It's one lens through which to view the world, including ourselves.
It's attending to spirit, that which makes alive.
When we attend to the spirit of another human being, for example, we attend the whole person.
Her spirit animates her mind. No spirit, no mind.
Her spirit animates her body. No spirit, no body.
Her emotions are her spirit. No spirit, no emotions.
In addition to attending to the whole person, we also attend to how the person is interconnected with everything else. Her spirit influences not only everyone and everything in her immediate surroundings but in concentric circles out to the entire universe.
Attending to all through the lens of spirit is integrating. The integration includes us as well.
I've been considering my comment on this entry for quite a little while. There is a sense in many contemporary dialogues that each of us is a piece of the universe, and yet also whole unto ourselves. This often becomes expressed as each of us being a part of, or extension of, the divine mind. And thus, we, and everything we see are all interconnected, all one, because we ARE one.
ReplyDeleteI sense that you are saying something quite different here. My instinct tells me that Thumotics treats each of us as unique--that we are not part of any larger consciousness or universe. Yet everyone and everything is joined in an interconnected web of life. Who I am, who you are; what our spirits are, moves, we touch everything else on the web in an ever-widening circle.
What I need some help with is more of what you mean by attending to the spirit of another. How is attending to different from attention to? Is this the attention, love and care we give another? Something more? And is it the attending that ripples, along with the person herself?
I hope I'm being clear in both my understanding and my confusion.
OK, the first thing I want to say is that I did not try to say everything I have to say about Thumotics being a perspective in this post. Your questions inspire me to write more in future post about Thumotics being a perspective.
ReplyDeleteI do not beleive that we're all really facets, for lack of a better image, of one divine mind. In my view, that is a monotheistic religious belief. It is based on faith and lacks, as far as know, a basis in anything that would allow anyone to verify it. Often those who beleive that they and everyone else are facets of one divine mind base their beleif in their own mystical experience. The problem with that is that we do not know if such experiences are experiences of a reality beyond us or chemical processes in our brains.
That being said, I do believe that we are wholes ourselves consisting of parts and also parts of larger wholes: our families, including our ancestors, our local communities, our newtorks of friends, organizations, states, nations, the planet, solar system, universe- all that exists. I also beleive that what affects part affect the whole. We can empircally verify the affects. I'm sure you see it in your environmental work. So, I do believe, based on empirical knowledge, that we all are one. By all I mean all and not just us humans.
I also believe that thumos is what makes whatever is alive alive. That too is a belief based not on faith but on experience and reason.
Yes, I like the matephor of everything being in an interconnected web of life.
As for your question about the difference between attending and attention, I haven't given it any thought. I'm not sure there is a significant difference. Perhaps I'm missing something. Do you see a difference?
One final thought here: One way of viewing the difference between my Thumotic perspective and the one Divine Mind perspecitive is that mine is "from below" so to speak. It's my human perspective. The Divine Mind perspective seems to me to be "from above", from the perspective of the Divine Mind. Since I am 100% human and not divine, I cannot speak from the perspective of the Divine Mind..
As always, I appreciate your comprehensive reply to my comments. I don't see any of your blog posts as complete and thorough--and I mean that in a good way. Your writing causes me to think and ask questions of myself and of you. It seems to me that each builds upon the last, and that you have a great deal to say on this subject. I'm looking forward to it.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct in that the notion of the "divine mind" is not something that can ever truly be known. It requires faith, and not the sort of faith that I have.
I like your image of being whole unto myself yet comprised of parts, and that my whole is part of something bigger, which you describe very well. I share your perspective, and support the notion of empirically being able to verify that interconnectedness. I'm glad you like the web of life metaphor.
So many examples of how each part affects the whole, and you are correct; this is completely visible in the environmental work I do. Fishermen unconsciously discard lead sinkers, which are consumed by loons. The lead is toxic and eventually kills them. The output of factories in the west and midwest drifts east, dropping acid rain on the lake, changing its chemical composition, and the life that can be supported there. These are but a few of the most short term and visible examples.
As I thought more about attending and attention, I did see a distinction. I don't know if it will hold up for you, however it is this. Attending feels active to me; attention feels passive. I can pay attention to a lot of things, however it doesn't mean I do anything about whatever they are. I pay attention to the political news, for example. When I attend to something, I am taking action. I attend to dinner by cooking the food I plan to eat. I attend to the wounds my cat inflicts on my arm. I attend to my spirit by actively partaking in what brings it joy.
I love your final thought, BTW. It is our view of life, not that which we think is provided by the divine.
Thanks for continuing the dialogue. I always appreciate you and your point of view which so often coincides with my own.
I get your distinction between attention and attending and find it helpful. I agree attending is more engaged that simply paying attention. I can pay attention to other without caring for them. However, I do not think I can attend to others without caring for them. Would you agree?
ReplyDeleteI'm pleased you found my distinction helpful. Yes, I would agree with your statement that each of us can pay attention to another without caring for them. I do this when I go to a play or a lecture or even a concert. I'm paying attention to what I'm there to see or learn about, though I can't say I'm actively caring for the those making the presentation. And yes, I cannot attend to others without caring for them. I also see that some of this caring can be situational or ephemeral. I don't think you're advocating constant attending/care from me to all.
ReplyDeleteRight, our caring varies for a variety of reasons.
ReplyDeleteGreat discussion! Thanks!