“A Bitch For God”

“I challenge the idea that the people who got us in this ditch are the only ones who can get us out of it.”

Marianne Williamson has called herself “a bitch for God.” As presidential candidate, she is getting plenty of attention right now. She is well known among a certain crowd, as she has written numerous books that sold widely, including best-sellers, such as Healing the Soul of America that topped The New York Times nonfiction list for 39 weeks: “Seven reached the New York Times best-seller list, and four hit No. 1” (Cameron Joseph, Marianne Williamson Knows You Think She’s a Joke. But Her Campaign Isn’t.). I’ve known about her since the 1990s during my young adulthood. But for most Americans, she hasn’t been a household name. Yet many people are more familiar with her words, such as a quote often misattributed to Nelson Mandela: “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.”

Besides being on Oprah’s show in the past, she is well connected and, for those who know her, strongly supported. She has inspired many people, from famous stars to ordinary Americans, including in politics: “She has some surprising adherents in the Granite State, including former Rep. Paul Hodes who served as a co-chairman on President Obama’s 2008 campaign and is still a power broker in the state. He’s been a Williamson fan since her heyday in the ’90s — her quote “Who are we to stay small?” inspired him to run for Congress a decade-plus ago and hangs in his home to this day,” as reported by Cameron Joseph. That has been her career, inspiring people and she has a talent for it. It is the kind of mixing of religion, politics, and progressive vision we haven’t seen in a while, maybe not since Martin Luther King Jr.

I must admit it feels validating to hear her in the mainstream media, particularly in the early Democratic debates. She comes out of the same background as I do, something I explained in another post (Heretic For President!). She is part of a heretical tradition of thought that goes back to the earliest Christians. Today, we think of it as “New Age” or what in the liberal wing of Christianity is called New Thought. Basically, she believes God is Love — no ifs, ands, or buts. It’s the radical message of Jesus himself, too often diluted or rationalized away and yet still carrying a powerful punch when released from centuries of stale dogma.

Williamson was the minister of the second largest Unity church in the country, the denomination of Christianity I was raised in. She still does guest speaking at that church and other churches. Her primary career has been as a Christian minister, but the mainstream, both left and right, caricatures her as a New Ager, spiritual guru, or whatever; although I’ll give Slate some credit for sort of complimenting her, if backhanded (Shannon Palus, The Bizarre Charm of Marianne Williamson). “I do not understand why everyone is so dismissive of her,” said Marshall Kirkpatrick. “Are we really so out of touch with emotions, spirituality, etc that she seems insane?” If corporate media were to be fair, they’d have to admit she is a Christian minister who comes out of the American Evangelical tradition (Unity Church) and who upholds a theology that has its roots in the earliest Christianity by way of Valentinianism (A Course In Miracles). That is maybe too much historical knowledge for a society that suffers from permanent historical amnesia. She may be a heretic, but she is a heretic with credentials. I’ll call it the return of the repressed. It’s amusing.

Despite it all, Unity is slowly creeping into the mainstream. This has been going on for a long time. I remember when visiting non-Unity churches in decades past and I would sometimes come across the Unity publication The Daily Word even in mainstream churches. So, many people were reading New Thought theology without knowing it. More recently, the Unity Church showed up in a major subplot of the tv show The Path (Meyerism and Unity Church). Then there is the story of Carlton Pearson, as told in a segment on This American Life and in the Netflix movie Come Sunday. He attended Oral Roberts University and was mentored by Oral Roberts himself. As a popular fourth generation Pentecostal preacher, he came to a point of crisis in his faith. He no longer could believe God was a horrific and monstrous demiurge threatening people with eternal damnation. After much inner struggle, he converted to the view that there is no hell, was officially condemned as a heretic, lost his congregation, and then found his faith again in New Thought theology. He has since become the senior minister of a New Thought church and an affiliate minister of a Unity church. His story has inspired many.

Now here we are. We have a Unity minister as a presidential candidate. To me, it is mind-blowing. Unity Church powerfully shaped who I am. I can’t shake the blinding idealism of New Thought theology, in the way an ex-Catholic never quite gets over original sin or an ex-Baptist never loses that sense of fire-and-brimstone breathing down their neck. It is hard to explain being raised in that kind of light-and-love sincerity. I remember going to what was the Unity equivalent of a Bible camp, called Youth of Unity. I had never experienced so much positivity and goodwill in my life. Then I returned back to ‘normal’ life of high school and it shook me to the core. As wonderful as Unity was, it wasn’t the way life operated or so I was told. I was supposed to get real and accept the world the way it was. Like most others growing up in this society, cynicism fell upon me like a sledgehammer.

But Marianne Williamson embodies and exemplifies another way of being. She suggests there is another way and she walks her talk. She doesn’t care who attacks her. She won’t attack back. Instead, when she feels she is wrong, she admits and apologizes. Holy fuck! Someone aspiring to be president who isn’t afraid to apologize! Trump came to power on the arrogant, egomaniac and psychopathic claim that morality, compassion, and common human decency no longer matters. Williamson disagrees down to her soul that it does matter. How we act determines the kind of country we live in. And she is driven to make the world a better place or go down trying. When arguing her position, she doesn’t fall back on talking points. In response to a question about her strategy, she used air quotes as she spoke of her “strategy” — she said that her only strategy was to speak the truth she knows and to continue campaigning as long as people supported her vision of America (Marianne Williamson says she supports mandatory vaccines – but ‘when they are called for’). Her non-aggressive approach doesn’t come across as weakness for, when a principle is at stake, she doesn’t back down. And she isn’t afraid to call someone out on their bullshit, including the MSNBC interviewer Jo Ling Kent, but even then she does so with perfect politeness.

Her personality comes across as strong and confident, and not as a pretense and pose. I loved watching her in that interview. Before answering, she would often get this serious look on her face as if she were scrutinizing the true intentions behind the question and contemplating it as a philosophical issue. Such sincerity is potent, an antidote to cynicism. Trump would have a hard time combating her because she would never give him the kind of response he feeds on. No one is likely to throw Williamson off message because she lives her message. Walk and talk are perfectly aligned. I’m not sure how many people listening to her get where she is coming from. It’s something I’m extremely familiar with from years in the Unity Church. But most people rarely come across authenticity at this level. It’s not something we’ve come to expect in politics. The last time I heard a candidate this straight-shooting was when I went to a speech given by Ralph Nader when he was running for president in 2000, but even he didn’t come across with the same confidence in vision. Even Bernie Sanders, in his down-to-earth style, doesn’t come across as powerfully as this.

Marianne Williamson, in the Democratic debate said, “So, Mr. President, if you’re listening, I want you to hear me please — you have harnessed fear for political purposes and only love can cast that out … I’m going to harness love for political purposes. I will meet you on that field and, sir, love will win.” Who says something like that in a national political debate, especially in a political party that has become infamous for its political insincerity from Clinton domination, and even more especially while facing president Donald Trump who came to power through hate, anger, and outrage. Such audacity to proclaim love in this era of cynicism. Listen to what she said in that debate (Tim Hains, Marianne Williamson: If You Think We’re Going To Beat Donald Trump By Having A Lot Of Plans, You’ve Got Another Thing Coming). She kicks ass! And it has won her a following, something the corporate media is trying to dismiss — oddly, one hit piece calls her positivity-spouting and humorous followers on Reddit “trolls” (Ben Collins, 2020 candidate Marianne Williamson’s reddit following).

Those in the mainstream are looking for reasons to attack her. For example, some misrepresent her as an anti-vaxxer (Jo Ling Kent, Marianne Williamson says she supports mandatory vaccines – but ‘when they are called for’). In explaining her actual position, she states in no uncertain terms that, “I understand that many vaccines are important and save lives. I recognize there are epidemics around the world that are stopped by vaccines. I also understand some of the skepticism that abounds today about drugs which are rushed to market by Big Pharma.” There is no way to fairly call her an anti-vaxxer. What she is mainly questioning is the anti-democratic role big biz plays in public policy and wants to ensure the best scientific evidence possible is available to promote the public good. She is a principled anti-corporatist and pro-democrat. As she put it in her own words, “I want you to rail against the chemical companies and their GMO’s — not support them. I want you to decry the military industrial complex — not assure them you’re their girl. I want you to support reinstating Glass-Steagall — not just wink at Wall Street while sipping its champagne” (An Open Letter To Hillary Clinton).

She supports mandatory vaccinations when they meet the criteria of the highest standards of the scientific method, if and only if the best evidence strongly supports a public health concern that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be remedied only through this drastic course of action. Otherwise, if the evidence is weak or still under debate, if big pharma is unduly influencing government decisions, then we are morally forced to defend democratic process and individual liberty, personal conscience, and bodily autonomy. It is the forever difficult but not impossible democratic balance between public good and private good. A mandatory vaccination is justified in many cases and maybe not in others. She is not promoting denialism. After all, she has vaccinated her own daughter. Science isn’t a dogmatic belief system that is forever settled. Instead, science is an ongoing process. To act like it is otherwise is anti-scientific.

The same problem comes up with attacks on her credibility because she is skeptical about GMOs. Do these people even bother to look into the science? I could write a long post about all the contrary evidence, especially the relationship between GMOs and increased pesticide use (as opposed to organic farming), but this isn’t the place to flesh out that debate. Let’s just honestly acknowledge it exists as a contested issue, a state of affairs that, of course, is reported on in the alternative media but also found in mainstream sources (a few examples: The UK’s Royal Society: a Case Study in How the Health Risks of GMOs Have Been Systematically Misrepresented by Steven Druker from Independent Science News, How GMOs Cut The Use Of Pesticides — And Perhaps Boosted It Again by Dan Charles from NPR, Largest-Ever Study Reveals Environmental Impact of Genetically Modified Crops by Caroline Newman from University of Virginia, Major Pesticides Are More Toxic to Human Cells Than Their Declared Active Principles by Robin Mesnage et al from BioMed Research International, etc).

If only from a viewpoint of the precautionary principle, whether about the GMOs themselves or the pesticides heavily used with GMOs, it’s perfectly rational that the vast majority of Americans (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents) are concerned about GMOs and strongly support having GMO foods labeled — 71-95%, depending on the question and the group asked (Chris Mooney, Stop Pretending That Liberals Are Just As Anti-Science As Conservatives). Not that American politics was ever constrained by nuance. That is precisely the problem. Williamson is arguing that we must understand diverse problems as being systemically related, such as health and the food system or such as the inseparable relationship between GMOs and pesticides. Yet nuance is deemed ‘loony’ because it challenges the dominant paradigm that is dominated by corporate agendas.

As a loony left-winger myself, here is how I put it: “Yeah, monocultural GMO crops immersed in deadly chemicals that destroy soil and deplete nutrients are going to save us, not traditional grazing land that existed for hundreds of millions of years. So, sure, we could go on producing massive yields of grains in a utopian fantasy beloved by technocrats and plutocrats that further disconnects us from the natural world and our evolutionary origins, an industrial food system dependent on turning the whole world into endless monocrops denatured of all other life, making entire regions into ecological deserts that push us further into mass extinction. Or we could return to traditional ways of farming and living with a more traditional diet largely of animal foods (meat, fish, eggs, dairy, etc) balanced with an equal amount of vegetables, the original hunter-gatherer diet” (Carcinogenic Grains). Tell me. Is my skepticism irrational? If so, how has the highly destructive ‘rationality’ of mass industrialization been working out for life on this planet, as we head toward the cliff of mass extinction and climate change?

In many different ways, Marianne Williamson is a potential threat to the Clinton Democrats. Republicans have sensed this and, as a way of fucking with Democrats, some of them have donated to her campaign (Cnaan Liphshiz, Republicans donate to Marianne Williamson’s campaign to keep her in the Democratic debates). It reminds me of how Democrats promoted Trump in the hope that would ensure a Democratic victory. It’s funny that Republicans are falling into the same trap of naivete. Williamson isn’t a mere unknown outlier. After the debate she participated in, her name was the most Googled and, even while the debate was happening, Google searches for her name spiked every time she spoke (Malachi Barrett, Marianne Williamson searches in Michigan explode after Democratic debate). Also, “Williamson has performed better in national polls than more established candidates like New York Mayor Bill de Blasio; Montana Gov. Steve Bullock; and Tulsi Gabbard, congresswoman from Hawaii” writes Merle Ginsberg (Presidential Candidate Marianne Williamson Is Running on Empathy); and she concludes that, “If anybody could play Jesus to Trump’s Antichrist, Williamson is, as our wayward president would put it, straight out of central casting.”

Williamson is no lightweight. In the debates, she is the only candidate that brought up the harmful US policy in Latin America — interestingly, the only article I came across mentioning this came from a conservative source (Christian Watson, Democratic debate showed conservatives could learn something from Marianne Williamson). And she is bold in her vision that comes across as quite left-wing (e.g., since 1997, she has supported reparations for African American slave descendants) while simultaneously invoking the American founding generation of revolutionaries. Here is how she puts it: “Franklin Roosevelt said that the primary role of the presidency is moral leadership. Americans are a decent people, but over the last 50 years, the concept of what it takes to live a good life—an ethical life—has been overtaken by corporatocracy. When I was a child, corporations were expected to have responsibility to the community, not just focus on fiduciary responsibilities to stockholders. Soulless economics has not brought us economic vibrancy. It’s destroyed our middle class and replaced a model of democracy with a model of aristocracy. We repudiated that in 1776—and need to repudiate it again.”

We used to call that a jeremiad, an American tradition if there ever was one (Sacvan Bercovitch, The American Jeremiad). If that is ‘woo’, then give me more of it. This is ‘woo’ that could seriously shake up public and political debate and hopefully a whole lot more. Give me some of that old time religion.

17 thoughts on ““A Bitch For God”

    • That is a good post. I liked the last part from Aurobindo: “These are sure signs, if not of the thing to be, at least of a great possibility of it, of an effort that will surely be made, another endeavour perhaps with a larger sweep and a better equipped intelligence capable not only of feeling but of understanding the Truth that is demanding to be heard. … It is only when these groping beginnings have found that for which they are seeking, that it can be successfully applied to the remoulding of the life of man. Till then nothing better is likely to be achieved than an inner preparation and, for the rest, radical or revolutionary experiments of a doubtful kind with the details of the vast and cumbrous machinery under which life now groans and labours.”

      That is where we are at. We are groping. And no doubt we will continue to fail for quite a bit longer. I take seriously your own comments at that post: “We should prepare ourselves for incessant accusations of egotism, hucksterism, celebrity guruism and spiritual marketing on this one, however, as anyone who has benefited from the neoliberal economic paradigm in any way (including book publishing) is automatically suspect of such in the “common mind” and, unfortunately, tend to have their own spiritual principles compromised by the system rather it being transformed if and when too closely associated with it.” To be frank about it, I really don’t know what to make of it. All I can say is that it indicates something new in the air.

      You said that, “a sign of the times and always a breath of fresh air.” I noticed others say that about hearing Williamson — “a breath of fresh air” were the exact words. And I agree that, “I am guarded, but hopeful, that the message, at least, will have an impact among the public, if not lawmakers.” That is my main motivation in supporting the likes of Sanders and Williamson. It’s about the message and how it could change public awareness and public debate. I have little hope for the lawmakers. And so, for my purposes, it’s somewhat irrelevant who gets elected.

  1. I watched a few interviews and both the CNN Bot and the gaggle on The View tried to put her in the “kook” box all of which flies in the face of the religious/spiritual tradition of the country and many of her actual comments/policy views.

    I also don’t find her any more “odd” than anyone else who looks at a country of 300+ million and says, let me take the wheel. As Stevenson said, anyone who wants the job should be automatically disqualified-)

    Of course cynicism is that powerful – interestingly enough a point I’ve been hammering in posts about the too cool for school art scene/industry.

    And of course as we’ve discussed, Sanders, Warren et al all have “plans” but no more or less of an effective way of getting them into action than M.W.

    The machine is corrupt so Sanders/Warren etc are just as “woo” as she is even if their rhetoric fits more comfortably into the template. Sanders can be boxed in as a “wild socialist” and so on but that’s just the machine talking.

    It refuses to recognize MW isn’t any different in that regard even if her core message is very different.

    The Guardian ran a piece a few days ago saying don’t underestimate her potential.

    She is a classic if not archetypal American figure – from Cotton Mather to Amy Semple McPherson to MLK the “Christian” prophet preacher speaking “love” is very old in this country.

    But I don’t see her beating the machine.

    Vanity Faire ran a piece on the women running for president and she was not included. VF said when aske they were limiting it to women who have already been elected to some office.

    CNN interviewed MW on it and she repeated the talking points you mention.

    The machine wont allow her much room.

    My view beyond that remains the same – I don’t see any of the candidates having the muscle to break the system however much I may agree with specific points their making.

    • “She is a classic if not archetypal American figure – from Cotton Mather to Amy Semple McPherson to MLK the “Christian” prophet preacher speaking “love” is very old in this country.”

      That was part of my point. When you get past all of the labels thrown at her, her spirituality, including her heretical inclinations, is well within the range of normal American religion. Many Americans forget how radical and progressive Evangelicals once were: separation of church and state, abolitionism, women’s rights, the New Deal, etc. America was founded on hereticicsm, from Deism to Unitarianism.

      Even her political rhetoric isn’t new, as it has a long history going back to the American Revolution and earlier. And as I said, a good ol’ fashioned jeremiad is an American tradition. But she is of a type that we haven’t seen in a while. Americans have short memories. Other than MLK who never ran for political office, the closest example in recent history might be William Jennings Bryan.

      “But I don’t see her beating the machine.”

      I don’t see anyone beating the machine, ignoring the possible rise of revolutionaries. The machine will eventually beat itself. When that happens, we need some other vision already in place. Political campaigns like that of Sanders and Williamson might hasten the machine’s self-destruction, but can’t directly cause it. The role of challenging the machine is in preparing the public for what follows after.

      • “The machine will eventually beat itself.”

        Well, that does sum things up and correctly.

        And hadn’t thought about William J B but you’re right – the cross of gold speech and the fusion of religion and what now would be called either progressive or left populism.

        • By the way, I happen to be reading Edward Bellamy’s Looking Backward. William Jennings Bryan’ Cross of Gold speech was a reference to the utopian novel’s final chapter. And he hoped others would catch the reference.

          • How is it? Thoughts? I only had/have the slimmest of info about him as his name popped up in books about Twain and the lit scene of late 19th century.

            Fascinating though to contextualize him and the force of “left” politics in his era and in the US.

          • I began reading it a few days ago. And I haven’t gotten very far yet. But it captures my interest. I like getting the sense of what seemed utopian way back then. We are essentially living in the future time that Bellamy envisioned. Sadly, we are presently falling short of utopianism.

            He does go into some specifics about what he sees as a better system than industrial capitalism. The basic idea is that people work to serve society and to develop their talents. It’s not far off from the future portrayed in Star Trek: The Next Generation. No one lacks basic necessities and so no one works out of desperation. Still, people are motivated to work for other reasons.

            Much of the society’s wealth goes to the public good. It’s an urban utopia where the city is like a large park with lots of public spaces and green spaces. But there is one thing that stands out. The transition, although revolutionary, was non-violent. Bellamy predicted growing monopolies and, similar to Marx, he saw the only way forward was by capitalism becoming fully what it is. That opens the opportunity for something else to take its place.

            In Looking Backward, the monopolies become so obviously necessary for the public good that they become nationalized. That is the dangerous part of this vision. One can sense how such radically imagined futures easily fed into fascist aspirations of a progressive industrial state.

            That is all that I’ve gotten from it so far.

    • That was an improvement. Adding in those videos viscerally gives a sense of the kind of person she is. It does clear things up. It isn’t only her words but how she presents herself, the moral force behind her words. You have to hear her to believe her.

      • There are two faces of a US president:

        As King Louis XIV said, “I am the State.” This is the symbolic face. It is no coincidence one of Donald Trump’s favorite things to do to hang out with the Queen of England or stalk Princess Diana. Trump’s ridiculous parades and rallies. Fascism is a symbolic sensory experience.

        The other face is policy. What actually is going on and being done? Trump plays the State face, but has no policy face. Because he has no policy except for “Me.”

        Therefore, whomever wants to steer the government – for example, Pompeo and Bolton on matters of foreign policy – can do so because Trump abandoned the steering wheel. He isn’t intelligent enough. He is too self centered. He cannot function at a “do what is best for We the People” level because he simply does not care and cannot think this way.

        I wonder if We the People would benefit from splitting the US presidency into two roles. Have a cult of personality figure like Trump or Arnold Schwartzenegger or Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama do the “I am the State” face, and also get someone who is a policy wonk – e.g., who without the charismatic figure bit – such as Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to do the actual governing of policy making. Smart people. Boring people. I mean, Warren comes of as “shrill” when she starts regulating capitalists. Bernie comes off as the “angry old man” when he starts yelling about oligarchs.

        Do you think this is possible? I know it sounds like the Queen of England/ Prime Minister bifurcation a bit, and the idiots in Britian seem to be cultivating Boris Johnson, their own Trump for the PM role, so they’re basically going with two “I am the State” figures who are symbolic more than smart.

        On the other hand, Germany has long gone with the smart person in the form of Merckle. She doesn’t seem very charismatic to me, like Teresa May in Britian she is well… homely. But at least she is intelligent, a biochemist or something, and has done something to elevate Germany back to its status as leader of Europe, as the UK degenerates holding hands with the US.

        What do you think?

        What I am getting at is I dunno if Marrianne (or Gilligan or the Skipper) can do both faces any longer. The campaigning bit seems to last longer than the actually doing something bit now. It’s all style (or lack thereof) and no substance.

        Is Marrianne both faces, one or the other, or neither? I am open to Jill Stein or Marrianne Williamson or whomever being different. I just want a smart spiritual selfless person. Don’t care much if he/she is black or white, gay or straight, Christian or Jew, or any of the rest of this identity politics distraction from getting shit done.

        • “What do you think?” Maybe splitting it up into two positions could work. Or maybe not. But that might not be the main problem. I’m of the opinion there is something more basic ripping society apart in two directions.

          We are facing problems that are so large that only large responses will be adequate. Climate change, for example, is almost inevitably going to require some form of global governance to avoid mass catastrophe. Yet large governments and large everything hasn’t been equal to the challenge. Larger has too often, especially in this country, led to ever more corruption.

          I don’t know how we have a large country without having large inequalities. The most well functioning social democracies are all small in size of territory and size of population. The US is simply too massive. It’s a vast global empire, but one lacking even the benefits of noblesse oblige. To solve our problems, we need more democracy. But what if democracy isn’t possible toward such immense failure?

          What other choice is there? If anti-democratic concentrated power fails and if democratic decentralized power is not enough, then what? Will we ever be able to make democracy work on the same level as the problems that are undermining democracy?

          “What I am getting at is I dunno if Marrianne (or Gilligan or the Skipper) can do both faces any longer. The campaigning bit seems to last longer than the actually doing something bit now. It’s all style (or lack thereof) and no substance.”

          I don’t know either. I don’t know if anyone can really to do anything that matters at this point, at least within this system. But it is hard to imagine implementing some other system that didn’t require violent breakdown or revolution. Collective imagination is on life support at the moment and it needs to be shocked back awake from its comatose state.

  2. Some talk about whether Marianne Williamson is the real deal or not. Does she actually mean what she says? Would she, if elected, act on her words that almost promise revolution? Does she have what it takes? I don’t know. And, more importantly, I don’t know that it matters. She is speaking what Americans are thinking. And once spoken, these words given voice can’t be unsaid. It’s similar to why it’s irrelevant what Trump actually wants. In making radical promises, he opened Pandora’s box.

    We have to collectively imagine something before we can collectively act. The issue isn’t what can we do within this system but what will we do after the system self-destructs. Our words now prepare us for our actions later. We will become something we can’t predict or, if we fail, it simply won’t matter. At someone else’s post, a commenter quoted from Peter Pogany’s Epilogue in “Rethinking the World” (2006):

    “F, Scott Fitzgerald (1896-1940) said that intelligence is the ability to accept two contradictory ideas and still function.The intelligence he referred to is not a high IQ, or some remarkable analytical or artistic talent; it is the faculty of leaving certain competing ideas, whether they are scientific propositions or articles of faith, nonconflated and unbrokered; the readiness to tolerate a conundrum without dialectical resolution or relegation of the whole problem to the waste basket…

    “For GS3 (Global System 3) socioeconomic behavior (along with the new global system’s epiphenomena) to emerge, individuals will be challenged to cross a cultural evolutionary barrier as significant as going from four to two legs was in biological evolution….Being able to draw on hitherto untapped potentials of F.I. (Fitzgeraldian Intelligence) will become a vital selection criterion for the species.

    “…Despite its sharpened ability and greater need to study and reason, the GS3 persona, geared toward the panoramic comprehension of human interest, will have to risk leaving some crucial socioeconomic experiences unsynthesized.

    “…The success of the human community will demand a rock solid conviction that homo sapiens is as immortal as are the atoms in its culture, that it will never run out of evolutionary time, it will never have to sign off. While the average mind will become scientifically better trained and intellectually more capable, it will consciously allow conclusions about reality to be suspended or postponed without bewilderment or disenchantment. “Understanding” will have to be far more complex than we can imagine today. Commitment to social, moral, and political standards will have to become more elastic. A greater psychic strength will have to be aligned with a virtually unsuspended readiness to do mental house-cleaning.

    “…Deep down people know things they never experienced. No wonder that the emergence of new social and economic arrangements begins with unclear and occasionally confused or exaggerated ideas. Concepts are secondary; they come after what the entrainer wants to express, and those that lie inchoate and dormant “somewhere” in most people will come into existence “somehow.” Yes, the species does not own “the cosmic mine of free-energy-containing matter,” but its members may share a dim sense of direction in this fleeting moment. To paraphrase Kant, “The starry skies are above and the emergent wish to get there is within.” “

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s