When Einstein was asked, by a journalist, how he came up with the theory of relativity,
he had no audience for talking about his use of Thought Experiments,
more or less what a group discernment facilitator might use to frame a climate of respectful inquiry.
But, on this occasion Einstein said,
“I ignored an axiom.”
Perhaps this is part of what we all do as we approach political and economic anomalies;
anomalies grown so hugely powerful that they already adversely influence the lives of some population
enough to invite us inside to help sift through our mutually-held mess.
Here are four axioms that it might be helpful for us to encourage our mutual explorers of resonant resolutions to temporarily set aside.
You will notice they are all dualistic axioms,
easily ignored by heuristically pretending we live in more of a nondual co-arising ecological climate.
Axiom 1: When I say “spirit,” I mean anything not of nature.
What is natural is what is not spiritual.
Let’s pretend these two refer to one universal ecosystem,
the same planet,
one holistic psychological ecosystem,
so what is spiritually dynamic is also naturally dynamic,
like agape and eros,
but two different lenses, or dialectals,
for juxtapositional purposes only;
not because there is a real world difference within a river
or a tree
or even your mother, or yourself,
or a terrorist, or a fascist, or a….
Axiom 2: When I say “mind,” I mean that of ego identity that is not body. What is organic body is what is not metaphysical mind.
Let’s pretend that where one shows up, so does the other,
just like your ecological spirit and your biological nature.
From this nondual perspective we may find it easier to see economic intent of mindbodies
acting out our political power investment/divestment purposes,
and vice versa.
Politics of embodied power become reassociated with economics of cooperative investments and more competitive divestments of value in Other,
whether people, places, or things,
all of which are now spirit-nature ecosystems
with an increasingly transparent ecological development trajectory.
Axiom 3: When I say “climate health,”
whether internal or external climate,
I mean anything not climatic pathology.
What is pathological, dissonant, chaotic in nature
does not participate in the spirit of cooperative, resonantly complex therapeutic health.
To ignore such a deeply held axiom of DNA-regenerativity itself,
I find it helpful to use an oxymoronic frame,
a climate that assumes we all RealTime live within diverse environments of pathological health,
some significantly more marginal than others.
These two together allow us a grand heuristic spectrum of both opportunity and risk,
to see functional dynamics of monoculturing pathology trends
within dipolar health as integrity,
already explicit issues and already implicit as deviant from healthy potential.
Framing pathologies as harbingers of healthier alternatives
allows us to look simultaneously at current climate risks
as also speaking of future climate opportunities.
Axiom 4: When I say “rhetorical frame” or “dialectal”
I mean to distinguish this time and space from a larger ecopolitical climate that has become painfully pathological.
Why couldn’t a rhetorical climate speak of both how our mindbodies experience health
and how our nature-spirits sweat about internal and external climate pathologies?
Sounds like good compost for a Thought Experiment,
and maybe a cooperative grant proposal,
sent from one set of co-intelligent climate investors
to another, with deeper ecopolitical power pockets.