1) when I hear that “we’re not as important as we think we are” - I see two directions to move. Either lowering our own perceived importance, or raising the importance of all else around (or perhaps some of both). The first to me seems connected to nihilism where nothing matters where the latter acknowledges that everything matters. In elevating whats around, I see connection to an indigenous view of the world and ideas of animism.
Does the lion eat the gazelle because it feels it’s more important, or as a necessary part in keeping everything moving? I perceive a division between biology and spirituality here.
I’m currently reading “Braiding Sweetgrass” where the author invites the reader to see the natural world as important and conscious in its own way.
2) Your post had me thinking about Indra’s net. Each individual exists as a jewel as a node in the net, and reflects every other node. In this sense, each node is important to the whole as any action will resonate throughout the whole web - it’s just that there is no hierarchy of importance. Can we see it as the paradox that “we’re just as important as we make everything else out to be”?
Are there two directions? Maybe... Does lowering oneself imply a relative raising of others; and raising others imply a relative lowering of self? My sense is that they may not be two directions, but one direction seen from two different perspectives. The other direction would be the inverse: raising self at the expense of other; lowering other to raise self. But the whole hierarchical nature of self makes this incredibly messy, where different directions clash against one another at different scales—this clashing seems to be the competitive side of life (chaos?), whereas the collaborative side of life (order?) wrestles with harmonizing all these competing interests.
"Does the lion eat the gazelle because it feels it’s more important, or as a necessary part in keeping everything moving?" Could it be both?
I've heard discussions about Braiding Sweetgrass, and their references to indigineous celebrations of natural phenomena (such as species migration), especially as it pertains to the fertility of plants and animals, always remind me of Durkheim's work. He sought religion’s most basic form by studying indigenous Australian groups, and found that most groups held rituals to encourage the fertility of their totemic species—plants or animals symbolizing their group. Through fostering these species and encouraging their fertility, they sustained themselves, reinforcing community bonds and their consciousness of nature. These gatherings revived a shared sense of the sacred, continuously renewing the group’s identity. In this way, religion arose, as Durkheim saw it, to enable relationship (in its most fundamental sense: to cultivate and expand relations).
mmm. You've struck something profound here: "we’re just as important as we make everything else out to be."
I’m still left with a question - what do we do with the paradox that doing more for our community makes us more important?
If I live altruistically, my community will benefit from my actions which will also make me more important. Does it also matter if this happens deliberately with importance as a goal or unintentionally? I see Oskar Schindler and Rosa Parks as examples of the latter
The problem with helping others despite lacking attention/intention is that you can just as well harm others through that same heedlessness. It was the gradual enlightnment of Schindler to the suffering of others that made his story special, despite its exploitative origins. But once he saw them, whether by his own will or through the sheer weight of injustice, he could attend to them and act deliberately with their interest in mind—better than he could if he were still ignorant.
I think that's the key: holding the interests of others in mind.
But you bring up a good point, and where does something like intuition come into play here? My sense is that, if intuition is something like an accessing of something subconcious (or something subconcious accessing us), that subconcious can just as well serve self-interest as it can the interests of others.
For importance, I tend to substitute “powerful” instead - (“I am not as powerful as I think I am.”). This can usually be tested empirically, and there is real objective truth to be found in testing my own limits. I have come to accept a very limited level of control. *See serenity prayer.
However, importance is a different word. It means that if me and my contribution were removed from the equation of “the family / the circle of friends / the company, etc.” what would be the consequence?… In this way, I think it is safe to say that those things will thankfully continue to exist and ideally function at a near similar level or perhaps better than when they did in the past for me having shown up. This I suppose is my practice of small-footprint, abdication of responsibility, and replacing myself. It means I seek to replicate power. Like a candle that lights another candle I become less important. I suppose power might be considered relative (hierarchy), and thus replications reduce the power of “my” candle… and that’s okay. That is why I think anarchy - at least in this interpretation- is the best way.
I came into this world surrounded by candles. I have lit very few. They probably would’ve been lit without me (who knows?).
I was thinking last night about the karmic consequence of leaving relics. Even if they’re good relics. I’m not sure about it, especially as it relates to my disposition for liberation from samsara.
Ah, yes power is quantitative (varying by degree) whereas importance seems more qualitative. I see what you mean.
I like the candle analogy. We do become less impressive in relation to other candles when we light them, but then again the whole burns brighter and if that’s what we’re after we haven’t lost anything.
It’s interesting, if you light a candle that lights more candles that then light even more, creating a sort of exponential flourishing of light, does that make you less important or more crucial?
I think importance involves scarcity, kind of like value, or price… to say someone is important is to say that their worth is hard to replace. Parents are important to their children, etc. As in, would I be “me” if I had a different mother or father? Yellow with red makes orange, yellow with blue makes green… importance involves causal relationships sometimes… Prometheus bringing fire… and maybe bearing the wrath of the gods… could someone else have done it? If so, then maybe Prometheus was not as important as it might seem…
My concern with relics is along these lines. I don’t want to be important. Importance comes with responsibility. I don’t want to bear the wrath of God(s) that’s for sure. Unlike power, importance might transcend embodiment. A being is powerful but isn’t important until there are relics involved or some reliance on the power. Power alone doesn’t necessarily require responsibility, importance kind of does. I suppose that’s the primary distinction between power and importance in my mind. Importance implies others relying on the power. Power can sort of exist in a vacuum. A sun without planets. The sun becomes important not because it shines with great power, but because earth needs it to shine with just the right amount of power.
Another couple of thought I figured I’d put here:
1) when I hear that “we’re not as important as we think we are” - I see two directions to move. Either lowering our own perceived importance, or raising the importance of all else around (or perhaps some of both). The first to me seems connected to nihilism where nothing matters where the latter acknowledges that everything matters. In elevating whats around, I see connection to an indigenous view of the world and ideas of animism.
Does the lion eat the gazelle because it feels it’s more important, or as a necessary part in keeping everything moving? I perceive a division between biology and spirituality here.
I’m currently reading “Braiding Sweetgrass” where the author invites the reader to see the natural world as important and conscious in its own way.
2) Your post had me thinking about Indra’s net. Each individual exists as a jewel as a node in the net, and reflects every other node. In this sense, each node is important to the whole as any action will resonate throughout the whole web - it’s just that there is no hierarchy of importance. Can we see it as the paradox that “we’re just as important as we make everything else out to be”?
Are there two directions? Maybe... Does lowering oneself imply a relative raising of others; and raising others imply a relative lowering of self? My sense is that they may not be two directions, but one direction seen from two different perspectives. The other direction would be the inverse: raising self at the expense of other; lowering other to raise self. But the whole hierarchical nature of self makes this incredibly messy, where different directions clash against one another at different scales—this clashing seems to be the competitive side of life (chaos?), whereas the collaborative side of life (order?) wrestles with harmonizing all these competing interests.
"Does the lion eat the gazelle because it feels it’s more important, or as a necessary part in keeping everything moving?" Could it be both?
I've heard discussions about Braiding Sweetgrass, and their references to indigineous celebrations of natural phenomena (such as species migration), especially as it pertains to the fertility of plants and animals, always remind me of Durkheim's work. He sought religion’s most basic form by studying indigenous Australian groups, and found that most groups held rituals to encourage the fertility of their totemic species—plants or animals symbolizing their group. Through fostering these species and encouraging their fertility, they sustained themselves, reinforcing community bonds and their consciousness of nature. These gatherings revived a shared sense of the sacred, continuously renewing the group’s identity. In this way, religion arose, as Durkheim saw it, to enable relationship (in its most fundamental sense: to cultivate and expand relations).
mmm. You've struck something profound here: "we’re just as important as we make everything else out to be."
Great post John!
I’m still left with a question - what do we do with the paradox that doing more for our community makes us more important?
If I live altruistically, my community will benefit from my actions which will also make me more important. Does it also matter if this happens deliberately with importance as a goal or unintentionally? I see Oskar Schindler and Rosa Parks as examples of the latter
The problem with helping others despite lacking attention/intention is that you can just as well harm others through that same heedlessness. It was the gradual enlightnment of Schindler to the suffering of others that made his story special, despite its exploitative origins. But once he saw them, whether by his own will or through the sheer weight of injustice, he could attend to them and act deliberately with their interest in mind—better than he could if he were still ignorant.
I think that's the key: holding the interests of others in mind.
But you bring up a good point, and where does something like intuition come into play here? My sense is that, if intuition is something like an accessing of something subconcious (or something subconcious accessing us), that subconcious can just as well serve self-interest as it can the interests of others.
Good food for thought.
I like it! Some thoughts…
For importance, I tend to substitute “powerful” instead - (“I am not as powerful as I think I am.”). This can usually be tested empirically, and there is real objective truth to be found in testing my own limits. I have come to accept a very limited level of control. *See serenity prayer.
However, importance is a different word. It means that if me and my contribution were removed from the equation of “the family / the circle of friends / the company, etc.” what would be the consequence?… In this way, I think it is safe to say that those things will thankfully continue to exist and ideally function at a near similar level or perhaps better than when they did in the past for me having shown up. This I suppose is my practice of small-footprint, abdication of responsibility, and replacing myself. It means I seek to replicate power. Like a candle that lights another candle I become less important. I suppose power might be considered relative (hierarchy), and thus replications reduce the power of “my” candle… and that’s okay. That is why I think anarchy - at least in this interpretation- is the best way.
I came into this world surrounded by candles. I have lit very few. They probably would’ve been lit without me (who knows?).
I was thinking last night about the karmic consequence of leaving relics. Even if they’re good relics. I’m not sure about it, especially as it relates to my disposition for liberation from samsara.
Ah, yes power is quantitative (varying by degree) whereas importance seems more qualitative. I see what you mean.
I like the candle analogy. We do become less impressive in relation to other candles when we light them, but then again the whole burns brighter and if that’s what we’re after we haven’t lost anything.
It’s interesting, if you light a candle that lights more candles that then light even more, creating a sort of exponential flourishing of light, does that make you less important or more crucial?
I think importance involves scarcity, kind of like value, or price… to say someone is important is to say that their worth is hard to replace. Parents are important to their children, etc. As in, would I be “me” if I had a different mother or father? Yellow with red makes orange, yellow with blue makes green… importance involves causal relationships sometimes… Prometheus bringing fire… and maybe bearing the wrath of the gods… could someone else have done it? If so, then maybe Prometheus was not as important as it might seem…
My concern with relics is along these lines. I don’t want to be important. Importance comes with responsibility. I don’t want to bear the wrath of God(s) that’s for sure. Unlike power, importance might transcend embodiment. A being is powerful but isn’t important until there are relics involved or some reliance on the power. Power alone doesn’t necessarily require responsibility, importance kind of does. I suppose that’s the primary distinction between power and importance in my mind. Importance implies others relying on the power. Power can sort of exist in a vacuum. A sun without planets. The sun becomes important not because it shines with great power, but because earth needs it to shine with just the right amount of power.