[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking Hierarchically vs. Relationally
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: Segueing from my rap about cliques and why -- in my opinion, of course -- people form them, I find my self proposing another answer to that koan: They're stuck in hierarchical thinking. One of Rama - Fred Lenz's crackpot theories that I still think might have been a bit less crackpotosity than his other theories was derived from the study of computer databases. The first computer databases developed were hierarchical in nature. They reflected the largely hierarchical thinking of the times; everything was organized into enormous tree structures, higher above lower, from the top of the tree to the bottom of it. Cool, I guess, until you had to link one piece of data to another piece of data way the fuck across the tree. The only way you could get there from here was to traverse the tree, from branch to branch, until you got from A to Z. There was no way to go *directly* from A to Z, in one or two jumps. As a result, these databases were remarkably inefficient, and slow as hell. Then someone came up with relational databases, in which the data elements were linked...uh...relationally. Each data element was linked not only to the element immediately above or below it, but to many others, by *concept*, not by any data element's position in an imaginary hierarchy. Thus both a cottage and a castle could be accessed directly by linking to the element that conceptually described both of them, a dwelling for humans to live in. Relational databases were *much* faster, and have largely replaced hierarchical databases in the world of computing. Pity that hasn't happened in the world of thinking. Humans still have a tendency to think hierarchically. They look at the world around them and build in their minds enormous tree structures to describe what they see and experience. And they build these imaginary structures hierarchically. God or Brahman or whatever you choose to call it is at the top. Under that are the Laws Of Nature or the Three Gunas or the Holy Trinity or whatever you choose to call *that* level of the tree. Under that -- at least in Hindu or wannabee-Hindu tree structures -- are devas and devatas, or gods and goddesses, or whatever you choose to call them. Then maybe saints and ascended holy men, then priests who haven't acended to sainthood yet, then ordinary spiritual teachers who haven't ascended to priesthood yet, then priests, then rank-and-file seekers, and then -- below all of them -- layers and layers of peons. They're at the bottom because they Don't Really Matter, being so low on the cosmic totem pole tree and all. So now what do you DO if you're one of the peons, say back in a past era of Indian history, and you discover that you have a desire to access the data element called God or Brahman? If you chose Hinduism or Vedism, there was simply no way to get directly from A to Z. You had to traverse the tree, first sucking up to the rank-and-file seekers so they'd deign to accept you as one of them, then sucking up to the spiritual teachers. And you had to PAY these spiritual teachers -- and the priests above them in the hierarchy -- to get accepted by them. Then you had to pay them even more to (theoretically) get them to intercede on your behalf with the saints and the devas and devatas by performing yagyas and chants to them on your behalf. And then only *they* could intercede on your behalf with God or Brahman. Accessing Brahman directly was Right Out. On the other hand, if you chose Buddhism, you *could* go from A to Z, because Z was not at the top of some hierarchical tree structure, but as close as the other peons beside you. All of you were inherently linked relationally by a greater data element called Life. One of the reasons historical Hindus (and even wannabee Hindus in the present) dissed the Buddha so much is that he said, Skip the small shit. You don't *need* any of these intermediaries to access the 'highest' element of Life. Tell them to fuck off, and that you don't have to pay them a penny to intercede for you with that which you wish to access. Just access it directly. Do It Yourself. DIY. This is one reason that Buddhism was so popular when it arrived on the scene. It is also the primary reason why Hindus during his lifetime and for all the years afterwards have been so down on him -- he threatened their *source of income and livelihood*. Anyway, I resonated with this idea that Life is relational in nature, not hierarchical. I'm a DIY kinda guy. But not everyone is. I think that those who call themselves seekers but who cannot conceive of themselves *as* seeking unless they're a part of a group of other seekers are kinda stuck in hierarchical thinking. That's why they gravitate to spiritual traditions with lots and lots and lots of *hierarchy*. At almost the bottom of the hierarchy -- everyday meditators. Who are
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking Hierarchically vs. Relationally
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@... wrote: Some of the same dynamics happened in Christianity when Protestants broke off from Catholicism and said people did not need to pay for penances, use Popes or have a whole hierarchy of rituals to reach God. Ah, but they still had to pay for access to the books *about* God. Few know that when Gutenberg invented movable type and thus the ability print books inexpen- sively, this advance in technology was met with a movement to have him burned at the stake as a heretic. Why? Because the first book printed was the Bible. And prior to that time, Bibles had to be hand-copied, and were thus hideously expensive. Only the churches and the very rich could afford them. Therefore, if you wanted to hear the word of God, you had to go to a church or a priest and have them read it to you from one of the Bibles that only they could afford. After having paid them for the privilege, of course. Cheap Bibles, as far as the church was concerned, were off the program. If everyone could afford one, what did they need the priests and the church for? Still, I read of some recent studies that suggest that most humans are happier beings when they have rules, even many rules. I would agree. What I would not agree to is that any of these rules are, in fact, rules. They're made up by people to suit their other illusions about the world and how it works. I am guessing that the reason might be that people feel more secure with some rules,that they save time because they don't have to think so much about daily decisions, that they physically and emotionally just feel better with routines, that there is security in knowing what to do and when to do it and how to do it. I would phrase it, They are more *comfortable* being *told* what to do and when to do it and how to do it. The hierarchy of age is interesting. When I was a child I recall just adoring adults who treated me with the genuine respect they had for adults. Still, I think adults have more experience and wisdom and can protect younger people from not only danger, but also the pain of some stupid choices and behaviors. Chuckling, because on another forum someone posted a cute saying, Age is of no importance unless you are a cheese. I added, ...or a wine, Scotch whiskey, or tequila. :-) I guess what I am saying is that there needs to be a balance in life between hierarchies and using them usefully, and the unstructured lifestyle. I would agree, not least because the hierarchies themselves are just as manufactured as the lifestyles. :-) Kind of like the art that results from 2 extremes can still be moving: the work of painters in the eastern traditions who spend 20 years as apprentices and then still paint mandalas according to all the mathematical rules of specific proportions and colors vs. contemporary abstract art. Different strokes, different folks, both can be effective. Same with spiritual paths. the problems come up when the path does not mesh well with the individual's temperament. And then some paths might be inherently faster or kinder than others. That's my feeling. It's all about predilection -- how you are drawn. But it takes great courage to resist those, especially those in positions of power, who are constantly telling you, THIS is the way you're drawn. Why should their point of view *matter* if they're not on some higher level of the universe that grants them authority? Answer? It doesn't. It's just another point of view, another opinion. That's why hierarchical organizations don't like philos- ophies or practices that challenge the hierarchy. If there is none, then people Just Don't Need Them. OR their opinions.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Thinking Hierarchically vs. Relationally
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Susan wayback71@ wrote: Some of the same dynamics happened in Christianity when Protestants broke off from Catholicism and said people did not need to pay for penances, use Popes or have a whole hierarchy of rituals to reach God. Ah, but they still had to pay for access to the books *about* God. Few know that when Gutenberg invented movable type and thus the ability print books inexpen- sively, this advance in technology was met with a movement to have him burned at the stake as a heretic. Why? Because the first book printed was the Bible. And prior to that time, Bibles had to be hand-copied, and were thus hideously expensive. Only the churches and the very rich could afford them. Therefore, if you wanted to hear the word of God, you had to go to a church or a priest and have them read it to you from one of the Bibles that only they could afford. After having paid them for the privilege, of course. Cheap Bibles, as far as the church was concerned, were off the program. If everyone could afford one, what did they need the priests and the church for? For the record, there was no movement to charge Gutenberg with heresy. Or if there was, it was so dinky and insignificant and ineffectual as not to be worth mentioning. In any case, Gutenberg's Bibles weren't inexpensive; the common person couldn't have afforded one. Books of any kind didn't become cheap enough for common use until well after Gutenberg's death. It's not clear whether the first book printed by Gutenberg was the Bible, either. His press printed many different texts, including Latin grammars, around the same time, but the books bear no dates. The Bible was certainly not the first item that came off the press; that was a poem, as well as a calendar for the year 1448.
