A Sense of Proportion

In his foreword to The Book of Hopi (Author: Frank Waters), Frederick H. Howell, Director, Charles Ulrick and Josephine Bay Foundation, says:

[We have lost] the whole natural language of the spirit, with the result that we no longer have a certain basic sense of proportion... lacking that sense, we are endangered by a false set of values that may make our Road of Life very rough indeed.

What is meant by this sense of proportion? And how does it help us to develop a better set of values as indicated by the above quote? I am presenting before you, these paragraphs below from the The Book of Hopi which describe a ceremony that is done once a child is born in the Hopi household. This gives to us a clue to understand what Frederick H. Howell, means by a sense of proportion.

With the pristine wisdom granted them[by their Creator], they understood that the earth was a living entity like themselves. She was their mother; they were made from her flesh; they suckled at her breast. For her milk was the grass upon which all animals grazed and the corn which had been created specially to supply food for mankind. But the corn plant was also a living entity with a body similar to man's in many respects, and the people built its flesh into their own. Hence corn was also their mother. Thus they knew their mother in two aspects which were often synonymous - as Mother Earth and the Corn Mother.

In their wisdom they also knew their father in two aspects. He was the Sun, the solar god of their universe. Not until he first appeared to them at the time of the red light, Talawva, had they been fully firmed and formed. Yet his was but the face through which looked Taiowa, their Creator.

These Universal entities were their real parents, their human parents being but the instruments through whcih their power was made manifest. In modern times their descendants remembered this.

For seven or eight years he led the normal earthly life of a child. Then came his first initiation into a religious society, and he began to learn that, although he had human parents, his real parents wre the universal entitis wo had created him through them - his Mother Earth, from whose flesh all are born, and his Father Sun, the solar god who gives life to all the Universe. He began to learn that he too had two aspects. He was a member of an eartly family and tribal clan, and he was a citizen of the great universe, to which he owed a growing allegiance as his understanding developed.

The above paragraphs from the Book of the Hopi, are clear indications of the sense of proportion, which Frederick Howell mentions in his foreword. The Hopi people, from a very young age, learn to measure themselves and what they do in relation to their Creator. They, hence, acquire a sense of proportion of what they are and what they do by measuring them against the Creator and His work.

When, in their mythology and philosophy, Creator is established as the originator of everything and the controller of most things in the world, all work done by the human being becomes much smaller and insignificant. This helps one to develop the value of 'humility' which is a good virtue. Whatever work that a man might undertake; however big the task might be in relation to other human beings; it will still be small when compared to the Creator's work.

Hopi's believe that it is their responsibility to carry out the Plan of Creation of their Creator. This belief forces the Hopi people to evaluate all work against their conception of the Plan of Creation. Any work that is not a part of the Plan of Creation, is simply an irrelevant work. This type of evaluation sets apart 'good work' from 'bad work' and helps people to prioritize their work. Hopi people, like others, are good observers and gather data from their observation in order to understand the Plan of Creation of their Creator.

We can see how the sense of proportion can be a guiding force in looking at work and deciding what role work plays in one's own life. Thus the "Mapping Process" which I mentioned in my previous post must make matches in such a way that the values are in right proportions so that works can be guided towards their desired outcomes.

Ponder about the above. You will find more than what I have been able to say!

Interdependence exists in many ways!

The piece about our roles and the conflicting value systems was written to make sure that all of us understand the nature of interdependence. I felt it was easy to relate to oneself rather than to something external. The essence of the past writings is summarized below:

• We are one individual whole. One human being. Complete and Full
• Though we play different roles which are spatially and chronologically separated all these roles originate from the same Human Being. The seat of all roles is within us.
• The varied value systems that we use to operate in various roles create conflict, confusion and frustration in us and cause stress to us.

An alternative to the above view is the "Interdependent View" or more succintly "Structural View" of our value system. The following three premises make this view clear.

• All the values that we use are within us. That is values exist within us prior to actions that are guided by these values.
• All roles are within us. That is roles are internalized and the outcomes desired by each role are atleast broadly clear to us at all times.
• In any given context we connect values to roles depending on the outcomes desired by us from the role. That is, we make decisions as to which values should guide our actions in a given role, if a desired outcome is to be achieved.

From the three premises given above, it becomes easy for us now to visualize the fact that there is a "Value Matrix" within us which has to be mapped with the "Role Matrix" using a "Mapping Process" which must result in a "Desired Outcome Matrix". This conception of the value-role mapping system gives us a clearer and a more quantifiable framework which is amenable to measurement and manipulation both for research purposes and for daily life purposes.

Well! If you care, there are Mathematical tools that we can use to formulate the above hypothesis formally and test it. But I am not going into that Mathematical detail here. I feel it would not be very appreciative.

The idea behind this post is to show the varied ways in which Interdependence exists. It exists everywhere. It shows itself everywhere. Everthing in the world that comes into existence is a "structure". Everything in the world can be expressed as a combination of two or more things, which are combined "in a specified way" using a "specific process". The things, the processes and the "ways of combination" are all a part of the "structure" of the thing being observed.

Consider "Films" for instance. There is the "Author" who has an "Idea" to communicate to an "Audience" who might have an "Interest" in the "Idea". He/she "Makes a film" to convey his/her "Idea" to the "Audience". The "Audience" may "Evaluate" and/or "Think" and/or "Critique" the "Idea" after viewing the film. Kindly take a look at all the items which are in quotes. You can classify each Item as an "Element/Thing" or a "Process" or an "Outcome". Thus, the entertainment delivered through films can be treated as a "Structure". As said above such a view gives us scope to understand "film making" in a different way and gives us to develop frameworks that are amenable to quantifiable measurements, either for research or for personal use.

You are now free to think of anything that is NOT a structure.

Roles and Values - The conflict!!

When we treat each role as separate, we tend to create separate value systems that would help us be operative in those roles. This is aided by the fact that each role that we execute operates in a different environment, or atleast that is what we are forced to think.

So, we will have a separate value system working at the place of work and have a different value system that guides our actions when at home or doing shopping. A lot of conflict occurs within the human being when different value systems are at work. The result! Confusion, Frustration, Anger and the feeling of being torn between roles. Most of us would like to run away from our work, from the people we assume we love, from homes, from responsibilities and from our own selves.

The root of the present day "stress" lies herein. We tend to ignore the fact that this self created complex value conflict in our roles is the most complex thing that the mind can ever handle. If we carefully take a look at this issue, we can easily understand that the complexity comes in because of our view that our roles are separate and separate value systems are needed to respond to circumstances that each of our role faces.

Because of the spatial and chronological separation of our roles, we tend to assume that the values operate independently of each other. But as said earlier, the roles are rooted in us as a human being. I as a human being am the originator of all the roles that I assume in my life and at the end of the day all the values that I might use to respond to different circumstances originate in me. The instance we realize this truth, the issues that we face will start untangling.

What Interdependence Means?

As said in an earlier post, each action of ours affects and is affected by other actions of ours. This gives raise to an interdependent framework of actions. Each action is also rooted firmly in a role. If we begin seeing our roles as separate, our actions will tend to be independent of the roles that we play. In such cases, we would be doing wrong most of the times becaues the framework is interdependent and we are seeing it as independent. The right thing to do, hence, would be to look at our actions as a continuous movement, proceeding from the root of one role to another.

We also tend to divide our time between roles. Time might exist chronologically, physically. It may not be possible to escape from this physical time. But time in the psychological sense, if we want to see action as a continuous movement, must also be seen as continuous. We cannot say that I will think about my family role only after six in the evening. That would be a ridiculous thing to do. But most of us do it and expect others to conform to our time perspective. This is again because of our fragmented view of the whole process of life. We see roles as separate and we tend to separate these roles in space and in time.

Therefore, at office, I am someone and then at home, which is spatially separate from office, I am someone different. There is a separate time for office and a separate time for home. We cannot escape time physically. We have to spend some time at office and some time at home, physically. We have to go to a separate place to work and earn money and a separate place is neede for carrying on our family affairs. This is inevitable. I am not saying that we should mix this up.


What I am saying is this. Our roles are psychologically different. We also tend to make them spatially and chronologically different. Once these differences come into being in our minds, then we get the tendency to look at our roles as separate. Once that separation comes into being, then we try and make our actions in each role as separate as possible. But we are one person. One Whole Person. Each action that we perform affects us directly and indirectly. All our roles are rooted in us as a human being.

The Integrator and The Integrated

It might sound very ridiculous if I say that the root of all conflict lies in thought. To avoid such conflict we must see "What Is" rather than "What should be". That is to say one must take a fact based approach rather than an ideal based approach. A fact based approach looks at "What Is" with an objective eye, which is free from bias, from the past. A fact based approach doesnt get fixated on a specific method, a specific way of looking based on the past. A fact based approach simply looks at facts as they are and finds out how to deal with the facts as they are.

To understand and know about facts as they are it is necessary to develop a mindset which can look without any conditioning. The mind must be able to look at "what is" without the root of knowledge, experience and the past. It is not enough to think of integration. The very idea of integration brings about conflict because there are two fragments atleast in that thought. The integrator and that which is integrated. The integrator, who is one of the fragments says "I will observe the other fragments and I will unify them".

That is why it is necessary to remove the idea of the integrator, the center from which all thought originates. When we take a fact based approach, there is only what is observed. The observer is the observerd. The integrator is that which is integrated. When such a state of mind is achieved, then we can say that the mind is free and sensitive enough to look objectively towards facts as facts.

The Basis of Structural Thinking

The reason I have chosen to talk about family and work and the "Balance" seeking behavior of people between the two is fundamentally because the foundations of Structural Thinking can be easily explained through this. The reason why I chose to quote J. Krishnamurthi is also because of the reason that the quote I have given contains the essence of Structural Thinking.

We are conditioned in our mind to look at things in a fragmented way. We create separate boxes in our mind about different groups that we interact with, and try to give different identities in each of these groups. We try to be different at Work, at Home, with Friends, with Relatives, with Customers, with Vendors and so on and so forth. Many of us would have complaints from our spouses that we help our friends more than his/her relatives, that when we are dishonest at our workplace how can we be honest at home, that we are more patient with our colleagues than our family members and so on. Many times we ourselves feel ridiculous about our own responses to these different groups of people. Most of us end up getting frustrated because of these questions and declare that life is unfair to each of us.

The solution to the above problems that we face, begins by questioning the root of the formation of such multiple identities about ourselves. Why do we try to create so many different images of ourselves and then try to juggle between these images? Why cant we have one common image that cuts across the whole realm of roles that we play in our life? It is much simpler to have one image than multiple images. Then there would be no question of balance no question of disharmony among various roles. Then we can see that life is but fair, only we have made it unfair to ourselves.

To make this issue a little more visible and understandable let me quote an incident that I happened to witness a couple of years back. There was, in the town that I studied, a bus conductor of a private bus service, who was very rude to his passengers. But, he was very prompt in his job. He issued tickets efficiently, insisted to the driver that the bus must stop where it is supposed to, and shouted at passengers if they forgot to buy the ticket or if they made a request to stop where the bus is not supposed to stop. His interactions with this passengers were rude. When someone points this to him, he always used to say, "I do my job correctly, I dont have either the time or the patience to be soft to my passengers, because I have to do my job correctly. And since I do my job correctly, I dont have to bother or fear anyone. I can be like I want to be." People stopped advising him after a while.

The same bus conductor had to take his mother to a super specialty hospital built in a nearby town for some treatment. So, he took his old and sick mother to the bus station and got her into a government run bus. Soon after the bus crossed town, his mother had a vomiting sensation. He requested the conductor of the bus to stop the bus, so that she can vomit. The conductor was very rude to him. He said "If your mother is sick, what have I got to do with that? If you wanted such luxury, take a private cab. Or get down the bus and catch another one. Just for the sake of one passenger I cannot disturb others. What is the matter with you? Cant you think straight?" When he tried to explain the conductor of the govt. bus service snubbed him out saying "I dont have time and patience to understand you. I have to do my job correctly. And as long as I do my job correclty, I dont have to care a ding about what you feel."

Look at the above situation and think of the Identity crisis that the conductor of the private bus service would be facing. As a conductor of the bus, he did his duty correctly. And he built a system of values that enabled him to be a good conductor. But, as a passenger, he expected the other conductor to understand his situation. He operated with a completely different value system when he was a passenger and he had someone to take care about. He did not feel it was wrong to ask the conductor of the govt. bus service to stop at a place where the bus was not supposed to stop. Now, what would he do the next day? Would he continue to be firm and rude in his job the next day? Or should he continue being rude and firm.

Let us keep being rude apart from the story. Because, when I use the word "rude", most of us assign a negative meaning to it, which colors the story. Just ask yourselves whether being firm (without being rude) would make the above situation any better. According to me, the situation remains the same. Even if the govt. bus conductor was polite in the above said situation, the private service bus conductor would have got the same question as he had got earlier, maybe with a different level of intensity.

The above situation maybe typical, but there are many conflicts that we can identify with which are similar to the aforementioned situations. As employees we want higher salaries for good work done, but as customers we want lower prices for the best quality goods. As customers we want employees of organizations that serve us to be understanding, as employees we wont have time and patience to understand our customers. As workers we want our family members to understand and support our work related pressures, but as family members we refuse to understand support the work related pressures that might be created in the family because of various works that are carried out in the family.

What is the root of such conflict? What breeds such different responses in us?

Thoughts From the Flight of the Eagle

J. Krishnamurthi, known in the Theosophical circles as Alcyone, whose life and works have revolutionized many a western life, lectures in London and says

I think it would be worthwhile to spend this evening in trying to find out if there is a way of living - not theoretically or intellectually but actually - a way of life, in which there is no division whatsoever; a way of life in which action is not fragmented, so that it is one constant flow, where every action is related to all other actions.

Go throught the quote once again and you will find it interesting and worthwhile to think about. We live many lives. Most of us live atleast two different lives. Work Life and Family Life. This division exists because we define work and family separately and think about work and family separately. But are work and family separate? Is the division valid?

Fundamentally the division exists because we think of work and family differently. We think of the work we do to earn a living as separate from the work we do in our family life. For us, training our salesman is different from training our two year old to read and write. We view maintaining social relationships at work different from maintaining social relationships in our family. This is because work and family for us serves two different purposes and goals. Therefore, we have two different identities at work and in our family. We build these identities according to the goals that we want to achieve.

This division of our identities brings about conflict. Conflict within ourselves and conflict with our co-workers and family members. We then expect our co-workers to understand our family problems and then expect our family members to understand our work related problems. We then complicate the matters further by trying to find out a "Balance" between work and family life.