New Life Friends - Our Vision
Dear
All:
I am realizing today that much of my focus these days is in developing "new life friends"; developing, maturing and evolving friendships that are based on recognizing and respecting the spiritual potential of the friends and supporting each other, through holding a loving space, through advice and consultation and, sometimes, through physical assistance and cooperation. These friendships help the parties gain insight and make wise choices in relation to the "more dense" relationships of "family" and "lovers". Potentially, they can regenerate the individual’s family and lover relations as well.
These relations are beyond "attraction" where I mean by attraction the desire to be close to or near to another person without and particular reason and especially without a reason that fits with the "higher life potential" of the person. These friendships are like a constellation of stars shining down on individuals' dense earthly lives, but when the earthly lives become more attuned to the higher potential, they become more and more connected with the "star light." When each person in the "constellation" becomes truly connected with his/her own "star" then it is natural that their lives were intersect in whatever ways truly support that connection. Then there is no needing or desire to be "close" only a sense that there relation will express itself in physical space or location whenever it is truly appropriate.
NewLife Friends is devoted to individuals who are seeking to intelligently choose their relationships with other individuals to support their highest ideals of self-expression as participation in a greater evolution of consciousness.
It seems to me that Moderns are caught between Individualism and Universalism. (In religious terms this would translate as “my god is my god and mine alone”, (except for accidental relation between gods), or “my god is Everyone’s God.”) Traditional societies took for granted an individual’s relation to his clan, tribe and nation and often had particular deities to that were ascribed to such social units.
Universalism in the form, “my god is a part of Everyone’s God and everyone else’s god is also a part of Everyone’s God, implies, in the limit of its development, that universal harmony is achievable, given the assumptions that: all parts of God are in harmony with each other and each person, at the limit of his development, is in harmony with his or her god. This faith or philosophy gives the hope of integrating internal and external harmony. Whether this philosophy is true, or not, is another matter.
Modern notions of individualism and “freedom” grew up in the context of a nation state. In practice an individual became a person by accepting a contract with a nation state that accepted that individual as an identity worth distinguishing and protecting. This relationship was expressed as citizenship. It seems that this external sense of individualism emerged out of a psychological experience that happened under Christianity, in which the concept of an individual self-remote from “the world” was common. The extent to which modern conceptions of being “independent” take this nation state for granted is profound. Think of the modern person, perhaps yourself, who thinks of himself, or desires to think of himself, as “independent.”
What this usually means is that that person is dependent only on economic relations, that is on relations which each person has entered into based on his own advantage and which involve a clear contract (you give me this toothbrush, I give you 90 cents.). Such economic contracts now have a global nature to them, but the concepts were developed within the context of the “domestic economy” of a nation state.
Adam Smith’s theory went under the title “The Wealth of Nations’ because that was the default social unit that the individuals’ actions were analyzed in relation to. Our concept of individualism is embedded subconsciously within our concept of nationalism, and is tied to a financial system that attributes to personhood ownership of financially tradable resources, including labor. I believe that we can benefit from co-creating other forms of “social identity complexes” in relation to which individuals can find meaning.
We have the potential (and in fact do) participate in multiple layers and levels of community. An individual may participate in a family an ethnic group, a nation and “the community of humanity” all at once and participation in each community is potentially synergistic and supportive of all of the others.
As members of a community, our own spiritual, emotional and physical evolution is tied to the evolution of that community, to a greater or lesser extent. If our soul penetrates throughout a community, then by changing ourselves, we automatically change the community and vice versa. Making wise choices of community engagement is inherent to individual development (unless we buy into a concept of individuality and development that exists wholly in relation to an established community.)
In relation to most large communities, such as nations, most members have very little physical leverage in influencing the development of a community. However by monitoring the way in with they soul extends into and participates in the community, they can steer their individual evolution in a way that complements the evolution of the community.
I offer the thought that we can see two principle forms of social organization that many persons experience in their day-to-day lives. I am going to call one type a “masculine” collective consciousness and one type a “feminine” collective consciousness. The “masculine” collective is usually called a “corporation” and the “feminine” collective is called a “community.” Each may be expressed in many forms, including “virtual” forms, but I will outline some essential qualities of each, as they occur to me. Feel free to contribute your ideas to this.
A “corporation” is a spiritual entity formed with the idea of some enterprise in the world. Typically, but not essentially, it may be formed with the idea of manipulating the physical or social world in exchange for some profit. It and the members who express it are “extroverted” in the sense that they are looking to relate to persons and things outside it/them as an intrinsic part of the enterprise.
A “community” is an entity whose members collectively sustain their physical, emotional, mental and/or spiritual development and survival. In this sense a community is primarily “introverted”, focusing on communications within itself, although it may find deep meaning and significance in relation to other individuals and communities. Economically, except in an agrarian context, a community is typically dependent on some of its members leaving the community “during the day” to work within a corporation or other extra-community context, in order to provide the economic income to secure the external needs of the community. Though I am calling a community “feminine” and a “corporation” masculine, it is obvious that membership in either is not gender determined, on the individual level.
My purpose in elaborating this idea is to provide a possible way of thinking about corporations and communities that may inspire humans to contribute to physical, emotional, mental and spiritual development of the communities and corporations that they conceive or participate in.
David Kohlberg
dkohlberg@aol.com
I am realizing today that much of my focus these days is in developing "new life friends"; developing, maturing and evolving friendships that are based on recognizing and respecting the spiritual potential of the friends and supporting each other, through holding a loving space, through advice and consultation and, sometimes, through physical assistance and cooperation. These friendships help the parties gain insight and make wise choices in relation to the "more dense" relationships of "family" and "lovers". Potentially, they can regenerate the individual’s family and lover relations as well.
These relations are beyond "attraction" where I mean by attraction the desire to be close to or near to another person without and particular reason and especially without a reason that fits with the "higher life potential" of the person. These friendships are like a constellation of stars shining down on individuals' dense earthly lives, but when the earthly lives become more attuned to the higher potential, they become more and more connected with the "star light." When each person in the "constellation" becomes truly connected with his/her own "star" then it is natural that their lives were intersect in whatever ways truly support that connection. Then there is no needing or desire to be "close" only a sense that there relation will express itself in physical space or location whenever it is truly appropriate.
NewLife Friends is devoted to individuals who are seeking to intelligently choose their relationships with other individuals to support their highest ideals of self-expression as participation in a greater evolution of consciousness.
It seems to me that Moderns are caught between Individualism and Universalism. (In religious terms this would translate as “my god is my god and mine alone”, (except for accidental relation between gods), or “my god is Everyone’s God.”) Traditional societies took for granted an individual’s relation to his clan, tribe and nation and often had particular deities to that were ascribed to such social units.
Universalism in the form, “my god is a part of Everyone’s God and everyone else’s god is also a part of Everyone’s God, implies, in the limit of its development, that universal harmony is achievable, given the assumptions that: all parts of God are in harmony with each other and each person, at the limit of his development, is in harmony with his or her god. This faith or philosophy gives the hope of integrating internal and external harmony. Whether this philosophy is true, or not, is another matter.
Modern notions of individualism and “freedom” grew up in the context of a nation state. In practice an individual became a person by accepting a contract with a nation state that accepted that individual as an identity worth distinguishing and protecting. This relationship was expressed as citizenship. It seems that this external sense of individualism emerged out of a psychological experience that happened under Christianity, in which the concept of an individual self-remote from “the world” was common. The extent to which modern conceptions of being “independent” take this nation state for granted is profound. Think of the modern person, perhaps yourself, who thinks of himself, or desires to think of himself, as “independent.”
What this usually means is that that person is dependent only on economic relations, that is on relations which each person has entered into based on his own advantage and which involve a clear contract (you give me this toothbrush, I give you 90 cents.). Such economic contracts now have a global nature to them, but the concepts were developed within the context of the “domestic economy” of a nation state.
Adam Smith’s theory went under the title “The Wealth of Nations’ because that was the default social unit that the individuals’ actions were analyzed in relation to. Our concept of individualism is embedded subconsciously within our concept of nationalism, and is tied to a financial system that attributes to personhood ownership of financially tradable resources, including labor. I believe that we can benefit from co-creating other forms of “social identity complexes” in relation to which individuals can find meaning.
We have the potential (and in fact do) participate in multiple layers and levels of community. An individual may participate in a family an ethnic group, a nation and “the community of humanity” all at once and participation in each community is potentially synergistic and supportive of all of the others.
As members of a community, our own spiritual, emotional and physical evolution is tied to the evolution of that community, to a greater or lesser extent. If our soul penetrates throughout a community, then by changing ourselves, we automatically change the community and vice versa. Making wise choices of community engagement is inherent to individual development (unless we buy into a concept of individuality and development that exists wholly in relation to an established community.)
In relation to most large communities, such as nations, most members have very little physical leverage in influencing the development of a community. However by monitoring the way in with they soul extends into and participates in the community, they can steer their individual evolution in a way that complements the evolution of the community.
I offer the thought that we can see two principle forms of social organization that many persons experience in their day-to-day lives. I am going to call one type a “masculine” collective consciousness and one type a “feminine” collective consciousness. The “masculine” collective is usually called a “corporation” and the “feminine” collective is called a “community.” Each may be expressed in many forms, including “virtual” forms, but I will outline some essential qualities of each, as they occur to me. Feel free to contribute your ideas to this.
A “corporation” is a spiritual entity formed with the idea of some enterprise in the world. Typically, but not essentially, it may be formed with the idea of manipulating the physical or social world in exchange for some profit. It and the members who express it are “extroverted” in the sense that they are looking to relate to persons and things outside it/them as an intrinsic part of the enterprise.
A “community” is an entity whose members collectively sustain their physical, emotional, mental and/or spiritual development and survival. In this sense a community is primarily “introverted”, focusing on communications within itself, although it may find deep meaning and significance in relation to other individuals and communities. Economically, except in an agrarian context, a community is typically dependent on some of its members leaving the community “during the day” to work within a corporation or other extra-community context, in order to provide the economic income to secure the external needs of the community. Though I am calling a community “feminine” and a “corporation” masculine, it is obvious that membership in either is not gender determined, on the individual level.
My purpose in elaborating this idea is to provide a possible way of thinking about corporations and communities that may inspire humans to contribute to physical, emotional, mental and spiritual development of the communities and corporations that they conceive or participate in.
David Kohlberg
dkohlberg@aol.com