• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Charles Eisenstein

  • About
  • Essays
  • Videos
  • Podcasts
    • Charles Eisenstein Random
    • A New and Ancient Story Podcast
    • Outside Interviews
  • Courses
    • The Sanity Project
    • Climate — Inside and Out
    • Conversations with Orland Bishop, Course One
    • Conversations with Orland Bishop, Course Two
    • Conversations with Orland Bishop, Course Three
    • Dietary Transformation from the Inside Out
    • Living in the Gift
    • Masculinity: A New Story
    • Metaphysics & Mystery
    • Space Between Stories
    • Unlearning: For Change Agents
  • NAAS
  • Books
    • The Coronation
    • Climate — A New Story
    • The More Beautiful World Our Hearts Know Is Possible
    • The Ascent of Humanity
    • Sacred Economics
    • The Yoga of Eating
  • Events
  • Donate

Dans chaque acte, une cérémonie

June 19, 2019 by Charles Eisenstein

June 2019
Merci à Isabelle Wynn pour son travail sur cette traduction. Il existe une version anglaise de cet essai.


Voici quelques semaines j’ai eu l’occasion de discuter avec une femme qui oeuvre avec un mama Kogi, un chaman donc, de la Sierra Nevada colombienne. Il est venu en Californie il y a quelques années et a procédé à de longues cérémonies à un endroit précis de cette région. Il a déclaré : “Il faudrait que vous organisiez une cérémonie ici régulièrement, sinon il y aura de sérieux incendies.” Personne n’a organisé de cérémonie, et l’année suivante il y a eu des incendies de forêt. Il est revenu peu après et a réitéré son avertissement. “Si vous ne faites pas de cérémonies, les prochains incendies seront pires.” L’année suivante, les incendies furent dramatiques. Il est venu à nouveau et a répété son avertissement une troisième fois : «Sans cérémonie, les incendies dans cette région du monde seront encore pires. Peu de temps après, l’incendie de Camp Fire a dévasté la région.

Sur ces entrefaites, cette femme a découvert que le lieu désigné par le chaman Kogi avait été le site d’un terrible massacre des peuples indigènes qui vivaient là. Inexplicablement, il l’avait perçu. Dans sa conception des choses, un traumatisme aussi épouvantable affecte aussi bien la terre que les hommes. Cela l’aura mise en colère, déséquilibrée, rendue incapable de retrouver son harmonie tant qu’elle n’est pas apaisée par le biais de cérémonies.

Il y a deux ans, j’ai rencontré des prêtres Dogon et je leur ai demandé leur avis sur le changement climatique. Tout comme les Kogi, les Dogon pratiquent fidèlement leurs cérémonies depuis des milliers d’années. Ces hommes m’ont dit : “ce n’est pas ce que vous autres croyez. La principale raison pour laquelle le climat devient fou, c’est que vous avez arraché les objets sacrés aux lieux auxquels ils appartiennent, les lieux où ils ont été placés avec soin et de manière tout à fait délibérée, et vous les avez envoyés dans des musées à New York ou à Londres. Selon leur interprétation, ces objets et les cultes qu’ils servaient étaient les garants d’une alliance entre les hommes et la terre. En échange d’un tribut sous forme de beauté et de soins, la terre prodigue un environnement habitable pour les hommes.

Mon amie Cynthia Jurs procède depuis une vingtaine d’années à des cérémonies au cours desquelles elle enterre des vases Trésor de la Terre, c’est-à-dire des urnes religieuses tibétaines fabriquées dans un monastère au Népal selon une coutume précise. Cette pratique lui a été enseignée – c’est presque un cliché, mais c’est vraiment ce qui s’est passé – par un Lama de 106 ans dans une grotte de l’Himalaya. Elle lui avait demandé : «Quelle est la meilleure façon de me mettre au service de la guérison du monde?» Il lui a répondu : «Eh bien, à chaque fois que vous réunissez des gens pour méditer, cela a un effet de guérison, mais si vous voulez en faire plus, vous pouvez enterrer des vases Trésor de la Terre. » Au départ, cette suggestion a déçu Cynthia. Pratiquante du bouddhisme tibétain, elle était convaincue que c’était certes une belle cérémonie, mais bon, il y a tant de graves dégradations sociales et environnementales qui réclament notre attention. Il faut encadrer les gens. Il faut transformer les systèmes. A quoi une cérémonie peut-elle bien servir ?

Néanmoins, elle accepta le cadeau d’une série de vases que le Lama fit fabriquer dans un monastère voisin. Cinq ans plus tard, elle s’est mise à parcourir le monde pour se rendre dans des endroits où la terre et les gens avaient subi de grands traumatismes et a entreprit d’enterrer les vases en suivant les consignes reçues pour la cérémonie. Dans certains de ces endroits, des miracles petits et grands ont eu lieu, comme par exemple des miracles d’ordre social qu’on pourrait presque qualifier de banals : la création de centres de paix. D’après ce qu’elle a pu observer, ces cérémonies ont un effet.

Rites, cérémonies et matérialisme

Comment interpréter ces témoignages ? Un esprit moderne et politiquement correct se veut de respecter les cultures autres que la sienne, mais a du mal à accepter vraiment la vision radicalement différente de la causalité que prônent ces cultures. Les cérémonies que j’évoque ne sont pas considérées par un esprit moderne comme ayant une action concrète sur le monde. Ainsi, une conférence sur le climat pourra être inaugurée par l’intervention d’un représentant d’un peuple premier qui invoquera les quatre directions, avant de passer aux activités sérieuses sous forme de métriques, modèles et règlementations.

Dans cet essai, je me pencherai sur un autre aspect de ce que nos contemporains peuvent retirer d’une approche cérémonielle de la vie, telle que pratiquée par ceux qu’Orland Bishop appelle les «cultures de mémoire» – les peuples traditionnels, indigènes et autochtones, ainsi que les lignées ésotériques au sein de la culture dominante.

Cette alternative ne remplace pas une approche rationnelle et pragmatique lorsqu’il s’agit de résoudre des problèmes personnels ou sociaux. Elle n’est pas non plus détachée, opposée à une approche pragmatique. Elle ne consiste pas davantage à emprunter ou à importer les cérémonies d’autres peuples.

Elle allie le cérémonial au pragmatique à partir d’une manière de voir le monde radicalement différente.

Commençons par une distinction préalable entre cérémonie et rituel. Même si on ne le réalise pas toujours, notre quotidien est rempli de rituels. Insérer une carte de crédit est un rituel. Faire la queue est un rituel. Les procédures médicales sont des rituels. Signer un contrat est un rituel. Cliquer sur “J’accepte” en bas des “termes et conditions” est un rituel. Remplir sa déclaration de revenus est un rituel compliqué qui, pour beaucoup de gens, nécessite l’aide d’un prêtre – initié à des rites et règles obscurs, parlant couramment une langue spécifique que le profane peut à peine comprendre, et consacré par un diplôme – afin de la remplir correctement. Le comptable vous aide à accomplir ce rituel qui vous permet de rester un membre en règle de la société. Les rituels consistent à manier les symboles selon un ordre établi ou d’une manière prescrite dans le but de préserver le lien avec la société et le monde matériel.

Selon cette définition, le rituel n’est ni bien ni mal, mais simplement une façon pour les humains et les autres entités de s’accorder à préserver leur réalité.

Alors qu’une cérémonie est une forme de rituel particulier. C’est un rituel qu’on accomplit en ayant conscience que l’on est en présence du sacré, que des êtres sacrés vous regardent, ou que Dieu est votre témoin.

Ceux dont la vision du monde n’a pas de place pour les êtres sacrés, les esprits, ou pour Dieu, verront dans la cérémonie une superstition ou, au mieux, un stratagème psychologique pouvant parfois aider à calmer l’esprit et focaliser l’attention.

Une petite minute. Selon une vision du monde ouverte aux êtres sacrés, aux esprits, ou à Dieu, Il ou Elle ou Ils ne sont-ils pas sensés nous observer en permanence, et voir tout ce que nous faisons ? Cela ne signifie-t-il pas que tout devrait être cérémonie ?

Eh bien si – à condition de ressentir en permanence la présence du sacré. À quelle fréquence au juste ? Et à quelle fréquence est-ce que vous affirmeriez, si on vous le demandait, être conscient que des êtres sacrés nous regardent, tout en n’en ayant pas forcément pleinement conscience à ce moment-là ? Hormis de bien rares exceptions, les personnes croyantes que je connais ne donnent pas l’impression d’agir toujours comme si elles pensaient que Dieu les regardait et les écoutait tout le temps. Quant aux exceptions, elles transcendent toutes les croyances. On les reconnaît car ces personnes sont empreintes d’une certaine gravité. Toutes leurs paroles, tous leurs gestes sont marqués d’une sorte de pondération, comme lestés. Au-delà des occasions solennelles, cette gravité s’étend à leur rire, à leur chaleur, à leur colère et à leurs moments ordinaires. Et lorsqu’une telle personne procède à une cérémonie, on ressent un changement dans la gravité de la pièce.

La cérémonie n’est pas un moyen d’échapper à ce monde matériel chaotique pour se réfugier dans le domaine de la supercherie spirituelle. Elle accueille pleinement le matériel. Elle est un exercice dans l’art d’honorer la matérialité, que l’on conçoive celle-ci comme intrinsèquement sacrée, ou sacrée en tant que chef d’œuvre de Dieu. Il y a une façon correcte de placer les bougies sur l’autel. J’ai en tête l’image d’un homme qui m’a appris le sens de la cérémonie. Ses gestes sont délibérés et précis ; pas crispés et pas non plus bâclés. Il prête attention aux exigences de l’instant et du lieu, insufflant par là une forme d’art dans chaque mouvement.

Lors d’une cérémonie, on se concentre pleinement sur la tâche à accomplir et on exécute chaque geste au plus juste. La cérémonie est donc une pratique pour chaque occasion de la vie, une pratique dans la manière de tout faire au plus juste. Une pratique cérémonielle sérieuse est comme un aimant qui attire la vie de plus en plus dans son champ. C’est l’expression d’une prière : «que tout ce que je fais soit une cérémonie. Puis-je instiller à tout ce que je fais l’attention la plus complète, tout le soin, tout le respect dû à sa finalité. »

Pragmatisme et respect

De toute évidence, déplorer le temps perdu en cérémonies en se disant qu’il aurait été mieux employé à planter des arbres ou à faire campagne contre l’exploitation forestière industrielle, c’est passer à côté de quelque chose d’important. La personne qui plante des arbres, lorsqu’elle s’est imprégnée de cérémonie, sera attentive à placer chaque arbre au bon endroit et à choisir le bon arbre pour un microclimat et une niche écologique donnée. Elle prendra soin de le planter à la bonne profondeur et de s’assurer qu’il sera correctement protégé et soigné par la suite. Elle fera tout son possible pour faire les choses au mieux. De même, le militant fera la distinction entre d’une part ce qui doit vraiment être fait afin de stopper le projet d’exploitation forestière, et de l’autre ce qui valoriserait plutôt son ego de preux chevalier, son complexe de martyre, ou son attitude moralisatrice. Il ne perdra pas de vue la cause qu’il sert.

Il est absurde de dire d’une culture indigène que «la raison pour laquelle ils ont vécu sur ce territoire de façon durable pendant 5000 ans n’a rien à voir avec leurs cérémonies superstitieuses. C’est dû à leur fine observation de la nature et au fait qu’ils se projettent jusqu’à sept générations dans l’avenir. » Le respect et l’attention qu’ils consacrent aux besoins subtils d’un lieu font partie intégrante de leur approche cérémonielle de la vie. L’état d’esprit qui nous ouvre à la cérémonie est aussi celui qui nous pousse à nous interroger : «qu’est-ce que la terre veut ? Qu’est-ce que la rivière veut ? Qu’est-ce que le loup veut ? Qu’est-ce que la forêt veut ?», et qui ensuite prête une attention particulière aux indices. Cet état d’esprit accorde à la terre, à la rivière, au loup et à la forêt une existence – et les compte parmi les êtres sacrés qui nous observent en permanence, et dont les besoins et les intérêts sont intimement liés aux nôtres.

Ce que je décris peut sembler contraire aux enseignements théistes, et donc pour ceux qui croient en un Dieu créateur, je vais proposer une traduction. Le regard de Dieu est présent dans chaque arbre, chaque loup, chaque rivière, chaque forêt. Rien n’a été créé sans but ni intention. Ainsi quand nous demandons : comment participer à l’accomplissement de cet objectif ? Cela revient à demander : qu’est-ce que la forêt veut ? Je laisserai au lecteur le soin de traduire le reste de cet essai dans le langage théiste.

En ce qui me concerne, je ne peux pas prétendre avoir toujours conscience d’être observé par des êtres sacrés. Mon éducation m’a enseigné que les êtres sacrés tels que le ciel, le soleil, la lune, le vent, les arbres et les ancêtres n’avaient rien de sacré. Le ciel était une collection de particules de gaz éparpillées dans le vide sidéral. Le soleil était une boule d’hydrogène en fusion. La lune était un amas de roche (et la roche un amalgame de minéraux, et un minéral un tas de molécules inanimées…). Le vent était fait de molécules en mouvement, entrainées par des forces géomécaniques. Les arbres étaient des colonnes de biochimie et les ancêtres étaient des cadavres dans le sol. En dehors de nous, le monde était muet et mort, un enchevêtrement arbitraire de force et de masse. Il n’y avait rien au-delà, aucune intelligence témoin de ma présence, et aucune raison de faire quoi que ce soit mieux que nécessaire en vue d’un résultat prévisible par l’exercice de la raison.

Pourquoi placer la bougie sur mon autel exactement comme il faut ? Ce n’est que de la cire qui s’oxyde autour d’une mèche. Sa place n’affecte rien dans le monde. Pourquoi faire mon lit alors que je vais retourner y dormir la nuit prochaine ? Pourquoi faire plus que le strict nécessaire pour satisfaire les critères de l’examinateur, du patron ou du marché ? Pourquoi devrais-je jamais faire l’effort de rendre quoi que ce soit plus beau que nécessaire ? Je vais juste prendre quelques raccourcis – personne ne le saura. Avec une imagination d’enfant, le soleil et le vent et l’herbe peuvent me voir, mais allons bon, ils ne peuvent pas vraiment me voir, ils n’ont pas d’yeux, pas de système nerveux central, ce ne sont pas des êtres tels que moi. Voilà l’idéologie avec laquelle j’ai grandi.

L’approche cérémoniale ne nie pas que définir le ciel comme un amas de particules de gaz ou la roche comme un amalgame de minéraux peut parfois avoir son utilité. Mais elle ne cantonne pas le ciel ou la roche à cette définition. Elle accepte la justesse et l’utilité de plusieurs définitions, mais ne privilégie pas celle fondée sur une composition réductionniste comme étant « la vraie». Par conséquent, l’alternative à la vision du monde forgée par mon éducation n’est pas d’abandonner le pragmatisme en faveur d’une sorte d’esthétique cérémonielle. La notion de fossé entre pragmatisme et esthétique est fallacieuse. Elle ne tient que lorsqu’on se place dans une conception de la vie fondée sur la causalité, niant son intelligence mystérieuse et élégante. La réalité est autre que ce que l’on nous a appris. Il y a des formes d’intelligence à l’œuvre dans le monde autres que celle des humains, et des principes de causalité autres que ceux des forces physiques. La synchronicité, la résonance morphique, et l’autopoïèse, sans être à l’antithèse d’une causalité basée sur ces forces, permettent d’élargir nos horizons du possible. En conséquence, la cérémonie ne va pas en soi «provoquer» d’autres évènements dans le monde; elle agit en attirant et en modelant la réalité en une forme différente, dans laquelle d’autres évènements se produisent.

Vivre une vie dépourvue de cérémonie nous prive d’alliés. Exclus de notre réalité, ils nous abandonnent à un monde sans intelligence – l’image même de l’idéologie moderniste. La vision mécaniste du monde devient une prophétie auto-réalisatrice, et il ne nous reste effectivement plus que la force pour agir sur le reste du monde.

La transition inspirée des peuples traditionnels tels que les Kogi ou les Dogon ne consiste pas à adopter ou imiter leurs cérémonies ; elle invite à se rallier à une vision du monde dans laquelle nous humains avons des compagnons de route, où nous participons à un colloque d’intelligences dans un univers peuplé d’innombrables entités vivantes. La cérémonie est l’affirmation d’un choix, celui de vivre dans un tel univers et de participer à l’engendrement de sa réalité.

Régénérer l’environnement par la cérémonie

En pratique – mais attendez ! Tout ce que j’ai exposé est déjà éminemment pratique. Parlons plutôt d’étendre l’état d’esprit cérémoniel au domaine de la politique et de la pratique environnementales. Le principe étant de faire du mieux possible pour chaque endroit sur terre, de le considérer comme une entité vivante, et de savoir que si nous traitons chaque lieu, chaque espèce, chaque écosystème comme étant sacré, nous inviterons la planète à entrer elle aussi dans une plénitude sacrée.

Lorsqu’on considère chaque lieu comme sacré, il en résulte parfois des actions qui s’inscrivent aisément dans la logique de la séquestration du carbone et du changement climatique, comme par exemple quand on s’oppose à un oléoduc pour protéger une rivière sacrée. Mais il arrive aussi que la logique du budget carbone semble contraire à l’instinct de l’état d’esprit cérémoniel. A l’heure actuelle, on abat des forêts pour faire place à d’immenses champs photo-voltaïques, et des oiseaux sont victimes de gigantesques éoliennes qui dominent le paysage. En outre, tout ce qui n’a pas un impact facilement démontrable sur les gaz à effet de serre devient invisible aux décideurs des politiques environnementales. Quelle est la contribution pratique d’une tortue de mer ? D’un éléphant ? Quelle importance si je place ma bougie n’importe où sur l’autel ?

Lors d’une cérémonie, tout a de l’importance et on fait attention à chaque détail. Quand on aborde la régénération écologique avec un esprit cérémoniel, on remarque de plus en plus de choses. Au fur et à mesure que la science révèle l’importance d’entités jadis invisibles ou sous-estimées, le cadre de la cérémonie s’élargit. Le sol, les mycéliums, les bactéries, les différents cours d’eau… chacun doit avoir sa place sur l’autel de nos pratiques agricoles, de nos pratiques forestières et des relations avec toutes les autres formes de vie. Plus nous gagnons en discernement dans notre prise en compte des causalités, plus nous réalisons par exemple que les papillons, les grenouilles ou les tortues marines sont essentiels pour la santé de la biosphère. En définitive, nous réalisons que la vision cérémonielle est correcte : la santé de l’environnement ne peut être réduite à quelques quantités mesurables.

Je ne suis pas en train de suggérer l’abandon des projets de réhabilitation reflétant une conception moins fine de l’essence du monde, c’est-à-dire basés sur une vision mécanistique de la nature. Il nous faut discerner la prochaine étape nécessaire à la consolidation d’une relation cérémonielle. J’ai récemment correspondu avec Ravi Shah, un jeune homme qui accomplit en Inde un travail époustouflant pour régénérer des étangs et les terres alentour. Suivant l’exemple de Masanobu Fukuoka, il porte la plus grande attention ici au placement de quelques roseaux, là à l’élimination d’un arbre envahissant, faisant confiance au pouvoir inné de la nature à se régénérer. Plus il tempère son intervention, plus grand en est l’effet. Ce qui ne veut pas dire qu’une absence d’intervention serait plus efficace que tout. Mais plus sa connaissance devient fine et précise, mieux il est à même de se mettre au diapason et au service de la transformation de la nature, et moins il a besoin d’interférer pour accomplir cela. Le résultat est qu’il a transformé – ou plus précisément, aidé à la transformation – d’un paysage abimé en une oasis luxuriante et verdoyante ; un autel vivant.

Ravi est à juste titre agacé par les projets de restauration hydrologique à grande échelle tels que ceux décrits dans mon livre : le travail de Rajendra Singh en Inde et la restauration du plateau de loess en Chine, car ils sont loin d’atteindre le degré de respect et d’attention qu’il porte à chaque détail au niveau micro-local. Ces projets découlent d’une compréhension plus conventionnelle et mécanistique de l’hydrologie. Où est le sacré ? demande-t-il. Qu’en est-il de l’humilité face à l’extrême sagesse des écosystèmes interdépendants propres à chaque lieu ? Ils se contentent de construire des étangs. Peut-être bien, ai-je répondu, mais nous devons aller à la rencontre des gens là où ils se trouvent, et encourager chaque pas dans la bonne direction. Ces projets hydrologiques mécaniques sont aussi empreints d’un respect pour l’eau. Le projet de Ravi permet d’envisager ce qui est possible, il ne faut pas pour autant condamner les efforts préliminaires sur le long chemin qui y conduit.

J’ajouterais que pour que la terre guérisse, il lui faut un exemple de santé, un réservoir de santé à partir duquel apprendre. L’oasis de santé écologique que Ravi a établie peut rayonner au travers du milieu social et écologique, transmettant la santé aux lieux voisins (par exemple, en fournissant des refuges et des lieux de reproduction aux plantes et aux animaux) et en inspirant d’autres guérisseurs de la terre. Voilà pourquoi l’Amazonie est si cruciale, en particulier la région autour du cours supérieur du fleuve, probablement le plus grand réservoir encore préservé, source de la santé écologique du monde. C’est là que Gaia peut puiser la mémoire intacte de sa santé, d’un monde au passé sain et au futur guéri.

Le travail qu’accomplit Ravi pour restaurer la terre fonctionne exactement comme une cérémonie. D’aucuns pourraient objecter : «Pas besoin de cérémonies spéciales – chaque acte devrait être une cérémonie. Pourquoi faire de ces dix minutes quelque chose de spécial. » De la même façon, on pourrait exiger de traiter tout de suite chaque lieu sur terre comme Ravi traite le sien. Pourtant, la plupart d’entre nous, et la société dans son ensemble, ne sommes pas prêts à franchir une telle étape. Le fossé est trop grand. Nous ne pouvons pas démanteler du jour au lendemain nos systèmes technico-industriels, nos structures sociales ni une psychologie profondément ancrée. Ce qui fonctionne pour la plupart d’entre nous, c’est d’établir une oasis de perfection, sous forme de cérémonie, du mieux que nous pouvons, et de lui permettre ensuite de se propager dans les différents domaines de notre vie, donnant progressivement plus d’attention, de beauté et de pouvoir à chaque acte. Pour faire de chaque acte une cérémonie, il faut commencer par faire d’un seul acte une cérémonie.

La cérémonie issue de principes de base

Apporter du cérémoniel à certains aspects de la vie ne signifie pas que le reste est relégué à la banalité ou dépourvu de toute cérémonie. En procédant à une cérémonie, notre intention est de la faire rayonner au-delà de notre journée ou de notre semaine. C’est un refuge au sein du tumulte quotidien. D’ailleurs, nous ne devons pas nous contenter de préserver quelques endroits sauvages, sanctuaires, ou parcs nationaux, ou de restaurer certains lieux à leur condition d’origine ; bien au contraire, ces lieux sont des étoiles polaires, des exemples et des rappels de ce qui est possible. Les exemples comme celui de Ravi prenant soin de tels lieux nous invitent à apporter un peu de leur approche, puis de plus en plus, à tous les lieux. Quand nous instaurons un court instant de cérémonie dans nos vies, nous sommes appelés à l’étendre progressivement à tous les instants.

Comment réintroduire la cérémonie dans une société dont elle est pratiquement absente ? Je l’ai déjà dit, il ne s’agit pas d’imiter ou d’importer les cérémonies d’autres cultures. Il n’est pas non plus forcément question de ressusciter les cérémonies de son propre héritage, une entreprise qui, tout en évitant en apparence l’appropriation culturelle, risque l’appropriation de sa propre culture. Les cérémonies sont bien vivantes ; en tentant de les imiter ou de les préserver, on ne fait qu’évoquer leur effigie.

Quelle option reste-t-il alors ? Celle de créer nos propres cérémonies ? Strictement parlant, non. On ne crée pas une cérémonie, on la découvre.

Voici comment cela pourrait se passer. Vous commencez par une cérémonie rudimentaire, comme par exemple allumer une bougie chaque matin et prendre un moment pour réfléchir à qui vous voulez être jour-là. Comment donc allumer la bougie avec perfection ? Peut-être en la saisissant et en l’inclinant au-dessus de l’allumette. Où poser ensuite l’allumette ? Sur une petite soucoupe peut-être, que l’on a placée de côté. Puis en replaçant la bougie juste comme il faut. Ensuite pourquoi ne pas faire tinter un carillon trois fois. Quel intervalle entre les tintements ? Vous êtes pressé ? Non, vous attendez que chaque son s’atténue jusqu’au silence ? Oui, c’est comme ça qu’il faut faire….

Je ne préconise pas que votre cérémonie soit régie par ces règles et procédures. Pour découvrir une cérémonie, il faut suivre le fil conducteur indiquant “Oui, voilà comment procéder”, qui est révélé par la pleine conscience. En observant, en écoutant, en focalisant son attention, on découvre ce qu’il faut faire, quoi dire et comment participer. Ce n’est pas différent de la façon dont les gens comme Fukuoka apprennent à établir une vraie relation avec la terre.

La bougie peut se transformer en un petit autel et sa lumière en une cérémonie plus longue autour de cet autel. Puis elle rayonne alentour. Très vite vous vous mettez à ranger votre bureau peut-être, avec le même soin. Ensuite votre maison. Puis vous apportez le même soin et la même intention à votre travail, à vos relations, et aux aliments dont vous nourrissez votre corps. Au fil du temps, la cérémonie devient un point d’ancrage depuis lequel s’opère un changement dans la réalité que vous habitez. Il se peut que vous constatiez que la vie s’organise autour de l’intention au-delà de la cérémonie. Il se peut que vous fassiez l’expérience d’une synchronicité qui semble confirmer qu’en effet, une intelligence plus grande est ici à l’œuvre.

En l’occurrence, un sentiment grandit, celui que nous sommes accompagnés par des êtres innombrables. La cérémonie, n’ayant de sens que si des êtres sacrés nous observent, nous entraîne dans une expérience de la réalité où des êtres sacrés sont effectivement présents. Plus ils sont présents, plus l’invitation est forte de transformer davantage d’actes, en fait tous les actes, en cérémonie accomplie avec toute l’attention et l’intégrité qui lui sont dues. Que deviendrait la vie alors ? Que deviendrait le monde ?

L’attention complète et l’intégrité prennent des formes différentes selon les circonstances. Dans un rituel, leur tournure est tout à fait différente de ce qui se passe dans un jeu, dans une conversation, ou quand on fait la cuisine. Dans un cas, il faut peut-être faire preuve de précision et d’ordre ; dans un autre, de spontanéité, d’audace ou d’improvisation. La cérémonie donne le ton à chaque acte et à chaque parole en s’alignant sur ce qu’on est vraiment, sur ce que l’on veut être, et sur le monde dans lequel on veut vivre.

La cérémonie offre un aperçu d’une destination sacrée, qui est la suivante :
Dans chaque acte, une cérémonie.
Dans chaque mot, une prière.
Dans chaque promenade, un pèlerinage.
Dans chaque lieu, un sanctuaire.

Un sanctuaire nous relie au sacré, qui transcende chaque sanctuaire et inclut tous les sanctuaires. Une cérémonie peut faire d’un lieu un sanctuaire, et offrir une voie de secours vers une réalité dans laquelle tout est sacré ; elle est l’avant-poste de cette réalité, de ce récit du monde. De même, une parcelle de sol régénérée est un avant-poste des dernières oasis témoins de la vitalité originelle de la Terre, comme l’Amazonie, le Congo, quelques rares récifs coralliens encore intacts, quelques mangroves, et ainsi de suite. Nous sommes gagnés par le désespoir à la vue du projet du nouveau gouvernement brésilien de piller l’Amazonie et nous nous demandons ce que nous pouvons faire pour la sauver. L’action politique et économique est bien entendu nécessaire pour ce faire, mais nous pouvons agir en parallèle à un autre niveau. Chaque endroit de la terre que l’on régénère nourrit aussi l’Amazonie et nous rapproche d’un monde dans lequel elle restera intacte. De plus, en renforçant notre lien à de tels lieux, nous faisons appel à des pouvoirs inconcevables qui renforcent notre détermination et coordonnent nos alliances.

Les êtres que nous avons exclus de notre réalité, ceux que notre perception a rabaissé au rang de non-êtres, ces êtres sont toujours là à nous attendre. Même avec toute l’incrédulité dont j’ai hérité (au moins aussi tenace que la vôtre, sinon plus, entre mon cynique intérieur et mes études de sciences, de mathématiques et de philosophie analytique), si je m’accorde quelques moments de calme attentif, je peux sentir ces êtres se rassembler. Toujours pleins d’espoir, ils se rapprochent de l’attention. Pouvez-vous les sentir, vous aussi ? Parmi le doute, peut-être, et sans se bercer d’illusions, pouvez-vous les sentir ? C’est la même sensation que d’être dans une forêt et de se rendre soudain compte, comme pour la première fois, que la forêt est vivante. Le soleil me regarde. Et je ne suis pas seul.



Previous: Retour sur Le cynique et le charpentier de marine
Next: Making the Universe Great Again

Filed Under: French, Translations Tagged With: Essay

Primary Sidebar

Audio Essays

All Essays

Monarchs and Lightning Bugs

Pandemania, Part 4

Political Hope

Pandemania, Part 3

Pandemania, Part 2

Pandemania, Part 1

The Heart of the Fawn

Transhumanism and the Metaverse

Why I Won’t Write on You-Know-What

Compartmentalization: UFOs and Social Paralysis

The Good World

Central Bank Digital Currencies

The Economy Series

Reinventing Progress

Parallel Timelines

The Field of Peace

Love-gift to the Future

The Paradox of Busy

On the Great Green Wall, And Being Useful

Reunion

Division, Reunion, and some other stuff

Volatility

Into the Space Between

Wanna Join Me in a News Fast?

And the Music Played the Band

Comet of Deliverance

Divide, Conquer; Unite, Heal

A Path Will Rise to Meet Us

A Gathering of the Tribe

The True Story of the Sith

The Human Family

Elements of Refusal

The America that Almost Was and Yet May Be

Sanity

Time to Push

Some Stuff I’m Reading

The Rehearsal is Over

Beyond Industrial Medicine

A Temple of this Earth

The Sacrificial King

How It Is Going to Be

Charles Eisenstein, Antisemite

Mob Morality and the Unvaxxed

Fascism and the Antifestival

The Death of the Festival

Source Temple and the Great Reset

To Reason with a Madman

From QAnon’s Dark Mirror, Hope

World on Fire

We Can Do Better Than This

The Banquet of Whiteness

The Cure of the Earth

Numb

The Conspiracy Myth

The Coronation

Extinction and the Revolution of Love

The Amazon: How do we heal a burning heart?

Building a Peace Narrative

Xylella: Supervillain or Symptom

Making the Universe Great Again

Every Act a Ceremony

The Polarization Trap

I, Orc

Living in the Gift

A Little Heartbreak

Initiation into a Living Planet

Why I am Afraid of Global Cooling

Olive Trees and the Cry of the Land

Our New, Happy Life? The Ideology of Development

Opposition to GMOs is Neither Unscientific nor Immoral

The Age of We Need Each Other

Institutes for Technologies of Reunion

Brushes with the Mainstream

Standing Rock: A Change of Heart

Transcription: Fertile Ground of Bewilderment Podcast

The Election: Of Hate, Grief, and a New Story

This Is How War Begins

The Lid is Off

Of Horseshoe Crabs and Empathy

Scaling Down

The Fertile Ground of Bewilderment

By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them

Psychedelics and Systems Change

Mutiny of the Soul Revisited

Why I Don’t Do Internet Marketing

Zika and the Mentality of Control

In a Rhino, Everything

Grief and Carbon Reductionism

The Revolution is Love

Kind is the New Cool

What We Do to Nature, We Do to Ourselves

From Nonviolence to Service

An Experiment in Gift Economics

Misogyny and the Healing of the Masculine

Sustainable Development: Something New or More of the Same?

The Need for Venture Science

The EcoSexual Awakening

“Don’t Owe. Won’t Pay.”

Harder to Hide

Reflections on Damanhur

On Immigration

The Humbler Realms, Part 2

The Humbler Realms

A Shift in Values Everywhere

Letter to my Younger Self

Aluna: A Message to Little Brother

Raising My Children in Trust

Qualitative Dimensions of Collective Intelligence: Subjectivity, Consciousness, and Soul

The Woman Who Chose to Plant Corn

The Oceans are Not Worth $24 trillion

The Baby in the Playpen

What Are We Greedy For?

We Need Regenerative Farming, Not Geoengineering

The Cynic and the Boatbuilder, Revisited

Activism in the New Story

What is Action?

Wasting Time

The Space Between Stories

Breakdown, Chaos, and Emergence

At This Moment, I Feel Held

A Roundabout Endorsement

Imagine a 3-D World

Presentation to Uplift Festival, 12.14.2014

Shadow, Ritual, and Relationship in the Gift

A Neat Inversion

The Waters of Heterodoxy

Employment in Gift Culture

Localization Beyond Economics

Discipline on the Bus

We Don’t Know: Reflections on the New Story Summit

A Miracle in Scientific American

More Talk?

Why Another Conference?

A Truncated Interview on Racism

A Beautiful World of Abundance

How to Bore the Children

Post-Capitalism

The Malware

The End of War

The Birds are Sad

A Slice of Humble Pie

Bending Reality: But who is the Bender?

The Mysterious Paths by Which Intentions Bear Fruit

The Little Things that Get Under My Skin

A Restorative Response to MH17

Climate Change: The Bigger Picture

Development in the Ecological Age

The campaign against Drax aims to reveal the perverse effects of biofuels

Gateway drug, to what?

Concern about Overpopulation is a Red Herring; Consumption’s the Problem

Imperialism and Ceremony in Bali

Let’s be Honest: Real Sustainability may not make Business Sense

Vivienne Westwood is Right: We Need a Law against Ecocide

2013: Hope or Despair?

2013: A Year that Pierced Me

Synchronicity, Myth, and the New World Order

Fear of a Living Planet

Pyramid Schemes and the Monetization of Everything

The Next Step for Digital Currency

The Cycle of Terror

TED: A Choice Point

The Cynic and the Boatbuilder

Latent Healing

2013: The Space between Stories

We Are Unlimited Potential: A Talk with Joseph Chilton Pearce

Why Occupy’s plan to cancel consumer debts is money well spent

Genetically Modifying and Patenting Seeds isn’t the Answer

The Lovely Lady from Nestle

An Alien at the Tech Conference

We Can’t Grow Ourselves out of Debt

Money and the Divine Masculine

Naivete, and the Light in their Eyes

The Healing of Congo

Why Rio +20 Failed

Permaculture and the Myth of Scarcity

For Facebook, A Modest Proposal

A Coal Pile in the Ballroom

A Review of Graeber’s Debt: The First 5000 Years

Gift Economics Resurgent

The Way up is Down

Sacred Economics: Money, the Gift, and Society in the Age of Transition

Design and Strategy Principles for Local Currency

The Lost Marble

To Bear Witness and to Speak the Truth

Thrive: The Story is Wrong but the Spirit is Right

Occupy Wall Street: No Demand is Big Enough

Elephants: Please Don’t Go

Why the Age of the Guru is Over

Gift Economics and Reunion in the Digital Age

A Circle of Gifts

The Three Seeds

Truth and Magic in the Third Dimension

Rituals for Lover Earth

Money and the Turning of the Age

A Gathering of the Tribe

The Sojourn of Science

Wood, Metal, and the Story of the World

A World-Creating Matrix of Truth

Waiting on the Big One

In the Miracle

Money and the Crisis of Civilization

Reuniting the Self: Autoimmunity, Obesity, and the Ecology of Health

Invisible Paths

Reuniting the Self: Autoimmunity, Obesity, and the Ecology of Health (Part 2)

Mutiny of the Soul

The Age of Water

Money: A New Beginning (Part 2)

Money: A New Beginning (Part 1)

The Original Religion

Pain: A Call for Attention

The Miracle of Self-Creation, Part 2

The Miracle of Self-Creation

The Deschooling Convivium

The Testicular Age

Who Will Collect the Garbage?

The Ubiquitous Matrix of Lies

You’re Bad!

A 28-year Lie: The Wrong Lesson

The Ascent of Humanity

The Stars are Shining for Her

All Hallows’ Eve

Confessions of a Hypocrite

The New Epidemics

From Opinion to Belief to Knowing

Soul Families

For Whom was that Bird Singing?

The Multicellular Metahuman

Grades: A Gun to Your Head

Human Nature Denied

The Great Robbery

Humanity Grows Up

Don’t Should on US

A State of Belief is a State of Being

Ascension

Security and Fate

Old-Fashioned, Healthy, Lacto-Fermented Soft Drinks: The Real “Real Thing”

The Ethics of Eating Meat

Privacy Policy | Contact | Update Subscription

Charles Eisenstein

All content on this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Feel free to copy and share.

The Coronation

For years, normality has been stretched nearly to its breaking point, a rope pulled tighter and tighter, waiting for a nip of the black swan’s beak to snap it in two. Now that the rope has snapped, do we tie its ends back together, or shall we undo its dangling braids still further, to see what we might weave from them?

Covid-19 is showing us that when humanity is united in common cause, phenomenally rapid change is possible. None of the world’s problems are technically difficult to solve; they originate in human disagreement. In coherency, humanity’s creative powers are boundless. A few months ago, a proposal to halt commercial air travel would have seemed preposterous. Likewise for the radical changes we are making in our social behavior, economy, and the role of government in our lives. Covid demonstrates the power of our collective will when we agree on what is important. What else might we achieve, in coherency? What do we want to achieve, and what world shall we create? That is always the next question when anyone awakens to their power.

Covid-19 is like a rehab intervention that breaks the addictive hold of normality. To interrupt a habit is to make it visible; it is to turn it from a compulsion to a choice. When the crisis subsides, we might have occasion to ask whether we want to return to normal, or whether there might be something we’ve seen during this break in the routines that we want to bring into the future. We might ask, after so many have lost their jobs, whether all of them are the jobs the world most needs, and whether our labor and creativity would be better applied elsewhere. We might ask, having done without it for a while, whether we really need so much air travel, Disneyworld vacations, or trade shows. What parts of the economy will we want to restore, and what parts might we choose to let go of? And on a darker note, what among the things that are being taken away right now – civil liberties, freedom of assembly, sovereignty over our bodies, in-person gatherings, hugs, handshakes, and public life – might we need to exert intentional political and personal will to restore?

For most of my life, I have had the feeling that humanity was nearing a crossroads. Always, the crisis, the collapse, the break was imminent, just around the bend, but it didn’t come and it didn’t come. Imagine walking a road, and up ahead you see it, you see the crossroads. It’s just over the hill, around the bend, past the woods. Cresting the hill, you see you were mistaken, it was a mirage, it was farther away than you thought. You keep walking. Sometimes it comes into view, sometimes it disappears from sight and it seems like this road goes on forever. Maybe there isn’t a crossroads. No, there it is again! Always it is almost here. Never is it here.

Now, all of a sudden, we go around a bend and here it is. We stop, hardly able to believe that now it is happening, hardly able to believe, after years of confinement to the road of our predecessors, that now we finally have a choice. We are right to stop, stunned at the newness of our situation. Because of the hundred paths that radiate out in front of us, some lead in the same direction we’ve already been headed. Some lead to hell on earth. And some lead to a world more healed and more beautiful than we ever dared believe to be possible.

I write these words with the aim of standing here with you – bewildered, scared maybe, yet also with a sense of new possibility – at this point of diverging paths. Let us gaze down some of them and see where they lead.

* * *

I heard this story last week from a friend. She was in a grocery store and saw a woman sobbing in the aisle. Flouting social distancing rules, she went to the woman and gave her a hug. “Thank you,” the woman said, “that is the first time anyone has hugged me for ten days.”

Going without hugs for a few weeks seems a small price to pay if it will stem an epidemic that could take millions of lives. There is a strong argument for social distancing in the near term: to prevent a sudden surge of Covid cases from overwhelming the medical system. I would like to put that argument in a larger context, especially as we look to the long term. Lest we institutionalize distancing and reengineer society around it, let us be aware of what choice we are making and why.

The same goes for the other changes happening around the coronavirus epidemic. Some commentators have observed how it plays neatly into an agenda of totalitarian control. A frightened public accepts abridgments of civil liberties that are otherwise hard to justify, such as the tracking of everyone’s movements at all times, forcible medical treatment, involuntary quarantine, restrictions on travel and the freedom of assembly, censorship of what the authorities deem to be disinformation, suspension of habeas corpus, and military policing of civilians. Many of these were underway before Covid-19; since its advent, they have been irresistible. The same goes for the automation of commerce; the transition from participation in sports and entertainment to remote viewing; the migration of life from public to private spaces; the transition away from place-based schools toward online education, the decline of brick-and-mortar stores, and the movement of human work and leisure onto screens. Covid-19 is accelerating preexisting trends, political, economic, and social.

While all the above are, in the short term, justified on the grounds of flattening the curve (the epidemiological growth curve), we are also hearing a lot about a “new normal”; that is to say, the changes may not be temporary at all. Since the threat of infectious disease, like the threat of terrorism, never goes away, control measures can easily become permanent. If we were going in this direction anyway, the current justification must be part of a deeper impulse. I will analyze this impulse in two parts: the reflex of control, and the war on death. Thus understood, an initiatory opportunity emerges, one that we are seeing already in the form of the solidarity, compassion, and care that Covid-19 has inspired.

The Reflex of Control

At the current writing, official statistics say that about 25,000 people have died from Covid-19. By the time it runs its course, the death toll could be ten times or a hundred times bigger, or even, if the most alarming guesses are right, a thousand times bigger. Each one of these people has loved ones, family and friends. Compassion and conscience call us to do what we can to avert unnecessary tragedy. This is personal for me: my own infinitely dear but frail mother is among the most vulnerable to a disease that kills mostly the aged and the infirm.

What will the final numbers be? That question is impossible to answer at the time of this writing. Early reports were alarming; for weeks the official number from Wuhan, circulated endlessly in the media, was a shocking 3.4%. That, coupled with its highly contagious nature, pointed to tens of millions of deaths worldwide, or even as many as 100 million. More recently, estimates have plunged as it has become apparent that most cases are mild or asymptomatic. Since testing has been skewed towards the seriously ill, the death rate has looked artificially high. In South Korea, where hundreds of thousands of people with mild symptoms have been tested, the reported case fatality rate is around 1%. In Germany, whose testing also extends to many with mild symptoms, the fatality rate is 0.4%. A recent paper in the journal Science argues that 86% of infections have been undocumented, which points to a much lower mortality rate than the current case fatality rate would indicate.

The story of the Diamond Princess cruise ship bolsters this view. Of the 3,711 people on board, about 20% have tested positive for the virus; less than half of those had symptoms, and eight have died. A cruise ship is a perfect setting for contagion, and there was plenty of time for the virus to spread on board before anyone did anything about it, yet only a fifth were infected. Furthermore, the cruise ship’s population was heavily skewed (as are most cruise ships) toward the elderly: nearly a third of the passengers were over age 70, and more than half were over age 60. A research team concluded from the large number of asymptomatic cases that the true fatality rate in China is around 0.5%. That is still five times higher than flu. Based on the above (and adjusting for much younger demographics in Africa and South and Southeast Asia) my guess is about 200,000-300,000 deaths in the US – more if the medical system is overwhelmed, less if infections are spread out over time – and 3 million globally. Those are serious numbers. Not since the Hong Kong Flu pandemic of 1968/9 has the world experienced anything like it.

My guesses could easily be off by an order of magnitude. Every day the media reports the total number of Covid-19 cases, but no one has any idea what the true number is, because only a tiny proportion of the population has been tested. If tens of millions have the virus, asymptomatically, we would not know it. Further complicating the matter is the high rate of false positives for existing testing, possibly as high as 80%. (And see here for even more alarming uncertainties about test accuracy.) Let me repeat: no one knows what is really happening, including me. Let us be aware of two contradictory tendencies in human affairs. The first is the tendency for hysteria to feed on itself, to exclude data points that don’t play into the fear, and to create the world in its image. The second is denial, the irrational rejection of information that might disrupt normalcy and comfort. As Daniel Schmactenberger asks, How do you know what you believe is true?

In the face of the uncertainty, I’d like to make a prediction: The crisis will play out so that we never will know. If the final death tally, which will itself be the subject of dispute, is lower than feared, some will say that is because the controls worked. Others will say it is because the disease wasn’t as dangerous as we were told.

To me, the most baffling puzzle is why at the present writing there seem to be no new cases in China. The government didn’t initiate its lockdown until well after the virus was established. It should have spread widely during Chinese New Year, when every plane, train, and bus is packed with people traveling all over the country. What is going on here? Again, I don’t know, and neither do you.

Whether the final global death toll is 50,000 or 500,000 or 5 million, let’s look at some other numbers to get some perspective. My point is NOT that Covid isn’t so bad and we shouldn’t do anything. Bear with me. Last year, according to the FAO, five million children worldwide died of hunger (among 162 million who are stunted and 51 million who are wasted). That is 200 times more people than have died so far from Covid-19, yet no government has declared a state of emergency or asked that we radically alter our way of life to save them. Nor do we see a comparable level of alarm and action around suicide – the mere tip of an iceberg of despair and depression – which kills over a million people a year globally and 50,000 in the USA. Or drug overdoses, which kill 70,000 in the USA, the autoimmunity epidemic, which affects 23.5 million (NIH figure) to 50 million (AARDA), or obesity, which afflicts well over 100 million. Why, for that matter, are we not in a frenzy about averting nuclear armageddon or ecological collapse, but, to the contrary, pursue choices that magnify those very dangers?

Please, the point here is not that we haven’t changed our ways to stop children from starving, so we shouldn’t change them for Covid either. It is the contrary: If we can change so radically for Covid-19, we can do it for these other conditions too. Let us ask why are we able to unify our collective will to stem this virus, but not to address other grave threats to humanity. Why, until now, has society been so frozen in its existing trajectory?

The answer is revealing. Simply, in the face of world hunger, addiction, autoimmunity, suicide, or ecological collapse, we as a society do not know what to do. Our go-to crisis responses, all of which are some version of control, aren’t very effective in addressing these conditions. Now along comes a contagious epidemic, and finally we can spring into action. It is a crisis for which control works: quarantines, lockdowns, isolation, hand-washing; control of movement, control of information, control of our bodies. That makes Covid a convenient receptacle for our inchoate fears, a place to channel our growing sense of helplessness in the face of the changes overtaking the world. Covid-19 is a threat that we know how to meet. Unlike so many of our other fears, Covid-19 offers a plan.

Our civilization’s established institutions are increasingly helpless to meet the challenges of our time. How they welcome a challenge that they finally can meet. How eager they are to embrace it as a paramount crisis. How naturally their systems of information management select for the most alarming portrayals of it. How easily the public joins the panic, embracing a threat that the authorities can handle as a proxy for the various unspeakable threats that they cannot.

Today, most of our challenges no longer succumb to force. Our antibiotics and surgery fail to meet the surging health crises of autoimmunity, addiction, and obesity. Our guns and bombs, built to conquer armies, are useless to erase hatred abroad or keep domestic violence out of our homes. Our police and prisons cannot heal the breeding conditions of crime. Our pesticides cannot restore ruined soil. Covid-19 recalls the good old days when the challenges of infectious diseases succumbed to modern medicine and hygiene, at the same time as the Nazis succumbed to the war machine, and nature itself succumbed, or so it seemed, to technological conquest and improvement. It recalls the days when our weapons worked and the world seemed indeed to be improving with each technology of control.

What kind of problem succumbs to domination and control? The kind caused by something from the outside, something Other. When the cause of the problem is something intimate to ourselves, like homelessness or inequality, addiction or obesity, there is nothing to war against. We may try to install an enemy, blaming, for example, the billionaires, Vladimir Putin, or the Devil, but then we miss key information, such as the ground conditions that allow billionaires (or viruses) to replicate in the first place.

If there is one thing our civilization is good at, it is fighting an enemy. We welcome opportunities to do what we are good at, which prove the validity of our technologies, systems, and worldview. And so, we manufacture enemies, cast problems like crime, terrorism, and disease into us-versus-them terms, and mobilize our collective energies toward those endeavors that can be seen that way. Thus, we single out Covid-19 as a call to arms, reorganizing society as if for a war effort, while treating as normal the possibility of nuclear armageddon, ecological collapse, and five million children starving.

The Conspiracy Narrative

Because Covid-19 seems to justify so many items on the totalitarian wish list, there are those who believe it to be a deliberate power play. It is not my purpose to advance that theory nor to debunk it, although I will offer some meta-level comments. First a brief overview.

The theories (there are many variants) talk about Event 201 (sponsored by the Gates Foundation, CIA, etc. last September), and a 2010 Rockefeller Foundation white paper detailing a scenario called “Lockstep,” both of which lay out the authoritarian response to a hypothetical pandemic. They observe that the infrastructure, technology, and legislative framework for martial law has been in preparation for many years. All that was needed, they say, was a way to make the public embrace it, and now that has come. Whether or not current controls are permanent, a precedent is being set for:

  • • The tracking of people’s movements at all times (because coronavirus)
  • • The suspension of freedom of assembly (because coronavirus)
  • • The military policing of civilians (because coronavirus)
  • • Extrajudicial, indefinite detention (quarantine, because coronavirus)
  • • The banning of cash (because coronavirus)
  • • Censorship of the Internet (to combat disinformation, because coronavirus)
  • • Compulsory vaccination and other medical treatment, establishing the state’s sovereignty over our bodies (because coronavirus)
  • • The classification of all activities and destinations into the expressly permitted and the expressly forbidden (you can leave your house for this, but not that), eliminating the un-policed, non-juridical gray zone. That totality is the very essence of totalitarianism. Necessary now though, because, well, coronavirus.

This is juicy material for conspiracy theories. For all I know, one of those theories could be true; however, the same progression of events could unfold from an unconscious systemic tilt toward ever-increasing control. Where does this tilt come from? It is woven into civilization’s DNA. For millennia, civilization (as opposed to small-scale traditional cultures) has understood progress as a matter of extending control onto the world: domesticating the wild, conquering the barbarians, mastering the forces of nature, and ordering society according to law and reason. The ascent of control accelerated with the Scientific Revolution, which launched “progress” to new heights: the ordering of reality into objective categories and quantities, and the mastering of materiality with technology. Finally, the social sciences promised to use the same means and methods to fulfill the ambition (which goes back to Plato and Confucius) to engineer a perfect society.

Those who administer civilization will therefore welcome any opportunity to strengthen their control, for after all, it is in service to a grand vision of human destiny: the perfectly ordered world, in which disease, crime, poverty, and perhaps suffering itself can be engineered out of existence. No nefarious motives are necessary. Of course they would like to keep track of everyone – all the better to ensure the common good. For them, Covid-19 shows how necessary that is. “Can we afford democratic freedoms in light of the coronavirus?” they ask. “Must we now, out of necessity, sacrifice those for our own safety?” It is a familiar refrain, for it has accompanied other crises in the past, like 9/11.

To rework a common metaphor, imagine a man with a hammer, stalking around looking for a reason to use it. Suddenly he sees a nail sticking out. He’s been looking for a nail for a long time, pounding on screws and bolts and not accomplishing much. He inhabits a worldview in which hammers are the best tools, and the world can be made better by pounding in the nails. And here is a nail! We might suspect that in his eagerness he has placed the nail there himself, but it hardly matters. Maybe it isn’t even a nail that’s sticking out, but it resembles one enough to start pounding. When the tool is at the ready, an opportunity will arise to use it.

And I will add, for those inclined to doubt the authorities, maybe this time it really is a nail. In that case, the hammer is the right tool – and the principle of the hammer will emerge the stronger, ready for the screw, the button, the clip, and the tear.

Either way, the problem we deal with here is much deeper than that of overthrowing an evil coterie of Illuminati. Even if they do exist, given the tilt of civilization, the same trend would persist without them, or a new Illuminati would arise to assume the functions of the old.

True or false, the idea that the epidemic is some monstrous plot perpetrated by evildoers upon the public is not so far from the mindset of find-the-pathogen. It is a crusading mentality, a war mentality. It locates the source of a sociopolitical illness in a pathogen against which we may then fight, a victimizer separate from ourselves. It risks ignoring the conditions that make society fertile ground for the plot to take hold. Whether that ground was sown deliberately or by the wind is, for me, a secondary question.

What I will say next is relevant whether or not SARS-CoV2 is a genetically engineered bioweapon, is related to 5G rollout, is being used to prevent “disclosure,” is a Trojan horse for totalitarian world government, is more deadly than we’ve been told, is less deadly than we’ve been told, originated in a Wuhan biolab, originated at Fort Detrick, or is exactly as the CDC and WHO have been telling us. It applies even if everyone is totally wrong about the role of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the current epidemic. I have my opinions, but if there is one thing I have learned through the course of this emergency is that I don’t really know what is happening. I don’t see how anyone can, amidst the seething farrago of news, fake news, rumors, suppressed information, conspiracy theories, propaganda, and politicized narratives that fill the Internet. I wish a lot more people would embrace not knowing. I say that both to those who embrace the dominant narrative, as well as to those who hew to dissenting ones. What information might we be blocking out, in order to maintain the integrity of our viewpoints? Let’s be humble in our beliefs: it is a matter of life and death.

The War on Death

My 7-year-old son hasn’t seen or played with another child for two weeks. Millions of others are in the same boat. Most would agree that a month without social interaction for all those children a reasonable sacrifice to save a million lives. But how about to save 100,000 lives? And what if the sacrifice is not for a month but for a year? Five years? Different people will have different opinions on that, according to their underlying values.

Let’s replace the foregoing questions with something more personal, that pierces the inhuman utilitarian thinking that turns people into statistics and sacrifices some of them for something else. The relevant question for me is, Would I ask all the nation’s children to forego play for a season, if it would reduce my mother’s risk of dying, or for that matter, my own risk? Or I might ask, Would I decree the end of human hugging and handshakes, if it would save my own life? This is not to devalue Mom’s life or my own, both of which are precious. I am grateful for every day she is still with us. But these questions bring up deep issues. What is the right way to live? What is the right way to die?

The answer to such questions, whether asked on behalf of oneself or on behalf of society at large, depends on how we hold death and how much we value play, touch, and togetherness, along with civil liberties and personal freedom. There is no easy formula to balance these values.

Over my lifetime I’ve seen society place more and more emphasis on safety, security, and risk reduction. It has especially impacted childhood: as a young boy it was normal for us to roam a mile from home unsupervised – behavior that would earn parents a visit from Child Protective Services today. It also manifests in the form of latex gloves for more and more professions; hand sanitizer everywhere; locked, guarded, and surveilled school buildings; intensified airport and border security; heightened awareness of legal liability and liability insurance; metal detectors and searches before entering many sports arenas and public buildings, and so on. Writ large, it takes the form of the security state.

The mantra “safety first” comes from a value system that makes survival top priority, and that depreciates other values like fun, adventure, play, and the challenging of limits. Other cultures had different priorities. For instance, many traditional and indigenous cultures are much less protective of children, as documented in Jean Liedloff’s classic, The Continuum Concept. They allow them risks and responsibilities that would seem insane to most modern people, believing that this is necessary for children to develop self-reliance and good judgement. I think most modern people, especially younger people, retain some of this inherent willingness to sacrifice safety in order to live life fully. The surrounding culture, however, lobbies us relentlessly to live in fear, and has constructed systems that embody fear. In them, staying safe is over-ridingly important. Thus we have a medical system in which most decisions are based on calculations of risk, and in which the worst possible outcome, marking the physician’s ultimate failure, is death. Yet all the while, we know that death awaits us regardless. A life saved actually means a death postponed.

The ultimate fulfillment of civilization’s program of control would be to triumph over death itself. Failing that, modern society settles for a facsimile of that triumph: denial rather than conquest. Ours is a society of death denial, from its hiding away of corpses, to its fetish for youthfulness, to its warehousing of old people in nursing homes. Even its obsession with money and property – extensions of the self, as the word “mine” indicates – expresses the delusion that the impermanent self can be made permanent through its attachments. All this is inevitable given the story-of-self that modernity offers: the separate individual in a world of Other. Surrounded by genetic, social, and economic competitors, that self must protect and dominate in order to thrive. It must do everything it can to forestall death, which (in the story of separation) is total annihilation. Biological science has even taught us that our very nature is to maximize our chances of surviving and reproducing.

I asked a friend, a medical doctor who has spent time with the Q’ero on Peru, whether the Q’ero would (if they could) intubate someone to prolong their life. “Of course not,” she said. “They would summon the shaman to help him die well.” Dying well (which isn’t necessarily the same as dying painlessly) is not much in today’s medical vocabulary. No hospital records are kept on whether patients die well. That would not be counted as a positive outcome. In the world of the separate self, death is the ultimate catastrophe.

But is it? Consider this perspective from Dr. Lissa Rankin: “Not all of us would want to be in an ICU, isolated from loved ones with a machine breathing for us, at risk of dying alone- even if it means they might increase their chance of survival. Some of us might rather be held in the arms of loved ones at home, even if that means our time has come…. Remember, death is no ending. Death is going home.”

When the self is understood as relational, interdependent, even inter-existent, then it bleeds over into the other, and the other bleeds over into the self. Understanding the self as a locus of consciousness in a matrix of relationship, one no longer searches for an enemy as the key to understanding every problem, but looks instead for imbalances in relationships. The War on Death gives way to the quest to live well and fully, and we see that fear of death is actually fear of life. How much of life will we forego to stay safe?

Totalitarianism – the perfection of control – is the inevitable end product of the mythology of the separate self. What else but a threat to life, like a war, would merit total control? Thus Orwell identified perpetual war as a crucial component of the Party’s rule.

Against the backdrop of the program of control, death denial, and the separate self, the assumption that public policy should seek to minimize the number of deaths is nearly beyond question, a goal to which other values like play, freedom, etc. are subordinate. Covid-19 offers occasion to broaden that view. Yes, let us hold life sacred, more sacred than ever. Death teaches us that. Let us hold each person, young or old, sick or well, as the sacred, precious, beloved being that they are. And in the circle of our hearts, let us make room for other sacred values too. To hold life sacred is not just to live long, it is to live well and right and fully.

Like all fear, the fear around the coronavirus hints at what might lie beyond it. Anyone who has experienced the passing of someone close knows that death is a portal to love. Covid-19 has elevated death to prominence in the consciousness of a society that denies it. On the other side of the fear, we can see the love that death liberates. Let it pour forth. Let it saturate the soil of our culture and fill its aquifers so that it seeps up through the cracks of our crusted institutions, our systems, and our habits. Some of these may die too.

What world shall we live in?

How much of life do we want to sacrifice at the altar of security? If it keeps us safer, do we want to live in a world where human beings never congregate? Do we want to wear masks in public all the time? Do we want to be medically examined every time we travel, if that will save some number of lives a year? Are we willing to accept the medicalization of life in general, handing over final sovereignty over our bodies to medical authorities (as selected by political ones)? Do we want every event to be a virtual event? How much are we willing to live in fear?

Covid-19 will eventually subside, but the threat of infectious disease is permanent. Our response to it sets a course for the future. Public life, communal life, the life of shared physicality has been dwindling over several generations. Instead of shopping at stores, we get things delivered to our homes. Instead of packs of kids playing outside, we have play dates and digital adventures. Instead of the public square, we have the online forum. Do we want to continue to insulate ourselves still further from each other and the world?

It is not hard to imagine, especially if social distancing is successful, that Covid-19 persists beyond the 18 months we are being told to expect for it to run its course. It is not hard to imagine that new viruses will emerge during that time. It is not hard to imagine that emergency measures will become normal (so as to forestall the possibility of another outbreak), just as the state of emergency declared after 9/11 is still in effect today. It is not hard to imagine that (as we are being told), reinfection is possible, so that the disease will never run its course. That means that the temporary changes in our way of life may become permanent.

To reduce the risk of another pandemic, shall we choose to live in a society without hugs, handshakes, and high-fives, forever more? Shall we choose to live in a society where we no longer gather en masse? Shall the concert, the sports competition, and the festival be a thing of the past? Shall children no longer play with other children? Shall all human contact be mediated by computers and masks? No more dance classes, no more karate classes, no more conferences, no more churches? Is death reduction to be the standard by which to measure progress? Does human advancement mean separation? Is this the future?

The same question applies to the administrative tools required to control the movement of people and the flow of information. At the present writing, the entire country is moving toward lockdown. In some countries, one must print out a form from a government website in order to leave the house. It reminds me of school, where one’s location must be authorized at all times. Or of prison. Do we envision a future of electronic hall passes, a system where freedom of movement is governed by state administrators and their software at all times, permanently? Where every movement is tracked, either permitted or prohibited? And, for our protection, where information that threatens our health (as decided, again, by various authorities) is censored for our own good? In the face of an emergency, like unto a state of war, we accept such restrictions and temporarily surrender our freedoms. Similar to 9/11, Covid-19 trumps all objections.

For the first time in history, the technological means exist to realize such a vision, at least in the developed world (for example, using cellphone location data to enforce social distancing; see also here). After a bumpy transition, we could live in a society where nearly all of life happens online: shopping, meeting, entertainment, socializing, working, even dating. Is that what we want? How many lives saved is that worth?

I am sure that many of the controls in effect today will be partially relaxed in a few months. Partially relaxed, but at the ready. As long as infectious disease remains with us, they are likely to be reimposed, again and again, in the future, or be self-imposed in the form of habits. As Deborah Tannen says, contributing to a Politico article on how coronavirus will change the world permanently, ‘We know now that touching things, being with other people and breathing the air in an enclosed space can be risky…. It could become second nature to recoil from shaking hands or touching our faces—and we may all fall heir to society-wide OCD, as none of us can stop washing our hands.” After thousands of years, millions of years, of touch, contact, and togetherness, is the pinnacle of human progress to be that we cease such activities because they are too risky?

Life is Community

The paradox of the program of control is that its progress rarely advances us any closer to its goal. Despite security systems in almost every upper middle-class home, people are no less anxious or insecure than they were a generation ago. Despite elaborate security measures, the schools are not seeing fewer mass shootings. Despite phenomenal progress in medical technology, people have if anything become less healthy over the past thirty years, as chronic disease has proliferated and life expectancy stagnated and, in the USA and Britain, started to decline.

The measures being instituted to control Covid-19, likewise, may end up causing more suffering and death than they prevent. Minimizing deaths means minimizing the deaths that we know how to predict and measure. It is impossible to measure the added deaths that might come from isolation-induced depression, for instance, or the despair caused by unemployment, or the lowered immunity and deterioration in health that chronic fear can cause. Loneliness and lack of social contact has been shown to increase inflammation, depression, and dementia. According to Lissa Rankin, M.D., air pollution increases risk of dying by 6%, obesity by 23%, alcohol abuse by 37%, and loneliness by 45%.

Another danger that is off the ledger is the deterioration in immunity caused by excessive hygiene and distancing. It is not only social contact that is necessary for health, it is also contact with the microbial world. Generally speaking, microbes are not our enemies, they are our allies in health. A diverse gut biome, comprising bacteria, viruses, yeasts, and other organisms, is essential for a well-functioning immune system, and its diversity is maintained through contact with other people and with the world of life. Excessive hand-washing, overuse of antibiotics, aseptic cleanliness, and lack of human contact might do more harm than good. The resulting allergies and autoimmune disorders might be worse than the infectious disease they replace. Socially and biologically, health comes from community. Life does not thrive in isolation.

Seeing the world in us-versus-them terms blinds us to the reality that life and health happen in community. To take the example of infectious diseases, we fail to look beyond the evil pathogen and ask, What is the role of viruses in the microbiome? (See also here.) What are the body conditions under which harmful viruses proliferate? Why do some people have mild symptoms and others severe ones (besides the catch-all non-explanation of “low resistance”)? What positive role might flus, colds, and other non-lethal diseases play in the maintenance of health?

War-on-germs thinking brings results akin to those of the War on Terror, War on Crime, War on Weeds, and the endless wars we fight politically and interpersonally. First, it generates endless war; second, it diverts attention from the ground conditions that breed illness, terrorism, crime, weeds, and the rest.

Despite politicians’ perennial claim that they pursue war for the sake of peace, war inevitably breeds more war. Bombing countries to kill terrorists not only ignores the ground conditions of terrorism, it exacerbates those conditions. Locking up criminals not only ignores the conditions that breed crime, it creates those conditions when it breaks up families and communities and acculturates the incarcerated to criminality. And regimes of antibiotics, vaccines, antivirals, and other medicines wreak havoc on body ecology, which is the foundation of strong immunity. Outside the body, the massive spraying campaigns sparked by Zika, Dengue Fever, and now Covid-19 will visit untold damage upon nature’s ecology. Has anyone considered what the effects on the ecosystem will be when we douse it with antiviral compounds? Such a policy (which has been implemented in various places in China and India) is only thinkable from the mindset of separation, which does not understand that viruses are integral to the web of life.

To understand the point about ground conditions, consider some mortality statistics from Italy (from its National Health Institute), based on an analysis of hundreds of Covid-19 fatalities. Of those analyzed, less than 1% were free of serious chronic health conditions. Some 75% suffered from hypertension, 35% from diabetes, 33% from cardiac ischemia, 24% from atrial fibrillation, 18% from low renal function, along with other conditions that I couldn’t decipher from the Italian report. Nearly half the deceased had three or more of these serious pathologies. Americans, beset by obesity, diabetes, and other chronic ailments, are at least as vulnerable as Italians. Should we blame the virus then (which killed few otherwise healthy people), or shall we blame underlying poor health? Here again the analogy of the taut rope applies. Millions of people in the modern world are in a precarious state of health, just waiting for something that would normally be trivial to send them over the edge. Of course, in the short term we want to save their lives; the danger is that we lose ourselves in an endless succession of short terms, fighting one infectious disease after another, and never engage the ground conditions that make people so vulnerable. That is a much harder problem, because these ground conditions will not change via fighting. There is no pathogen that causes diabetes or obesity, addiction, depression, or PTSD. Their causes are not an Other, not some virus separate from ourselves, and we its victims.

Even in diseases like Covid-19, in which we can name a pathogenic virus, matters are not so simple as a war between virus and victim. There is an alternative to the germ theory of disease that holds germs to be part of a larger process. When conditions are right, they multiply in the body, sometimes killing the host, but also, potentially, improving the conditions that accommodated them to begin with, for example by cleaning out accumulated toxic debris via mucus discharge, or (metaphorically speaking) burning them up with fever. Sometimes called “terrain theory,” it says that germs are more symptom than cause of disease. As one meme explains it: “Your fish is sick. Germ theory: isolate the fish. Terrain theory: clean the tank.”

A certain schizophrenia afflicts the modern culture of health. On the one hand, there is a burgeoning wellness movement that embraces alternative and holistic medicine. It advocates herbs, meditation, and yoga to boost immunity. It validates the emotional and spiritual dimensions of health, such as the power of attitudes and beliefs to sicken or to heal. All of this seems to have disappeared under the Covid tsunami, as society defaults to the old orthodoxy.

Case in point: California acupuncturists have been forced to shut down, having been deemed “non-essential.” This is perfectly understandable from the perspective of conventional virology. But as one acupuncturist on Facebook observed, “What about my patient who I’m working with to get off opioids for his back pain? He’s going to have to start using them again.” From the worldview of medical authority, alternative modalities, social interaction, yoga classes, supplements, and so on are frivolous when it comes to real diseases caused by real viruses. They are relegated to an etheric realm of “wellness” in the face of a crisis. The resurgence of orthodoxy under Covid-19 is so intense that anything remotely unconventional, such as intravenous vitamin C, was completely off the table in the United States until two days ago (articles still abound “debunking” the “myth” that vitamin C can help fight Covid-19). Nor have I heard the CDC evangelize the benefits of elderberry extract, medicinal mushrooms, cutting sugar intake, NAC (N-acetyl L-cysteine), astragalus, or vitamin D. These are not just mushy speculation about “wellness,” but are supported by extensive research and physiological explanations. For example, NAC (general info, double-blind placebo-controlled study) has been shown to radically reduce incidence and severity of symptoms in flu-like illnesses.

As the statistics I offered earlier on autoimmunity, obesity, etc. indicate, America and the modern world in general are facing a health crisis. Is the answer to do what we’ve been doing, only more thoroughly? The response so far to Covid has been to double down on the orthodoxy and sweep unconventional practices and dissenting viewpoints aside. Another response would be to widen our lens and examine the entire system, including who pays for it, how access is granted, and how research is funded, but also expanding out to include marginal fields like herbal medicine, functional medicine, and energy medicine. Perhaps we can take this opportunity to reevaluate prevailing theories of illness, health, and the body. Yes, let’s protect the sickened fish as best we can right now, but maybe next time we won’t have to isolate and drug so many fish, if we can clean the tank.

I’m not telling you to run out right now and buy NAC or any other supplement, nor that we as a society should abruptly shift our response, cease social distancing immediately, and start taking supplements instead. But we can use the break in normal, this pause at a crossroads, to consciously choose what path we shall follow moving forward: what kind of healthcare system, what paradigm of health, what kind of society. This reevaluation is already happening, as ideas like universal free healthcare in the USA gain new momentum. And that path leads to forks as well. What kind of healthcare will be universalized? Will it be merely available to all, or mandatory for all – each citizen a patient, perhaps with an invisible ink barcode tattoo certifying one is up to date on all compulsory vaccines and check-ups. Then you can go to school, board a plane, or enter a restaurant. This is one path to the future that is available to us.

Another option is available now too. Instead of doubling down on control, we could finally embrace the holistic paradigms and practices that have been waiting on the margins, waiting for the center to dissolve so that, in our humbled state, we can bring them into the center and build a new system around them.

The Coronation

There is an alternative to the paradise of perfect control that our civilization has so long pursued, and that recedes as fast as our progress, like a mirage on the horizon. Yes, we can proceed as before down the path toward greater insulation, isolation, domination, and separation. We can normalize heightened levels of separation and control, believe that they are necessary to keep us safe, and accept a world in which we are afraid to be near each other. Or we can take advantage of this pause, this break in normal, to turn onto a path of reunion, of holism, of the restoring of lost connections, of the repair of community and the rejoining of the web of life.

Do we double down on protecting the separate self, or do we accept the invitation into a world where all of us are in this together? It isn’t just in medicine we encounter this question: it visits us politically, economically, and in our personal lives as well. Take for example the issue of hoarding, which embodies the idea, “There won’t be enough for everyone, so I am going to make sure there is enough for me.” Another response might be, “Some don’t have enough, so I will share what I have with them.” Are we to be survivalists or helpers? What is life for?

On a larger scale, people are asking questions that have until now lurked on activist margins. What should we do about the homeless? What should we do about the people in prisons? In Third World slums? What should we do about the unemployed? What about all the hotel maids, the Uber drivers, the plumbers and janitors and bus drivers and cashiers who cannot work from home? And so now, finally, ideas like student debt relief and universal basic income are blossoming. “How do we protect those susceptible to Covid?” invites us into “How do we care for vulnerable people in general?”

That is the impulse that stirs in us, regardless of the superficialities of our opinions about Covid’s severity, origin, or best policy to address it. It is saying, let’s get serious about taking care of each other. Let’s remember how precious we all are and how precious life is. Let’s take inventory of our civilization, strip it down to its studs, and see if we can build one more beautiful.

As Covid stirs our compassion, more and more of us realize that we don’t want to go back to a normal so sorely lacking it. We have the opportunity now to forge a new, more compassionate normal.

Hopeful signs abound that this is happening. The United States government, which has long seemed the captive of heartless corporate interests, has unleashed hundreds of billions of dollars in direct payments to families. Donald Trump, not known as a paragon of compassion, has put a moratorium on foreclosures and evictions. Certainly one can take a cynical view of both these developments; nonetheless, they embody the principle of caring for the vulnerable.

From all over the world we hear stories of solidarity and healing. One friend described sending $100 each to ten strangers who were in dire need. My son, who until a few days ago worked at Dunkin’ Donuts, said people were tipping at five times the normal rate – and these are working class people, many of them Hispanic truck drivers, who are economically insecure themselves. Doctors, nurses, and “essential workers” in other professions risk their lives to serve the public. Here are some more examples of the love and kindness eruption, courtesy of ServiceSpace:

Perhaps we’re in the middle of living into that new story. Imagine Italian airforce using Pavoratti, Spanish military doing acts of service, and street police playing guitars — to *inspire*. Corporations giving unexpected wage hikes. Canadians starting “Kindness Mongering.” Six year old in Australia adorably gifting her tooth fairy money, an 8th grader in Japan making 612 masks, and college kids everywhere buying groceries for elders. Cuba sending an army in “white robes” (doctors) to help Italy. A landlord allowing tenants to stay without rent, an Irish priest’s poem going viral, disabled activitists producing hand sanitizer. Imagine. Sometimes a crisis mirrors our deepest impulse — that we can always respond with compassion.

As Rebecca Solnit describes in her marvelous book, A Paradise Built in Hell, disaster often liberates solidarity. A more beautiful world shimmers just beneath the surface, bobbing up whenever the systems that hold it underwater loosen their grip.

For a long time we, as a collective, have stood helpless in the face of an ever-sickening society. Whether it is declining health, decaying infrastructure, depression, suicide, addiction, ecological degradation, or concentration of wealth, the symptoms of civilizational malaise in the developed world are plain to see, but we have been stuck in the systems and patterns that cause them. Now, Covid has gifted us a reset.

A million forking paths lie before us. Universal basic income could mean an end to economic insecurity and the flowering of creativity as millions are freed from the work that Covid has shown us is less necessary than we thought. Or it could mean, with the decimation of small businesses, dependency on the state for a stipend that comes with strict conditions. The crisis could usher in totalitarianism or solidarity; medical martial law or a holistic renaissance; greater fear of the microbial world, or greater resiliency in participation in it; permanent norms of social distancing, or a renewed desire to come together.

What can guide us, as individuals and as a society, as we walk the garden of forking paths? At each junction, we can be aware of what we follow: fear or love, self-preservation or generosity. Shall we live in fear and build a society based on it? Shall we live to preserve our separate selves? Shall we use the crisis as a weapon against our political enemies? These are not all-or-nothing questions, all fear or all love. It is that a next step into love lies before us. It feels daring, but not reckless. It treasures life, while accepting death. And it trusts that with each step, the next will become visible.

Please don’t think that choosing love over fear can be accomplished solely through an act of will, and that fear too can be conquered like a virus. The virus we face here is fear, whether it is fear of Covid-19, or fear of the totalitarian response to it, and this virus too has its terrain. Fear, along with addiction, depression, and a host of physical ills, flourishes in a terrain of separation and trauma: inherited trauma, childhood trauma, violence, war, abuse, neglect, shame, punishment, poverty, and the muted, normalized trauma that affects nearly everyone who lives in a monetized economy, undergoes modern schooling, or lives without community or connection to place. This terrain can be changed, by trauma healing on a personal level, by systemic change toward a more compassionate society, and by transforming the basic narrative of separation: the separate self in a world of other, me separate from you, humanity separate from nature. To be alone is a primal fear, and modern society has rendered us more and more alone. But the time of Reunion is here. Every act of compassion, kindness, courage, or generosity heals us from the story of separation, because it assures both actor and witness that we are in this together.

I will conclude by invoking one more dimension of the relationship between humans and viruses. Viruses are integral to evolution, not just of humans but of all eukaryotes. Viruses can transfer DNA from organism to organism, sometimes inserting it into the germline (where it becomes heritable). Known as horizontal gene transfer, this is a primary mechanism of evolution, allowing life to evolve together much faster than is possible through random mutation. As Lynn Margulis once put it, we are our viruses.

And now let me venture into speculative territory. Perhaps the great diseases of civilization have quickened our biological and cultural evolution, bestowing key genetic information and offering both individual and collective initiation. Could the current pandemic be just that? Novel RNA codes are spreading from human to human, imbuing us with new genetic information; at the same time, we are receiving other, esoteric, “codes” that ride the back of the biological ones, disrupting our narratives and systems in the same way that an illness disrupts bodily physiology. The phenomenon follows the template of initiation: separation from normality, followed by a dilemma, breakdown, or ordeal, followed (if it is to be complete) by reintegration and celebration.

Now the question arises: Initiation into what? What is the specific nature and purpose of this initiation?The popular name for the pandemic offers a clue: coronavirus. A corona is a crown. “Novel coronavirus pandemic” means “a new coronation for all.”

Already we can feel the power of who we might become. A true sovereign does not run in fear from life or from death. A true sovereign does not dominate and conquer (that is a shadow archetype, the Tyrant). The true sovereign serves the people, serves life, and respects the sovereignty of all people. The coronation marks the emergence of the unconscious into consciousness, the crystallization of chaos into order, the transcendence of compulsion into choice. We become the rulers of that which had ruled us. The New World Order that the conspiracy theorists fear is a shadow of the glorious possibility available to sovereign beings. No longer the vassals of fear, we can bring order to the kingdom and build an intentional society on the love already shining through the cracks of the world of separation.

Celo: 0x755582C923dB215d9eF7C4Ad3E03D29B2569ABb6

Litecoin: ltc1qqtvtkl3h7mchy7m5jwpvqvt5uzka0yj3nffavu

Bitcoin: bc1q2a2czwhf4sgyx9f9ttf3c4ndt03eyh3uymjgzl

Dogecoin: DT9ECVrg9mPFADhN375WL9ULzcUZo8YEpN

Polkadot: 15s6NSM75Kw6eMLoxm2u8qqbgQFYMnoYhvV1w1SaF9hwVpM4

Polygon: 0xEBF0120A88Ec0058578e2D37C9fFdDc28f3673A6

Zcash: t1PUmhaoYTHJAk1yxmgpfEp27Uk4GHKqRig

Donate & Support

As much as possible I offer my work as a gift. I put it online without a pay wall of any kind. Online course contributions are self-determined at the time you register for each. I also keep the site clean of advertising.

This means I rely on voluntary financial support for my livelihood. You may make a recurring gift or one-time donation using the form below, in whatever amount feels good to you. If your finances are tight at all, please do not give money. Visit our contact page instead for other ways to support this work.

Recurring Donations

Note from the team: Your recurring donation is a resource that allows us to keep Charles doing the work we all want him doing: thinking, speaking, writing, rather than worrying about the business details. Charles and all of us greatly appreciate them!

Donate Below

One-Time Donation

Your gift helps us maintain the site, offer tech support, and run programs and events by donation, with no ads, sales pitches, or pay walls. Just as important, it communicates to us that this work is gratefully received. Thank you!

Donate Below

Cryptocurrency Donation

Hi, here we are in the alternate universe of cryptocurrency. Click the link below for a list of public keys. If your preferred coin isn't listed, write to us through the contact form.

View Keys



What kind of donation are you making?(Required)


Recurring Donation

We are currently accepting monthly recurring donations through PayPal; we use PayPal because it allows you to cancel or modify your recurring donation at any time without needing to contact us.


Choose what feels good, clear, and right.

One-Time Donation

We are currently accepting one-time donations with any major credit card or through PayPal.


Choose what feels good, clear, and right.
Donation Method(Required)

Name(Required)
Email(Required)
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.