My friend Jude brought up some thought-provoking thoughts (from Facebook):
““Think outside the box” – the synonym for this is “lateral thinking”. I understand the latter but I do not understand the former. I remember I used to understand it though. I do think laterally a lot but I really don’t know where that “box” is. Maybe I have thought outside it so long, it no longer exists to me..hehehe..smh.. I want to re-understand it though.“
The following are my comments.
—-
Here is how I would think about it.
Essentially, a box is the world or rather a world… or if you prefer a worldvew, what I’d call a reality tunnel. So, it isn’t necessarily the same as lateral for that would imply a relationship, a lateral relationship between the worldview and the thinking. Thinking outside of the box implies relationship to the worldview is being excluded. With no relationahip anchoring your thinking to the worldview, your thinking is unmoored and you can potentially lose your bearings.
Also, this can be analyzed mythologicaly. A box has a feminine gender, in fact is a term for female genitalia. A box has space within in which one can be enclosed, but it also has space without. When you were born, you literally began thinking outside the ‘box’.
In Indo-European mythology, the box and the square are feminine and maternal. They represent what enlcloses, what embraces and protects us, and also what sets the boundaries for relationships and society.
This relates to two things (board games and card games) which relate to a third thing (the Trickster).
The square of a board game sets the boundaries in which play happens. Likewise, the mother creates the space for play and the child plays. The Trickster is the child who plays, but he also tests boundaries and breaks rules.
Playing cards (originating from Tarot) are in the shape of the Golden Rectangle or what is known as the Golden Door. The door is part of what encloses for it can be closed, but it can also be opened.
Walking through an open door, you enter a new space, possibly even stepping outside of the box you were in. You might not even recognize the box you ere in until you are outside it. So, if you don’t see a box, it probably means you haven’t yet stepped outside to gain perspective. When you are in the game of play, still on the board, you’re drawn in for your life is at stake, this life that you know. A world is always real while you’re in it.
Games have always related to luck and divination, doorways from our world to other worlds. To truly think outside of the box is to open yourself to new visions, new realities even. The ancients saw the wold ruled by the Fates and by fickle gods. No player controls the game in which you play. No one knows what is at the end of the game, what is on the other side of the door.
Chutes and Ladders originated as an ancient Hindu game called Snakes and Ladders. The game is a model of reality with levels that the players ascend. The players are at the mercy of luck, but if you play long enough all get to the end. It teaches the patient theology of Hinduism. When you reach the end, you win by escaping the game and hence metaphorically escaping the world.
The feminine and masculine, the mother and child are opposites that create tension. Thinking outside the box necessitates a box outside of which to think.
—-
Let me stick with mythology and extend my thoughts.
The earliest known civilization was in Iraq where comes from the story of Gilgamesh. One thing that always stood out to me is that Gilgamesh’s friend Enkidu was originally a wild man. He only became ‘civilized’ through the wiles of a temple prostitute. That gives a new spin to the so-called oldest profession.
The feminine is a civilizing force. This is true in mythology, but some see it as being true in society in general. A book I’ve been perusing is about American violence (Violent Land: Single Men and Social Disorder from the Frontier to the Inner City by David T. Courtwright). The main reason given for the greater violence in the American South had to do with the cultures created during early immigration.
The Northern colonies (specifically New England and Pennsylvania) attracted whole families and even whole communities to immigrate as a group and settle together. So, they brought community and hence the social structures of civilization with them.
The Southern colonies tended to attract more single men. Also, much of the early Westward expansion into the frontier began in these Southern colonies, especially from Virginia. These settlers developed a very violent society of dueling and vigilante justice. It was a long time for religion to be established on the frontier because single men weren’t drawn to attend church.
A church or temple is a box, with or without temple prostitutes. Any structure of civilization is a box. All of civilization is a box… or else a set of boxes, some overlapping, others exclusive.
—-
The whole world itself is a box or rather a mansion with many rooms.
Any form and this world of form is archetypally feminine. Brahma’s power is infinite potential, but only Saraswati can give birth to form, each and every form, as she takes on that form and gives it substance, gives it life. The Gnostics, of course, would say this is Sophia who fell into the world. But that is the mythologically masculine view to see form as fallen, to see the world as a place of darkness and sin.
A paternalistic God rules from above, above us all, not with us. Was the Goddess fallen or was she cast out? If cast out, who did this? The ancient Israelites, like most ancient people, saw God and Goddess as married. Monotheism originated in Egypt, but the difference was that Egyptian monotheism was a part of a henotheistic tradition where (similar to Hindusim today) all deities weren’t always seen as clearly distinct, sometimes even as expressions of the same divinity.
I became particularly interested in the Egyptian religion when reading Christ in Egypt by D.M. Murdock. In a large section, she went into great detail about Isis. Isis worship was one of the most popular deities in Rome. Murdock argues that Isis was the precursor of Christian Mother Mary. Egyptian Meri means beloved which at first was an epithet for a God but over time became associated directly with Isis and may have become a name for her. The two words were often seen associated, both as Meri-Isis and Isis-Meri.
It was through Isis that this concept of beloved became widespread. Before that time, deities were worshipped with submission. A new type of love came to the forefront, a love of equals, the divine came down onto the level of humanity, the common folk even. The divine was no longer far away in heaven but here on earth (or, as Philip K. Dick would so charmingly describe it, “God in the garbage”). This was part of a long shift during the Axial Age which ended with religions such as Christianity.
—-
To return to the original topic of thinking outside the box, this brings up a number of thoughts.
First, what does the civilizing process mean on the personal level? As a male of the species, what does this mean in relation to the feminine and the maternal? If you feel like you are in no box, then does that mean you aren’t being contained, encompassed, embraced by the feminine/maternal? If you are or identify as a single male, can you internalize the stereotypical/archetypal feminine mode of social interrelationship without fear of loss of self, without fear of deadening conformity?
Second, what does this all mean in this age of complexity and in this world of multicultural globalism? There is no single society that encompasses any of us or necessarily even a single religion or single ethnicity. We find ourselves in many boxes which can create a possibly deceiving experience of being in no box. How do we recognize the box(es) we may be in? What does the possibility even mean to be in a box in an age of instability and uncertainty? Has the world fundamentally changed since the time the ancient mythologies were written?
I don’t know if this relates to Jude’s experience. But from my perspective, I feel like there are always boxes we are in. I feel very sensitized to that which contains us and structures our lives. I’ve wondered for a long time if it is possible to think outside of the box… or do we just jump out of one box and into another? Boxes are like stories. It seems like there is always a story being told, a story we are playing out in our heads, in our lives, and in our relationships. The box is a stage on which the story plays out.
—-
In his most recent comment, Jude tried to explain his view:
“Yes, I also think the feminine is a civilizing force in as much as it is for understanding. The receptacle accepts and from that, “training”.
“That’s why it is lateral thinking: the ability to think ACROSS boxes. Like the Ghanaian box, the American box, the science box etc.
“For me, as a bona fide liminal, I do not respect boxes. On my own, I’m looking for truth, coherence, correspondence, relevance not social or contextual acceptability. To market to the world is a different thing: I need a box otherwise it makes no sense and it won’t be accepted.
“My point is not that there are no boxes. I, me, do not recognize them“
I say he tried to explain for I don’t know that I understand. I do at least understand the ability of thinking across boxes. That seems like a fair way of describing lateral thinking.
Even so, it still doesn’t get at my own view. There aren’t just boxes next to boxes. Rather, there are boxes within boxes within boxes, maybe all the way down or all the way up as the case may be.
—-
Here is what I see as the key difference.
Jude sees the boxes (worldviews, reality tunnels, etc) as external things, external to himself, separate from and not essential to his personal reality. But to me the most basic box is humanity collectively and our humanity individually. We can’t escape the box that we are (and, in his own way, Jude would agree with this general notion). More importantly, who we are is tied up with what the world is. We aren’t separate from the world. We can’t step outside of the world.
To be in liminal space says nothing about that space being outside a box. I suspect that misses the point of the liminal which is simply that you can’t be certain about where you are or aren’t, what you may or may not be within. The liminal as related to the Trickster is yet another archetypal/mythological box. It may be a more spacious and flexible box, but still a box. Every archetype is a box, shades and shapes the world accordingly.
What does it even mean to not recognize the ‘world’ you exist within? Does ‘reality’ care if you respect it? Where would the hypothetical non-box position be located that is objectively above all boxes, i.e., all subjective and intersubjective worldviews?
I’m not actually arguing that one can’t hypothetically get outside of all boxes. I’m not arguing for or against that because I’m not sure what it would mean. As a statement, it doesn’t seem to make ‘sense’. I might even argue that to make such a claim is to forfeit making sense… which is fine as far as that goes. Even if you could get outside of all boxes, it’s not clear to me how you would know this was true for you would have no context or persepctive to know anything for certain, much less communicate what you think you know.
When people speak of thinking outside of the box, I never got the sense that they meant thinking outside of all boxes, just thinking outside a specific box. To think outside all boxes would be the mythological correlate to the God of heaven being above and separate from the Goddess of earth. But like yin and yang, how can they be separate?
—-
None of this is intended to discredit Jude’s personal experience. I’m not holding myself above Jude in challenging his claim, but he is holding himself above the boxes of others, the boxes of the world. At times, I can also hold myself above certain other boxes. It just never occurred to me that it could be possible to hold myself above all boxes.
Jude’s perspective isn’t necessarily wrong, refusing to be part of the herd. Maybe it is wise to hold oneself above, at least in attitude. I do think when possible that it good to strive to be above average on the self-awareness scale. The problem is if you’re self-deluded you generally don’t recognize your own self-delusion. That is just human nature, for all of us.
I find myself being more of a Buddhist perspective of “no escape”. For Buddhists, there is no escape for the ego is essentially the one and only box. However, only the ego is likely to make any claims about not being in a box. Ken Wilber has noted that it is easy to fall into the Pre/Trans Fallacy. He emphasizes that the shift in human development is transcend and include, not transcend and exclude.
I’m pretty sure that like me Jude isn’t an Enlightened Master. It is as a normal ego-bound mortal that I wonder about his claim of being in no boxes. Still, I completely support Jude’s desire to not be trapped in any boxes. More power to him.
41.662913
-91.529853
Nicole said
looks like a good thread starter on the God Pod – what thinkest thou?
Marmalade said
Here is the link to the thread on God Pod.
Marmalade said
There is two other points I want to add.
Firstly, the attitude of this kind of Christian is that they’re trying to justify something. If they like some pop culture product such as Harry Potter, they feel a need to justify why a Christian can morally appreciate a movie about magic. So, they feel a need to justify their enjoyment to other Christians, and they feel a need to justify their Christianity to other fans. All of this can distort their view of what they’re analyzing. They’ll look for Christianity in something the creator may never intended as Christian art.
The other thing is that the reason all of this is happening is because Christianity is no longer the center of mainstream culture. This makes life more challenging for a traditional Christian who wants to solely devote themselves to their Christian tradition. The fact of the matter is that most mainstream entertainment and culture isn’t Christian. Beyond this, even Christians are less Biblically literate because the younger generations spend less time reading the Bible. Nowadays, much of what Christians know about the Bible comes from movies and tv.
Biblical exponents realize the younger generation is focused on popular culture. So, they try to use popular culture to explain Christianity, but they do so warily. In the process, what they use to communicate Christianity comes to alter how Christianity is understood. They realize that Christianity no longer plays as dominant a role and is now being influenced in return by the culture it exists in.
Personally, I see this two-way influence as a good thing. Christianity has survived not only in its power to influence but also in its power of relevance by its ability(and willingness) to respond to changes. Christianity spread so widely because its adaptable, and because its able to hold onto its core truths while adapting.
Nicole said
good, and i also want to expand on the wider Christian community ie Catholics, liberals… will do so in God Pod. light and peace
debyemm said
I ended up reading here because I started at your subsequent blog post, which referred to this and so, I felt I needed to read this to put that one into context. So, still not having read it, I do understand the disappointment you express here.
Agendas are the reason, in my opinion. So, if the writing or art is a means to an end, to convert you to the author’s point of view, or as you point out, justify the author’s interest in a topic as not violating the author’s Christian ethics, then I think the writing betrays it’s agenda and so, to a reader intent on discovering quality content worthy of their time, it may appear to their mind as shallow or diluted, or as not originating in thoughtful contemplation, or inauthentic and deceptive.
I believe that the best Christian writing, which express a depth of insight, would be expressed by an author who utilizes their core values as the foundation for their discussion or contemplation of a topic, even a non-Christian one. It would also be possible to utilize these same values as measured critical or analytical tool for questioning beliefs, theirs or some others, or for expanding upon them in a novel way.
While your main criticism – proselytizing – is a characteristic of unquestioned or strongly defended beliefs (as in my way is the only way to truth and salvation); I believe the fault lies in the total lack of inquiry into their validity, as well as in the overall quality or skill of the writing itself.
Even an author whose intent it is simply proselytizing has a right to publish. There are no rules as to who can write what or for what purpose and being Christian or writing about Christian topics does not change that fact. The burden is on the reader to discern whether the writing appeals to their personal bend of mind and to put aside those writings that do not.
Deborah
Marmalade said
Deborah, you said:
“I believe that the best Christian writing, which express a depth of insight, would be expressed by an author who utilizes their core values as the foundation for their discussion or contemplation of a topic, even a non-Christian one. It would also be possible to utilize these same values as measured critical or analytical tool for questioning beliefs, theirs or some others, or for expanding upon them in a novel way.”
I agree with that. Certainly, its not that a Christian has core values that is the issue. Core values can give a reference point for insight, a lense through which to discern meaning.
“While your main criticism – proselytizing – is a characteristic of unquestioned or strongly defended beliefs (as in my way is the only way to truth and salvation); I believe the fault lies in the total lack of inquiry into their validity, as well as in the overall quality or skill of the writing itself.”
I don’t think I meant proselytizing to be my main criticism. Its just one of the more obvious factors. The behavior of prosyletizing is an external sign of a general attitude… and, as you said, a defended/unquestioned belief system. Everything is secondary to the belief system including the quality of writing. As long as God’s Word is communicated, it doesn’t matter the author’s words used to do the communicating.
However, this level of proselytizing is an extreme. Many people can have a desire to communicate their beliefs all the while being able to question, but the stronger the beliefs the more difficult it is to question them.
“Even an author whose intent it is simply proselytizing has a right to publish. There are no rules as to who can write what or for what purpose and being Christian or writing about Christian topics does not change that fact. The burden is on the reader to discern whether the writing appeals to their personal bend of mind and to put aside those writings that do not.”
Yep, they have a right to publish. I have absolutely no criticism of Christians writing. In fact, I’ve been recently reclaiming my own sense of Christianity.
Discernment of the individual is paramount, but mass of superficial and uninsightful writing out there still annoys me. I’m a writer and love to write. I’d love to be published some day, but I would only want to be published if I had something to say that was worthy of being said and hadn’t been said many times before. Even when I blog, I try to add something that is meaningful or helpful or kind. There is enough meaningless words on the web.
Of course, what seems worthy is different for different people. Those Christian books that annoy me probably seem quite wonderful to many others. Even if only a minority of people like your work, its worthy of being published. Even if nobody appreciates your work, maybe its worthy. Many artists weren’t appreciated in their own lifetime.
Blessings,
Marmalade
debyemm said
Yes, I sensed all along that your love for good writing is why the kinds you outline bother you. Like you, I try to add something meaningful or helpful or kind. Otherwise, it does seem pointless to me. Noise to hear myself chatter. I have to keep that at bay enough as it is.
Who has time for meaningless words? Well I guess someone does obviously. But you and I, while recognizing equal right of access for all, still like the cream, do we not?
Deb