slowly marching forward in an evolutionary process where we get bigger and bigger—his words are “transcend and include.” We climb to a higher vantage point and our understanding expands—we are able to integrate disparate views without negating or denying anything (or anyone) that came before. Next, I wrote about the cultural/spiritual (false) binary of descenders (the earth and material reality is all there is) versus transcenders (all matter is base and we’re trying to get somewhere else, to our real home). In Wilber’s view—which aligns with the thinking of people like G.I. Gurdjieff, Cynthia Bourgeault, et al—we are running energy up and down. Both are real, both are essential, both are required in order for reality to hold. That one trumps or denies the other is a false binary, and yet we’ve clung to it.

Transcend and Include

Ascending and Descending

Here’s the thing about this moment of time that we find ourselves in. The polarization in the United States—across a spectrum of issues—feels like it might break us. One upside? Regardless of whether we’re ready to publicly admit it, we all must recognize that we’re driving farther into our respective tar pits. What’s happening right now is not working. Nobody is going to fold. Nobody is going to “change their mind,” or acknowledge they’ve gotten it wrong, or willingly release. We know this will continue. Progressive action is resulting in extreme regression. Drag Queen bans. Abortion bans. More and more negation. In order to move forward, we must diffuse the polarity—we have to break the binary, and release the pressure. (Some ideas on how to do this below.) In The Naked Now: Learning to See as the Mystics See, Father Richard Rohr talks about this trap, writing, “When you are concerned with either attacking or defending, manipulating or resisting, pushing or pulling, you cannot be contemplative. When you are preoccupied with enemies, you are always dualistic. You can take that as axiomatic: in most cases, you become a mirror image of both what you oppose and what you love (see Ephesians 5:14).” Another way of saying this is that what we resist persists. And we become what we hate.

When we oppose something, we take the polarized position—it’s hard not to get locked in. Here’s Rohr: “If you fight dualistic thinkers directly, you are forced to become dualistic yourself.” I want to be very clear here that what Rohr and others teach is acceptance, not agreement. We can abhor someone’s politics and we still must accept their position: It does not mean we agree. But hating where they’ve positioned themselves does not change their position. The only way to move forward and out of opposition is metaphysical: Stick with me here, but resistance on both sides drives us forward and pushes us to grow and get bigger. I wrote about Resistance and the Law of Three in this older newsletter, but repeating some of Cynthia Bourgeault’s words here to give you a sense of metaphysical resistance. In The Holy Trinity, she writes:

”Most of the world’s ancient metaphysical paradigms are binary systems. That is to say, they function on the principle of paired opposites. Yin/yang is an obvious example. In binary systems the universe is experienced as created and sustained through the symmetrical interplay of the great polarities: male and female, light and darkness, conscious and unconscious, yin and yang, prkriti and purusha.

“The categories masculine and feminine also belong to a binary system; in fact, they are perhaps the primordial binary system within creation. Life sustains and expresses itself in the tension of opposites, and a slackening of this tension through an imbalance of the parts leads to a collapse of the whole system.

“A ternary system envisions a distinctly different mix. In place of paired opposites, the interplay of the two polarities calls forth a third, which is the “mediating” or “reconciling” principle between them. In contrast to a binary system, which finds stability in the balance of opposites, the ternary system stipulates a third force that emerges as the necessary mediation of these opposites and that in turn (and this is the really crucial point) generates a synthesis at a whole new level.”

Bourgeault is talking about Gurdjieff’s “Law of Three”: That for anything to move forward, three forces must be present: Affirming, Denying, Reconciling. The “Denying” force, the “negative,” is resistance. And it is as critical as forward movement or positivity in order to create essential growth. Resistance is a critical source of momentum.

If we take this idea of resistance as the source of forward momentum (affirming, denying, reconciling), we can compare it to Wilber’s model from A Brief History of Everything, which posits that “each step in the climb,” has three-steps:

1.     Fusion/identification

2.     Differentiation/transcendence

3.     Integration/inclusion

Looks like the same thing: Affirming, Denying, Reconciling. They are all talking about the Law of Three (Cynthia Bourgeault believes that this is the meaning of the Trinity, FWIW). When we think about this in terms of politics, I believe we are ready for the reconciling to move us to the next plane. Most people are not at the poles: A majority of Americans (I believe) are ready to move forward.

When I interviewed Lynne Twist, author of The Soul of Money and Living a Committed Life, she talked about the difference between taking a position and taking a stand. You can guess, but taking a position requires polarization and opposition—you are taking a position against or for something. Meanwhile, taking a stand is non-dual—you are holding space for a bigger idea or movement—it is not positional, it is ephemeral, beckoning us forward. It calls us to state our values, what we are for not against: I am for bodily autonomy; supporting and serving the elderly, the young, and the poor; freedom of expression, particularly when it moves toward love; rehabilitating the traumatized; and more. As she writes in Living a Committed Life:

The positions we take have a smaller scope and usually reflect our beliefs and opinions. Taking a position, however right we may consider it to be, creates its opposition: “up” calls forth “down”; “left” sets up “right”; “us” brings forth “them”; “pro-choice” generates “pro-life.” And the more entrenched you are in pro-life, the more entrenched the response will be in pro-choice. That is the nature of positionality. So while positions are important and useful, they can also get us into trouble—trapping us in ideology and conflict.

But if you start identifying with your point-of-view, believing that it’s right and any other point of view is wrong, and you try to get people to agree with your point of view, it’s an exercise in futility because every point of view has its own validity.

An authentic stand can take into account all positions so that you have the capacity to see and even incorporate all points of view. When you take a stand, you release yourself from your position or any position. When you relinquish your point of view and free yourself from it, what you end up with is vision. Vision is the capacity to see, and from a place of vision, you can see all points of view. It is as if you are 30,000 feet up, and looking down, you can see how valid and useful every point of view is—and how true it is for the person who is holding it.

Twist talked about how stand-taking was the approach of our most visionary leaders—Gandhi, MLK Jr. Father Rohr would probably say that stand-taking is the exclusive domain of nondual thinkers. (Including Jesus, Buddha, et al.)

In the Appendix of The Naked Now, Father Rohr includes a teaching tool which outlines a 9-Step Progression toward nondual thinking. See if you can find yourself on this path. (It’s startling.)

1.     My body and self-image are who I am. Leads to a dominance of security, safety, and defense needs. Dualistic/polarity thinking.

2.     My external behavior is who I am. Needs to look good outside and to hide or disguise the contrary evidence from others; I become so practiced at this game that the evidence is eventually hidden from myself, too. This emergence of the shadow is very common among conservatives.

3.     My thoughts/feelings are who I am. Development of intellect and will to have better thoughts and feelings and also control them so others do not know, and so, finally, that I do not see their self-serving and shadowy character myself. This education as a substitute for transformation is very common among liberals and the educated.

Normally a major defeat, shock, or humiliation must be suffered and passed through to go beyond this stage.