Women: Being Loved by Christ

When Jesus first taught in the synagogue in Jerusalem, his neighbors received him with skepticism verging on outrage [NIV Mark 6:2-6]:

“Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given him? What are these remarkable miracles he is performing? Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. He was amazed at their lack of faith.

This contrasts with the events just prior with a woman who had bled for twelves years, and was healed simply by touching Jesus’s clothes. Shocked by the experience, the woman hid in the crowd, but Jesus persisted [NIV Mark 5:33-34]:

Then the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell at his feet and, trembling with fear, told him the whole truth. He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace and be freed from your suffering.”

How does this work, spiritually? The aura that forms around the head of a saint is generated by souls pressing against their minds in the hope of discovering meaning and purpose. Meaning and purpose are discovered most readily in the saint because they have surrendered themselves to love of the world, and the world in turn reveals itself to saint’s examination. It is as said by Tagore:

Power said to the World, “You are mine.”
The World kept it prisoner on her throne.
Love said to the World, “I am yours.”
The World gave it the freedom of her house.

The saint looks into the world and sees its spiritual needs. Among the souls that surround the saint are such that can fulfill those needs. The saint has the privilege of facilitating the union of the two parties. But where the party in the world (the soul currently “living”) seeks instead power, the union fails. The souls choose to remain to the company of the saint. That saint, honoring the compact of their company, accepts them back.

Spiritual union can be ravishing, having many of the aspects of intercourse. For this reason, Catholic nuns once referred to themselves as “brides of Christ.” But the union can be a tenuous thing. If Jesus had not been present to voice his approval, would the hemophiliac woman have maintained her cure?

When I encounter woman struggling with this dynamic, I offer the encouragement, “Believe in yourself!” There are angels in the air wishing to enter into you to heal the world. Yes, it feels wonderfully sensual, but you don’t need sex to receive them. You don’t need the approval of a father. Spirits becoming angels yearn only for the spiritual union we know as “Christ” that found its steward when Jesus took up the cross. To receive them, you need only their approval, an approval gained most powerfully through a commitment to love and heal the world.

Deadly Meaning

From Herbert’s Dune Trilogy, among the most disturbing images is that of a Fremen Mujaheddin crashing his flitter into an Imperial troop transport. The observer recognizes it as the completely rational act of a warrior in the service of a greater purpose.

IS is reliant, it appears, on similar behaviors among the ranks of its elite fanatics. Infiltrating as civilians, they kill indiscriminately, and then detonate a suicide charge when security forces arrive. The ensuing chaos is exploited by a conventional assault that seizes the target.

The common refrain in public media is that religion is the common thread in such events. Certainly the Fremen were incited by faith in their Messiah, Maud’Dib, born Paul Atreides. IS fanatics surrender themselves in the belief that they are engaged in a jihad, their death thus gaining in the afterlife the boon due to a holy martyr.

The chorus of the anti-religious is composed of people with many good reasons to want to live. They have people that want to listen to them. Among that audience are those seeking to understand IS, primarily for the purpose of destroying it. Others simply wish to disengage from the problem – if Muslims do not hold any value in life, what are we to do? All too often the answer is, “Go to the Met and pay someone to keep the evil out.”

The talk show hosts, ushers and garbage men protect us from becoming cut adrift. They create a sense that we mean something, that the world will order itself to our needs. They make life worth experiencing. But what of them? Do we really imagine that they find deep satisfaction in serving that purpose for us? Does the garbage collector sweeping the streets of Los Angeles at 2 A.M. float in visions of the latest triumph at Disney Hall? Or does he just see a used condom in the gutter?

It is from those forgotten by the elites that IS recruits in the Western world. A house-bound girl recounts her experience of posting a question about Islam online, and being taken into a community of people that were devoted to her psychological needs. There was nothing concrete exchanged – she was brought in simply by the ready attention that provided a sense of meaning something. She abandoned her church and converted.

Strangely enough, that is what religion is supposed to do. People are supposed to take the time to be present for one another. Ultimately, that simple human attention is overtaken by direct relation with the divine presence. Our need for human validation decreases. We become, instead, a refuge for others.

But those initial stages are terribly vulnerable: the hope of receiving love is formed in the soul of the seeker, but not yet anchored to God. In that state, tyrants can enter and substitute their purpose. The sacred community, threatened from without by reprisal for violence organized by their leaders, spawns martyrs committed to protecting the source of meaning in their lives. The immediate and practical realities of conflict drown out the tenets of scripture written by people wiser but at the remove of centuries.

As the gap in wealth yawns ever wider in this country, I wonder whether the elite sees beyond their immediate circle of servants to concern themselves with how to connect the society as a whole to a sense of purpose. Herding people around with fear isn’t enough. Neither are the theories of capitalism or science, no less mysterious to most than the Qaballah. If we fail to fill this vacuum with meaning, sooner or later people will grasp for meaning in the only act that any longer has significance – their death.

Planning Your Mid-Life Crisis

To be blessed is to receive gifts before knowing that they are needed. I’ve survived several mid-life crises thanks to wisdom I received from Delorese Ambrose back in my mid-forties.

Ambrose wasn’t speaking about mid-life crisis, although the context may have warranted it. My employer, a large national laboratory, had discovered that scientists might be motivated to master project management, but very few of them mastered human relations. During an era of declining budgets for basic science and a reduced role for nuclear weapons in national security, people needed to learn how to work together so that new missions could evolve.

Ambrose came in as a management consultant, which in part involves providing an organization with a framework to facilitate selection and support of leaders. In a plenary session, Ambrose spoke about the cycle of power. Her model had six stages, each stage involving a ground-breaking shift in perspective that made it almost impossible for people at one stage to understand the behaviors and priorities of those at the next. In many respects, the structure echoed Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, but the cycle as Ambrose presented it illustrated the dependencies of those at the upper reaches on the strength and success of those below.

When I sent Ambrose an e-mail, I was given to rue that I had passed the “sexy” part of the arc she described. The cycle begins without power, an existence in which almost every waking moment is concerned with the basics of survival. It ends with wisdom, in which enormous influence is contingent upon the continued success and good will of the community we serve, and thus power again is (paradoxically) elusive. The “sexy” stage – the stage at which we can be assured of getting things done – is at the half-way point of personal achievement.

Achievement evolves from association when our peers recognize that we have unique skills and traits that can be supplemented to create a competitive advantage for the community. This is the first true stage of leadership, and the leader often believes that it is due to their initiative that the organization succeeds. But the reality is more subtle. Success grows from the meshing of behaviors acquired through years of adaptation and compensation. The uniqueness of the leader’s innovative drive requires that others adapt that urge to the rest of society. In that process, they gain unique insights of their own, and become qualified to take their own turn in the sun.

When that time ripens, the leader feels abandoned. I observed several people wandering through this period of their lives, and the experiences were terrifying. It is to watch an individual in the prime of life, at the full height of their powers, watching the end of a life that they have struggled valiantly to obtain. It is like dying, and some will go so far as to destroy others in their attempts to avoid the inevitable. Among our commercial captains are those that are masters of this art, methodically exploiting middle layers of management in order to sustain reputation and position.

The end, when it comes against such resistance, is crushing. The individual is left without support or purpose. Those that studied their methods no longer need them. Lee Iaccoca was inspired to run for president while thus adrift, wandering the halls of his mansion. My mother spoke of retired businessmen who, working as fundraisers for the American Cancer Society, had never learned to book their own travel.

The exit from this stage is self-knowledge. It is, ultimately, the realization that it wasn’t simply the things that we did that brought us success. It was rather our ability to adapt to the constraints of success. When first mounting the ladder of achievements, that process happens organically. The changes in ourselves occur one step at a time as needs are presented. We often fail to recognize that those changes were indeed choices. We could have chosen to take that second honeymoon, rather than flying to Singapore to open a new market. We could have coached the little league team, rather than staying late in the lab to perfect a new fuel mixture. While these choices may have been formed under pressure, our decision to respond and adapt to those pressures was our choice, and the outcomes reflected our capacity to control ourselves.

Self-awareness is a taking stock of who we are, with the purpose of preparing ourselves to become the person that we want to become. From that place we enter the last two stages on the path of power. Given that we have complete control over ourselves, what is it that we want to do? What purpose do we wish to serve? And once we have entrained a community in the wake of our purpose, they then turn to us for wisdom.

So my advice to those entering mid-life crisis is, “don’t fight it.” Yes, resist it. Get as much as you can for your achievements. Allow people the time to envision a future without you. Force those that replace you to become as good as they can be.

But attend also liberation from the tedious requirements of a life that chose you into a life that you have chosen. Take advantage of the good will that surrounds you to ask “What moments with me were most inspiring to you?” Trace the evolution of those moments to recognize the strength of the choices you have made. Prepare yourself to enter again into the furnace of self-creation to rediscover and reclaim all the passions and dreams that were surrendered so that others could share in your success.

But for heaven’s sake, don’t succumb to the sad spectacle of trying to repeat your unreflective youth!

SCOTUS on Marriage Equality

The Supreme Court rendered its decision on Marriage Equality, finding for the petitioners in Obergefell v. Hodges. I have expressed my spiritual views on this matter. Suffice to say that I am broadly sympathetic.

What is curious to me is the content of Roberts’ dissenting opinion, in which he ends with the pouty “Don’t celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.”

Roberts’ argument is that the Court was acting in a legislative role, redefining the meaning of a term of legal parlance (“marriage”) in a way that was not supported by the 14th Amendment. He references precedents concerning just compensation that the court later recognized overstepped the bounds of the 14th Amendment. Roberts also accuses the majority of undermining the process of democratic debate that was slowly turning the tide of public opinion in favor of same-sex marriage.

I find Roberts’ interpretation of judicial activism in the application of the 14th Amendment to be manipulative. As he asserts, certainly in the precedents he cites the Court should not have been trying to determine what is “fair” compensation. However, the 14th Amendment was established to address the issue of lack of compensation (slavery). Compensation for labor is a fundamental right.

In reading the majority opinion, I find validity in the conclusion, reached through detailed analysis, that marriage is such a fundamental right. They also establish clearly that denial of the right imposes burdens, both psychological and material, on same-sex couples. I believe that their opinion establishes a sound philosophical basis for application of the 14th Amendment, which exists precisely to overthrow long-held social prejudice that denies rights to minorities.

Roberts also makes a hysterical reference to the First Amendment, warning that religions that fail to perform same-sex marriage may lose their tax-free status. However, the establishment clause actually, in this case, applies in the other direction. There are religions that perform same-sex marriage, and no one has suggested that they be denied their tax-free status. The existence of laws that deny legal rights to same-sex couples joined by such religious authority is actually a form of establishment, and should be repelled.

I would be impressed if the dissenters addressed the substantive reasoning of the majority. As it is, I am afraid that they are simply going to fire the anger of those that find the definition of marriage to be a fighting matter.

Amartya Sen on the Necessary Distinction Between Austerity and Economic Reform

Awarded the Nobel Prize in 1998, Sen is widely recognized as the leading moral voice in the field of economics. The New Statesman carries his analysis of debt and its relationship to economic reform and growth. He points out that debt levels were far higher in the aftermath of WWII, but confident and intelligent investment in growth steadily reduced debt even while social services expanded.

The New Statesman has published his remarks.

Sen’s most heartfelt cry is against the destruction of human capital: in Kansas and other “austerity” states, educational levels and consumer spending are collapsing. In Greece, half of all young adults have never had a job (or at least a job that generated tax revenues). As Adam Smith pointed out in his writings, it is human capital that underpins the ability of nations to generate wealth.

While Sen decries his inability to influence policy-makers imposing disastrous austerity on their constituents, I don’t have any need to be politic. I’ll just follow the money.

As described in The Grand Pursuit, the Great Depression was an existential threat for free market economics because it revealed that the financial elite would not invest in long-term growth when falling prices guaranteed increased purchasing power for their accumulated wealth. It was in their short-term interest to exacerbate unemployment, thereby reducing both demand and wages. It was Keynes who convinced the governments to stimulate demand with deficit spending that brought Europe and America out of the Depression.

In the current era, government debt is in the short-term interest of the financial elites. It is the ready stream of bond placement and foreign exchange fees that fuel the financial system. Reducing debt is against their interest. That they fund candidates that have implemented policies to reduce tax revenues while expanding debt is no mystery.

Sen points out that most electorates suffering under austerity are beginning to recognize that growing poverty proves those policies wrong. Whether they can organize themselves to restore intelligent fiscal policy is another question. There are so many other issues to distract them, and voter restrictions in many states disenfranchise the working poor. (Fundamentally, I don’t see why elections should be on a weekday: anyone for a constitutional amendment to move them to Saturday?)

In the United States, we have been propped up by the Federal Reserve, which has kept interest rates low and pumped cash into the economy. However, that is no substitute for governmental action: when interest rates rise, that cash must be soaked up lest inflation run out of control. This will suppress growth. However, in Europe things have been far worse: the Central Bank has been part of the system of austerity, and is only now beginning to follow the lead of its American counterpart.

It’s in the Cards

Father’s Day and the Summer Solstice coincided for me down at Ecstatic Dance LA on Sunday. My devotion to that practice is encapsulated in this wisdom from Devdutt Patnaik, from Seven Secrets of Shiva:

Lord Shiva taught through dance because words are too literal to capture the essence of the intangible nirguna. One needs symbols that dance is best able to communicate. A book occupies space but not time, a discourse occupies time but not space, a dance occupies both space and time.

The workshop was an introduction to sensual Salsa that was focused with a declaration of spiritual intention. We were asked to choose from a deck of the feminine avatars. I waited, torn, until the other participants had settled back to their mats. Then a card called clearly to me, and I found myself holding “Isolt”:

Undying Love: No matter the situation, the love that you share is eternal.

When I read it to the facilitator, all she had to offer was “Thank-you.”

From that moment of clarity, the dance unfolded into the usual confusion and chaos. Whether the sexy temptress that tried to attach me to her sister, any of five young ladies crying out for love in exchange for passion, or the woman that reminded me of the lost love I offered to Persephone’s manifestation, I found myself wondering why it is so hard for women to understand that the power that surrounds me is not intended to make people feel good, but rather to make them stronger. That became clear in my interaction with Atasiea – after we finished rolling over each other on the floor, I touched his crown and suggested timidly “Say hello to my little friends.” With their affirmation, I then knelt to take his skull in my hands and ordered, “Now say hello to my bigger friends,” as I raised his mind to the sky. Trying to make certain that he didn’t get detached, I pressed my thumbs into his palms and feet and pulled on his arms, stretching him to his full extent so that they might clearly apprehend the limits of his body.

So it was only at the end that I was able to refocus. As we sat in a circle, each affirming in turn the joys found in the dance and the glory of the light, I hesitated before offering:

I came here today to plead with the light. To plead with it to be gentle with us. To be gentle with us through the summer and winter. To be gentle with all the living things.

A terrible sorrow filled me then. While Robin took the time to say that he liked what I had said, it is clear that we haven’t learned our lesson yet. It will unfold as it must.

California Seeks New Answers in Drought Struggle

Governor “Moonbeam” Brown announced that he would tap the skills of former Governor Davis to lead the state’s drought initiatives. Waiting at the State Capitol for an Uber connection, Brown enthused that the state needed a “Gray Water Czar.”

This blogger has obtained papers outlining the nascent strategy. In a “farms for schools” swap, teachers unions have agreed to convince students to shave their heads. The schools would be credited with 15 gallons of water per bald student per day, reflecting both the water saved in the shower and the decreased chemical load on treatment facilities. These credits would be traded on a state-wide water exchange to raise money for education.

Davis and his advisors, observing the success of the California Raisins and Dairy Cow marketing campaigns, have licensed the “Cabbage Patch Kids” trademark and reserved the #BaldEagles hashtag for shaming of non-participants. Recognizing that more extreme measures may be necessary if the drought conditions prevail as the children age, the Czar’s office has entered into negotiations for the rights to the “Arid Extra Dry” trademark and is planning to register “Seche Pistols.”

In related news, in the St. Louis area, former energy traders have pooled their resources to fund a water exchange. In honor of the profit potential created by California’s two most famous governors – one famously libertarian and the other famously forward-thinking – the concern will be called “MoRon.”

Victory over Sin

In my previous post, I promised to examine how a limited human perspective causes confusion when trying to interpret the teachings of Christ through the Holy Spirit. I’m going to take one of the most fearsome passages in the Bible, that of Revelation 21:8, in which John interprets part of his vision as a “second death” reserved for those that sin.

When confronted with the reality of sin and the pain it causes, it is natural to use threats to keep it at bay. Our legal system does this, and that is echoed in the Law of Moses that was used in the Bible between Noah and the ministry of the savior. For those that sympathize with this approach, it is natural to interpret the Crucifixion as atonement for our sins, and the terrible destruction John describes in Revelation is interpreted as justice being meted out on the sinful.

But what is sin? I have suggested here and elsewhere (see The Soul Comes First) that sin is found in any act that leaves a wound in the soul. Is the propensity to sin inextricably part of humanity? I see at is something that was carried forward from our Darwinian past. Animals tear and rend unthinkingly, doing enormous damage to the souls of the things that they consume.

In the Garden of Eden, a man and a woman are found in a privileged relationship with God. They were innocent and free from sin. We know from Revelation that ultimately sin will be destroyed. God set Adam – the creature made in his image – to that work, with his true love Eve as his helpmate. As might be expected, sin fights for survival. In both the story of the Fall and Cain and Abel, sin is represented as something outside of just relationships. The serpent comes between Adam and Eve, and God speaks to Cain directly of “sin crouching at your door.” In both cases, the effect of sin is not just to separate humanity from God – it also breaks the trust we have in each other. Adam and Eve don clothing not only to hide from God, but to hide from each other. Cain’s jealousy leads to the murder of Abel, extending the loss of trust to brothers and sisters.

Sin has its way with humanity. It entered into us as an infection. This is indeed how Jesus speaks of it, saying [Matt. 2:17]

It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.

Of course, Jesus’s healing skills are not rooted in knowledge of physiology, but in spiritual authority. He simply commands people to be well, and when they respond, honors their faith. The physical healings are paired to the casting out of sin in the form of demons. These were skills Jesus shared with the Apostles.

This work was interrupted by the ultimate sin, the Crucifixion of the savior. Jesus allows sin to have its way with him, suffering a brutal and painful death. In that process, he reciprocates with love. This is done in fulfillment of the promise that he would die for the forgiveness of sin, but that is only a waypoint on the journey. Humanity had a work to do in Eden, and we failed in that role because sin entered into our relationships. However, that work still remains to be done. Jesus came to restore us to the condition that prevailed in Eden so that we might complete the work that had been put before us.

Why didn’t Jesus just remove sin from us entirely, then? It is because we have free will. We have been convinced by sin, through the serpent and others, that we are at fault, that we deserve punishment. This is internalized to such a great degree that we punish each other for sin, compounding the damage wrought upon human nature. We cling to sin. In dying for the forgiveness of sins, Jesus was trying to break that embrace. He was saying “Humanity, let go of your burdens. Forgive each other, as God has forgiven you.” He resurrection was intended to convince us to rely upon the healing power of love.

We have trouble with that. Sin is wound deep into our spirits, and struggles still to survive. But Jesus promises to come again, and we can rely upon that promise though a day to him be like a thousand years to us [2 Peter 3]. When he does come to help us overcome sin, what will the result be like?

This is described by John in Revelation. He says {Rev. 21:8]:

But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

I remind you that this is a human interpretation. Should we take the passage to mean that all those that sin will die the second death of fire and brimstone?

Well, look at it from God’s perspective: What would be the point in that, for have not we all sinned? No, Jesus’s goal is to preserve that which is good, and no one is purely evil. What John described was the destruction of sin along with the memories of the pain that it has caused. Sinful acts are written in our souls, but Jesus will return to separate us from those behaviors and their consequences so that the pure heart of humanity may be returned to heaven. When John reports people burning in hell, he is confusing the destruction of the evidence and effects of their acts. He sees the events themselves being destroyed. The fire is the fire that purges us of the infection of sin, bringing us liberty.

Authority in Scriptural Interpretation

Since I have taken on a pet peeve with the “rational”, let me raise one against people of faith.

In arguments of scriptural interpretation, it is all too convenient to claim the authority of God. This was certainly the case during the ministry of Jesus. It was a claim made by the Temple priests and the Pharisees. While Jesus offered parables of counsel to the learned, he also railed against their role in dividing the people from direct relation with God. In part, it was his effort to free the Hebrews from the mistaken “authority” of human consensus that led Jesus to the cross.

We should contrast this with the experiences described in Acts 3. The authority of Jesus is manifested in Peter through the miracle of healing. Peter attained this capacity, as recorded in Matthew 10, directly from Jesus himself. His understanding came through direct revelation. It is clear, in the intervening ages, that few of us attain that same capacity. We have been men teaching men, and something was lost in the transfer through the generations.

Now in Acts 3, the Pharisees and priests are afraid to take action against Peter because they see that the people are moved to God by the power of the grace that moves through Peter. This was proof of the authority of Peter’s understanding, despite that he was “unlearned” (Peter was qualified only by his relationship with Christ). So for those that would assert that any teaching is evil that contradicts theirs, I would counsel: “Take care! Unless you can do the things done by the Apostles in Acts, you cannot claim to have full understanding of the teachings brought by Christ.”

What would those teachings have concerned themselves with? Well, from the words of Jesus himself, it was no less than to participate in the administration of his rule over heaven and earth ([Matt. 28:18] and the Parable of the Talents [Matt. 25:14-30]). Obviously, the scope of Jesus’s concerns exceeds those of human perception, extending even to the angels. It was because of this greater scope of understanding that Jesus was able to explain much that was hidden in the Old Testament. These two things are thus indivisible: Jesus interpreted scripture correctly because and only because he was capable of doing the work. Those that would claim authority to judge the interpretation of others should therefore be modest in their proclamations unless they can claim to be completing the work that Christ left unfinished.

Or do you believe that it will be somehow different when he comes again? Will he truly have nothing new to add to human understanding?

Before you pass judgment on others or denounce them as evil, ask yourself: “Can I do the work described in Revelation?” If not, be humble in your speaking. In particular, do not call fear into the hearts of others with statements such as “Because your interpretation of scripture differs from mine, you are falling into darkness.” No mere human has the authority to render that judgment. Considering the Temple priests and Pharisees, we might hazard that neither does any group of people.

Tomorrow, then, let’s take another look at pronouncements of judgment in Revelation, trying to adopt not the human perspective, but the perspective of one ruling over both heaven and earth.

Can ‘We’ Be Selfish?

I need to try this argument out, because I am being driven crazy by a pattern that has developed in my conversations with rational people.

The pattern is, when arguing about morality, to observe that I identify specific benefits to myself of caring for others. Those rewards (such as joy, a sense of purpose, and spiritual strength) are interpreted as evidence that I am simply being selfish like everyone else.

There are two points to be made here. The first is to assert the definition of selfishness. From OxfordDictionaries.com, we have:

lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure

In other words, to be selfish is to disregard the effects of our choices on others. When we are selfish, the survival and rights of others are of no consideration when we set out to acquire resources or satisfy our bliss. In fact, that lack of consideration is an important psychological element in preparing us to destroy others in the service of our self-interest.

The lie of selfishness is that acquisition of power and pleasure makes us better prepared to survive. Raw power can serve any purpose, but requires skill in the wielder. If we focus only on power, we never learn to channel it in acts of creation, because to create is to consume power. We are required either to share our power with those that have learned to create, or fall into the terrible abyss of acquiring resources through the destruction of the people that hold them. The latter course ultimately renders us powerless, because without people we have no means of converting the resources that we have accumulated into value.

The second point is that of the three benefits of caring for others, joy and purpose are entirely subjective. Only spiritual strength is a resource to overcome life’s challenges. But spiritual strength arises as a projection from those we serve. It is to assert “Yes, I want this person in the world.” That good will follows us around like a cloud, and pushes against the will of those that seek to harm us.

As that description makes clear, spiritual power is contingent upon our continued commitment to consider the well-being of those that affirm us. It is to assert reciprocally “Yes, I want this person in the world.” It is to surrender some of our spiritual power to them.

The proposition of “We” is that the individuals in mutually supportive communities enhance their odds of survival by distributing power. In that state, the selfish have no particular reason to target any particular individual, yet when we face difficulties we have the pool of distributed resources to draw upon. And when resources are plenty, our creative efforts are amplified by the inspiration of others.

Of course, there are no guarantees. What happens when the challenges facing the community overwhelm its resources? Who is going to survive? To the loving person, facing the loss of all that they hold most dear, the response is simply “Who would want to?”

The promise of religion, of course, is that surrendering the flesh under those circumstances opens the gates to a far better reality. The power we store in things is lost when we die. The power conserved in our spiritual relationships endures.

Why do we feel driven to believe that acting in our self-interest is selfishness? I think that rather the opposite is true: we have been so indoctrinated to believe that “greed is good” that we simply cannot accept that selfishness (the belief that only “I” have any meaning) is just a really stupid idea. Our self-interest is in nurturing a caring community. It is to submit the needs of the “I” to the “we.”