I read your opening quotation with no small measure of both recognition and disquiet, having as you know been steeping in alternate narratives which, on balance, are more embodied, holistic, reciprocal and...I could go on with that list for a few pages.
I may have shared with you the recent article from the Journal of Awareness-Based Systems Change by Melanie Goodchild (Turtle Island Institute). She writes about the treaty wampum belt between the Dutch and the Iroquois nations being two blue lines, two rivers flowing side by side in mutual respect and with a pact of non-interference. We know how that experiment ended, and whose fault that was entirely. We continue to perpetrate those deep, tragic inequities, whether we are conscious of them or not. The assertion at the end of the paper is that we need to be able to see with two eyes, and value both rivers, which may be just what is needed for most people still standing in their own culture(s). But I was left with the feeling that no, perhaps instead our rivers must merge as we near the ocean. Perhaps this is my own hubris and foolishness, but it is a gut level feeling that Gaia needs no less from us than to renew or re-establish our connection to Her (and to our own bodies, and to each other, and the more than human world). And we can't seem to do that while still standing firmly, only, in "our" river, with mighty few exceptions (Somatics being one viable avenue I've raised frequently).
Thus I heartily embrace your emphasis on the need for connective conversations. I would add to your fine list of exemplars leading this movement (your 4th paragraph) Margaret Klein Salamon (climateawakening.org), Frederic Laloux (The Week), Alex Evans + Kate Pumphrey (A Larger Us), the good folks at Pachamama Alliance (Awakener series, and Gamechanger intensive), and Dr. Josie MacLean (one of the three founders of the Climate Coaching Alliance and who has been working with communities in Australia along these lines for two decades).
Love Jay & Grant's static vs. dynamic authenticity framework, which maps pretty well to the Carol Dweck fixed vs. growth Mindsets, and other coaching models around moving from victim-hood to self-authorship. Glad to see them embracing the paradox you outlined "... the paradox of dynamic authenticity—we become more authentic by acknowledging our own inconsistencies—better aligns us towards the future we want and creates the invitation for others to do the same. " Amen. Adyashanti has said all spiritual truths are inherently paradoxes, and part of the process of enlightenment is becoming comfortable with embracing such paradoxes.
Just gobsmacked at the concept of applying moral injury to the climate space. I've colleagues working with moral injury with non-combat veterans, and this makes so much sense to apply here as well. How we work with people to help them move from programmed 'uncaring' towards 'recaring' -- from dissociation to re-association and re-connection, would be the project. And yes, self- and other-forgiveness is needed as well as reconciliation and restitution.
My sense is the spiral of silence is ending, though perhaps I am in my own bubble. But even some of the more politically and economically conservative folks I know seem to "get it" and be talking about it in a new way since the past two years of fires, and climate mayhem like the freeze in Texas. Also the conversation seems to be helped when we expand it beyond just carbon to pollution, ecosystem collapse, the entire picture. We heal our tendency to isolate and categorize by bringing in whole systems views and systems thinking.
Peter, The "moral injury to climate" space is the legal field of struggle between corporations and communities. The issues are often about water as used by industry procurement processesa (e.g. mining for minerals, oil, agriculture, electronics) but the conflict is lop-sided as corporate entities merge with and acquire our political system.
As we amplify our knowing where health and wholeness come from, the science of finding them again by "removing what impedes" will be an Aristotelian chore: " can a thing be and not be" at the same time? Probably not. Looks like leveraged buy out of management and reorganization are on the menu, since our Mother is shackled as a commodity.
There are so many threads in this piece that I want to follow and pull. I need to sit with it for a while. For now, the link with religious narratives is a powerful reminder for me. I began reflecting on my own experiences within a religious community which held strongly to a narrative framework of forgiveness, redemption, a ‘darkness’ within and the ‘light’ we can all share. This framework was a foundational bond, of sorts, and held people together even through rigorous disagreement. While there were still limitations to framework and its bond (partly why I had to leave), it was a lesson I will never forget. It is also a teaching I did not, until now, connect with climate conversations. I now wonder how much more is possible. How better can I engage in climate conversations by finding that place of common ground/trust/moral foundation first? And the language of forgiveness is also one I’m familiar with, even if I have not ensured the practice is turned onto me as much as I need to turn it on to others. Again, a teaching from my long-ago community (and my current community) that I can move into this space. Reminds me that these conversations; about climate, about our future, about shared connections, are sacred, spiritual even.
Thank you Adam for this beautiful writing. We've shared it on our project I Heart Earth (on facebook @iheartearthmeditations), with the following text, in the spirit of our current exploration and meditation theme "rewilding ourselves & the earth":
Wild authenticity is dynamic. It is in an open state of learning, acknowledging and embracing our inconsistencies in a creative dynamic that propels us toward the future we want to live in.
Domesticated authenticity is static. It uses consistency as a proxy, and keeps us from openly and creatively using our inconsistencies and paradoxes as a fuel for learning and growth.
In rewilding ourselves, we also rewild our concepts about life, meaning and relationships. This means we rewild our interactions with others as well, taking our conversations out of the known and static, into the unknown, creative and dynamic, so that we can imagine and generate new possibilities for our shared future.
I read your opening quotation with no small measure of both recognition and disquiet, having as you know been steeping in alternate narratives which, on balance, are more embodied, holistic, reciprocal and...I could go on with that list for a few pages.
I may have shared with you the recent article from the Journal of Awareness-Based Systems Change by Melanie Goodchild (Turtle Island Institute). She writes about the treaty wampum belt between the Dutch and the Iroquois nations being two blue lines, two rivers flowing side by side in mutual respect and with a pact of non-interference. We know how that experiment ended, and whose fault that was entirely. We continue to perpetrate those deep, tragic inequities, whether we are conscious of them or not. The assertion at the end of the paper is that we need to be able to see with two eyes, and value both rivers, which may be just what is needed for most people still standing in their own culture(s). But I was left with the feeling that no, perhaps instead our rivers must merge as we near the ocean. Perhaps this is my own hubris and foolishness, but it is a gut level feeling that Gaia needs no less from us than to renew or re-establish our connection to Her (and to our own bodies, and to each other, and the more than human world). And we can't seem to do that while still standing firmly, only, in "our" river, with mighty few exceptions (Somatics being one viable avenue I've raised frequently).
Thus I heartily embrace your emphasis on the need for connective conversations. I would add to your fine list of exemplars leading this movement (your 4th paragraph) Margaret Klein Salamon (climateawakening.org), Frederic Laloux (The Week), Alex Evans + Kate Pumphrey (A Larger Us), the good folks at Pachamama Alliance (Awakener series, and Gamechanger intensive), and Dr. Josie MacLean (one of the three founders of the Climate Coaching Alliance and who has been working with communities in Australia along these lines for two decades).
Love Jay & Grant's static vs. dynamic authenticity framework, which maps pretty well to the Carol Dweck fixed vs. growth Mindsets, and other coaching models around moving from victim-hood to self-authorship. Glad to see them embracing the paradox you outlined "... the paradox of dynamic authenticity—we become more authentic by acknowledging our own inconsistencies—better aligns us towards the future we want and creates the invitation for others to do the same. " Amen. Adyashanti has said all spiritual truths are inherently paradoxes, and part of the process of enlightenment is becoming comfortable with embracing such paradoxes.
Just gobsmacked at the concept of applying moral injury to the climate space. I've colleagues working with moral injury with non-combat veterans, and this makes so much sense to apply here as well. How we work with people to help them move from programmed 'uncaring' towards 'recaring' -- from dissociation to re-association and re-connection, would be the project. And yes, self- and other-forgiveness is needed as well as reconciliation and restitution.
My sense is the spiral of silence is ending, though perhaps I am in my own bubble. But even some of the more politically and economically conservative folks I know seem to "get it" and be talking about it in a new way since the past two years of fires, and climate mayhem like the freeze in Texas. Also the conversation seems to be helped when we expand it beyond just carbon to pollution, ecosystem collapse, the entire picture. We heal our tendency to isolate and categorize by bringing in whole systems views and systems thinking.
Peter, The "moral injury to climate" space is the legal field of struggle between corporations and communities. The issues are often about water as used by industry procurement processesa (e.g. mining for minerals, oil, agriculture, electronics) but the conflict is lop-sided as corporate entities merge with and acquire our political system.
As we amplify our knowing where health and wholeness come from, the science of finding them again by "removing what impedes" will be an Aristotelian chore: " can a thing be and not be" at the same time? Probably not. Looks like leveraged buy out of management and reorganization are on the menu, since our Mother is shackled as a commodity.
There are so many threads in this piece that I want to follow and pull. I need to sit with it for a while. For now, the link with religious narratives is a powerful reminder for me. I began reflecting on my own experiences within a religious community which held strongly to a narrative framework of forgiveness, redemption, a ‘darkness’ within and the ‘light’ we can all share. This framework was a foundational bond, of sorts, and held people together even through rigorous disagreement. While there were still limitations to framework and its bond (partly why I had to leave), it was a lesson I will never forget. It is also a teaching I did not, until now, connect with climate conversations. I now wonder how much more is possible. How better can I engage in climate conversations by finding that place of common ground/trust/moral foundation first? And the language of forgiveness is also one I’m familiar with, even if I have not ensured the practice is turned onto me as much as I need to turn it on to others. Again, a teaching from my long-ago community (and my current community) that I can move into this space. Reminds me that these conversations; about climate, about our future, about shared connections, are sacred, spiritual even.
Thank you Adam for this beautiful writing. We've shared it on our project I Heart Earth (on facebook @iheartearthmeditations), with the following text, in the spirit of our current exploration and meditation theme "rewilding ourselves & the earth":
Wild authenticity is dynamic. It is in an open state of learning, acknowledging and embracing our inconsistencies in a creative dynamic that propels us toward the future we want to live in.
Domesticated authenticity is static. It uses consistency as a proxy, and keeps us from openly and creatively using our inconsistencies and paradoxes as a fuel for learning and growth.
In rewilding ourselves, we also rewild our concepts about life, meaning and relationships. This means we rewild our interactions with others as well, taking our conversations out of the known and static, into the unknown, creative and dynamic, so that we can imagine and generate new possibilities for our shared future.