I'm Good Enough to Be Better

While struggling with my mother’s “you will be a great man” programming (see “OnBeing ‘Great,’”) my therapist, Rebecca Crabb, Ph.D., suggested I check out a TED Talk on vulnerability. Weeks later, a Google search led me to “The Power ofVulnerability” by Brene Brown. When I noted that it had received 21 million views since it was posted in June 2010 (the fourth most popular TED Talk of all time), my hopes increased. While reading the transcript, I sensed my timing was fortuitous.

I had one or two disagreements with some of her statements, including “Connection is why we're here. It's what gives purpose and meaning to our lives.” Connection is not our only purpose. It’s also a means to other, deeper ends.

But overall the talk rang true. While reading it, I copied the following excerpts:

·       Shame is really easily understood as the fear of disconnection: Is there something about me that, if other people know it or see it, that I won't be worthy of connection?

·       What underpinned this shame, this "I'm not good enough…"?

·       In order for connection to happen, we have to allow ourselves to be seen, really seen.

·       The people who have a strong sense of love and belonging believe they're worthy of love and belonging.

·       Whole-hearted people, living from this deep sense of worthiness.

·       What they had in common was a sense of courage.

·       The courage to be imperfect. They had the compassion to be kind to themselves first and then to others.

·       And the last was they had connection, and -- this was the hard part -- as a result of authenticity, they were willing to let go of who they thought they should be in order to be who they were.

·       The other thing that they had in common was this: They fully embraced vulnerability. They believed that what made them vulnerable made them beautiful.

·       They're willing to invest in a relationship that may or may not work out.

·       Stop controlling and predicting.

·       We numb vulnerability.

·       You cannot selectively numb emotion.

·       The other thing we do is we make everything that's uncertain certain.

·       To let ourselves be seen, deeply seen, vulnerably seen; to love with our whole hearts, even though there's no guarantee.

·       And the last, which I think is probably the most important, is to believe that we're enough.

The next day I posted to Facebook:

I went to sleep saying to myself, “I am good enough,” and woke up after a good eight-hour sleep with the same thought on my mind. If I can maintain that attitude, I will be like a new person, transformed, evolved to a higher level. As I argued in “On Being ‘Great,” I’ve concluded that we cannot rank people in terms of how good they are, because we can’t totally put ourselves in others’ shoes, read their minds, or see their souls. I can only say, “I am a good person, and I can be a better person.” (None of us are perfect.) Also, I cannot rank people because I grew up in a dysfunctional family and tend to circulate with others who did as well. Undoing, partially, the damage that my family and our society inflicted on me has required great effort. How much more progress I can achieve remains to be seen.

In my taxi, I’ve encountered many families and couples who appear to be remarkably healthy. My impression is that people who’ve been raised in healthy families associate with others who’ve had the same experience. This segregation makes it even harder to compare and rank people in terms of how evolved they are.

But the bottom line is that any such differences, even if we could measure them, would be relatively insignificant, for what we have in common, our humanity, is much more important.

That post received 17 “likes” (many times more than my posts normally receive), one share (which is unusual), and comments from Steven Pak, “Wow! What' a great thought with great impression and admiration...,” and Justice St Rain, “I'm a big fan of affirmations. Paraphrasing the sacred text is a good way to super-charge an affirmation. For example ‘I was created Noble.’”

Later, I posted:

If I am “good enough,” I need not worry about what others think about me. I can trust that I will act compassionately, doing the best I can, for good reasons…. I may want others to do something and ask them to do it, in which case I will be careful about what I say and try to be effective. But I need not NEED them to do what I want for the sake of my own self-validation. So if they say no, I need not take it personally and feel hurt. I can trust they are doing what they need to do…. And if they have something to say to me, I will try to listen and respond compassionately and learn from their feedback how to be more effective. But if they are silent, I need not pull their comments out of them in order to reassure myself. I can relax and trust myself…. And if I end up without a soulful face-to-face connection, then I will be alone but not lonely.

Several days later, I reported on these reflections to a friend who resonated with them and told me that when she was growing up, her mother often told her, “What others think of you is none of your business.”

When I posted that comment, one friend commented, “True, unless one is being a total jerk. Then it SHOULD be your business. Saw this first-hand on a Muni bus the other night.”

I replied, “If another is violating the rights of another, an intervention to stop it is justified. Whether that requires trying to analyze why they are doing it or what they think about me is another matter. I tend to think not.”

Another friend responded, “Sounds like words of great wisdom to me. Do you think she was talking about psychiatrists?” Thinking that therapy tends to involve trying to read others’ minds (it’s hard enough to know my own), I replied, “It may well undermine the typical therapy dynamic.”

It’s only been a week, but the “I am good enough” insight prompted by that TED Talk seems to be holding. My mood has been more consistently positive, and I do seek constancy. Feeling less pressure to prove myself (to myself and others) and worrying less what others think about me has been liberating.

I still believe in personal growth, however, and see no contradiction between the two perspectives. So, believing it’s possible to hold both at the same time, I’ve modified the maxim to read, “I’m good enough to be better.”

Postscript to Purpose-Driven Community Survey Responses

Concerning Purpose-Driven Community Survey Responses, I also consider it essential to be clear that “the system” includes ourselves as individuals and our dominant culture as well as our major institutions. When most people talk about “systemic transformation,” they refer only to politics and economics. What you’ve written thus far implies a deeper analysis. Being more explicit could help clarify the point.

Purpose-Driven Community Survey Responses

Joshua Gorman and Steve Ma recently circulated a report on the responses to their “purpose-driven community” survey. They concluded:

Given the positive responses we’ve received, we are very committed to moving this process forward beginning with some pilots in the East Bay (California). We’re still in the early planning stages but if you’re interested in volunteering, helping us launch, attending one of our first events, providing additional feedback, etc., please let us know at stevejamesmaATgmailDOTcom and joshuaATgenerationwakingupDOTorg.

They attached a summary of the answers and offered these highlights:

1) Out of the 204 people who answered the questions about their interest in the proposed purpose-driven community, 64 (or 31.4%) said they were extremely interested (5 out of 5), and 63 (30.9%) ranked it a 4 out of 5. Only 17 people ranked it a 1, and 14 people ranked it a 2. Our sense from these numbers that there a pretty broad level of interest, and for a good number of people, there is a very deep level of interest. The group with the strongest interest was folks in a ‘spiritual community but not very active.’ However, there was strong interest with a host of others including people of color, young people, and people along the spectrum of spirituality. 

2) The offerings that came out the strongest were: ‘Uniting with others to create systemic change,’ and ‘Connecting and engaging with a community of diverse people.’ 

3) In terms of names, ‘Thrive’ came out the strongest, and ‘circle’ and ‘gathering’ were the front-runners for a name referring to the Sunday event.

In their postscript, Gorman and Ma commented:

In case you’re wondering who we are, we are East Bay (California) residents who have a long history in working for social justice with non-profits and social enterprises. We both have a great interest in building a model for people to come together in community to support one another for personal and societal transformation. We began planning for this purpose-driven community recently and are eager to take the next steps to make it a reality.

I replied:

Thanks much for the report. I am heartened by the strong interest in “integrating the personal and the political,” a long-time interest of mine. From the summary, I took particular note of the fact that only 8% of the respondents said that they were not at all interested in a community that would help them “overcome personal challenges and injustices.” 

I am interested in further participation. However, one element of the Generation Waking Up event I attended causes me some concern. That event affirmed a Buckminster Fuller quote with which I strongly disagree: “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” 

I favor instead an outside-inside strategy. Building alternative communities is important. At the same time, reforming existing public policies to alleviate suffering and environmental damage is also critical. It is not either/or. Each can reinforce the other. 

If this new project is committed to the Fuller perspective, it would diminish my interest. Otherwise, I am very definitely interested. 

Regardless, I want to stay informed about your efforts, especially with regard to designing one or more user-friendly models that political activists could use to support one another in their self-development.

On Being “Great”

Looking down on others creates barriers. So does being looked down on.

Yet humans constantly compare and rank others.

The challenge is to hold those ideas lightly, see other sides of the same reality, let thoughts go in order to experience pre-verbal reality more clearly as it constantly changes, and not take words too seriously and let them become rigid labels that simplify and distort reality.

The trick is to make judgments without being judgmental.  

People who live in suburbs or rural areas often think they’re more ethical than “city slickers” who seem to believe “whatever’s right” or “whatever works.” And urbanites often consider themselves more “hip,” or “on the cutting edge.” With an air of superiority, each side disrespects the other, which breeds resentment, contributes to the division between “red” and “blue” states, and undermines understanding.

+++

As individuals, we evolve and steadily realize our potential. We become more fully human. We become better persons.

As Abraham Maslow framed it with his “hierarchy of needs,” we satisfy our more basic needs and move up to higher levels, from physiological to spiritual (“self-transcendence”).

Some individuals, therefore, are more evolved than others.

But whether we can determine who is more evolved or “great” is another matter. A homeless person with chronic pain may be as fully human as an independently wealthy writer who meditates three hours a day.

Ralph Waldo Emerson argued that each individual should live the way they want everyone to live, while respecting and accepting that others should do the same. Walking that fine line is a delicate balancing act.

The word “great” is used with different meanings. Emerson also wrote that anyone with integrity who is true to who they really are is a great person. We often comment “great” as a term of approval. And we often hear a celebrity described as a “great person” when they simply seem to be a regular, humble, kind person. Those uses of the word do not depend on measuring and comparing. They are absolute, not relative.

Generally, however, the word “great” is relative, based on a comparison.

But compared to what?

When we compare humans to our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, many of our experiences are superior, more evolved. “Great” applies in the absolute sense. We’re saying, “You’re being true to who you are as a human being.”

Humans have in common certain characteristics, their human nature. Observing very young children, we note curiosity, compassion, and joy.

Those basic human instincts are pre-verbal emotions. Words can help us understand them. But words can also distort.

As we mature, those instincts become more fully developed. Being awestruck by the Beauty of the universe leads to compassion, which leads to the desire to establish Justice, which leads to the quest for Truth in order to maximize effectiveness. The discovery of Truth leads to a greater appreciation of Justice and Beauty. And establishing Justice leads to a greater sense of community rooted in Truth and Beauty.

In those ways, the pursuit of Truth, Justice, and Beauty is a holy trinity, grounded in a profound unity. Each reinforces and leads to the other two. That’s what it means to be human: being curious about what is true, wanting to reduce suffering, and enjoying life. As we evolve, we become wiser, more compassionate, and more effective.

Focusing on one while neglecting the other two lessens one’s humanity.

At the same time, as a human being, we are all of equal value. We are equal. Each of us should be treated equally in the eyes of the law and have a voice in the affairs that affect us. Each of us deserves to be treated with respect. Each of us is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. None of us deserves to be condemned as less than human. None of us has the right to execute another human being (the death penalty is an outrage). Even those who commit evil acts are not essentially evil; rather, their humanity has been distorted.

+++

We cannot really know what another person is experiencing. We cannot see another person’s soul. We can only experience our own soul. Down deep we are essentially alone. We are not separate because our souls are interwoven, but we are distinct. Ultimately each of us walks our own path alone. Each of us is unique, with our own thoughts and feelings.

We therefore cannot measure another person’s heart, their degree of integrity, or how true they are to their essential compassionate nature. We cannot say that anyone is a “great person.”

We can only describe their behavior. We can say that someone is a great athlete, a great singer, or exceptionally kind. Or we can rank them according to what they do in some other way.

But one’s integrity depends on what they feel. And I only know what I feel, think, and observe.

So I cannot judge another person’s ethical character because I cannot really know their motivation.

Someone may appear to be very compassionate, but they may be driven primarily by selfishness. They may want to appear to be compassionate. They may be giving in order to receive. Or they may want to act in a compassionate manner but are unable to do so. Since we cannot walk in others’ shoes, we cannot judge them as persons.

What we do or accomplish does not reveal who we are as a person.

I can say, “That person violated the rights of his neighbor without justification.” I can say, “He is a convicted criminal.” I can say, “He should be punished, or asked to make restitution.” But I cannot say, “He is less than human.”

People have understandable reasons for doing what they do and don’t do. Good luck and bad luck play major roles in affecting our actions.

+++

Compassionate action toward others is an ideal, but we all need to love ourselves as well as others. We all need to take care of ourselves so we can take care of others.

When to practice self-care and for how long is a personal decision that each person must make. When I’m afflicted with a sudden illness, for example, I may focus more on myself.

But at other times, grounded in “good ego,” I focus on others and my work, while trying to avoid burnout.

Determining when one is being excessively self-indulgent is impossible. We cannot measure whether one has been unduly selfish (or dangerously selfless, as in less self).

“The human mind can only stand so much,” as Bob Dylan wrote. We often experience compassion fatigue and information overload. Frustrated, we bump up against our limitations and need to rest. No one can tell another how to balance loving others and loving oneself.

+++

All of our major institutions, our culture, and ourselves as individuals are interwoven into a social system -- “the system” -- that operates to perpetuate itself. That system is designed to enable individuals to accumulate ever more wealth and power for themselves and their families, even though others suffer as a result.

To alleviate suffering we therefore need to reform the public policies that reinforce that system as well as ourselves as individuals. Otherwise, we will continue to be swamped by the suffering created by that system.

Ideally, everyone would engage in ongoing self-improvement, do no harm, and help to fundamentally reform our social system. We need a  united, massive grassroots movement to advance human evolution.

Some people, however, are content with themselves as they are. Some are unwilling to admit mistakes and resolve to avoid them in the future. Some people fail to recycle properly or eat meat (as I do occasionally). Some care only about themselves or maybe their family. Some talk only about themselves without really listening to others. Some are cruel and want to hurt others. Some are indifferent about what is right and what is wrong. Some believe it is impossible to alleviate suffering now by changing public policies. In those and other ways, some individuals are less fully human than those who are more grounded in compassion.

+++

Some remarkable individuals are exceptional in the degree of their devotion to the holy trinity, whether or not they are recognized as such by others. Those individuals who act on their compassion and remain true to what it means to be human are “great” persons. With regard to their moral character, they are markedly superior.

None of us, however, will ever know who those great souls are, or how we ourselves rank on that scale. We can label specific behaviors, as with, “That was great.” But it is foolhardy to label people with regard to the quality of their soul, as with “He is a bad person.” Only God can make that judgment. Moreover, such labels can be damaging, for they can help shape future possibilities negatively, and the future is unpredictable.

Compared to chimpanzees, we are all great. Those around me who appear, from their actions, to be extremely self-centered have within themselves a big heart aching to burst out into action. What we have in common is much more significant than our differences.

And even if we could know who is a great person, it wouldn’t really matter, because what we have in common, our humanity, is far more important than our differences. And on that scale, we’re all equal.

So, even if she was right, my mother was wrong to repeatedly tell me, “Wade, you will be a great man” because we’ll never know if she was right and pursuing that goal has been like chasing a rainbow. What we believe matters and that message was unnecessarily harmful.

Recently for several days I was energized when I told myself “I am a great man” and accepted it wholeheartedly without ambivalence. Now, however, I merely say, “I am a good person trying to become a better person.”

Purpose-Driven Community Survey

I know Joshua Gorman through his work with Generation Waking Up, a very vibrant project. He recently sent me (and others) the following email. I found his survey to be quite encouraging. You may as well.

–Wade

+++++

I’m on a team that is working on a concept around “purpose-driven community.”

We would love your honest, unfiltered feedback on a short survey that will only take a few minutes to fill it out.

Here’s the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/purposedriven

Also, please feel free to send this out to others who may value contributing to this. The more feedback the better for the process.

Thanks & appreciation,

Joshua

A Dialog on Greatness

My therapist, Rebecca Crabb, normally adopts a neutral stance. But this week, as I left her office, she seemed to be moved emotionally by what I had shared about my struggles with wanting to be recognized as a “great man,” as my mother repeatedly assured me I would be. As I said goodbye, Rebecca commented, “Keep up the great work.” Her use of the word “great” may or may not have have been intentional. Regardless, it prompted me to reflect more on the word.

Those reflections prompted me to post the following as a “status update” on Facebook:

Can someone be a “great” person? If so, what does that mean? Is everyone created “equal” in the eyes of God? If so, how do you reconcile that notion with the belief in greatness? What percentage of the population can be great persons? If someone is a great person is that person “superior” to others? Does greatness depend on excelling in a particular skill? Does greatness depend on being recognized by others as great? Can ego and ambition fit with wanting to be great?

In response only one person “liked” the post, though one other did comment, “Good thinking, Wade.” That response leads me to believe that few people felt that my post posed important, thought-provoking questions that are difficult if not impossible to answer.

However, five Friends did offer answers. A Deadhead with a highly developed sense of humor said, “Some of us content to be just GRATE.” And the others commented:

Saw this quote a few minutes ago. For me, it answers the questions. "I am in competition with no one. I have no desire to play the game of being better than anyone. I am simply trying to be better than the person I was yesterday." 

"People created in the likeness of God" mean having equal access to Godly character traits, like love, honesty, humanity, truth, justice, kindness, etc --nothing to do with "greatness." Greatness cannot be aspired to, but occurs when one is recognized by peers as having made use and application of inherent character development well above normal in ways that advance humanity over personal fulfillment.

In my opinion just about everyone has something inside of them that makes them great. We all have something great about us, something that makes us uniquely who we are. One person's greatness doesn't have to negate another's. Rather I think that we should all strive to appreciate the greatness in ourselves and in each other.

In response, I posted:

I cannot see a clear, easy answer to those questions. I am "better" than others with regard to certain skills. but that does not necessarily make me a better person. I may generally be a more moral person because I am less selfish, but that does not diminish the inherent equal worth of others. I can justifiably aspire to be recognized for having maximized the compassionate use of my talents, limited as they are, but I do not need to be recognized in order to be a great person. Yes, we need to recognize the greatness in others, while also recognizing their weakness. Emerson, I believe, said that one is great if one is true to who they really are. All of us fall short in that regard, at least from time to time, but some more so than others, at times admittedly so. Ajahn Amaro once told me to accept praise as "icing on the cake." But sometimes it becomes the cake.

Then another Friend commented:

I think greatness happens when people are exceptional in some way - they share ideas that many people want to hear, they help usher in change that is sorely needed, or bring delight to many people. Or, a person can be great to just one or two people. Like someone may be a great dad or brother or friend. They were there for you and gave you what you needed to make your life better or they lead by example. That's how i think of greatness. We all have differing perceptions; but, there are some people who many people agree are or were great people. Like Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B Anthony, Noam Chomsky, etc.

Today, I still feel that those comments don’t get at the dilemma that bothers me. So I posted the following new status update, which approaches the paradox from another perspective.

The best way to love oneself is to love others. To give is to receive. Being willing to die for another is the ultimate expression of self-love. But that benefit to the lover is most rewarding if it is a by-product. If we give in order to receive, the benefit is diminished. And when we love others, it is easy to anticipate the ultimate self-benefit and become self-centered rather than other-centered. Self-awareness, which makes humans uniquely human, is a blessing and a curse. It is a rich source of creativity and growth, but it easily leads to chronic self-centeredness, which is deadly. Resolving this contradiction is a constant struggle.

If someone is a great friend to “just one or two people” and they are true to who they really are, then perhaps they are a great person -- in which case they are not great because they “bring delight to many people.” How we define “greatness” is critical. Yes, everyone has “greatness” within. But how many come close to fulfilling it?

The first definition of “great” in Webster’s includes the synonym “ample,” which is defined as “generous or more than adequate in size, scope, or capacity.” That sense of the word may be a good starting point.

Hunter Pence Reads Gandhi (plus more)

Recently, I've devoted lots of time to trying to help the Western Park Residents Council get organized. We've made some good progress. I now hope to return to writing more, as I continue to drive taxi full-time, hoping to largely retire from cab driving soon. But since my last post here, I have been able to make the following posts to Wade's Wire.

+++++

Hunter Pence Reads Gandhi 

The spiritual leader of the San Francisco Giants baseball team, right fielder Hunter Pence, is known as “The Reverend.” His teammates gave him that nickname after his memorable 2012 clubhouse speech behind closed doors that helped inspire the team to overcome a two-game deficit and win three games on the road to move on toward their eventual World Series victory. That speech prompted the Giants to include his teammates recreating it in their video celebrating the World Series.

Then at the end of the 2014 season on the way to another World Series, Pence gave an incredible speech to a full house of Giants fans at their ballpark.

Now it turns out, as reported yesterday in “He Might Be Giant: A Day in the Life of Hunter Pence,” Pence gets his own inspiration by reading Mahatma Gandhi and The Five Levels of Attachment: Toltec Wisdom for the Modern World by Miguel Ruiz....

+++++

My Community Organizing (Part One) 

As a child, I organized softball games. In high school, I formed a chess club. As an undergraduate, I served in most of the elected leadership positions at our 90-person student co-op at the University of California at Berkeley (where I got my Social Sciences degree). My last semester at Cal, I was nominated and elected to serve as Co-Coordinator of the experimental 150-student Residence College. Those experiences provided me with a valuable sense of community.

My first taste of deep community, however, was the civil rights movement....

+++++

We-Facilitation

The opencollaboration blog  is a stimulating resource. Today’s post, New paradigms of leadership : from leader to facilitator to we-facilitator, is no exception. However, as reflected by my comment that follows their essay, which I posted on their blog, I have some disagreement....

+++++

Being Present and Presence

An essay in today’s Times by Lawrence Berger fascinated me. Titled “Being There: Heidegger on Why Our Presence Matters,” it explores what it means to be “fully human” by comparing the approach of cognitive scientists with the phenomenology of Martin Heidegger....

+++++

Our Purpose 

We take care of ourselves, our families, our communities, our nation, all humanity, and the planet in order to take care of Life itself. Each arena is equally important. To promote the common good of the Earth Community, we need to work in each simultaneously. We need to love ourselves, others, and Life at the same time.

If we neglect one arena, we become unbalanced, less than whole, with a hole in our soul. If we forget why we do what we do, we lose meaning.

It’s not a question of what comes first. We cannot change ourselves without changing the world, and we cannot change the world without changing ourselves. We need to do both at the same time, while avoiding both selfishness and self-sacrifice. Being selfless involves less self, not the denial of self.

Life seeks to survive and evolve. Our calling is to contribute to human evolution.

+++++

ABC of Life

A sculpture by Stephen Schlanser. Text by Evelin Hyde.
Each line begins with a letter of the alphabet.

ACHIEVE HAPPINESS
BELIEVE IN HUMANITY
CELEBRATE LIFE
DISCOVER THE MOMENT
EMBRACE DIVERSITY
FIND LOVE
GIVE UNCONDITIONALLY
HAVE PATIENCE
INSPIRE OTHERS
JUDGE NO ONE
KEEP GOALS
LAUGH OFTEN
MANAGE ANGER
NOTICE MODESTY
OFFER UNDERSTANDING
PLAY FOR FUN
QUESTION EVERYTHING
REALIZE DREAMS
SPEAK TRUTH
TRUST YOURSELF
UNDERSTAND DIFFERENCES
VISUALIZE PEACE
WAKEN CURIOSITY
XXXOOO
YEARN FOR PROGRESS
ZEALOUSLY LIVE LIFE

Found in the office of Rebecca Crabb, Ph. D.