I touched yesterday on the idea, of identity/identifying. At the time it seemed to be a rich subject for me; but also a tangent that was too far removed, from where I was going with the other post.
So I deferred it until today. My initial reference was related to my dad and how members of different branches of the armed forces identified so strongly with their particular branch. Naturally each thought their's was the backbone of the whole military. They even had, what at best could be called "tongue in cheek," but what others might consider derogatory "nicknames," for the other forces.
It got me to thinking about this business of "identifying." Where the military is concerned, the recruitment strategies often play the "patriotism" card. Now there's a very strong energy/mindset/paradigm/indoctrination - if ever there was one!
Personally, I don't really understand it. I mean I do "understand" it intellectually - but I don't, nor have I ever embodied it at depth. As long as I've cared to consider the reason for that, I attribute it to my particular spin on the experience of being adopted. For so much of my life, particularly when I was young, I had a profound sense of "not belonging." Even when I was "told" I was a member of some particular subset of humanity, I wasn't able to feel the association. I certainly couldn't grasp why or how I could "take pride" in my city, my country etc. I never felt I had "ownership" of such things, so how was it, that these things were "mine" to be proud of? Why would I be proud of this piece of the planet and not somewhere else? It's not like I can take credit for the natural beauty, the resources, of "my country." Seems to me if I did, then I'd need to claim the same approval and connection with "arms manufacturing" and distribution of "my country;" as well as abusive domestic and foreign policies.
I can be grateful for the conditions that I'm fortunate to live in - but I don't identify with that; even though anywhere I go in the world, people would make "assumptions," upon finding out I'm "Canadian." But does that mean I'm going to kill someone that isn't Canadian? Not to me it doesn't. Though obviously this idea of categorizing humanity, nationalizing, ethnicity, religion, gender etc. has occurred for probably as long as there has been humans - I believe it is largely a flawed premise.
Does that mean it going to disappear anytime soon? Probably not. But it certainly doesn't mean that beyond a very well entrenched veneer, it is based on anything of substance (truth).
All I can do is continue to burrow into the layers of my own persona (which includes such things as "nationality") and as I increasingly discover, that various "attributes" that were seemingly "cast in stone" actually are not; I begin to wonder what then, is "real"? I actually believe the answer lies somewhere very close to "nothing." I can't articulate the implications of that, beyond saying: "what I am" is nothing - which is to say everything." Maybe I was given a "head start" toward this "understanding" due to not having some of the major layers to release in order to conceive of my soul's perspective. It doesn't mean I don't have my work cut out for me on other fronts. I reason that this, at depth would hold true for anyone (based on, my being part of the whole, so what is "true" for me would hold "true" for all). This is not the same as saying: "my way or the highway." My reason for making that distinction, I'm not trying to make me right while making others wrong - I'm saying if I can see this as possible, so could anyone.
What would this mean? Well, it would mean, throughout history, people have been killing each other, over a more complex version, of "po-tay-to" & "po-taw-to."
If what I'm presenting were to be true - wouldn't it take "centuries" for all the entrenched ideologies, vendettas, wounds etc. to heal? It could. If that were to be the predominant thoughts held pertaining to this.
However, there are countless examples of medical miracles that have transpired. In many cases the one "inflicted" was deemed "incurable" by the medical establishment. Which means, that within accepted practices, knowledge of disease processes, available technology etc. there is "nothing" else that can be done, and there is then given, a corresponding "educated guess," as to what "life expectancy" remains. So then the "patient" decides - "I don't accept this prognosis" and seeks alternative healing avenues. As we know - healing, cures & remissions have in some cases been realized. In many of these "extraordinary" case histories, the source of the healing is said to have been divine. This would mean, that the divine force is able to work outside of "expected" time frames, outcomes, expertise, precedented case history etc.
So then, why couldn't this same divine force, be influential in the release of age old mindsets and/or, the expansion, of a soul-consciousness of "oneness?" That would mean that historic precedence, time/rate of transition (to reach a critical mass of the population) could be exponentially accelerated. Ideas such as "what is "realistic," are based on what has always been, defines how it will always go. Why is it that when one speaks in terms of embracing even a modicum more, from a well of "unlimited possibility' - they are dismissed as be "overly-simplistic" - "unrealistic" - "PollyAnna," etc?
For me I've concluded I need to embrace a "bigger problem" - it actually doesn't matter if it comes to fruition or resolution "in my life time." If I don't expand my consciousness and embrace a bigger picture, I'm in danger of getting overly concerned about such things as losing my iPod. Having one, losing one, or replacing one, will do nothing to lessen the numbers of victims of genocides, prisoners of war (or conscience), refugees, political oppression, mass-shootings, religious persecutions, ideological ideations, racism. My experience is in order to see a bigger picture it has been necessary for me to begin with a much smaller focal point. Paradoxically, that which is sometimes called "navel gazing" can penetrate the smallness of what I once called "me," to a much expanded horizon. I suppose the sky really is, the limit (unless the "kid's movie" has it right - "to infinity and beyond!"
Admittedly the clouds cannot be seeded with willingness for others to embrace such consciousness - I don't believe the "how" is mine to be concerned about. Today it looks like a written account - tomorrow has it's own requirements.
As I have touched on in other posts, the knowledge of my Irish ancestry has only presented itself in the latter part of my life. Even my limited experience and exposure reveals to me a vast, illustrious, magnificent, history contained within the people, the culture, the stories and the lives. I have at times lamented the bitter sweet reality of finally a known ancestry, while at the same time never having been "steeped" in any of it. I now hold to be true, that it has had and is having, an impact and influence nonetheless. It has unfolded this way for a reason.
Unquestionably it stirs my imagination, fans the flames of my curiosity, touches my heart deeply to make this connection and consider a further knowing of these "roots." Conversely some of the "healing" I have experienced, comes in the form of a "balm," for wounds that are at least in part of my own creation; they would be of an illusory nature, such as I described earlier.
I suppose that for me - no matter how glorious the robes of my external associations, there will always come a time; when I must seek an inner directive rather, than follow the dictates of whatever the many variations of the collective, are trying to hoist in any given moment. I cannot allow sheer numbers to dictate my actions or inactions.
Is it even possible that any "movement" can be so "altruistic/righteous" that there can be an all encompassing way to engage with it? At what point does the "hero" become the "villain?" The "freedom fighter" the "terrorist?" The "patriot" the "racist?"
As significant on the one hand that "history" is - it might not be much more than habitualized thinking and as Einstein once said: "we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
No comments:
Post a Comment