 
Sensual Preciousness: transforming humanity and the Earth through the vision and practices of the intimate embrace of Beloveds

Inspired by the vision and rituals of the Earthfolk

Earthfolk Papers, Volume 2 of 2

Globalization and three Big Stories

by Francis X. Kroncke

Smashwords edition, copyright 2013

Cover design by Mikki Fattoruso, mfdesignstudio.com

# PART 1: BACKGROUND
# Chapter 1: Personal starting point

Why am I writing Sensual Preciousness, Earthfolk Papers, Volume 2?

Why should you read it?

To start, take a minute to scan the Table of Contents for Part 1.

The two controlling questions are, 1) "How do you hold the world together?" and 2) "How do you feel things are going?"

If you sit with these questions a few minutes, you'll begin to figure out that I'm writing Sensual Preciousness (Volume 2) because I am trying to hold my world together, and that I want to help you do the same. I'm doing so because I'm a bit uncertain about how I feel things are going, and I know that countless others feel the same. Moreover, I sense that these two questions are relevant in most people's lives.

If you have read Sensual Preciousness, Earthfolk Papers, Volume 1, then, you know about the Earthfolk vision, how it arose, its rituals, and so forth. To plumb the depths of that vision requires that I expose the depths of my personal journey. So in some ways Volume 2 is a bit of back-tracking. It is more important in this volume to know about the author's personal life than it was in Volume 1. The reason is simple: the "depth question" is one of "Am I crazy?"

Have you ever asked yourself that question? Especially when you've looked around the world (or while watching "the evening news"!) and wondered, "If that's sanity, I must be insane!" Well, I asked that question during the most critical period of my youth—which was the Vietnam War era. To be sane, as you will discover, I went insane in respect to the values of the religious tradition of my upbringing. I ended up locked up in a federal prison. Handcuffs, leg chains, solitary...the whole treatment. So, the "first question" is really the first one to ask when you try to answer, "Am I crazy?"

The first question, "How do you hold the world together?" still dogs me as I try to understand and respond to the varied and rapid changes lumped under the word "globalization." I first understood that word as a young American in the Sixties when I came to see the Vietnam War as the first global war. Something changed—many things changed!—in the Sixties whose far-reaching impact on our personal and communal lives is still somewhat unclear. One of the major shifts was in how I and others began to answer, "How do you feel things are going?" Clearly, starting with the Sixties, the world began to spin in ways that disabled many from feeling how they did before that war—namely, safe, secure and "in America."

Vietnam was the first global war for several reasons. It was the first one televised globally. Second, it was an undeclared war that affected every country, not just America. The latter is true because at the same time as politics and communications became global, so did business. Vietnam and America were proxies in the then global war-game called the Cold War. In Vietnam, America was fighting a total war, that is, one for the hearts and minds of all the peoples of the world. The enemy included the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese Army (NVA)/Vietnam People's Army (VPA) but also Russia, China, Communism, and godless atheism. America fought to protect and expand its incipient global market economy, all the countries of the West and their allies, and of course Democracy and Christianity.

Two candidates for "most significant change of the Sixties" are that corporations became global, and young adults began to see themselves as global citizens who danced to the music of an international cultural Youth Revolution. To answer, "How do you feel things are going?" then requires coping with global events in every aspect of your life.

I began to re-evaluate and most seriously reflect upon these two questions as I served time in the federal prison at Sandstone, Minnesota. I had been sentenced to five years after being convicted as a violent felon. I am legally a violent felon, and it is important for you to recognize that I accept this designation and status. It underscores the position from which I present myself, that is, as someone who has been on the "Inside," as cons call the joint. What is my crime? I wanted to stop a war. I tried to stop it with every talent I had. I preached. I taught. I organized. I protested. And, I broke the law. I raided draft offices and stole the "1-A" files which marked those young men in line to be drafted. Some call this Civil Disobedience. Others, "Divine Disobedience." The hard fact is that I trespassed into forbidden social and cultural areas. I claimed that you and I could imagine Peace! The law said, "Ain't no such imagining allowed here in America, Kroncke." But once Inside, they couldn't stop my imagining.

Prison forced me, as it does many, to re-examine my answers to these two questions. I confess that I had no new answers for over a decade after my parole. Then I came upon an imagination and vision which provided a basis for my answering both questions. Notably, about how I feel. Right now, I can truthfully and happily state that I feel comfortably at home on Earth. Verily and merrily!

Despite the fact that the Vietnam War has morphed and been renamed as a given decade's Guerre de jour, for example as "Today's War in ..." Grenada, Haiti, Iraq, Libya, the Balkans, Somalia or Afghanistan.

Despite the renewed rattling of the Cold War nuclear saber.

Despite new uncertainties such as global warming.

I feel this way because of the Earthfolk vision and imagination which was introduced in Earthfolk Papers, Volume 1.

Yet, when you scan the Table of Contents you also pick up titles with phrases and terms such as Big Story and personal Story, brooding emotions, Sunny Spot and the Shade, and so forth. Some of this language is familiar, if you have read Volume 1. Getting to where I am now, that is, practicing the Earthfolk vision, was not an easy path. My life is riddled with crushing breakdowns and amazing breakthroughs. Since I will be asking you to evaluate my journey so you can use it to evaluate your own, I need to be forthright about the pains and the joys, the insights and the failures of my efforts to answer these two controlling questions. Again, "How do you hold the world together?" and "How do you feel things are going?"

I make no bones about the fact that mine has been a peculiar life. I have searched for answers as a seminarian and young Roman Catholic novice monk, later as a lay theologian and college instructor, then as a federal inmate, with an eventual prolonged stay in the byways of corporate America rising from a door-to-door encyclopedia salesman to small company senior manager.

Why should you read Sensual Preciousness? Because after reading Volume 2, at a minimum, you will have developed answers to, "How do you hold the world together?" and "How do you feel things are going?" Ideally, you will also have identified the brooding emotions that ground you. In sum, you should have a solid grasp of how your Big and personal Stories enable you to engage the globalization movement. Additionally, if you find, as I have, a need to discover a new Big Story, then you will be prepared to more critically evaluate the Earthfolk Big Story both Volumes 1 and 2 present. Hopefully, after you put these volumes aside, you will prepare to enact an Earthfolk ritual of sensually precious intimacy and deeply experience the brooding emotion of being peacefully and comfortably at home on the Living Earth.

# Chapter 2: Introduction

"Life changes, but everything remains the same"

Of all the witty remarks, clever slogans and descriptive phrases that can be drawn from ancient wisdom to describe present times, the remark, "Life changes, but everything remains the same" seems humorously apt. Yes, life is ever changing and, in some sectors, at supersonic to nanosecond speed. The word "fast" like the adjective "large" at a fast-food chain seems outdated in this Digital Age of the World-Wide-Web and super-sized everything. Fast can describe human motion but it pales when it tries to contain the hyper-human speeds achieved using optical fiber and wireless networks. "Instantaneous" is the new norm with which to measure quality. As such, there is Instant Messaging and "instant access" in the Internet world which is also always "online" at 24/7/365.

Equally, it can be argued that, in the main, everything remains the same if imaged and measured on the human scale. Is the world at peace? Are there no more homeless, hungry or displaced people? Aren't there more migrant and refugee populations than ever? Isn't the gap between Haves and Have-nots as vast as anyone can remember? There is a dark humor in the discomfort that rapid telecommunications and high technology has wrought, namely, that instant access to "all the news, all the time" also means that people now know more about worldwide misery, disasters and unhappy events than ever before.

How do you measure Life's changes? Is the world in an uncontrollable and depressing crisis? A crisis, in actuality, significantly caused by all the newfangled innovations of digital high-tech which have simply created situations that humans can no longer control? For example, isn't the distinctive characteristic of the Internet that it is under no one person's or institution's or government's control? Or, is all the dizzying rapid change just a momentary side-effect of all the marvelous and amazing discoveries taking place in every sphere of human research and endeavor? In this Digital Age—which is likewise the Nuclear Age, the era of an ever-morphing Youth Movement (Hippies-Yippies-EcoFreaks-Digital Nerds), a New Age of Aquarius, and so forth—is humanity making progress and evolving towards a higher state of consciousness and humanness? Or, is everything simply falling apart everywhere, worse than ever? Will an ecological Apocalypse, for example, a biological plague of cannibalistic genes, bring all that is human to an end?

Pause and ask yourself: When you look around the Earth, what do you see? Do you see a world where everyone, everywhere is linked by and reaping the astounding benefits of, the worldwide Internet? Where—as never experienced by humans before—everyone can virtually live in the same dimension on the cyberspace Web?

Or, do you observe a world in fierce turmoil? Where people are at odds, fighting over spits of land and for just about any crazy idea? Terrorists everywhere!

Or ,does your gaze capture a planetary Blue Marble adrift in a cosmic ocean, where everyone is crew on Starship Earth? Where people can just cruise, chill, mellow out, and enjoy a great cosmic ride?

When you look around the Earth, how do you view other people? Are they cyberspace e-friends, that is, online virtual folk you can "IM" (instantly message)? Or, are they foreigners? People outside the boundaries of your personal map? Or, worse, sinister illegal aliens from a criminal realm? Each strange to you and you a stranger to them. Or, are others just members of the One Family on the One Earth, singing in harmony?

When you look at yourself, what do you see? A basically happy person who is "normal," and who wants the same simple pleasures as every other human does? To be happy. Own a home. Raise a family. Have a satisfying career.

Or, are you most often unhappy? Wary of others? Displeased with how others behave—warring, destroying the environment, obsessing over pornography, etc.?

Or, is it that you don't really care? As long as you are safe, what's the big to-do? As long as you are beating the competition?— "I'm Numero Uno!"

Or, are you revved up to "Change the world!"? To make yourself a star, whether an American Idol who wows audiences nationwide or a Greenpeace social activist perilously risking her life to save the whales? Someone who has a mission? Who wants to leave their mark on the world?

Whatever your self-perception, what is most curious about the present Age is that the most effective communication vehicle of globalization, namely the Internet, enables you to present yourself to the world as no generation ever has. You can now experience yourself and others in a "virtual universe." In this virtual universe you can have multiple identities. Moreover you have the option to maintain these as separate identities, that is, to keep your "offline" every day identity hidden from others. As never before, you can explore aspects of your identity which, in other times, you might have repressed due to social conventions. The upside and downside of this multiple identity aspect of globalized communications will be addressed as I explore the concepts of your having a Sunny Spot and a Shade aspect.

The Internet is a curious universe wherein you are everywhere ("inside a World-Wide-Web") as you are just "here, in my house, at my desk." Once logged on, you can experience a historically and humanly unprecedented, expanded sense that what "I" do has an impact on "us." The range of "e" activities such as e-commerce, e-dating, e-mailing, e-banking, e-politics, e-philanthropy, etc., enable you to engage other people and institutions anywhere in the world, at any time. If you choose, you can "think globally, act locally." All the digital and instantaneous high-tech discoveries have expanded your personal ability to act to change and transform the "offline" real world. You can now engage all the peoples of the world.

However, one unintended consequence of all this virtual contact is that, for others, it justifies their withdrawal from the world and the establishment of a tighter, more restrictive and exclusive sense of their place in and responsibility for what happens in the World-Wide-Web. They fear the Net. For them it is a land of con artists, unsubstantiated "facts" and uncontrollable lusts. It is the ideal criminal space where you can "not be" who you actually are as you assume one false identity ("user ID," "username") one after the other. It is a quagmire of intellectual and moral irresponsibility, seduction and deception. Logging-on is a peril to your life!

Likewise, vast numbers of people feel that they have been left behind and, in effect, disempowered by this e-craze. They see themselves as "digital e-serfs " For them, the future bodes only a widening "Digital Divide" which already separates the technological savvy from the computer illiterates, as it does those who can afford to continually purchase the latest upgrade and new high-tech "toys" from those who cannot. These individuals hold that, if anything, technology-sourced rapid change is the problem, not the solution.

What "remains the same" then, is that people are not in agreement about the human situation. For some, it is the best-of-times. For others, the worst. For some, the world is mired in endless warring. For others, the globe is shrinking and nations are being transformed by digital technology towards inevitable unity. This last group holds that global peace in the Global Village is closer than ever before. Yet, even a cursory survey and study of human history exposes that this best/worst split has characterized the human situation in just about every society or culture. "We're Number One!" echoes down the ages along with "We're doomed!" While there is more than a bit of self-deprecating humor in this observation, it is timely, as it has been for previous societies and cultures to ask whether, as a species, humans have finally reached a New Age or a Final Act?

Your "artful story"

Who is right? Whom to follow? How to evaluate the situation? Consider: When all analysis and evaluation is complete, doesn't your viewpoint just depend upon the "story" you compose? By creatively linking together bits and pieces of information and then giving them either a positive or negative spin, doesn't your view change?

Please don't misunderstand this question: I am not advocating relativism or a version of Do Your Own Thing anarchy. Quite the contrary. I am asking whether the world is as you artfully create it? And that as you artfully create your world and then integrate it with others, isn't that how things get to be the way they are right now? In a nutshell, I am asking whether you are the artful creator of reality?

I am not asking if you are "divine" or a mythic/spiritual creator of the universe! Just, that when you set out to answer the Big Questions about life, and other relevant ones posed by this book and others, aren't you artfully telling "your story"? And isn't your artful story all that matters? Again, this is not a form of narcissism. Rather, artfully telling "your personal story" is an engagement with the communal imagination in that it requires you to define and describe your story in relationship, at times in stark contrast, to the many other stories you hear and encounter. You are artful at those moments of maturation when you reflect deeply upon your life and seek to identify and answer the Big Questions. At these moments, the robust richness of "Who I am!" unfolds as you move about life and develop relationships with others which are mutually respectful and celebratory.

# Chapter 3: Big Story and personal Story

It is a premise of Sensual Preciousness that how you think and feel depends upon the artful story you create. Your story makes you feel safe and secure. It enables you to make sense out of all that is happening. As I see the human situation, it is basic to being human that we each artfully tell a story, comprised of personal and Big Story parts.

The Big Story is the one that presents Big Answers to Life's Big Questions of who, where, when, why and how things are as they are.

The personal Story is one that you carve out from the Big Story—your own particular, even at times idiosyncratic, way of making everything hold together. It is your primal work of art, with you being the object d'art.

The Big Story holds a vast array of concepts, images, interpretations and facts. Your personal Story, however, is composed of those parts of the Big Story for which you are willing to put yourself in harm's way. Even to risk your life. That is, your personal Story contains the beliefs and values from which you derive and ground your core values and moral actions. In general terms, the Big Story is source for the imagination, inspiration and explanation of everything. Your personal Story is the source for your specific convictions and absolute commitments. It reveals your dedications and passions. It is how you express, and reveal, your primal gut emotional state.

Big Story and personal Story—Big Questions and Answers

A few Big Questions with just a few key words as Big Answers are:

1) Who or What created life? 2) Where do humans come from? 3) How did humans get here? 4) Where are humans going? 5) When did humans first appear? 6) Why is there evil in the world? 7) How should humans act? 8) What is the value of others? 9) What values are worth dying for?

personal STORY selects Answers to Big Questions, such as: 1) Creator, Big Bang Evolution, or Divine Spark, 2) Garden of Eden, Primordial Soup, or Dreamtime, 3) "Creation from Nothing," Alien Seed, or Prime Matter, 4) Ultimate Purpose to Life or Towards Extinction, 5) Eons Ago or Ten Thousand Years Ago, 6) Sin, Personal Choice, or Demons, 7) Divine Law, Self-Regulation, or Enlightened Self-Interest, 8) Competitors, Children of One God, or Heathens, 9) No one and nothing, God's Commandments, Lovers or Strangers

This list will expand as you read. The social, political, sexual, moral, and other family of ideas and values derived from each Big Question and expressed through various personal Stories will be further explored. At this time, simply consider which Big Questions strike you as most significant? Which Big Answers do you initially identify as yours? Do any of these Big Questions and/or Big Answers stir up a gut reaction in you? Which Questions make you feel uneasy? Which Answers give you peace?

No doubt you can sense how a Big Story's Big Answer might affect what moral convictions are possible when you begin to develop your personal Story. Consider: if you believe that there is a divine law which a personal God established, then you seek moral answers by attempting to understand that divine law. If a Big Answer states that God has endowed humans with free will, then, it is up to you, the individual, to discern God's divine law. Consequently, almost every moral issue becomes your personal responsibility. However, if you hold that this divine law is revealed and can only be known through a specially selected and ordained group, for example, priests, then you, individually, must rely on priests to discern which moral issues are your personal responsibility. In this latter situation, you do not exercise direct control over the development of your personal Story. Rather, you write it under the guidance of a priestly spiritual director.

If you subscribe to the Secular Big Story, you might understand Evolution as a Big Answer to several questions. In brief, this might lead you to assess that all "morality" is a human construct, so, your personal Story is determined, to a great extent, by the broader values of society and culture. You anticipate that your personal morality will change over time as society and culture evolve. Your personal Story then is inherently malleable at best and opportunistic at worst.

For me, a significant fact is the observation that we humans must tell our personal Stories. Each of us deeply wants to be understood. We want others to know how we feel inside—in our minds, hearts and guts—and we want our lives to count, that is, be effective and have meaning. Each of us wants others to know our personal Stories because we value our own lives, and we want others to value and respect us. We—each of us—want to feel comfortably at home, in and outside of our skins. We want to feel safe and secure.

To initiate your self-analysis, see Appendix A- Big Story and personal Story worksheet

The globalization movement and three Big Stories

Another Sensual Preciousness premise is that the movement called "globalization" is at the source of your either feeling safe and secure or scared out of your mind about "what is happening, right now." Of note is that globalization refers to transformations occurring in diverse areas which are being most dramatically affected by global economics and high-tech communications. It is not a precise term. Rather, it describes a flurry of activities which, when taken together, contribute to this historical age being both the best and the worst-of-times. Consequently, Sensual Preciousness identifies and explores three Big Stories, which dominate human consciousness and are the source for the worldwide transformation effected by "globalization." These stories include the Religious Big Story, the Secular Big Story, and Scientism's Big Story. Each of these dominant Big Stories has contributed to and inspired the development of high technology, the Digital Age, and the globalization movement.

These three Big Stories have distinct and overlapping chapters. For example, in general, the Religious Big Story describes experience in terms of a dualism of natural and the supernatural. If your primary story is a Religious Big Story, it might answer a Big Question, such as "How did humans develop?" by adopting the theory of evolution and so integrating with a chapter of Scientism's Big Story. In like manner, if yours is a Secular Big Story it may affirm that the best explanation or interpretation of any event or situation is one that avoids religious language, yet it accepts as a Big Answer to "How are humans to act?" a statement about "ethical humanism." For others, this Big Answer appears to be at least a quasi-religious concept. In like manner, if yours is Scientism's Big Story then, while it seeks a scientific truth or theory to use as the basis for forming Big Answers, it also often aligns itself with the Secular avoidance of using any religious concepts or models for interpretation or explanation. How these chapters overlap in each Big Story will be discussed more fully in Part 2, below.

# Chapter 4: The three Big Stories clash

Globalization, from a historical perspective, is a spanking new movement. High technology, more than likely, only became a phrase and industry during your lifetime. Yet, as two aspects of the movement that are causing the critical shift in how the three dominant Big Stories are being re-imagined and re-told, globalization and high-technology also have deep, ancient roots in these three Big Stories. Both the ancient and modern definitions, causes and characteristics of this critical shift are key concerns of Sensual Preciousness.

Why these Big Stories are being re-imagined and re-told can be seen from the global challenges that confront each Big Story. For example, few Christians can tell their version of a Religious Big Story without putting it within the context of all world religions, including even the latest "New Age" sects and neo-pagan movement. Scientism's Big Story can no longer adhere to solely Western cultural concepts, as it must make account for Eastern practices and alternative movements. Similarly, the Secular Big Story must respond to challenges from quarters that consider secularism itself to be a Religious Big Story, that is, simply a wolf in sheep's clothing. In fact, you should anticipate that your own personal Story will soon require—if it hasn't already—a dramatic reimagining for you to feel safe and secure in your everyday "globalized life."

These three Big Stories, however, appear to be at war with one another on several fronts. This is not just a clash of ideas, which is of greater interest to ivory tower academics. Rather, the battle often appears as a clash of cultures. People react as if their very lives, present and historical, are threatened with extinction or subordination. They demonize the other as "The Great Satan" or "The Axis of Evil" or even the pedestrian sounding but hate-filled "Good Guys versus the Bad Guys." Moreover, within each Big Story internecine "culture wars" are waged. This translates into practical matters such as where a scientific corporation will locate to pursue stem cell research, or where a manufacturing plant will relocate to avoid ecological restrictions and/or political discussion regarding minimum wages, child labor or "a living wage."

Blood is spilled and great pain suffered by many as advocates of these three Big Stories carve out a personal Story which includes valorous moral commitments to put their lives in harm's way either as suicide bombers or, at the other end of the spectrum, as nonviolent "Human Shield" peace activists. (See, www.humanshields.org) Great sacrifice marks other personal Stories as individuals migrate, willingly or not, to find work to support their families. With less discomfort but with deep personal loss, many leave their homeland and culture as they climb the ladder of corporate success. In short, there are numerous examples which illustrate what is at stake in respect to the personal Story these Big Stories enable you to carve. Aspects of your personal Story will reflect the positive impact of a Big Story—what I call the best-of-times—as well the negative impact—what I call the worst-of-times. The incontrovertible fact is that "globalization" is transforming worldwide human culture, and is impacting your personal life in terms both trivial and tumultuous.

It is difficult to describe the ocean in which one is swimming. The calm among the surface waves does not always reflect the turmoil of the deep. While in everyday usage the words "Religious, Secular and Scientific" are often cited as if they represent incompatible and distinctly different worldviews, as will be explained, my experience in prison opened my eyes in a way which made me suspicious about the accuracy of this alleged distinction and incompatibility.

# Chapter 5: Why Sensual Preciousness?

Let me be honest about my intuition concerning what globalization dictates. It is that as this new millennium continues to unfold, you must re-imagine your personal Story.

This is a time where the survival of the human race, possibly of the Earth, itself, depends on how you respond to this movement called "globalization."

Your artful storytelling determines how the world is "now" for you personally and for others.

To maintain a sense of inner and outer peace—of mind, body and spirit—you must determine what your Big and personal Stories are.

It is my task to convince you that your personal Story and the Big Story from which you carve it has such a momentous impact on a global scale. Moreover, I will introduce you to my new Big Story of the Earthfolk and describe how I've carved out my personal Story. Realistically, I accept that for most readers it may not be one you can imagine. Even if I fail in this effort, as I read the times and understand our human make-up, your survival and total health depends upon your clarifying and living in sync with your Big and personal Stories, whatever they be.

One unnerving impact of globalization's movement is that the status quo no longer exists. All the extant Big Stories no longer offer an imagination that enables anyone to dwell safely and comfortably at home on Earth. I know that this is a bold claim, and I will take pains to describe how I came to this conclusion. To make matters more complex, you are not simply being called to be "for or against" globalization. Indeed, I wish matters were that black and white, so that all you had to do is choose sides. I wish that all Sensual Preciousness was about is setting out clear and distinct options. It is not. Rather, all I can do is invite you to explore your Big Story and your personal Story so that you are better prepared to evaluate the Big Story and personal Story of the Earthfolk (a Story which I believe will enable you to engage globalization). All I can do is invite you because change is difficult. I recognize that. Nevertheless, I hope you stay with me and ponder these ideas with an open mind. I realize that, for you, this engagement might eventually express itself as an act of disengagement from globalization. Clearly, you are always free to call it quits and disengage, although globalization will continue.

To begin to clearly define and evaluate your Big and personal Stories is both an intellectual and emotional challenge. While I've pursued a lifelong scholarly search to understand the Big Questions and Big Answers, and to live faithful to the moral mandates of my personal Story, I choose not to present Sensual Preciousness in academic prose or footnoted format. I also choose not to make this an autobiography or memoir. Yet, I think you have a right to know how I, personally, understood my Big Story as my life's personal Story unfolded.

Moreover, if I take you through the hard choices that led to my breakdown, my "Dark Night of the Soul," I sense that you will risk being open to the Earthfolk vision and imagination. My breakdown happened, as you might anticipate, while on trial for committing a violent felony. Although while serving a five-year sentence I walked round the prison yard as a convicted federal inmate my true punishment was that I could no longer speak. I was without a Big Story's imagination. I could no longer imagine myself a Christian or an American. I had to face the fact that mine was judged a criminal mind, heart and imagination. I suffered deeply and darkly because I had no personal voice with which to tell my personal Story.

Likewise, you deserve to know how I broke through to the Earthfolk Big Story and how it works itself out in my daily life and enables me to manifest my dwelling comfortably at home on the Living Earth. Yet, as personal Stories can become, I risk referencing a world with which you are totally unfamiliar, possibly disdain, even want to ignore—that is, my formative years as an ardent Roman Catholic and my seminal years as a federal inmate. My challenge is to give you enough insight to understand my development without slipping into sectarian and idiosyncratic stories, memories and illustrations.

# Chapter 6: Re-imagining my personal Story

As I have begun to re-imagine my personal Story, I have encountered many who are laboring at the same task. Ever since the dawn of globalization I have been working to form a personal Story that will enable me to live comfortably here on Earth and to feel secure. Of note is my dating the first day of the globalization movement as Monday, August 6, 1945 when the Atomic Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

The personal jest here is that I was born on August 6, 1944, so I've accepted the Atomic Bomb's explosion as both a celebration of my first birthday and as a spiritual Wake-up! call. Later, in my tumultuous young adult years during the Sixties, the powerful reform movement within Roman Catholicism (unleashed by Vatican Council Two) challenged me to begin to imagine a new personal Story as I engaged the first globalized war, that is, the Vietnam War. For me, this Council was retelling the Catholic Big Story as it proclaimed, "We take great pleasure in sending to all men and nations a message...." As I will relate, I reformed my personal Story and ... well, landed in prison! Seriously and humorously, my life is an example of the risks associated with re-imagining a Big Story and developing a new personal Story. Be clear, then, that reading Sensual Preciousness might prove quite risky for you.

While it is important for me to address the Roman Catholic Religious Big Story, I do so for a more important reason than the simple fact that I was born Catholic. In the 20th Century several highly imaginative Big Stories were forwarded as the result of tumultuous social revolutions. Marxism and Maoism shook the world throughout that century. Their mutual failures, as I interpret them, stemmed not as much from their Big Stories as from the inability of their Big Stories to enable people to carve out personal Stories with which to hold their daily lives together.

As I will discuss later, a Big Story expresses a people's brooding emotion. In my view, Marxism and Maoism failed to overthrow the dominant brooding emotion of the forces that defeated their communist movement. They failed, ironically, because they did not offer a different brooding emotion. As I interpret the transition, Communism was simply a chapter in the three dominant Big Stories. Communism was absorbed by the forces which gave rise to the present revolutionary movement of globalization. In effect, the Communist Big Story faded as globalization sprouted.

Of significance in the story of the failure of Communism is the survival of the one Big Story which is still in the throes of its imaginative revolution, that of Roman Catholicism. Indeed, as I present later in fuller detail, Roman Catholicism's revolutionary Religious Big Story is a seedbed for globalization—both for those who favor and for those who resist globalization. While this statement might appear paradoxical, it actually illustrates a key point in understanding the dynamic between Big Stories and personal Stories. In almost every case, a Big Story is expressed through quite diverse, often contradictory and at times adversarial personal Stories.

In this light, Roman Catholicism's Vatican II theological and spiritual revolution positively engaged the previously adversarial Protestant traditions. Protestant theologians attended Council sessions and engaged in significant dialogues. Vatican II launched an aggressively ecumenical movement which quickly broadened to embrace all global spiritual traditions and people of good will. Indeed, my own personal Story was quite adversarial to the pre-Vatican II Catholic Big Story which was still being proclaimed by some Council fathers and members of the Papal Vatican. These anti-ecumenists resisted the reforms of Vatican Council II, and have succeeded, for all practical purposes, in un-imagining Vatican Council II's vision.

# Chapter 7: Imagining a world without war

Like so many, the various impacts of globalization forced me for decades to consider devoting my efforts to finding a way to reform or revision or re-imagine the best of the three dominant Big Stories. This came to a crisis point in 1971 as I developed my legal defense as attorney pro se after I was initially charged with "sabotage of the national defense" and brought to trial on the charge of "interfering with the Selective Service System by force, violence or otherwise."

I and seven others raided Selective Service draft boards and destroyed tens of thousands of files in protests of the Vietnam War. (See, "Minnesota 8" at http://www.minnesota8.net) Although I had spent decades trying to effect reformation of my Religious Big Story, mainly through an integration with chapters in the Secular and Scientism's Big Story, the personal Story I developed made me a religious heretic and a secular outlaw. Personally, I alleged that I was a follower of a nonviolent Jesus. A personal story deemed heretical.

At my sentencing, as I stood to receive the maximum penalty, I had to finally accept that I had to find a new way to express myself and approach others. Clearly, how I was imagining my Big Story and morally acting out my personal Story were both failures!

One of my lifelong passions is that I have tried to move people to imagine a world without war. At my trial, I took what I deemed the intellectual and moral truths and principles of these three Big Stories into the courtroom. Although my courtroom argument (my legal "Defense of Necessity" in Appendix B, "Links") was centered on the moral mandates of a Religious Big Story. I came from a tradition within that Big Story that embraced and integrated certain truths and insights of both the Secular and Scientism's Big Story. At trial, I found all three Big Stories deficient in moral imagination when it came to developing a convincing personal Story of nonviolence. For over a week—with testimony from veterans, scientists, theologians, and nonviolent activists, as well as Daniel Ellsberg, a former architect of the Vietnam war who served on Secretary Robert McNamara's team and later released the "Pentagon Papers"—I told, to a federal judge and jury, my Roman Catholic Big Story with its personal Story of "nonviolent Jesus" Resistance to the war.

The judge allowed me to recount my personal Story but he finally instructed the jury that my beliefs and values were "irrelevant and immaterial."

In my Secular Big Story, I had always understood that, in the Democratic legal system, a jury of one's peers was to determine guilt or innocence. Despite it being a bulwark of his Secular Big Story, the judge feared the jury process and so instructed them to ignore all they had heard and seen for eight days of testimony. I will comment later on why and what I believe the judge feared would happen if the jury had been empowered to pass judgment on my personal Story. At this point, the insight I want to present is that acting on one's personal Story can lead to a total loss of both your Big Story and your personal Story. Within the span of six months, in tandem with the State's ejection of my personal Story as meaningful within its Secular Big Story, so was I rejected by the local Catholic hierarchy. The local archbishop circulated a letter forbidding pastors from allowing me—"a criminal" (Sweet Jesus!)— to preach from their pulpits. In prison, then, I arrived and remained a mute. I had no way to speak. No imagination. No vision. No images, metaphors nor logic. I had completely lost both my Big Story and my personal Story.

With a bit of "gallows humor," I admit that I failed to tell a compelling personal Story to the jury. Nevertheless, why should I complain since I was "awarded" free room and board, courtesy of the federal government—on a generous five year tax free plan!—to have sufficient reflective time to re-imagine my own personal Story?

While in prison, I edited and rewrote certain chapters in America's Secular Big Story. To the point I watched the Attorney General of the United States, John Mitchell, become the first U.S. Attorney General ever to be indicted. I watched the whole Keystone Kops debacle called "Watergate" unfold. The dark humor here is that I served just over a fifth of my sentence because America's chapter concerning its attitude towards war and draft resisters took a 180 degree turn during the final years of President Nixon's reign—due to the impact of the Watergate scandal. Could anyone be surprised then that when I got out on parole I returned to the Twin Cities an ex-con and an ex-Catholic and an ex-American?

It was not until the mid-1980s—a decade after my breakdown in prison and while I was working as a corporate senior manager and became a father—that I spoke the first word of a Big Story that would eventually lead me to encounter those I call the Earthfolk. Prophetically, that word was, "Mother."

# Chapter 8: Inside Sight

I left prison with only one word, "Mother"

In 1983 I wrote an essay (see, "Prison, Bottoming Out, Mother" in Appendix B, "Links") where I described how my prison experience left me broken down and without a vision or language with which to make sense out of and hold the world together. Yet, as often happens at a breakdown moment, I experienced a breakthrough moment. I wrote, "Splayed naked in The Hole, I met the Goddess who is present as Mother."

As strange as this may sound, I had only one word, so I wrote it—"Mother." This word was both my only Big Question—"Mother?" and my only Big Answer—"Mother!" As I will often comment, it enabled me to feel at home on Earth and so step forward on my journey towards Sensual Preciousness.

Throughout Sensual Preciousness I return to the significance of this word, "Mother," and my prison experience. As I first spoke the word, so did I receive "Inside Sight." This is the way one who once formerly professed a Big Story often sights matters after he is expelled, shunned and/or exiled. It is a sight discovered when inside the Shadow of one's personal life and Big Story. It is an inside-looking-outward vision.

In my case, this Inside Sight arose at the moment I accepted why my personal Story failed to effectively express my Catholic Big Story. I accepted that I had bought the Catholic Big Story, lock-stock-and-barrel. I testified before the jury, "I am a Roman Catholic theologian!" When I submitted the Documents of Vatican Council II and Pope John's XXIII's encyclical, Pacem in Terris, as evidence, it was evidence that revealed my identity: personal, social, cultural, corporate and spiritual. In prison, I banged my head against the chapel wall, "Am I wrong? Am I wrong? Are they right?"

Once Inside, a certain number of religious draft resisters flipped-out. Once Inside, their "Dark Night of the Soul" abated as they remorsefully threw themselves at the feet of the Church. These exited prison quite differently than they had entered. They became super-Catholics, hyper-active devotees, mostly right-wingers. A handful of other resisters left Western spirituality and became followers of some Eastern sect. In my gut, I felt their dreadful fear. In conversations, I had little to offer them. Who was I to urge further resistance? I, too, wanted to feel safe and secure. Something, however, kept me moving further into my Dark Night.

It took a decade for this Inside Sight to clearly focus. To clearly hear, "Mother." Of note, is that my first Inside Sight was of myself as a warrior. I saw how everything I had ever imagined and done tapped into the brooding emotion of a dreadful fear of "the other. " I accepted that I had never been nonviolent, rather that I had simply avoided being violent. I saw how I said one thing and did another—spoke Peace but waged War. I had become a "peaceful warrior"—a "nonviolent John Wayne." This was a bitterness hard to swallow.

I began to examine my own life with Inside Sight. Why had I become a peaceful warrior? How had I interpreted the Roman Catholic theological tradition? What blinders had I worn? Why had I shouted, "Peace! Peace!" but did so from fear of "the other"? I confronted the fact that I was not feeling safe or peacefully at home here on Earth. Truly, I felt the horror of what I had so often professed—that when an American soldier pulls the trigger, it is my hand on his. In a way I had never imagined, I felt myself drowning in blood.

I was deep into my personal darkness—what I prefer to term the Shade rather than the over-psychololgized term Shadow. I was lost in my Shade. I was Inside it, looking out. I saw how my Big Story's best-of-times vision, which forms what I term the Sunny Spot, enfolded my Shady self and blinded me to its darkness. I saw how I had deceived myself—how I had backed away from accepting what my Catholic Tradition truly proclaimed, that is, that there is no such Jesus as the "nonviolent Jesus"!

I accepted that I had known this and that my draft-raiding actions were a desperate attempt to avoid accepting this disturbing fact. I realized that the personal Story of many of my fellow Catholics included attending Holy Mass and then going straight into battle. In this vein, my draft-raid was intended to be a nonviolent ritual act of sacrifice, in imitation of the Catholic ritual of Holy Mass. The 1-A files made real the presence of future soldiers and I destroyed them much as the sacred bread is broken and eaten during Mass and makes God-in-Jesus present. This was a priestly act through which I strove to tap into what I claimed were the brooding emotions of this nonviolent Jesus, namely, peacefulness, healing, and loving.

The prosecutor hit the bulls-eye more than he could ever guess when he exclaimed, reaching for ridicule: "What is Frank Kroncke's argument? He says, 'I did as you charge, but I committed no crime: I administered a sacrament!' Seven sacraments are not enough? Now we add the eighth sacrament of the Roman Catholic Church—ripping off draft boards...?"

I looked Inside myself, "Did it work?"

This Inside introspection expressed itself in a bit of self-mockery. I joked, "The only truly revolutionary act for a white, middle-class male is to kill himself!" We seemed to be the root cause of everything, both good and evil. Add to this "Catholic" and the resulting guilt for fucking-up-the-world and all became unbearable. Believe me, after prison I fled from the thought, "Why didn't you kill yourself while in prison?" In time the answer came, "Mother."

My first focused Inside Sight, then, was of Her face. I felt Her presence. I began to see Her in everyone. I began to sense Her presence through everyone's presence. How to explain this? That She embraced me—and so I was safely at home? Again, it took a decade for my mind to catch up with my heart. As mentioned, in 1983 I wrote my first essay about prison and Mother. Intellectually, I set about exploring the religious, cultural, intellectual and moral traditions which had formed me. I knew, I sensed, I intuited—She is there, but where, how, when, why?

I began to sight the Inside of each Big Story. I saw the Inside which each Big Story described on its own terms, but more importantly I saw the Inside which each Big Story did not want me to see. I entered the Big Story's Shade. I spied each Big Story's brightest hopes and its darkest dreads. I saw how each one could be interpreted in terms of a best-of-times and a worst-of-times vision. More, I gained insight into how, historically and developmentally, each Big Story's Inside relates to that of the others. Endowing you with this Inside Sight is something I hope happens as you read this book.

To anticipate what Inside sight exposes, I saw Inside the Biblical account in Genesis and learned how the Garden of Eden formed the imagination of the New World's Religious and Secular Big Stories of "America." Among the Puritans in New England, America was approached as if it were a second Garden of Eden. A consciously Biblical people, they formed a covenant to purify the New World's wilderness. They exiled themselves and established "New" England with awareness of their lineage as the Chosen of Abraham and as under the guidance of Divine Providence. America was God's granting humans a second chance to live a purified Christian life. As St. Paul urged Christians to "put off the old man" and "put on the new," so Puritans saw Europe as the Old World hopelessly mired in sinful ways and America as the New World hopefully following the way of pure faithfulness. Puritans also invoked the Biblical image of America as the Promised Land.

Properly evaluating America's Puritan heritage is important because its language, imagery and moral vision is being heralded by significant contemporary American leaders as they position America to spearhead major aspects of the globalization movement. They speak of America as a special nation whose people have a historic mission to bring the light and blessings of democracy to the world. These Christians are comfortable applying Garden of Eden imagery when interpreting the religious significance of the founding of America.

Over time, these Puritan Biblical terms and images mutated into secular terms. Pause for a moment because this is an exceptionally significant insight that is often forgotten. The Revolutionary Fathers were strongly influenced by Puritan thought and practices. While they formed a Secular Big Story, many of its core concepts, such as democracy, individual rights, liberty, happiness, etc., were rooted in the same Protestant revolution which was source for the Puritan vision and imagination. The Puritan vision and imagination was part of the tumultuous intellectual foment which formed American culture.

As I will discuss in Part 2, America is best understood using the concept of "Sacred Secularism." While Puritan theological language was discarded, the brooding emotion it tapped into was not. The Puritans and the Christian Founding Fathers remained a Biblical people, children of Abraham. As such, they were exiles as were their parents, Adam and Eve. They lived on Earth in dreadful fear of dying and not returning to paradise. I demonstrate how this mutation occurred when I present my interpretation of the significance of the Revolutionary Era's novel response to punishment, namely, the formation of the American penitentiary.

Historically, from my perspective, Secular America is a chapter in the Abrahamic Religious Big Story. Take note of my interpretation that Secularism begins as a religious movement. Revolutionary Era and subsequent American secularists spoke with lightly tinged religious fervor, using phrases such as Divine Providence and Manifest Destiny to express their sense of America's special calling and status. However, Secular America's language of democracy tapped into the same brooding emotions that girded the Puritan vision. I sighted that the religious language which was used to tap into dreadful fear disappeared from public discourse as it mutated into the language of social reform, notably, prison reform.

Of significance is that the same leaders who met during the day to compose the Constitution met, after dinner, in a voluntary society to compose another novel vision, which is called the penitentiary. The penitentiary vision was a conscious reform of the penal practices of the Old World. It was a vision which institutionalized the New World's Shade, creating its "Inside." The penitentiary remains the only New World social institution adopted by the Old World. When, after prison, I headed a prison reform project for a nonprofit whose historic roots included leaders of the original penitentiary reformers, I found that few Americans— myself included—knew anything about the history of the penitentiary or grasped that the prison system defines America's Inside, that is, its Shade.

Of equal significance in my development, I saw how America's Inside taps into the same brooding emotion into which the Garden of Eden taps. The Garden taps into exile, abandonment, and abusive parenting. Yet, the greatest Inside reality which I suddenly understood was why the face of the Mother Goddess whose presence I discerned in prison is also a Mother Goddess present in Genesis. This stunned me as it is an insight that runs counter, heretically, to all traditional Abrahamic teaching. Yet there She was: in the Garden of Eden as She was present in prison. I realize that getting your arms and mind around this insight will take time, and so this is the main objective of Part 2. Likewise, I saw how Scientism's icon, that is, the Atomic Bomb's Mushroom Cloud, provides insight into how the forces driving globalization tap into a common brooding emotion, best defined as a state of post-traumatic stress.

Nevertheless, all these new understandings paled before my intuiting that Genesis is a tale of revenge and most astoundingly an atheistic narrative. It seeks revenge on those it calls the non-Chosen, whose main characteristic is that they worship many gods and do not hold that there is only One God. This is an atheistic movement because Genesis is not forwarding an inclusive and universalistic interpretation of Oneness. Rather, it reveals that all other gods and goddess must be rejected, shunned and disavowed, that is, excluded. Genesis states that these gods and goddess must not be worshipped. Genesis, it must be noted, does not deny the existence of other gods and goddess. Rather, it calls for their exile. The God in Genesis is the solitary One God who demands that humans disbelieve in other gods and goddesses. This is an atheistic movement, which draws a line in the sand: "Yahweh's way or the highway!"

Genesis is the seedbed for carving a personal Story that is totally committed to the Warrior's Quest way (as presented in Earthfolk Papers, Volume 1). More, it is this atheistic root that is source for the very peculiar type of Sacred Secularism that flowers in America and that scholars categorize as a "Civil Religion." It is an atheistic root that also nourishes the Scientism Big Story. Yet—and do pause to note this unusual Inside sighting—it is this atheism and its accompanying secularization that I eventually found to be the belief and movement that prepares the ground for my planting the seed of Sensual Preciousness.

As I explore in Part 2, the Secular Big Story holds promise for re-imagining an inclusive social and cultural space for the worshipping of the gods and goddesses upon whom Genesis took its revenge.

# Chapter 9: Failed imaginations

Now, I want to reassert what I consider to be one of the most profound effects of globalization. It is that to live happily and securely in the globalized world, the three dominant Big Stories can no longer serve as your source for developing your personal Story. There will come a time, as globalization ramps up, when your personal Story will require you to imagine and act in heartfelt moral ways for which your current Big Story no longer provides a guiding vision, inspirational imagery and language, nor a way to discover facts and truths. While enabling you to understand and respond to this claim is a primary task and objective of this work, throughout Sensual Preciousness I will recount how I came to this insight in my own life.

As indicated, my journey towards Sensual Preciousness began while serving time in a federal prison as a convicted violent felon. As mentioned, mine was considered a crime of violence—to the point, "interfering with the Selective Service System by force, violence or otherwise." I said "otherwise" and presented myself as a nonviolent activist. The court ruled that I was "violent." I recount this personal fact again to underscore that in creating a personal Story you confront those beliefs and values for which you are willing to suffer and place yourself in harm's way. And that, at times, your personal Story is formed when you discover your Big Story fails you in terms of vision, imagination and moral guidance.

While I sat in prison, I had to accept the fact that my personal Story was not heard, and that it was not heard by others because of the failure of my Big Story's imagination. Simply it is a Big Story in which "peace" and "nonviolence" are truly unimaginable. Yet, I had to humble myself and accept that if my Church had moved to outlaw my preaching and if my State had caged me in iron bars, possibly I should consider that both my personal Story and Big Story were truly not part of either the Church or the State's Big Story!

Perhaps you are chuckling at my keen sense of the obvious! Believe me, it was a depressingly true insight that I obtained, namely, that I had yet to find and develop a Big Story and a personal Story. Evidently, what I had preached from the pulpit, taught in the classroom, protested for on the streets and argued in court did not make any sense to those I wanted to inspire and move towards creating a peaceful world. In the decades after prison, I've found increasing numbers of people who recount a similar experience of the breakdown of their Big Story as they broke through to a new personal Story. Most, but not all of these, were my first Earthfolk contacts.

My own experience offers an example of how living out a personal Story can result in the loss of a Big Story. I can honestly say that until I ended up in prison I thoroughly explored the three dominant Big Stories with passion and intensity. I integrated chapters of each into a personal Story which enabled me to teach, preach and express my moral witness. Yet eventually, I found them wanting in terms of my own happiness and sense of security. Please note that I understand and accept that these Big Stories continue to enable multitudes to live out their lives in self-defined happiness. For myself, it was when I attempted to apply these Big Stories to global social-justice causes for improving the human condition that I found them bankrupt at their cores.

# Chapter 10: The imagination of "Mother"

I hold that we humans are artfully creative, and that we can consciously enhance the quality of our daily lives. To do so, however, requires, in this phase of globalization, a new Big Story from which to artfully compose a new personal Story. The Earthfolk offered a Big Story which began to serve as an imaginative and visionary source for my personal Story. My Earthfolk personal Story is being carved out as I write this book.

"Mother" was the first word I heard from the Earthfolk. I heard it when Inside. I peered about seeking the speaker, to find the source of the fading echo. At first it seemed ironic that I would hear this word and feel at home while locked up and surrounded by high fences topped with coils of razor-blade wire. But how else to hear an ancient voice? Where else to gain a new sight which mostly the exiled possess?

As I will relate, with Inside Sight and imprisoned ears I found "Mother" present in Genesis. The Earthfolk's vision and imagination has its own ancient roots in the Garden of Eden. For the Earthfolk were those upon whom the Lone Male God of Genesis took revenge. However, despite the Abrahamics best efforts to obliterate the memories of the gods and goddesses, they failed. Although fierce warriors who, for millennia, effectively vanquished the gods and goddesses and destroyed their temples, sacred texts, and rituals, the Abrahamics—as do most conquerors—failed to sanitize every detail.

For example, Genesis Chapter 1 affirms the existence of gods and goddesses through its "let us make man in our image and after our likeness" phrase. This chapter points to a time when men and women were imaged as equals, "in the image of God created he them; male and female created he them." With Inside Sight, these texts provide keys to grasping what Genesis does not want you to see and feel. Inside prison, I saw and felt the Earthfolk brooding emotion of being at home on Earth and grasped that it had persisted through the ages nourishing many. I left prison—the Abrahamic Shade—seeking to more fully understand what I had Sighted. In time, I saw and heard the Earthfolk. In time, I hope that you can see and hear as I have.

Realize, in this light, that much work has to be done by me, you and anyone else as these first millennial decades unfold if we want to develop a personal Story with which to address the far-reaching impacts of globalization. We face a daunting task when the world is viewed from the worst-of-times perspective, namely, life in the age of "dirty bombs," terrorism, global warming, drones, etc. It is an equally daunting task when seen from the best-of-times perspective, namely, life in a global village and the Internet's worldwide web of virtual reality. Yet, it is a challenge we must accept and for which, I hope, you find Sensual Preciousness as a source offering a guiding vision. More, that you also find this work an inspiring and imaginative source for developing a Big Story and so for deriving your personal Story so that you can dwell safely and securely in the globalized world.

# Chapter 11: Key Points

"Life changes, but everything remains the same."

Digital Age, Nuclear Age, Age of Aquarius, World-Wide-Web Youth Movement

Is everyone "online" in a virtual Internet worldwide web or snared in an endless cycle of warring and terrorism?

Other people: Are they cyberspace e-friends or illegal aliens or all One Family?

Are you happy or "normal"?

Are you empowered to "think globally, act locally" or a disempowered digital e-serfs?

You are the artful creator of your reality, which is expressed through your "artful story."

Big Story and personal Story.

Big Story explains everything. Three dominant ones are Religious Big Story, Secular Big Story, and Scientism's Big Story.

A personal Story consists of specific beliefs and values to which you are dedicated and committed, and is the source of the moral actions through which you willingly put yourself in harm's way to uphold them.

How you think and feel depends on the "story" you accept as being the one that helps you feel safe and secure, and that enables you to "make sense" out of all that is happening right now.

Globalization refers to the transformations occurring in diverse areas that are being most dramatically impacted by global economics and high-tech communications.

In court I found the three dominant Big Stories of the Religious, Secular and Scientism's are imaginatively and morally bankrupt.

The dominant Religious Big Story energizing globalization is the Abrahamic Big Story that is sacred source for Jews, Christians, Moslems and Mormons

Sensual Preciousness is a new Big Story from which the author began to develop his personal Story while doing time in a federal prison for a violent felony conviction.

"Splayed naked in The Hole, I met the Goddess who is present as Mother. "

Prison endowed me with "Inside Sight." First, I Inside sighted myself. Why had I failed to speak "Peace"?

I re-examined my whole background and journey. What blinders had I worn? What must I accept which I have denied? I was never nonviolent!

Inside Sight exposed how Biblical Genesis' Garden of Eden is source for the Big Story of "America" as the New World

Genesis is a story of revenge against the non-Chosen who worship many gods and do not believe in the One God.

Genesis is the platform for carving out a personal Story totally committed to the Warrior's Quest way

Genesis is an atheistic narrative which is source to the rise of secularization

Inside Sight exposed how prisons are the Inside of America's Big Story

With Inside Sight the iconic Atomic Bomb's Mushroom Cloud provides insight into how the forces which are driving globalization tap into a common brooding emotion which is best defined as being in a state of post-traumatic stress.

Sensual Preciousness seeks to be an inspiring and imaginative source for developing a Big Story and deriving personal Stories for people to live safely and securely at-home on the Living Earth in a globalized world.

# PART 2: BIG STORY AND PERSONAL STORY

Overview

As with Earthfolk Papers, Volume 1, the core assumption of Volume 2 is that the movement called "globalization" is causing changes in every aspect of your individual and communal life. The guide question in the Introduction , above, and here is, "How do you hold the world together?" In both sections I relate how I held my world together as I actively responded to Vietnam, the first globalized war. I analyze how and why my world fell apart as I ended up on trial in a federal courtroom and eventually served time in a federal prison. As I struggled to put my world back together, I developed an analysis and interpretation of the globalization movement in terms of a Big Story and a personal Story.

Three Big Stories dominant the globalization movement. These are the Religious Big Story, the Secular Big Story, and Scientism's Big Story. By illustrating how these three dominant Big Stories influenced me as I grew, I flesh out the moral impact of adhering to each of these Big Stories. All three Big Stories played a prominent role in my development. My journey covers breakdowns and breakthroughs during years as a young Roman Catholic altar boy, seminarian and monk, then as a "Catholic Radical" antiwar Resister to, finally, an ex-con parolee with no Big Story and no way of holding the world together either as a Catholic or an American. I drifted and searched for decades and only began to re-imagine a Big Story when I realized that I had in fact left prison with one word, one image, and it was, "Mother."

In Appendix A, "Big Story and personal Story worksheet" enables you to analyze and identify your own Big Story as you respond to my development. You are then prepared at the conclusion of Part 1 to explore the three dominant Big Stories and the types of moral, personal Stories each permits and restricts.

In the above Introduction, one stated reason for writing "Sensual Preciousness" was your need to understand the sources and causes of, and how to morally respond to, the "globalization" movement that is changing everyone's life on Earth. For some, the response is that while much is happening on the technological level, not much is really changing at the basic human level. They hold that, "Life changes, but everything remains the same." Since there is no standard or authoritative definition for "globalization," the question is not whether you are all-for or all-against globalization. Rather, it is how are you able to morally respond to the significant issues that the various aspects of globalization raise in your personal life. The task at hand is illustrated by events in my life, notably, the actions I took to imagine a world without war. These landed me in federal prison where the questions posed in this book first took seed. You are asked to look at your own Big Story and how you carve your personal Story from that Big Story. You are then asked to examine your Big Story in light of the three Big Stories which are the dynamic sources for the challenges globalization creates in various aspects of your life, such as at work, at home and as you travel or communicate globally.

In "Your Big Story and your personal Story," the concepts of a Big Story and a personal Story are explained in detail. The Big Story is the one which presents the Big Answers to life's Big Questions of who, where, when, why and how things are as they are. The personal Story is how you carve out from the Big Story you own particular, even at times idiosyncratic, way of "making everything hold together." It is your primal original work of art, with you being the object d'art. My working premise is that you must tell your Big Story and personal Story because, together, they explain your vision, values and the scope of your imagination. Moreover, they give meaning to your life.

The three dominant Big Stories are introduced and described as the Religious Big Story, the Secular Big Story, and Scientism's Big Story. These are to be defined and explored in greater detail in Part 3, "Three Dominant Big Stories. "

Each Big Story and personal Story taps into certain brooding emotions. These ground you. They make you feel safe, sane and healthy. Or unsafe, insane and diseased. How these brooding emotions are expressed through icons and rituals is explained. The act of registering with the Selective Service System is presented as a Big Story and personal Story act which, through icons and rituals, enables you to tap into certain brooding emotions, e.g., national pride and patriotism. The act of resisting the draft is also explored in like terms. The concept of good and bad aspects of a Big Story is introduced.

In "How do you hold the world together?" How you answer this question is approached through a brief description of how you form a range of nested identities as you mature. These include: personal identity, family identity, social identity, and cultural and spiritual identities. The role of critical thinking and brooding emotions in your understanding of your Big and personal Stories is presented.

In "Evaluating a Big Story and a personal Story," the focus is on explaining the role of two disciplines and practices used to evaluate a Big and personal Story. One is that, at any given moment, your Big Story is a best-of-times experience for you while it is, simultaneously, a worst-of-times experience for someone else. I describe my Roman Catholic upbringing to highlight how I was trained to "think it the best of times, but feel it as the worst." I further explore how this approach was reinforced during my brief monastic experience. My journey from obedient adherent to the traditional Roman Catholic Big Story to my personal Story of becoming a "nonviolent Jesus," anti-war, draft board raider is presented.

In federal court I presented a week-long "Defense of Necessity." Witnesses included Vietnam veterans, nationally acclaimed ecologists, theology professors, a noted American historian, priests, nonviolent activists, and Daniel Ellsberg who eventually released "The Pentagon Papers." I was convicted of a violent felony and sentenced to the maximum sentence of five years in federal prison. My Catholic personal Story, which I had carved out from the transformed Catholic Big Story sourced in the imagination of the Roman Catholic Vatican Council Two and Pope John XIII's encyclicals, was judged "irrelevant and immaterial." The thought of a French Jesuit paleontologist and spiritual visionary, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., is discussed in respect to its influence on my reimagining my Big and personal Stories.

I left prison an ex-Catholic, an ex-American, and an ex-con. In prison I lost my ability to speak. I left my American and my Catholic Big and personal Stories strewn on the courtroom floor. Then after a decade of drifting and searching, a time when I pursued doctoral historical and theological research, married and became a father, and worked as a sales and marketing senior manager in corporate America, I realized that I did leave prison with one image and one word. It took ten years to actually listen and hear this prison declaration and bring the image into focus. This singular image and word is, "Mother."

As I first spoke "Mother," so it became the initiating word of my journey towards a new Big Story. It is both a challenging Big Story Big Question, "Mother?" as it is simultaneously a Big Answer, "Mother." As this happened I encountered others with whom I bonded as we shared the brooding emotion of feeling at home on a Living Earth. Yet, I explain why the Earthfolk were an ancient people whose vision and imagination were unknown to me at that time. The central words and images of the Earthfolk vision and imagination are then presented. I tapped into their brooding emotion of being comfortably at home on the Living Earth. The full Earthfolk Big Story is presented in Earthfolk Papers, Volume 1.

The second discipline and practice is to evaluate a Big and personal Story in terms of its Sunny Spot and Shade. These terms are defined and described. Almost everyone wants to live in their Sunny Spot, and rarely describes themselves in terms of their Shade. Normally, outside agents such as friends, family, corporations, nations and churches force you to see and accept your Shade. How the identity groups discussed in section 1. B impact your sense of power and powerlessness, and how they handle their Shade is explored. That Adolf Hitler would have claimed that he lived in his Sunny Spot is discussed. Lastly, the Digital Age's promise of enabling you to "think globally, act locally" is evaluated. Personal powerlessness as an unintended consequence of being a node on the World-Wide-Web is forwarded.

In "How do you feel things are going?" I explore further how I moved from feeling miserable and tapping into the Catholic tradition's brooding dreadful fear to the brooding peacefulness and comfortableness of the Earthfolk. The significance and usefulness of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's thought is assessed. Notably, Teilhard's creation of a world-wide-web of the human heart, decades before the actual Internet was formed, is considered. My progression from accepting the brooding emotions behind "Praise the Lord and pass the ammo!" to those into which the "Just War Theory" taps, to those behind my understanding of war as an act of suicide is described. I fulfilled my military obligation by serving two years of Alternative Service on the staff at the University of Minnesota Newman Center—an on-campus Catholic student center. (Somewhat ironically, I am a "draft board raider" not a "draft dodger.")

At the Newman Center, I met the first person whose personal Story made present the Earthfolk vision. He was a returning Vietnam Vet who was suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome. He said then and later as a witness at my trial that "...instead of a hootch, it was a home. Instead of a gook, it was a person." This sentiment is the nub of the Earthfolk Big Story. As he spoke about his battlefield awakening, the ancient voice of the Earthfolk filled my ears. His battlefield awakening and insight became seed to my escalating my anti-war resistance from draft counseling to raiding draft boards. It bursts its first bud three decade's later as I began writing Sensual Preciousness.

Furthermore, you are asked to examine your own nonverbal communication style. Then, at times throughout Part 1 you are invited to use a worksheet located in Appendix A. "Big Story and personal Story worksheet—Big and personal answers."

Summary and Key Points close out Part 2.

# Chapter 12: Your Big story and your personal Story

If I asked you the major Big Questions about life, through your Big Answers you'd begin to describe and detail for me what your Big Story is. These Big Questions focus on the who, what, when, where, why and how of life, itself. Who or what created the world? When did life begin? Where is life in general and humanity specifically going? How does life progress, if at all? Why is there Evil in the world? See worksheet in Appendix A.

As we'd talked, I'd challenge you to define and refine your personal response. You might tell me, for example, that you are a biochemist and a Muslim. I'd question, "How can that be? Isn't science by definition and goal an atheistic pursuit?" In whatever fashion our back-and-forth conversation would proceed, you'd show me how you remain faithful to the Big Story as you carve out your personal Story. There might be tensions, even at times contradictions, between ideas and values in your Big and personal Stories, but you would still confess and profess that you are faithful to both.

As stated in the Introduction, I'm interested in your Big Story and personal Story and I want you to think quite critically about both because I want you to explore a new Big Story, that is, the vision of the Earthfolk and the spirituality of intimacy that defines my personal Story as an Earthfolk. I'd like you to engage that vision and if you find it inspiring to begin to carve out your own Sensual Preciousness personal Story.

While I will discuss them in greater detail in Part 2, as stated in the Introduction the Earthfolk is the name I use to identify a people, an ancient folk, whose imagination and identity has been in deep slumber for millennia. Historically, the Earthfolk vision and imagination was "re-awakened" at a globalizing moment of the Nuclear Age when the iconic images of the Atomic Bomb's Mushroom Cloud and of Starship Earth (the Blue Marble of "Sunrise Earth" photographed by the crew of Apollo 8) startled them. Iconic images stir the primal brooding emotion of a Big Story. Together, the iconic Mushroom Cloud and Starship Earth express that the ultimate victory of the Abrahamic spiritual quest—the Warrior's Quest vision— has been achieved. These images enable Abrahamics to tap into their primal brooding emotion—dreadful fear. This fear compels them to seek complete and exacting dominion over the Earth and all people. Never before, in recorded memory, have humans confronted such iconic images or felt so deeply the brooding emotion these two icons tap.

While the Mushroom Cloud validates that humans have created a weapon they cannot control—which could annihilate all life, even the earth itself—its glory is that it is the ultimate weapon, ensuring "Final victory!" Starship Earth, as the product of a military expedition, reveals that outer space can also be dominated. The military goal of America's space program remains that of creating a platform from which to wage a version of Star Wars. Yet these two iconic images are less than a century old, and few, even among scholars, have plumbed their meaning and import. For me, these two Abrahamic images open and close the final chapter in the Abrahamic Religious Big Story of dominion. When humans reflect upon these images they can only tap into the brooding emotion of dreadful fear—which inevitably and ultimately leads to suicide, here, nuclear self-annihilation.

Yet, an unintended consequence of Starship Earth was that it also served as our Earthfolk icon. As many of us beheld this image of Earth from outer space, an ancient memory of Her, of Mother, of our Mother God stirred. Instead of seeing the Earth as a solitary planet adrift in oceanic darkness, and one fit only for conquest, for Earthfolk this image enabled us to tap into the long suppressed brooding emotion of feeling "at home" on Earth. Starship Earth re-inserted into the collective human imagination the image of Earth as Living and as our Mother. It threw off the oppressive Abrahamic image of Earth as a place of exile, inhabited by a cursed people. In exhilarating contrast, it stirred the memory that all humans are one family with just one home. This at home feeling had been effectively usurped and overridden for millennia by the Abrahamic emotion of feeling abandoned and cursed in their exile on Earth.

Of even greater import, Starship Earth stimulated the desire for intimacy, to be seen not as the Abrahamic's Intimate Enemy but as Beloved. As "Mother" awakes so does "Father" as divine consort. We are children of divine parents who behold each other as Beloveds. Through our embrace of the Other as Beloved so do we make manifest the spirituality of Sensual Preciousness. These themes are explored in fuller detail in Volume 1.

At first we did not call ourselves "Earthfolk." None of us had a coherent Big Story. Rather, we had personal Stories that spoke to our convictions and commitments. "Earthfolk" came later. The name emerged from our shared feeling of being at home on Earth and our intuition that being comfortably at-home on Earth is the primal brooding human emotion. When I mentioned that I practiced "living as if I am no one's Enemy," this phrase resonated with many. Others spoke of their Shade experiences—of their breakdowns and breakthroughs. From these seemingly serendipitous meetings, a gossamer network of what I initially called "re-imaginers" slowly developed. What also deeply bonded us was the heartfelt certainty that spiritual insight and transformation came through moments of shared intimacy. More than a few of us had been prisoners of conscience. Many had already set about creating personal rituals of intimacy. All had moved beyond the darkness of despair and were seeking ways to express their creativity, what I term their artful stories.

By 2006 I had begun work on college campuses to develop programs to support a play written about the draft raids of the "Minnesota 8." Peace Crimes: the Minnesota 8 vs. the war had a successful run in the winter of 2008. By that time, through successes and failures, I learned about the mind-set and soul-set of contemporary youth. Learning with and from them, the vision of the Earthfolk, alive in their hearts, minds and souls, became clearer. See, http://www.minnesota8.net and http://www.pwh-mn.org

When the Internet became established, connections with others around the world grew. The notion of sacred sexuality became an Internet search term before it entered the popular culture. It was another phrase which stirred the ancient memory of the intimate embrace of our divine Mother and Father from whose intimacy we arose. In its formative stages, ours remained mainly a virtual network. Overtime, I listened to what these others were hearing. I grasped that there were ancient voices incarcerated within the Abrahamic Big Story that spoke of Her. I was shown that there were alternative interpretations of Genesis and other stories in the Abrahamic tradition that through millennia kept alive a spirituality that tapped into the feeling of being at home on Earth. These suppressed interpretations, I intuited, were what I myself had been hearing from my earliest years despite my traditional upbringing. Somehow, while at daily Mass, as I worshipped the Warrior Father God, I tapped into the brooding emotions that gave rise to my first Earthfolk act—raiding draft-boards.

The Earthfolk vision values the pre-Biblical, polytheistic peoples and spiritualities that Genesis was composed to defeat. Naming ourselves as Earth's folk became useful because it sharply contrasted with the Abrahamic Big Story that speaks of the earth as dirt, a realm to be dominated and a place of exile. Likewise, as folk of the Earth, we affirm that everyone is Chosen—that there is no Chosen People. Abrahamics seek to die in a state of holiness to achieve access to paradise. For Earthfolk, the Living Earth is paradisiacal. Of note is that there is no desire on the part of Earthfolk to create an Earthfolk sect. Rather, it is useful simply as a term of common reference for those who feel at home on the Living Earth. The name is not as important as is the experience. The Earthfolk vision and Sensual Preciousness imagination continues to blossom as we daily practice rituals of intimacy. (For Earthfolk rituals, see Volume 1.)

To effectively present the Earthfolk vision and practice of Sensual Preciousness, and to enable you to make a decisive evaluation of the Earthfolk, I need you to conduct a deeply critical evaluation of your own Big Story and personal Story. Consequently, I will define, describe, explore and evaluate what I judge to be the three dominant Big Stories driving the present worldwide transformation of every aspect of human effort—economic, social, cultural and spiritual—namely, the movement termed "globalization." As previously identified, these three are the Religious Big Story, the Secular Big Story and the Scientism Big Story.

Brooding emotions, icons and rituals

You do not, presently, use the descriptors Big Story and personal Story. I employ them because of both their simplicity and depth. In slang, if I asked, "What's your story?" meaning, tell me why you're doing what you just did, you'd understand what I want. You'd know that I was asking, "What makes you tick?" in the deep inner personal sense of "What is really driving you, in your heart and gut, to do this?" At another level, you've heard or seen, most likely by viewing one of the several documentary storytelling Cable TV channels, the "story" of this or that people, from a historical, archaeological, religious, etc., perspective. For example, the story of a people, such as the Dreamtime story of the Australian Aborigines.

Brooding emotions

While a Big Story encompasses what is referred to as a worldview or gestalt, even Zeitgeist, it is these but more than all these together. A Big Story is the source for the imagination, vision and inspiration of a people. More importantly, it is the source for the brooding emotions that ground a people. It is the brooding or source story that ties a person to his group as the group tells the story to tie itself to the universe. I use "brooding" because it is a story that "hatches" its people, from which they come as a chicken does an egg. Brooding emotions are your depth feelings about which you are often unaware. Surface feelings often mask a brooding emotion, which again is that which grounds your sense of being safe, healthy and sane.

Brooding conveys images of both birthing and perplexing reflective moodiness. It is a fitting word for the deep reflection required to discern how your Big Story creates both the best or worst of times. Brooding emotions are what you tap into when you act morally in those situations where you put yourself in harm's way or at great personal risk. One translation of Genesis 1:1 opens, "with the Spirit of God brooding over the dark vapors." (PTL's The Living Bible.)

Your personal Story is the unique, often idiosyncratic, very special result of your brooding upon the Big Story. You brood and carve out and rearrange the deeply felt parts of your Big Story that enables you to sustain your mental and emotional health as you act passionately and morally in the world.

Your brooding emotions, as contrasted to surface feelings, are often linked to an iconic image. Moreover, the iconic image is often a part of a ritual, even a liturgical event, which enables you to express your passion and moral convictions.

# Chapter 13: Secular Big Story's ritual of registration for the Selective Service System

For example, in America's Secular Big Story of "Patriots defend Democracy!" patriotism is defined as a willingness and a commitment to defend America. To defend "We, the People." Yet, there is something quite peculiar about how you come to be an American patriot. Simply, if you are a young male, it is illegal not to be a patriot! To understand this nuance, let's look at the one singular and special act that every male American must do when he turns eighteen.

Every male, regardless of physical or mental health or capacity must register with the Selective Service System. Once registered there are a range of deferments for health and other reasons. However, the Secular Big Story's act of registration is a rite of passage, a ritual act. Compulsory registration ensures that every male hears himself clearly called to imagine himself as a warrior (Warrior's Quester). He hears "We, the People" call. Although women can enlist, presently, they do not have to register.

At eighteen you register at a Selective Service Office. By signing the Registration form you enter "the draft." You are required to do this even during peace time, and even when there is a war mobilized by a volunteer army. Either you visit a Selective Service Office or somehow you get the form. Notably, in this Digital Age you have the option to go online and register. For most, the act and day of registration is not memorable. What is memorable is the day you are drafted or enlist. (Since 2001, in most states when you get your driver's license you automatically register with the Selective Service. http://www.sss.gov )

When you are drafted or when you enlist, you are called to Boot Camp. There you undergo several fairly standard rituals. You are put through a bodily and visceral process where you, yourself, become an icon of patriotism. Slowly, your body is transformed. You are put through a ritual of cleansing and grooming so that you "look like a soldier." You wear special outfits. You learn to walk in a soldierly way. Depending on your service unit, you learn how to properly march with your comrades in arms. When you achieve soldierly status and stature, you can proclaim with pride, "I am a man!

Warrior's Quest primal brooding emotion

As you progress from recruit to active-duty soldier, you learn how to think and feel like a Warrior's Quester. You tap into a brooding emotion that is primal, not superficial. While you may have tapped into other brooding emotions as you registered or enlisted (such as a swell of patriotic feeling during the early phases of your military duty) now as you prepare for war drill instructors force you to consciously tap into a primal brooding emotion, that of killing another human being. It is descriptive of their self-conscious intent, and not a weak pun, to say that they "drill" this primal brooding emotion into your brain and heart and soul. You somewhat monastically intone and ritualistically shout, "Kill! Kill! Kill!"

You come to cuddle and be intimate with your gun. You learn the ritual chant of hating the enemy. You become submissively obedient. More, you become "blindly obedient." You learn not to question—especially not to critically question. Whether you like it or not, your drill instructors and leaders successfully break you down and build you up so that you are a "killing machine." Significantly, this change in your personal identity, namely, becoming Killer, is the basis for forming your social group identity as team. You become "unit."

As you become an "American" icon and as you tap into your primal brooding emotion as a Warrior's Quest killer, you confront the very core values of your personal Story. Ironically, for you as for most, it is likely the first time ever that you have been forced to consciously consider that you will lay down your life for your fellow soldiers. For he is you—team. Again, for you it is most likely the first time ever that you have been called to answer the spiritual Big Question, "Am I my brother's keeper?" In response, you are expected to act heroically, with a heroism that approaches spiritual sainthood, that is, martyrdom. It is expected that you will make and sustain a passionate commitment and dedication to warring.

You learn that you are not only your brother's keeper, protecting all your fellow soldiers, but that you are to be ready at any moment to surrender your life for theirs. At this moment, chapters of your Religious and Secular Big Story mesh. Or else, possibly for the first time ever, you "get religion." There is a reason for the maxim, "There are no atheists in foxholes."

As you tap into the primal brooding emotion of killing, you also encounter your deepest brooding fears. You fear that you will not be able to pass the test of killing the enemy. You are haunted by feelings of cowardice and you tremble during those moments when you let yourself ponder the fact that you, yourself, might die.

The icons of military life are numerous, as are those in the formal Religious Life of monks, such as the Franciscans whom I joined. Military dress is the basic icon, to which are added badges, insignias and medals for valor and other deeds. The rifle and other weapons of destruction are obviously iconic. In sum, warfare itself is a ritual event. As I will discuss later, warfare in the American Big Story is a bedrock ritual. In this light, the president as commander-in-chief cannot not go to war. Whether the war is cold or hot, it is essential that Americans regularly and continually perform the ritual of warring.

"Hell No! We won't go!" icons of war resistance

As a Big Story is often expressed through quite diverse, often contradictory and at times adversarial personal Stories, so are their icons which represent these differing or dissenting personal Stories. These dissident icons serve to highlight the primal icons of a Big Story. Patriotic icons include the American flag, original copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the Liberty Bell, draft cards, veteran group insignias, such as of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) caps and banners, and others.

I watched numerous anti-war rallies—from a far distant position—before I began to identify myself as an anti-war resister. I observed the change in how the flag was handled in public. Resisters, as well as returning veterans, began to wear flags as clothing. Soon it became chic to wrap oneself in a flag or sport it as fashion. When flags were burned, nothing much happened. Desecration of the flag is considered part of Free Speech, and it is not a crime. As an icon, then, while the flag evokes certain brooding emotions, it does not tap into the primal emotion of America's Big Story.

If I had stolen and desecrated the treasured original copy of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, or took a sledge hammer to the Liberty Bell and smashed it to smithereens, or even if I set fire to the Judaeo-Christian Bible or the Koran or the Book of Mormon, I'd generate a lot of hate, possibly a fist fight, even a bit of legal trouble. In dramatic contrast, if I convinced you to burn your draft card, Whoa! "The Man" comes out of the crowd, swoops over in helicopters, recklessly careens with paddy-wagon lights blaring, strong-arms you, handcuffs and chains you up. Whoa! again.

Burning a draft card is not Free Speech. For it is not an act of speaking as it is an act of resisting the primal emotion. You are expressing your nonviolent convictions through a passionate act that conveys that you refuse to feel warlike. You refuse to tap into the primal emotion of killing. The draft card—and only the draft card—is the primal icon of America's Warrior's Quest Big Story. If you have lingering doubts, consider that to desecrate the draft card is considered an act of felony violence. You are interfering with the Selective Service System by force, violence or otherwise. As in my particular situation, the courts said "violence" even when I claimed it was an "otherwise" act of nonviolent protest. Lastly, for what gravity of offense does the court sentence first-time offenders, with no rap-sheet backgrounds and advanced education, to a maximum sentence of five years? Consider: the draft card is to the Warrior's Quest what the Eucharist host is to Catholics, that is, a sacramental—a holy instrument that makes its God present.

Loss of the ritual of "marching off to war"

Finally, let me call your attention to a fact I believe has momentous import in evaluating America's Secular Big Story. Historically, warriors went "marching off to war" through a public parade. Since the dawn of globalization, America has ceased to both declare its wars and to conduct a public parade for marching off to war. The loss of this ritual moment is a highly significant fact. This loss is linked to the moment when the draft card became iconic. It did so after World War Two when President Harry Truman created the "peace-time draft." From that moment forward, every eighteen year old America was legally required to register or face imprisonment. After every previous American war, the draft, if used, was disbanded at war's end. The peace-time draft is the ritual event that characterizes the act and fact of Endless Warring. Note, moreover, that this ritual loss is a defining characteristic of the first globalized war, that is, the Vietnam War. The soldiers of my generation never went marching off to war, and they never demobbed to the roar of the crowd and the blare of triumphant bugles.

BIG STORY consists of Patriots "Defend Democracy!" The secular ritual when at 18 every male must Register (deferments for disabilities & other reasons come later). The main emotions are ones of patriotism, honor, goodness. "Boot Camp" is the phrase and place of iconic transformation. "To the "battlefield!" is the heroic and spiritual call to place your life in harm's way, even sacrifice yourself for your fellow soldiers and others. On the battlefield you confront deepest fears as you tap into primal brooding emotion: killing another human. Warring is American social & cultural ritual. However, ironically, since WWII, "Marching off to war" and "Coming Home" are lost social and cultural rituals (a key reason for the epidemic of pots-traumatic stress syndrome, PTSD).

personal STORY consists of Registering for Selective Service, "the draft"— the one singular and special act that every male American must do when he turns eighteen even in "peace time" and with a volunteer army. Join to obtain enlistment and veteran benefits, as an act of family pride as gain social status as "war veteran" (implies "hero"). Body, mind and soul are integrated through Boot Camp into identity as a "killing machine." Tap into primal brooding emotion—fear of being a coward and fear of dying. "I am a man!" Yet face the Peril of Endless War and never leaving battlefield (which is realized through present practice of multiple, often serial, reassignments to the battlefield).

Good and bad aspects of your Big Story

The first brooding inquiry, then, is to determine how you hold your world together. This requires an exploration of your various identities. You ponder, "Who am I?" You reflect upon your personal, familial, social and cultural identities. You wonder, "How am I to approach the Other?" The Other is the stranger, the alien, the outsider. He is someone with whom you must consciously develop a relationship because all about him is unfamiliar. So, do you approach him as if family, or as a friend or compatriot? Or, do you regard him as your enemy, a heretic, a gook? As you brood, you begin to develop a way to explore and evaluate your own and other Big Stories.

For this evaluation, I discuss how to read a Big Story in respect to its creating a world that can be described as "the best-of-times, the worst-of-times." My challenge to you, during your initial wondering, is to develop an approach that ensures that you look at your Big and personal Story in depth. This requires you accepting that there are, and then exploring, the good and the bad aspects of your stories. I refer to this as your Big Story creating a best-of-times and a worst-of-times vision.

It takes more than a bit of courage to look at how your Big Story effects a worst-of-times experience for others as it is, quite often, simultaneously one of your best-of-times. Most of us prefer not to explore our personal Story's full depth, especially its worst-of-times. Yet, as I see it, we—you and I—must sound the depths. To explore this depth, I discuss how everyone seeks to inhabit a Sunny Spot, and how this Sunny Spot relates to the darkness which surrounds and describes the Sunny Spot, namely, the Shade.

Probing in depth means examining one's own Big Story and personal Story in terms of the upbeat, heady vision it offers but doing so by being honest about its less-sunny, shadier aspects. The Shade often requires examining the unintended consequences of the Big Story that, at times, creates a worst-of-times reality for many while you are having a best-of-times experience. Such a Shady examination opens you to possible insights into the realities of your Big Story's and even your personal Story's dark intentions, malicious deeds, even, evil deeds and actions. This can cause great anxiety, even psychological breakdown.

For example, the Atomic Bomb was created by the best scientific and military minds in America. Its use put a once-and-for-all-time end to a world war. Americans cheered its creation and deployment. Yet, several unintended consequences ensued. Americans created a weapon they could not, and cannot, control. In this light, Americans dropped the Bomb on themselves! They opened the Nuclear Age where the only way to win is not to go to war. But such has not been the case. Instead of being part of the War-to-end-all-war, it can be argued that World War II has never ended. Rather, it was the opening chapter in the Big Story titled The Endless War.

Likewise, the Nazis used advanced bio-chemical agents to exterminate millions of people. Few Americans would hesitate to cite the Nazis as evil people. Probing in depth means considering this question—Did the creation and dropping of the Atomic Bomb, which vaporized thousands, make present Americans as a good people? Wasn't what was the best-of-times for Americans clearly the worst-of-times for the Japanese ("Orientals")? But wasn't it really also a worst-of-times for Americans? We are the only people in recorded memory to vaporize human life, and all associated life in the area. Can nuclear vaporization ever be a moral good?

# Chapter 14: How do you hold the world together?

Generally, you hold your world together through the identities you form over time by recognizing and accepting the groups you are born into and/or by choosing to join various groups. Each group provides you with Big Story material with which to carve out your personal Story. During each identity phase, you develop parts of your Big Story and personal Story as you interact with group members and then with those outside the group. While your particular identity formation path is unique, in broad terms, you engage familial, social, cultural and religious groups as you mature.

While I discuss the Shade aspects of identity formation, the following presentation assumes that you grew up in a healthy family, which was loving, nurturing and not abusive.

Personal identity

You, as I and all others are born "in the middle of things." By the time you become self-aware, one of the most dynamic, growth-filled and formative periods of your life has already happened. This is the "age of innocence" phase when you are closely held, your every step watched, and during which you are regularly embraced by others. All your experience is intimate. The "other" is friendly and nurturing. This is when you are most closely parented. You are nurtured physically and, most significantly, emotionally. Before you have concepts and words for them, "others" embrace you and feed you from their hearts. You feel safe within an embrace. When you become self-aware, it is at that emotional moment when you knowingly embrace others. As you become aware of others, you become aware of "you." This you has a special name.

Family identity

The personal "you" awakens when all of a sudden you realize that not only do you have a name but others have names. It is at this time that the word "you" draws you into dynamic interplay with others. It is a word others use to help you understand "who you are"—which becomes "me." You begin to name your story's other players: parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. You practice writing your name.

My middle name is Xavier, my first is Francis. Both names put me squarely among famous Catholic saints. "You're named after Saint Francis Xavier. He carried God's Word to the Japanese pagans." This was said by my maternal grandmother and her intent was to make me aware that I had been "chosen." At an early age, I was given a name that told others of my parent's expectations, namely, that I would be a priest, specifically a Jesuit like St. Francis Xavier. While I clearly didn't grasp the import of this at the time, my name always evoked a knowing nod or telling look from the nuns who taught me. They knew what my name implied.

Perhaps your name too evokes expectations, familial heritage or special significance?

As you grow increasingly aware of yourself, you begin to name everyone and everything around you. You discover a fuller meaning of "family." And as I did, you often become aware of a name's peculiarity, such as the c before the k in Kron-c-ke. Someone told me, "You're German, that's why." Not much was said about being German, a matter that I only came to understand later as I learned about the Nazis. Since my church was filled with German-Irish families that still included immigrant and first-generation members, the talk was about "being an American" and not about ethnicity. Only the Irish talked about the Old Sod. In fact, many of German descent, like my father, made a conscious effort to affirm their Americanism by enlisting, as he did in the Navy, to fight the Nazi der Fuhrer.

Then, as you name yourself and those around you, your own name becomes more distinct and special to you and to others. This interplay between the growing awareness of yourself as a "you" and a "me" marks those years during which you hear others say, "He's growing up so fast!"

For most, again assuming that the family is a healthy unit, you feel safe at home. You also sense that the "other" is not you, and that others have families. While you are warned to be aware and distrustful of strangers, you realize that you live in a neighborhood, which again is usually a secondary safety zone. Soon, you arrive at an acute stage of self-awareness. You enter adolescence.

Social identity

As a teen you begin to feel socially awkward, self-conscious and sensitive to external evaluation. You develop two identities, private and public personalities. You sense your inner life. This is the phase wherein you probably feel that it is "me against the world!" Your sense of safety is only among those like you. You come to know others as different, odd, unusual or like you. You seek to join a "pack." In my case, I sought identity through sports and being an altar boy. You might have joined an organization or an association, for example, the track team, Boy Scouts, 4-H or Order of Job's Daughters. In these latter groups, you clarify your shared and/or separating values.

Overall, you grasp that there are the young and the old. As in each generation, at times you feel only comfortable with those your same age. Although it was at the end of this identity phase for me, being a "child of the Sixties," I found membership in the global "Youth Movement." The outward signs of being hip were long hair, folk and early rock-and-roll music, an openness to smoking marijuana, and an attitude of rejecting parental authority, which was eventually anchored in "Resist Authority!"

Soon, you realize that so many others have lived before you. You discover your familial past. "Oh, you're just like your grandfather." You become aware of yourself as a distinct player within your own family unit. You also become aware of your family's distinct identity. Without necessarily having the concepts or language, you become aware of your socio-economic, political, religious and sexual identities. You come to face all the "others"—nearby, in the neighborhood and far distant who are in your world. You begin to develop a set of values.

During these first two phases of initial self-awareness, you begin to form answers to the Big Questions, and start to carve out your personal Story, notably, to the very personal question, "Who am I?" You start to learn how to tell the first chapter of your own personal Story as it explains who you are inside your family. Soon, you learn how to begin to tell other chapters of the Big Story that ground your family in a larger social context. You learn how to tell your Big Story in respect to the quality of the neighborhood where you live, your ethnic identity, your parents' work careers—often with corporate identities and titles, your religious affiliation, and even, in certain homes, your political persuasion.

Cultural identity

You begin to develop your cultural identity that forms your global personality, that is, how you fit within the world community. You discover the particulars, even peculiarities, of your personal, familial and social identities. You experience their complementarity and distinctiveness. You sense a certain emotional safety inside national boundaries and for the first time become aware of the intellectual tradition of your groups.

In my case, I was a German-Irish, Roman Catholic American from Bayonne, New Jersey, a working-class town, whose father was a chemist for "3M," and who knew that the family voted for "Ike," meaning Republican. I didn't know how they all fit together but they began to provide me with a sense of boundaries.

Spiritual identity

Soon the Big Questions that address the issues of Life and Death arise, and it feels urgent to answer them. "Where did we come from? Where are we going? Why are we here?" This leads to an examination of those spiritual parts of your Big Story that offer you a vision and language about your "eternal self."

During my spiritual awakening, all of the Big Questions and Answers were handed to me in a doctrinal and dogmatic book, "The Baltimore Catechism." More, I was not to question but to recite the catechism by rote. Each day I had a Catechism lesson and eagerly raised my hand to answer, "Who made us?" Me: "God made us." "Why did God make us?" Me: "To show forth His goodness and to share with us His everlasting happiness in heaven." And so forth for roughly 500 Questions and Answers which covered just about every moral act. My personal Story, then, was determined by my Big Story. Its imagination, vision and morality were mine in every and exacting detail.

During the development of my cultural and spiritual phases, I also became aware of certain relevant parts of my Roman Catholic Big Story. Through them I learned about certain others who were either enemies, corrupters, or allies. I understood, for example, that I was not to play with Protestant children nor enter their churches. All that I knew was that they were "temptations to your faith." I didn't know exactly what that meant, however. Curiously, we could play with Jewish kids. I heard that they had "rejected Christ," and for some reason this made them safe. I guess that there was no fear that I'd convert to Judaism, plus I was told—and sufficiently frightened by the statement—that they killed animals in their temples. Yet, there was a curious bond that was reflected in a shared sacred scripture, though they were Old and we were New. Initially, Jews as the "other" were accepted as manifesting the presence of God. I was to accept that they were God's Chosen People, but understand that they had lost their way. Nevertheless, their "Old Testament" Big Story was a source for my "New Testament." It would be decades before I grasped how insulting this Old/New distinction was to Jews.

I also, without any inquiry, accepted certain icons. Every room in my house and school had a crucifix. Holy Water fonts, large and small, were likewise omnipresent. Religious statues and pictures were abundant. I carried a set of Rosary beads and my family had an oversized version housed in a plastic statue of the Blessed Mother that we used for family prayer. Of note is that book-ending the sacred altar of Holy Sacrifice was the flag of the United States and its companion, the flag of the Papacy. It also drew no comment when soldiers and veterans wore their dress uniforms as they attended Holy Mass on specific holidays and holy days.

In your own life, as you proceed through these formative years, you begin to understand the "history and culture" of your people both nationally and globally. For me, I learned that my culture and history were separate. That while I was an American, I was not "100% American" because of my Big Story with its Pope in Rome. It wasn't until John Kennedy was elected that this element in my Big Story shifted. Kennedy's personal Story, that is, his convincing America that he was a true-blue 100% American while simultaneously being Catholic, changed my Big Story. Beforehand, being Catholic meant exclusion from certain aspects of American society and culture. Now every facet of America's Big Story, of American society and culture, could become part of my personal Story. I inherited my father's strong Germanic traits and so comfortably matched a dogged obedience to the Pope with a profession of complete confidence in democracy. Dad would say, "Once a man is elected President, you stop criticizing him. You follow him." God and the State were integral parts of my Big Story. Yet if I had to choose, there was no doubt that I was at heart a Catholic first and an American second.

In comparison to my social identity group, where everything in America's Big Story was open to become part of mine, this integration has yet to occur for others who share only partial chapters of that Big Story, for example, American Jews and women. Americans, as a whole, still cannot imagine a Jewish or female president.

Summary of Big Story and personal Story – American and Catholic

BIG STORY was that Roman Catholics are not 100% American. That obedience to the Pope conflicts with Democracy, and so a real American could justly question Catholic president's allegiance. John F. Kennedy's election changes the American Catholic Big Story. All aspects of American Big Story can now become part of my Catholic Big Story. Icons include: crucifixes, holy water fonts, and statues of Saints.

personal STORY was grounded in the "Baltimore Catechism" which clearly states and articulates all Big Questions and Big Answers. Central truth is that a Catholic must obey Pope before any other authority, yet John Kennedy seeks and gets elected president. Now all aspects of American society can become part of my Catholic personal Story. Nevertheless, I remain a Catholic first and an American second.

# Chapter 15: Encountering other Big Stories

Growing up, you become aware that for some their spiritual identity forms around denying that they have a spiritual identity. For me atheists were seen as tempters, as evil people who were in league with Satan. Nevertheless, during these early times of cultural and spiritual awareness, few obtain a good grasp of how others with different Big Story identities react and why they do so to your self-description, your family's story or your social and cultural Big Story.

During each of these phases you are continually expanding your Big and personal Stories. In time, you broaden and deepen your stories as you search for Big Answers to other questions of social, political, sexual, moral, etc., concerns. As these answers form, you begin to mature, that is, parent yourself, "become your own man." Or woman. Eventually, the Big Questions become far-reaching and complex. For example, if you belong to a religious group outside the mainstream of American Protestantism, you discover that some people challenge whether you can be an American and, say, a Buddhist. When you first encounter such a truly Big Question, you not only don't understand how to answer it, you also likely don't grasp its full intent and import. You've yet to read the subtext in questions from outsiders. To do so, requires the skill of critical thinking.

IDENTITIES. Personal identity wakens as you are born "in the middle of things"—from out of the intimacy of others, your parents. It is normally an Age of Innocence where you are closely parented and safe within an embrace. "You" appears as you knowingly embrace others. "You" awakens as you are "named" and you sense that your "name" is special.

Your Family identity is first experienced through an interactive group of other "you's." You sense that other families are somewhat the same but somehow different. You feel safe at "home." Your Big and personal Story are one with the family story. The "other" is friendly, nurturing. You begin to form a distinct personality. Slowly you realize that the "other" is "not me" but that these parental or sibling "others" also call themselves family. The "other" is also your "neighbor."

Social identity forms mainly during adolescence where you are "self-conscious" and have a sense of yourself as "other." You feel safe in "the pack," as part of a "youth movement," and gain as sense of your "inner life."

You develop both a private and a public personality. You find that some "others" are different, odd, unusual or even threatening. The sense of yourself as "other" and of the difference with some "others" is related to organizations that are joined, which often give you a sense of shared and/or separating values.

Cultural identity emerges as you gain a sense of belonging to a Nation and/or Traditions. You understand that there are global personalities and that you can opt to become global. Mostly, you are safe inside national boundaries and inherited intellectual Traditions. You learn about values that are worth your dying for. Now the "other" might be enemy or corrupter or ally. Curiously, you are taught that some of these "other"—nations, traditions, people—are an ancient source for your Tradition and its values. At times "other" is totally foreign, even strange and alien—someone to dread.

Spiritual identity normally arises as you attend a Church or sacred site and learn about a specific religion. You are called to experience your Eternal Self, and learns mystical definitions of self and other. Often, you join as an exclusive member, e. g., one of a "Chosen People," where the "other" is not only not-Chosen but also Tempter, Evil One or a Saint. However, you also learn that you are an inclusive member in a larger, mystical, cosmic "body," such as being one of the Children of God or in the Body of Christ. Here, at times, the "other" is specially prized as making present the Love of God or the wisdom of a Great Spirit. Most significantly, you learn about the truths and values for which, as a believer/follower, you must be willing to die—"To lay down your life."

# Chapter 16: Critical thinking and brooding emotions

Critical thinking

As you mature, your Big Story expands to include or consciously reject segments of the Big Stories of others. Here, you learn that some who had seem different, for example, your Moslem playmate or someone who claimed to be an atheist, share a key political aspect of your cultural Big Story, namely, you are both American. You learn that the political narrative in the historical chapter of the Big Story states that America is inclusive. The Statue of Liberty settles into your mind as an icon, "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

You feel pride in being an American whose "national identity" is sought by and offered to immigrants and refugees from other social and cultural Big Stories. You learn that waves and waves of others—grateful immigrants—desire to rewrite their personal Stories by adopting a chapter in your Big Story vision, that is, the "American way of life." At the same time, you get inklings that other Big Stories are sourced in some widely varying and sometimes apparently wild beliefs, values and histories. You begin to hear about certain "foreigners" who are "anti-Americans." You learn that these are not allowed to enter the country, or entered and were then deported.

These latter "first inklings" often arise when you first hear about unhappy chapters in your Big Story. This is the first time you are challenged into critical thinking. It is the first time you learn that other Big Stories actually want to destroy your Big Story. For example, you listen to accounts about surviving the purges of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge's "Killing Fields." You might have had some preparation for this if your family had begun to tell you "the same old family stories" but with a different Shady slant.

You hear, "You're grown up now, enough to learn that you grandfather ..." And so you learn about your family's Shady side. Possibly about alcoholism, drug addiction, divorce, spousal abuse, criminality or simply a sullying of your ideal image, "Your Uncle Jim, see, he's what we call a 'fallen away' Catholic." Now, you also hear about "enemies." Words and images such as hero, warrior, savage, traitor, coward, infidel and heretic may enter your imagination.

Through this early critical thinking, your personal and Big Stories are becoming more distinctly formed and you are grounding yourself. You are staking down the various identities that form "you." In some situations, you are moved by an unsettling critical thought. As a draft counselor, I often heard a version of an account where, while you are talking with your wounded cousin who just returned from Vietnam, your dad breaks into the conversation, sternly admonishing, "Enough's enough, I don't want to hear any more of this type of talk!" Perhaps this command came because your cousin shifted from sharing with you his early enthusiasm for serving his country to urging you, "Whatever you do, don't enlist!" Quite often, such "that's not our Story" events happen when religious or political issues are discussed. Possibly, in some families, this occurs more often around issues of sexual morality. "I don't care if she is on the pill, you are not to treat women that way! No son of mine ..."

As you mature even further, you are challenged to take your place in society. You are asked serious questions about your future. You are expected to give firm answers about the type of work you are going to do, when you plan to marry, how you handle your money, what your political and moral views are, and so forth. You find yourself entering into challenging and complex topics such as the role of government, abortion, environmental responsibilities, faith, economic impact of globalization, and so on.

You are making life decisions and, with more or less self-awareness, you are stabilizing your Big and personal Stories. If you enter college you likely begin to meet others who are vocal and aggressive about their Big Story and the commitments of their personal Stories. Sometimes, these people even get "in your face." You cannot but viscerally react to them. Curiously, they may put you in touch with your own convictions and gut feelings. If you study some liberal arts courses, such as history, anthropology, comparative religions, ethics, etc., you, ideally, begin to understand how Big and personal Stories play out in individual lives and across societies and cultures down through history.

Brooding emotions

During your maturation your social, cultural and spiritual phases merge as you are confronted by a call to social service of some sort. You are asked to act on behalf of and to serve others. You are called to consider putting your life in harm's way. You may even begin to contemplate dying at a young age. You might enlist in the military. Or join a public service organization like VISTA or the Peace Corps. Or simply become active in social service or social justice organizations. You are developing a civic sense and an understanding of the obligations of citizenship.

Whichever path you take, it is a time when you are quite attuned to what you want your personal Story to be, and so you seek to delve the depths of the Big Questions and Big Answers. Of significance, is that this is the period when you accept or reject questions and answers in respect to how they enable you to feel. You plumb them in a quest to anchor your life-risking patriotic commitment, or to feel secure about God's judgment as you undergo an abortion, or to source your determination to propose marriage. It is the time when you access and discover—not always consciously discover, however—your brooding emotions.

As you critically probe these dizzying Big Questions, you might begin to sense that the Big Answers are possibly broader and deeper in intellectual scope than you can handle, even too complex for most people to have ready answers. You understand the difference between opinions and well researched thoughts. Yet, your daily life is rapidly moving in other directions, and you hear yourself asking, "Who has time for all this heady stuff?" You might begin to let others do the thinking and acting for you. So you join organizations—social, political, professional, religious, etc.—that will represent you. These provide you with articulated fundamentals, namely, creeds, doctrines, dogmas, codes of ethics, and archives of "position papers." Once you join, you may stop critically thinking about these topics. Indeed, these groups enable you to effortlessly tap into the brooding emotion which grounds them. As a member, you feel deeply patriotic or faithful or lawful or obedient. Whenever you want to brood, you simply attend a meeting, go to a rally, make a donation, attend a service, or so forth.

In my Catholic Big Story, a long-standing tradition is built on doing good works. At an early age I was aware of the demand to be a servant of the Greater Good (God and His laws) to realize the Common Good (service to others). The Big Story made this call to servanthood—to be a "Servant of Servants"—a required part of my personal Story. The Catholic tradition is one that mandates a commitment to social justice as a manifestation of faith.

Through all of this, your Big Story and your personal Story become quite tightly wound together. If someone challenges you personally, you feel that they are challenging your Big Story. And, vice versa: anyone challenging your Big Story is challenging you.

By this time in your growth—and there are no hard-and-fast age boundaries to this process—you have carved out a personal Story that might actually, if not perfectly, jibe with your Big Story. You have selected specific parts of a Big Story and rejected or minimalized others. Perhaps you are Jewish. With your Jewish friends you agree about interfaith marriage, are fairly consistent in attending the synagogue, and observe in a traditional manner most of the holy days. Yet you disagree about the State of Israel. You support Israel because it is there; that's a fact. But you are not a Zionist. You are open to some negotiation with the Palestinians. Yet, you'd never say that outside of your Jewish circle. In public, you artfully deflect and avoid the issues when conversing with non-Jews.

In time, you reach the stage where you have a fully articulated personal Story. Your personal Story is your commitment story. From this point on, if someone knows your personal Story, he or she knows the range of moral and heartfelt acts you are willing to take. When others talk with you, say about capital punishment, and make a broad statement, "You're an atheist so I expect that you believe ...," you counter with your personal Story, either to affirm or dispel the outsider's assumption.

Your personal Story is how you remain in a Big Story but also a bit outside of it. It is one basis for how you can remain a critical thinker. "I'm a Republican," you might say, "but I agree with the Democrats on..." Or, "I'm an American but really aren't we all just people?" At this point, your personal Story might cease to grow and expand. "That's what I have believed since I was five, and I'm not going to change!"

While the specific Big Answers provided by the three dominant Big Stories is presented later in this section, the worksheet in Appendix A provides assistance in preparing to understand and evaluate these Big Answers by jotting down the first draft of your own Big Answers and points of your personal Story.

Evaluating a big story and a personal story

When you put together a Big Story and carve out a personal Story, you tap into the Big Story's brooding emotions. Once you have stabilized your Stories, you can go about your daily life without much critical thinking. Through the ages various Big Stories dominated certain societies or cultures, and they enabled followers to create livable personal Stories. The simple fact is that you could live a full, complete and satisfying human life as a follower of nearly any of these quite diverse, even contradictory Big Stories. Your life could have meaning by acting out quite a wide range of diverse, even contradictory personal Stories.

Right now, the three dominant Big Stories driving globalization are the Religious, the Secular and Scientism's Big Story. These enable numerous individuals, societies and cultures to express and live out their humanity. I've indicated that I personally find these Big Stories and their associated personal Stories lacking in an imagination that can inspire a personal Story for me. Going forward, I evaluate them as preparation for introducing the Earthfolk Big Story and my Earthfolk personal Story. Yet, they are part of my already developing Earthfolk personal Story so I want to respectfully examine these Big Stories.

I understand that Big Stories are works of imagining. For you to similarly imagine requires that I invite you, not cajole or coerce you. The latter simply won't work. Human relationships are works of imagining, of imagining "you" and "me," "we" and "us." At the least, I hold that you will reap benefits from understanding how your Big Story functions as your carve out your personal Story. For example, if after reading Sensual Preciousness you opt to remain a dedicated Wiccan or Secular Humanist or one who professes a Scientism Big Story which advocates the panspermia theory of how life began, it will have been helpful for you to grasp just what your Big Story is, what it imagines, and how it determines the possible moral choices you have as you carve out your personal Story.

In sum, I respect Big Stories and personal Stories. I seek to understand their imaginations and the process by which their followers carve out personal Stories. I maintain that it will be helpful for you to do likewise. All that I can ask of you is to accept my invitation to step forward into an exploration and critical analysis of the interpretations of your Big Stories. If you do so, I anticipate that you will respect my Earthfolk Big Story, even if you ultimately cannot imagine it.

# Chapter 17: And so we begin!

I am guided by two principles when evaluating a Big Story. To properly and respectfully evaluate the three dominant Big Stories, which I claim are source for globalization's imagination, vision and brooding emotion, I follow two core disciplines and practices.

First, I examine every Big Story or personal Story to discern how an event or situation is viewed by various agents. For example, how the Free Market is understood by an individual, corporation, nation or church in respect to their views on how the Free Market creates both "the best of times and the worst of times."

Second, I study how an individual or group perceives a Big Story's and a personal Story's Sunny Spot and Shade. As I queried before, Does the dropping of the Atomic Bomb reveal the character of America's Sunny Spot or its Shade? Moreover, I also follow these disciplines and practices when evaluating my Earthfolk Big and personal Stories.

"The best of times, the worst of times"

One of the impacts of high technology and globalization, that is, through 24/7 newscasts, Internet websites, is that you, more often than in decades before, confront other Big Stories that either reject outright or are significant modifications of your own. As I discuss in Part 2, there are "camps" within each Big Story, for example, a "Sacred Secularism" and a "Non-Sacred Secularism" Big Story. When you hear others say that they share your Big Story and many of your personal Story values but interpret everything quite differently and end up calling for a moral action you reject, what do you do? What aids you in understanding, although not always accepting, that others see the worst-of-times when your interpretation of your Big Story helps you see the best-of-times?

Clarifying how you see a Big Story as best when others see it as worst is the essential first step. More people stop talking—or never even begin—as soon as they hear negative feedback, such as, "You're nuts. You people who think that way, always ...." No dialogue ensues. No human communication. If you could still live within a pre-globalization frame of mind then you might be able to withdraw into some space, for example, a fairly ethnically homogenous country such as France or inside a small regional corporation and stew, "I'll never visit there, again." Or " I'll never deal with that company, again." But I hold that such retreat "places" are truly not available any more—are no longer imaginable—simply because every country is but a dot on a globetrotter's tourist map, and every company, somehow, is connected to your company via another company. Of course, the World-Wide-Web also means that you cannot hide because you are always a node on some telecommunication device or system. Chillingly, you are always a node because you may be being watched or tracked by digital devices without your knowledge or consent!

To understand how I came to understand and appreciate this best-of-times, worst-of-times approach to evaluating a Big Story or personal Story, let me recount a bit about my upbringing.

When I was young, I was told that when I died that I would have to account for my life. My Roman Catholic Religious Big Story stated that the beginning of my afterlife would bring about a meeting with St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. He would have the Book of Life in his arms. This Book already had my "personal Story." St. Peter would know who I was and what I had done. He knew everything, so I was forewarned. I would have no way of embellishing my story or conning the old guy. No, I was there to be judged. I was going to be "nailed" by what I did, not by what I said or could say in my defense. The bottom-line was, "Did you lead a moral life?" This was my Final Judgment. If the verdict was "Good Man," I went to paradise. If not, well, things would start to get really hot!

One purpose of this Final Judgment story is that it kept me focused on what I was doing today, right now. At every moment, I was supposed to be conscious of God's presence and act in a moral way, which meant in obedience to His commandments. If I lost my focus and by some misfortune died while doing something bad, there would be no second chances. The Final Judgment could occur at anytime, anywhere. Fearfully, even before I might finish typing this sent ...!

Since I heard this Final Judgment story during my tender years—that is, my age of innocence—it strongly influenced how I felt about myself and life in general. For some reason, which I had then yet to fully grasp, the "world" and "other people" were bent on tempting me to do bad things. Both were considered "occasions of sin." While I was told to love everyone, even my enemies, I heard, loud and clear, the unspoken message that others, from family members to distant strangers, were to be cautiously approached. More, that they were basically to be feared. As I now understand, I was being connected to one of my Big Story's brooding emotions, namely, fear of the "other."

In this world, which for me was the Irish Roman Catholic form of gloomy and strict Puritan-like Christianity called Jansenism, other people were temptations simply because the Devil overcame them and used them for his vile purposes. Of course, it was also clear that I could be a minion of the Devil and be a temptation for others and cause them to do bad things. With another twist, I was told that I was even a temptation to me, myself and I!

As odd as that might sound, it was explained to me that all humans, myself included, had "two natures." One was a "fallen nature," the result of an Original Sin. I was told to recognize that I was born rotten to the core. The other nature, the "nature of grace," was the result of my having been saved through the sufferings of Jesus Christ. However, I was told to be constantly aware of giving into temptations, which would arouse my fallen nature. Although Jesus had saved me, the Devil continued to prey upon me. This view was summed up in the verse I chanted before retiring in the monastery at the prayer hour called Compline, "Be sober, be watchful! For your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goes about seeking someone to devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith." (1 Peter 5:8-9) That snake Satan was still able to tempt me and undo what Jesus had done. I could be bad. I could fall out of the state of grace. I could die in deep sinfulness. This simple but chilling story of the Final Judgment moved me to become a reflective person.

Emotionally, I feared myself! The only one I could trust was God. Righting my emotional self with God, then, became a daily spiritual quest. Fortunately, my Catholic Big Story came with religious rituals and spiritual practices with which I could ground myself and be confident that I was right with God. At the end of each day, I, as with others of my faith, habitually knelt down and conducted an Examination of Conscience. This was my own review of what good and bad I had done that day. There were occasions where I would consider that I had actually acted evilly. These were times when I had either considered or committed a Mortal Sin. The significant point, here, is that I was instructed to examine my life, to look deeply at my intentions as well as my actions, on a daily basis. While this formed certain useful intellectual habits, such as analyzing and evaluating what influenced me and the why and how of my responses, it also molded my basic feelings about myself and life in general.

My basic feelings could be summed up in the phrase which opens Charles Dickens' famous novel, The Tale of Two Cities. That is, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." On any given day, at any moment, I could look at myself and judge that I was having the best time of my life, that I was the best I'd ever been—healthy, wise, in the dough. Life was grand. God's graciousness could be seen in the astounding beauty of nature, or made present through the hug my mother gave to me, or through a kindness received from or given to a stranger. Yet, I was simultaneously having the worst of times in every respect. Life was rotten, that is, Earth is not Paradise. I was a fallen, depraved sinner. The "bad me" would take over and I'd do things of which I was ashamed, and which I'd only confess in the darkness of the priestly Confessional. In short, right now, I deserved to suffer the fires of hell.

As I grew and matured I recognized another curious aspect to these dueling feelings. Namely, that when I was having one of my best-of-times, someone else was having their worst. And, vice versa. This aspect was evident as personal relationships developed. But it was more apparent as I became aware of the larger world, and came to know how truly worse or better off many people were. So, at any time, I could pause, review the world situation, and then convince myself that though I was happy, I should be sad, or though I was sad, I should be happy. As significant, I learned that I, unfortunately without much effort, could turn someone's feeling of joy and optimism into despair and pessimism. And, with a bit more effort, make others laugh and see the brighter side when they were down or gloomy.

Here's where St. Peter comes back into the picture. At my Final Judgment he wanted me to account for myself. But he was judging me based on what I had done for others. He didn't care whether I was healthy, wealthy and wise, rather, if, like his Savior Jesus, I had been a servant of others. He wanted to know if I was a moral man, a Good Guy, someone with even just a slight odor of heroism. He would check my personal story in the Book of Life to assess whether I had in any way ever experienced putting my life in harm's way to help another person who was having their worst time. For even though the Other was an occasion for temptation, I was also not to become an occasion for them. Rather, I was to help them have one of their best-of-times experiences. I was charged with a moral obligation to love others with an unconditional love. Yet, I was to love without succumbing to the temptation of the sin of pride. For I was not the source of this unconditional love. Rather, it flowed through me from Jesus' divine love. In fact, so I was taught, I could only be a conduit for this unconditional love as I surrendered any personal desire for or claim on my own worthiness to receive such unconditional love.

Growing up was, for me, a constant up and down ride on this emotional and moral rollercoaster. This Final Judgment story expressed the controlling premise of the overall Big Story that Roman Catholic Christianity recounted to me. It came at every moment, every day, through every action. During worship at Daily Mass. In the classroom through recitation of the "Baltimore Catechism's" Q & As. Through the obligatory inscribing "J.M.J." atop every sheet and every page of my homework pad: "Jesus. Mary. Joseph." It was whispered by the sacred statues and the ever-present crucifixes which adorned every room at home and at school. The very spoken and unspoken premise of the Big Story was that it's okay to feel rotten! Indeed, how else should one feel? The world is doomed. Humanity is doomed. The only hope is to die in the state of grace and escape this "earthly vale of tears." All in all, the times felt quite a bit more worst than best.

Think best, feel worst

I want to be clear about this Big Story and how its brooding emotion formed and influenced my thinking. On the one hand, I was to feel, not think, that the world was doomed, that I was rotten, etc. I was not to think that way because I was Saved, and I was to think Saved. I was even to think of my enemy as a child of God and someone for whom I should be willing to lay down my life, even though I was to fear him. Clearly, on the thinking level, many things did not flow logically. Certainly, they did not link up smoothly with my brooding emotional state. The phrase could be, "Think it the best of times, feel it as the worst."

This conflict between thinking and brooding emotion would become significant in my young adult life as I faced the contradiction between affirming, "Thou shalt not kill," and then swearing allegiance to an army whose core purpose is to kill. It was a conflict that I never smoothly resolved. I could follow the logical thinking that would lead to my killing another by applying the principles of the Catholic "Just War Theory," but I could never feel in my heart that it was a Christian act.

Despite my personal emotional conflicts, I was to think that everything was Good because Jesus had Saved me. Heightening my turmoil was the fact that Jesus saved me because I was and am a miserable sinner. My working solution: as long as I continued to feel deeply miserable in my gut, I had no obligation to figure out how to solve all the heady intellectual issues. Rather, the conflict between my emotions and my mind was to be resolved by my submitting to a greater mind, namely, God's as revealed through Mother Church, led here on Earth by the Roman Pope.

My Catholic Religious Big Story contained a centuries-old, ready-made template inside it with which to develop my personal Story. This was perceived as a benefit of the Catholic Church, a hierarchical, authoritarian and benevolent dictatorship. Indeed, as a Big Story it has the most extensive and thorough-going set of Big Answers I have ever encountered. In fact, few Big Stories have created a manual for the development of its Big Story and its followers' personal Story the likes of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica.

Intellectually, in terms of beliefs, doctrines and dogmas, the Church and her priests instructed me how to compose my personal Story, and helped me avoid the pitfalls of worldly temptation. Of note is that this obedient submission to the priest and Mother Church could only happen if I once again affirmed my miserable self's inability to be anything but profoundly miserable. I was even expected to see myself as a miserable thinker, as someone who must rotely follow and not presume to possess intellectual skills surpassing those of the anointed priests and bishops. In sum, the emphasis was on thinking that everything was Good, Right and Just because of what Jesus had accomplished and which the Church preserved. However, I was to feel rotten and dwell in fear and dread, that is, feel what only a miserable sinner born into Original Sin should feel: deeply miserable, truly rotten in mind, heart and soul.

# Chapter 18: Monastic Years

It took me many decades of following the discipline and practices of being miserable before I realized that I didn't feel miserable. Yet I couldn't describe myself as "happy." I was still too deeply grounded in the Catholic Big Story to tap into the joy of being. Despite all the hullabaloo around the "Resurrected Christ," the joys of Easter were always piddling compared to the panoply of the feeling miserable practices and religious rituals of the Passion and Death of Christ. Indeed, mine was a slow-developing awareness of feeling "not-miserable." Ironically, it began when I entered a Roman Catholic seminary to study to become a priest.

During my junior and senior year in high school, I entered the minor seminary. Later, I was invested as a novice Franciscan monk, as "Friar Otto " I followed the ancient tradition of "Ora et Labora" or "Pray and Work." I chanted (badly and off-key) the hourly prayers of the "Divine Office." I threw myself prostrate before the Master and the community as I accused myself of sins and failures during the confessional discipline called "Culpa." I thickened the calluses around my knee caps as I prayerfully crawled and scraped my way around the circle of the 12 Stations of the Cross. Then, one day, I realized that I had to leave.

As expected, most of my friends, family, and colleagues, back then as they do today, figured that I gave up my priestly call for sexual temptations. But that wasn't it. Somehow—and this is an insight that came back to me when in prison—the twisted maleness fostered by, and the narrowness of the spiritual vision of, the monastery repulsed me. It found "joy and grace" only in suffering. Although I mortified and inflicted pain upon my body in holy discipline, I simply was not a "milites Christi," that is, a "soldier of Christ." Something inside of me said, "This is not a truly holy place."

In brief, I was too damn "not miserable" to stay! My heart yearned for something other than pain and deprivation. I didn't have the words yet, but my Sunny Spot was too large for the monastery's Shade to encompass. (See, the following section C.2.)

Although I had left the monastic world before entering college, after graduating in 1966 I took advantage of a major reform going on inside the Catholic Church. This change, for the first time in centuries, allowed lay people (non-clerics) to become theologians. Through my theological studies, then notably inspired by the "spiritual evolution" vision of a French Jesuit named Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, my not-feeling-miserable emotional self soon came into line with my not-feeling-miserable thinking self.

# Chapter 19: Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's vision

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., a Jesuit priest, paleontologist and co-founder of "Peking Man" was professor of geology at the Catholic Institute in Paris, director of the National Geologic Survey of China, and director of the National Research Center of France. His work offered many reflections on the early phase and initiating acts of globalization. This included a distinctly original and peculiar essay, "Some Reflections on the Spiritual Repercussions of the Atom Bomb," published in 1946. All in all when Teilhard died in 1955, he left an inspiring vision, vast and majestic. It is a vision which is a useful bridge towards telling the Earthfolk Big Story.

Teilhard artfully integrates chapters in the Secular and Scientism's Big Story. But the most daunting challenge which arose from his works was his demand that I carve out a personal Story based on my acceptance of the insight that my personal presence and moral acts create the world, right now. My personal presence is manifest as I engage the Other. In his vision, I as person am all and everything that evolution is striving to create. I, through my personal presence, imagine and so create the world.

The two core aspects of his spiritual imagination that affected me then and now are the following:

As the brain manifests a mind, as the heart manifests a spirit, as the body manifests a person, so does the Earth manifest a mind-sphere ("Noosphere"), a spirit sphere ("Christosphere") and a meta-personal presence, that is, the Living Earth present within a "Divine Milieu."

Every human counts, meaning, that every act—physical, mental, emotional, spiritual—creates the world called "human."

A personalizing universe

Teilhard's universe is driven by a personalizing energy or presence. This means that evolution has a psychic and spiritual aspect. Teilhard integrates the evolution chapter of Scientism's Big Story into his fundamental Religious Big Story. He also consciously addresses and integrates aspects of the Secular Big Story. I more thoroughly discuss Teilhard's integration with the Secular and Scientism's Big Story in Part 2.

What moved me is the simple logic of the human experience that something does not come from nothing. If "spirit" or "soul" or "thought" or "mind" and like nonphysical words point toward real things, then somehow these real things are part of the evolutionary process. The question is how to "see" them. If your testing method only accepts empirically and/or physically grounded answers, then that is what you find. You will not find "spirit" or "soul" if you begin by not holding them imaginable.

However, if you start with the premise that humans only know in a human manner, then you submit every testing method to the human test. This human test places whatever you seek to imagine, know, understand or value within a human relationship. What is important to Teilhard, and to me, is you as a person. Nothing is finally nor fully understood or valued unless and until it becomes part of a personal relationship. Note however that this refers to a "personal relationship" as expressed through the nested identities of section B, above. In this light, consideration always has to be given to how the scientific research and/or result affects individual, social, corporate, cultural and spiritual identities. This approach recognizes that every fact, action, interpretation, etc., is part of the worldwide web of the human heart. Nothing that happens is meaningless, just as no person is meaningless. This way of thinking runs counter to the traditional scientific approach. (Teilhard's approach has similarities to Quantum physics' "Butterfly Principle.")

In this approach, everything—every fact, analysis, interpretation, moral act, etc.— obtains definition and meaning as it enables you and the universe to more fully manifest personal presence. For Teilhard science approaches everything from the Alpha Point. It seeks to understand present reality by looking backwards in time to determine how reality and/or life began. It assumes that there is an Alpha Point where the simple evolves into the complex.

Scientists prefer to develop and employ nonhuman models to discern and interpret their research. However, for Teilhard, the Alpha Point approach only gets you half-way there. As a scientist he looked to the Alpha past, while as a human being he looked towards the Omega future.

Teilhard's scientific colleagues, then and now, reject the idea that you must start from complexity to accurately discern simplicity. However, humans are born complex and the average human life is accurately described as unfolding complexity, notably, complexity of relationships. What is required then is to also approach everything from the Omega Point. This involves looking at everything in terms of how it fulfills, enhances and enables an increased personal presence. It recognizes that reality is complex and seeks simplicity as caused by complexity. The model here is human relationship which by definition begins with two. Two people who "pull" the essence of what it means to be human from within a relational act such as embracing or warring. The Omega Point scientist sees his mind-work (thinking, analysis, evaluation, interpretation, forecast, etc.) as one part of a relational effort, that is, of the overall Noospheric mind.

Derived from this understanding is the idea that "to know" you must be within the embrace of another human. To know is a relational act, an engagement with another human, regardless of how indirect this relational contact might be. This is true whether your knowing is a mental act or a spiritual one. Scientific knowing, in this view, is only true, is only integrally "factual," as it manifests a human presence. "Human presence" is the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. In Teilhard's vision, there is no separation of mind, heart, body and spirit. Rather, these are only distinctions which provide ways to understand and manifest "human presence." From another angle, Teilhard's is a vision of human action. Everything you know and/or believe is only meaningful within a human relationship. Scientists, to fully plumb reality and discern facts, must explore and express their findings in terms of how they manifest and reveal the beauty of human presence.

As you yourself also make manifest all four distinctions simultaneously—mind, heart, body and spirit—as you define yourself as a "person," so through your individual actions, as Teilhard asserted, you manifest the Noosphere, Christosphere and the Living and Divine presence of the Earth.

In Part 3, "Scientism's Big Story," I address the difficulty in discussing scientific knowing in relational terms. I note that there really is no "scientific community" at the social, corporate, cultural or spiritual identity levels. There is a level of academic and professional association that provides a level of peer review, but this is a very weak intellectual and communal relationship in that no entity—no human or professional organization—has moral authority. Scientists have no identity group other than what they personally choose to join. Consequently, any appeal to positioning his or her research within a Noosphere concept is unimaginable.

Teilhard's profound influence on me only makes sense once you grasp that I accepted his claim that there is a mind-sphere, a Noosphere, which is to the Earth as the mind is to the brain. While this is not the place for a detailed presentation of Teilhard's thought nor for a critical evaluation of my interpretation of Teilhard, what is of note is how I interpreted him, rightly or wrongly. His Omega Point and Noosphere concepts turned my intellectual way of seeing inside-out and upside-down. I was acutely aware that Teilhard's writing were, at that time, officially suppressed by the Church (not condemned and not condoned). I was also aware of how other scientists scoffed at what they judged his poetic flights of fancy. Yet, his insights seemed so obvious.

I am an individual but am only so because of my parents' relationship. I have a mind but it is informed by outside relationships, as noted in how identity forms and matures from personal to spiritual. Should I then accept that what goes on in my mind has no impact on others? That my thoughts are only mine? I laugh because my Roman Catholic upbringing hammered home that my "dirty thoughts" had dreadful impact on God—they offended him and hurt Jesus! I saw my inner life as directly connected to and having consequences for my outer life. Moreover, I was future oriented, in that life on Earth is fleeting and only life with God in eternity is truly real. At its best, my Catholic training taught me to see myself as part of the human web of life, and to take responsibility for my actions since they affected not only me but everyone else.

Every human act counts

When I first encountered Teilhard's concepts what proved to be the linchpin for my breakaway from the spirituality of rotten miserableness is his insight that every human action counts. That is, every act of every person: every thought, expressed emotion and physical touch creates the world in which you live. More, that human knowing involves engaging another person. What makes human knowing distinct and peculiar is that it is part of an emotional experience sourced through communion with another human.

Practically, this moved me to imagine that everything I did had an impact on everyone else and everything else. I am the personal imagination of the universe. I and you are the imagination, the conscience, the mind and the soul of the Living Earth. We make humanity present through our personal acts of mind, body and spirit. This moved me to grasp that even my thoughts about war made war possible. Certainly, my acts of violence—no matter where they occurred—were acts of violence against other people. In this light, the soldier is acting out my violence even though I am in Minnesota and he is in Indochina.

When I first reflected upon Teilhard, I grasped how it was that nonviolence is a way of creating with violence. I realized that when I intimately engaged another that I presented my Sunny Spot but also my Shade. Normally, I didn't want to expose my Shade but there is no way to have the Sunny Spot without the Shade. In like manner, so do I engage another's Sunny Spot and Shade. In fact, "intimacy" is that area where both enter the Shade. If I didn't recognize my Shade and labor to transform it into love and affection, the relationship dies. I learned that nonviolence is a way of making the other a fuller person. Again, "non" violence is not the denial of violence. Rather, it is a way of embracing and artfully creating with violence. Nonviolence seeks a relationship with the other, where war seeks to break the human bond through an act of murder.

Whoa! factor

Clearly, the most dramatic impact on my personal Story was the insight that nonviolence is a unique and peculiar human characteristic. It is so because it is a conscious way of creating with one's violence. Nonviolence is not an avoidance of violence, which is actually impossible to achieve. Rather, nonviolence is a distinctly human act of engaging the violence within one's self so as to be able to engage the violence in an Other and together unleash the peculiar human emotion of selfless love.

I experienced this when young men came to me for counsel. Our conversations quickly brought us into each other's Shade. We talked about killing, being killed, fear of being a coward, conflict with parents, usually their dads. There was no way for me to intellectually resolve their moral conflict. Each had to confront his Shade. When this happened, the results were not always received well.

Many came to have me simply rubber-stamp their prejudice, whether it was pro or anti-war. Some wanted me to be the stereotypical bleeding heart liberal whose spoke about Sweet Jesus. They wanted this because they wanted to use me as an excuse. For some this was an excuse to reject Christianity—as it was manifested through me—and go off to war, snickering at my cowardice and yellow-streak. Others wanted to swoon with Sweet Jesus and yield their personal decision-making over to Him. Both types ended up hating me because neither wanted to enter their Shade. From such situations I gained the ironic insight that most warriors see themselves as peacemakers, and that many who engage in acts of nonviolent protests are really acting violently.

I only really helped someone when I got them to explore their Shade. I never really figured out how to consistently do this. However, such explorations more often than not led to an embrace. The young man knew that he wouldn't kill me and that I wouldn't kill him. We looked at each other from within the Shade. However, some who achieved this insight still went off to war. hese had family issues which transcended their personal convictions.

Nonviolence, then, is a coupled experience. It is a term which describes a relationship. In this way, Teilhard anticipates a key image of the Earthfolk Big Story, namely, approaching "the Other" as Beloved. Teilhard sees this relationship of love as being expressed by life as it evolves from an Alpha Point towards an Omega Point. For Teilhard, the "heart of matter" is this love energy. Within this vision, I saw and felt my brooding emotion of not-feeling-miserable. As I later understood, it was the first time I tapped into the brooding emotion of Belovedness. (For most, I'd suggest that you re-read this section to let these ideas begin to sink in because you need to understand my experiences to trust whether you want to explore your own life as I did.)

# Chapter 20: "What am I feeling that they are so afraid of?"

My discovery of my not-so-miserable self deepened as I began to articulate and morally act in a way that I thought Jesus would have if he were alive today. I had formed a personal Story based on a heavily Teilhardian intellectual interpretation of the Catholic Big Story, a version which claimed that Christians should be nonviolent peacemakers, should be ecological stewards of the Earth, and should not be racist or sexist. Core to this personal Story were the Documents of Vatican Two and the encyclical of Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris. Both of these documents were received as evidentiary exhibits during my courtroom trial. (See, http://ww.minnesota8.net)

Yet, as I attempted to live according to and emotionally express this version of the "nonviolent Jesus"—a story I sourced in the Biblical and Catholic theological tradition as well as the inspiring vision of the then just-completed Vatican Council Two—I was resoundingly rejected by my local Archbishop. Although a small band of Catholics ("Catholic Radicals" and those in the Catholic Worker Movement) shared this revisionist Big Story of the nonviolent Jesus, when I attempted to act morally by protesting for peace and justice in various arenas, society imprisoned me and the Catholic hierarchy barred me from preaching and/or teaching.

During my "free" time in prison, it became apparent to me that the biggest disconnect between my and the Church's version of the Religious Big Story was not so much in terms of doctrine as it was in terms of how I expressed my feelings. However, even at this point in my development, even with Teilhard in hand, even after my courtroom trial, I had not fully plumbed the depths of Catholicism's brooding emotion: dreadful misery. Rather, it took prison—my time in a barred cell with that special group of "others" whose lives are witnesses to depths of miserableness into which I had yet to plunge—to face the terrible and terrifying numinous awe ("mysterium tremendum") of the brooding emotion of my Religious Big Story.

In prison the ponderous weight and presence of the miserableness of my life, of all people and even of all creation sat on my head and slept with me every night. In the slang of the times, I was thoroughly bummed out. All I knew was that my brooding emotion was directly related to my nonviolent acts. I was dumbfounded. Nothing computed any more. I pondered. "What am I feeling that they are so afraid of?"

# Chapter 21: Violent felon, nonviolent heart

Eventually I came to realize that the government, also, was less concerned about how I thought than how I felt. They feared my nonviolent heart. Here I was, a strapping 6'3", 225 pound athletic and articulate male who was expressing tenderness, encouraging compassion, and telling others to "live as if you are no one's Enemy."

Pause for a moment: What is so scary about someone risking his life to speak the word Peace? After all is said and done that is what I did through my symbolic speech of raiding a draft board.

It is true that I rejected the government's symbolic speech of firing a gun to speak Peace. But clearly, the government did not fear me as a terrorist doing physical harm to others. Yet they convicted me of a felony crime of violence. Why? Wasn't it because I assaulted their Big Story's brooding emotion? Mine was a violence of heart, consciously breaking the law because I was at peace within myself and willing to risk going to prison to save others from conscripted military service. I acted from my brooding emotion of being at peace. My felony was a nonviolence of a passionate heart.

Let me be clearer about the character of my emotional criminality. During 1968, I took part in a public discussion about my nonviolent beliefs during an adult education program after Sunday Mass. A middle-aged male rose and asked, fiercely and accusatorily, "Are you a fag?!" Given the year—during the early phase of the feminist revolution and before the Stonewall Riots, so few had heard about "gay rights"—others on the panel quickly (and not happily) came to my defense. It wasn't that they agreed with my nonviolence, just that the fellow had kicked the tripwire that set off the explosive relationship between Eros and Thanatos, between Lust and Murder. For him, a man's penile rod was his gun.

Of course, I was "not the man"—the cold-blooded killer—my inquisitor thought I should be. But for quite different reasons. Actually, I was more the man than he could possibly contemplate. This was the first time I came to realize that I was nonviolent because I had confronted and accepted my violence—the cold-blooded killer reconnoitering in my Shade. I was man enough to embrace the despised fag inside me. (Fag, gook—the feared Other.) I wasn't afraid to express a range of masculinity about which my accuser was ignorant. This was a key moment in my development as a violent felon. Namely, my nonviolent manliness became grounded in my acceptance of my darker Shadier side, that is, of myself as killer. It was the day I fully realized that when you go to war, it is I who pulls the trigger. That day I became a man—as I consciously exposed my Shade.

When I first presented my case for claiming Conscientious Objector status, one member of the draft board—without taking his eyes off of the paperwork he was stamping and processing—said, "I'm a Catholic. I fought in the war." The clear sub-text was "Hey, we Catholics kill people. Been doing so for centuries" Again, I confronted and accepted my violence. I told these draft board officials not to send me to Vietnam because I knew what I would do. I knew that if I was immersed in my fallen, depraved side—as a brother to Genesis' Cain—that I would become a killing machine. I simply didn't want to be in a situation where I would be so demonically tempted to express my violence. Indeed, although I did not have the language to express it until several decades later, I was becoming a more fully integrated male, one who was experiencing the goddess within his masculine soul.

One of the reasons I came to this insight stems from my practice of the Examination of Conscience. While fulfilling my military obligation as a Conscientious Objector—as staff at the Newman Center on the University of Minnesota campus—after I counseled young draft-age men, many went over to serve in Vietnam. Although they went into armed conflict, I had no personal or spiritual disconnect from them. Simply, I was them. They were me. We were brothers; family. It became clear to me: I had to be nonviolent here at home because they were expressing my violence over there in Vietnam.

# Chapter 22: Nonviolent Jesus?

In general, most Christians can intellectually accept the "nonviolent Jesus." The Jesus as a peacemaker who welcomed sinners and preached the values of the Sermon on the Mount. But something keeps them from tapping into the not-miserable emotion of this peacemaking and social justice Jesus. While we share the claim that we are all "Christians," it is forcefully clear that what defines and limits the acts of acceptable moral witness are sourced in dramatically different emotions. Ironically, and as counterintuitive as it sounds, those who went to war did so because they thought they were violent warriors but felt themselves to be nonviolent Christians. Meaning, "I'm going to Vietnam to bring Peace to America." Witness the slogan of SAC, the Strategic Air Command, "Peace is our profession." (SAC, during Vietnam, was the branch of the United States Air Force in charge of America's bomber-based and ballistic missile-based strategic nuclear arsenal.)

With a similar ironic twist, I felt violent because I thought of myself as nonviolent. As I told my Big Story, I was having a best-of-times moment as they experienced a worst. Without arrogance or disdain, I was calling people to be comfortably at home here on Earth. To feel good about one another. To enjoy living in peace and harmony. To express their violence in nonviolent ways. However, as I gained clearer insight into my personal Story and witnessed to the moral mandates of my Catholic Big Story, I was heading for a breakdown and a worst-of-times.

The seed for Sensual Preciousness was planted at that moment when I examined my life and realized how the Catholic Big Story's brooding emotion of miserableness influenced and formed my and my fellow Christians' core beliefs. It also defined what we valued as good and evil acts. I discovered that the recurring claim made by other Christians as to why they could not oppose the Vietnam War or any war, and why they could not embrace the nonviolent Jesus, was because of how they felt, not because of how they thought. They continued to feel deeply miserable. However, they did not wear this emotion on their sleeves. To the contrary, they wore badges of America's spirited optimism. They were "high on life" and their fierce competitiveness reaped abundant and quite pleasurable material, sensual and sexual rewards. It was my Inside Sight which allowed me to sense how they felt.

Similarly, this deep Shade emotion emerged when I engaged those grounded in the Secular and Scientism's Big Stories. It was not that these people were walking around with droopy chins or moaning and beating their chests. Actually, they presented themselves as "happy people," hanging day-glo posters and chanting Meher Baba's "Don't worry. Be happy!" as well as other high-spirited versions of the Hippie slogan, "Tune in. Turn on. Drop out." As I would discover throughout the next decades, as the Yuppie replaced the Hippie, the pursuit of pleasure in terms of material and sexual acquisition and ecstasy served as the manhole cover over the seething miserableness that coursed through so many lives.

Although the seed for Sensual Preciousness was planted while I was a prison inmate, it came at a moment which I then assessed was one of my worst-of-times. But it proved decades later to have been one of my best. There is some Shady humor here. After all, I was that "miserable sinner," that "dog-breath" convict, that traitor, that heretic, that whack-job Radical who was getting his fair and just come-uppance. As that was happening, so the seed of Sensual Preciousness began to sprout.

# Chapter 23: Ex-Catholic, ex-con and ex-American

When I left prison, fourteen months later, I was no longer a believing Christian. Nor could I ground myself as an American. As a Catholic, I wasn't even a lapsed or heretical one. While Christianity and its Biblical tradition had formed me and focused my early decades, I could no longer intelligently or faithfully recount this Big Story. I could no longer tap into the brooding emotion of rotten miserableness.

Prison had done something to me that took a decade or more to even recognize. In fact, although I was depressed, although I went through alleyways of drunkenness, although I was a "lost soul" floundering and bouncing from job to job, I had tapped into a brooding emotion other than not-miserableness.

While I will return to this post-prison phase of my life later, consider that the Big Story one hears as a child grows into and forms your beliefs, determines your range of brooding emotions and teaches you how to think and feel about yourself and others. Significantly, the Big Story's brooding emotion is the prime determinant of what you think and believe in any area, such as religion, politics, economics, sex, etc. Few are consciously aware of the true character of a Big Story's brooding emotion. Actually, most misunderstand it. For example, until prison I bought the line that Christians were living in "Resurrection times," and so, "You will know we are Christians by our love, by our love, you will know ..." I sensed that something was awry, but only when inside prison did I admit how the brooding emotion of feeling miserable had dominated my life.

The age at which you fully awake and completely hear this Big Story is not as significant as the fact that you receive it at a moment of child-like innocence, for example, at that critical time when you seek Big Answers to life's basic and ultimate Big Questions, such as, "What happens to me when I die?" "Why am I on earth?" "Why is there evil?" "Why should I kill in battle?"

As noted, your Big Story is grounded in a range of brooding emotions that are most often not apparent. A brooding emotion is quite often covered by other brooding emotions or even contradictory surface feelings. You might hear yourself say, "I'm a patriotic son of Uncle Sam," or, "Science provides the only solid ground on which to develop solutions to human problems." Yet I ask you to accept as a possibility that in these cases neither patriotism nor confidence are the brooding emotions. I'm sure you can recall moments when you acted, say, in a foolish manner, and others asked you to explain your behavior. Even though you gave them an answer, only you knew that you were deeply angry at, say, your girlfriend and that these silly actions are simply how you are presenting yourself. Your behavior doesn't reflect how you deeply feel. And so, I am obliged to say that moving you to see matters in another way is my objective. One tool I use to review and evaluate your Big Story is determining how it creates both a best-of-times and worst-of-times world.

# Chapter 24: Earthfolk's best and worst of times

Presently, I am in the winter of my life. My hair is abundant but snowy and I am in relatively good health. As I review my life, I have experienced many best-of-times and worst-of-times. I am writing Sensual Preciousness because I must make an honest report of what I consider to be the most important discovery of my life. I am moved to report about what I have learned during my sojourn on the planet. In the most simple of terms, I've discovered that I am a happy person. Better yet, that I imagine myself a happy person! My so imagining taps into a brooding emotion of peacefulness and being comfortably at home here on the Living Earth. This is a happiness that expresses itself in my passionate and moral actions which affirm that I like most people and love humanity-at-large. I experience the Other as Beloved, and I feel deeply beloved. Because I am beloved, I seek the Shade, that within myself and the Other. I phrase this approach and attitude toward life as "I live as if I am no one's Enemy." Yes, others may name me and hold me as their enemy but I refuse to live as their enemy. I open myself to become their Beloved.

At different times in the long history of humanity, I am confident that the pervasive feeling among people was one of being comfortably at home on the Living Earth. Yet somehow during the short span of my lifetime, I've become acutely aware that in this current historical age more rather than fewer of my fellow humans are trapped in an imagination and a set of brooding emotions sourced in dreadful fear and stark terror. They seem bent on suicidal self destruction, either at their own depressed hands or through nuclear MADness (the governmental policy of "Mutual Assured Destruction"). When I ask them to reflect on the meaning and effects of globalization, they say, more often than not, that this is a bit of the best times but a lot more of the worst. When pressed to "dig deep and tell me your gut feelings," they say that while they value High Technology, all of the touted advances and benefits of the varied telecommunications, Internet and digital devices have not greatly changed the human situation.

When they speak of the worst-of-times, they describe the current age as one that sees other people, "the Other," as not only the feared stranger but as Intimate Enemy. It is an age of endless warring where the Earth itself is brutalized and tortured. It is an age where the human body is not honored or respected, where "lovers" treat one another as pornographic sex toys, and where intimacy is a lost geography of the human heart and spirit.

While I hear what they say, and although I could even agree with and articulate such a worst-of-times scenario, I and others, notably we Earthfolk," are experiencing the best of times. We can see both the best and worst aspects of globalization, and of the three dominant Big Stories. Most Earthfolk, at one time, carved a personal Story from one or more of the dominant Big Stories. Yet, at present, our Earthfolk personal Stories are linked together by our shared brooding emotion of being comfortably at home on Mother Earth. We practice and follow a discipline where we live as if we are no one's Enemy. We acclaim the Other as precious. We seek the spiritual intimacy of the embrace of Beloveds. (See, Volume 1.)

As you read, do you sense that this brief exposition of Earthfolk concepts and brooding emotion is creating a worst-of-times for you? Do you find yourself shaking your head in disapproval of all this Earthfolk silly optimism? Do you feel that such Earthfolk ideas actually endanger your world? Do you find "living as if I am no one's Enemy" a naïve statement? Do you hesitate to sight yourself as Beloved? Is this notion of Beloved, in your mind, an unsophisticated, sophomoric bit of nonsense? Are you ready to close this book? Toss it? For many readers, I anticipate that you will say Yes to all the above and close the covers on this babble.

I realize, looking back, that my courtroom trial was my first Earthfolk moment, in that it was where my personal and Big Stories were likewise judged "irrelevant and immaterial." Just reflect on that phrase for a moment. Put yourself in my place. You are standing before twelve other humans, spilling your guts out. How you keep your world together and how you feel things are going are the questions your are answering ... but then the judge says to these twelve others, in effect, "Those questions are irrelevant and immaterial. This guy's out of touch with reality!" You can visualizing him tapping the side of his forehead indicating that I was a bit imbalanced, more, an actual nut case!

Reality for him was for me to answer only the questions he and the prosecutor took as sane. To wit, did I or did I not climb up the side of a building in Little Falls, Minnesota on the night of July 10, 1970 and with a crowbar jimmy .... You get the picture.

I can only surmise that as the judge heard my Big Answers, he kept saying to himself, "Those are silly Big Questions." In short, the judge could not imagine that I could have spent my whole life seeking to answer the wrong Big Questions!

However, this worst-of-times courtroom dramatic moment was when I first tapped into the brooding emotion of feeling comfortably at home on the Living Earth. As improbable as it may strike you—since I was slapped with the maximum sentence of five years in prison—I lost my sense of miserableness in the courtroom. Again, in the curious way that matters often work in reverse, when I was sentenced so did I for the first time ever feel comfortably at home here on the Living Earth. Simply, I had lived true to my personal Story. I had spoken truth as I knew it. I had risked my life and put myself in harm's way. Curiously, as I entered prison escorted by a prison hack through my first knobless door in inmate khaki, an ethereal voice whispered, "Francis came home, today."

For you to evaluate Sensual Preciousness: a spirituality of intimacy and so respond to the invitation of us Earthfolk to imagine and live a sensually precious life, you must explore lore your own Big Story as it creates a best-of-times and a worst-of-times situation for other humans and the Earth itself. In the same manner, as I evaluate these Big Stories, I strive to artfully provide you with the tools to evaluate our Earthfolk imagination.

# Chapter 25: The Sunny Spot and the Shade

Just as any moment can offer the best-of-times or the worst-of-times, so do people live in both a Sunny Spot and the Shade. Understanding these entwined concepts assists in further analyzing and evaluating Big and personal Stories. Both individuals and groups have a Sunny Spot and a Shade. Whether you admit one or the other concept—and whether you examine yourself or your identity groups using these concepts—determines to a significant degree how vital those Stories are or are not in enabling you to live comfortably at home here on the Living Earth during this age of globalization.

Living in the Sunny Spot

Living in the Sunny Spot is how most people like to live, and how most people perceive they live. Most see themselves as a Sunny Spot in the universe and amid the mass of humanity. The Sunny Spot is, at its core, a way of feeling. Most people feel that they are Sunny, here meaning basically good, kind, fair and just. Most feel loveable. "If you took the time to really get to know me, you'd love me." The Sunny Spot is a person's warmth. It is the positive life energy they convey. On any given day the size of the Spot can vary greatly, but if pressed, most folks find a way to spread their warmth to others in time of need and want.

I use the Sunny Spot imagery because I lived with criminals whom others would assume do not think that they have a Sunny Spot. Certainly, it would be fair to assume that criminals aren't warm men with huge Sunny Spots. But the opposite proved to be the case. Even in the darkest recesses of the Shade, where an inmate is experiencing a worst-of-times, he still feels like a good person with a Sunny Spot.

Of course, whenever I heard "I'm innocent!" I did have to chuckle as much as admire the dogged persistence of the con's feeling his Sunny Spot. You won't be surprised then if I call it the con's Sunny Micro-Dot because many had very little Sun in their life. Indeed, wherever I've journeyed—from monastery to prison to the university to corporate America—I've found few people who would ever deny that they were loveable and/or good at heart and/or someone worth knowing and befriending.

It is important to note, again, that these are not superficial terms. It is not that everyone is "sunny" in the giddy, foolish, Pollyannaish sense. To be in your Sunny Spot is to connect to one or more of the positive brooding emotions of your personal Story, not your Big Story.

There is often a disconnect between how people emotionally respond when you ask someone about his personal life experience and when you ask about his Big Story, which is a shared story about Life. He may say, "I'm doing okay but the world is certainly messed up!" On a day-to-day basis, most folk express a dogged persistence in both wanting to express their Sunny Spots and in wanting others to accept them as basically Sunny, that is, good, fair, just, compassionate, and so forth.

To grasp the Sunny Spot concept requires understanding the Shade. Many thinkers over the centuries have spoken of Light and Darkness, of Good and Evil, of Love and Hate. Often these images and terms have been presented as if they were stark opposites. My experience tells me that just about every aspect of "reality" or "human nature" is best presented in terms of relationship and gradation. The ubiquitous Chinese Yin-Yang symbol is a useful graphic. Although, to properly appreciate it, one should remember that it offers a dynamic and not a static interaction between the Yin and Yang energies. Likewise, the Sunny Spot carries with it the understanding that the sun's intensity varies during the day and by season. Sometimes it is sunny and partly cloudy. Similarly, the Shade describes aspects of a person that are farther from the sun, until, eventually, total darkness is manifest.

Living in the Shade

Everyone exists within the Shade. There is an envelope of darkness that defines the Sunny Spot as there is an envelope of sun that defines the Shade. After all, people are a bit like the weather, ever-changing during any given day. On most days, an interplay of sun and clouds creates Sunny Spots and moments of Shade. On days when storms and fierce weather create havoc, the Shade dominates. Imagistically, when earthquakes and tornados strike within a person or a group, people may find themselves in deep Shade, disoriented and lost in their own darkness.

One curious feature of the dynamically sinuous and mobius relationship of the Sunny Spot and the Shade is that few people discuss their Shade moments. Even as a Catholic youth when I practiced my Examination of Conscience if I accused myself of a Shade moment, say, a minor Venial Sin of a "white lie," I certainly didn't discuss this dark aspect of myself with my family. No, I'd only go to a special Shady place, the sacramental Confessional, where I'd whisper my sins to a priest who sat behind a smoky, ethereal screen. My point is this: If you reflect on it, I'd wager that you only hear about your Shade aspects from others. That is, you first learn about aspects of your Shade when others respond negatively to a personal action that you previously thought was okay.

Let's say you make a sarcastic remark to a co-worker at lunch. As you speak you might perceive yourself as Sunny, that is, witty, insightful, and clever. After all, your sarcasm shows the other person something they previously did not see or know about themselves. Perhaps you feel playful, engaging and humorous. Let's say, however, that the other person recoils, even shows through a verbal or nonverbal response that you have caused hurt. Then you must face the fact that you've wandered into your Shade. Cleary, this is an unintended consequence of your alleged Sunny act. All of a sudden, the tables have turned. You now must see something about yourself that you didn't know or didn't want anyone to see, namely, your Shady nasty side.

In such a situation, many an individual fumbles and stammers, trying to reclaim their Sunny Spot. "Lame excuse!" others reply. Yet, even if you make a fervent apology, you might hear with a judgmental tone, "Well, it's said now. You can't take it back." At this point you might accept this insight into your Shade and pledge to more carefully guard your lips or you might totally deny your Shade aspect. "Oh, c'mon, I was only kidding." Often an attempt is made to switch attention to the offended person's Shade by saying, "Don't be so sensitive!" This is a clever (or not so clever) attempt to convince everyone that the offended person is manifesting his own Shade by his implying that you are not in your Sunny Spot.

My own experience based on, among other things, being an extremely sarcastic youth, is that we would never discover our Shade if others didn't point it out. I doubt that more than a few people discover their Shade through personal ntrospection. Rather, as with the long list of Mortal and Venial Sins catalogued in my first-grade catechism, it takes an outside agent to move us to explore our Shade.

Even after confessing legions of sins over the decades, I, to this day, am happy to speak to you about my Sunny Spot but not my Shade.

Sure, in time as you get to know me, I'll talk about my Shade, but no one in the early phases of a relationship opens up by saying, "Welcome. Come with me into my Shade." In fact, the opposite occurs. It is during the times when family, friends and acquaintances begin to truly get to know you that they provide feedback about your Shade. "All in all, Frank, you're not such a bad guy" is actually a compliment because it reflects that someone values both my Sunny Spot and my Shade.

Figure A - Sunny Spot and Shade

The relationship between your Sunny Spot and Shade has characteristics similar to a Mobius strip.

Mobius strips have found a number of surprising applications that exploit a remarkable property: one-sidedness. Joining A to C and B to D (no half twist) produces a simple belt-shaped loop with two sides and two edges. On this belt it is impossible to travel from one side to the other without crossing an edge. But, as a result of the half twist, the Möbius Strip has only one side and one edge.

You are a mobius personality. Until others give you a half-twist you experience and express yourself as if you are a simple belt-shaped loop. The half-twist enables you to look at yourself and see yourself as other's do. This normally results in critical insight.

I use the Mobius strip image because the Sunny Spot and Shade are manifestations of one person, that is, you. There is no duality in human relationships, only distinctions. Humans are all of one kind (humankind) and differ solely in degrees. Everyone is a human person, of equal value. How you express and manifest your humanness, however, defines your distinctiveness, your special personality.

While all visual images have their limitations, the Mobius strip also looks like a pathway. This conveys the sense of internal and external self-exploration and self-discovery. Your identity develops and matures as you walk the pathway that experiences with others "twists." As you walk your personal pathway, your group identities twist you inside and out. Some enable you to see more of your Sunny Spot; others, your Shade.

Of note is that many people are familiar with Mobius strips as used by the renown artist, M.C. Escher.

# Chapter 26: Identity groups' Sunny Spot and Shade

In Part 2, as I examine and evaluate the three dominant Big Stories and certain personal Stories, I look through the lens of best-of-times and worst-of-times. In sync with that approach, I also employ the discipline of searching for the Sunny Spot and the Shade. For most people, this latter approach is usually valued and applied when looking at life and actions as presented through a personal Story. But matters differ greatly when the approach is used to examine and evaluate the actions of groups, which form your Big Story identity.

Let's say you work for a company that makes you feel part of a "corporate family." Then, when it is criticized, you feel defensive. Your first impulse is to deny that your "corporate personality" has Shade aspects. You might even feel more agitated than if you had been personally attacked. Part of the reason for this response is that few of us ever feel that we have any direct control over any aspect of a corporate personality. Certainly, you don't want to look around the office and conclude that "everyone is bad." If you accepted that as true, what would you do? Deep-six your career? Even with the seemingly never-ending slew of corporate scandals, few workers in a corporation ever feel move to publicly state, "I work for a Shady company." Even fewer, if any, actually judged their company as "evil." (During the Vietnam Era, certain corporations were put on trial. "The Honeywell Project" led by Marv Davidov held "The Honeywell Trials" at the Newman Center where I was serving my Alternative Service. At the time, one brother and one brother in law worked for Honeywell which then manufactured the heinous "anti-personnel bombs" that exploded and sent razor sharp flechettes to slice human flesh to ribbons. The flechettes did little to no damage on property.)

In this vein, when your nation is critically judged you may get really riled. Let's look at this in respect to the national identity group of "Americans." No matter what America does, from preemptive warfare to dropping the atomic bomb to outsourcing jobs to child and slave labor countries, a not uncommon response is, "Who are they to accuse us?"

If you are an American citizen asking these critical questions, you may be viewed as a "traitor" or at least "un-American." While I will return to a discussion about America's Sunny Spot and Shade, for now, please consider that the further away you and I get from being able to exercise direct influence on Shade aspects of an identity group, the more prone we are to deny that such Shade aspects even exist. Or, if they exist, that there really are good reasons for them and that these Shade aspects, if true, in no way lessen the size of our church's, corporation's or nation's Sunny Spot.

Let's take one more example: the Roman Catholic Church. As I experienced it, the Church is presented as the sole and sufficient source of what is good in the world. It alone has the "Good News." It is cited as being "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic" which means that its goodness goes back to the Age of the Apostles and Jesus, and that it has survived over the centuries as the One source of God's Truth and Goodness. It alone is Holy. Anyone who criticizes the Church at its core, that is, in respect to its doctrines and dogmas, is by so acting (de facto) a heretic and a minion of the Prince of Darkness, Satan himself.

When your corporation's, nation's or church's Shade is exposed, you have a deep need to assert its innocence—much like a convict's knee-jerk profession of his innocence. So, there is a curious relationship between your sense of powerlessness and how unShady you profess your identity groups to be.

One insight into your defensiveness about your identity groups being labeled Shady, for example, racist, sexist, exploitative, and so on, is that identity groups enable us to express power when we feel powerless. Many people join identity groups because they feel powerless when facing major issues. For example, most people work within a hierarchy of power. They feel powerless to make significant changes within the workplace, and even more powerless when it comes to affecting social, cultural, religious and global issues. The peculiar dynamic sustained here is that by keeping their Shade hidden, your identity groups disempower you. They render you powerless to criticize them. You are only empowered when you praise their Sunny Spots.

# Chapter 27: Group brooding emotions

I've observed that most of us are aware of our own Shady spots and dark feelings, even sins. However, I anticipate that when you talk about your identity groups, you will tell me how they work to affect change on specific Shade issues, for example, abortion, capital punishment, child abuse, or corruption. More, I anticipate hearing that the only way you can act in a morally pure, just and fair way is through your identity groups. The group "has all the expert information" and is morally pure. It is you who "lacks the big picture" and the "collective wisdom" to act as morally as your group does.

In this view, your group is motivated by good intentions and deeds. Here is where I see your Big Story come into play to define and delimit your range of heartfelt moral acts. This is a drawing of boundaries which you judge as positive but others may judge as negative. In those situations where you intellectually dissent from a Big Answer, I expect that you fail to challenge and assert your countervailing personal Story answers because of the group's brooding emotions.

For example, if your group is primarily grounded in Scientism's Big Story, you will approach the issue of abortion as a "health issue." You will image, model and ground your moral actions as you value them in terms of making the other person, here the aborting mother, healthy. The brooding emotion that guides you is the feeling of being healthy as you act toward another so as to make her healthy. Through this moral act, you feel the healthy and positive impact of your Big Story. Any qualms you might entertain or any weighty criticisms you might consider are swept under the rug because their brooding emotions do not make you feel as fully safe, sane and just.

When the three dominant Big Stories are explored in Part 2, how they negatively and positively define, delimit and regulate your personal Stories moral options will be more fully discussed.

Despite the ubiquity of high-tech devices, I aver that you have not made the world-wide-human-connection that Digital Age technology offers, that is, to "think globally, act locally." Rather, the Internet enables you to defer your "thinking globally" to your identity groups. In fact, immersion into cyberspace is often accompanied by a sense of information overload, a negative impact of access to "worldwide" information at the click of a mouse. For me, the lack of significant public resistance to the wars since Vietnam underscores this seemingly unintended consequence of the World-Wide-Web.

I joined a draft-board raiding team partially as a media tactic. In the early 1970s most cities had one or two major papers. TV was pre-cable and limited in channel selection. There was no cellular telecommunications. News was the "nightly news," unless there was a major catastrophe to justify an emergency report. Consequently, "getting media coverage" was next to impossible, unless you could afford to hire a PR firm. So, the draft raid was one way to get-out the anti-war message. In this light, my draft-raid action was an "alternative media" campaign, when alternative media did not yet exist.

Vietnam-era anti-war activists believed that their fellow citizens simply did not have sufficient information about the war and about the government's secret actions. It took decades before anyone clearly proved that the Bay of Tonkin incident, which President Johnson used to escalate the war, never happened.

In like manner, a secret war in Laos was waged for seven years before it was reported by the American media. That this latter secret war went unreported by the "free press" of the world's major democracy blew-me-away at the time. However, even then, it became apparent that access to information was not the linchpin for moral resistance to the war. So, it is not surprising that in the Digital Age I often hear from draft-age men, my two sons included, that they simply ignore information to which they feel they cannot respond. Moreover, they are weary, almost jaded, as to the truthfulness of information transmitted by "experts." Instead of benefiting from virtual reality's instant access to up-to-the minute-information—often presented by top officials, scholars and "inside sources"—they turn away. They anticipate bias, misdirection, half-truths, hyperbole and distortion by special interest groups.

# Chapter 28: Internet's Shade and individual powerlessness

Even when personally teleconnected and telecommunicating in the virtual community of cyberspace, you can still avoid acting locally in a moral or even ethical situation by saying, "I'm just one person. What can I do?" Who can argue with such a statement? After all, in the high-tech world, you are simply a node on a network, an IP address of binary digits, a mouse click away from disconnection. Off-line!

A key point then is that an unintended consequence of the World-Wide-Web is that as you learn more about global matters, you come to rely more on your groups to come up with answers and actions. Somewhat paradoxically, the Web endows you with a greater sense of powerlessness and a greater need to tap into a group's brooding emotion.

In like manner, the Internet's cyber-Shade is world-wide. You—as logged-on through any group identity—can live a totally Shade life. You can lie, cheat and steal under your username, for example, "GoodBoyJohnnie." The Net tempts you in a way that Biblical Satan never could. In fact, you face your Shade self as if in a clear mirror because you know who you are as you use your Shade "GoodBoyJohnnie" username. Globalization then readily taps the darkest brooding emotions, but only at your personal choosing. Note that you can identify yourself as representing any of the group identities. This is something you cannot do "off-line." You can be online with a different personal and family identity. You can allege to represent a social group. You can identify yourself in an absolutely "other" cultural category, for example, impersonate being Eskimo to uncover information from an oil research company. You can be spiritually whatever you want to be: Native American, Christian, Wiccan, Jain, Bahai, etc.

The Internet allows you to carve diverse personal Stories from a vast array of Big Stories. You can live multiple lives when online. This, I anticipate, is one of the most daunting psychological and spiritual challenges facing the Digital Age generation. They are growing up with an understanding of the Shade side of personal identity that few born before WWW might ever possess.

From a best-of-times perspective the Internet enables you to "walk a mile" in another's footsteps. You can log-on and take part in conversations, say, with Hindus as if you were one. You can explore military websites, even communicate with soldiers in the battlefield. You can be a "virtual male or female" and explore a masked sexual identity.

What is to be discerned is what brooding emotions does the Internet allow most people to tap? If surfing the Net overwhelms you with a sense of powerlessness, how will you brood? If it expands your consciousness and sense of "I can think globally and act locally!" how then will you brood?

Managing your brooding emotions

When you step aside and allow identity groups to act on your behalf, you aren't doing so because you want them to act badly or evilly. In fact, you so want them to be Sunny that you temper or shut down your critical questioning. What is happening? More than just involving yourself in group-think, you are grounding yourself in the brooding emotions of the group's Big Story. These group-emotions might include a feeling of being morally righteous, or safe, or compassionate. For example, your charitable contributions often provide you with a complex of brooding emotions that, taken together, make you feel good, just and morally and spiritually healthy.

The connection to the group's brooding emotions overrides any conscious struggle you have with your self-judgment that "I don't do enough." Or "I don't care enough." In the main, the group's brooding emotions provide you with a sense of belonging and of empowerment. Notably, however, it is an emotion that requires you to surrender your critical thinking skills as you seek to fully feel the depths of the group's brooding emotions.

In my situation, I grew up in a highly hierarchical, centralized and dictatorial Roman Catholic Big Story. There was scant room for a personal Story that deviated from the Big Story. My personal Story was carved as 98% Big Story and 2% my own individual moral decisions. Certainly, I was not encouraged to think for myself. Rather, I was subserviently obedient. What I received in return was the feeling that although the world would pass away, I would live in eternity because the Church was eternal: "Sic transit gloria mundi" or "All the glory of the world passes away." I felt that the Church was true, right, just and holy. Consequently, I followed Her doctrines and dogmas in exacting rote obedience. Groups—nations, churches, corporations, etc.—can draw you into their Shady, even evil, spot without you're being aware of that movement.

Now pause a moment and consider that adjusting to a group's identity statements requires managing your brooding emotions more than your thoughts. Intellectually, you might disagree with some of your group's beliefs and statements but you retain and maintain your group identity because of how you anticipate you will feel if the group rejects or ejects you. For example, how do you feel when your basketball tickets put you in the opponent's section? If you stand up and root for your team, you risk being booed, doused with a soda or verbally confronted by an angry fan. You might want to announce, "Hey! I'm a fan like you are. I have a right to cheer my team." Such a free-speech claim gets you nowhere! This sporting group has its brooding emotions: superficiality, macho camaraderie, playfulness and "soft porn" cheerleader pleasurable entertainment. However, it is sourced, for some, in an emotion that leads to Shade acts, such as violent attacks on property or even other fans. What is happening?

For most opponent fans, your presence in their section simply spoils their fun. Perhaps they urge you to return to the other side where you belong. They realize, "It's only a game."

However, I use this almost superficial example because it underscores the diversity of brooding emotions some find through a group identity that others in the group do not tap. This happens when a specific group identity, such as being a New York Yankee fan or a Manchester United Football Club fan, is the most significant identity that connects you to a satisfying brooding emotion.

Indeed, this is not such a superficial example when you look at the role professional sports play within the globalization movement. There are more than financial reasons why the major American sports are expanding globally. As national identities lose their hard, geographical boundaries, being a sports fan of a certain club or team provides a transnational, even global, sense of rootedness, of being at home. How else can one account for too many fans willing to put their lives in harm's way for the Home Team?

A weightier example addresses the issue of abortion. It presents a clearer connection between a Big Story and its Sunny Spot and Shade. Each side in the abortion debate proffers specific language and imagery in its Big Story, enabling others to connect to their brooding emotion. Abortion-rights or pro-choice groups talk about the fetus in medical and biological terms as a collection of cells. They speak of the mother as a woman having "control" over her body. This is not so much a moral claim as it is an image that connects to the brooding emotion of feeling safe within her own bodily space.

For a woman to be and feel healthy, abortion-rights groups assert, she should link herself to a "sisterhood" of all other women who define for themselves if and when they become mothers. Anti-abortion or pro-life groups speak of the fetus in psychological and spiritual terms as a person. They position the mother as a co-creator with a father, and describe the decision to abort or not as a family decision. Her individuality, in body and as a moral agent, is subordinated to the group's need. Here, it is life's "need" to survive by birthing babies or God's "need" for His gift of life, i.e., the new child, to be accepted.

Depending on which Big Story you accept, you see your Sunny Spot and Shade differently. Each side of the abortion debate condemns the other as being ignorant or immoral. What is of point is that each side's intellectual position is readily comprehended. Each group's set of arguments are logically sound, rationally based, and reasonable. Which Big Story you elect to use to carve out your personal Story depends upon the brooding emotions which satisfy you. Since many anti-abortion groups use a Religious Big Story, their brooding emotions include a dreadful fear that they are offending God and that they will be cast into Hell for eternity. For them, not to follow God's Revealed Truths and consequent moral commandments, sourced in a sacred scripture, is to surrender to Satan's temptation.

In like manner, many abortion-rights groups forward a Religious Big Story that is modified by accepting parts of both the Secular and Scientism's Big Story. They feel that God has endowed humans with a thinking capacity that empowers them to seek out and discern God's truths. They accept the Secular Big Story's focus on the individual as an agent of history. They accept Scientism's Big Story of evolution that shows that life continues despite global catastrophes and species extinctions. In this light, one potential life is less of a concern than that of the group's life. So, whether or not the aborting mother already has children or is simply electing to have them later on, the group's overall survival is ensured. The immediate act of aborting does not threaten the group's survival. In this way, a personal Story is carved that connects them to the brooding emotions of feeling free, healthy, and in control of their bodies.

Abortion also presents a Big Story chapter that occurs when there is a disconnect between your personal Story's brooding emotions and that of your Big Story. When this happens, you either reject your Big Story and seek a new personal Story or you rigidly align your Big and personal Stories so that all your personal moral acts of passion and commitment are identical with those of your group. Many have left the Catholic Religious Big Story because they reject the brooding emotions it offers at the moment of pregnancy. A similar disconnect happened for me when I failed to connect to the Church's brooding emotions as I sought to feel at peace and at home with all other humans.

Just as your Big Story can deliver you to the best-of-times while it creates the worst-of-times for others, so can you be drawn into a group's Shade while others are finding its Sunny Spot. For example, when it comes to handling accusations about the Shade aspects of your religious or spiritual institution, a full denial is quite common. The recent horror of the pedophilia scandal within the Roman Catholic Church (and other religious organizations) reveals to many a Shade so dark and profound that it can only be termed evil. But if that is so, are all Catholic priests evil? If the leaders are evil, are the followers evil too?

When we get to a discussion of deep darkness, of real evil, it is an awareness always forced on us by outsiders whom we accuse of having evil intentions. We label them as extremists, heretics, traitors, even witches. For example, although the pedophilia scandal brings about a complex and profoundly disturbing discussion, no organization such as the Catholic Church accuses itself of evil. Perhaps only when centuries removed from an evil incidence might the group atone, even revise its internal historical accounts. But it does not—it cannot—do so in the face of contemporary active evil.

In this vein, even as more cases of child abuse are brought to light, the Catholic Church urges its followers "to move on," to focus on the Church's Sunny Spot and see the evil within as caused by a few sinful, possibly even evil, priests. I hold, as a guiding principle for assessing and interpreting a Big and personal Story, that no group confronts its deep darkness through internal introspection. Rather, it is an insight and awareness that comes from outside the group, often by those who are labeled in the Big Story as enemies.

I need to be clear on this point: Even if you try to remain inside the group, say, as a Roman Catholic, once you identify and expose the Shade, you are effectively cast outside of the group. If you truly expose evil actions, this group's rejection is often quite formal, for example, exile, shunning, excommunication, incarceration, and in the historic past, even burning at the stake. Although it does not necessarily have to unfold in this manner, more often than not, once you encounter the evil of a Big or personal Story and reject it, then you are on your way out of that Big or personal Story. My experience in prison made me confront this reality. I could have persisted in calling myself Catholic or Christian, but my personal Story was so out of line, so severely idiosyncratic, that after I told it, others would ask, "Why do you still call yourself Catholic, even Christian?"

By being incarcerated, I was considered evil by society. Similarly, I knew my Church considered me heretical when my local bishop issued a letter forbidding me from preaching, effectively blacklisting me when I applied to Catholic colleges for teaching positions. At that point I had to consider that I might be wrong. This might was difficult for me to get my arms around because the Church had been my emotional and spiritual refuge all my life. Once Mother Church rejects you, who is going to love you? For a guy who had devoted all his life, up until that time, to Mother Church, this was not a flip question.

From the State's judgment bench, the judge at trial intoned, "You gentlemen are worse than the average criminal who attacks the taxpayer's pocketbook. You strike at the foundation of government itself." Of course, like all convicts I asserted my innocence. Actually, in alliance with another lawyer who represented my co-defendant, I appeared attorney-pro-se and my opening argument to the jury began, "We did it. And I want to tell you why."

In terms I use today, the judge was telling me that my personal Story was rocking the foundations of his Secular Big Story, but that he had the powers of judgment and punishment. As I stood and heard his condemnation, I wondered, "Why am I so threatening to him?" I didn't understand, back then, that I was striking at the foundation of the government's primal brooding emotion, that is, at its gut need to be at war with an enemy to feel secure.

# Chapter 29: Adolf Hitler's Sunny Spot?

Let's explore a bit further this theme of how a group's Shade, even evil, is brought to that group's awareness. Most people's Number One Evil Doer, Adolf Hitler, offers a perfect example. For the vast majority of people, the crimes, horrors and abuses of the Nazi Reich clearly show that its Big Story—of the Aryan Race's German Fascism—had a heart of deep darkness. After inspecting concentration camp photos, reading about the unimaginable medical experiments conducted by seemingly highly educated scientists and doctors on innocents, or hearing about the Gestapo's culture of sadomasochistic brutality, who would not consider the entire lot wholly evil? (Note: It is important to realize that these Germans were highly educated in Western culture's scientific tradition, and that most if not all were strongly influenced by Judaeo-Christian values of the Biblical tradition.)

Few would exonerate any German who alleges that his or her personal Story was morally sound during this time, unless he or she had risked personal harm to resist the Aryan Big Story. Yet, let's be realistic: As I learned while in prison, no one accuses himself of being intentionally evil. In fact, if someone says, "I am evil," and/or indicates they enjoy doing evil acts, he or she is labeled a sociopath or madman. We must accept, in my terms, that Adolf Hitler likely thought he was acting from within his Sunny Spot and that he was feeling the warmth of that Spot as he led others—individuals, corporations, the German Nation and, yes, the German Roman and Lutheran Catholic Church through its Bishops—into the heart of darkness.

Germany provides an interesting study concerning how individuals accept and integrate into their personal Stories the understanding that their national historic Big Story was so hugely in the Shade. Germans continue to reflect on their country's Shady darkness. This has included profound private and public discussions about why Germans as citizens of the Nazi Reich became evil. I believe that Germany continues this internal examination of conscience only because it lost the war. More, that there is nearly no discussion about modern Germany's Shade. The discussion of evil is relegated to a historic timeline. This is so because Germany as a nation has moved into the Sunny Spot of the currently globally dominant nation's Big Story, namely, the United States. Through the Marshall Plan and other American-led reconstruction efforts, Germany is now part of the U.S. economic and cultural system. America is the leader of Western culture, and Germany has atoned, repented and returned to the fold. "Evil Germany" is a nation of the fascistic past, not of the "American" present. Presently, reconstructed Germany is a case history example and part of the "American way of life." In sum, Germany jettisoned the Nazi Aryan Big Story and adopted the three dominant Big Stories which are driving globalization.

Again, I stress that it takes an external agent to alert you to your Shade and most especially move you to identify and admit your evil acts. So, consider what, if any, specific external agent(s) move you to see your personal, corporate, national or religious-spiritual Shade? Likely, you live nested within a hierarchy of external groups that enable you to sense or not to sense your Sunny Spot and Shade.

As you mature, the strongest external agents which influence your awareness of your Sunny Spot and Share are the church, then the nation, then the corporation and then the family. Group influence flows in reverse as you identity matures, that is, you were first most strongly influenced by family, then social groups, etc. Such groups continue to provide feedback and potential insight into your Shade as your personal Story matures. At this point, you are formed by the church's spiritual truths and proclaims moral guidelines. By the nation's laws and policies, which provide external boundaries for individual and corporate actions. By the corporation's own internal culture, which is bounded by ethical rules and procedures. However, at this moment of maturity, does the formative influence ever flow the other way? That is, can the mature individual articulate the Shade aspects of his church, nation or corporation? We will return to this question often.

In summary, the two core disciplines and practices I follow as I write Sensual Preciousness are the following: 1) to examine every Big Story and personal Story to discern how an event or situation is seen by various agents (such as the individual, corporation, nation or church) in respect to it being the best-of-times or the worst-of-times, and 2) to look at how an individual or group perceives its Sunny Spot and its Shade aspects.

# Chapter 30: How do you feel things are going?

By this point you understand why I ask how you feel instead of how you think things are going. Some believe that the mind controls everything and that how you think controls your feelings. I maintain that while this approach is faulty, it has some accuracy when applied to surface emotions and thoughts. For example, you can think yourself into the blues by dwelling on unhappy thoughts or by surrounding yourself with others who wallow in negatives. Indeed, the three Big Stories believe in "mind over matter," consequently we exist within a social, cultural and group-psychological milieu wherein thinking is valued over feeling. When you disagree and say, "I don't feel that way," you may hear, "Stuff your feelings!," "Get a grip!" or "Grin and bear it!" These popular quips indicate that a thinking person controls his gut feelings.

What I suggest, in distinct contrast, is that brooding emotions rule your mind. Consider this question: "What is your primal brooding emotion or range of brooding emotions?" I anticipate that you can make a list, but I doubt if you'll correctly identify it or them. To properly identify your brooding emotion(s) is a major task and objective of Sensual Preciousness.

On a conversational level, you probably have a fairly good understanding of how things are going. If we talked you'd probably share a lot of positives and negatives, going back and forth as we discussed whether it is the best or worst-of-times. In the end, you might even throw up your hands and say, "Who really knows?! Who can see the Big Story?" At that moment, while you're steeped in thinking mode, I might suggest not figuring it out—just tell me what your gut says.

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammo!"

The life-or-death importance of your working from your brooding emotion over and against your thinking is evidenced by my experience in trying to stop war, which is really legalized murder. When I encountered my first pacifist, my college roommate Jim Hunt, I thought he was screwy. I had just left the Franciscan monastery but was still intent on searching out the meaning and demands of Jesus' message. Since I was a Roman Catholic, I had over a millennium of Big Story tradition to draw upon as guidance. The tradition is the accumulated wisdom of great thinkers and souls, called the "Fathers of the Church " It is an account of how they carved their personal Stories from the Big Story and in turn often changed parts of the Big Story. Some of these "Fathers" are known to you, others possibly not. From Origen to St. Augustine, from Thomas Aquinas to Cardinal John Henry Newman, from Jacques Maritain to the current Pope.

A study of this tradition reveals the core Religious Big Story, passed down through the ages, as well as all the personal Stories that arose from that tradition. Of great interest to me have been those within the tradition whose personal Stories made them apostates, heretics, excommunicants and dissenters. By studying these outsiders, the brooding emotions of the Big Story are plainly revealed. Truths (doctrines and dogmas) of the faith are clarified by denouncing what is not true, that is, what is heretical. In this tradition, the solution called the "Just War Theory" clarifies how I was to connect my personal Story to the Religious Big Story.

Moreover, in this tradition much thought has gone into dealing with the apparent conflict between the Biblical commandment against killing and the waging of war. This conflict is heightened by the New Testament's emphasis on such themes and utterances as "God is Love" and "Love thy neighbor as thyself." As well as, "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (Gospel of John, Chapter 15) While the Jewish Torah and Christian Old Testament Religious Big Stories narrate instances of "the faithful" fighting "holy wars" as acts of devotion to their god, in the New Testament there exists no notion or call for such warring. However, my tradition's theory of the "Just War" enabled me to grow up and have no intellectual-emotional conflict between being a good Catholic and being a professional soldier.

I studied comparative religions during my early graduate years, and verses from other religions were not as significant then as they have become in the current millennium. For example, the Koran's Sword Verse, "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." Qu'ran, 9:5 As back then, so now, this seems to clearly mirror the Old Testament's acceptance of holy violence. However, as within Christianity, this verse is argued, equally, as testament to Islam's peacefulness as to its inherent commitment to Holy War.

I was dressed in my novice Franciscan robes when the Novice Master took me to register for the Selective Service System in August of 1962. I remember the ride into town from the rural monastery fields. I was observant enough—and characteristically curious—to read the Selective Service registration materials. It was the first time that I had come across the mention of "Conscientious Objector" status. I asked the Master, "Aren't we Conscientious Objectors to war?" I can still see his paternal and well-intentioned smile as he actually patted me on the head and said to the effect, "Later, Friar Otto. You'll learn all about that, later."

So, while I had an inkling that something was amiss, I never seriously thought about pacifism until I met my college roommate, Jim. Even then I wasn't readily convinced. My dad had served in the Navy during World War II, my brother, George, was considering signing up for a stint in the early Vietnam-era navy, and around my house, "Praise the Lord and pass the ammo!" was a popular phrase.

Simply put, I could see myself as a military chaplain, tending and anointing men on the battlefield. However, as with most Americans, I wasn't paying much attention to the escalating Vietnam War. My mind was immersed in philosophical meanderings and, now out of the monastery, on the young women at the all-female College of Saint Benedict.

# Chapter 31: The Just War theory

During my college years, my intense thinking-feeling conflict centered on sexual morality and not the war. The "free love" movement and early Feminine Mystique feminism rocked my personal Story. But I did learn about the Just War theory as part of my major in philosophy. It is worth reviewing its principles.

Principles of the Just War

A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All nonviolent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient, see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

From Vincent Ferraro at http://www.justwartheory.com/

Impressive, yes? All of this "Heavy, man!" mentation to arrive at giving yourself comfort as you pull the trigger and thump the life out of another person! Well, this was the intellectual tradition of my youth. It remains a core moral theology doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations.

My roommate Jim was a nice guy but I wasn't overwhelmed by his undergraduate command of random Scriptural quotes, a sprinkle of the Hindu Mahatma Gandhi's satyagraha, the contemporary call to nonviolence of Martin Luther King, and the anarchist Catholics who followed Dorothy Day and Thomas Merton, the Trappist monk. Merton and Day were part of the "Catholic Worker" movement who, since the 1950s, protested nuclear war, war taxes, and seemingly anything that they judged led to war. Yet, I clearly remember the queasy feeling in my gut as I defended the tradition's Just War theory!

From Jim's perspective, I was the one who needed conversion to Jesus' true message. While his focus on the Sermon on the Mount and the fact that Jesus lay down his life for us snared my attention—because I had always seen myself as a Good Guy, a future caring teacher and loving father (a large Sunny Spot!)—I still vigorously resisted his arguments. After all, adopting a nonviolent spirituality would have implied that I was critical of my Dad's and brother's service, and it questioned my patriotism, my bravery, and my loyalty to Mother Church.

Back then, I was just as fairly comfortable with the belief that the Just War theory settled the issue as I was with the Catholic tenet that women were ontologically inferior to men. In brief, the intellectual Big Story of Roman Catholicism and the Just War theory enabled me to squelch my gut instincts toward being a "peacemaker." Moreover, it allowed me to develop a personal Story marked by the fact that I did not feel uncomfortable dressed up in an Army ROTC uniform and marching in formation to fulfill one of my collegiate requirements. Indicative of the times, taking ROTC and an anti-communism course were requirements of most Catholic college curriculums.

Up to this point in my life I had never been violent, never even been in a serious fight. I was a tall, basketball-crazed guy but I had never given into a temptation to abuse my strength or size. Yet saying aloud that I was nonviolent felt like saying I was unmanly, weak and fearful, even girlish. The word nonviolent conveyed a sense of cowardliness. For males of my generation, our hero was John Wayne, charming, taken with the ladies, brave to a fault, and willing to blast the living hell out of any enemy who wandered into his numerous wartime flicks.

# Chapter 32: Vatican Council Two and "Total War"

While I had a wavering admiration for Jim's personal Story of nonviolence, it didn't fit into my Catholic Big Story. That was soon to change, dramatically. During the Sixties, the Religious Big Story of Roman Catholicism was undergoing a historic and challenging revision. In 1962, Pope John XXIII convened the Second Vatican Council whose purpose was to present the Big Story of the Catholic Tradition in concepts and language that spoke to modern times and sought to engage major issues of the day. Significantly, its reach was intentionally ecumenical and globally cultural in that it intended to speak to those outside of the Church, not just to those inside it.

When the Council ended in 1965 under Pope Paul VI, one the Council's most startlingly statements was its condemnation of Total War. "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and humanity, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." From, "Gaudium et Spes," Section 1, "The Avoidance of War," in the Documents of Vatican Council II.

This assertion was proclaimed to every nation. How was it heard by the nation that dropped the first and only Atomic Bomb? How did it begin to reformulate the thinking of those who, like me, clung to the Just War theory?

Further, a direct challenge was laid at the feet of every person of conscience by Pope John XXIII who wrote in his papal letter Pacem in Terris the following: "Since the right to command is required by the moral order and has its source in God, it follows that, if civil authorities legislate for or allow anything that is contrary to the will of God, neither the laws made nor the authorizations granted can be binding on the consciences of the citizens, since we must obey God rather than men. Otherwise, authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse." Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, Part II, par. 51.

These were just two of many statements that caused numerous Catholics like me to begin to re-imagine the Catholic Big Story. It also made us feel confident that it was our moral right and duty to form compelling personal Stories. We strove to develop what Pope John XXIII called the "consciences of the citizens," which I also reference as "conscientious citizens." It was clear that this referred to me as both a citizen of Caesar and of God.

Catholic Big Story's brooding emotions

Although the Council was calling for a "modernization," a re-imagining of the Catholic Big Story, its impact was more emotional than intellectual. Looking at the call metaphorically, the Council's documents are beams in a soaring intellectual architecture, but their deeper emotional foundation is best assessed by evaluating the range of critical responses. It is not reaching for hyperbole to say that responses came from both the howling depths of fear and the ecstatic heights of joy.

How you imagined the Vietnam War, either as a "Just War" or a "Total War," revealed your range of brooding emotions. Those who defended the Vietnam War as a Just War expressed a brooding dreadful fear and terror. Those who opposed the war as a "Total War" and who imagined themselves and all other people, including the Vietnamese themselves, as "People of God," expressed a brooding peacefulness and comfortableness. The former declined the call of Pope John to exercise their "consciences" as citizens creating "Peace on Earth." Rather, they preferred the tradition's Big Story to do the thinking for them, that is, apply the principles of the Just War Theory.

The "citizens of conscience" (my phrase) were stepping out from tradition's Shade and witnessing to the larger Sunny Spot that the "People of God" image made manifest. If you are not familiar with Catholicism, you might have a difficult time understanding the veritable earthquake that the Council unleashed in the minds and hearts of its faithful. Yet using them as an example is critical because I identify the brooding emotions of the Religious Big Story tradition as a driving force of globalization.

In one sense, the Council caused certain Catholics to become refugees—a displaced people. Prior to the Council, these citizens of conscience accepted their role as "lay people" who lived in an authoritarian, benign dictatorship where paternalistic mind-control was soothingly effected through rote catechetical training and a highly ritualized world.

While the Council did not change any doctrines or dogmas, it did call for faithful individuals to see themselves more as part of the "People of God" (a key Conciliar imagistic phrase) than as an institutional Church. This was a call beyond just being ecumenical which, for most, simply meant embracing Protestants and Jews. Rather it was a call to embrace all people and all cultures. The Council offered up fresh and startling concepts and images for re-imagining the Catholic Big Story.

Today it is apparent to me that many Council members were beginning to feel comfortably at home here on the Living Earth. This was partly due to the profound influence of Teilhard de Chardin's vision upon many Council leaders, including Pope John XXIII.

Few Catholics responded to the Council's documents with moderation. Looking back, now four decades later, I sense a crack in the Big Story of a proportion I never could have foretold. Like many others I saw myself as a reformer, not a radical. In my own mind and heart, I was doing the Church's work. I defined myself as a theologian, having obtained a master's degree in theology. Where once I would have accepted the critical comment that my antiwar actions were drastic and extreme, today I see them as normative—at least normative in the new spiritual imagination of the People of God who condemned "Total War."

Nevertheless, the history of the Church after the Council up to today is dominated by a pervasive withdrawal, even rejection, by the post-Vatican Two popes from the imagination of the Documents. While it is a long story, the short version is that just about every "citizen of conscience" left the Church. "People of God" inspired priests, nuns, seminarians, theologians and laity left in droves. Those who remained strove to retain the Catholic Big Story as it was before the Council met. They are, in the main, those who rejected being "citizens of conscience." For me, the extreme-but-telling character of their faithfulness to the pre-Conciliar Big Story is manifested by their tolerance of the sexual abuse and pedophilic crimes committed and condoned by their priests, nuns and bishops. Simply, they could not imagine that their anointed and ordained, "supernatural" priest-Fathers could be so corrupt. For them, this evil had to have come from outside—the Serpent! Certainly, for them Mother Church has no such evil Shade. I discuss this assessment and judgment in greater detail in Part 3.

What happened to me is that the Council changed my personal identity. The Catholic Big Story was being re-imagined and it led to a huge wave of individuals re-imagining their personal Story. I and others expanded our personal Stories from 98% Big Story to 51%. That's a fair judgment because, at this pre-prison time, I still viewed myself as a faithful son of the Church.

My civil disobedience I fashioned as other Catholic Radicals did as "Divine Disobedience." I heard the Council proclaim that my personal identity included my personal moral responsibility for developing my social identity as a consequence of my spiritual identity changing to that of being one of the People of God. Personally, I was to be a citizen of conscience for whom social justice and social service were daily priorities. I heard them rephrase JFK and challenge me, "Ask not what the People of God can do for you. Ask what you can do for the People of God." Obeying Mother Church, then, meant obeying my conscience, for my actions made the People of God present to all peoples of the world.

Moving toward peacefulness

This re-imagining of the Big Story was a historic event, but even more so was the call for the individual to form his own personal Story. As stated in Pope John XXIII's quote (above), the faithful individual was to envision himself as a "conscientious" citizen. It was his task to deal with the Big Questions. He was no longer simply to follow clerical advice, although, obviously, he was to seek its wisdom.

The point here for us in this discussion is that it is up to you to weigh the risks which accompany the emotional breakdown that occurs at this moment of transformative breakthrough. Instead of finding safety and security in a doctrinal and dogmatic tradition, you are called—even obligated—to be and so form the conscience of this living tradition. It is up to you to express the Spirit of God. It is up to you to transform the world. Whew! Very heart-thumping stuff.

As you might anticipate, many mainline critics opine that "life changes but everything remains the same." In effect, they look at Vatican Council Two and don't see any special challenge to embrace transformative change. Rather, they say that in the Catholic Big Story a controlling theme is that the faith remains the same throughout the ages. They grant that how it is communicated through concepts, images and language may change, nevertheless doctrines and dogmas are infallible.

But—and this is a point to continually remember and recall—a Big Story often has unintended consequences. To be fair that is what critics of my personal Story did and do say. They see my reaction as "radical." But I ask you to simply re-read the above statement from Pacem in Terris. How would you form, in obedience to the Council's wisdom, your personal Story based on the Big Story that is behind this statement, namely, that "the right to command ... and the moral order has its source in God"? How would you see your obligation then to obey all the laws of your nation? How would you begin to feel what it is that you must do? How would you preach and teach about the "consciences of the citizens."

# Chapter 33: Teilhard de Chardin's powerful influence

Ever so slowly my feelings overcame my fearful thoughts about being branded anti-American or traitorous. I could dissent from the American chapter of my Big Story because I believed that I was faithfully following my Catholic Religious Big Story. Based on Pope John XXIII's encyclical letter, I had less to risk at becoming a heretic to my nation than I did to my Church.

My transformation began, as I've mentioned, when I read the works of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. As his thoughts were the intellectual scaffolding behind most of the re-visioning championed by Vatican Council Two, so were they transformative for my personal Story. Teilhard artfully crafted a Religious Big Story that blended the main tenets of Scientism's Big Story and the Secular Big Story. Yet, again, his accomplishment for me was more deeply emotional than intellectual. It is instructive to explore the outlines of his thought.

Teilhard embraced science and Scientism's central belief in the evolutionary process. He also affirmed the Secular Big Story's theme that the human mind should be unencumbered by dogmatic systems, such as religions, even his own beloved Catholicism. He saw all three Big Stories as containing truths, and he saw them as converging to produce a grander Big Story.

What distinguishes Teilhard is that he placed Religion, Scientism and Secularism in a human context. Although I am presenting his thought in my terms, what he caused me to see is that there is only human knowing. There is no way to get to an "objective" position that is devoid of subjective human emotion. More, he positioned every event and truth within a human relationship. Consequently, if you look at evolution, the physical evidence shows you where humans came from, that is, their Alpha point, as he terms it. What about the emotional evidence? For that, Teilhard looked forward to what he called the Omega point.

What was Teilhard getting at? He actually went one step beyond both Scientism and Secularism in that he implied that "all you have" is you. You are human and you know, feel, act, etc., as a human. So, why do you look to the past? Why do you concern yourself with evolution? Teilhard moved me to see that we look to the past to understand the now so that we can move into the future. What are we humans but future people? You are born, as stated previously, "in the middle of things." You are born from and into a relationship, and your life unfolds as you develop relationships. Being human then means being transformed through relationships.

Life as a relationship

Teilhard's vision moved me and others to ask ourselves, "What is life as a relationship?" One answer is that just as my personal Story pivots on my recounting my life in terms of relationships with family, neighbors, society, church, etc., so the Big Story of Life is the story of my relationship to the universe. In this light, my family is my Alpha Point and the Living Earth is my Omega Point.

In Teilhard's vision, there is no compelling reason not to think that everything is alive. But it is not a matter of thinking as it is a matter of feeling. You cannot think-a-relationship: It emerges from a feeling. Teilhard, in effect, asked me, Can you feel not alive? Is there any moment when I can say that I don't feel alive? If not, then why conjecture that such moments exist? Isn't it a tremendous fantasy to consider that any human experiences being not-alive? And if every human is alive as you are alive, then isn't everything alive? This is so because you only truly know something through a relationship—intellectual and/or emotional—with another human being.

I was a philosophy student when I first encountered Teilhard's thought. I had read idealistic philosophies. I was steeped in the rationalistic tradition of Thomas Aquinas, and I was learning about the limits of human knowing as articulated by the then-popular school of Language Philosophy and the Philosophy of Science movement. So, I knew how others disdained Teilhard, and how foolish and naïve they felt his approach to be.

At a secular University conference for student philosophers, my paper on Teilhard was considered amusing, and my interest in him deemed understandable given my "intellectually suspect" Catholic background. In fact, most modern philosophers feel that a believer of any sort is a subservient intellectual in theological disguise. For them, all theological thinking is guided by dogma and doctrine which negates any claim to interpretive objectivity. Modern philosophers claim to investigate and interpret facts and truths from a point of rigorous "value-free objectivity." For me, "objectivity" can only be defined as a degree of "subjectivity," and vice versa. I found "modern" philosophers to be, in the main, philosophers of the non-human. Meaning, their analyses led to paralysis—a paralysis of inaction. Despite the poetic vagueness of certain Teilhardian terms, when I finished reading him I was always intellectually on fire and inspired to get up and get out into the world—to act!

In my gut, I felt that Teilhard was onto something. Although his terms, Alpha and Omega, seemed almost academic, he sparkled with fire and passion as he wrote a "Hymn of the Universe" and celebrated a "Mass on the World." He lived within a "Divine Milieu." While I wasn't ready to reform the Catholic Big Story in Teilhard's image, his impact on my personal Story proved devastating.

If Teilhard was right, I reflected, every human being manifests my person. I was in relationship with that person even though I didn't directly know him or her. Simply put, each of us was present to the other. Moreover, it was impossible for me as a person not to be in relationship with every other person on the earth. Humans are, in this light, one person, as we are all one biological unit or gene pool.

Visually, instead of imagining yourself as a circle with a single center, Teilhard's thought leads to imagining yourself as an ellipse which is an oval with two centers or focal points. This reflects the fact that you were born within a relationship, namely, that of your parents. Human development is an interaction between you and the not-you or the "other." As an elliptical person, the "other" is always part of your presence. You cannot make yourself present unless you are engaged by this "other" focal point. You become more aware, more conscious and more human as you engage this other who is an integral part of your presence.

This elliptical character of your presence expands into the image of a web when you develop your social, cultural and spiritual identities. This is so because the "other" is also "other" to others besides you, as you are to still other others. The human web you create as your life unfolds is not simply one, two or three dimensional, rather, it is multi-dimensional and has the characteristic of a spiral. You experience this spiraling sense of your presence during any given day as you engage others through your various group identities. For example, with your family you make certain aspects of your identity present. When you engage your corporate others or spiritual others quite distinct, varied and multi-dimensional aspects of your presence are manifested. In short, this elliptical, webbed and spiraling self throbs with living energy, that is, you are the heartbeat of life, itself.

Figure B - You are the heartbeat of life, itself

Teilhard forwarded an early form of Quantum physics' "Butterfly Principle" which states that every action we take, everything we do and say, has an impact on the future. These effects may be positive or negative. While the actions may be small and judged insignificant, they have a way of being amplified over time. To me, this meant that every person was someone with whom I could be in relationship and consequently was vital to my discovery of who I am. Additionally, every personal act of mine and yours has some degree of impact on every other relationship in the cosmos. The impact can be at a personal level or an identity-group level. In essence, I couldn't become me or reach my full human potential unless I nurtured my relationship with every other human. I had to find a way of inviting others to receive me and for me to receive them. But wasn't that physically impossible? Of course. But maybe not emotionally impossible from the perspective of brooding emotions?

Teilhard's world-wide-web of the human heart

I believe that you and I set the brooding emotional tone for the whole Living Earth and every other human being. We do so directly when we are in a personal relationship. This can also be manifested by individual contact through the relationships developed by participating in shared group identities. Teilhard enabled me to feel worldwide, to feel myself as an earth person. Indeed, humorously, he made me feel part of a "worldwide web" long before the physical Internet was created.

In terms of my vision, Teilhard is one of the founders of the worldwide web of the brooding emotion of being comfortably at home and at peace on the Living Earth. Teilhard is described as a "pan-en-theist" which means he found the divine in everything and everyone. For him, while a physical and mental duality exists in the world, namely, I am me and you are you, there is no emotional or spiritual duality. Physically, once born, I am a distinct and individual body. Mentally, I can think thoughts that you cannot hear or which I refuse to share with you. However, emotionally and spiritually, I am you and you are me. Emotion and spirituality are, by definition, expressions of a relationship. They are coupled experiences. Each is an aspect of your intimacy. Emotions and spirituality as expressions of intimacy become critical notions when I later critique the three Big Stories and introduce the Earthfolk vision and imagination.

As the current Digital Age Internet is a technological physical construct that affords global human communication, that is, a mental connection, so did Teilhard move me to understand that I am a node on the worldwide web of the human heart. His Divine Milieu is akin to virtual reality. He made me feel that I could be online while offline, meaning, that as I walked through my physical day at my college in central Minnesota, I was simultaneously Internetted with everyone in the global web of the Living Earth.

Teilhard's vision led me to a deep contact with the brooding emotion to which I had always been connected but about which I had no concepts or imagination. I realized that I was the Living Earth. Just as I was called to be a "People of God," so was I called, as all others are, to understand and deeply feel myself as the Living Earth's heartbeat and conscience. I came to imagine the everlasting Living Earth as forever hearth and home. That the Living Earth is us. That we humans are lively manifestations, presences of the Living Earth. We are its consciousness, its imagining. We are the Living Earth's passion. The Living Earth is hearth, and we the flaming breath of fire. We humans are full-flesh in blood and gasp, birthed from the Living Earth: seed, flower, bloom and fade. I know: Whoa!

# Chapter 34: War as an act of killing yourself

If you accepted Teilhard's worldwide web of the human heart as I did, how would you respond to a call to war? If you understood that every action you take—every thinking, feeling, kinesthetic, creative action—affects every other human, then what will you feel when you slay another? Isn't his or her bloodshed your blood? Isn't war an act of killing yourself? Simply suicide? If you felt this way as, I did, how else could you respond but to conscientiously object?

To hammer this point home, imagine thinking about killing people, all day long. If you turn on the TV, you can follow one show after another, from movies to the news to Hollywood gossip, and be moved to think violent thoughts and steep yourself in violent images. You could think that such violence was justified. hat national defense requires that the enemy be slain. That violence is just the way it is in urban areas. That sexual violence and date rape is the price sexy women pay in the world of glitz and glamour and free sex.

I know that I can think all this if I emotionally distance myself from what I see and hear. But if I let myself feel what I am seeing and hearing in terms of our relationship, that is, that it is you who are being harmed, since you are integral to my being me, then I can no longer tolerate all of this violence. If I see the enemy as family and seek to intimately embrace them as I would my brothers or sisters, then I experience war as a direct, personal attack on all I hold sweet and dear. It matters little which nation's soldiers are on the attack. Once I behold and revere everyone as a darling brother or sister within the "People of God," I can no longer imagine killing them, unless I am suicidal.

When I was on trial, Gordy Nielsen, a former Marine who had been on several "search and destroy" missions in Vietnam, testified on my behalf. Here is what he said, in part. "In dealing with myself, coming back and thinking I was right. And thinking that the things I had done were right because it was what I had been taught in boot camp, and then viewing it from the other side, instead of a gook, it was a human being. Instead of a hootch, it was a home. That really socked it to my head. It really blew my mind. Because I have never thought of a hootch being a home, it was an old grass hootch. And they were peasants, they weren't people."

If you carefully read and then spend some reflective, even meditative, moments on Gordy's statement, then you'll know what the prime message of my life and Sensual Preciousness is.

"instead of a gook, it was a human being—instead of a hootch, it was a home."

Gordy found that he was feeling as brooding emotion that the gook was his own brother. Although, back then, he as I did lacked the concepts and images of Earthfolk, he was feeling comfortably at home while standing inside the hootch. Gordy broke-down because, as a Marine, he was living within the American Patriot's chapter of his Big Story, and he was supposed to be feeling as a soldier should, namely, as if he was the Enemy of those whom he was sent to kill. At that battlefield moment, Gordy lost his personal Story.

Gordy lost his personal Story as a Good Man, as a loving spouse and father. He sat before me in my Newman Center office and told me that he woke up at night and in the midst of a crazed flashback threatened his wife. His children were terrified. He was terrified—of himself. He had returned from Vietnam only to find the war waging in his bedroom. Neither he nor I, then, had the phrase "post-traumatic stress syndrome." What we did have, however, were our own minds and hearts and a commitment to act. Gordy testified at my trial, and later threw his medals over the fence onto the White House lawn.

My first Earthfolk

Gordy was feeling Teilhardian. Although he didn't have Teilhard's Big Story, Gordy's personal Story expressed Teilhard's emotional vision. Gordy was the first Earthfolk that I personally met, although at the time I didn't have that word nor knew how to respond to him. When we first met in my office at the Newman Center on the University of Minnesota campus, I was preaching and teaching theology. Oddly, my job as program manager was approved by my draft board and fulfilled my two years of Alternative Service military obligation as required by my Conscientious Objector status. Usually, "COs" were assigned Alternative Service jobs as hospital orderlies. So, here he was, Gordy the emotional Teilhardian and first Earthfolk challenging me, What are you going to do? Indeed, what was a young, Roman Catholic theologian going to do during the time of the first globalized war, a Total War?

Teilhard de Chardin and Gordy Nielsen are two individuals who challenged not just my thinking, but my feelings. Okay. Pause. Let's be brutally honest: They threatened my thinking and feeling! Deep down, brooding, gut-wrenching, trembling emotions. One transformed my Big Story, the other my personal Story. While my development has many more chapters and is influenced by many other people, the question at hand for you is, How do you feel things are going?

# Chapter 35: Truly, how do you feel things are going?

Take a minute to go over the "Big Story and Personal Story" worksheet in Appendix A. Review your answers to the Big and personal Story questions. Evaluate them in terms of how you feel deep down in your gut when reading the questions. Consider that although you have an intellectual answer, is it matched by your gut feeling? What do you sense is your brooding emotional response, say, to the question, "Where do humans come from?" Do you feel any dread or angst when you consider that? Even if you have a snappy answer such as "from God," does that answer give you a sense of security, safety and peace? I'd like you to reflect on the levels of feeling and range of brooding emotions that emerge as you apply deeper critical thought to these Big Questions.

Your nonverbal communication

To plumb your deepest feelings, consider how you nonverbally react to these Big Questions. Do you express how you feel more nonverbally than verbally? Most people do. Consider how you express your deep passion to your beloved: Words, words, words! They never seem to suffice, do they? You hear yourself saying over and over, "I love you. I love you. I truly love you." And even though you've said it a thousand times, your beloved wants to hear it again. As humorous as this lover's verbal plight might be, the real challenge comes when you hear, "Show me that you love me." The call here is to demonstrate your love through heartfelt actions—deeds and words combined. In a nutshell, to integrate your beloved into your personal Story.

Some nonverbal responses of love may include seemingly trivial tasks, say, washing the dishes, bringing home flowers or attending a ballet you loathe. Or, perhaps it is going to a football game, shooting pool at a bar or holding the tools as you tinker with your Harley. But your true nonverbal self is tested by heartfelt deeds. You stand by one another through the death of parents. You alter your career to be responsive to her medical care. You work two jobs so he can go back and get his masters degree. At these times, what you were saying during your first heartfelt moment of nonverbal commitment, that is, when you each slid the wedding ring on the other's finger, speaks volumes. So now, reflect on the many ways you express yourself through heartfelt nonverbal deeds on the personal level.

Taking that idea to social settings, how do you express yourself there, nonverbally? Do you normally smile at strangers? Do you go out of your way to help someone, say, a person in a wheelchair trying to get through a difficult doorway? Have you ever given money anonymously to someone you didn't really know but whose plight you did? What groups express your beliefs and commitments? Have you ever protested in public for something in which you believe?

Finally, what is your global nonverbal expression? This is a difficult question for most of us. How do you express yourself nonverbally through heartfelt deeds in your global relationships? Consider how you express yourself in front of your family, friends or co-workers when foreign events or peoples are mentioned. Then, how you respond to pleas for financial or skill contributions to troubles and needs in foreign countries? How do the social identity groups to which you belong speak and act on your behalf? Have you ever tried to affect how your organization or company presents itself—on your behalf—through its global relationships?

I've already mentioned that I evaluate the dominant three Big Stories as valuing "mind over matter." So I am fairly confident that you, as I, do not often think about how our groups express us through their global interactions. A time when you probably have consciously "felt globally" was when you feared that your national identity was under attack.

After the "9/11" terrorist attack, people in the United States flailed about trying to understand why America was being attacked. As often said, 9/11 was a reality-check for Americans. Up until that time, most Americans' Big Story allowed them to view the United States not only as the Land of the Free but a safe and secure haven. However, when attacked, brooding emotions were unleashed. What were yours? Are you living in dread and foreboding, anticipating terrorists attacks even while fly-fishing in Montana? Or do you, in striking contrast, feel that "Finally!" everyone in America must start feeling as part of the world community and understand that "America" no longer exists? That there is only one people, the family of humankind, one people on the earth?

The attack on America unleashed a brooding emotional tremor which continues to impact you and your fellow Americans. This is similar with what Catholics felt after Vatican Council Two. You realize that somehow the Big Story has changed, more, that it is continuing to change. You also sense that somehow your personal Story is still changing. And, yet, while this generalization is true, what are you truly feeling? Deep down in your gut, are you at peace, comfortably at home on the Living Earth, or are you living in dreadful fear, in a world of global terror?

# Chapter 36: Summary

You have a Big Story into which you were born. As you grew up you carved out a personal Story which was your source for heartfelt moral action. By knowing your Big and personal Story you understand your passions and commitments, and for whom and what you are willing to put yourself in harm's way, even die. Your Big and personal Stories enable you to hold your world together. They ground you in a range of brooding emotions. They tap into a primal brooding emotion, even though you may not be conscious of what that primal emotion actually is.

How you feel determines how you think. Every situation and event can be interpreted as either the best-of-times or the worst-of-times. To understand how and why you experience either the best or worst-of-times, you need to understand how you experience your Sunny Spot and your Shade. Your Sunny Spot is defined through your relationships with others who point out your Shade aspects. Individuals come to accept their Shade acts, even ones judged to be evil, only by insights provided by external agents. Individuals, family, corporations, nations and churches are such external agents. However, you strongly resist others defining the Shade of your identity groups, notably that of your corporation, nation or church. Identity groups empower you by articulating and acting on your behalf as they develop Big Answers. Yet, you also feel disempowered by these identity groups because you have little direct influence over them. As an unintended consequence, the Digital Age's World-Wide-Web, instant messaging ("IM") and 24/7/365 access are forces that disable many people from acting according to the slogan, "Think globally, act locally."

During "My traditional Catholic formation" period my level of critical thinking is almost non-existent. In brief, my spiritual identity as a Roman Catholic determined how I formed all my identities. The priests formed my obedient conscience. While I could sin, my moral range did not include my being an independent, self-critical and conscientious social, cultural or spiritual actor.

"Vatican Council II's impact" reveals how I changed as Vatican Council II offered new images, such as the People of God, and issued calls for me to follow my conscience and assume moral responsibility for solving international responsibilities. My personal identity expanded to encompass and integrate with aspects of my familial, social, corporate, cultural and spiritual identities. In brief, I was to inform my group identities through my heartfelt moral actions. This reversed my early upbringing where my group identities dominated my personal Story. As a youth, the Catholic Church formed me as I knelt and obeyed. Likewise, the State formed me as an American as I obeyed its laws. Corporations presented me with guidelines for ethical and moral behavior in the global marketplace. In contrast to my uncritical youth, after Vatican Council II, I was to guide and mold all these group identities through my personal moral behavior and imagination. I was to listen to the voice of my personal conscience.

"Raiding Selective Service Draft Offices" reflects the influence of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin who envisioned a Big Story that integrated chapters of the Secular and Scientism's Big Story. He imagined a worldwide web of the human heart. Within this worldwide web each person makes present the person of the Living Earth. Teilhard's vision moved me to resist the first globalized war and the first "Total War," that is, the Vietnam War. During my trial the federal prosecutor accused me of making draft raids the "eighth sacrament." In a way, he was right on the mark.

In the draft office I exercised my priestly authority as I ritually destroyed draft cards. Instead of the Warrior's Quest's ritual sacrifice using bread and wine to make real the body and blood of the crucified and suffering Christ, I transformed the draft card's symbolic violence through the nonviolent destruction of this sacred paper which all American males must possess and which makes present their spiritual identity as Warrior's Questers. My brooding emotions had developed from a morality driven by a fear of cowardice all the way to being grounded in the transforming emotion of making a prophetic leap.

Finally, you have been asked to critically reflect on the Big Questions and take time to feel what is in your gut. Are you at peace and comfortably at home on the Living Earth? Or, are you in dreadful fear, embroiled in a terrorist global war?

Key Points

Your Big Story and your personal Story

Big Questions: Who, What, When, Where, Why and How of Life

Tensions, even contradictions, exist between ideas and values in Big and personal Stories but you still confess and profess that you are faithful to both

Earthfolk Big Story of Sensual Preciousness, an ancient folk vision and imagination which has been in a millennial slumber

Image of Starship Earth, the "Sunrise Earth" photograph of Apollo 8, awakens Earthfolk vision and imagination

Big Story is the source for the imagination, vision and inspiration of, but more importantly, the primal feelings that ground a people

personal Story is the unique, often idiosyncratic way each person carves out and re-arranges parts of the Big Story so that they can feel healthy and act effectively and morally in the world

How do you hold the world together?

You were born "in the middle of things."

You mature as you become aware of "you," family, neighborhood, ethnicity, religion and other identifying aspects of your life

You develop group identities starting with family, society, corporations, spiritual and cultural organizations

The group identities are organizations which "think for you" and have doctrines, dogmas, position papers and codes of action

Group identities assist you in develop critical thinking skills but can also severely limit your vision and imagination

You experience internal conflicts with your Big Story

You discover that other Big Stories want to displace, replace or abolish yours

Your personal Story is your commitment story

"The best of times, the worst of times"

Big Stories have "camps," for example, "Sacred Secularism" and "Non-Sacred Secularism"

A non-Catholic version of the Examination of Conscience provides a useful tool for exploring and evaluating Big and personal Stories

For some who share your Big Story it is always the "best of times" while it is, simultaneously, the "worst of times" for another individual or group

The latter also holds true for those who do not hold your Big Story

Sometimes, as in author's Catholic Big Story, a great disconnect exists between thinking and feeling; at times, there is a total lack of awareness of brooding emotions

For the author, it was "okay to feel rotten" because humans had "fallen" from God's "good" creation, yet, an apocalyptic End of Time was anticipated

Author was influenced by the vision of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., in discovering that every human counts and, more importantly, that every human act counts to create the world as it is right now

Teilhard saw a mind-sphere ("Noosphere"), a spirit-sphere ("Christosphere") and a meta-person presence ("Living Earth"). These mirror the brain/mind, heart/spirit, and body/living presence relationships

Teilhard experienced life as existing within a "Divine Milieu"

"Emotional criminality"—The nonviolent author experiences and claims his violent self, his "emotional criminality"

Ironically, most violent warriors believe that they are peacemakers as they tap into the primal brooding emotion of the warrior—Kill!

Of critical importance is the insight that to be a nonviolent peacemaker requires owning your personal violence

One reason for Sensual Preciousness is the author's discovery that he is no longer steeped in Catholicism's brooding emotion of feeling miserable

Many argue that, as this millennium continues, the worst-of-times appears to be more prevalent than the best-of-times

Digital Age, Age of Aquarius, Global Youth Movement and other appropriate labels for the present times give way to the Age of Dread and global terrorism; of individual and group suicide, even possible nuclear or ecological holocaust

Three dominant Big Stories fear the Other not only as stranger but as Intimate Enemy

Earthfolk experience a best-of-times during these worst-of-times. They are:

Feeling comfortably at home on Earth

Living as if no one's Enemy

Acclaiming the Other as Precious

Seeking the spiritual intimacy of the embrace of Beloveds

Practicing Sensual Preciousness rituals

The Sunny Spot and the Shade

Most see themselves as a Sunny Spot in the universe and amid the mass of humanity

Sunny Spot is a way of feeling, that is, "I am basically good, kind, fair and just."

"If you took the time to really get to know me, you'd love me."

Even hardened criminals proclaim a Sunny Spot: "I'm innocent!"

Everyone exists within the Shade

Like Chinese Yin-Yang symbol, Sunny Spot and Shade have a dynamic, fluid relationship and interplay

Few talk about their Shade

Personal and group Shade awareness is most often exposed by outside agents

Even Adolf Hitler would have claimed a Sunny Sport had he understood the concept

Germany as a nation continues to explore its darkest Shade

Families, corporations, nations and churches are outside agents that move individuals to see and experience personal Shade

Can an individual articulate the Shade aspects of a church, nation or corporation?

To foster understanding, follow these two disciplines and practices: examine every situation to discern how an event or situation is seen by such agents as the individual, the family, the corporation, the nation or the church in respect to it being the best-of-times or the worst-of-times and look at how an individual or group perceives its Sunny Spot and its Shade aspects.

How do you feel things are going?

Three dominant Big Stories believe in "mind over matter"

They hold that the "mind" controls everything. The author finds this a faulty concept.

"Don't try to figure it out. Feel it out. Just tell me what your gut says."

The importance of feeling over thinking came from trying to stop the legalized murder called "war."

A perennial conflict in Catholic tradition concerns "Thou shalt not kill" and warring

Catholics developed the Just War theory

Author grew up ready to serve as a chaplain at war

Vatican Council Two dramatically transformed the Catholic Big Story in major ways:

It did not introduce new doctrine or dogma

It provided new images and concepts, for example, "People of God" and "consciences of citizens"

It addressed "modern times" and modern issues, for example, it condemned "Total War"

Instead of relying upon priestly authority, one's personal Story now required personal responsibility for guiding the imagination and moral activities of the Big Story

"Moral Man" in an "Immoral Society" metaphor

Author's personal Story challenged by thoughts and feelings of works of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J.

Evolution manifests itself through human presence

There is no "creation from nothing," so what is most human—thinking and feeling—have always been integral aspects of Evolution. Metaphorically, humans are Evolution thinking and feeling.

To be human is to be in relationship with a past and a future that creates the now.

Being human means being transformed through relationships

Alpha Point is what "pushes" Life, namely, it is Evolution's starting point.

Omega Point is what "pulls" Life, namely, a Living Earth, which is Evolution's end point.

Teilhard established what the author calls the "worldwide web of human emotion, of human heart."

Young Marine witness at trial said:

"...instead of a gook, it was a human being.

...instead of a hootch, it was a home."

Young Marine is first Earthfolk author met.

How do you express yourself nonverbally? Individually? Socially? Globally?

How did the attacks of 9/11 make you feel? How has it affected your Big and personal Stories?

Icons, liturgy, habits and rituals reveal the nonverbal language of a society and culture, for example, How is warring a ritual of the Religious Big Story?

# PART 3 THREE DOMINANT BIG STORIES
# Chapter 37: Personal starting point

One insider prison joke states that every inmate is a philosopher. Prison is one of those places that forces even the most dull among us to sit down and take a long hard look at his life. I was no exception.

The prison-blues jumped me right away. After being deloused and digitized as 8867-147, I lay down on my prison cot still reeling from having put my life in harm's way as fresh kill for J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. I wasn't yet hip to the inmate chide, "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time." I was busted in so many ways. I no longer had a Big Story or personal Story that made any sense to me. It's fair to say that, from beginning to end, I did "hard time" like a lone bolt jangling around inside a big empty bucket.

After prison I became director of a prison reform project. But I was no crusader. I needed a job, and it was one for which my resume, including prison time, actually helped cinch the deal. My point is that as I worked in prison reform I visited more prisons than I had ever intended. I was in California, so Johnny Cash's Folsom was one, but more telling was Charlie Manson's Vacaville, the State's lock-up for loonies. While not the politically correct label, I do chuckle as I write that because I found that nearly everyone involved with prison work is nuts, from judges to wardens to hacks to the shrinks who dull out the inmates till they drool all day. Sounds harsh? Well, it is, but I stand by my gut analysis.

I say they are all basically nuts because no one knows "why" the prison is as it is. It's a system with no defined purpose, no set objectives, and no standards by which it can be judged a success or a failure, at least not to everyone's satisfaction. Consider: who invented the American prison system? And then why was it invented? I hope you're thinking, "What does he mean by invented?" Here's why the Big Stories are so important: you've been taught one Big Story with certain key chapters missing, notably, the chapter on the invention of America's penitentiary system of punishment.

I found that in my American Big Story the most significant omission was the cultural role of the "penitentiary" system, invented by our nation's Founders and peers. Without understanding its role, you cannot fully grasp what was going on when the Founders imagined the vision of Democracy. Did you know that the many of the same men who composed the Constitution during the day met that same evening at a voluntary society, namely, the Pennsylvania Prison Society, to compose an equally innovative system of punishment which they termed "the penitentiary"? They did and I hold that unless you grasp the significance of that omission, much that has happened—and continues to happen—in America will remain unclear and confused.

Of equal importance for understanding this chapter in Early American history is that the penitentiary prison system was the first social institution adopted by European society as soon as it was implemented in America. While the intellectual and experimental roots for the penitentiary are basically English and Scottish, for a set of historically peculiar reasons, the actual design and implementation of the first penitentiary theory and practical system occurred in a former British colony, namely, the itty-bitty hodgepodge cluster called "America." Somewhat ominously, the penitentiary is also the prison system of the current phase and dominant model of globalization.

Again, finding myself in prison, I had to re-examine my Religious Big Story. I had tried to be nonviolent but—Ooops!—found that I couldn't develop a nonviolent personal Story from the dominant Religious Big Story. Why? Was I not trying hard enough? Not smart enough? Or was it just that for the dominant Religious Big Story, nonviolence is unimaginable?

Hard questions. I was overwhelmed. All I had were harder and harder questions. At this time (early 1980s) I entered the high-tech world. I took a deep imaginative breath and went back to the dusty, moldy old books and the newfangled world of computerized research. I propped the hard copy next to a blank computer screen, and began to input my questions, surf the Net, and write, think, write—re-imagine.

I knew that I'd have to start all over again. Go back to the primary story in my Religious Big Story, namely, Genesis. Part of me didn't want to go back and read anything Biblical or religious or theological. I was damn weary of all that. Part of me just wanted to walk away—not to any place in particular. But another part of me was also desperately curious. Yes, desperate and curious. Hey, I was still me.

I knew that I had to get a handle on where I had begun to misinterpret my Religious Big Story. I had written a personal Story of respect for every human person with a commitment to nonviolence and a belief that my moral actions counted and significantly affected the quality of life on Earth. And it landed me in prison. So, I had to walk back down the roads of my pre-prison years, on the alert for assumptions I had not challenged, to beliefs I had blindly obeyed, and facts, truths and interpretations I had too summarily dismissed.

I plunged back into my intellectual studies with several new tools in hand. I looked at the best-of-times and worst-of-times. I looked at the Sunny Spot and the Shade. I opened myself to probing critical analysis, wherever it would lead. Most importantly, I hoisted a big red flag. It was the flag of Procrustes.

Procrustes' Bed

Above all I didn't want to imitate the mythological Procrustes. He offered his visitors a bed for the night. To their amazement, he described the bed as having the unique property that its length exactly matched whomsoever lay down upon it. What his visitors didn't know is that if you were too short Procrustes put you on the rack and stretched your legs. If you were too long, he lopped them off. In literary pursuits, this applies to those who hack the facts to fit their story.

Since I would be analyzing and interpreting a vast array of sacred scriptures, historical facts, intellectual and scientific theories, and my own experiences, I made every effort to avoid telling a story which would end with your saying, "Yeah. He should've just said all that at the outset. He knew where he was going before he began." I grant that after doing research, then organizing, outlining and writing the story it might appear that all I found was what I already believed before I began. But, it just wasn't like that. For the first ten years out of prison I was a vagabond intellectual and spiritual seeker. Amusingly, I spent most of that decade working as a national sales and marketing rep or manager. I was not directly engaged with other scholars or intellectuals. Even after I began to write in 1983, for most of the next twenty-years I lived in a small, high-desert, semi-rural town outside of San Diego. No one in that town knew me as other than a corporate senior manager and a youth league basketball coach.

# Chapter 38: Starting Over

The first step was to critically examine how I had taken this "first step" in my youth. As for most, I first read the Bible in an English translation. I had no inkling that it was not written by one person, in one literary style, and all at one sitting. As naïve as this statement reveals I was, most people still first pick up a sacred scripture, such as the Bible, translated in their native tongue. True, I believed the Bible was written by God, but in the sense that He inspired human writers—God didn't have fingers! However, I never critically examined this belief, and imagined the writers as gathered together at a conference where they got the job done in a year or two.

Until I was in graduate theological studies, I never heard anyone discuss the disorderliness of the Bible. For example, there are two Creation accounts in Genesis. Why two? Chapter 1's "let us" and "male and female created He them." Chapter 2's The Rib story. They couldn't be more different, nor lead to more contrary interpretations. This simple fact was never discussed in catechism class, nor preached from the pulpit. Back then, if I didn't understand why this was so, I knew it was because I couldn't fathom God's mysteriousness.

Bible as shopping bag

This time I picked up the Bible as I would a shopping bag. I knew that there were lots of storytelling groceries in the bag. Ancient psalms and proverbs, fragments of historical accounts, obscure genealogies, poetry, angry prophetic passages, and lots of wildly imagined episodes and flights of fancy. Some of this was readily digestible and some was hard to swallow. Others which I had ingested without comment in my younger years, now I took with a dose of intellectual castor oil.

I had an even harder time with the Christian scriptures, the so-called "New" Testament. I had to accept that traditional Rabbinical scholars evaluated most of my former theological instruction as a bunch of hogwash. For them, Christian theologians cut-and-pasted accounts from their Torah and scriptures which they then interpret in a most Procrustean fashion. Christians continue to this day to scour the Hebrew scriptures with absolute confidence that they will find texts and stories which foretell the coming of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. Where I once accepted these Christian interpretations, now I clearly saw how they tortured the phrases and stories to find what they were seeking. Christians begin their reading already comfortable with calling it the "old" testament and their own the "new." In brief, Christians find in the Jewish scriptures accounts what they want to be "old," that is, an ancient, historical source for their "new" ideas. However, it just isn't so.

Christians do to the Jewish scriptures what the Islamists do to both Christian and Jewish traditions, and what the Mormons devoutly continue, namely, they wildly re-imagine the sacred scriptures of other traditions, claiming them as "old" in the sense of predicting the rise of their own "new" scripture. Here, for the "Latter-Day Saints" the new revelations come from a prophet named Moroni.

I began to see the Procrustean character of my own intellectual, especially theological, training. In the past, the Jewish scriptures fitted seamlessly with the Christian. Now, I approached them both with the shopping bag metaphor. If anything, neither scriptural tradition is orderly, harmonious, easily understood or subject to simple interpretation. Again, to this point, the first two chapters of Genesis offer two starkly different creation stories, which lead to radically distinct interpretations of God's relationship to humans, how male relate to females, how humans relate to the earth, and so forth. Yet, over time, both the Jewish and Christian theological traditions selected a limited number of stories which they judged canonical, that is, authoritative. These selected text comprise what you and I know as the Bible, in Christian and Hebrew editions. As significant, orthodox Jewish and Christian theologians (as contrasted to those condemned as heretics) carved out personal Stories with a common interpretive scheme, that is, they explained God's actions and humankind's situation in Warrior's Quest terms and images. (See Volume 1 for a fuller presentation of the Warrior's Quest "four themes": 1) is sourced in an emotion of dreadful fear, 2) identifies and names the Other as Intimate Enemy, 3) seeks to annihilate the goddess and/or the feminine and 4) expresses its heartfelt values through a self-fulfilling apocalyptic story of self-annihilation.)

I realized that I had never questioned this orthodoxy. I had never reflected on why certain stories had been rejected and others collated and presented as a canonical Religious Big Story. Likewise, I had never challenged the Warrior's Quest interpretive scheme and theology. I had simply approached the Old/New Testament from a best-of-times perspective without any awareness of its having a worst-of-times aspect. I was unaware of the Procrustean character of my education and spiritual practice. This is why I now approach Big Stories with the best/worst of times and Shady/Sunny Spot concepts. In Volume 1, I follow this practice when presenting the Earthfolk Big Story.

I found that Genesis provided insights into a host of factors that dogged me as I grew up and which persist during this age of globalization. These ideas include why we are involved in endless warfare; why we create weapons able to destroy all humans and possibly the earth itself; why women are endowed with meaning and value only when they function as sex-toys, and why motherhood is devalued; why same-sex sexuality is the norm and heterosexuality the aberration; and others. However, to follow my path is to re-examine not just the Religious Big Story but that of the Secular and Scientism's Big Stories.

# Chapter 39: Secular and Scientism Big Stories

As I developed my trial defense, it became imperative to define and describe my Secular Big Story. While I developed my nonviolent Resistance based on my Teilhardian and Vatican Council II's reimagining of Roman Catholicism, I did not pay much attention to how my Secular story was changing. I had never been in a courtroom prior to my own arraignment. I was terribly naïve about the criminal justice system. I had an under-educated knowledge of American history and little insight into how previous generations of anti-war and other social justice reformers and activists had been treated by the criminal justice system.

While I knew about the separation of Church and State, I was baffled by certain new findings, namely, that the American judicial system has no "prisoner of conscience" status. In other countries during the Sixties, America lobbied for and respected such status for the other countries "political prisoners." For example, on behalf of Russian dissidents and also Nelson Mandela who was fighting South Africa's apartheid. Unlike the British, we Americans do not have a history of a "loyal opposition." Third parties are found in just about every American decade, but they do not last in organizational form. What were the reasons for these facts? What interpretive insight do they afford when explaining "America"? To probe deeper, after leaving prison, I completed four years of doctoral studies in history, criminology and theology in a joint doctoral program at the University of California and the Graduate Theological Union, both in Berkeley, California, (1974-1978).

My nonviolence defense also was built on a Scientism Big Story. Mine was, what I categorize in this section, a Sacred Scientism Big Story. Inspired by Teilhard de Chardin, I argued that the next phase in evolution could only be effected by conscious choice. The mechanism driving evolution was no longer biological; rather it was mental or psychic. I did not doubt that evolution was progressing, with a capital "P." I saw my personal draft resistance as a conscious act that would raise the consciousness of all humanity towards that of the "Cosmic Christ," a phrase from St. Paul in the Christian Testament.

As an undergraduate philosophy major and while in graduate studies, I read broadly and deeply in the history of science and philosophy of science. I learned how scientists, in the main, modeled the body like a machine. This is the heritage, among others, of the French philosopher Rene Descartes. However, although I rejected that approach in favor of modeling the physical world as if it were a body, I never realized the grip this modeling of the human in nonhuman imagery and language has on the scientific community.

My dismay with this nonhuman modeling became more visceral when I faced the fact that the scientific community held a Scientism Big Story that saw the creation of the Atomic Bomb as a crowning achievement. Additionally, that the best minds of the modern era and of my generation were committed to a militarized science where napalm, anti-personnel fragmentation bombs and bio-chemical warfare products, such as Agent Orange, were icons.

I fully realize that if I say that "scientific knowing" is only achieved through a psychological discipline that evokes a neurotic to psychotic break with reality, you will shake your head disapprovingly. But, could you continue to morally accept the scientific method if the personal Story it enables its followers to create includes accepting the "medical advances" achieved by the Nazis when they tortured inmates to death? Which also includes accepting that the vaporizing of humans in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an act of intellectual superiority and moral courage?

In prison, I tapped into a deeply unsettling brooding emotion, but I could not name it. I left prison, admittedly, profoundly distressed but functional. I married, entered corporate sales and marketing, parented two sons and proceeded to live the middle-class American Way of Life. But deep down I sought to understand how all three Big Stories had merged to share several common threads. I discovered that each one is root to the creation of world-ending apocalyptic weapons, to the militarization of knowledge, and to the creation of the space I inhabited Inside, that is, the prison cell. How all this happened would take decades for me to understand.

At the conclusion of Part 2, my insights into how the Religious, Secular and Scientism Big Stories connect and cohere to drive globalization should be clearer. Note: These three stories do not cancel each other out, as a superficial reflection might imply. Rather, globalization is driven by a morphed hybrid religious-secular-scientism dynamic. The Secular and Scientism Big Stories are not simply derivatives or just de-sacralizations of the Religious Big Story. They are like symbiotic organisms that feed upon each other.

As I stated at the close of Part 1, I am acutely aware that my interpretations and evaluations of the three dominant Big Stories are offbeat, eccentric, even peculiar. What can I say other than that prison gave me "Inside Sight"?

# Chapter 40: Overview

As with Part 1, my approach to exploring and evaluating a Big Story is to reference and ground my statements, insights and evaluations in my personal experience or my personal Story. I do this to enable you to develop your critical position for understanding and evaluating your own Big Stories and personal Story. You do this by examining, through comparison, what you think and believe (Big Story) and how you live out what you think and believe (personal Story). I expect that you will be critical of my personal experiences. For certain readers, my insights and evaluations will be dismissed as the idiosyncratic ramblings of a guy who screwed up his life and served time in a federal prison. Fair enough. All I ask from you is that you be honest with yourself about your Big Story and personal Story and the brooding emotions into which you tap. Do this and a key objective of Part 3 will be realized, namely, you will be prepared to weigh my evaluations of the three dominant Big Stories and so be positioned to assess the Earthfolk Big Story and my new personal Story. These latter stories are the focus of Volume 1.

In "The Religious Big Story of the Abrahamic Tradition." and "Globalization and Western Culture's Big Story," I explain the reason for focusing on the Abrahamic Biblical tradition as the source for the Religious Big Story. The Biblical account of Genesis is forwarded as the imaginative source for the present globalization movement, and I present the key Big Questions and Big Answers of the Abrahamic tradition.

In "Influences on my interpretation of three dominant Big Stories," I discuss the Abrahamic Religious Big Story as I understood and lived it during my formative years. Then I present how Vatican Council II and prison impacted this Big Story and my personal Story. As stated in Part 1, I, like most people, experienced my early years from what I now understand as my "Sunny Spot." I did not understand for quite some time the shade of my Religious Big Story. I certainly, rarely, if ever, criticized myself as being a "Shady" character. Yet, my time in the Shady institution of prison turned me inside out and upside down. Indeed, it forced me to confess and reflect upon my previous lack of personal insights.

My prison experience confirmed that I exited an ex-Catholic. It also made me doubt whether I really was an American or even if I wanted to remain an American citizen. Incarceration moved me to re-evaluate the way I had been taught to learn since, clearly, I had learned lessons that others did not intend or were simply wrong-headed. I came to seriously doubt the prevailing trust in the "scientific method" and in the rational underpinnings of academics. Consequently, prison simultaneously shattered my previous understanding of and compliance with each of the three dominant Big Stories. Prison broke me down, but I broke through with what I call "Inside sight." I now began to see as from within the Shade of each Big Story. My personal Story became an Inside account sourced in this Inside sight. The impact I recount here applies equally to the later sections, that is, "Background of my Secular Big Story," and "Background of my Scientism Big Story."

Despite my newfound Inside sight, I left prison lacking both a Big Story and a personal Story. I hit bottom and stayed there for some time.

During my first decade after prison I was an emotional and spiritual vagabond. In time, I decided to return to academia and conduct an intensely passionate exploration, from stem to stern, of the Religious Big Story, the Secular Big Story and Scientism's Big Story. I had to find answers—because in the deep darkness of prison's solitariness, I had often asked myself—"Am I that wrong? Misguided? Immoral? Stupid?"

Seeking whatever answers were to come, I went full bore with mind and heart back through the sacred scriptures, doctrines, dogmas, theologies, criticisms and range of interpretations that comprise the Roman Catholic, Biblical Abrahamic, America's Secular and the West's Scientism traditions. I did so, however, from my peculiar vantage point, using my Inside sight as an outlaw and outcast—being forever a denizen of the Shade!—for whom the Inside was now part of whatever Big Story and personal Story I would write.

I conclude this section by explaining how my life took off in an unexpected direction: A tax reform measure, "Proposition 13," sabotaged my academic quest, and I suddenly became a door-to-door encyclopedia salesman, winning numerous national awards and rising over the next three decades to senior sales and marketing management positions in several small national companies. Throughout this time, my personal energy was focused on parenting. However, I continued to read, write and reflect at night as I traveled on business trips across the country. Hotels became oases on my spiritual journey.

In "My analysis and interpretation of Biblical Genesis," I present how my interpretation of Genesis differs from the traditional Abrahamic interpretation. I describe and define the Genesis god as I do his creation: Adam as a Lone Male. Prison, as a Shade institution, placed me inside the tradition's Shade, for I myself was now part of that Shade. I practiced the discipline of sitting in silence and peering at the Shade in the Abrahamic tradition. Sitting in silence and peering are intense practices. I learned to stop listening solely to the voices of my professors and academic scholars. I practiced mistrusting the guidance of traditional interpretations, doctrines and dogmas. As I explain, these professors, scholars and traditional guides have instructed and interpreted both the written and the oral traditions. My education and training had focused on the written text more than the oral tradition. The latter values insights delivered through inspiration, visions and profound personal experiences. Now, I sat in silence to seek the inspirations, visions and awesome experiences that the written text very inadequately capture and express. One insight I gained was that while my professors and the tradition present Genesis as providing Big Answers to basically cosmic questions about how the world was created, what is the nature of mankind, etc., I found that the controlling Big Question really is, "What to do with women?" This is a question about the nature, character and quality of intimacy. My interpretation of Genesis pivots on this insight.

My analysis explores Genesis' two creation accounts and interprets their polytheistic underpinnings. Further explored are questions about why there is no Mother Goddess, why the feminine is invisible, how the character of Lone Male knowing is a Revelation, and what the role and meaning of the Serpent is. I forward an insight into the same-sex-sexuality character of sacred sexuality in Genesis. I also examine the iconic phallus, interpret why Eve could speak with the Serpent and Adam could not, and explore why childbirth, work and the family are cursed upon Exile from the Garden of Eden. Finally, I proffer the "Warrior's Quest" concept as the most useful and accurate way to approach and understand the core imagination of the Abrahamic tradition.

While my presentation in this section contains highly controversial claims, arguments and conclusions, my exploration of Jesus' death on the cross as a homoerotic theft of the female body requires that you open yourself to a possibly Shady aspect of Jesus' life—in terms of the Warrior's Quest's single-minded, devotionally obsessive, focus on the Passion and Crucifixion. For me, the crucifix is an icon of child abuse. What will either intrigue or shock you the most is my claim that a Goddess is present in Genesis. This is an insight which only a prolonged meditation while in a Shady spot, such as prison, can deliver. It is, however, the most critical insight of Part 3.

I find Genesis to be a parenting Big Story, albeit, one of abusive parenting. Throughout, I link my analysis and interpretation to the concept of intimacy. Finally, in a major turnabout, I show, in stark contrast to my own prior statements, that Genesis is actually a Big Story about family and not just about a solitary Lone Male God. This insight has a radical implication for the development of a "spirituality of intimacy," because "family" is your first group-identity. Family is the collective and/or communal experience in which you and I source our sense and realization of intimacy. What happens to your personal Story if you accept that your God Parents are abusive in a sexually violent manner?

"Evaluation of the Religious Big Story's impact on how a personal Story is written" presents how both the traditional interpretation of the Genesis Creation narrative and my own interpretation are seen from the best-of-times, worst-of-times" perspective. The relationship of the Sunny Spot and the Shade in each interpretation is described. Then, the range of heartfelt moral actions that each interpretation makes possible is presented. The range of heartfelt moral actions determines, in positive and negative breadth and scope, how a personal Story is written. I present the key aspects of my own personal Story based upon my interpretation.

"The Secular Big Story," positions the Secular Big Story in historical, conceptual and imaginative relationships with the Abrahamic Religious Big Story and Scientism's Big Story. Various thematic cross-over movements or "camps" are identified within these Secular and Scientism's Big Stories. These camps display the shared imaginative, intellectual and brooding emotion traditions which connect all three Big Stories. These camps include a Sacred Secularism and a Non-Sacred Secularism, and a Non-Sacred Scientism and Sacred Scientism.

"Background of my Secular Big Story," presents how the Secular Big Story was explained to me during my formative years. I indicate how the Documents of Vatican Council II affected my understanding and evaluation of this Big Story.

Although most readers will not have been incarcerated nor have studied America's innovative penitentiary prison system while in school, in "My analysis and interpretation of the Secular Big Story," I present the development of the penitentiary system as the linchpin to understanding my claim that America's Secular Big Story is that of being a "secular religious sect," that is, Americans are believers in and practitioners of a Protestant Civil Religion. The Civil Religion roots are set deep within America's two dominant Protestant movements, namely, New England Puritanism and Revolutionary Era Enlightenment Deism. A defining characteristic of America's Civil Religion is its denial of Original Sin. This explains, in part, why my generation learned American History without any recognition of its Shade episodes. It also prepares you to understand why globalization, for its current socio-economic and cultural/spiritual leaders, is writing its Big Story without mention of its Shade chapters.

I approach the Scientism Big Story in light of its Secular and Sacred camps. As I argued a courtroom defense that integrated Religious, Secular and Scientism Big Story answers, imagery and values, so I indicate how such a quite different integration is now working to fuel the globalization movement. I conclude by describing how the three dominant Big Stories can be seen to create a best-of-times" and a worst-of-times. Whichever "times" you sense that you are living in determine how you define globalization's and your own Sunny Spot and Shade.

I present "Evaluation of the Secular Big Story's impact on how a personal Story is written."

Then there are Summary and Key Points sections.

"Scientism Big Story" positions Scientism' Big Story in historical, conceptual and imaginative relationships with the Abrahamic Religious Big Story and Secular Big Story. The Scientism camps include a Non-Sacred Scientism and Sacred Scientism. The latter is further divided into a "Sixth Day" and a "Stewardship" camp.

"Background of my Scientism Big Story" presents how this Big Story was explained to me during my formative years. I indicate how the Documents of Vatican Council II affected my understanding and evaluation of Scientism's Big Story.

I present "My analysis and interpretation of the Scientism Big Story," with my "Evaluation of Scientism's Big Story impact on how a personal Story is written." There are Summary and Key Points sections.

# Chapter 41: The religious Big Story of the Abrahamic tradition

If you have not read Genesis for some time or have never read it, consider doing so before reading further. Appendix C contains chapters 1, 2 and 3 of Genesis.

Globalization and the Biblical Big Story

One of globalization's effects is an increased awareness of the planet's diverse societies and cultures. In one sense, high technology, in terms of cable TV and the Internet, is an anthropologist's dream come true. Just about every society and culture, contemporary and historical, has been covered by a "program special." However, does high technology simply allow information to flow more expansively, or is it a tool of empowerment for all formerly designated "primitive" peoples and cultures?

In a best-of-times view, the simple fact that all the peoples of the world can communicate with one another is a good thing. Communication, itself, is seen as an empowering act. In a worst-of-times view, high technology can be viewed as just the latest version of Western cultural imperialism. Viewed via the Shade, communication can be seen as an invasive act whose goal is to determine how to control others. In this view, the Web and other telecommunications systems have only one objective: to find new consumers for goods from capitalist markets. I hold that globalization will always have best-of-times and worst-of-times aspects. However, my focus now is to explain the dynamics that I discern are sourced in Western culture's dominant Religious Big Story.

As I intend to explain in Part 2, Western culture, notably its American version, is the dominant culture in the world and globalization is a core dynamic of its ancient Religious Big Story. If you see the present times as "post-modern," you might strongly disagree with this statement. You may find it ethnocentric and itself a culturally imperialistic assumption. I anticipate any such criticism but I hope that at the conclusion of Part 2 you will find my reasons for positioning Western culture in this role to be more acceptable.

The overall objective of Part 2 is to position you to read Volume 1 (if you haven't already) where I introduce and evaluate the Earthfolk vision, imagination and rituals. Volume 1 includes an assessment of the Earthfolk Big Story vision and imagination in respect to how it responds to various aspects of the globalization movement. I conclude by explaining why my personal Story is also titled Sensual Preciousness: a spirituality of intimacy.

Genesis' shopping bag of stories

As noted, I first read the Bible in English. I didn't know what "translation" meant until I was in high school. I never doubted that God wrote the Bible, although He did so by inspiring holy men. After all, everyone knew that God doesn't have fingers. I also thought that the first book, that is, Genesis, was the most ancient and the most important because it was the opening chapter. Since I was never taught to look for problems in the text, that is, for contradictions or incomprehensible statements, I never found any. If I had any doubts, the problems were mine. Doubts meant that I simply couldn't comprehend God's mysterious ways. Thank God for priests!

In graduate school, I learned about literary criticism and how certain scholars applied it to Biblical texts. In this light, the documentary hypothesis posits that the written Torah (first five books of the Jewish Bible) has its origins in sources labeled J (Yahwists), E (Elohim), D (Deuteronomists), and P (Priests). These go back to oral traditions and/or draw on (and sometimes parody) earlier ancient Near Eastern mythology. Some scholars reject this hypothesis. Others argue that the division into JEDP is merely arbitrary scholarly speculation.

For me, even in translation, you can detect how dramatically different various sections of Genesis are. The two creation accounts are proof. Chapter 1:26 makes a clearly polytheistic statement, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Chapter 1:27 makes no statement about female subordination to the male. It states, "God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them." In stark contrast, Chapter 2 has Adam as the Lone Male created before Eve who is formed from his Rib while he sleeps. In this narrative, it is clear that females are derivative and subordinated in every sense.

As an example of how traditional scholars torture the text, some Rabbinical commentators assert that "us" really means "I" but as kingly royals use "we" to speak of themselves as they are the representative embodiment of their people. In like manner, the Roman Catholic Pope often uses the pontifical "We." I can find no supporting evidence for interpreting "us" as "I." Equally as tortured is the traditional Catholic and Christian scholarly interpretation of this Genesis "us" as anticipating the later revelation of God as the Holy Trinity of three-in-one.

My studies in comparative religions made clear that many Biblical accounts were re-writes of earlier stories from other religions and mythologies. Egyptian, Babylonian, Canaanite, Akkadian, Philistine and other cultures were story sources. Great Flood accounts exist in many Religious Big Stories around the world. Later I saw how these insights applied to Christian scriptures. Stories of Virgin Births, of gods mating with human women, of humans who were partly divine, and so forth, abound. Of consequence, stories about dying and rising sons of god are as common as the setting and rising sun is to a day's cycle. As such, I ascertained that the Christian claim for Jesus' unique nature and the miraculous character of his Resurrection were to be guardedly forwarded.

Although I acquired certain of these critical academic skills, when in graduate studies I still interpreted the Bible with traditional Roman Catholic Procrustean theological methods. While I understood the complexity of scriptural composition, this insight never challenged my core Catholic beliefs. I believed in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, Divine Judgment, and the value of Suffering.

All this changed as I undertook my post-prison study. I paused to sit in silence, peer and ask unsettling questions. I put myself in the crowd who was hearing the Genesis accounts for the first time ever. I imagined myself standing there as a worldly man of ancient times. As an ancient trader, I was conversant with other cultures and so with various creation accounts and stories about all types and names of gods and goddesses. I had observed diverse cultural attitudes towards sexuality and male-female relationship. I also knew how emotionally attached to their stories some groups were more than others. I stood there with a vast amount of oral knowledge.

The point here is that I was not raised with oral theological knowledge. I only had a text. Only the priest had oral knowledge, that is, he could interpret the meaning of the text when it was not clear what was meant. In fact, during my early years I was sternly cautioned about reading the text on my own, as I lacked what only the priest had, that is, expert and sacred knowledge of the meaning—the "voices"—of the text. Through my graduate studies I learned that an oral tradition did exist and still exists. This is, in fact, what defines the theological tradition. Theology is contemporary reflection upon sacred text. It is the creation of a "new" voice for the traditional Voice. Theologians seek inspiration to aptly explain and express what the text means in each era, which calls itself "modern times." Among the Jews, Talmudic schools continue the ancient tradition of discussing and interpreting the text to provide contemporary spiritual guidance. Likewise, certain historical periods have witnessed vigorous theological discussions among Islamic scholars and spiritual leaders.

Until Vatican Council II, Catholic theological reflection was restricted to a small segment of educated priests. I quickly discovered why lay people like myself were not permitted to study theology. I discovered that which I was not to hear, namely, the oral tradition. I discovered how the Big Story of Catholic Christianity shifted over time, and how it impacted the personal Story and consequent theological interpretations of Church Fathers such as Origen, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. I discovered that theology is an act of listening to the various, often antagonistic and adversarial, voices in the Religious Big Story.

As stated before, although I honed these new critical skills, my theological interpretations remained conservative and traditional. I still called it the "Old" Testament. I still saw Protestants as fallen away Catholics. But then the Ecumenical Movement began in earnest. My graduate faculty soon included Rabbis and Protestant theologians, even laymen. It took some time for lay women theologians to appear on faculty rosters. After prison, my doctoral mentor was James William McClendon, a Southern Baptist theologian, whose book on Biography as Theology planted a seed for my understanding of the relationship between a Big Story and a personal Story.

In sum, before prison my intellectual reach was theologically broad and deep. After prison, while my intellectual life continued to blossom, my transformation was mainly due to the fact that my brooding emotion's reach was broadened and deepened. In prison, I had felt the presence of someone I could not name, until my Inside Sight opened my ears to hear the ancient oral tradition's whisper, "Mother."

In Protestant theology, the individual is called upon to respond to this oral tradition in a way which mainstream Catholics were and still are not. Protestants are called to read a text, meditate upon it, pray upon it, and then open themselves to the voice of the Holy Spirit. At its best, exceptional insights are revealed, through what some call "personal witness." In this vein, through sitting in group silence and peering within their souls, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) have tapped into the brooding emotion of nonviolence through their historic personal witness to peacemaking. At its worst, it leads to the "popcorn theology" of those who pick any scriptural verse at random, and within less than an eye-blink, purport to be speaking through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But, such is, I believe, how the oral tradition has always been, that is, filled with a lot of piercing insights and mindless blather. What this meant to me is that I not only had to critically examine and evaluate the written text, but that I also had to be as harsh and rigorous when I or others claimed to hear a voice or voices echoing from the ancient, pre-Biblical oral tradition.

In summary, I examined Genesis as a shopping bag of sacred stories. I not only read those disparate and varied stories but I sat in silence and peered beyond the text to see with Inside Sight and to listen for ancient voices of the oral tradition. I disciplined myself to clarify the best-of-times and worst-of-times of each story, and to describe the character and import of each story's Sunny Spot and Shade. What I discovered amazed me, changed me, and healed me.

# Chapter 42: Genesis as source for globalization

Western culture's ancient Religious Big Story is sourced in the Biblical account of creation, namely, Genesis. Within Genesis there are two creation accounts, with the one about Adam's Rib having, over millennia, assumed primary place as the narrative to be interpreted to answer the main Big Questions of that Tradition. While the Biblical account is, historically and anthropologically, a product of Eastern culture, that is, Semitic culture, how it has been interpreted by Western Christianity reveals its link to the present globalization movement.

Fittingly, Genesis is the product of a multi-cultural world, composed and written over centuries rife with travel to diverse societies and cultures. Its writers were acutely aware of the gods or "idols" of other cultures. In fact, Genesis itself can be seen as a product of an ancient form of globalization that sought to address the global community in light of what people, back then, knew to be "the world." Within that world, this new and quite novel Big Story stated that there was only One God and only one Chosen People. This was not a pluralistic, multi-cultural or polytheistic Big Story. Rather, it sought to destroy and replace other beliefs and cultural values. In this light, it was a universalizing movement, driven by a quest for absolute dominion. To the point, Genesis is a key account within the dominant Religious Big Story that first imagined and presented certain dynamics of today's globalization movement.

# Chapter 43—Genesis as an atheistic narrative

Genesis is an atheistic narrative. The "let us" phrase in Chapter 1 is a reminder and indicator of the polytheistic world in which Genesis is being composed. For some, the phrase "let us" is there to set the stage for the dramatic, even wildly imagined, revelation that there is only One God. Wildling imagined because this is not a claim for the unity of all religions as it is an assertion that everyone else is wrong!

Consider, back then, that you are living in a world of gods and goddesses. Their existence impacts you on many levels. For example, you find psychological insight and solace from the behaviors and existence of a certain goddess who is present to you when you are surrounded by your family, most often by a warming fire. When you want to touch an aspect of yourself, you put yourself into a devotional frame of mind and spiritually commune with this goddess. You light a candle and mediate. Then, on a social level, you also share in the camaraderie of those who love to hike mountains where, when at the top, you all engage in dancing and other ritual acts which bring several mountain gods and goddess into your collective presence. Indeed, in your everyday world, all around are statues and wandering storytellers and sellers of charms and tellers of fortune, each of which makes present to you a robust, active—if not at times amazing and confusing!—way of life, which is lived with all these gods and goddesses.

When you stop to hear the storyteller recount the Rib story, you are struck by so many wildly imagined new ideas. You are shocked and gasp when you come to Day 6 and experience the Exile from the Garden and the angry god's curses. As you walk home to share this very peculiar story with your family, you are disturbed by the not so disguised hatred which weaves throughout this Creation narrative. You find yourself thinking about an aunt and uncle who treat their children with such anger and abuse. When you have finished retelling this Genesis story, your youngest daughter asks, "Why is God all alone? Doesn't anyone love him?" Ah, from the mouth of the young comes such wisdom!

Later, your child's simple questions draw you into deeper thought. "If this God is alone, how can he create? He can't be saying that my body, the male body, is the source of life?" And, "If this God claims to be the only God, what has happened to all the other gods and goddesses?" Also, "If there is only One God, isn't this the saying of a non-believer? Of one who rejects all gods by saying what is certainly impossible to believe, that there is only One?" Questions continue to arise, "Saying there is only One God is like saying there is only One People. But, yes, he did say that!" You go back to listen to this storyteller who claims to be revealing that only one People are blessed, and by their One God. You shake your head finding it difficult to comprehend how this all seems so anti-human and a-theistic.

All this led led me to grasp that there is both an atheistic and secularizing stream of images and language flowing from Genesis, which, I hold, has surfaced as characteristics of the dominant Big Stories of the globalization movement. I will explore this topic in greater detail here in Part 2. I ask you to keep an open-mind because the interpretation I forward in Part 2 evaluates this atheistic and secularizing influence of Genesis in a positive way, not just in a negative way as you might at first anticipate.

"Veiled revelation" about intimacy

Even if you are highly skeptical about the previous section, consider that I obtained these Genesis insights from my emotional experiences while in prison. These are not intellectual flights of fancy. Rather, these thoughts arose as I sought to understand why and how I ended up in prison. As my research deepened, I sought to understand the role and meaning of Genesis as seed of the globalization movement. As explained later in Part 2, I realized that I was in prison because I imagined a specific type of intimate relationship with you, and really with every individual the world over. Simply, I wanted to behold you as my Beloved and not as an Intimate Enemy whom I should kill. However, in considering the Big Question, "Am I my brother's keeper?" not-killing is not a Big Answer in Genesis. As I plumbed Genesis' meaning, I came to understand why I felt so strongly about not-killing and why my Church and State judged my passionate desire not to kill (or obliterate your intimacy) to be criminal. In brief, I found Genesis' core message to be a veiled revelation about intimacy.

The pathway to your understanding my insights into Genesis as a veiled revelation about intimacy requires a reexamination of the traditional interpretations of the three dominant Big Stories. I conduct this reexamination through my "prisoners' eyes." I observe that the Religious, Secular and Scientism's Big Stories are flowers of the seeds of imagination and vision of intimacy planted in Genesis. I present how each Big Story answers certain key Big Questions. Then I voice how each Big Story developed and evolved through the centuries. I explore several significant interconnections between the three Big Stories. Finally, I use my personal experiences to clarify how these Big Stories played out in my life as I developed a personal Story that led me to the Earthfolk.

# Chapter 44: The Abrahamic tradition

The Religious Big Story is robust, seeking to answer all of the Big Questions once and for all. Significantly, it presents itself as a Revelation. Its Big Answers are to be accepted as complete and final because they come not from a human mind but a divine Mind. At its core, this Big Story does not see itself as a story in terms of a fictional tale or a fantastic saga. Rather, it is a Big Story with well-defined doctrines, required dogmas, and a profusion of mandated ceremonial rituals. While quite a few Religious Big Stories boast numerous followers, the dominant one that reflects a set of shared values is the one that inspires Western culture's quest to lead the globalization movement. This is the Abrahamic Big Story that, in the main, encompasses the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions.

The setting for the Abrahamic Big Story is a dualistic universe. There is Nature with its humans and there is Super-Nature which is the realm of God. The first human, Adam, named all living things and creatures and was granted dominion over them. Since he was alone and lonesome, Adam's God created a companion for him. This second human, Eve, is formed by God from one of Adam's ribs which he plucks from his body while he is deeply sleeping. While humans are originally created by God, they themselves are not gods. Their nature is distinct and separate. However, they first live in Paradise, the "Garden of Eden," where harmony and peace reigned over all living things and creatures.

A rupture in Adam and Eve's personal relationship with their God results in a cataclysmic disconnect between Nature and Super-Nature. Adam and Eve suffer a fall from grace, offending their God to such a degree that the structure of reality itself is transformed. God casts Adam and Eve out of the Garden and condemns them to suffer while living on Earth: Eve will suffer deep pangs during childbirth and Adam will toil and sweat to bring forth food from the Earth that God curses.

The gist of the traditional Religious Big Questions and Answers that flows from this Genesis creation account are as follows.

Where do humans come from?

Humans cannot know this answer through human research, analysis or science. Humans can only know Big Answers through the Abrahamic tradition and its sacred and revealed scriptures. God does not reveal truth to everyone, although everyone can have access to truth by joining the Abrahamic tradition through confessing and professing the faith statements of the Abrahamic Big Story. In a somewhat circular fashion, Revelation is a special knowledge, understood only by those who have faith. This faith is explained to you by a special group whose male members have been selected and ordained by God through their response to God's calling.

How did humans get here?

Humans were created in the Garden of Eden. Adam was created first. Eve was created from Adam's rib. God created everything "out of nothing," that is, "creatio ex nihilo." God created humans from dirt, and He breathed a soul into them. God gave Adam dominion over all the Earth and all creatures including Eve.

Where are humans going?

Eve was tempted by a devilish serpent. He gave her knowledge of Good and Evil. Eve then tempted Adam. Together, they disobeyed God by seeking a knowledge that God had reserved to Himself. This is symbolized by the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." Together, Adam and Eve committed an original sin, and so were cast out, exiled from the Garden of Eden. Life on Earth is cursed, and it will expire in an end-of-time apocalyptic event during which God and His Messiah will return. At the End, evildoers will be slain and true believers will be saved. All faithful Abrahamics will live in eternity with God. Heaven is like the Garden of Eden.

Why are humans here on Earth?

Humans are a fallen lot. Because of Adam and Eve's Original Sin, God is humanity's Intimate Enemy. Since everyone is born depraved, every other human is a potential tempter who invites you to revel with them in sin. This is especially true of women who are temptresses as their mother Eve was. Intimacy as manifested through the male-female relationship is the zone of temptation par excellence. Intimacy is to be feared, and the intimate space cautiously entered. Humans should intimately embrace solely for reproduction. Consequently, spiritually, everyone is your Intimate Enemy. The only purpose of life on Earth is to repent, to be saved by an act of faith, and then to live so as to know, love and serve God so that you will be with Him in heaven for eternity. Humans must find salvation. This is offered by God through His Messiah.

The Abrahamic God has a providential plan for humanity. As humans look at their world they can see this plan unfold, which some call "salvation history" or "divine providence." God called Abraham of Ur and formed a covenant with him. God said that if Abraham and his children lived according to His rules, eventually revealed through Moses as the Ten Commandments, then they would be saved when the Messiah, also called the "Son of Man," returns.

Some Abrahamics believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, the only Son of God. They hold that only through faith in Jesus as the Christ can you be saved. They believe that Jesus was crucified, died on the cross and rose from the dead. And, that by doing so he atoned for the Original Sin of Adam and Eve. Faith requires accepting that Earth is a Vale of Tears, an abode of suffering. For many Abrahamics suffering is a redemptive act, and the purpose of life is to live in "imitation of Christ" (imitatio Christi). These believers endure harsh and painful ascetic practices and rituals to achieve spiritual union. Some Abrahamics still await the return of the Messiah. For all Abrahamics, there really is no meaning to life on Earth except to prepare to die well, that is, as a just and moral believer in a state of grace and faith.

When did humans first appear?

Genesis is the only record of creation. While no one knows the exact time, many Abrahamics have studied their scriptures and concluded that humans were created about 10,000 years ago. Some hold that humans lived when the dinosaurs roamed. Other Abrahamics do not look at Genesis and the Holy Scriptures for scientific validation of any event. These believers accept the concept of scientific evolution to be compatible with their faith beliefs. They hold that humans evolved as part of God's plan. Some see God as an Intelligent Designer and hold that every aspect of Nature reveals the mystery of the Divine Plan.

How are humans to act?

Abrahamics follow Revealed Truth and Law which they hold has been interpreted by an approved and limited set of prophets, priests, spiritual writers, theologians and other inspired people whose works are contained in an approved, canonical body of Scripture and sacred writings. Among these Scriptural canons are the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Old and New Testaments, the Islamic Koran, and the Book of Mormon. All obey a patriarchal authority of males who claim direct lineage to and exercise Adam's dominion. They do this through an anointed and ordained authority that has come to be expressed through religious institutions and organizations. A man who seeks to live justly can do so by adhering to the moral code of the Ten Commandments and the many doctrines and dogmas developed, over time, by the priestly caste.

Why is there evil in the world?

Why God permits evil is a mystery. Evil is present here on Earth because of a human act, that is, the seduction of Adam by Eve, which is symbolized by their eating of the apple from the Tree of Good and Evil. Some hold that humans have an inclination towards evil or good, and choose which path to follow. Others believe that all humans are evil by nature and, only by God's bounty, can be saved through belief in His Son who came to Earth, suffered and died for you on the Cross.

As my main group identity, the Roman Catholic Church handed down these Big Questions and Big Answers through the "Baltimore Catechism," the iconic guide for forming my personal Story. However, not much was left to chance. My personal Story was severely limited in imaginative scope. I was not allowed to think outside the box when it came to moral matters. Everything, such as sexual morality, was taught within the framework created by the preceding Big Questions and Big Answers. There was One God, One Church, One Faith, and One Savior.

I was made sufficiently aware of the Saints, that is, those whose lives manifested the truths and moral values of the Big Story. I was likewise apprised of the Sinners: those who strayed and were called heretics, blasphemers, even devils. Among the latter were those of other faiths, called pagans or infidels.

In one sense, I was taught that everything is as it is because of Genesis. More, that if I reflected upon Genesis, I would gain greater insight into God's Revelation and providential plan. For my first 21 years, I obediently did as I was taught. However, during the Sixties, as I've recounted in Part 1, Vatican Council II allowed individuals to study theology in an academic, not seminarian setting. This made a significant impact on my life. Following is a brief background on my development.

# Chapter 45: Influences on my interpretation of three dominant Big Stories

Nuns with rulers, The Baltimore Catechism, and blind obedience

Honestly, when growing up I never thought twice about how the Religious Big Story was presented to me. The daily classroom Catechism lessons revolved around my skill at rote memorization of the Big Answers. Neither I nor the nuns spent time questioning either the Big Questions or the Big Answers. As the nuns taught it, so I accepted Genesis as the authoritative account of how the world was created, how and why humans were created, the role of men and women, the presence of evil in the serpent, and how easily humans can be tempted and so lose Paradise.

For decades I wasn't even aware that other Big Stories and Answers existed. It was also clear to me that Adam and Eve's sin was sexual. The nuns didn't say how this sexual transgression occurred nor why it upset God so much. But it was clear to all of us that "fooling around" between men and women brought serious consequences—even life ending-ones! This somewhat humorous recollection about the naughty frolicking in the Garden underscored and forecasted my interpretation of Genesis as a narrative whose prime objective was to answer, "What to do with women?" As I will explain, this is the Big Question whose Big Answer contains a veiled revelation about intimacy as the personal space wherein you make manifest sensual preciousness.

I also was taught and readily accepted that I was born and constantly tempted to fall back into grievous sin. In my mother's womb I had already committed an Original Sin. From my first breath, I suffered the onslaughts of the devilish serpent and his minions. As such, I was born as a spiritual soldier in an ongoing battle between God and Satan. Despite any trappings of status at birth, any socioeconomic or other earthly advantage, until I was baptized I hovered at the edge of Hell's volcanic pit. Even after baptism, I was everyday at every moment for the rest of my life to tread ever so carefully the high wire that crossed over the land of the forbidden pleasures of "mortal sins" and the unquenchable fires of eternal damnation. In brief, mine was to be a confessional life. Consequently, only the forgiveness offered by the priest in Confession prevented me from casting my own soul into Hell. "Free will" was God's gift so I was taught, but I could do little else but sin given that I inherited the weakness of my earthly father, Adam.

Although all of this sounds like a scary movie, to us kids it was just how things were. In fact, I was taught to think of it as the "best of times" because this Big Story has a "happy ending." Here is where Jesus replaces Adam. Jesus comes down from Heaven and is born of an ordinary woman, named Mary. This feat is not explained in detail. When he dies, for some reason, his father, God, is satisfied and forgives the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. Yet I was not out of peril, not just yet. Although I was saved, I could on a daily basis—Sinner that you are, Francis!—forfeit my salvation through mortal sins. The mortal sin that was most available to me and to most young males was lust.

As I mentioned, the Roman Catholic Big Story didn't leave much to chance in respect to how I was to carve out my personal Story. I was to be virtuous and avoid sinning. And overall, I was a great avoider of sin. I did not murder anyone, nor become a thief. Certainly I didn't even know how to "covet," whatever that meant. I honored God. I loved my mom and dad. So far, so good. But, ah, there it was: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Boy, "adultery" was one of the few "grown-up" words that all of us boys understood early on. While we knew it had something to do with doing bad things while married, it was translated for us as, "Don't touch yourself!"

During the elementary grades, most of us were so terrified by the nuns' "Put out your hands!" ruler-whack!-on-the-knuckles discipline that we barely got within breathing room of a girl's body. So, our sexual sins remained in our heads. Here was delivered, in a curious way, a proto-Teilhardian insight. I knew that every "dirty thought" negatively affected God and Jesus. More, that everyone who had died, as a member of the "communion of Saints," could see what I was doing! Furthermore, I was made acutely aware that my dirty thoughts hurt Mary, Jesus' mother. She and all the hosts of heaven were ashamed of me and my dirty thoughts. Consequently, what I thought—and there were no trivial thoughts—had great impact on my soul and on the general condition of the world. For if I—baptized and saved!—were immodest, lustful and a "small-time adulterer" what could be expected from the rest of the world who did not follow Jesus?

When I talk with others of my generation who went into the seminary, they are not surprised when I say that I never "touched myself" until I was twenty-one. This is a shocker to most whose personal sexuality was explored at an early age in the hedonistic culture that now defines America. I mention this only to set the stage for understanding certain lessons that were derived from Genesis during my youth, and to provide a backdrop to what I eventually discovered about the role of sexuality and intimacy in Genesis.

In brief, the nuns taught that once exiled Adam had to provide for Eve. She was more dependent upon him because she was cursed to suffer terrible pains during childbirth. In a reverse move, he was now to be her helper. This interpretation underscored my role as a paternal and protective male, as a provider, but it also defined my relationship to women as primarily focused on childbirth. When I looked at girls, I was supposed to see them as daughters of Eve and mothers like Mary, Jesus' mom.

One of the reasons that sexual issues weren't the prime ones that moved me to leave the religious life was that they were buried very deep, and surfaced only in terms of my wanting to marry and have children. I had no notion, until the Free Sex movement of my college years, of a "one-night stand." For me, and legions of other young Catholic men, if you had sexual relations with a girl you were, by that act, committed to marrying her. Lustful thoughts were sinful, but in a peculiar fashion they were safe. They were the "release valve." Actually "doing it" meant radically altering your life because if you were truly a man, a morally upright young Catholic man, you could redeem yourself and remove her from being shamed by quickly marrying. In my Big and personal Stories there was no concept of "living together" until married. Actual penile penetration was a plunge into wedded bliss or the eternal fires of Hell.

Genesis made clear that there was only one God. I never recall any discussion of the words that have annoyed Rabbinical scholars for millennia, and which still draws some "far out" explanations from theologians, that is, the phrase "let us make ..." in the first creation account in Chapter 1. No nun or priest ever mentioned "polytheism" other than to reference it as a pagan error. I did learn that while angry at humans for being stupid and hurting Him, Yahweh was still Our Father. His love overcame Adam's and Eve's "fall" in Genesis. He loved us so much that He sent His only son who came to Earth to suffer and die for us—you and me, miserable sinners that we are!—and so make things right again between you, me and God. Jesus was referred to as the Second Adam.

There was never any doubt in my mind that the Rib account was the primary Genesis narrative and that it was a creation story to take seriously. I can't over-emphasize how significant Genesis is in the Roman Catholic Big Story. Pause a moment and give some thought to the tradition's theological notion of "happy fault." In Latin this is "felix culpa." In a song titled "Exultet," which is often sung during springtime at the Christian service called Easter Vigil, there is this verse: "O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!"

What this means, and this was hammered home to me as it still is to most Christians, is that if Adam had not sinned then Jesus would not have come to save us. This might sound a bit circular but it is the message of the tradition. See, you don't have—and can't have—the New Testament unless you have the Old Testament. More, the Old Testament explains why the New Testament was necessary. If Adam (not only human but inferentially Jewish) had not screwed up everything, we would all still be living in Paradise, fishing in the rivers that flowed through the Garden of Eden. But "happily!" Adam did sin. It was his sin that made it necessary for Jesus to come down to Earth. I mention this simply to highlight how important the Genesis account is in the Roman Catholic Big Story.

Even my early adulthood embrace of Teilhard de Chardin's valuing of scientific evolution did not cause me to reinterpret Genesis. It was relatively easy to accept the statement that God created the world in seven days as a metaphor. After all, the real meaning of Genesis, as it was taught to me at the time, was about mankind's relationship with God. It was not a story setting forth scientific claims or even one issuing historical facts. Genesis was taught as the key lesson plan that revealed how much God loved us because, again, I was told that Jesus came and made everything "right."

In light of my Catholic background, you can see how I was told to, "think it the best of times, feel it the worst." I lived in a world defined by a "happy fault." Like Adam, I was miserable, an exile, a sinner. As saved by Jesus, I was filled with grace, and if I died on the spot—swoosh!—angels would swoop me up and take me to heaven amidst blaring trumpets of joy! My Sunny Spot clearly wavered as my Shade overcame me. My Sunny Spot—as the Shady serpent slithers about!—kept on a daily basis slowly shrinking as I thought sinful thoughts, and it went totally dark when I committed a Mortal Sin. I knew that I could die in the Shade. Yet I had moral choice based on free will, so it was up to me and me alone to live in a Sunny Spot or become a Shady guy.

Yet, something still didn't add up! What was I sensing that prevented me from tapping into the Religious Big Story's brooding emotion of miserableness? How did it happen? After all, as a seminary student, I followed the discipline of miserableness: I fasted, prayed, knelt till my kneecaps hurt and my back ached on the special prie-dieu kneelers. Prie-dieu means "praying to God " These kneelers are designed to make your suffering godly. So I suffered—willingly and longingly!—before His eyes. I wanted Him to know that I understood how deeply miserable I was. Although I obeyed and prayed, I wasn't really miserable.

What I suspect is that when the nuns talked about "the Church," they cited the Catholic quote that justifies what some wags have called "The Edifice Complex," that is, the Church's need to build more churches. "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my church (Matthew 16:18." This verse is also cited to explain "Apostolic succession," or the primacy of the Pope since Peter is considered the first pope." In this light, the imagination of the Roman Catholic Big Story is expressed in stone and organization as hierarchical and patriarchal. While I went to Holy Mass just about every day of my young life, and since I joined the seminary to study for the priesthood, you might wonder just to what theological and spiritual notions in particular I was paying attention.

Most especially I was faithfully praying the "Prayer of Saint Francis." This is Saint Francis of Assisi, the founder of the Franciscan Order which I was to enter as a seminarian and novice monk. The sentiments of this prayer overcame the ecclesiastical imagery of the institutional Church as I began to interpret my Catholic Big Story and write my personal Story. As you read it, please note the imagery and the spiritual dynamics that this imagery sets loose in my early Catholic years. Moreover, this prayer contains the harbingers of the brooding emotions into which I tapped on my way to the courthouse and federal prison.

Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love;

where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is darkness, light; and where there is sadness, joy. O, Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love; for it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi (1182-1226 A.D.)

# Chapter 46: Vatican Council II's impact on my Religious Big Story

For additional and expanded quotations with citations, see Appendix D, "Vatican Council II."

Vatican Council II, as I mentioned before, was a reform council. It was not convened to launch a revolution in any form. As with most previous Catholic Councils, it sought to firm up the Church's position in respect to current times, strengthen the Church's station, and assert its spiritual and moral leadership. The Council was confident that its truths were both perennial and eternal. Its Documents were, in this respect, a conscious effort to assert the Church's relevance, but more importantly to demonstrate that its doctrines and dogmas not only mattered but were key for the continued development of societies, cultures and individuals. My radical response, and the response of others like me, must be seen as unintended consequences of the Council's main intentions and objectives.

In light of my focus on globalization, I view the Council, itself, as a harbinger and an initiating force of the broad globalization movement. In verbiage that might have been written to describe the yet to be created Internet, the Council stated: "Moreover, in virtue of [the Church's] mission and nature, she is bound to no particular form of human culture, not to any political, economic or social system."

Furthermore, this Council offered a "Message to Humanity," another global and universal characteristic. The Council fathers made it clear that they were addressing Catholics, other Christians and, notably, "the rest of men of good will." This last group refers to those who "at all times and among every people, God has given welcome to whosever fears Him and does what is right."

Back then, my attention was not as sharply drawn to the phrases "whosever fears Him" and "does what is right" as they are at present. Then I had scant critical perspective on the import of these phrases. Personally, I had tapped into the brooding emotion of dreadful fear, and I knew that my personal Story had to conform to "what is right." Notably, the Council fathers spoke strongly from their Sunny Spot. There was a confidence behind their proclamations that is almost American in its spit and swagger.

Yet, typical of their tradition, these Council fathers opened with a Shade-toned prayer, "We are here before you, O Holy Spirit, conscious of our innumerable sins, but united in a special way in Your Holy Name." (My emphasis.)

Nevertheless, the Church doesn't hang out Her dirty laundry and expose her Shade in these Documents, does not confess her history of conquest, cultural imperialism, genocide, support for dictators, "just wars" and so forth. So, at the time, I was inoculated with this heady Sunny Spot serum. I jumped up out of my seat as I first read these Documents. If anyone sucked down their Sunny Spot optimism it was me.

Here are several of the major statements and images that enlarged the Church's Sunny spot. Although the Documents affirm the "Apostolic" character of the Church, that is, its claim that St. Peter was the first pope, the papers offered a new image for the Church. While still "Mother Church," the Council forwarded the image, "People of God." As others have commented, this had a sub-text of democratic leveling. Again, as the Internet has come to "flatten" corporate hierarchies, at least in respect to communication, so did this image flatten the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Throughout the Documents, priests, bishops, nuns and laity have their group identity image shifted. The "People of God" becomes the main iconic image. This profound change tapped into a brooding emotion of hopefulness, which set people like me loose!

So too did the Father's Opening Prayer also tap into hopefulness when the Council addressed God as "O Holy Spirit." There exists no doctrine or dogma more vague, undefined, ambiguous and fraught with uncontrollable interpretive consequences than that of the Holy Spirit. There is good reason why the Holy Spirit is imaged as a fire or a dove atop fire. Just about every heretic in this religious tradition claimed that he or she was speaking the truth as made known to him or her when gripped in the ecstatic embrace of the Holy Spirit. Looking back, I can see how I "caught the spirit" upon reading the Documents and how the established Church was saying, "Oh, no, here we go again, another Holy Spirit heretic!"

Previous to the Documents, the Church followed the thinking of a mainline traditional theologian, St. Augustine, who had uttered, "Outside the Church there is no Salvation." Now, the Council seemed to be saying that no one was really "outside" the Church—that all people were Church members insofar as they were "men of good will." In light of my opening statements about the Sunny Spot, understand that every person reading this paragraph would say, "I'm a person of good will!" Consequently, he or she would rightly assume that this new Catholic Church now considered them among the People of God.

This new phrase and iconic image of the People of God enabled me to tap into the brooding emotion of being comfortably at-home on Earth. I heard this and concluded, perhaps radically, that all "earth people" were the People of God. That there was no longer One Church, rather, One Family. This brooding emotion was accompanied by a deep peacefulness. After all, in effect, the Council turned to me and said, "It is your duty to change the world!"

Please understand that when I first read the Documents, I was not a political activist. In fact, I was just beginning to read Teilhard de Chardin, and I was still a year away from meeting my first pacifist, Jim Hunt. A fellow philosophy major, Jim and I lived off-campus during our senior year. Our other roommate was a staunch Republican and supporter of the Vietnam war. All in all, the Council's mandate unsettled me. Its call to deal with social justice issues, especially with Total War, threw a wrench in my plans to simply study academic theology and become a life-long college professor.

Below are key quotes upon which I reflected and which caused a revolution inside me. At the time, I thought my personal revolution simply mirrored the revolution, not just the reform, set in motion by the Council. Clearly, now I understand why I misread the Council.

Before you read these quotes, please note that nothing in the Documents enabled the so-called "People of God" to tap into the brooding emotion of not-feeling-miserable. In this respect, the Council sought to reform thought, not brooding emotions. Nevertheless, I want you to understand how logical, rational, theological and morally responsible my draft resistance and draft raider actions were. These were, for me, catalytic quotes.

I heard that it was my duty, not just that of the priests and other religious, to be a leader. "But the laity, by their very vocation, seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and by ordering them according to the plan of God."

I heard that it was my role to look at what was going on in my world, right now, and be bold enough to analyze it and then formulate the moral actions of my personal Story. "...the Church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and interpreting them in light of the gospel." And, "The holy People of God shares in Christ's prophetic office."

As the Council intended, I was to help find "solutions" to Shady problems. "...the Council wishes to speak to all men in order to illuminate the mystery of man and to cooperate in finding the solution to the outstanding problems of our time."

I heard, possibly with a bit more insight than the Council intended, that I was to look not at external laws but inside myself for answers. For me, this meant the external laws of the Church and Society. "In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience." And, "For man has in his heart a law written by God. To obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged."

I was ready! The summer after I graduated, I reflected on my future. My Vaticanized Big Story challenged me to Take on the world! It is your duty as well as your right. Follow your conscience! More, that if I didn't carve out a personal Story which responded to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, so "according to it he will be judged." I responded in January 1967 by enrolling in a master's of theology program at the Jesuit-run University of San Francisco.

I lived in the Haight-Ashbury but I was a Minnesota innocent among the plumes of hashish wafting from Golden Gate Park. I missed all that 1967's "Summer of Love" means to most of my peers. I admit that young paisley Hippie maidens with flowers in their hair did entice me. Yet, more telling is that my radical anti-war Catholic activist classmates taunted me because I was deep into the study of sacramental theology and not into burning my draft card. Teilhard de Chardin was still in possession of my mind and I had filed for Conscientious Objector status, but my spiritual quest was yet bound up with my desire to be a faithful son of the Church. My mindset was on reform, not resistance nor revolution.

Looking back today, I understand that the Documents reaffirmed the fact that the Roman Catholic Big Story seeks to answer all Big Questions. I chuckle now, as I could not back then, about how the Documents are so like their iconic predecessor, The Baltimore Catechism. True to that pedagogical tradition, the issues that I was required to confront and respond to as I formed my personal Story were definitively spelled out. Below I list some paragraph headings, and a few further quotes. However, this is not the time and place for me to write a full blown account of "the Council and Me." At this time, I simply want to illustrate how the Council shifted the controlling iconic images and phrases of my Big Story, and indicate how that shift changed the issues I confronted as I carved out my personal Story.

Paragraph titles in the Documents include, "Reverence for the Human Person," "Reverence and Love for Enemies," and "The Essential Equality of Men: and Social Justice."

I was challenged to commit to "The fostering of peace and the promotion of a community of nations." To understand "The Nature of Peace" as, "Peace is not merely the absence of war. Nor can it be reduced solely to the maintenance of a balance of power between enemies."

Historically, in the Sixties and early Seventies, social-justice issues were nightly news topics of the day. Civil rights and the "dream" of Martin Luther King Jr. were causing a revolution in America's self-perception. Issues of racism, sexism, war and imperialism placed deep and unsettling challenges before spiritual and religious leaders, and individuals such as King and others called for acts of nonviolent civil disobedience. It was a time when going to jail or "doing time" in prison forced many in religious and secular establishment positions, as well as those of us in "white society," to tap into the brooding emotions of America's and the Church's Shade which, to that time, only the oppressed had ever felt.

Additionally, I read about "The Avoidance of War, " "Curbing the Savagery of War" and "Total War."

I was challenged to reflect and then act upon the insight that "the horror and perversity of war are immensely magnified by the multiplication of scientific weapons." Along with the Council Fathers, I concluded that "all these considerations compel us to undertake an evaluation of war with an entirely new attitude." Along with contact with Teilhard's vision, the Documents helped me to develop a "Conscientious Objector" attitude.

In a major shift that affected my Secular Big Story's "America" chapter, the Documents' conclusions compelled me to work on an international basis, to develop solutions to "The Arms Race." Note this quote: "Therefore, it can be said again: the arms race is an utterly treacherous trap for humanity, and one which injures the poor to an intolerable degree." I simply felt I had no choice, especially after reading "The Total Banning of War, and International Action for Avoiding War."

"It is our clear duty, then, to strain every muscle as we work for the time when all war can be completely outlawed by international consent. This goal undoubtedly requires the establishment of some universal public authority acknowledged as such by all, endowed with effective power to safeguard, on behalf of all, security, regard for justice, and respect for rights." (My emphases.)

Even in light of all this, you would not be remiss to point out that all this is my personal interpretation of the Council's intent and the meaning of the Documents, possibly deserving the adjective "idiosyncratic." At times, I do wonder why I responded as the prophet Isaiah did when I heard the following: "Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, Whom shall I send? Who will go for us? Here I am, I said, send me!" (Isaiah 6:8)

The issues before me were of the Shade—some so Shady that they were pitch black, issues of deepest Evil. Truly, I cannot account, intellectually, for why I did what I did. I simply trust in what I came to discover through my time in prison, namely, that I was comfortably at-home on Earth and at peace. I say this to open your understanding to the power of brooding emotions. What the Council stated in its Documents unleashed a fire of the Holy Spirit in me, which fatefully moved me with the same shudder of deep personal emotions captured in a pop song of the day, "Wild thing, I think you move me! You make my heart sing. You make everything groovy." Yeah, groovy. Until the trial and "serving time" in the Slammer!

# Chapter 47: Penitentiary causes re-evaluation of the three Big Stories

Doing "Hard Time"

Everything changed for me when I got to a federal medium-security prison, Sandstone FCI in Minnesota. In June 1972, I was "taken off the streets," as is said, and "sent up the river," here, the fabled Mississippi. It was fitting. In 1960 my family had moved from northern New Jersey to Hastings, Minnesota, one of Mark Twain's Mississippi river towns. I went to college near St. Cloud, in central Minnesota, also on the Big Muddy. To complete this poetic image, I was arrested a bit farther up the river in Little Falls, where the Mighty Miss is known to "pause." Most prisons, however, are off the beaten track, in economically depressed areas, and Sandstone was no exception. The prison was the town's main industry.

On my outside, change was evident. I was de-bearded, de-loused and digitized. I became "8867-147," a federal identity that is mine forever—assuming I ever want to go back! Prison is the "Inside." This is what changed me.

The prison looks like a building. It has grounds. Fences. Guard towers. A parking lot. It is all that, but once you enter its security gates you find yourself somewhere so peculiar that you have no words for it. "Inside" is a good designator. Not only are you locked up, put there to protect others, but you are inside-looking-out at your society and culture.

I think it will be easy for you to accept my self-description as someone who did "hard time." Cons use that phrase to describe an inmate who doesn't settle in and accept prison as his lot. Some of these type guys always try to escape. Some worry too much about things they can't control. Others obsess about earning "good time" and getting out early. A few hardcore cons battle every little prison rule and regulation. In sum, these types do hard time.

My version of hard time was interior. I had attended seminary, lived in a monastery, and graduated from an all-male Catholic college, so being institutionalized in a highly controlled, all male labyrinth was not shocking. But I entered prison without a Big or personal Story. Both had been left strewn on the courtroom floor. My passionate words were but vanquished echoes in the collective mind of my jury. So, externally, I adjusted, and in a not uncommon way. I stopped reading everything: books, newspapers, junk mail. Slowly I reduced the number of visits from family and friends from weekly to monthly to almost zero. I wrote shorter and shorter and more infrequent letters. Of course, I played more basketball than a pro does, but then you can chalk that up to my being a guy who likes rituals and ceremonies. Playing b-ball was how I chose to ground myself as I shrank, withdrew, and disappeared inside.

I was aware that I was shrinking and this was a new experience. I looked at my three-foot by three-foot locker. That's all I had. But that wasn't it. Not the peculiar deprivation of having only a tiny physical space. No. Something else? Soon, I understood: I had no body!

My first awareness of body-less-ness came with a bit of a jolt—actually one that was also a tad sado-masochistic—when I first had to "Drop everything and bend over!" in the ante-room for a body search before entering the Visiting Room. The lesson the guards wanted me to learn was that they had control of my body and that I didn't. So I entered to meet my first visitors as an apparition. The depth of my understanding about this fact came full force one night when I was walking down a corridor with a laundry bag slung over my shoulder. "What you got in there, Kroncke?" asked a stern and challenging voice. I don't remember my sassy, sarcastic retort but his response was, "Drop it all!" I knew what that meant. Right out in the open, then, right there, I had to strip, piece by piece, until totally naked. How can someone with my background not have experienced the ritual necessity of this command? The Hack wanted to control me. He had total control over my body, and he was going to exercise his dominion. Of course, I submitted. I tried not to show my blush of humiliation, my quiver of degradation. I'm sure my penis was the size of a pinhead!

Ah, Sigmund Freud and his disciple Norman O. Brown, they would have a field day with all this compulsive anality, this obsession with getting the "rear view." Strip and body cavity searches were voyeuristic pleasures delivered upon command. Once, when I was in the Visitor ante-room with two others, one guy put it to the young guard who was eyeballing us, "What are you going to tell your wife you did today?" As we busted a gut, the guard actually blushed and hustled us out, "C'mon, c'mon, pull 'em up. Get outta here!" Although this is a perversely humorous memory, it straight-forwardly states that the language of prison is fecal. I don't know if I even want to recall all the fecal imagery. I'll just leave that up to your imagination. Cons, especially Lifers and "State-raised criminals," know that they are considered society's feces.

I had no body because I had no sense of intimacy. In a short time, I realized that prison is about control over intimacy. But, why? Why is punishment your loss of intimacy? An answer to this question developed very, very slowly. In 1983, I published an essay about prison. It described the prison discipline as a "feminizing" process. I noted how a con is treated like a stereotypical woman of the patriarchal culture. It was an insight that took me back to Genesis, to reflect upon the male and female relationship of Adam and Eve.

While in prison, however, I didn't have a way to talk about this. I knew that my being called "Big Man" foreclosed my potentially becoming someone's bitch. I also realized that I could buy some homosexual head with a pack of cigarettes. That I didn't become a bitch, make someone "mine," or buy a queer whore only underscored that I was even Inside prison's Inside. I was disconnected from everyone. It was a grim conclusion, but I knew that I was pulling hard time and that "they" were winning in ways I couldn't even fathom.

Inside myself I was intensely wrestling with the definition of this incarcerated "Inside" of America, Christian America, and Abrahamic Western culture. Why was it here? Why was this type of incarceration the punishment? There were no women about. No legitimate access to booze or recreational drugs. No one seemed to care about what I did with my day as long as I showed up at the proper place for the numerous "Lock up and count!" inspections. I was given regular meals. Primitive exercise facilities were available. If I got sick, there was an infirmary. I had no money, but I had a bed and three square meals. Simply, I had to stay "Inside" until some future date when, abracadabra! the last steel door would clank open and ... I'd be "let outside," again. Into the "free" world as it was termed. What a joke!

Prior to my incarceration, I had never visited a prison. Never a jail, never any type of lock-up, never even knew where the federal prison was in Minnesota. I had never given much thought as to why iron-barred cages are used to punish. I had never reflected upon the peculiar notion of being "punished with time," in my case, an eventually shortened five years. While there I began to think about such things. I wondered why more violence didn't exist Inside. Why didn't the hacks thrash and beat me up? I was "out of sight, out of mind"? Even when in solitary they left me alone. The guards had all the guns but they were few in number compared to the convict population, so why didn't we prisoners storm the Bastille, so to speak?

My prison experience and the questions it raised endowed me with a new body. It was a body that could sense the Shade in a way I previously could not. It was a body, with Inside seeing, which gave me "Inside Sight." I saw normal, ordinary people and events but actually understood or saw them quite differently. I saw them as if I were inside their Shade. This was my new "Inside Sight."

# Chapter 48: "A man buried alive."

With Inside Sight, it soon became apparent that prison's violence is meant to be primarily psychological and spiritual. It is less Hollywood's version of a James Cagney tough-guy prison flick than it is an incarnation of the insight of the English novelist Charles Dickens who published comments after visiting America's then internationally acclaimed penitentiary. Although voiced more than a century and a half ago his words remain insightful and cogent.

"I believe it, in its effects, to be cruel and wrong. ... I am persuaded that those who devised this system of Prison Discipline, and those benevolent gentlemen who carry it into execution, do not know what it is that they are doing. I believe that very few men are capable of estimating the immense amount of torture and agony which this dreadful punishment, prolonged for years, inflicts upon the sufferings. ... I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain, to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body ...its wounds are not upon the surface, and it extorts few cries that human ears can hear ... He (the inmate) is a man buried alive ...." (American Notes for General Circulation, Philadelphia, 1842)

It was difficult for me to initially believe what my Inside Sight was revealing because everything and everyone simultaneously seemed no different. It was a double-vision where I saw "what is" and "what is not" at the same time. Although I could see Inside, I had no fluent speech with which to express my Sight. In every way, I began to sense that prison isn't what it appears to be. Just as I knew that I was still Francis X. Kroncke while also accepting my non-human designation as 8867-147, so I knew that something very peculiar was afoot. Since I had trained as a sacramental theologian, that is, one who studies the origins and purposes of the Seven Sacraments (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Communion, etc.), I knew that my religious tradition believed that contact with God can be automatically and without fail established by participating in a sacramental ritual. In this tradition, when the priest consecrates the host during the Holy Communion ritual of the Mass, even if he is a terrible sinner, even if he is at that moment of consecration steeped in mortal sin, the presence of God is assured.

In like manner, I began to realize that prison is a place where those on the Outside believe that those on the Inside, just by being Inside for a period of time, will change for the better. Although a secular institution, prison appeared to function in the popular imagination like a sacrament. Bad, Shady, evil and "sinful" criminals go in and after "serving time" are secreted out as re-formed or re-habilitated errant citizens and returned to society. Although you can relieve yourself with a disdainful and cynical snort as you read those last few sentences, let me say that it confounds the Outsider that the Insider is not, at the minimum, "scared straight." Most Outsiders, and most of the guards I came to know, tap into a deep seated brooding emotion of feeling safe when they see a picture of a prison or an inmate in handcuffs and chains.

"What is going on here?" I often asked myself. Prison certainly is a Shady spot by any and all accounts. For many, it is considered the epitome of the darkened Shade, even a place of Evil. How in this Shady spot was I, or any inmate, supposed to discover his Sunny Spot? If I was supposed to find my Sunny Spot, it seemed that to find it I was expected to go deeper into my Shade! Somehow this didn't all add up. Although I had "all the time in the world" while Inside, I didn't have the mental or emotional space or time for an intellectual pursuit of this question. Yet, it remained in my gut, undigested.

# Chapter 49: America's penitentiary vision

In the curious ways of Fate, after prison in 1974, I became a program director for a prison reform project in the San Francisco area. It would be the only job for which I'd ever list my years in prison on my resume and/or get special preference points for being an ex-con! This work required lobbying with judges, sheriffs, chiefs of police, legislators, citizen groups, and church officials. In a short time, as I prepared analyses and reports to persuade politicians and address public policy organizations, I realized that few systems have been studied by social scientists more than the prison system.

Few social systems have had more outside professionals develop programs to aid, change, transform, or "cure" their clientele than the prison system. Over the centuries a slew of professionals: educators, ministers of every faith and denomination, social welfare agents, psychologists and psychiatrists, even phrenologists, and today's staff of drug therapists have forwarded programs and services to attack the problem of recidivism. Yet, it is fair to state that, historically, all have failed, and presently continue to fail. Despite this, while few systems have been so consistently judged as in need of reform as has the prison system, more and more prisons are built. In tandem, a higher and higher percentage of Americans, specifically minorities and the lower socio-economic segment, serve time as part of their personal Story. On the one hand Americans shout, "Failure!" and on the other, "Build more!"

I quickly found that no one in this group of criminal justice and social service professionals knew why, when or how the penitentiary system came to be. The egghead part of me sought out answers to these historical and sociological questions because I was asking others to reform the system. In order to reform it, I had to understand how it had been initially formed.

Within the first year of my primary doctoral research, I found that few academics had any substantial or compelling insights into the origins of the penitentiary system. Even more distressing, I found that the historical story as told in the foremost scholarly and official prison histories of the first hundred and fifty years was seriously flawed. Although you'd anticipate that religious leaders and academic theologians would have studied or written or preached about "criminal justice" issues, I found not a single sermon preached from an American pulpit on the topic for almost two centuries (18th and 19th). My doctoral mentors had no answer to why American theologians had not studied the penitentiary system in any academically significant way.

I was perplexed, a bit stunned, yet extremely motivated to figure out why the study and socio-cultural place of the penitentiary system had been basically ignored. All this led, eventually, to my intellectual and academic study of the prison system at the doctoral level, for four years (1974-1978). During my research I discovered that the "American penitentiary" was, indeed, invented. It was an innovative approach based upon a psychological theory as to the impact on an inmate's conscience when locked in "separate confinement." The early reformers were influenced by the work of Europeans, especially John Howard and the Scottish School of Common Sense. Practically, they theorized that after separation, solitude and reading the Bible, in the middle of the night, the inmate's conscience would throttle him awake. His conscience would accuse him as no one else could, because his conscience knew his true guilt! Terrified and sacred out of his mind, the inmate would repent, ask God's forgiveness, and turn back from his life of crime. He would repent in the penitentiary. This was a very unusual model of incarceration. Notably, it directly reflected America's cultural focus on the individual as in need of rehabilitation and not the social group.

The social institution, here the penitentiary, healed society as it healed the individual. A cultural and theological shift which occurred at this time popularized the belief that crime should no longer be seen as much as a sin as it was a defect in an individual's moral character. More significantly, the State and not the Church was the correcting and curative agent of reform. The inmate entered prison with a bag over his head so that he would never recognize other inmates while inside or outside. Prison was not to be a "school for crime." The inmate had only the Bible to read, a garden to tend, and weekly uplifting moral character building conversations with visiting members of the Pennsylvania Prison Society (PPS). While the history and an interpretation of prison's place in America's "Civil Religion" Big Story will be explored in a later chapter, several facts which moved me to reflection were: a) That in 1787 many of the same gentlemen who met to write the Constitution during the day at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, met at night in a meeting of the Pennsylvania Prison Society to formulate and put into practice a historically unique and anthropologically novel "penitentiary" system of punishment, b) That whereas the penitentiary reformers cited as inspiration a New Testament mandate to visit prisoners, namely, Matthew 25, "I was in prison and you visited me," they were grounded in the Old Testament brooding emotion of dreadful fear. Benjamin Rush, one of the penitentiary's major theorists, stated that the prison should be a "House of Terror." c) The question, "Why was "America" the country which invented the penitentiary (punishment by time sentences)?" became an increasingly significant inquiry for me since the penitentiary was the first social institution transmitted back to Europe. Within a decade, the "penitentiary" took hold as the primary system of punishment throughout the Western world.

It became apparent that I would have to deeply and thoroughly a) re-examine my understanding of American history, b) explore the role or lack thereof of religious groups and leaders in respect to criminal justice issues, and c) determine what chapter in the Religious and/or Secular and/or Scientism's Big Story this American penitentiary played, if any at all.

While my interpretation of the significance of prison as a Big Story iconic image will be referenced throughout Part 3, what I want to note is how being Inside America gave me Inside Sight into the Garden of Eden as the Inside of the Abrahamic tradition. Paradoxically, Abrahamic Paradise is the sacred space which reveals the tradition's Shade. Prison and Paradise is a curious pair. Significantly, this linkage of Insides: of America's penitentiary and the Bible's Garden of Eden enabled me to understand my personal development from a radically new point of view.

I realized why the judge at trial said, "You gentlemen strike at the foundation of government itself." He might not have articulated this Inside connection but he knew that my attacking draft boards was a primal violation of that vision of America which saw this country as the Garden of Eden, as a place for humanity to start-over. In Early America, the East Coast American cities and towns resounded with this faith in the New World with "New" names such as New England, New York, New Jersey, New Haven, etc. Within this new nation in this New World was its own new Shade spot. It was to be found where Shade is found in the Abrahamic tradition, namely, in its Garden of Eden. Few knew at the time, and fewer historians and cultural interpreters have known down the centuries, that in Philadelphia a cluster of New Adams were tending a new Garden of Eden. They called their paradise, "the penitentiary."

# Chapter 50: The Garden of Eden as "Inside"

Most high school American history courses convey that the New England Puritans believed that their God had delivered them from the "Old World" which was the sinful and corrupt Europe into a "New World." For them, America's wilderness was, in Old Testament terms, cursed and akin to the land into which Adam and Eve were exiled. They saw their "errand into the wilderness" as a godly task to purify themselves and the land. In one sense "America," was for them an Old Testament chapter in the story of Genesis. "America" could become a Garden of Eden if everyone lived a truly Gospel based Christian life. Although the Philadelphia penitentiary visionaries and prison reformers in the Pennsylvania Prison Society (PPS) were comfortable with being secular political activists, they consciously drew upon New Testament values. More significant to me, is that they were also scions and inheritors of the Puritan's Old Testament vision. Theirs was a form of "Sacred Secularism."

The cross-over from being a chapter in the Religious to that of Sacred Secularism is highlighted by the fact that he PPS was led, for forty-five years, by the Episcopal Bishop of Philadelphia, who, however, when petitioning the legislature dropped his religious title and signed simply as "William White." Moreover, the PPS' membership included ministers from every major Protestant denomination, as well as numerous Quakers, a sect that rejected professional "hireling" ministers. Notably, the Quakers considered each person to be a minister of the Gospel, and definitely saw their involvement with prison reform in terms of their sect's historical and particular advocacy of pacifism and social justice. So, on the face of it the penitentiary was part of a Secular Big Story (Sacred Secularism) because it was the vision of a group of citizens who formed the Pennsylvania Prison Society. Yet, upon closer examination, these citizens were among the city's most influential and leading Christians and Christian ministers.

While the PPS members did not speak in the Old Testament terms of the Puritan visionaries, their New Testament inspired vision was part of the overall Abrahamic Religious Big Story with its special Protestant commitment to Church and State issues and moral reform. Of note, then, is that these Christians acted as citizens while attending the Constitutional Convention, and as citizens they formed a uniquely American and secular penitentiary system inspired by Christian scriptural verses and moral values.

How did this all connect? Indeed, how could and/or should I interpret it to obtain a deeper insight into both the vision of "America" and the "sacramental" role of the prison system? Knotty, thorny and perplexing questions. Not surprisingly upon hindsight, it took until 1983 before I even began to get a personal grip on what I had experienced in prison. In that year I published "Prison, Bottoming Out, Mother," a full ten years after being paroled in July of 1973. (See, http://www.minnesota8.net/Writings-Kroncke.htm )

As I got deeper and deeper into my academic research and my personal self-discovery, what I realized was that Genesis is its own "Inside" story. Fittingly, the Garden of Eden also had its rivers, which flowed out from it. Adam and Eve, then, were sent "up the river" and cast "outside." Earth, in this light, is the Religious Big Story's Outside ("Free Will world") and Genesis' Garden of Eden is its Inside. Only by understanding Genesis, so it became apparent, would I and could I understand why I had ended up in prison. There was an Inside-Inside relationship I had to explore.

"Intimacy," again, proved the linkage. I read and re-read Genesis. What was I missing in this Big Story that was source for the Secular Big Story chapter on prison's violation of intimacy? It came to me, again, during 1983. I must admit that as I started to write I did not know where the essay would end. I was as surprised as anyone to read that I had discovered the goddess who was present with me in prison. I discovered her at the very same instant as I discovered the goddess who is present in Genesis. I wrote, "Mother." Although I wasn't aware of it, "Mother" became the first word of my new personal Story which would lead me to an encounter with the Earthfolk Big Story. I will explore this theme in greater detail in the next section. I just want you to note, at this time, that the violence of prison is an offense against—and when successful a destruction of—your personal, most private, truly uniquely intimate self.

In time, I came to perceive prison as the Inside and accept it as a curiously secular-sacramental institution of the "America" chapter in both the Religious and the Secular Big Stories. Your understanding of the role of prison as a uniquely American sacramental institution is pivotal in understanding how I understand and evaluate "America" as a chapter in both a Religious and Secular Big Story. My insight and interpretation will also assist you in understanding the crucial role the prison system plays in hiding/revealing America's Sunny Spot and its Shade, and, even as significant, in creating the dynamic that drives globalization.

Prison is, as I joked in Part 1, a good place to sit down and wile away some time thinking about your life. Asking, How did I get here? What does being here tell me about myself? About society? My culture and my church? A big, "Hmmm!" Sandstone turned out to be that turning point in my life where I pivoted, looked back to determine what my Big Story was and how my personal Story evolved, and then looked forward and asked, "What now? Where are you going? What's your story, man?"

# Chapter 51: My analysis and interpretation of Biblical Genesis

Although the dominant Creation Story around the planet is that of Biblical Genesis, study shows that there is a tension within the Western Biblical tradition between groups which hold that they have the one and only correct Biblical imagination, notably, the conflict between Christians, Jews and Muslims. The point which unifies these Biblical groups is their claim that there is only One God, that is, the monotheistic God of Genesis. This monotheism is the source for the historical and broader conflict between the Biblical tradition and all other religions.

If you accept the Christians, Jews and Muslims, and their scriptures and traditions as parts of a Biblical whole, then notably, the unifying singular claim each makes is that the Biblical patriarch Abraham is their "father." This Abrahamic people believe that their God has chosen them, that is, that they are a divinely and uniquely a Chosen People. Their Chosenness is manifested and affirmed by the covenant which their god makes with Abraham. In this light, all other religions and their believers are Other, in the sense of alien strangers. These Others are not family, rather, in stark contrast they are the enemy of the Biblical faith and culture.

These aliens worship idols, not the real god. This conflict between Abrahamics and Others is grounded in the monotheistic character of the Biblical tradition, namely, that there is only one God before whom no other gods or goddesses are to exist or be believed. It is a dominant Big Story which is ferociously exclusive. It tolerates no other Big Story. Later, I will expand upon the reasons for labeling these as Abrahamics of the Warrior's Quest imagination.

Yet, you also hear down through the history of the Abrahamic tradition, a dissenting voice which says that all Religious Stories are one Big Story. That the God named Allah, Yahweh or Christ is the same God the Father. More, it claims that all Abrahamics affirm the same fundamental Revelation, and that all are Children of the One God. This ecumenical and universalistic mystic Abrahamic voice, though small, even hushed, dares assert that other Religious Big Stories are also true pathways to the Divine Presence. In these alien religions, the mystical and prophetic Abrahamics claim to find "anonymous Christians" or "Just men" and like individuals who are also Children of the One God.

While I personally value this mystical and prophetic tradition, it is key to my interpretation and evaluation of the Religious Big Story to clearly note and accept the implications of the fact that these Abrahamic prophets and mystics have never and do not presently rule the day. Rather, the dominant "Chosen" Warrior's Quest Abrahamics see a world-at-conflict as a given state of human existence. For them it is a revealed truth that most conflicts are anchored in differences over religious values or interpretations.

Despite their prophets and mystics, the Abrahamics definitely do not act like their Big and personal Stories are equal and one with any others. The Jews do not accept the Christian New Testament, nor the insult carried by them renaming their Jewish scriptures as an Old Testament. The Christians and Jews do not accept the Koran. Others, such as the Mormons, who claim a "Latter Day" revelation which is expressed in a newly revealed "Book of Mormon," find no acceptance from any corner. Each group sees the other as the not-Chosen. For each, the other is an Enemy of God.

Whatever the particulars of their shared beliefs and doctrines, Abrahamics don't feel at home with their Biblical siblings. They don't embrace each other in heartfelt familial embrace. Ironically, their heartfelt warrior actions, notably, speak so much louder and more clearly about the brooding emotion of fear which unifies their "holy war" actions of crusades, pogroms, and jihad.

As I did, Don't you wonder? There is just one Earth. A limited space. Only one air. Only one sun and one moon. What is the source of this multi-millennial Biblical conflict? I read and reflected upon Genesis. I had to understand how this Big Story developed over time and how it impacts the world as you and I find it, today.

Two Creation Stories

Many gods and male/female equality

Right off, it strikes you that there are two quite different Genesis Creation accounts. In Chapter 1, a seemingly polytheistic voice proclaims, "let us make man in our image." This is then linked with a seemingly quite clear statement about the simultaneous creation and so implied equality of the original humans, to wit, that "male and female created he them." So this creation account seems to assert a primal equality between male and female, and implies an "us" which does not rule out the presence of a Mother goddess or goddesses.

The other account, in Chapter 2, is the Rib story. Here Adam is alone, talking with his god, who also is alone. There are no goddesses about. There are no women. When his God—note, this is not Adam's feeling—judges that Adam should not be alone, his god forms his woman, Eve, from a rib which he takes when Adam is in deep sleep. While there are interesting aspects to imagine with the reference to the first account's multiple gods, namely the "let us" phrase, and little unusual with its statement that males and females were created simultaneously, this first account is most significant in how secondary and subordinated it becomes as a source for answering the key Big Questions in the unfolding Abrahamic tradition. (The Christian theologians, Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin, promoted the Rib and Original Sin, etc., over all other verses and interpretations.)

As you study the history of the Abrahamic tradition's preaching, teaching and artistic expression of this Genesis account, you see the Rib story assuming a singular prominence as "the" Genesis account. The Abrahamic imagination is grounded in what could be called, for its time and still today, "alien" ideas, ones that are wildly imaginative. Pause to reflect on this point. In the "us" and "created he them" account there is nothing which the hearer is asked to imagine which he or she has not already pondered. The first listeners to the Biblical Big Story's first creation account knew about or were practitioners of polytheistic religions, that is, religions with many gods and goddesses. They also were men and women who knew the basic "facts of life," namely, that it takes a man and a woman to make a child and so perpetuate the family of humankind. With this first Genesis account, there is not much new in terms of imagining. Not so, however, with the second account.

The Rib and the Lone Male

Listen in on the Rib version. Open yourself to how it makes you feel, not just think. What is the image of the Earth and humans in Genesis' second account?

In this Genesis Rib account, humans do not live everywhere. They live in a paradisiacal Garden of Eden. More surprisingly, there is only one solitary human, a male called Adam. He is in this Garden, and of significance he converses with his god who has created him. This god gives Adam dominion over the Earth and all its creatures. What Big Question does this answer?

It answers the question, Why are we here? Which is to be the supreme Master over all living things, animal and plant. By God's grace only a male human exercises dominion on Earth. It means that there is a subordination to the human by all other forms of life. It means that the human, Adam, can do no wrong in his relationships to all other living things because they are subordinated to him, their namer. He is Earth's ruling authority.

Adam's god realizes that Adam is lonely. This points up a very peculiar aspect of this account. It is a Creation Story which begins with only a male being created. It is also a Story with only a male god. There is no statement that Adam was the son of the union of a god and a goddess. Rather oddly, though it is not stated, Adam was not born. He was created. Moreover, the Story does not explain how Adam accepts what his god does, for how it is that he comes to know that he is lonely, if he has never had a mate? For how could he be lonely if he did not have someone to be separated from, to be lonely without? Lacking a clear explanation, the Story then infers that as in the animal and plant worlds so in the human, there is male and female. But why is the human female only inferred, why is she veiled from sight?

What is the Big Question whose answer is that there is only the Lone Male? That Adam lives without a woman, as his god exists without a goddess? Upon reflection it appears that there is a connection between the dominion over animals and plants and the fact that there is no female present in Genesis up to this point. The connection links the questions and the answers: Why are we here? Which answer is to express dominion. And the question, How are we to live? Which answer is, With women subordinated to men.

# Chapter 52: Why is the feminine invisible?

As dominion is given to Adam over all creatures, over what can be called Nature, so is Adam given dominion over females, that is over society and culture. For once the female is introduced in Genesis, so can society be built around the family, and so does a distinct human set of relational values evolve, which is culture.

What of woman is seen in Genesis? Upon first reading, nothing. She is not seen. She does not exist. What does the Big Story mean to tell us when it states that the male who first existed, Adam, is a Lone Male? And that his god is a Lone Male God? Since I was now reading Genesis in light of all the other Creation Stories humans tell, it became significant to ask, "Why are the Abrahamic folk telling a Big Story where women are not around?" How could they do that, given that it was self-evident to all the original hearers of this second Genesis account, as it was to me, that the world consists of males and females, in the animal, plant and human kingdoms?

To what Big Question is this invisibility of the female a Big Answer? Is it, Who's in charge? Whose manner of dominion? A manner derived from woman's ways or from the male's? In a spectacular and unprecedented fashion among Big Stories, the female is created from Adam. Note, again, she is not born. How must this fact have struck the first hearers of Genesis? They who had never seen human life come to be except from the womb of a woman? Who knew birth through the personal stories told by women, told in terms of their physical feelings, death-defying emotions, and howls of pain and joy?

What Big Question was being answered—what brooding feelings tapped?—as they heard it said that woman was not born, rather, that she was created from the bone of Adam while he slept? Formed from Adam who was also not born. This woman, Eve, who was motherless and would remain so forever. In sum, the revelation that the First Humans, Our Parents, were created, not birthed.

What sense of themselves did they have at this moment of wild imagining? What were they sensing? How did they feel towards one another and about their own person? Each hearer had been birthed, had a mother and father, yet, so they were hearing that all began without a mother and a father. Curious at the least. Insensately absurd at the best.

As dominion over animals and plants expressed human separation from Nature, so it is now clearly grasped that humans are a special lot. In definition there is no intrinsic natural connection between humans and the plant and animal worlds. These latter are worlds in which the various beings are born from a male/female interaction. Although children will be born through Eve and all subsequent women, this second account reveals that to be human it is not necessary to be born of a woman. It is strongly inferred that if Adam's god had so desired, he could have populated the Earth with other created Adams and no Eves, whatsoever.

To me, in contrast to my doctrinal upbringing, the Abrahamic Genesis now stood out as a truly odd Big Story! I was perplexed. It certainly must not be answering the Big Question about how humans physically came to be. Certainly, anyone hearing this Rib account knew that human life only comes from the union of male and female. So what Big Question was this account a Big Answer to? Again, it is a query about, "Who has dominion?" But here it is asked in respect to the personal, intimate sphere of male-female relationship.

In terms of intimacy, Eve lives in Adam's world, he does not live in hers. It is a Lone Male world at its core. The power of dominion is to be defined and expressed only as intimate male power. Only from within Lone Male intimacy does and can life arise. This was revealed through the intimate act of Adam and his god as Adam slept. The intimacy Adam shares with his god is not an intimacy he does or can share with Eve.

In the Abrahamic Big Story only Lone Male presence is real. Eve and women not only do not have a Big Story but lacking such they cannot carve out a personal Story. This means that women's actions can never be meaningful. They can never be spiritual. Not at least in terms other than as they express Lone Male dominion. It is clear that no action with a woman can make present human intimacy. As odd as that might sound, intimacy can only be made present through a Lone Male's solitary experience of his separateness.

What is it, then, that is expressed through what you commonly call intimacy? If you follow the Lone Male Rib account, intimacy is a spiritual experience between two male presences, namely, Adam and his father god. Until they offend god, commit what some call "Original Sin," Adam and Eve are not embarrassed by their nakedness. This implies that they were not intimate in anyway, notably, not sexually. If there is any sexuality which is sacred, then, it is that which occurs as it did for Adam, namely, when alone.

Intimacy & same-sex sexuality

What is profound to me at this point is that Genesis' primary focus is on intimacy. I closely listen and peered at what is not said or imaged as well as what is and conclude that Genesis is all about intimacy as expressed through human sexuality. What is wildly imagined, however, is that there is only Lone Male same-sex sexuality. This is a sexuality which is not humanly relational in that there is no need for a female. The Lone Male's intimacy is an experience of and within himself. If you remember that this is a Semitic Big Story, then you realize that no attempt is being made to say that the Lone Male god and his creation had sexual relations. Such divine-human eroticism is the stuff of Greek mythology and other Creation Stories, but it is totally unimaginable to the Semitic imagination.

What happens then during Adam's deep sleep? Again, unless you want to divorce human birthing from sexuality, the creation of Eve from Adam's body is a veiled revelation about the character of Abrahamic sacred sexuality. Adam's body is maternal egg and paternal seed. Both exists within him. He is so composed because he is like his Lone Male god who exists and creates without a female consort, without a relationship with a Mother goddess.

If there is no need for a female to create humans, then humans do not necessarily have to be birthed. Again, Eve and Adam were created and God could have kept creating humans. At least, kept creating females from males. (The medieval painting by Bartolo di Fredi's "The Creation of Eve," a 14th century Italian fresco. indicates that this "mystery" was passed down as iconographic tradition through the centuries. ) What does that imply for understanding human sexuality?

In this second Rib account, the intimate relationship between Adam and Eve is forthrightly stated, "She is part of my own bone and flesh! Her name is woman because she was taken out of a man." (1:23) What question is this answering? I hear that gender and sexuality are one of the Big Questions. That is, that how intimacy is understood, and how it is to unfold, is key to Genesis' purpose. In fact, I see this as the most wildly imaginative aspect of the Big Story, and as such, I consider it to be the primary message to be imparted to listeners.

In brief, the Lone Male's way of being intimate and sexual are what Genesis is all about. It is a way where there is no sacred sexuality except in the peculiar sense of a same-sex, Lone Male eroticism wherein Adam is intimate only within himself. It is understatement to say that these are very unusual uses of common terms and interpretations of primal human experiences. As such, understanding the Lone Male's sense of intimacy and sexuality is very critical to understanding the Warrior's Quest imagination and spirituality.

Lone Male knowing as revelation

Another telling characteristic of this Lone Male power is that it can only be known through a supernatural Revelation. That is, the whole Garden of Eden Story with its Lone Male Adam and God, as with the claim that humans were created, not born, are so unnatural that they can only be known through Revelation, not through how the listeners normally come to know. Indeed, all the claims and statements in the second account elude common sense and are wildly imaginative.

Of note, Divine Revelation negates the five senses as spiritual gateways. All that is humanly sensed, revelation claims, is meaningless when it comes to spiritual knowing. Sensuality, then, is certainly not a pathway to Preciousness. This is how the Rib account answers the Big Question, How do humans know truth? The answer is that they know it only as revealed, which is knowledge infused into them by their God. Revelation cannot be caused or effected by any human sense or thought or act of the will. More, revelation is known only through the experience of being a Lone Male. This account announces something previously never proclaimed, namely, that only Lone Males know spiritually. It asserts that only Lone Males are spiritual persons, who once Chosen can enact the rituals through which God makes Himself present. And, that these are rituals of same-sex intimacy.

This knowing through revelation is a secret way of knowing. The Lone Male has knowledge which others do not. Not only is he a Lone Male and his God a monotheistic Lone Male but true knowledge of what the Big Questions are and their Big Answers, as well as how personal Stories should be developed, can only be given by the Lone Male. Adam is, in his dominion, King and High Priest. Here begins the development of the peculiar Abrahamic Lone Male patriarchal structure. Peculiar in that it requires the listener to reject and go against every natural, common sense insight. Peculiar in that it wildly imagines that humans know nothing and cannot know anything except as it is revealed. In brief, they can know only when and as revealed through the Lone Male experience, and as a manifestation of Lone Male power.

Exile & The Serpent

All of a sudden, Adam and Eve are expelled from the Garden. They become exiles. What happened? What Big Question is being answered? It is, "How are we to live on Earth?" Big Answer: "We are to live on Earth as if in Exile." We are strangers in a strange land. The Earth is not our human home, no, the Garden of Eden is. Consequently, the core spiritual question for humans is, "How can we ever return?"

The brooding emotion tapped into by an exile is one of forlorn fear. It is an anxiety caused by being driven from one's homeland and thrust into unknown territory. It is the feeling of abandonment, of hopelessness, and of stark terror. The exile's only hope is in returning, in escaping from the hostile land in which he/she is a stranger.

What caused the Lone Male god to exile his creations? Before Eve is formed, it is revealed that there is a Tree of Life, a Tree which gives the knowledge of Good and Evil. It is stated that with such knowledge humans are doomed to die! As common to Big Stories, contradictory facts appear to be asserted by inference. Here, the inference is that while Adam and Eve were in the Garden they would not have died. In The Garden they would have experienced a certain aspect of immortality. In a later verse, it says that if they stay in the Garden now that they do have the knowledge of Good and Evil, they might also go and eat of the Tree of Life and become like God who lives forever. The latter implies that humans in the Garden are not immortal. What is of note, at this point of contradiction, is that Adam and Eve are tending the garden. This is Adam's prime task as assigned by God, and Eve was created to be his helper. There is no discussion of them filling the Garden with children. It appears that they will live forever in the Garden, alone in their togetherness, in a non-sexual relationship.

The immediate effect of eating from the Tree of Good and Evil is that Adam and Eve become aware of their nakedness. Before they ate, we can assume, Adam and Eve were in the Garden unclothed and so naked. Why did they not see each other's nakedness? What caused them to all of a sudden blush and seek to place fig leaves over their genitals? The Apple is the metaphor for their breakthrough to their fuller humanity, to their nakedness, and so to an awareness of their sexuality.

Symbolically, eating the fruit connotes an awakening within Adam and Eve of their natural erotic nature. The Tree and the Apple are Nature images. As natural products they provide physical food. As symbolic products they feed the inner self, the soul. The eating is a relational and intimate moment. Adam is shocked out of his Lone Male vision of who Eve is. His sense of interiority is shaken, for he now sees and feels himself as intimate with Eve. Adam taps into a brooding emotion of deep erotic longing. It is implied that he lusts after Eve, and that he satisfied this lust as he came to "know" her.

It is not inappropriate to plumb the deeper meaning of this "eating" each of the other. I look at it in terms of communion, but also want to capture its deeper erotic passion. Adam now has the knowledge of her which, up to this time, only his Lone Male God possessed. He now knows her as a fully present woman. She is no longer just his helper. For a moment he is not the Lone Male. It can be assumed that they shared a moment of sensual and poignant sexual awakening, and in light of the enraged, wrathful response of the Lone Male God, a moment of ecstasy. Adam will eventually express this fresh and novel passion for Eve when he later calls her "Mother of All."

I state "ecstasy" with a wariness of its degradation in our over-sexualized world as simply a term of sexual pleasure. I use it to express the inexpressible moment of creativity. When you create or discover something truly original or new, you shout, "Eureka!" This is a delight which is holistic. It is a joy expressed physically, psychologically and spiritually. For me, the mothering experience at the moment of birth is ecstatic in that it dances with all the brooding emotions into which Dying and being Born tap. In like manner, the "flipped-out," "kick the kids out of the house" anger of the Lone Male God I take as a confirmation that Adam and Eve had truly trespassed into what He considered His, and only His, domain. Now, Adam and Eve know how to create life and they became the "natural" creators of human life. Humans would not have to be created from nothing, rather, they would be born from within the sensually holy embrace of the male and the female.

Adam and Eve no longer are just the gardener and his helper. They are now a male and a female who see each other's nakedness. They move towards one another as intimate, sexual partners. They are primed, now, to do something which only the gods were supposed able to do, namely, create life. But it is more than that which I see in this discovery of nakedness. It is Adam and Eve who link sexuality to Preciousness. Remember, the Lone Male god does not express Himself sexually. He has no goddess consort or Divine Mate. He does not engage in an act of sacred sexuality. However, Adam and Eve do. For life, itself, is holy. Up to this point, that is what the Garden of Eden story presents. It relates how a God creates his people, and people are His personal creations. This odd and quirky Creation account now takes a "normal" turn in that the hearer learns that, indeed, humans do discover their full humanity through sexual embrace. More, they hear that this full humanity is so powerful that it made this God jealous, angry, and abusive.

Now note that before they conceive, Adam and Eve are exiled. The Garden, from this perspective, is an unnatural place, fitting for the Lone Male God but not for the human family. For the human family to flourish, that is, to realize the vision of a fuller humanity, Adam and Eve had to leave the Lone Male god's Paradise. For them to experience ecstatic sexuality, wherein they are intimately present each to the other, they had to go Outside of the Lone Male's Inside and make the Earth their home.

The Tree of Good and Evil gives them insight into the essence of their humanity, which is that they, within embrace, can make life present. These new lives are fully human and so have souls. In this light, Adam and Eve discover parenting as a spiritual experience. They, for the first time ever, experience the interrelationship between their Sunny Spot and their Shade. Eating the Apple symbolizes a new vision of who they can become, of how large their Sunny Spot can become. Adam and Eve now see that they can become family. It is this vision for which they are punished. Indeed, they see as the gods see, namely, that creation is a "let us"—a relationship, not the solitary act of a Lone Male. Adam's Lone Maleness is shaken to its core. I imagine that he had at least a momentary doubt about the Lone Male God's revelation that Eve was born from him because he all of a sudden sees her nakedness and is present to her full female powers.

Adam and Eve are punished because they have gained wisdom from eating the Apple. As the Serpent stated, they are as wise as the gods. As eating of the Tree of Good and Evil gave them insights into their fuller humanity, so they know that the Tree of Life is within them, and it gives them insight into humanity's creative force, namely, to birth children and build a family.

Note that they are exiled from the Garden once the Lone Male God fears that they will become immortal by eating from the Tree of Life. Why wouldn't He want Adam and Eve to be immortal? Here, I sense a power struggle. There arises an echo of the "let us make ... in our image" account. There appears to reside within humanity the capacity to become enough like the gods that the Lone Male God fears them. He then banishes them and curses them. He sets an angel with a fiery sword at the gates of Paradise to keep them at bay. (Who says that some hacks aren't angelic presences? Ha.)

Cursing childbirth and growing food

What the Lone Male God curses is what He wants to prevent Adam and Eve from experiencing. He curses childbirth and growing food. Why? It is not clearly stated why in Genesis. Why are these two cursed and not other aspects of human life? I ponder this passage and sense that the Lone Male God fears the human experience of childbirth and growing food. That is why they are cursed experiences. Each is a birthing experience, one of female flesh, the other of the fields of Earth. Both of whom are, across many cultures, called Mother. Of note is that as Eve is alive and the source of human life so is Mother Earth alive and the source of life.

It is these two acts which were what the Tree of Life held as further sight, further vision of what it means to be fully human. It is through childbirth and tending the Earth that humans can realize the immortality which the Tree of Life promised. Also, that the Lone Male God curse's objective is to distract Adam and Eve from this insight into their immortality which was as obvious to them as was their nakedness, but which they could not see until the Serpent gave them access to wisdom by encouraging Eve to eat the Apple.

Through the curse, the Lone Male god regains control over Adam and Eve. Like the trauma of early childhood abuse which lingers for a lifetime, so Adam and Eve are scarred by the anger and rage from their God. They are indicted and judged in swift order. Their offense is their intimate knowledge of their sensual preciousness and sacred sexuality. What I claim is that it is at the moment they gain their first awareness of the sacredness of their sexuality, of their sensual preciousness, that they are driven from the Garden. At this moment the Lone Male God flies into a rage and terrifies his children. He is like an enraged parent yelling at a child found playing with him/herself, "Naughty! Nasty! You vile child!" In stark terror, they are cast outside into a world unknown to them. The brooding emotion of all this is one of absolute fear and terrifying dread. On its own terms, the Abrahamic tradition interprets the Fall and develops a vision in which the human body, sexuality and being a female is hated, and where sexual acts and consequently making present intimacy is a sin.

For me, it became clear that the immortal fruit of the Tree of Life conveys the insight that through childbirth and tending the Earth that humans can realize their immortality.

# Chapter 53: The Serpent: the male which speaks with the female

Without explanation, a Serpent enters the Story. Although he is, in form, a creature of the animal world, he speaks to Eve. Clearly, the Serpent is a special character—part animal, part human and given his knowledge possibly part godly—and who he really is has been the cause of much controversy through the ages. (The Serpent image evokes an echo of the first Creation account's polytheistic phrase, "let us.") At this point, he is the one who tells Eve that she can eat of the Tree of Life and not die. She does eat and so does Adam upon her invitation. Once immortal, however, their Lone Male God storms and fumes, and kicks them out of the Garden. Why did Eve believe the Serpent?

Why would Eve believe the Serpent over the word of Adam's God? Why would she not have asked Adam what to do, who, after all, has dominion over her? At this point in the Story, it is sufficient for the listener to hear that it is the feminine which is the source of Evil. And that Evil came through her listening to the Serpent. This is the Big Answer to the Big Question, "How did it come about that there is Evil in the world?" Or, "What is the source of all this conflict among humans?" The Big Answer: women, and the exercise of feminine power, which it is clear is a derivative of Serpent power.

While the characteristics of feminine power are not discussed in Genesis, it becomes clear that there is an intrinsic link between Evil and the feminine. Whatever woman is at her core, she is definitely the source of Evil in the world. For this, she is cursed to suffer greatly during childbirth. For not exercising his dominion over her and for allowing Eve to express feminine power, Adam is to labor by the sweat of his brow.

A later chapter will further explore the meaning of the Serpent. Just consider for the moment this insight, that all power, all dominion being expressed in Genesis is male power, that of the Lone Male and the Lone Male's god. The Serpent, then, has to have some relationship to this Lone Male power because female power does not and cannot stand on its own. It was not born, rather it is an expression of Lone Male power—Rib power, so to speak.

The Serpent, then, is also a male power. But what type of male power? I hold that it is that which can and does speak to the female. Where did the Serpent come from? Where does this type of male power which speaks to the feminine come from? These are questions for later exploration and interpretation. What you and I are left with as ehe Rib account in Genesis closes is the unexplained source of the Serpent. What is clear is that Abrahamics hate the Serpent. For them it stands, over millennia, as a symbol of everything which is wrong with the world. Indeed, they hold that the world, as it is today, is a Serpent's world.

For me, reflection upon the Serpent as that of the male which speaks with the female sheds light on the Abrahamic sense of maleness. As with Adam, Abrahamic males not only do not but they cannot talk with the female. They have no such capacity. So, what is the type of maleness which does not speak to the female? It is that type which apes and imitates the female and female ways. As Adam's body is forwarded in Genesis as the birthing body so does Abrahamic maleness act as if it is the female body. For me, Adam "pretends" to be the mother, although of course he is duped by his God who puts him into a deep sleep, either through some form of hypnosis or herbal drug potion. This is all pretty wild and weird imagery.

But where else does the male ape and imitate feminine traits? As strange as this may sound, the male who does so is the warrior. If you consider that the female body is the only one that naturally bleeds (menstruation), and that this bleeding identifies and validates her body as the source of all life, and even as the "food of life" for only a mother's body feeds a child at the breast, then you sense a connection with the warrior's need to shed blood. Male bodies do not naturally bleed. They are not the life bearers. They are not food. But the warrior male obtains meaning if he slays or is slain, if he is wounded or wounds in battle.

The Abrahamic vision of the Lone Male unfolds, as the Bible continues, as a story of the Warrior's Quest way. It is not a warrior vision which tolerates other ways, absolutely not, for it is a monotheistic warrior vision which claims that it is Chosen and exercises its right of dominion grounded in revealed truth. Unquestioning blind obedience and defining one's male identity through killing the Other are the stuff of a Warrior's Quester's personal Story.

Adam as Lone Male Warrior's Quester does not talk with Eve. They are not in a normal male-female relationship, that is, they are not expressing intimacy until she experiences the Serpent. The Serpent informs her about her fuller female nature which she discovers through understanding his fuller male nature. This occurs, symbolically, when she eats the Apple. When she provides Adam with the Serpent's insight into his fuller maleness, that is, into intimacy, Adam immediately says "Yes!"

Once Adam acts on his Serpent maleness, that is, embraces intimately with Eve, the Lone Male God flips out! Adam, possibly sensing his loss of dominion, feels tricked and turns on Eve. Instead of accepting responsibility, when asked by his God he says, "The woman made me do it." Adam is now aware of all that the Lone Male God has not told him. Although he has abandoned her and betrayed her in the moment, Adam stays with Eve. Is it that the bond of intimacy, once evoked, changes Adam's sense of his interiority, that is, his identity as a Lone Male? For better or worse, he stays with Eve. They are both exiled.

While living as exiles could have a happy ending, where the two intimate lovers set forth and build the Earth, the Lone Male God will not let that happen. He still fears their Serpent knowledge. So He curses them. He curses the Earth. His is the action of an abusive parent. He condemns his children to live in stark terror and dreadful fear. Adam and Eve tap into the primal brooding emotion of feeling miserable.

Genesis' atheism

The "let us make man in our image" line in Chapter 1 has been source to many tortured interpretations. Christians often cite this as a verse which "proves" the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead. That is, that this is a source verse for the later doctrine of the Holy Trinity, to wit, that there are three persons in the One God. Rabbinical interpretations include one which posits that this refers to the fact that God created Adam with the assent and participation of all the life forms previously created. It does not imply that God needed these other creatures in order to create Adam. Rather, the act is seen as a gesture of respect to all life forms. Others forward that God sought the counsel of the angels, so as to avoid making them jealous. Again, He did not need the angels; they are not co-creators. It is a curious line of thought which I will not pursue here why there is this jealousy between angels and humans. Still others state that the text is using the majestic "We" akin to how kings spoke of themselves and in the pontifical manner of the Roman Catholic Pope. Yet others cite this as a passage which is a lesson in modesty. That is, the Almighty God addresses and invites others—angels, living creatures—to be present to His awesome manifestation of Godly power as he creates Adam.

My Masters in Theology was focused on the Patristic era, which is the time when most of the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church were formed. In Systematic Theology the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a topic which is so convoluted, dense, illogical, non-rational, etc., that my head often felt as if it were crowned with thorns. However, for the first half of my life to that date, I accepted the Trinitarian doctrine I read "let us" as a miraculous seed placed in Holy Scripture which anticipated the coming of Christ and the revelation of the Holy Trinity.

My insight into Genesis' atheistic character, however, was not the result of simply opting for an easier intellectual resolution to a long-standing thorny Scriptural problem. Rather, I grasped the atheistic import of Genesis as I gained insight into why the prison system in America has become the system adopted by those countries which strive to capture and lead the globalization movement. As I stated in section 2.2 above, the novel vision of the penitentiary can be usefully understood as America's Garden of Eden. In the prison cell many of the same objectives of the Garden account were originally sought. For example, it was a same-sex, male only space. In that cell space God was to become present to the inmate as he read the Bible (heard God's voice) which then awoke his internal voice of conscience. His conscience indicted, accused and judged the inmate in a way that external agents never could. The prison cell was a space of intimacy wherein the inmate communed with and received the forgiveness of His Merciful God. To this space, those in the inmate's group-identity groups came to visit him in the persons of the members of the Pennsylvania Prison Society. While not exactly his social peers, the PPS members witnessed to the life the inmate could live if he changed his errant behaviors and adapted to proper social mores, cultural values, and Christian morality.

In section 2.B.2a, I cite the PPS as the agency which transferred the traditional religious control of criminal justice and correctional matters from the sacred to the secular realm. I also note that the first phase of the PPS vision was termed "separate confinement." This was a phase where the focus of the penitentiary was on reforming the individual and re-shaping him back into a Democratic citizen, who it was assumed was also a Christian. When the penitentiary suffered from over-crowding and the practice of putting multiple inmates in one cell occurred, the penitentiary vision broke down, and as I evaluate the situation, disappeared. In its place arose the practice of warehousing. "Lock 'em up and throw away the key!" This now bedrock practice lacks a theoretical, social and spiritual vision, and so, in essence, accounts for the dire state of prisons in terms of its failure to transform inmates into citizens and moral agents. Without a vision, the prison system is condemned to fail, as it has for the last several centuries.

Although I make this latter judgment, which is a "worst of times" evaluation, I have come to more fully understand the "penitentiary as warehouse" as, indeed, a vision, and the prison system, as indeed, a resounding success story. This "best of times" interpretation rests upon my facing the import of Genesis as an atheistic account.

Inside Sight is that given to those who have fallen out or were driven out of a Big Story. It is the insight of the non-Chosen. During the Sixties, Native Americans, Blacks, peoples of color, women, and self-designated Queers were among those who challenged the standard historical accounts of "America" and the interpretations of what it meant and means to be an "American." I pause here to note that each of these groups was relegated to a Shade institutions, e.g., Reservations or mental-hospitals. However, all of these groups and segments within them of those who did not "fit in," ended up Inside the penitentiary. Most of these groups continue to be the source of the inmate population. So, if for over two centuries the prison as warehouse has been functionally a success, where is its theory?

The practical result of the prison-as-warehouse is, as I myself experienced it, an attack on intimacy. You are denied it. Moreover, time Inside disables you, when back Outside, from functioning properly. In the main, you are more dysfunctional after prison than before. Prison does little to nothing to prepare you to re-enter society and participate as a Democratic citizen or in any other healthy way. What is the vision and imagination which has so successfully blossomed in this Shady manner?

In the "separate confinement" phase the PPS articulated a very thin Christian theology. Some of its supporters called it a "divine institution." Others saw it with a quasi-sacramental eye, as I have suggested previously. The penitentiary as an imagination is as sparsely a Christian vision as is that of the Democratic State. This sparse Christian language is a characteristic of the Civil Religion. Through phrases such as "In God We Trust," "One Nation Under God," as well as the citation that all men are "created equal," which infers a Creator, and like curt phrases and images what surfaces is what I assess to be a secularizing and atheistic movement. As I read American history, by the time the penitentiary vision disappeared (as the Eastern State Penitentiary opened in Philadelphia in 1824) so had the "god" aspect of Democracy disappeared. By the time described as the Jacksonian Era, America was no longer the Garden of Eden. Rather, in a reverse of the mythic movement, Americans exiled God from the Garden. From hence, "America" itself as a nation became the godlike presence. The atheistic movement I discerned as arising from the monotheistic claim of Genesis flowered in the atheistic vaporization of God's majestic presence among His newly chose People—"Americans." This occurred as the new nation not only separated itself from the Church and its Big Story but exiled the Church and any accounts of "god or gods" in any fashion (principle of separation of Church and State meant that the State was powerful and the Church was not!)

My "proof" rests upon Inside Sight and grasping America's Shade. Prison was and is a successful and highly functioning Democratic institution. It reveals that there is no hope for redemption, reconciliation, reform, rehabilitation nor re-entry into the American Dream, its imagination. In prison the individual is no longer a citizen. His reformation is unimaginable. His humanity is unimaginable. His intimacy is unimaginable. He, like the former Christian god, is exiled, cast-out, never to return, forever not-Chosen.

In prison I experienced the presence of a nurturing Mother. She is there only because She is also there in her presence as Shade Mother, a most abusive parent, consort of the abusive Shade Father. Possibly, I felt Her presence because I had been so staunch and evangelical a Lone Male. I had professed, confessed and witnessed on the streets, in classrooms, from pulpits, and in the courtroom to this Lone Male Biblical imagining. I had lived as if Chosen, that is possibly why I felt so deeply not-Chosen. By tapping into the brooding emotions of Chosenness and being not-Chosen, I crossed over in a way few have, and looked back with Inside Sight to see that at the heart of my Religious Big Story was a proclamation that there is no God if there is only One God.

# Chapter 54: Lone Male Biblical imagining

The second account of the Genesis Big Story imagines humans through the Lone Male imagining:

as created beings, not born as other life forms are born who

are exiles on the planet Earth

yet have absolute dominion over all life forms, even to the naming of all creatures

with this dominion properly expressed only as Lone Male dominion & authority

which is only known through Revelation by the Lone Male God

with humans subject to dying since they know Good and Evil

with the meaning of Life not to be known or realized while on Earth, rather, only when they return to the heavenly Garden after dying

with the primary Revelation being that female and feminine power is a derivative of Lone Male power, and

foremost among the Revelations is that the female physical form and feminine power are sourced in and subordinated to Lone Male intimacy

Aren't you, as I was and still am, stunned by Genesis' wild imagining of the Lone Male? What I see as I look around the Earth is remarkably different from this Biblical account. Yet, I accept that this is how the Lone Male sees, and even more significantly, how miserably he feels. The Lone Male is simply unhappy. His human family is in exile. Earth is a Vale of Tears. There is no joy found in the basic experiences of life, for example, having children and working. All is pain and punishment for a violation which brought them knowledge of Good and Evil. It is a Big Story from which I carved my personal Story. You can begin to see how things began to unravel for me.

Yet, the oddest image for me is that of the Lone Male. Of this Adam being created, not born. Of his existence before the creation of a female companion. It is the most prominent and dominant image in Genesis. What is it a Big Answer to? As I see it, the Big Question, "Is sexuality a sacred act?"

Biblical "No sacred sexuality"

Upon first encountering Genesis, Chapter 1 it appears to be a narrative which only sees sexuality in terms of punishment. In contrast to other cultures' Creation Stories, Genesis states that there is no sacred sexuality, notably, no act of divine copulation to birth the world and humans. More, that the origin of human sexuality is sourced in a non-sexual act, that of being created. As the potter throws the clay so did the Lone Male God form the first human, Adam.

Humans are not birthed. Not the result of divine procreation. There is no god and goddess in erotic embrace and coupling. In the Garden Adam and Eve do not have sexual intercourse, and there are no children. Only after Eve listens to the Serpent is her sexuality revealed. She is to suffer in childbirth, "You are to bear children in intense pain and suffering." In tandem, the Earth is cursed, "Because you listened to your wife ...I have placed a curse upon the soil."

Family as curse

Let's ponder a bit the relationship between the Serpent's knowledge and children. In the Garden of Eden there is no family. Possibly there never was to be family. Only the two Lone Males with their Rib female. The fact and value of family only comes to be in exile. Family, then, in the Abrahamic Warrior's Quest tradition can be seen as part of the Lone Male God's curse.

Family in the Abrahamic tradition is not the primary spiritual unit. It is not spiritual hearth or home. Rather, individuals are born as cursed exiles into a family unit. Each individual is on his/her own, so to speak, to make their way back to Eden. The spiritual journey, then, is an individual Quest or trek. The return to Eden or Salvation does not require engaging Others, rather, Others are, in fact, temptations and/or evil Intimate Enemies. In this light, the act of being Chosen makes sense. For when the Lone Male God calls out Abraham it is in the context of every human group and family being in exile under the curse.

Abraham's Chosenness underscores the continued rejection by the Father of all other families and groups. For whatever reason, the Lone Male God selects one family and sets it above all others. At its best, the Abrahamic family is to be the moral model for other non-Chosen families, who have the option to convert. At its worst, the Abrahamic families are allowed to rampage, ransack, rape and pillage all other families and groups if they discern that this is their Father's will. "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me," means that heathen idols and their heathen family groups must be conquered. From the first, the Abrahamic family is a crusading family. Their call from god echoes the "God Wills It!"—"Deus vult!"—of later Christian crusading generations.

Exiled sexuality: homeless & rejected

Once exiled, "Then Adam had sexual intercourse with Eve, his wife, and conceived and gave birth to a son, Cain." Again it is clear that the human family comes into being only in exile. Human sexuality is an exile punishment and an act sourced in divine cursing. At the start of the Abrahamic Big Story, then, is the brooding emotional fact that humans are not to be comfortable in family around the hearth. Their most intimate act of human copulation is an act grounded in sadness.

Through copulation humans can only tap into brooding emotions which make them feel rejected, condemned, judged and punished. As they embrace all they evoke is the primal remembrance of their loss of Eden. Through copulation the Abrahamics feel the depths of their exiled homelessness. Moreover, when Adam and Eve couple, they experience the pain of their loss of immortality. For in the Garden they were immortal. When the Serpent unveiled this revelation about their immortality, then the Lone Male God cast them in the realm of mortality. For the Abrahamics, only death offers a return to immortal life with their God in a heavenly Garden of Eden.

The lot of these exiles becomes, "All your life you will struggle to extract a living from it {the Earth}." Emotionally, this is a family living in hopeless fear, dreading that they might further anger their God. They are not comfortably at-home on Earth. For them the Earth is only dirt, a source of nourishment only after great toil and sweat. It is not a Living Earth. Certainly, it is not a suckling Mother Earth.

What Big Questions does all this answer? Among them are: Why is there suffering? Why is there hunger? Why does the Earth, at times, dry up and not provide food to eat? What does the future hold? Is human effort worthwhile? But key to all of them is, What makes a human "human"?

# Chapter 55: Genesis is all about sexuality

Since I believe that humans in all generations have valued the act of love-making as the one act which reveals what is most dearly human about being human, it is at this point in encountering Genesis that I pause to peer and sit in silence with what is not obvious, and seek once again to pierce Genesis' veil. Here is where the topic of sexuality returns but as seen by me in a very non-traditional way. The Big Question which puzzles me is, "Why is Genesis all about sexuality?"

When I first heard myself ask it out loud, I was discombobulated. As I knew what the reaction would be from the traditional Biblicist, the question seemed wrong-headed. Traditionalist theologians say, "Genesis is, clearly, not about sexuality. It is about man's relationship to God, a relationship based upon bestowed dominion." In sum, for them, it is a key account about God's power and mankind's dominion, not just physical brute strength but spiritual power.

In traditional light, Genesis reveals that the only way to be human is to be fully male. And the only way to be fully male, as Adam was, is to live without the female. Remember, the female is a consolation prize. Adam is "lonely" and so she is made. Yet, she is not made primarily as a sex mate, rather, her sexuality only becomes manifest in the "normal" way you and I know sexuality when she is in exile. When she is created, her femaleness is expressed through her subordination to Adam. They gambol about the Garden naked, but are seemingly not conscious of this nakedness. There, it appears, is no sexual arousal. Although Eve is all about, Adam remains the Lone Male. Of note is that his dominion is manifested through the mere existence of his female. She is a reminder, in her flesh, of his dominion. She came from his Rib.

Can you see all this as I do? That it is the absence of overt and "normal" sexuality which is the key to unlocking the veiled message of Genesis, namely, that there is and never will or can be anything like "sacred sexuality." This type of invisible female sexuality is unveiled the moment Eve listens to the Serpent, eats the Apple, and sees her own and Adam's nakedness. I hold that sexuality makes present the sacredness of your Beloved in the moment you open your intimacy, to give and to receive. I sense a validation of this point in direct proportion to the wrathful and highly dysfunctional rage of the Lone Male God. He would only have "lost it" like that if she had "found it." Indeed, for a brief moment, Adam and Eve tapped into the brooding emotion which endows immortality, namely, the feeling of being intimately loved by another as their Beloved.

Intimacy & Lone Male dominion

To understand Genesis, the Abrahamic tradition, and the emergence of the Warrior's Quest, it is significant to grasp the centrality of dominion Adam's male power is very narrowly defined in terms of his dominion. The male-female power relationship is one of a special type of dominion. The other animals and plants are created by God without Adam's assistance. God grants Adam dominion over them, but He did not have to do so. With Eve, she is created from Adam. In one respect, she is not on par with the other plants and animals. Quite amazingly, she is less than they are. Adam's dominion over her is a unique form of domination since she could not exist without him. She has no relationship to God except through her subordination to Adam. Their sexual relationship is defined within this act of domination. I hear this Biblical revelation as stating that the intimate space is the primary home of Lone Male dominion.

It is important to understand that the Garden is a place of dominion. Since humans seek to return to the Garden—their true home, since they seek to return from exile—their return can be achieved only by living as if they are already in the Garden. This means they must live expressing Adam's form of dominion. Which is, at its core is expressed as dominion over intimacy. To return, they must practice the spiritual disciplines of the Warrior 's Quest.

The Biblical section which presents Adam's dominion is a statement about the range of moral values you can possibly express through your personal Story. It informs you as to how society should be formed and what are to be its fundamental cultural values. In sum, it is a society built upon Warrior's Quest dominion, and it is a culture which values the Lone Male expression of masculinity as that which is fundamental, which alone is sacred, absolute and revealed.

Since a Creation Story has to answer the Big Question as to how humans came to be as we are, what you find in Genesis is rather odd. In Genesis the primary Big Question is much more narrow, namely, the controlling Big Question asked is, "Why women?" This might seem like an absurd question but Genesis opens with Adam being alone and lonely. There are no women, so, the stage is set for introducing them. To most anyone, this is very peculiar if not downright weird. For in your common, shared everyday experience have you ever had an experience of Lone Maleness as related in Genesis? Have you ever been alone in the way Adam was? In the world haven't you always encountered a male-female pair when observing the human, animal, and even the plant world?

Adam's invisible phallus

So, the character of this Lone Male sexuality emerges as a key veiled revelation of this Genesis story. More, to me, it is the primary key. I assert that it can be safely and soundly stated that Genesis is all about phallic power. Others might counter that the phallus is not visible, and that because there is no sacred sexuality act of a god and goddess, genitality is not part of Genesis' revelation at all. Here it is important to call to mind that the Hebrews have no word for God and that they never call Him by Name. Everything about God and his holy person is expressed indirectly or metaphorically or allegorically. In many Big Story accounts, the main meaning of a key narrative or action is veiled, often obscured by mis¬direction or indirect, substitute imagery. I state that Genesis' core message and imagery is masked. How is this evidenced?

Let's go back to the Rib. You should assume that you are hearing Genesis for the first time. You are in a crowd of males and females. Like the others, you understand the simple "facts of life." So, when the Rib is mentioned it is not such a stretch for you to clearly grasp that the Rib is the penis. You know this because you understand symbol and metaphor. Clearly, in nature, there is no Rib power of procreation, however, you definitely know that there is phallic power. Rather than believe that Eve is actually created from Adam's Rib, you ponder, "Why is the storyteller not calling the penis a penis?"

If you see yourself, back then, as an experienced traveler, possibly a merchant who has heard many, many Big Stories, you quickly figure out, as you had recognized in other Creation Stories, the use of misdirection and the practice of expressing truths about gods and humans by using substitutionary imagery, which is quite often animal imagery. In Genesis, instead of using animal imagery, a body part of Adam is used. One insight to the ancient Semitic mentality is that animal imagery could not be used because Adam had dominion over animals and therefore he would not define any humanness in terms of this lesser, subordinate life form. Also, that the point to be made is that only Adam's body has creational and procreational power.

The Rib, then, is the penis. But how central is this Rib story within the greater story of Genesis which talks about the creation of the cosmos, animal and plant life, etc.? In contemporary and especially Western society, "telling it like it is," going "straight to the point," articulating "the main theme" characterizes how people speak and write. In older societies and/or oral cultures, especially in Big Stories, the main point is often told more as a punch line than as an opening gambit.

Looked at from this perspective, Genesis' traditional storyline progresses from "Let there be light..." and culminates in the Rib's "made he a woman." I conclude that the Rib is the core message, and that all other verses are simply preparation for introducing Genesis' special revelation about Lone Male power. Now you know why I stated that Genesis is foremost a Big Answer to, "Why women?" It is a Big Answer to another central Big Question, on that rephrases "Why women?" to "Is sexuality a sacred act?" Indeed, Genesis says, "Yes, it is. But it is sacred in that it expresses Lone Male dominion. Only Lone Male sexuality is sacred. Only Lone Male sexual dominion leads to Abrahamic spiritual fulfillment." As such, Genesis reveals that only Lone Male, phallic centered sexuality is holy.

Female sexuality can only share in this Lone Male sacred sexuality. Share in it as it expresses the Lone Male's dominion. Female sexuality is not a source for having a holy experience. Only through submitting to male authority in intimacy does and can the woman experience the presence of the Abrahamic Lone Male "Father" God's presence. Only then can she obtain Salvation.

Female sexuality exists only because of the Fall from grace in the Garden, and so spiritual fulfillment can only be realized through having children through submission to the Lone Male's phallic dominion. (Another result of the "happy fault," the "felix culpa" discussed above.) This is why there are no children in the Garden. Again, family life only begins in exile.

The not so subtle message is that female power and female sexuality is a pathway away from God. It is, however, the pathway towards exile.

# Chapter 56: Serpent

Serpent, a god or a creature?

If God created everything as Genesis states in its opening verses, Why did He create the Serpent?

Why was the Serpent in the Garden of Eden? It is a creature of the Garden, not of the Fallen world of exile. Adam and Eve did not encounter the Serpent once exiled, rather, their encounter with it led to exile.

Why did the Serpent know about the Tree of Life? About Good and Evil? And why would it counsel Adam and Eve to disobey their God? Why wasn't the Serpent fearful of the Lone Male God? Why didn't God destroy the Serpent?

As is common with Big Stories, there are more questions evoked than answers given. What is clear is that the Serpent leads the humans to an insight which they can share with God, namely, the knowledge of Good and Evil. Up to the Serpent's arrival, only God knew about Good and Evil. A key point is that Good and Evil existed in the Garden, however, Adam and Eve were ignorant of its presence.

The appearance of the Serpent reveals that it knows about Good and Evil. That it already shares this knowledge with the Lone Male God. In some ways, Genesis infers that the Serpent either has a special relationship with God that the humans don't or that it is also a god. This trend of reflection goes hand in hand with the other Genesis creation account of "let us" which implied at least one other god being present. Although the Serpent is also referred to as a creature made by god, this claim can be considered a misdirection in light of the Abrahamic monotheistic drive to make its god the only One.

Of note is that in the leading Abrahamic theological schools down to the present, this multiple gods or polytheistic inference is either ignored or relegated to scholarly obfuscation. The interpretation which comes down through the ages is that the Serpent is the Evil One or the Devil. Why it exists is not as discussed as is the fact that it does. It becomes a "he" over time.

What is significant to me is that Adam did not talk with the Serpent, rather Eve did. As stated before, the Serpent is "that of the male which speaks with the female." Eve is the one who can converse with godly powers or other creatures who have special relationships with the Lone Male God. Since Eve's special ability to talk with the gods seems readily interpretable in the fashion I have forward, it remains a small mystery why the "let us" phrase in Chapter 1 was not stricken from the "final edition" of Genesis. Its presence speaks directly to the presence of other gods and goddesses. The tradition, however, moves to lessen the Serpent's divinity by citing as a more significant text the sentence, "The craftiest of all creatures the Lord God had made."

There are two interesting Big Questions the Serpent tale can answer. The first is about Evil. The other about female sexuality.

The Serpent and evil

How did Evil come into the world? Clearly, as the Abrahamic tradition has preached for thousands of years, the answer is that Evil comes through the female, through women, through Eve. It is not Adam's act. He blames it on Eve. "...it was the woman you gave me who brought me some, and I ate it." Eve, herself, says that, "The Serpent tricked me." As with the Rib, the Apple of the Tree of Knowledge is not just a fruit. Eating it, notably, leads Adam to know that he is naked. Once God knows that Adam knows that he is naked, God knows that Adam ate the Apple.

Eve is presented as a weak woman. She is dominated by Adam, and it appears by the Serpent. "The Serpent tricked me." But were words put into her mouth, so to speak? Rather than acclaim her feminine strength and power in that she spoke with a powerful creature/god, that is, the Serpent to whom Adam could not so speak, she is presented as being tricked. If Eve's act is an "Ooops! Sorry!" why wouldn't the Father God have forgiven her?

Another plausible interpretation is that the Tree gave her insight into the Warrior's Quest intimacy of the Lone Male God. As she was embarrassed when He confronted her, so now she is scared out of her mind. She senses His forthcoming rage and abuse. She even fears rape and being murdered. Her putting blame on the Serpent, and Adam on her, is a form of the Blame Game which defenseless, overpowered, and cowered children often play.

# Chapter 57: Eve as goddess

The fact that Eve's act led to exile moves me to intuit that her act was more volitional. That it was an act of will, even of defiance. For when she eats of the Apple, as when Adam eats, she discovers as he does, her intimacy and her sexuality. Note, that Eve is sexual before Adam is. She experiences her nakedness, first. Possibly, that is what the whole Serpent account is about. Namely, that Eve broke away from Adam's dominion as she discovers the Tree of Good and Evil within herself. Eve discovers another type of male power within herself, namely, Serpent power.

The Tree can be understood as a symbol of interiority, that is, what is within humans. Eve is the first one to discover her full identity and flower into a complete human, that is, a person. She is the first human person. Within her the male and female are equally present. With this new vision, she realizes that she can carve a personal Story which is either Good or Bad, which expresses her Sunny Spot or her Shade. She realizes that she can be in a relationship where she has choice. The Apple gives her insight into her dominion under Adam, and she finds it wanting. Here, she links in her mind her eating of the Apple and the discovery of intimacy. She rejects the subordinate, submissive intimacy which Adam's type of Warrior's Quest Lone Maleness demands. Eve has a realization of her body as that which can be sexual. She experiences her sacred sexuality and so invites Adam to participate. Their nakedness is the image which symbolizes that they have moved beyond interiority into intimacy. Eve is no longer Adam's Rib, she is his lover and his Beloved.

Eve and Adam have a new awareness, namely, a sense of their intimacy. What the Serpent represents for Eve is that of the male which affirms her full feminine power as expressed through being a Beloved and a mother. Where the Lone Male God only gave Adam a sense of his interior, that is, he enabled Adam to identify himself as the Master, as one exercising dominion, when coupled with Eve Adam first senses his own intimacy. He sees Eve now in a stunningly different light. His heretofore invisible penis becomes quite visible. "And the eyes of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked, and were embarrassed. So they strung fig leaves together to cover themselves around the hips." (Genesis 3:7)

Eve is the first to carve out her personal Story when she claims her fuller femininity as she eats the Apple and touches the Serpent power within her. This Serpent power enables her to approach Adam and through eating the Apple together (a metaphor for love making) making him aware of his own sensuality, of the purpose for genitality, namely, to birth children and build a family. Adam has the first experience of her as the "Mother of All." It is the conscious sharing of this feeling and of the clear knowledge that it is "family" which expresses the fullness of their male/femaleness that I interpret as the reason Adam and Eve are exiled. The Lone Male God's Warrior's Quest spirituality is not family centered. Eve first discovers, through embrace with Adam, the presence of what we Earthfolk call the Forever-Family.

The Apple then, as with the Rib, is infused with spiritually erotic insight. Eating it is a sacred sexuality act which endows Adam and Eve with a sexual sense, and opens up new insights into their communal intimacy. What I see here is that the Apple represents Eve's insight into her own goddess nature. Once she eats the Apple she has a knowledge which Adam does not. She knows how and why the Lone Male God tricked Adam and her up to this point. She gains a clear insight into the Shady aspect of Lone Male dominion. With this insight Eve could have exercised her own power by not offering the Apple to Adam. She could have kept him ignorant of the Shady aspect of his own dominion, but she does not. Her goddess insight is to bring Adam in out of the Shadows, so to speak. Even more compelling is that what Eve sees is what has always been right before her once she stops seeing as the Lone Male wants her to see herself—stops seeing herself as only worth of being subservient to the Lone Male from whose Rib she was created. Humorously, she not going to stand for anymore ribbing. She carves out a personal Story wherein she sees herself as a birthing mother, as a goddess. This, itself, is a usurpation of Adam's Lone Male dominance. Eve's act rocks the Garden's Lone Male sexual and spiritual power to its core. She has a new Big and personal Story to tell!

A key part of that personal Story which Eve never got to tell is that it is femaleness which is the "language of the gods." As she did through her acts, it is female acts which are the basis for "talking with the gods." When I look at Eve's discovery of her nakedness, I see the depth and breadth of the cosmic shift in understanding how sexuality and spirituality are linked. Eve understood that Adam "had to have come" from some woman's body. But where was the Mother Goddess? Eve, then, was the first human to peer and try to see through the Garden's trickery, to probe about and see what she was not supposed to see, to lift the veil and find her Mother.

Eve knew there had to be a Mother Goddess about in the Garden because she experienced her own naked female body as the template from which all significant spiritual rituals emerge. She knew that her body had to be the birthing body. She knew Adam didn't bleed by moon cycle. In a flash, she perceives that it is the female attitude, sense of life, and approach to relationships which are the models for developing spirituality. Although the terror of exile stifles her expression of these insights, as a Catholic sacramental theologian—as the blinders of my traditional theological interpretations fall away—I clearly see the feminine basis to all major spiritual ritual. Baptism is a water which is blessed and holy. Only women break water at the "blessed event," as said in Irish parlance. Holy Communion is just that, an eating and a communion with the Body, and again it is only a mother's body which is food. It is, as it was for me, the First Food. Marriage is the act which sets the stage for childbirth and the rearing of a family. Confirmation affirms the adolescent "change of life" which is more evident to newly menstruating girls than to boys their age. Confession as an act of revealing one's interiority, submitting to a higher spiritual authority, "coming clean," and "talking it out" is, even despite the negative stereotypes, a receiving feminine posture and listening mode of discourse. Extreme Unction, the anointing of the dead, is when all return to Mother Earth, "dust to dust." Needless to say, I know understand my own attraction to the Church and its rituals, for it was through them—certainly an Unintended Consequence!—that I tapped into the brooding emotions of my Goddess Mother and sister Eve.

# Chapter 58: Eve's goddess power & Adam's spine

When I look again at the Serpent, this time I see a Big Answer to the Big Question, "What is Lone Male power?" It is the power which lives without the need for female power or insight. That is fairly evident in Genesis. However, the Serpent can talk with Eve and then she can talk with Adam in a way that she exercises a previously unrealized power. Before this time, she was totally under his dominion. As the Serpent is that of the male which speaks with the female, he is that of the male which relates intimately with the woman without asserting dominion or requiring submission. I see the Serpent as I do the Rib and the Apple as misdirecting symbols. It is not a creature only.

Among several ways to interpret it, I see the Serpent as representing the human spinal cord. I see Eve as the Earth, as the Ground of Life, and Adam as the Sky. Together they are the Moon and the Sun—sources of power and inspiration. Adam's sperm is the rain which makes the ground fertile. In this vein, the Serpent is that which connects the female to the male. In the human body, the sexual organs and the brain are connected by the spinal cord. Without the spinal cord connecting them, neither the sexual organs nor the brain can operate properly or fully.

It is safe to assume that the first listeners to hear Genesis had never seen a live body without a spinal cord. (It is also safe to assume that few ever have.) So, if they interpreted the Serpent as I do, they were wondering why Adam and Eve were created without this connection. This brings me back to the insight drawn from reflecting upon the fact that Adam is created, and that he lives in the Garden without a female. He lives, symbolically, without a spine. Clearly, he has one as he does a penis, but as he does not know about the penis in a sexual manner (does not know nakedness), so he does not know about his spinelessness. It is this severing from the female which is repeatedly stated in Genesis. The Rib, the Apple, and the Serpent are symbols which loop back one onto the other, restating and reinforcing Genesis' revelation that God is only Lone Male and that Adam's power of dominion is Lone Male. Once a re connection to forbidden goddess power is made via the Apple, humans must be cast into exile.

Outside of Eden, Adam and Eve do not live with the Serpent's insight and power. They do retain the godly insight into power of Good and Evil but their life is riddled with anxiety and fear since they are divinely cursed. They live in constant fear of further rage from their abusive Father. What should be the joys and pleasures of life (sexual intercourse, building a family, tilling the soil, etc.) are experienced as pains and understood as punishments. They live a life whose sole goal is to die and return to a heavenly Eden. The spirituality they develop is that of exiles. It is a spirituality of submission in the patriarchal Warrior's Quest mode. Adam and Eve live in exile as Eve was to live with Adam in the Garden, namely, as totally submissive, here now to the Lone Male God. They accept God's punishment and seek His forgiveness in hope of their eventual salvation.

This exile salvation story, as it plays itself out in the broader Abrahamic tradition, is the foundation to a society and culture which values and praises the personal Stories of Warrior's Quest patriarchs. It is, consequently, a society and culture which attempts to replicate the Garden's male/female submission/dominance relationship. It is a spirituality which is Lone Male only—one wherein women and all feminine expressions and powers are subordinated to the male Master. Where there is no sacred sexuality, rather to the contrary, where intimacy has been specially defined as the core area for the rightful expression of Lone Male dominion.

When the spine no longer connects the genitals to the brain there is no hope of realizing Sensual Preciousness or coupling in sacred sexuality because the brain cannot sense what is happening in the sensual and sexual areas. Without this connection, sexual coupling is also heartless. It is as if, for Adam, sexuality has been isolated, reduced and solely focused on the play of genital organs. There is no thought given to the sexual act, rather sexuality is considered a matter of simple instinct. Without a spine what the heart feels is also not communicated other than to itself. The spineless Adam's sexuality does not find expression in relationship, rather solely in completing its genital function of ejaculation. Humorously, Adam "thinks with his dick."

It is, for me, quite easy to see how spineless Adam began to use his penis as a rod of submission. With it he engendered the first War of the Sexes, subjugating Eve. Adam's Lone Male genitality could only express itself through acts of heartless sexuality. Adam's spineless and heartless sexuality is source for the Warrior's Way sexual violences of rape, plunder and pillage. As the Hebrew scripture unfolds, it endlessly repeats stories which replicate and reinforce the Lone Male sense of Warrior's Quest sexuality as first expressed in Genesis.

In other Religious Big Stories the spinal cord is considered a pathway connecting the base powers of humans with their highest powers. The tradition of Chakras and the development of the Tantric way of erotic spirituality were circulating among the societies that existed when Genesis was compiled. For Western Biblical believers these other ancient traditions with their peculiar spiritual terminology and imagery have only recently, within the last fifty years, entered popular Western culture and awareness. For some this reemergence of erotic spirituality with its sacred sexuality practices is an Evil deed of the Serpent. It is a spirituality and practice they deem perverse and devilish.

# Chapter 59: Same-sex sacred sexuality in Genesis

Curiously, I sit in silence, peer and note that in Genesis God is, emotionally, a secondary character. The primary actor is Adam. It is his Big Story, not His Story. Traditionally, the Abrahamics say that in Genesis God is speaking to humanity. Rather, I grasp that it is humanity speaking to God. Genesis is a set of answers to humanity's questions. The central question, as I hear it, is, "Is sexuality sacred?" With its echo, "Are women nothing more than genitally pleasuring playmates?"

Remember that the Religious Big Story is written by multiple authors—over time, by an aggregate, through accretion—who already have the Big Answers. Genesis was not written as a set of Big Questions which were then sent off to God who then wrote Genesis in response.

For me it is of primary importance to reflect upon the fact that sacred sexuality plays the key role in Adam's discovery of his identity as a relational, intimate person. In finding the answer to who he is, Adam first discovers that he is alone. This is not just a trivial fact soon wiped out by the Rib event. No, this aloneness taps into the brooding emotional core of Genesis. Defining Adam's aloneness and describing what the feminine is, is what the Creation story has been building up to: Day 1, Day 2, through Day 6.

Genesis' emotional sequence of events

In light of how the Abrahamic and other ancient oral cultures composed their Big Stories, I see that, actually, the brooding emotional sequence plays in reverse, as do the Big Questions asked. Consequently, Day 6 is the primary brooding emotional day: "Who am I?" The answer: You are Alone. You are Lone Male. This is the only brooding emotion available to Adam. And it is this feeling of aloneness which determines his vision. That is, he cannot see Eve or the Mother Goddess. He can only see his Lone Male God.

Curiously, it is his God who articulates that Adam is alone, and who goes about creating a woman. But he does so oddly. He does not show Adam a woman created like him called Eve. Rather He had already convinced Adam that there are no women about, that he is alone. Then He tells a tale of how woman come into the world which most assuredly struck the ancient listeners as fantastic if not unbelievable! For Adam is told that when he was in a deep sleep the woman was created from his own flesh. I muse upon the reactions of the first listeners. What did they think the Abrahamics were imagining and trying to accomplish? They were hearing a Big Story nothing short of fabulous—a real whopper!

In my effort to peer beyond the obvious, I noticed that the "creation" of Eve is the last act before God rests. It raises, however, the very first sacred sexuality Big Question: Why is she? This, again, is what Genesis was written to answer, namely, "What to do with women?" With Her who is the Other. Who is Nature. Who is the incarnation of the Mother Goddess—those "gods" who are not-Chosen.

In line with grasping that Adam expresses God's loneliness is the fact that so does Eve express Adam's loneliness. In the tradition's interpretation, she is not his equal, rather she is a reminder of his essential Aloneness, which of course she does not share, having been "born" into a world where there were already males. She does not have her own separate existence, rather as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh Eve remains derivative and created.

Day 6 reveals Genesis' purpose

The insight I gained from my research which turned my traditional learning on its head what that Genesis was imagined from Day 6 to Day 1—although presented otherwise through storytelling. All of creation proceeds (if you read backwards from Day 6 to Day 1) with acts that validate and express Lone Male erotic power and dominion. On every Day, God creates "out of nothing." He draws everything from out of the void and the brooding darkness. "And God saw everything that he had made and, behold, it was very good." (Genesis 1:31)

Read from Day 1 to Day 6 the lack of a Mother Goddess seems shocking. I hear myself asking the Big Question which I am confident has been asked since ancient times, that is, "How can anything be created without the male and the female powers having intercourse?" Such would have been, and continues to be, a seemingly obvious question to an apparent omission. Where in Nature do you see creation from nothing or from the Male, alone? The only way to grasp why this Big Question is not relevant is to read from Day 6 to Day 1 accepting the revelation of Day 6 that all creation comes from the Lone Male—even the female comes from the Lone Male (El, Yahweh)—and so by implication does the Mother Goddess. Day 6 reveals the Big Story's primary beliefs, starting point, and meaning. All on Day 6 focuses on the revelation that there is only Adam's body, and it is the birthing, "mothering" body.

Unless you apply some notion of "primitive sexual stupidity" to Adam, it must be accepted that he felt the power of his (at least "potentially erotic") penis. Again, unless you posit a spectacular (miraculous?) distinction between the writers of Genesis and males of all subsequent ages, they knew about the intimate relationship of intercourse and the birth of babies. Moreover, unless you endow Adam with a stunning ignorance and barnyard idiocy—for the animals around him were male and female—he knew what had to happen for birth. In this light it is easier to understand what happens next, which is a transference of imagery.

When in a "deep sleep" God took a rib to create Eve. But as noted before, the Rib is not an actual rib, rather it is the penis. Adam's Lone Male power, his Eros, is his penis. Those reading or hearing this Creation account knew and accepted this literary sleight-of-hand and trick-of-the-eye in their consciousness. (Unless, once again, you posit a "primitive mentality" which is defined in terms of how stupid everyone was about human biology and story-telling.)

Penis as totem & mutual masturbation

Male power is penile power. In the Abrahamic tradition it becomes an iconic totem, that is, the ritual of group identity requires exposing the circumcised penis (which clearly only males have). For Adam his penis defines all that he knows of his interior self. It is all he knows about the Lone Male form of intimacy. Penile injection and thrusting penetration is the Lone Male way of exercising dominion. Since Adam lacks a spine, his penis is an organ which has lost its connection with his head and heart.

So, in deep sleep Adam's penis ejaculates Eve. Ejaculating Eve is not a conscious act, it is not something Adam wants to do, rather it happens in the unconscious state like a wet dream. It is as if Adam is drugged or drunk. When he awakens, her presence is a surprise. "Did I do that?" can almost be heard echoing throughout Genesis. In deep sleep this masturbatory action is divinely appropriate to the Lone Male who would now experience sexual copulation with a woman but—as wild as this sounds!—with a female who is still his own flesh. Adam's Lone Male sexuality is an act of mutual masturbation because he is only and ever having sex with himself when he has sex with Eve.

When Adam has sexual intercourse with Eve, he is having just another masturbatory experience of pleasuring his own flesh. I find this a defining insight into Abrahamic sacred sexuality. "Her name is Woman because she was taken out of a man." The Eros of the Lone Male is masturbatory in its essence. "She is part of my own bone and flesh!"

Once again, isn't it clear that this Biblical Story is quite peculiar, strange, odd—at times, idiotic? But most contemporary readers are so overly-familiar with (desensitized to) it that it doesn't seem strange, rather it seems "right" or "natural." They are not initially flabbergasted that in Genesis anything related to the feminine: goddesses, Mother, Earth, sexuality, Nature is discounted, more, not accounted for. They miss the meaning of the Big Story's reduction of everything to a one-way singularity. Only one God. Only one Human. Only one Sex. Only the Warrior. Only the Lonely (Chosen). Because of over-familiarity with or disdain for the text, the "revelation" that women, females, femininity, Goddess, and Mother God are "irrelevant and immaterial" hardly draws the slightest gasp.

However, there are more insights which should draw gasps. On the Sixth Day—through Adam's deep sleep and the Rib event—it is revealed and confirmed that homoerotic, Lone Male, masturbatory sex is all that is really necessary and sufficient for the creation of the world and for the creation of woman. Also, the message is heard clearly that male sex alone—"same-sex sex"—is all and only spiritual, pure, and sufficient. Sex with a woman is derivative, a "lesser good," a concession. As later phrased by the Christian Paul, "It is better to marry than burn!" In fact, sexual intercourse with a woman is pornographic: to be done, but done so that the penis—the sacred rod of Lone Male dominion—is not seen, and so it is presented as the Rib.

In this light, Genesis states that sensuality and especially sexuality is not a spiritual fact. Neither is holy or sacred. Rather, each is secondary and derivative. More, that sensuality and sexuality eventually becomes the cause of Original Sin. Sensuality is the source of Evil because without Eve there would have been no sin. Remember, Adam existed with the Father God before Eve was created. A core fact of the Biblical tradition is that existence as the Lone Male was—and is—"Good." Only when the female was created did Evil emerge on the scene. For the Abrahamic tradition, anything calling itself Sensual Preciousness is an alien, Other spirituality. It can only be an evil practice of those who worship idols, such as goddesses.

# Chapter 60: Jesus' homoerotic theft of the female body

Old Testament as part of New Testament Big Story

Can you have a "new" testament unless there is an "old" one? For scholars, Rabbinical foremost among others, the designation "Old" is an insult to the rich, complex and separate Jewish experience. Rabbis do not use the "New" Testament in any way to enlighten the meaning of their religious tradition. Some might cite it, as I did before, as a comparative example akin to the Mormon's "Latter Day" revelations in the Book of Mormon.

However, the Christian interpretation of its "New" Testament requires positioning the Old as containing source verses which foretell all that of the Old Law which Christians claim Jesus fulfills. In naked simplicity, the Christians state that the Jews are waiting for a Messiah. Lo and behold! Their Jesus of Nazareth is this Messiah. And "to prove it" they throw Old Testament verses back into Rabbinical faces and say, "See. There. Clear as mud!" No. That's what they should have said, and should still be saying.

Christians need the Jews to be history's victims. In what is called "Salvation History," the Jews are, indeed, a Chosen People but they keep screwing matters up. They are forever insensitive, ungrateful and faithless. There is no better example than Jesus, himself. "See. It's clear. Jesus is the Messiah. God sent His only Son. And what did you Jews do? You killed him, you schmucks! Even when he rose from the dead and satisfied the Father for Adam's Sin ... well, don't you read your own prophets?!"

In a self-serving a manner, Christians appropriate everything from the Hebrew tradition which makes their new Big Story compelling. They substitute Jesus for Adam. They find the expectation of a Messiah and say, "Right here in Bethlehem, in a manger..." They interpret every vague prophesy about a "Son of Man" into a story about the Victory over Sin and Death achieved through Jesus' gruesome torture, mutilation, humiliation and agonizing death. They turn plain verses into prophetic ones, when need be. From the Rabbinic perspective, Christian scholars and theologians raid, rape, pillage and burn their way through their tradition. Then they go hunting for "Christ Killers!" and burn a few Jews to demonstrate the moral passion of their personal Stories.

Am I being too damning of well-intentioned men? Am I speaking with the venom of an ex-Catholic? At times I wish the insights which have arisen from re-reading world scriptures after my prison experience could be so tidily dismissed. It is not reaching for hyperbole to say that the Christians do to the Hebrew tradition what German Christians and Catholics did to Jewish men, women and children.

Yet, there is an Unintended Consequence to this Christian pillaging of the Jewish Religious Big Story. When they say that Jesus is the Second Adam, I say, "Yes!" For I found another key veiled revelations in Genesis to be exquisitely, and more boldly, re-expressed by Jesus. I accept the insight provided by the Christian Biblical interpretation that all that was made present in Genesis developed as the Abrahamic tradition. There is a continuity in the Jewish and Christian interpretive traditions, but it is, from my perspective, more one of tapping into a common brooding emotion, namely, of miserableness. While the Jews may still wait for their Messiah, they are Adam and Eve's offspring and the children of Abraham. They may be a covenanted people but they are in exile, homeless, and living in start terror and dreadful fear. Theirs is also a Warrior's Quest spirituality. The Christians may have their Messiah in their midst, and they may state that they partake of the eternal and everlasting Abrahamic covenant, but they too live, at their best as I did, "Thinking it the best of times. Feeling it the worst."

The Warrior Way as the Spiritual Path

What links the Abrahamic children is that they walk the Warrior's Quest path on their spiritual journey. Although every Big Story contains contradictions, ambiguities, nonsensical elements, comic relief, etc., the historical fact is that the Warrior's Quest has effectively vanquished all other spiritual paths. As I will discuss when introducing the Earthfolk path, the evidence of the dominance of Warrior's Quest Big Story and rituals of violence is staggering. Let me just call your attention to the dominant icon of the present times, that is, the Mushroom Cloud of the Atomic Bomb. Never before in human imagining has such a graphic visual been realized. It is an icon which affirms that humans have created a weapon which they cannot control and which stands to obliterate all human life and possibly the planet itself.

I place the icon of the Mushroom Cloud as the crowning achievement of the Warrior's Quest integration of the three dominant Big Stories into the one which now drives globalization. Their integration is that they interpret everything using the Warrior's Quest imagination to explain reality, Big Stories and the way individuals should live, that is, form their personal Stories. The Warrior's Quest vision is the interpretive template for explaining how to morally act in economic matters, social situations, personal relations, spiritual practices, political affairs, etc., on the national and international scene.

The Warrior's Quest is the Abrahamic spiritual discipline. When Abraham is called, he goes forth and covenants with God. He reveals to his people the main image of their Big Story, namely, that they are Chosen. The Big Story, as it unfolds, becomes one of the deeds and actions of Aaron and Joshua. Aaron establishes the patriarchal, hierarchical priesthood. Laws, rituals, obligations, ceremonies, prayers, etc., abound in profusion. One traditional morning prayer boldly assert that they are sons of the Lone Male God, that is, "Thank God I was not born a woman." Joshua becomes the first general, and sets the stage for how those who follow the Warrior's Quest path to write their personal Stories. At the direction of his God he obliterates a town called Ai. He "utterly destroys all the inhabitants of Ai." (Joshua 8:26)

The Warrior's Quest is the personal Story which the Abrahamics write when contemplating Genesis. They realize that they and they alone are Chosen to act with dominion. They are to tap into the brooding emotions manifested by their Lone Male God. The Warrior's Quest taps into miserableness, stark terror and dreadful fear. For the Warrior's Quester the Other is woman, and she is the Intimate Enemy. Everything which is of Her must be obliterated. There is to be no mention of a Mother Goddess, and so it is in Genesis. Female and feminine traits are to be drilled out. The Warrior's Quester's body is now seen as the birthing body. Life is given to the Chosen People as booty from their pillagings and rapes.

The Christian interpretation re-imagines the core of the Warrior's Quest way. Instead of Aaron and Joshua, you have Jesus. He is "Christus Victor," Christ the Victor and Christ the King. Each follower of Christ is now to become a "soldier of Christ, a "milites Christi." As I will explain in the following section, Jesus' body becomes the Warrior's Quest body supreme. Only his dying and death save humanity from the Father's wrath and Original Sin. Only his body is the birthing body. In the Christian sacramental tradition, Jesus' body is even considered to be here now, a "real presence" whose body is food for the soul. With Jesus, the Warrior's Quest blossoms as a spiritual pathway upon which no female foot may trod. Only personal moral and spiritual acts which imitate Jesus' Lone Male dominion (in imitatio Christi) are proper for a Christian's personal Story.

# Chapter 61: Jesus as captive

How does my experience of being imprisoned impact the Sensual Preciousness approach? It gave me insight to the central trait of the Warrior's Quest, that is, to be a warrior you need to have a captive. In Genesis, the Lone Male warrior Adam captures the female in his rib-cage. He is simultaneously incarcerating as he incarnates her. This is a curious type of both an Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth. It is as if the Lone Male was immaculately conceived, and as such could give birth without having intercourse with the feminine or a female.

The Jesus story is also a captive's tale. He is born from a "not really real" female. She is "immaculately conceived," meaning "without sin." She is cited, in the tradition as a virgin which means that Jesus was conceived "without sex," that is, there is no divine penis and virginal vulva. Jesus is eventually condemned and made a captive of Warrior's Quest justice. He is sentenced to death. His capital punishment makes him the captive of all, of everyone in society as society acts on the individual's behalf. In the Gospel stories, both the Jewish and Roman societies and their rulers validate this condemnation. Each possesses Jesus as captive.

In the Catholic tradition, this captivity is theologized in several ways. First, Jesus became, "on the third day," a captive of Satan. Jesus descends into Hell but only to trick Satan because Jesus is there to free the captives. These are those who were bound in darkness and in ignorance until He, the Light, incarnated, died, and descended. His Resurrection is often expressed in terms of Freedom, Liberty, Escape and New Life. The twentieth century "Liberation Theology" grounded its radical, revolutionary social justice in this captive motif.

Second, Jesus by being captive "satisfies" His Father for the offense of Adam. This is a really strange and weird theology (articulated most fully by St. Anselm), but it comes to be the foundational soteriology of the tradition, that is, its theory of salvation. It is also the common denominator belief shared by most Christian sects. The "Satisfaction Theory" states that God the Father is "satisfied" by Jesus' agony on the Cross. (Satisfaction is also accounted for in terms of a Divine Economy wherein Jesus pays Adam's "debt.")

Crucifix as icon of child abuse

The father-son relationship is the interpretive model for this Satisfaction theory of salvation. "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." Matthew 17:5 Would anyone want to say that a father is satisfied in respect to how much his son is tortured and suffers the convulsion of crucifixion? That at the base of the father-son relationship there is a primal equation of arithmetic justice? One that goes beyond a tit for a tat and plunges into the perversions of child abuse? Meditating upon a Crucifix, isn't there a place for the question: What type of fatherhood is manifested here?

When pressed, Abrahamics plug the phrase "divine mystery" into the gaping black hole which this question exposes. But remember that Big Stories are primal and culturally primary communications. What is being said through the Crucifixion/ Resurrection story is meant to be the template for how fathers and sons relate. Fathers and Sons are the only real creatures. They alone are Lone Males. Mothers and daughters are of dependent to no consequence.

The Crucifix is an Abrahamic Warrior's Quest icon. The warrior son gains manhood and meaning through the shedding of blood. Here I really need to ask you to set aside any former interpretations of Jesus and the meaning of the Crucifixion because I see an even deeper and wilder imagining being evoked by the Crucifix. Christians proclaim and sing that they are "washed" in Jesus' Blood. That they are Baptized in His Blood! This is a recurring theme of vigorous Protestant hymnody. It is the blood of Jesus but it is also the blood of Jesus as he is Intimate Enemy. For Jesus "chose" to come to Earth and become his Father's Intimate Enemy. As noted before, in this regard, Jesus substitutes himself for Adam and dies in agony as the New Adam, or so St. Paul proclaims.

Traditionally, it is only on the battlefield that the warrior can get in touch with his soul and spirit. But here on the Cross, Jesus' body is the battlefield. Like the Rib/penis exchange, crucifying and slaying Jesus' body is an act of substitution, here, for the blood of birth and for menstruation. For, whose body is the only body that bleeds? And whose blood washes the baby as it is born? It certainly is not the male body.

Jesus' crucified body—mangled, bloodied, contorted, bleeding, broken—is an act of substitution for the Mother's birthing body. This is also why Jesus is the Lone Male god's Enemy. The story of the Crucifixion is a veiled Creation Story. In the Christian "New" Testament, it is their Religious Big Story's Creation account. Jesus is the New Man born on the Cross from within his own body! From his crucified body is birthed the Saved Soul. On the Cross, Jesus, the Lone Male gives birth to himself, once again.

The Family as enemy

Why do Warrior's Questers want sons? To die for them. To be slain on the battlefield and so bring honor to the family. But, it is always just one son slaying the sons/fathers of another family.

Here is a key to the Warrior's Quest sense of family. The family is to be slain. In fact, the family is, also, the Intimate Enemy. A Warrior's Quest father cannot be proud of his enemy nor his enemy's son or family. The particular enemy, here, is inconsequential. Any family can become the Intimate Enemy. An enemy is needed only as an object, a nameless thing, a "gook" or some naming which is non-human. Slaying the enemy is a primary Warrior's Quest ritual. It is an act which at once is a bonding act of the Warrior's Quest family, whether slayer or victim.

Yet, all the warrior's slaying on the field is a dress rehearsal for the intimate fight between father and son. The son wants to become father, that is, patriarchal Father who exercises dominion and possesses authority. The patriarch, however, wants to remain Father. To become patriarch, the son must slay the father. In physical battle possibly, but always in spiritual, psychic and emotional battle. There is no precious child in this vision. There is only father-son warring.

The only Intimate Enemy with a name is the father and/or the son. The Father/The Son. All external battles are mere symbolic and mystical jousts within this greater literal, spiritual war. The Warrior's Quest Father tells the son, "At the least, die well!" Just look at Jesus. I can hear the voices of my Spiritual Directors and Novice Master. Bear it. Suffer it. It will redeem you! You will live forever! Resurrected in Christ. "All hail the conquering hero!"

The question, then, can be turned around. What type of son accepts the Cross as a way to manifest his Sonship? Why didn't Jesus skip town? Kick the dust from his sandals and skedaddle? There were more than enough Jewish Messiahs gasping and suffocating, croaking to death on crosses for him to know that such wasn't an especially effective or singular or inspirational way for him to die. So, what was Jesus doing by staying in town?

# Chapter 62: Jesus becomes the female

Historically, the Jesus story congeals—as scholars now accept, there were many "Jesus" stories, many Jewish Messiahs, many Crucified Ones during this "New Testament" period—at a time of vast global swarm and diverse cultures meshing. The special terror which Jesus adds to the Biblical Story is that he is more than just St. Paul's Second Adam. For most Christian scholars and preachers the Second Adam theme has become a staple interpretive device of Warrior's Quest theology. However, Jesus is more than a Second Adam in that he does not just replace or supersede Adam, rather, he interiorizes him. Jesus' crucifixion is a displacement tale of intimacy. Again, the dynamic of the Crucifix is much like that of the Rib.

Jesus becomes the female. What is critical to grasp is that for the warrior blood is the creative force, which he knows, mythically and intuitively, is "of Her." He is not ignorant of the moon-flow. Rather, he wants to bring this awareness to the fore and then steal it. Where Genesis is indirect, the Gospels are quite direct. They reveal that only Jesus' blood is holy and the font of spirituality.

Jesus associated with women. Many interpret this as a positive sign of Jesus' openness to the feminine. Some Abrahamics find great comfort and strength in these female contacts as they seek to identify a "nonviolent Jesus." This search was especially intense during my years of nonviolent and anti-war activity, and few sought as hard to find the "Sermon on the Mount" Jesus as I did. As others did, so I quoted these Mount passages because I felt that Jesus was validating the feminine and calling men to find the female within. However, in prison, I found this to be absolutely incorrect—actually, to be a horror.

The harsh reality is that these female contact stories are perverse. They are brutal moments where Jesus appropriates the feminine. Although scholars have argued for drawing great meaning from the fact that some women held administrative and leadership offices during Gospel times and for some years thereafter, the terrible fact is that Jesus sucks the life out of women and the feminine. Jesus certainly does not forward the feminine as a spiritual source, truth or way.

My interpretation is bolstered by examining sacred art and song. Jesus' "blood" becomes a tremendous point of interest in Christian hymnody. His blood is invested with supernatural and miraculous meaning. Many euphorically sing the Baptist hymns which glory in the blood. In doing so, they feel surrounded by the broken and bleeding body. Many others, primarily Catholics, pray to "The Wound in the Shoulder of Jesus." Alas, what I have come to see is that the gaping, gash-wound in Jesus' side is not only the wound in Adam's side which gave birth to Eve, it is the wound which gives birth to no woman, rather, it is the wound which substitutes for the vulva. Because only Jesus' blood has potency and ultimate spiritual meaning, every hint of the power of female blood is abolished. During the Catholic Holy Mass, at the Eucharistic moment, the wine becomes the real blood of Jesus. While Protestant and other Abrahamic theologians quibble over what "real" means, there is no doubt that most Christians believe that they are in real intimate contact with Jesus. "Jesus lives!" which also implies, "The Goddess Mother is dead!"

What I am boldly stating is that what Adam dreamt, so did Jesus do consciously. The story of Adam's Rib proclaimed that the feminine-is-inside-the-male. Jesus' Crucifixion proclaims that his body is the female, is the mothering body. The obliteration of the female body is triumphally manifest. Gaze upon the Crucifix. Do you hear what I hear? I hear words to the effect, "Look at my physical body, my crucified flesh—What need you of women? My blood redeems. It is the blood of the new birth, of being born again! ... Eat my body. Drink my blood."

It is Christian doctrine and Catholic dogma that only through the Lone Male comes the Resurrected Life. Jesus as Lone Male is all that God the Father needs, and all you need to know to become true sons of God. Time spent in "adoration before the Crucifix"—a Catholic custom—makes real the totality of Jesus' flesh as the way to birth into everlasting life.

"God the Father needs?" Yes, in the tradition God needs to be satisfied—for the offense of Adam, the "debt" owed, and for the faithlessness of Israel. Jesus sheds his blood and the Father is satisfied. Satisfied by the pain? A father being sated in his soul by hearing his child cry, moan, groan, suffocate to death? Is this not bizarre? More, a horror and a terror? For these are not the howling pangs of birthing, rather they are the cruel usurpation of Her suffering. They are but the Lone Male's egotistical—and mocking—substitutionary screeches.

What is satisfied? It is that the Mother, the feminine, females are obliterated in their intimacy. Which means removed from literal, symbolic and mystical language. Note, that Mary—although popularly invoked as "Mother of God"—is not, in the Roman Catholic tradition, a divine Mother or Mother Goddess. No, she is—as infallibly pronounced by the Pope to be eternal dogma—"Co-Mediatrix of Grace." What man needs to bond with his wife after Jesus' death on the cross? You have heard the sermon, endless times: "All you need is Jesus!" Nothing else. You can thrill and swoon to the Pentecostal ecstatic utterance of "Jjjjjeeeeesssssuuuuuuussssssssss!"

Is this not a peculiar and truncated form of homoeroticism? A mythic theft?

# Chapter 63: Captive: "Do Your Own Time!"

Can you sense this terrorizing of your intimacy? Can you feel the solitary confinement of your captivity? If not, consider the traditional spiritual advice: give your life to Jesus and let Him live through you. Most Christians call him the Substitute. Hear that? You are not to live a life. Not sensately or sensually or erotically. No. All your thoughts and actions, even your being, is to be given over to Him. He is your Vicarious Sacrifice. Which in turn means that you are His vicarious sacrifice. He lives through you and you live vicariously! It's all a bit too much like "virtual reality."

When I went into prison, I thought that I would find evil there. Confront Satan. Descend into Hell. In a way, I did. But at the same time I was tricked. Prison revealed to me that Jesus was the evil, malignant spirit. That he was manifested, not just through the Catholic Chaplain's robotic benedictions and odorous seductions, no, that he was manifested in and through me, myself.

When I opposed war, I had done so as a non-violent warrior. I was a pacifistic John Wayne, but following the Warrior's Quest path. Yet as I listened to the cacophony of the nightly Lights Out!'s gay same-sex sexual activity inside the prison dorm, I realized that I was at the true Daily Mass of the Biblical Warrior's Quest and Gospel culture. These prison dorms were the Sanctuary. The cot-beds were altar stones. As odd as this might sound at first, many gay cons were "at home" in prison. Sure, they hated being locked up but there was a sense of being spiritually at home.

In Sandstone the gay sub-culture was in full dress. Wrinkle-less starched khakis adorned with blue string in various fashions was their special uniform. The guards called them by their gay names, "Betty. Mary, etc." There was a beguiling acceptance of gays in the common areas which masked a very violent and brutal private world. For some of these gay inmates being a captive was an erotic rush. Sadomasochism and all that. That they were bought and sold for cigarettes as "wives" was something which I thought at first an abomination. Fool! They laughed at me, not simply for being hetero and a bleeding heart liberal but because—so I was challenged to experience—I was an erotic innocent. I was told that I simply did not know what real sexuality was about. Others chided, "If you want to be a true revolutionary, then suck cock!"

What perplexed me was that it was more than the teasing taunt in the showers, "I can give you better head and a sweeter ass than any woman!" It was the almost condescending snigger that I just "didn't get it!" (As within the monastery, they called me to a certain humility. Was I humble enough to "bend a knee" and "bend over" and surrender to the will of the Hack Master?)

The "slave" aspect of gay sex, so I came to understand, was one of core validation. To become a slave, to be owned, to be abused, to suffer through humiliation was to manifest the core erotic spirituality of the quintessential Warrior's Quest act of validation which is to make another male so much a part of one's self that the other has no identity but what you, the Master, bestow on him. This same-sex act is Adam's act of dominion over Eve, and one expressed through a ritual of mutual-masturbation. There is no intimacy desired or achieved, just an invasion of a person's interiority, that is, his identity is now as a slave. Bitch, now you're mine! ("bone of my bone")

At first, I found all this repulsive. I misunderstood it. Also I was deeply threatened by it. Some cons who were propositioned lacked a gang group identity and so were raped, often repeatedly. I, like most draft resisters in Sandstone, encountered the same threat but was protected by the gang identity offered by a large "CO" population. Draft resisters, even some hippie type drug dealers, for some reason were all called COs. This is an obvious misnomer drawn from a misunderstanding of what a Conscientious Objector is. In all, there were over thirty-five guys locked-up in Sandstone for draft related offenses. For me and most of these imprisoned draft resisters, gays had always been socially and culturally "over there." Like most straights of the Sixties generation, I and the others grew up pitying gays and being not unsympathetic with guys who beat them up. After all, as a true Warrior's Quest son of Abraham, I knew that they were minions of Satan, set upon seducing me into committing a Mortal Sin!

In most federal prisons there is a staff Catholic Chaplain. His religious rap is shared by fellow Protestant chaplains, most of whom visited weekly. The Catholic Chaplain talks about "straightening out" and becoming a "role model." He preaches and implores guys to "Do your own time!" And, to "Do your time with Jesus!" This means that he wants the inmate to become Jesus' captive—His slave. It was then that I sat in silence and realized that the gay cons are a heuristic device. Instead of seeing the gay cons as Intimate Enemy, as the Outcasts, as the Rejected Sons, they reveal that they are Jesus' own: his disciples. It is the gay con who carries Jesus' message of the interior abandonment of the feminine, of the obliteration of intimacy. Like him, he is Genesis' Rib-woman. And like Jesus, he steals all female airs and powers and presents himself and his same-sex sexual acts as the sacred sexuality ritual of the Lone Male. The gay cons are the Lone Male High Priests of the peculiar same-sex sacred sexuality of the Abrahamic Warrior's Quest.

Yes, gays act out. That's their story. In their flesh they manifest Jesus' spirituality. They live fully as all that of the feminine which is requisite to be a Lone Male. Which is—following in Jesus' Warrior's Quest—males who act out as females, as he did on the Cross. Gays commit the homoerotic theft of the female body "in remembrance of me."

When I initially shared this insight, many of my fellow draft resister cons angrily resisted and stonily rejected it. They were social justice activists whose spiritual path was to champion the rights of the downtrodden, the oppressed, and the least. Everyone knew how savagely gays had been persecuted by the Church and Society. Down the centuries, gays were more than just condemned by the Church, they were literally burned alive at the stake. Their bodies became flaming faggots!

In light of the historic torture of gays, my understanding of their priestly role was—and remains—a challenging insight. It appears to be a perversion of a perversion in that the victim is seen as the persecutor. This is quite disturbing if true. So I peer again at the Crucifix. What do I see? I see child abuse. I see hatred of one's own Son. Torture. By whom—man and God? In the Abrahamic tradition Jesus' torture, agony and death is not laid at the feet of the Father. Rather, the Jews are cited as "Christ killers." The Crucifixion is turned upside down and preached as evidence of "God's Love," "The Father's Mercy," and "Forgiveness and Reconciliation." But I no longer accept that cover-up.

The Crucifixion is the Father's final act of child abuse wherein He kills his Son. Most child abusing parents will allege that they love their child. That their death was accidental. They will claim that they were disciplining the child or doing something else which you should accept as morally right. So, in this very weird Warrior's Quyest view of the father-son relationship, it is clear that the warrior Father's way of showing love and affection is through abuse. It is a sadomasochistic discipline which "makes you into a man." With Inside Sight, this is how I saw the connection. It is almost a validation of gays as Abrahamic High Priests, and as true incarnations of God's Son, to exposit their persecuted history of being the Intimate Enemy who is hunted, captured, abused and slain.

I do not call on the word "mystery" to avoid answering, "Why does the Warrior's Quest Father act this way?" But I do admit that I remain perplexed. But it is a perplexity grounded in my having ventured into that darkest sector of the Shade whose revelation is so extraordinary that it is surrounded by barbed wire and gun towers.

Prison reveals that the heterosexual world does not matter. Not in the spiritual and Big Story realms. Only insofar as the heterosexual world validates what is sourced in the sacred ground Inside society does it have meaning. I, who had sought to find the Inside of the Abrahamic tradition by going into a monastery and like spiritual spaces, now realize that prison is the Inside. Prison is, fittingly, in the words of a sainted female nun, an Abrahamic "Interior Castle."

This notion of Captive is vital to grasping how I started my exit from the Abrahamic Religious Big Story and the Warrior's Quest. While the strongest sense of being captured comes when someone does it to you, when it comes from the Outside or the External, the wickedest kind—in terms of evil enchantment—comes from the Inside or the Internal. Even moreso when arises within Intimacy.

If taken to heart, Do Your Own Time! means that the inmate works hard to disengage himself from the physical world. He walks through the day, hand in hand with Jesus, where they are not so much Inside a prison but in the Garden of Eden.

The message is, "Obey. And, when you get out, you will be Obeyed." (By those owing you patriarchal allegiance, namely, wives and children). Obey all the rules, and you will be endowed with dominion, that is, with the dominion grounded in Christ's Crucifixion. Obey every rule and every directive. Do not hesitate! Those among the COs who were priests or ex-seminarian cons laughed at ourselves as we shared the insight that while our monastic experiences had shown us Absolute Patriarchal Power, e.g., "Surrender You Will To Christ" which meant obeying the Abbot in every detail at every instant, Prison's control over our intimacy trumped the monastery.

Prison validated that my interpretation of the same-sex sacred sexuality in Genesis was fitting.

# Chapter 64: Where is the goddess in Genesis?

I hold that despite what the Abrahamic tradition wants to hide, Genesis is a Sensual Preciousness Big Story of the Lone Male. I, however, in a curious way, see this statement as both True and False. True for all the reasons presented above. False in that the whole Genesis account is, itself, a masterpiece of mis-direction. Genesis is like a convict's rap. No inmate ever says, "I'm guilty," although everyone knows they are. Rather, cons protest their innocence. In like manner, Genesis tricks everyone into thinking that it is a story about the Lone Male, with the revelation that there is only one God, the monotheistic patriarchal Warrior's Quest Father. But—just as I assume that all people during every age have understood why there are males and females and that they understood how each is necessary for human life to continue—so do I peer and see what Genesis is hiding Every Big Story has a male and female god and goddess. But where is the goddess in Genesis? She is in the Shade. She is there "brooding over the dark vapors." (Genesis 1:1 PTL translation)

This insight came to me very slowly and with much personal resistance during my time Inside. For in the Garden/Prison, so I experienced, I was not alone. Indeed, there is the Goddess Mother, but present as the Shade Mother. As born from within my mother's womb, so is prison the steel womb of the Shade Mother in her most evil manifestation. I paused and reflected upon the "obvious" fact to which my traditional education had blinded me, that is, that the necessary and universal principle of Male and Female is evident and manifest in prison as it is in Genesis.

Shade Mother in her most evil manifestation. There is a tradition of the "Dark Mother" throughout world myths which has been most recently revived in Western awareness through the psychological work of Carl Jung. The Dark Mother is She who eats her own children. She who slays the Innocent. The apparent absence of the Shade Mother in this form from Genesis is just a trick As nature abhors a vacuum, so a Creation account must have at least two divinities, male and female. In the first Genesis account, the two are clearly there. In the second, they are clearly not there, rather She is veiled. She broods in the dark vapors.

Every Big Story has "leaks." Leaks are those truths and insights which are intentionally omitted, repressed, suppressed, and/or obliterated but whose presence or meaning unintentionally remains and "leaks" from a Big Story through double-meanings, mystically evocative images, misdirection, substitute imagery and so forth. Eve is one such leak. Meaning, that no matter how misogynistically crazed the Abrahamic writers were, they could not absolutely obliterate the feminine. They could not, literally nor spiritually, pull off the Rib story. As the Abrahamic official canon of scriptures was formed, I can only surmise that there was much chuckling in the background by the females as the patriarchs read/spoke this patently bizarre Genesis Sensual Preciousness Big Story of the Rib. So, somehow, and I do not understand how, Chapter 1's account of "let us make ... male and female he created" remains to leak its polytheism and equality of the sexes insight. Nevertheless, the tradition's theological Fathers worked over-time to suppress Chapter 1 and successfully promote the Rib account in Chapter 2 as the controlling interpretive Creation Story.

In terms of the Sunny Spot and the Shade, this Dark Mother is more accurately described as the "Shade Mother in her most evil manifestation." Any word which references color, such as dark, has the potential to offend someone, but that is not the point here. "Shade" conveys other more rich and subtle truths and realities. Namely, that She was there; is there. She is full present Inside the Shade, as some translate the Void, in the "brooding vapors," just beyond where the Shadiest rim of the Sunny Spot expires.

She is Shade Mother in Her presence. Shade—the place where the Light fades. What we consider the Land Beyond. Dreamland. There, when Adam laid down to deep-sleep, it was She who gave birth to Eve. Yes, the leak phrase of "let us create" with its haunting polytheism reveals that She is present! Mother Goddess. Birthing requires a female body, and so Eve's mother was there. So evil is She, however, that She convinces her daughter that she was born from a male and only has meaning insofar as she submits to Lone Male dominion. Needless to say, the Shade Mother in her most evil manifestation abandons her daughter at birth, never suckles her, and consigns her to live among the Lone Males of the Warrior's Quest.

El/Yahweh/Lone Male does experience loneliness. But note, this loneliness and Loneliness defines his relationship with her and Her. Shady He with Shady Her. Shady Mother is there. In Eden, ready to eat her children. Shady Lone Male Father stands ready to be her Warrior's Quest King, a Slayer of the Innocents. His first act of slaying is to sever Adam's spine and disconnect his brain and his penis, thus rendering him incapable of intimacy and unaware of his sacred sexuality of sensual preciousness.

The Shady Goddess of the most evil manifestation does eat her own children. For what is warring but the slaughter of the Innocents? The Warrior's Quester but the dutiful slayer of his own children? But the Warrior's Quest is not just His, it is also Hers. In situations of incest, of abusive parenting, and of sending children off to war there is the complicit wife, mother, lover, or girlfriend. How did women support the Vietnam War? By letting their men go. More, by pleasuring them on R&R and letting them Go Back! By enticing them with what they'd get when they came home as heroes. By accepting the body counts. This is the horrifying and choking insight that must be accepted and deeply felt in order to begin to move towards Sensual Preciousness.

I anticipate that many will want to retain their view that the God in Genesis is a solitary Warrior Father who is just a nut case. These place the responsibility for war totally onto male shoulders, defining it as a "male problem," a macho thing. They remain content to excuse their Sisters and Mothers from any complicity in the sexual violence of the Warrior's Quest. They want to retain the image of woman as victim—Poor Eve! Sob. This enables them to throw out the Abrahamic tradition lock, stock and barrel. Indeed, I can fully understand that position. I just think it doesn't fully flesh out the real character of the Abrahamic Warrior's Quest imagination. In my perspective, this is an shallow idealization of the feminine or the Goddess which I find stifling and quite patriarchal itself.

I state boldly, "Understand that women are sensually precious and sacrally potent." The Abrahamic tradition tries to deny this. Prison reveals it. As I observed, the gays are Lone Male High Priests. All they tried to do in prison was find the feminine. Screwed other men, trying. Only to find that that is all She, the Shade Mother in her most evil manifestation, will allow. All She grants is a truncated homoeroticism, namely, male as female.

The Shade Mother appears more visually in other patriarchal Religious Big Stories. Yet, Her apparent absence, her apparent obliteration in the Abrahamic Biblical Story is Her most mystical and mystifying act. She rejects being intimate with the male god. They clearly copulated but She only allows him to have sexual intimacy with his own maleness. All He is allowed is masturbation as sacred sexuality. He is fated to find full eroticism only within himself. Pathetically, He, with Warrior's Quest discipline, wars against his own body: slashing it, gashing it, whacking it, desperate to find the mystical transformation—as Jesus did on the Cross—into some presence of the feminine. Adam ejaculates and believes he holds Eve in the palm of his hand!

Many believe that the Goddess has been discovered as women, most successfully in the past fifty years, have become more involved in public affairs. Oddly, the most successful and visibly public role which young women have assumed is that they have become battlefield warriors. Equally, some claim that women's legal control over their bodies is a realization of their inner goddess. Some who hold this latter sentiment also forward the explosion of Internet pornography as evidence of the re-emergence of goddess eroticism. For me, however, I see these developments as little more than variations on the Warrior's Quest and as effects of the Shade Mother's trickery. Liberation is often defined as a female's now accepted "right" and ability as a soldier to kill and murder. The Shade Mother's daughter has become all that she can be.

The hardest task in moving towards Sensual Preciousness is to state that the Lone Male has to first discover himself as Lone Male Warrior's Quester in the erotic terms which his Shade Mother has defined, that is, he has to accept his sexual violence and acknowledge that he is on the Warrior's Quest. Then, on the sensual and literal touch and feel level, he must spiral to discover the sacral power in his female. He must discover her body as his ritual instrument of intimacy, and his body as hers. Then, through Sensual Preciousness rituals together they evoke and make present each other's holy male and female preciousness.

I hope that, at this point, you realize that in today's Warrior's Quest society and culture that every male and female is a Lone Male and on the Warrior's Quest. I hope that you are not still being misdirected by observing your genitalia and confusing such with your male or femaleness. What happened when Jesus died on the Cross and became the female is that everyone of us is born spiritually a Lone Male. I fully grasped this when in prison, and in Volume 1, Earthfolk's Sensual Preciousness rituals are presented as a way for you, as it was for me, to develop and explore how femaleness and maleness are made present as you behold and are beheld as a Beloved. As you might be anticipating, Sensual Preciousness is a coupled spirituality. It is you manifested as Beloved as you manifest your intimate other as Beloved.

# Chapter 65: Religious Big Story's impact on a personal Story

When you meet another person who shares your Religious Big Story, say, Roman Catholicism, you may find yourself asking one another, at some time, "Are you sure you're Catholic?" This happens after you describe to each other how you live out your Catholic beliefs. You find that what you value and what motivates you to act morally differs. If the other Catholic adheres to the traditional interpretation of Genesis as I've presented it, then he has very little authority and responsibility to develop a personal Story. If you follow the Catholic tradition as I found it reformed by Vatican II, and then as I fully re-imagined it with Inside Sight, and consequently re-explored and re-interpreted Genesis, then you have great authority and responsibility to develop a robust personal Story.

Roman Catholic personal Story imitates its Big Story

The traditional Catholic "best of times" is captured in the fact that Jesus as Messiah has already arrived. Those who are born after Jesus' death actually are most fortunate because Salvation is right there for them to secure through acts of faith. Although they learn about the "worst of times" perspective, namely, Original Sin and the Serpent Devil, they are to "think it the best of times." This reminder of the "worst of times" is there to anchor the individual believer in the brooding emotion of miserableness. This is necessary because he is still here on Earth, which is a Vale of Tears in that he can be tempted at any moment to commit a mortal sin and so forfeit heaven for eternity burning in hell. Feeling miserable keeps one on one's toes in a world where the Serpent still slinks about.

There is a great comfort in the traditional Big Story. All Big Questions have Big Answers written not only in Holy Scripture but translated into layman's terms in a catechism. If you sin, all is not lost. You can immediately confess to a priest and be brought back into a state of grace. While life is a bit of a gamble, in the main, the Church provides everything you need to understand and live in this world. This provides a deep sense of security. All that is asked of you is total obedience.

Total obedience shades off into blind obedience when you attempt to develop your personal Story. You find that your Sunny Spot is sharply defined by what the Church states are Shade temptations. The catechism is thorough and replete with detail answers to just about any moral dilemma you will face from whether to kill in war to choosing abortion to your obligation to attend Holy Mass and receive Holy Communion at least once a year, what is termed your "Easter duty."

The Abrahamic tradition dominates the world through its many sects, from Islam to Mormons to Jehovah Witnesses. It is a Big Story which "works" for many people. It enables them to hold their world together, and it grounds them in such a way that they can state, "I feel Saved." While an individual Abrahamic's Sunny Spot is not very large, his communal Sunny Spot is. The latter has been, from its inception, claimed as global in character, that is, everyone can become an Abrahamic if they confess and believe.

When looked at from the "worst of times" perspective, the traditional Catholic's brooding emotion is that of unrelenting miserableness. There is no getting around this fact. No one can read Genesis and not conclude that humans are in a terrible situation. They are born with an Original Sin. Their God is angry with them. They have been exiled from Paradise. The Earth they live on has been cursed. The bodies of their women as child-bearers has been cursed. In sum, humans are Shade creatures with a very little Sunny Spot. Life on Earth is a Vale of Tears, and it certainly is the "worst of times" all around.

As noted above, the Good News, however, is that the Messiah who brings hope to other Abrahamics has, for Christians and Catholics, already arrived. Jesus, the son of God, has come to Earth to live a fully human life, and as a human make amends for the sin of Adam and Eve. Jesus death on the cross wondrously heals the rift between God the Father and his human children. Yet, you, personally, do not have much of a Sunny Spot. You are till a Shade person. Only as you give your life over to Jesus, as you accept him through Baptism as your Lord and Savior does your Sunny Spot grow. But it grows because of Jesus' sacrifice, not because of anything you've personally done.

Since you are still, personally and on a day to day basis, a Shade character, you cannot trust your own instincts or judgments. Your being saved by Jesus is not something you personally do. You are saved by what Jesus does in your present life. In this light, only as you participate in Jesus' personal Story can you write your personal Story. Yours is an imitation of His personal Story. Lastly, the authoritative Christian theological tradition states that Jesus followed the warrior pathway. He battled Satan to win back your deprave soul. His Passion and Death recounts his warrior actions. He suffered the lash. He sweated blood from the piercing of the crown of thorns. He writhed in agony as spikes were pounded into his hands and feet. He gasped in final expiation for your sins as his side was pierced and out flowed his life's water and blood. However, Jesus won, he did not lose. He is "Christ the Victor," the hero of the Religious Big Story. As the Story ends, God the Father raises Jesus from the dead. He conquers death. Jesus offers you Life Eternal, back in heavenly paradise, if you walk along his warrior path.

In this interpretation, you can only tap into the brooding emotion of miserableness—as long as you are on Earth. In heaven, you will be in ecstatic rapture. On Earth, to follow Jesus, you need the guidance of Warrior's Quest leaders. With love, Jesus bestowed authority on other humans, here St. Peter and the Apostles, who show you the right way to live. Within this Apostolic tradition, all your questions, Big and personal, are answered by Jesus through his Apostles, whose contemporary representatives are the Pope and his bishops. Your personal Story then has no "personal" breadth and scope. You are not taught to determine, using reason or any human talent, your spiritual path. Rather, you are, from your awakening at seven, the Catholic's Age of Reason, to practice blind obedience. Atop your brooding miserableness sits this bubbling sense of comfort. However, it is not a feeling of being comfortably at-home on Earth as it is a feeling of being comfortably at-home with Jesus in heaven, right now, through the practice and devotions of sacred rituals, most notably, the seven sacraments.

When a Big Question is asked, you open the Roman Catholic Catechism and then listen to how the priest interprets it. When you are called to respond to moral issues which require that you put your life in harm's way or lay down your life, you listen to what Jesus has to say as it is mediated through the priestly "Father" in whose parish you reside. It is all this simple.

As anticipated, since the tradition interprets Genesis and Jesus' life in terms of the Warrior's Quest, your personal Story conforms, as best as you can make it, to the Religious Big Story. Your life is an imitatio, an imitation. It is a robust Big Story which only enables you to carve out a very restricted and limited personal Story. Your "personal" Story is only personal insofar as you reflect the personal Story of Jesus.

# Chapter 66: My Roman Catholic personal Story

My Roman Catholic personal Story is, up to my entry into prison, an Unintended Consequence of Vatican Council II's reform. As I've stated, the Council did not set out to launch a revolution, that is, an uprooting of first principles or main beliefs. Rather, it sought to dust off irrelevant language, prioritize traditional theological imagery, translate into English (and other vernaculars) the mysteries of the liturgical Latin songs, and, in general, respond to the challenges presented by the developing Secular and Scientism Big Stories. In this vein, when I began my graduate studies in theology, I was eager to be a reformer. I saw myself, much like Teilhard, as one who was willing to push the tradition's intellectual boundaries and prod the stuffy priests and Bishops. However, I did not see myself as Jesus turning over tables in the Temple. I never, ever envisioned myself as a radical, nor could I have ever anticipated not being a devoted son of the Church.

Here is what changed me When they shifted from emphasis on "the Church" and spoke of the "People of God," I was moved to feel that being in Church was not so much an act of my individual fidelity as it was a sharing in a communal act of worship. This had a profound impact on my brooding emotion. Alone in Church I could kneel there and feel miserable. But when I joined in with other people, I slipped into an experience of communion which was both of a group-identity and one of personal warmth. Going to Church became an experiencing of sharing my intimate self with others. After all, we were there to be a People, not just a congregation.

When the Documents spoke of the laity assuming moral responsibility, of engaging international issues, of resisting Total War, and addressed other problems of modern times, they were inviting me not only to think but to feel. Previously, being part of "The Church" evoked a feeling of separateness. Being a "Catholic" meant that I wasn't something else, e.g., Lutheran, Baptist, certainly not Jewish or Hindu. Now, I was called to be the People of God, which meant moving beyond ecumenism to embracing the world.

When the liturgy, notably the Holy Mass, was translated into English, and the altar rail was removed, it was clear that I was to be directly involved in priestly matters. I read the Gospel passages in English. I joined exuberant choruses of "Glory to God in the highest and peace on Earth to men of Good Will!" instead of droning, "Gloria in excelsis deo ..." As an altar boy I had learned Latin, but I was aware that I uttered responses and sang songs which those in the pews simply did not understand.

Though all this was happening without violating the Catholic tradition's Big Story concepts and brooding emotion, as I carved out my personal Story I tapped more deeply into the brooding emotions expressed through the lives of those who had tapped into what the tradition tried to suppress. Without the analysis of Inside Insight, I didn't know about the brooding emotions which were anchored by passages such as "let us" or the insight of the Shade Mother's presence in Genesis. However, the Council's desire to speak to modern times and "men of good will" everywhere led to an uninhibited exploration of thinkers, spiritual traditions, even, heretics. In 1964 I had to obtain the local Bishop's permission to read Pierre Teilhard de Chardin since his writings were only available in the Library of Forbidden Books (Index Librorum Prohibitorum). As a sign of how fast matters shifted and changed, in 1966 his works were sold at the on campus student bookstore.

The range of possible moral issues which I was to address—more, could address—was unlimited. There was no barrier to my becoming involved in any part of what had formerly been activities and issues reserved to priests. While we Roman Catholics did not become Lutherans, who claim a "priesthood of all believers," nor did we become Quakers, who claim that every person can be directly inspired by the Holy Spirit and then rise to speak, we did become infected by them. Humorously, some of us Catholics (Liberals, Progressives, and Radicals of the times) acted as if we were Lutheran and Quaker. But so did the Council Fathers in my evaluation.

Just take the issue of war. Only the "traditional Peace Churches," among them, Quakers, Church of the Brethren, Mennonites, and other Plain Folk (e.g., Amish, Hutterites, Schwenkfelders, Moravians, Doukhobors) were accepted as Christian Pacifists by the Selective Service System. Now, the Council had denounced Total War in such a way that it was clearly a direct condemnation of all "modern warfare." Pope John XXIII had indicated that citizens were to exercise their conscience when responding to government authority. It was a short step to go from acting conscientiously when responding to Church authority. These actions formed my basis for becoming a "Catholic" Conscientious Objector. Note, that one of the first responses I heard from my local South St. Paul draft board was, "I'm Catholic, and I fought in the war." The message, We Catholics kill people. What's your Story, kid?

The abrupt nitro-blasting drag-race in the Conciliar world for Roman Catholics was from blind obedience to radical disobedience. It was from finding Jesus' message coming from the mouths of priests to finding his voice through an exercise of your own conscience. Moral responsibility was shifted from an act sourced in Catechetical response to being source in your personal witness. In short, you are responsible for how your personal Story is written. You, wisely, should consult the tradition's wisdom as well as engage in dialogue with priests and religious teachers, but if you want to know how to morally respond, then act! Act like Jesus did, that is, put your life in harm's way. Be prepared to lay down your life for another.

Clearly, my personal Catholic Story put me in harm's way in a fashion that I did not anticipate, that is, by becoming a federal inmate. Of all the moral issues which I engaged due to the impact of Vatican Council II, e.g., the changes in sexual morality championed by the Free Sex movement, the only one which took me into uncharted, no, let's be honest, into unimaginable territory was my Resistance to the War. You could argue that the Church really didn't care about sexual morality because it did not aggressively pursue excommunicating and publicly censuring offenders. When it came to matters of sexuality, such as pre-marital sex, divorce and contraception, how Catholics in the pew wrote that new chapter into their personal Story is considered part of the emerging "American Catholic Church." The lack of enforcement indicates to me that sexual issues and the broader issues of sexism simply didn't and don't matter to the Church to any great degree. There is a lot of pious recitations of the tradition's moral code, but again little is done on a practical basis. Consequently, most American Catholics, even those who still remain in the pews, have replaced "traditional sexual morality" with the tenets and practices of the contraceptive and abortion culture.

The American Catholic Church's waffling on sexuality issues makes sense when you read Genesis as I do. Now, don't misunderstand me. The Church makes a lot of noise about abortion, but it is noise. The Church is not convening Inquisition like trials to try the likes of Presidential aspirants who are Catholics but who publicly support abortion. You might state that they are acting in a politically judicious manner. I see, however, their actions as grounded in Genesis' Revelation that there is no sacred sexuality, that the family is a curse, and that male same-sex sexuality is the only pathway to spiritual fulfillment.

The Catholic Church simply does not care about women. They are still invisible. Heterosexuality is a cursed relationship. All that matters is the iconic phallus. "Deep" in the mythic substrata of the Catholic Big Story is the worship of the phallus as a ritual instrument of dominion. Among themselves, as they have so clearly revealed, the phallus is the ritual instrument which makes manifest the spirituality of Adam. Priests live without women. Who needs them? Priest live with the feminine only insofar as they worship the Crucified Jesus whose body, is for these priest and this tradition, the female body.

What brooding emotion are the Roman Catholic priests tapping into when they engage in their same-sex ritual acts? When they engage in, actively or by tacit support, the pedophilic rape of children? You have to accept that I find this validation of my interpretation through the same-sex, homosexual and pedophilic acts as a horror I had never, could never have, anticipated. Only my Inside Sight allows me to see what every other part of my well-trained Catholic mind and soul would not like to see and admit! I hate what my Inside Sight forced me to see while Inside. I hate what it enables me to so clearly see about the fundamental cursing of family, the glorification of same-sex sexuality, and the acceptance of child abuse as the fundaments of the Church. I hate what my Inside Sight sees, that is, the Church's Shade. But I set out on this road to be a theologian and a spiritual person by choice. I continue, by choice.

When I progressively moved into War Resistance, each step brought more fire and practical consequences. At first I applied for and received my Conscientious Objector status. This required two years of Alternative Service, which I completed. The Church was still unhappy with me. Neither the Pope, bishops nor Council Fathers proclaimed the "nonviolent Jesus." When the ante was raised to burning draft cards and doing draft board raids, however, the Church started to threaten excommunication, issued censures of certain theologians, prevented me and others from access to the pulpit during Masses, and refused in any significant way to support our moral protests. In short, they were telling me that nonviolence was not a part, nor could it ever be, of my personal Catholic Story.

As I stated, in prison I sat there and pondered, "Who's right?" When my Insight Sight re-read Genesis and the tradition, I could clearly see how totally had the Warrior's Quest usurped the throne of traditional interpretation. When I saw the Shade Mother, when I realized that the Serpent was that of the male which speaks with the female, when I saw Jesus' homoerotic theft of the female body, it knocked me totally out of the traditional Catholic Religious Big Story. I realize that part of my failure in my pre-prison Catholic phase was that I had been a nonviolent Warrior's Quester. I had tapped into the brooding emotion of miserableness in that I saw the other, here, the government (the "Establishment") as the enemy. I had approached the courtroom with some residual expectation that I could win. After all I was a warrior, albeit a nonviolent one. I was still Adam's son, seeking to wield my dominion.

When I grasped the Shade character of prison as the Inside of America and as a reincarnation of the Garden of Eden, I had to laugh at myself. I was doing hard-time because I was a Warrior's Quester who had lost! I was deeply tapped into miserableness. I resisted the warm embrace of the Mother for whom prison is a steel-womb from which new birth arises. But when I heard Her call, and came to see how intimacy was the spiritual and moral issue at hand, then my personal Story began to be written anew.

The actual writing of my personal Story requires your understanding of the Earthfolk vision and imagination. I, myself, if you take this Volume 2 as a metaphor for my life, left prison with an understanding of how all three Big Stories had failed me. However, I also clearly knew that they weren't failing others. Indeed, prison was, as an aspect of each of these three Big Stories, considered an institution which enabled others to tap into a brooding emotion of feeling safe and secure since the Bad Guys were locked up. But as I started out re-exploring my tradition and all three Big Stories with Inside Sight, I realized that I was being called to celebrate the other as Beloved. More, that I was to open myself to be celebrated as Beloved. I slowly began to write a personal Story which spoke of finding the sacred within a relationship. I began to approach every moral issue from this vantage point, namely, how to act so as to assist myself and the other in experiencing the depths of our intimacy.

# Chapter 67: Summary and Key Points

I understand that I was sent to prison by others who were acting from their Sunny Spot. I accept that they, somehow, believed that if I went into a Shady institution and so encountered the depths of my Shade that I would emerge either receptive or a convert to their Sunny Spot. For most people in Western Culture, the Abrahamic Religious Big Story anchors their life. They form their personal Stories based upon it. Although I "fell out" of that Big Story via my personal Story of nonviolence, I do acknowledge that it is a functional Big Story. The world can continue in time to be guided by the imagination of this Big Story. However, it ceased to work for me in any healthy sense.

I found the deepest Shade of the Abrahamic tradition in its source story, namely, Genesis. In its traditional interpretation, the Shade aspect of the Abrahamic tradition is blamed on humans. The Abrahamic God (Lone Male) is imaged as spotless and without sin or Shade. Adam blames Eve who blames the Serpent ... but the humans are kicked out of the house, here the Garden of Eden. Little of this made any sense until I sat in silence and peered at the Garden of Eden as a staged performance. The importance of "let us" in Chapter 1 came to bear not only when it gave me insight into the godly powers of the Serpent but as it made me peer into the Void, the Brooding Vapors, and sight Her, the Shade Mother.

Once I gained insight into the presence of the Shade Mother in her most evil manifestation as Warrior's Quest Mother, consort of the Lone Male Warrior's Quest Father, I heaved a sigh of relief! It compelled me to retract my previous statement that the Abrahamic tradition is wildly imaginative. Actually, it is quite prosaic. It is the Big Story of a family. It is a Big Story of a Mother and a Father, of the parenting god and goddess. It is, in this light, a "normal" creation account, akin to many in other Religious Big Story traditions. However, it differs radically from any other Creation Story as its Big Story's controlling question is not about Creation in general but distinctly and singularly, "What to do with women?"

All this made it a bit more clear to me as to why I was cast into prison. I realized, as I have presented throughout this book that I had, at an early age, tapped into a quite different brooding emotion than that of the Abrahamic tradition. It took some time for me to accept that the authoritative tradition was expressed through the personal Story of the Warrior's Quest. That nonviolence is not and can never be a personal Story of an Abrahamic. Before I saw the Shade Mother I thought that it was sufficient to criticize the tradition's and my own range of hyper-macho masculinity. I had originally concluded that nonviolence as also violence were "male issues." To change, I had argued a series of "if only"s in respect to the formation of masculinity. These were mostly "if only men..." would somehow adopt certain feminine traits, etc.

Now, I see clearly that the issue is as much one of "female issues" and of femininity. The Shade Mother calls men and women, but at this historic moment especially women, to discern what type of femininity is expressed in Genesis, to explore the character and meaning of the Shade Mother. This is a novel femininity which can profit by seeing itself as a Captive, but also as then one who is no longer a victim. It is a femininity which affirms the sacral potency of women, the female, the goddess, and femininity. The Shade Mother's active complicity and birthing role in creating the Abrahamic tradition needs to be grounded in the testimony and witness of women who have sat within their own Shade institutions and spots.

At this point, an examination of how the Secular and Scientism's Big Stories arose, their connection to the Abrahamic Big Story, and how all three relate to the Warrior's Quest and the revelation about the Shade Parents of Genesis is required to prepare the way for my discussion of the Earthfolk vision and imagination.

Key Points

Globalization and Western Culture's Biblical Big Story

Abrahamic tradition includes all who all the Biblical Abraham their Father

Includes Jews, Christians, Moslems, Mormons, and so forth

High Tech produces "Program Specials" on every culture's Big Story, ancient and modern

Biblical Story of Creation, Genesis, composed in a multi-cultural world

Big Story spoken to all the world ("world-wide-web") of its day

Genesis contains "veiled revelations"

All that is known about humans is only found through the Revelations of the Abrahamic Big Story

Humans offended God through an Original Sin

Humans cast out in exile to Earth

God has a providential plan for humanity, also known as "Salvation History"

To be fully human must live by the revealed Ten Commandments and laws written in Sacred Scripture and interpreted by an only-male patriarchal hierarchy

Background of My Religious Big Story

Iconic "Baltimore Catechism" had all the Big Questions and Big Answers

Strict guidelines as to how to develop my moral personal Story

At any moment could fall prey to Satanic temptation and commit a Mortal Sin and be consigned to suffer in Hell for eternity

Most perilous temptation was women, females, girls, gals!

"O happy fault!" "Felix culpa!" stated that thanks to Adam's sin, Jesus came down from heaven!

So, "think it the best of times, feel it the worst!"

Primarily to tap into the brooding emotion of feeling miserable

Prayed the "Prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi" ... "Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace."

Vatican Council II's Impact on my Religious Big Story

Not convened to start a revolution, rather to reform and address issues of modern life

Addressed Documents to "the rest of men of good will"—a universal invitation

Council speaks of its Shade, "...conscious of our innumerable sins.... "

Major shift in Big Story imagery from "Church" to "People of God"

St. Augustine wrote, "There is no salvation outside the Church," and Council appeared to be affirming other spiritual pathways to God

Was ecumenical, multi-cultural and internationalist

Stated that it was the vocation of the laity to engage in temporal affairs

A duty to scrutinize the times

Charged "to cooperate in finding the solution to the outstanding problems of our time."

To be "citizens of conscience," "For man has in his heart a law written by God. To obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged."

The Council acted with an American style spot and swagger, effusing a near Utopian optimism that global problems could be solved

Addressed issues of social justice, e.g., "Reverence for the Human Person," "Reverence and Love for Enemies," "The Essential Equality of Men: and Social Justice," "The Avoidance of War," "Curbing the Savagery of War," "Total War"

Called to act on an international basis

Council stated, "It is our clear duty, then, to strain every muscle as we work for the time when all war can be completely outlawed by international consent."

Then, without forwarding itself as the answer, the Council continued to state, "This goal undoubtedly requires the establishment of some universal public authority ..."

"Here I am, send me!" radicalization

The Penitentiary's Impact on the three dominant Big Stories

I did "hard time"

De-bearded, de-loused and digitized as 8867-147

Prison is the "Inside" of American Society

Sense of having no body, at anytime, full strip and body cavity searches

"Drop everything and bend over!"

Charles Dickens' evaluation of the early penitentiary system (1842) is that the inmate is "a man buried alive."

America created the penitentiary movement in 1787

Many of the Revolutionary leaders who met to write the Constitution, met again after supper at the voluntary organization, the Pennsylvania Prison Society (PPS) to compose the penitentiary vision and prison discipline called "separate confinement"

PPS membership included leading Christian laymen and ministers

Episcopal Bishop William White lead PPS for forty-five years

Significantly, when addressing the legislature he dropped his ministerial title and simply signed "William White"

"Separate confinement" meant no contact with other inmates, only with prison staff and weekly visits by members of PPS

Convict cell had a garden and only the Bible for reading

However, believed it should also be a "House of Terror"

During the night an inmate's conscience would awaken and judge him as only this little terrorizing voice of God could!

Inmate would repent, ask God's forgiveness, and turn away from life of crime

Penitentiary is like the Garden of Eden as both are "Inside" experiences

Penitentiary is key interpretive concept in Secular and Religious Big Stories

My analysis and interpretation of Biblical Genesis

One God, One Father, One Faith, One Chosen People, One Way

Fallen nature with expectation of a saving Messiah, some see in Jesus, others still waiting

Minority mystic and prophetic voices were never and aren't the tradition's interpretative voices

Tradition's interpretive voices follow the Warrior's Quest

Two Creation Story with the Rib overshadowing the "let us" account

No Mother Goddess or goddesses of any sort

Genesis is "wildly imaginative" and goes against common sense

The Rib main revelation is that the male body is the birthing body as Eve is born from Adam

To be human it is not necessary to be born of a woman

Adam exercises dominion over everyone, especially Eve

Adam in deep sleep experiences same-sex masturbatory sexuality

Genesis is all about intimacy and how the intimate relationship is to develop, that is, as an expression of the Lone Male's dominion

Lone Male knows through Revelation, a secret way of knowing

Serpent is that of the male which speaks with the female

-Only Eve speaks with the Serpent, Adam does not

-Serpent's male experience enables Eve to see her full humanity

-Eve experiences intimacy with Adam as they realize that they are also creators of life as parents building a family

"Family" is an alien Abrahamic concept, experience only in exile

Eve and Adam's insight is that intimacy is the source of spirituality

Adam now knows her as more than his helper, she is "Mother of All"

Lone Male God acts in enraged, abusive parenting mode

Lone Male God kicks his kids out of the house, out of Paradise, and curses them!

Childbearing and growing food are cursed

Bible implies that there is no sacred sexuality

Genesis, however, can be seen to be all about sacred sexuality—a veiled revelation

Penis is icon of Genesis account

Genesis' Big Question is, "Why women?" which also means "What to do with women?"

Adam has no spine. His sexuality is not connected to his heart or brain.

-Eve realizes her Goddess self

Woman's body is the imagistic basis for sacred rituals, that is, her water breaks as birth occurs (Baptism), on mother's body is First Food (Eucharist) etc.

Genesis is a story of misdirection, for veiled revelation is presence of the Shade Mother in her most evil manifestation as Warrior's Quest Mother in the brooding vapors

My interpretation makes sense if Genesis is read from Day 6 to Day 1 then it is all about answering, "What to do with women?"

with the answer being that women are irrelevant, derivatives of the Lone Male and have meaning only as they subordinate themselves to Lone Male dominion

Crucifix is icon affirming that Jesus' steals the female body

Jesus' blood saves. His body is food. New Life comes from his dying.

Crucifix is icon of child abuse

What Adam dreamt, so did Jesus do consciously, that is, claims his body is the female, is the mothering body

What man needs to bond with his wife after Jesus' death on the cross?

Pentecostal ecstatic utterance of "Jjjjjjeeeeeesssssssuuuuuuusssss!"

In Prison called to "Do your own time!" "Surrender your Will to Christ!"

Jesus is your Substitute. He dies on your behalf. Like living in "virtual reality."

Citing Shade Mother in her most evil manifestation in Prison reveals linkage between Prison and Garden of Eden

Evaluation of the Religious Big Story's impact on how a personal Story is written

Traditional Roman Catholic Big Story brooding emotion is miserableness

You are a Shady character, born into Original Sin

Jesus shares his Sunny Spot and Saves you from your Shade

Your personal Story should be an imitation of Christ's

Your personal Story is not yours, rather it is Jesus' Story

Blind obedience to priestly teaching and counsel is required

Scope of moral issues is defined for you by priests and the Church

My personal Story is an Unintended Consequence of Vatican Council II

Council sought to reform, not revolutionize, that is, alter fundamentals

Shift from "Church" to "People of God" transformed worship into an act of personal communication with others who shared group identity

Translation from Latin into English and vernaculars invited participation by laity

Removal of altar rail changed priestly space, inviting laity to enter

Being "citizens of conscience" became norm for moral action

Challenged engage all Big Questions and find answers through personal inquiry and moral witness

Imitate Jesus by putting your life in harm's way and being prepared to lay down your life for another

Pre-prison saw failure of all three dominant Big Stories as source for my personal Story

Inside Insight enabled me to see Shade Mother, the Serpent as the male who speaks with the female, discern Jesus' homoerotic theft of the female body, and my complicity as a "nonviolent" Warrior

Inside Insight took me to the point where I could begin to see Earthfolk

My personal Story approached moral issues with goal of acting so as to develop a relationship which deepens the intimacy of you and the other

My understanding of prison as linked as a Shade spot to the Garden of Eden opened a search for finding the Beloved, who simultaneously discovers me as Beloved

# Chapter 68: The Secular Big Story

The other two Big Stories which dominate the world and drive globalization are the Scientism and the Secular. With Inside Insight, I discern all three Big Stories as sharing a common imaginative tradition. Each has historical, intellectual, imaginative and emotion roots in the other two. Each has developed from both the Sunny Spot and Shade of the other two. In fact, the strongest link between the Big Stories is that the core sector of their deepest Shade overlaps that of the other two Big Stories. Intellectually, the Inside of each Big Story is, in the main, identified and described in seemingly unconnected language and imagery. It is the brooding emotion which is the dynamic link. Most telling, and as a key bridge to the emergence of the Earthfolk Big Story, these three tap into a set of brooding emotions sourced in the Abrahamic Shade of Genesis and presently anchored by two shared iconic images which distinctly mark the globalization movement. These are the Atomic Bomb's Mushroom Cloud and the first picture of Earth from outer space, namely, that called The Blue Marble or Starship Earth. Explaining where, how and why these three Big Stories share common visions, icons, moral values and brooding emotions is critical to grasping how and why they dominate the world through the globalization movement.

As stated before, Big Stories are primarily expressions of a people's emotional state. They reveal how a people feels, and, from this set of brooding emotions, which is anchored in the depths of a people's communal psyche, Big and personal Stories are composed. Composing a Story is, initially, a conscious intellectual act, but over time Big Stories take on the appearance of being "just a story," "only a tale." They are often labeled "myths," where that is used as a denigrating word implying that the Stories are not true or just "made up." I note a specific correlation in the negative application of the word myth. Namely, that as a Big Story seeps into the imaginative depths of a people's way of being human, that people translate the truths and powers of the Big Story into endlessly recounted and repetitious popular versions. These Big Stories appear, to those who profess them, to have disappeared or faded into a culture's background. They don't appear to be sources for the vision and dynamic which is driving society or the culture. It is exactly this disappearance from one into another Big Story which provides insight into how the three dominant Big Story merge to innervate globalization. In this light, Religious Big Stories are always being translated into parts of the Secular and Scientism's Big Story.

High Tech telecommunications has greatly facilitated this translation, first in the West and now globally. Secular literature has often recognized its indebtedness to the "Bible as literature." I further note that the average sit-com is quite too often just a thinly extracted version of some Biblical story. These Hollywood stories may develop either the Sunny Side or the Shade of the Big Story. On the Shade side, the ultra-violence of so many shows and movies is a rendition of Abrahamic Cain and Abel's fratricide. War movies revise Joshua's screed of "Take no prisoners!" with its total annihilation of the enemy. Sexually, it is an absolutely rare show or film which does not affirm and even profess that females and males are engaged in a ceaseless War of the Sexes. With just a closer look, the male attitude is Adamic in its expression of dominion. While a few media female characters have ridden atop the popular wave, most still remain simply invisible. So invisible that even when naked they are not seen as other then male fantasy.

In like manner as they exude the Sunny Side of things, romantic movies, notably the "chick flick" genre, have Eves being rescued by Adams. This smacks of the Risen Christ rescuing the Captives from hell. Triumphant American war movies have messianic characters such as Audie Murphy and the ever victorious John Wayne, followed by generational imitators such as Sylvester Stallone's Rambo. Sci-fi movies regale how clever Americans have defeated the alien enemy, either through a series of Star Wars or while on a Star Trek. Quite often the latter entails humans coming to master or defeat advanced technologies.

While the foregoing could be dismissed as an obvious and trite observation about how literature molts into film, my point is that, with rare exceptions, the Secular renditions do not acknowledge their Religious roots. Obvert "religious drama" is relegated to special Cable TV channels, notably those described as "Christian TV" or on tele-evangelistic networks. Nevertheless, the subject matter and moral values dealt with by Secular shows reflect their Religious heritage even if not directly acclaimed. I bring this to your attention because the shift is one solely of style and not substance. The viewer, so I allege, is having a "sacred secular" experience. He is reliving and reaffirming his Adamic dominion. I discuss this "sacred secular" category in this section. This type of Religious-Secular shift occurs often in America's Big Story. In fact, for me, the most revelatory moment in the history of America's Shade is one in which such a Religious-Secular shift of style over substance occurs. The net effect is that the secular institution or moment is as spiritually intense as it was when presented with religious ceremonial flare. I will return to this when I interpret the insight which the formation of America's penitentiary system provides for understanding all three Big Stories.

In general, the Secular and Scientism Big Stories are seen as antagonistic to the Religious. In contrast, I hold that the three share a common source as to vision and the brooding emotions which ground their range of acceptable passionate actions. For me a telling connection between all three Big Stories is how they define intimacy, and how they tell their sacred sexuality story.

As with the Religious Big Story, most who hold to the Secular and Scientific Big Stories will disagree with my interpretation. From Inside the Shade I peer and see a clear and significant translation of imagery between these three Big Stories, and a not so clear, quite subtle, transference of Lone Male Dominion as the basis of patriarchal authority for each Story as it defines the range of acceptable moral actions. In this vein, all three Stories imagine humans as warriors, and living a meaningful life is expressed in terms of the Warrior's Quest where endless war is being waged against someone or something inimically Other and an Intimate Enemy.

From my vantage point Inside, it is not an accident that the iconic images of the Mushroom Cloud and of Starship Earth are fitting apocalyptic expressions of these three Big Stories. But these interpretations are the points to be explored.

# Chapter 69: Background of my Secular Big Story

I thought a bit more about the Secular Big Story than you might anticipate for someone raised within a sectarian educational system. I did so because I was educated in the strict and harsh Jansenistic strain of Irish Catholicism. When it came to the topic of America, my family manifested the typical "immigrant minority" mentality. They saw America as non-Catholic and fraught with all the temptations to sin offered by a materialistic and hedonistic society and culture. While we weren't impoverished "shanty Irish," that ethnic part of my family was self-conscious about being seen as "less than full Americans." Moreover, I knew that "America" was a special country for Protestants. This was evident in that only Protestants were elected President. But my Germanic father always trumped this bit of nationalism by reminding everyone who was listening that the Roman Catholic Church, in its Apostolic claim to being founded by St. Peter himself, had outlasted many cultures and societies. He'd draw up a list: Romans, Greeks, Aztecs, Egyptians, Russian Tsars, even Hitler's Nazism were among those who came and went as "The Church prevailed." Dad had no qualm that Communism, in its Stalinist, Maoist or Cuban form, would likewise soon become a dusty footnote in Catholic church history books.

My dad loved America. He was a staunch conservative Republican who used to whisper that "FDR was the devil"! Yet, I never forgot his firm political advice about what makes Democracy work, "You can disagree with a candidate. But once he is elected president, you support him, wholeheartedly." His WWII war stories were always funny, and he and mom always voted. "I like Ike!" is my first memory of political awareness. So, early on, there was no conflict between the basic ideals and moral virtues of Catholicism and American Democracy. Even Jesus had said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." For a long time, this simple New Testament verse seemed to solve the matter. After all, in America there is the Separation of Church and State. While it was evident that America was a materialistic society and had its flaws, there just didn't seem to be any real problems balancing the two allegiances. I was proud to be a Roman Catholic American. Iconically, this complementarity was best evidenced by the ever-present Stars and Stripes within the sanctuary area not far distant from the priest as he celebrated the Daily Mass at which I regularly served as an altar-boy.

Vatican Council II's impact on my Secular Big Story

As secular American, you could read the Documents and bristle! After all, how long ago was the Church's last great political era? That of the "Holy Roman Empire"? Who are these Bishops and these Popes to set down the vision and articulate the moral obligations and duties for everyone, these "men of good will"? On the other hand, you could consider that the Church was being a bit Americanized, in that there was a well recognized "democratic" streak and tone in these Conciliar papers.

I had no problem with the Church telling America or any secular nations how to imagine the world. I was used to their Apostolic self-image. However, I was strongly lured by the People of God imagery. In addition, the Church also called me to be a citizen of conscience, to become a leader in temporal matters, and to get involved in national and international issues of common concern to all nations and peoples. The Council didn't use the term but they saw themselves as having global influence.

The forwarding of "the duty of scrutinizing the sign of the times" meant getting socially involved. From one perspective, the Council was mobilizing all citizens. The focus on individual conscience aligned with America's enchantment with rugged individualism. The Document's overall tone was one of "muscular Christianity" which matched the macho streak of American heroes from Natty Bumpo to Teddy Roosevelt to the likes of those beloved Hollywood frontiersmen such as Gary Cooper and John Wayne.

Two core quotes stand out in my personal development. They are a bit long, but worth reviewing.

The Circumstances of Culture in the World Today. NEW FORMS OF LIVING

"The living conditions of modern man have been so profoundly changed in their social and cultural dimensions, that we can speak of a new age in human history. Fresh avenues are open, therefore, for the refinement and the wider diffusion of culture. These avenues have been paved by the enormous growth of natural, human, and social sciences, by progress in technology, and by advances in the development and organization of the means by which men communicate with one another.

Hence the culture of today possesses particular characteristics. For example, the so-called exact sciences sharpen critical judgment to a very fine edge. Recent psychological research explains human activity more profoundly. Historical studies make a signal contribution to bringing men to see things in their changeable and evolutionary aspects. Customs and usages are becoming increasingly uniform. Industrialization, urbanization, and other causes of community living create new forms of culture (mass-culture), from which arise new ways of thinking, acting, and making use of leisure. The growth of communication between the various nations and social groups opens more widely to all the treasures of different cultures.

Thus, little by little, a more universal form of human culture is developing, one which will promote and express the unity of the human race to the degree that it preserves the particular features of the different cultures." (See, Appendix D.)

Can you sense the breadth and depth of intellectual, social and moral engagement for which this calls you? Can you spy the images and dynamics which will emerge in the then nascent globalization movement? "A new age in human history." "Enormous growth...and advances...by which men communicate with one another." Like the impact of Teilhard's imagery, the Council's imagery surprisingly anticipates the emergence of a world-wide-web. Such a sense of being globally webbed or Internetted could have easily arisen in my mind after reading this passage. In fact, it did link with Teilhard's concept of a "Divine Milieu," that is, a world wherein all Life forms, human and other, are intricately and intractably interconnected and interrelated.

The passage continues, then, to praise the hard and soft sciences. It notes that "customs and usages are becoming increasingly uniform." It cites "mass-culture" as a new form. Then it asserts an early multi-culturalism, noting "all the treasures of different cultures." Finally, it exudes a universalism of a huge global Sunny Spot in which everyone can bask, "a more universal form of human culture" which "promotes, expresses and preserves" the "unity of the human race" and "different cultures."

What happened to the "Fallen" world? The original corrupt nature of humanity's heart and soul? What is the source of all this almost giddy optimism about just about everything humans are doing, and which others would label "Progress"? Are you waiting for the other shoe to drop? After all, these are Documents of the Roman Catholic Church, and there is a reason for their keeping the adjective "Roman." Like the Web, the traditional hierarchical structure of communication, e.g., from CEO to VPs to Directors down to field sales managers might be flattened, that is, the field can directly and instantly email the CEO, but the power structure is not flattened. The "Roman" Church CEO, namely, the Pope was radically changing the lines of communication, not the lines of Petrine and Apostolic authority. In short, the Pope remains the presence of God through Jesus here on Earth.

As you weigh all the final Documents together, you realize that the Council Fathers' Shade keeps inching forward. They, again, are not launching a revolution. Rather they a re-forming the age-old, and to them ageless, revelation handed down to them by Jesus through the first pope, St. Peter. Here is one major quote with which the Fathers tapped into their traditional brooding emotion.

"Nevertheless, in the face of modern development of the world, an ever-increasing number of people are raising the most basic questions or recognizing them with a new sharpness: what is man? What is this sense of sorrow, of evil, of death, which continues to exist despite so much progress? What is the purpose of these victories, purchased at so high a cost? What can man offer to society, what can he expect from it? What follows this earthly life?" (My emphases.)

I heard echoes of, "Life changes but everything remains the same." And, "It's the best of times. It's the worst of times." Consequently, I was exuberant, not giddy. Nor was I filled with "American optimism." Rather, I heard that the Secular Big Story needed to be changed. More, not simply reformed but transformed at its roots. In many ways, my radicalism was sourced in my deep East Coast, Irish-Catholic blind-obedience conservatism. However, instead of ignoring "the world" as many interpreted the tradition's "in the world, but not of the world," in an effort not unlike President John F. Kennedy's call to, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country," so it was that I heard, "Ask not what your Church can do for you. Ask what you can do for the People of God." I heard that the Religious and Secular Big Stories needed to be and could be integrated, possibly even harmonized.

In sum, "Thus we are witnesses of the birth of a new humanism, one in which man is defined first of all by his responsibility toward his brothers and toward history." (My emphasis.)

# Chapter 70: My analysis and interpretation of the Secular Big Story

From a historical perspective the development of the Secular and the Scientific Big Stories from the Religious is well documented. Historically, the Religious Big Story was the source for how Abrahamic peoples and cultures developed. While much was contributed from each Abrahamic group, namely, the Jewish, Christian and Muslim cultures, the rise of Scientism and Secularism is most heavily rooted in Western Christian culture.

There is a historical and methodological twin-ness to the Secular and Scientism Big Story which requires talking about one while presenting the other. Science, for example, flourished in Moslem culture when the West was in decline, during what some call, somewhat inappropriately in my analysis, the Dark Ages. When the West revives and rediscovers the Greek philosopher Aristotle, the "scientific revolution" begins. This was basically a revolution in how one claims to know a truth or a fact.

In broad strokes, the Scientific Revolution began as a way of knowing. It was a move away from knowing reality through Revelation to knowing through Reason. It used the empirical experimental method which was focused on claiming something as fact only when it could be repeated before other observers. Scientific theory was developed using the rigorous logic of rational induction and deduction. For some, the move away from Revelation was, itself, a secularizing event which links the Secular and Scientific Big Stories. In contrast, some Religious believers see the Scientific Revolution as a validation of the Religious in that they position Reason as a gift from God which humans can use to further discover and celebrate the natural mysteries which are of Divine Design of an Intelligent Maker.

Scientism is the telling of a Big Story which starts with reflecting upon what we know from an analysis of the material world. In contrast Genesis—which never presented itself as offering scientific, materialistic answers—starts with reflecting upon human relationships, notably as I've stated, about human intimacy relationships. To begin composing a Scientism account of any stripe, the author has to move into a secular space. That is, he has to imagine himself in a space—mental and physical—where there is no God. He disciplines himself to not-imagine the causes of anything he observes as being explained or explainable by divine or godly forces, presences, etc. The scientific and secular space has only one dimension and it is human. It is even a more restricted human space in that it is one in which human emotions are also to be dispelled, dismissed and down-played.

Another important insight is to see the Secular Big Story as initiated by a change in the way of exercising political power. It was a move away from vesting political authority in the Divine Right of a monarch, e.g., the Catholic Pope or King, to vesting it in the Will of a People. Here the move involved the beheading of the French monarch, Louis XVI. Then, as an exercise of Revolutionary "Egalite!" the Queen, Marie Antoinette, also lost her head. Secularists focused on removing anything related to the nobility and Christianity or churchly pomp and ceremony from the government and the public space.

The Secular and Scientism's Big Story cross-fertilized and assisted the other in moving beyond the Religious Big Story. Each is a relatively "modern" Big Story, the emergence of which for many scholars actually defines the opening of the Modern Age. How these Big Stories arose and intertwined has been the subject of much scholarly research for several centuries. My specific focus is on what the imaginations of these Big Stories share as to vision and the possible range of moral actions with which to develop a personal Story.

The Secular Big Story is a fairly new story when compared to the Religious Big Story. Its defining characteristic is that it develops its Big Answers primarily as a negative reaction to central claims of the Religious Big Story. In contrast to the Religious Big Story, the Secular has not evolved a tradition with well defined doctrines and required dogmas, nor a profusion of ceremonial rituals, nor authoritative institutions. While individuals will claim to be secular, and scholars will cite a "secularizing" influence or trend, there is no indisputable definition of "secular" or "secularizing."

A group, called Secular Humanists, propose a range of heartfelt actions (ethics, moral code, and vision) for a sought after "common good" of all humanity. However, claiming one's self to be a secular person, or declaring a nation to be a secular state, or describing something as a secularizing influence or event is an act of self-definition. That is, you become secular by stating that you are. There is no "secular faith" or "secular scripture" so there is no way for the individual or group to become secular other than by stating that one is secular. In contrast to Religious believers who can be accused of heresy or ex-communicated or de-frocked, no such "de-secularization" process exists since there is no ritual of secular initiation which is comparable to a Religious rite of initiation such as Christian Baptism.

The gist of the Secular Big Questions and Answers are as follows.

Where do humans come from?

There is no indisputable Secular answer to this question. Most Secularists accept scientific findings and Scientism interpretations, so they would reply, more than likely, with a reference to the theory of Evolution. What Secularists hold is that there is no separate realm of sacred reality called spirit or the supernatural. For them, there never was nor could be a place like the Garden of Eden. Anything which you might describe as "spiritual" or "psychic" refers, they hold, to a specific material and/or physical characteristic of humans.

In the Secular Big Story there is no Garden of Eden, no holy place, there is only human space and time, and that is sufficient. There is no sense of being in exile. No longing for this Life on Earth to end so that Life in eternity with God can begin anew.

Secularism often agrees with the Scientism Big Story, but where the Scientism Big Story is derived from insights into the broader implications of the scientific method, Secularism pivots upon an assertion as to what humans can do. In this light, a Secularist does not necessarily rely upon the scientific method for knowing. Rather he/she relies upon common sense. While "common sense" has no precise definition, as I see Secularism, it is an affirmation that what is real and true can be known by every human, using their five senses. The sum of knowing through the five senses is one definition of common sense. To make claims beyond any human sense is truly senseless. For how can a human know other than what all humans know? As with Scientism, Secularism accepts no "special knowledge," no supernatural Revelation. Secularists would struggle mightily with or outright reject my statement that all knowing is and must be expressed as part of a human relationship.

How did humans get here?

Again, there is no indisputable Secular answer to this question. Most Secularists are tolerant of religious or other theoretical explanations of how the world began and how humans evolved, etc. Tolerant but unbelieving.

Most Secularists do not see a personal Creator. Some, who I label "Sacred Secularists," may talk of a deity or a creating Force or Energy, but normally this is an élan vital, a life force and not a transpersonal, transhistorical living presence such as the Abrahamic god who claims, "I am the Lord Thy God." Since there is no personal Creator, humans are responsible for building the Earth. The world is not Good or Evil, rather it is as humans create it.

Some "Sacred Secularists" hold that there is a Benevolent Deity, but it is not directly involved in the development of human affairs. Secularists interact with Religious Big Stories from postures of total denial of any Religious claims to cautious openings to mystical notions such as pantheism ("Everything is god.") to panentheism ("God is in everything.") The latter notion moves some Sacred Secularist to appreciate Teilhard's vision. Nevertheless, the concern of Secularism is more with Right Now! than with focusing on the past or even the distant future (meaning, life after death and heaven).

Where are humans going?

Secularists teeter on the edge of being nihilists (that is, believers in nothing and no-meaning) to being existential humanists (that is, being as "human" as one can be in the moment). Others broach a "Sacred Secularism" which fosters a Secular Humanism which is buoyed by hope and optimism. While avoiding utopian dreams, that is, of a Kingdom of God or even a Peaceable Kingdom here on Earth, Secularists hold that humans can create a Good Society, namely, one which can achieve Justice, Equality and Happiness. Others would answer that humans are "going" wherever Evolution takes them.

Why are humans here on Earth?

Secularists would see a "god" hiding behind the word "why." Why implies that one needs to question the obvious fact that humans are on Earth because Earth is where humans are! Yet, the question is really about purpose. Is there any purpose to life? Is there any reason I should act my best as opposed to my worse? Do I have any obligations to others? For many Secularists, humans are simply Earthlings, and each of us should make the best of the moment. This often leads to a moral relativism where the Secularist has a hard time, on his/her own terms, condemning someone as Evil or praising them as Good. For, without an ultimate authority or absolutes, terms such as Good and Evil are relative to one's culture, historical period, market conditions, etc.

Other Secularists tout self-actualization or self-fulfillment as the only goal an individual can envision. It is difficult for a Secularist to propose a purpose for the group, such as the formation of a United Nations or an Earth Charter because group values exist only as the arithmetic sum of individual values. There is no authoritative group such as a Catholic Church, or authoritative tradition such as among Rabbinical scholars, or authoritative teachers such as the Dalai Lama for Secularists to follow.

When did humans first appear?

Most Secularists, if answering this question at all, would reference the findings of evolutionary scientists or the views of a Scientism Big Story.

How are humans to act?

Secularists would hold that the one thing they do know is how humans should not act. That is, they should not act as if they have a special knowledge, a Revealed Truth, which is not knowable by every other human. Most would propose that heartfelt moral actions can be discerned by using Human Reason, which is the artful practice of rational analysis, working only with reasonable assumptions and engaging in self-critical discourse. Secularists are guided by the insight that, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (George Santayana) For them, a study of history is the best guide for learning about human mistakes and for developing a plan for individual and group action.

Why is there Evil in the world?

Evil is many things to many people. Evil often arises because of a perceived injustice. However, if people reason together and learn how to negotiate, what appears to be Evil is often a matter of unreasonable expectations by an alleged aggrieved party ("the victim").

Evil also arises from stupidity. Even Nazism can be grasped as an irrational and stupid response to very specific inequities and perceived injustices.

For others, Evil is the absence of Good. Which means that if you do not act for the Good (as you perceive it) in a specific incident, then something Evil often takes its place. This Evil could have been prevented by your Right Actions.

There is no "Evil god" as there is no "Good god." It is best if humans stop using the terms Good and Evil as if they were spiritual truths. All can be understood, negotiated, and justly resolved through human openness, the application of the skills and insights of Reason, and if everyone is motivated by goodwill and the search for a Common Good.

From its historic start, some Secularists have held the view that humans are moving in a positive direction. They state, in agreement with Scientism, that human effort is a progressive force. They assert that collective human effort will eventually create an improved society. For such a progressive Secularist, underneath John Lennon's "Imagine" can be sensed a trust and a steely hope that humans can and will progress and create at least a near-Utopia here on Earth, e.g., a Great Society. This will happen once humans release themselves from the illusion cast by the Religionist that there is a sacred space, that is, a heaven to which they can escape.

# Chapter 71: Sacred Secularism

Most people mingle aspects of the three Big Stories when they create their personal Story. In this respect, I note two strands of the Secular Big Story. One mingles the Religious with the Secular producing a "Sacred Secularism." This is best exemplified, as I will argue, by American society. The other is "Non-Sacred Secularism" which is less defined by a specific nation as it is by the peculiar phenomenon described as "virtual reality," that is, by the world-wide web of the Internet.

Together, America and the Internet are the dominant Secular forces creating and shaping the global vision of what it means to human. They are sculpting the human imagination and setting a global emotional tone. To understand why this is so, and what are the range of possible heartfelt moral actions each articulates, requires a sustained peering and sitting in silence with the accounts of their origins.

"America" as imagination

Americans practice a Sacred Secularism. This is a national trait, not just the idiosyncratic practices of individuals. No other nation demonstrates so clearly how Religious imagery was translated into Secular expression. Nor the subtle way in which Lone Male dominion was transferred as the basis of authority from the Religious to the Secular. As to the former, the translation occurred at the founding of America and is expressed in its documents of establishment, namely, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. As to the Lone Male dominion, I follow the insight of the famous Russian writer, Fyodor Dostoevsky, that "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." This is just another reason I peer into America's prison system. However, as I've mentioned, prison is a system which relatively few scholars or interpreters of the America experience have examined and used as an interpretive tool. For me, to do so is to clearly confront how America's Sacred Secularism is expressed institutionally. I hold that without an understanding of the origins of America's prison system, the true character of the America's democratic vision cannot be grasped. Consequently, gaining insight into the history of the development of American prisons is required to fully understand the character of Sacred Secularism.

Peering into America's prison system might strike you as odd. But few Americans know how truly odd their prison system is. Punishment with time sentences, e.g., two years for armed robbery, twenty-five for murder, etc., are historical and anthropological innovations. Few know that the prison system was the singular Revolutionary American social institution which "sailed in reverse across the Atlantic" and took hold in Europe and then the world. The famed Alexis de Tocqueville and his partner Gustave de Beaumont's mission was to study and report on this prison discipline of "separate confinement." They published, "On the Penitentiary System in the United States and Its Application in France, (1833). After that, de Tocqueville began to record his observations about what he assessed was a quite peculiar society in his famed Democracy in America (1835).

Sit for a minute and ponder, What is being punished through a time sentence? The body? The mind? The soul? The oddity of this penal method is only underscored by the fact that most Americans still do not ask these questions about the prison system which is an original American Revolutionary Era "experiment" and institution.

To capsulate the history which was stated previously, America's prison are rooted in the Revolutionary Era "penitentiary" movement. The penitentiary as a concept had historical antecedents in Europe and elsewhere but it was only fully conceptualized in 1787 by members of a voluntary association several of whom were simultaneously attending the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This is the Pennsylvania Prison Society, which is still active. As fitting to the times, these individuals perceived themselves as living in an Enlightened Age where, through Reason, they could conduct "experiments" on just about any aspect of human life and inquiry.

I claim that America's Sacred Secularism vision and range of heartfelt moral actions can only be fully valued and understood when "America" is seen as a sect of the Protestant Reformation. No other public institution so clearly defines the basic vision and values of this sect as does the vision and discipline (a set of heartfelt moral actions) developed by the penitentiary system.

Americans have historically been perplexed when other peoples fail to realize the nobility of the nation's intentions and moral vision. My examination of America's Shade side, as expressed through its penitentiary system, provides luminous insight into what would happen if America assumes primary leadership of the globalization movement.

King Louis XVI as Secular icon

I have participated in many discussions about when the Secular Big Story first entered human consciousness. From an imagistic perspective, much like the Mushroom Cloud, the guillotine beheading of Louis Capet, who was King Louis XVI, is the icon of Secularism. Kings in most countries and cultures up to that time were considered to exercise authority bestowed by Divine Right. They claimed this right from an interpretation of the Religious Big Story. For many, Abraham was the first Father and as King they were his heirs. Like him, they felt Chosen by God. Consequently, for the French people to behead their King was for them to behead, literally and symbolically, the Abrahamic God.

The decapitation of Louis was a secularizing action which gave rise to both the Sacred Secular and Non-Sacred Secular traditions. In both traditions an iconic "headless" authority is source of vision and imagination. No longer is there to be a genetically defined Royal Family. No longer would a people have a divinely anointed leader through whom right actions were mediated. Rather, authority is invested in a new concept, that of the Will of the People. Citizens are now not just blindly obedient servants but Masters of their own destiny. Authority and power are expressed through legislated institutions and individuals who are elected representatives of the People.

Of note, the translation here is from a sacred person to a sacred group. Dominion and authority moves from investment in a particular human who can be sensually experienced to an identity-group (the People) which can only be sensually experienced through an institutional act of allegiance. In one sense, each person is now a king. But how is the citizen's regal power to be manifested? It is through an elected government which governs through institutions which represent the People's dominion. This is a revolutionary shift in vision and it had major consequences for the range of heartfelt moral actions which could define a personal Story.

American citizens commonly describe themselves as, at least, partly secular, partly religious. In America, the beheading of the French King was translated into the institutional act of the separation of Religious and Secular power, that is, of Church and State. The King's power had been both Religious and Secular. Note that Americans did not obliterate this regal power, rather they transferred it to an institution of the People, namely, an elected presidency. What Americans did was define a separation of heads between the head of the Church and the head of State as a basic tenet of the American vision and imagination. Separation is a degree of secularization with which most Americans, even major religious leaders, are comfortable. As such, for Americans, Secular commonly means "separate." It is a Secularity tolerant of all Religious Big Stories. It does not deny that they exist, rather it provides a space within the Secular vision for them to co-exist. Americans are not imagistically atheistic. As imprinted on American currency, they profess, "In God We Trust. "

Of note is that George Washington was encouraged to become America's King. He refused this title but accepted the Presidency. His was not a radical rejection of a King's dominion, rather, like his Constitutional peers, he wanted that power expressed differently. America became a Republic, granting and exercising power through majority rule. To protect citizens from the tyranny of the majority, the Declaration of Independence forwarded and the democratic Bill of Rights granted certain "inalienable rights" to all citizens. The Constitution's Republican authority remains, at its best moments, in creative tension with the "self-evident" truths and "inalienable" democratic Rights of the Amendments. It is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which are the two documents which are the sources for describing the range of heartfelt moral actions available to an American citizen. (The broadening of this range of passionate moral actions is recorded in the struggle of certain Americans to become full citizens, e.g., the personal Stories of enslaved blacks and disenfranchised women, among others, who struggled for full Civil Rights.)

# Chapter 72: Martin Luther as Secular icon

I claim that "America" is a Protestant sect. While America has no ecclesiastical figurehead, its Republican and democratic form is sourced in another "sacred secular" movement. As with the beheading of the French King, I observe an imagistic movement like that which marks the Protestant Reformation within the Catholic Church.

Imagistically, Martin Luther's main reform is also a beheading. He rejects the magisterial Roman Pope and all the trappings of the Vatican bureaucracy, notably, its ubiquitous apparatus for selling relics and indulgences. Up to that time, the Pope is the visual representative of Christ on Earth. In most Western nations, the Pope and his staff of Bishops and priests held and exercised political power which they understood as an inherent right bestowed by their holy, supernatural status as ordained ministers of God. They sourced their ordination in a claim that they were directly connected to Jesus' Apostles. In the Roman Catholic vision, all priests and most especially the Pope are sensual points of contact with the supernatural. "The Church" is Christ tangibly present on Earth. Through the sensual ritual of the daily Holy Mass, Christ is present "right now." Luther believed in the supernatural but not in the iconic Roman Pope or the Vatican bureaucracy.

Luther based his figurative decapitation of the papacy on an innovative "reformed" interpretation of the Religious Big Story. In short, he could not make his personal Story harmonize with the Pope's Big Story. He looked at the papal heartfelt action of selling indulgences and felt moral outrage, not filial devotion. However, Luther did not reject the Big Story, rather he translated it to what he felt was its original (scriptural) meaning. His was a brooding emotional breakdown and break-through. He felt the direct presence of God through Jesus Christ as he read and preached Scriptural Word.

Luther did not reject priestly authority, rather he redefined it and situated the priest as a guide and not a mediator. He revised the ecclesiastical structure, he did not abolish it. As Lutheranism developed, his followers continued to call themselves priests and to administer a religious bureaucracy. However, the Lutheran imagistic reform is that the individual, not the priest, is Christ present on Earth. From this perspective, Luther redefined just about every traditional Catholic image, ritual, institution and holy sacrament as a secular entity which could be discarded. This iconological tidying-up of the sacred space did not negatively impact contact with the sacred. Luther re-visioned the Christian Scriptures and saw that contact with Jesus is individual, direct, personal and intimate. He held that Jesus called each person to act as He did, and that each person had within them the ability to respond through a direct profession of faith. A Lutheran's personal Story was sourced in obedience to the moral convictions discovered through the act of faith, and not through an act of filial obedience to the Pope.

Luther's effort, from my vantage point, was a negative sensually holy act. Foremost was his massive sweeping away of iconic images and devotional practices which involved reverencing the lives of Saints. In doing so he removed the visual and tactile senses as a way of knowing the sacred. Luther initiated a de-sensualizing process which would eventually move other even more radical reformers to eliminate using sight, touch and taste to discern the presence of the holy. At first, he focused on removing a select number of false images and icons. He then removed relics and other statuary which were considered holy by the Catholics and whose possession or contact granted the believer indulgences. These were mainly of Saints. However, Luther still retained certain Catholic ways, notably, he retained a devotion to Mary, the Mother of God. For me, this illustrates that Luther would not have anticipated the broad removal and disregard of sensory images which came to mark the most radical sects of the Reformation.

Indulgences were obtained through donations. Each indulgence was quantified in terms of the number of suffering days in Purgatory from which the believer was freed, and each indulgence was usually linked to a relic, such as the bones of Saint Peter or a holy image. Luther felt that these were false images and icons which actually distracted the believer and prevented direct contact with God. Such direct contact, in Luther's eyes, did not have to be mediated by anything symbolic or priestly. Indeed, Luther was wary of most sensual pathways to the Divine. Rather, humans could directly contact the supernatural simply through an oral profession of faith. Faith is, so to speak, head to Head. From human mouth to Christ's divine ear. The individual needs only Christ, himself, as Head. Protestants began to remove all images from their sacred spaces, especially anything which reeked of Catholic iconography such as statues of the saints, relics and images of papal authority.

Luther further reduces the sensuality of the religious experience by eliminating all but two sacraments. Sacraments were sensual, ritual ways to connect with God. In the Roman Catholic church there had been seven. They were rituals relating to key life events. Baptism for newborns. Confirmation for young adults. Holy Matrimony for marriage. Extreme Unction for the dying. Confession for ongoing purification. Holy Eucharist for daily contact and communion with Jesus Christ. Holy Orders, a rite for ordaining priests. Luther kept Baptism and Holy Eucharist, not for their sensuality but because he found them to be scripturally based. I interpret Luther's initiation of the elimination of sensual holy acts as an historic first step in the development of Sacred Secularism. His reform is as much a seminal act of secularization as it is a religious reformation.

While maintaining an administrative bureaucracy which mimics the Vatican, Lutherans do not invest their group identity (their church organization) with Papal Infallibility nor claim that it is the Church, "One Holy, Roman and Apostolic." For Lutherans and other Protestants, the Church is present when the community or congregation of believers meets. Church is a "priesthood of all believers." In this light, Luther's reformation was also part of the Sacred Secularizing movement towards republican and democratic forms of authority. Similar to the separating movement which established America, Luther separates himself from certain traditional Religious Big Story beliefs and activities.

However, Luther, in stark contrast to the American form of separation, accepted a national Church. This is a church organization that exists within the boundaries of a sovereign nation. The head of state is often considered the ceremonial head of the national church, although the national church does not consider itself a state religion. The concept of national church or independent church normally applies to Christian denominations that have directly split from the Roman Catholic Church. I, however, question whether America did not form its own national Church, albeit, in secular guise.

The secularizing movement initiated by the beheading of the French King and rejection of the Roman Catholic Pope are seed to the flowering of Sacred Secularism in America.

# Chapter 73: Three American Sacred Secular spaces

The Quaker Meeting House

What is significant to me is that the Protestant reformation moved in this imagistically secularizing direction until gatherings of Christians occurred in absolutely plain meeting rooms devoid of any religious imagery or icons. The simplest gathering of one Christian sect, the Religious Society of Friends, also called Quakers, is a case in point. They are one of the sects of "Plain Folk" whose heartfelt moral actions are defined within a vision of Simple Living. They have no formal ministers and their gatherings are not at churches but at Meeting Houses which are purposefully devoid of sensual stimulation. For the Quakers, the Holy Spirit resides in the individual person, nowhere else.

For Friends, there are no sacred spaces in a traditional religious sense, rather, only the person is sacred. Along with a lack of sacred music, the stimulation of external senses through incense, song, scriptural readings, dance or ritual of any sort is not practiced. heirs is an internal, meditative practice wherein the person is the temple of the divine. They affirm "that of God in everyone."

Yet, this affirmation is also an affirmation of the person as secular citizen. The secularizing movement initiated by Luther ends in the Quaker removal of all and every sensually holy artifact, ending with only the individual person as both secular and sacred icon. Of note is that the Quakers are a sect impassioned with social justice fervor. Their witness to "that of god in everyone" compels them to "speak truth to power." Almost every major social justice movement in American history has been engaged by the Quakers. One of their defining heartfelt actions is to stand as a witness to truth through pacifistic, nonviolent action. Their detractors would say that social justice is the Quaker's religion, and that they are no longer a spiritual society.

However, I see the Quakers as a prime example of the Sacred Secularism vision. Their oddity is that they have totally separated from any traditional religious sense of holy space, sacred scripture, ordained religious authority and sacred sensory rituals. For them, the person is where the Sacred and the Secular meet.

The Crystal Cathedral

A more mainstream Protestant group which has erected an icon of Sacred Secularism is the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, California (Orange County). The Crystal Cathedral is a majestic tribute to the Sacred Secularizing movement. It sustains this secularizing movement by making the cathedral itself a peculiar icon of steel framed transparency. While claiming itself a "cathedral" and so positioning itself as a traditional sacred space, the walls are all clear glass. The intention is to show the connectedness between the World and the Church. It was dedicated "To the Glory of Man for the Greater Glory of God." Emotionally, the Crystal Cathedral violates the traditional religious feeling of being visually separated from the natural as there is no visual distance between the outside world of nature and the inside world of the supernatural. Of note, is that although you can see the secular world, all other sound and sensory distractions are eliminated.

To me, the Crystal Cathedral effectively creates the tension of Sacred Secularism which is sourced in a vision of separate but equal. It is a tension reflected in Jesus' saying, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's. And unto God the things that are God's." However, as transparent as the Crystal Cathedral's glass walls are, it is a muddled vision. For what then is Sacred and what Secular? It is virtually impossible to distinguish, visually. More, is the boundary between the Sacred and the Secular truly transparent? If clear delineation and demarcation is not set, how can they remain separate? In point of fact, the US Supreme Court continually struggles with clarifying this vision of separateness. The Crystal Cathedral represents how the American Religious Big Story believers struggle with the vision of Sacred Secular separateness from their side.

Washington DC's National Cathedral

The Crystal Cathedral is offset in iconography by the National Cathedral in Washington, DC which is, in both physical distance and symbolically, on the other edge of the country. The National Cathedral can be viewed as a transplanted European cathedral with all the traditional Catholic/Christian religious imagery. It offers itself as a National House of Prayer for All People.

In 1791, when Congress selected the site which became the capital of the United States, President George Washington commissioned Major Pierre l'Enfant to design an overall plan for the future seat of government. Included in l'Enfant's plan was a church, "intended for national purposes, such as public prayer, thanksgiving, funeral orations, etc., and assigned to the special use of no particular Sect or denomination, but equally open to all." http://www.cathedral.org/

On January 6, 1893, Congress granted a charter to the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation of the District of Columbia, allowing it to establish a cathedral and institutions of higher learning. Signed by President Benjamin Harrison, this charter was the birth certificate of the Washington National Cathedral.

After his consecration in 1896, the Rev. Dr. Henry Yates Satterlee, first Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, D.C., managed to secure land on Mount Saint Alban. This was considered the most commanding spot in the entire Washington, D.C. area. On September 29, 1907, the foundation stone was laid. President Theodore Roosevelt and the Bishop of London spoke to the crowd of ten thousand. The National Cathedral continues to be managed by the Episcopalian denomination.

On one hand, the National Cathedral is a national sacred space created by secular authority. On the other hand, the Crystal Cathedral is a quite secular space created by sacred authority. Finally, the Quaker plain space is both a sacred and secular space created by personal authority.

For me, these two cathedrals and the Quaker Meeting House reveal how the shift occurred within the Religious vision towards the Sacred Secular way of imagining what America is. Each moves away from traditional, robustly imaged sacred spaces towards the increasingly imageless secular spaces. At the same time, however, this movement is not matched by any sense of the loss of the authority of dominion of the Abrahamic Lone Male god.

The importance of understanding this secularizing of the sacred space is that a group such as the Quakers has developed to where its Meetings embrace believers in other Religious Big Stories, even Non-Sacred Secular atheists. It appears that one impact of the removal of visual imagery is the insight that to find God or the Divine all a human has to do is look at another person. This Quaker image of "that of God in everyone" is, as I interpret it, a working plank of America's vision and practice or Religious Tolerance.

In contrast, at the Crystal Cathedral, the removal of visual imagery, here notably making the walls transparent, is an attempt to claim that all that is "of the world," of Nature, and of the secular, is still the province of the divine. It is not so much that the Crystal Cathedral's vision is to let the outside world see inside the sacred space, but to claim that the sacred space is the only way to fully see and make one's way in the outside secular world. It is a cathedral which asserts by the icon of transparent glass that the secular is, indeed, a way religious people can see.

In their own way, all three sacred spaces converge to affirm that the secular exists as a religious way of seeing. Lastly, the National Cathedral is an affirmation that within the secular space of government (Washington, D.C.) a separate space can be created for a traditional sacred space replete with sacred images and rituals. All three illustrate the peculiar ways in which Americans practice their Sacred Secularism.

# Chapter 74: America as a Protestant sect of Civil Religion

My interpretation of America's formation through a sacred secularization movement is informed by what some scholars term America's "Civil Religion." This is an oxymoronic phrase which, however, is fitting. It captures the battling (and to some, baffling) Sacred-Secular, civil-religious tension which defines "America" as an imagination. There is no singularly accepted definition or interpretation of this Civil Religion. Rather, it is a concept which seeks to determine how and where sacred authority and power was transferred into secular institutions and values.

The difficulty in discussing America's Civil Religion is akin to the difficulty faced when I peer at Genesis and see the face of the Shade Mother in her most evil manifestation, and so feel the full emotion of the abusive sacred sexuality story which Genesis presents. Regardless of what I say, Abrahamic people will not peer and see the Shade Mother. Their brooding emotion taps into a fear which paralyzes and blinds them. In the same light, my statement that "America" is a Protestant sect, aptly termed a Civil Religion, is resisted by those whom I term Non-Sacred Secularist who fear seeing America as being in anyway religious. For if it is religious, and if it is a Protestant religious sect, then it participates in the Abrahamic Big Story and so must account for answering the Big Questions about Good and Evil. In doing so, consequently, America would have to address not just its Sunny Spot but as I found in Genesis, what lingers in its Shade. What is America's version of the Shade Mother?

Civil Religion

Civil Religion describes the areas where traditional religious language and ceremony is translated into secular language and ceremony. Since religious language and ceremony served, for millennia, as the medium for the West's civil development, e.g., the Pope ordained the Holy Roman Emperor, I anticipated that I would observe a continuity when the situation reverses in America. I found such a continuity but it was veiled.

The Founding Fathers, America's civil authority, formed a government but they used secular language and ceremony which obscured its religious heritage. I sense that they did not intentionally obscure this heritage, rather that this was an unintended consequence of the then widely popular acceptance of the Christian worldview, its assumption and values. Instead of mingling religious and civil language which was their inheritance, they separate it. They do not denigrate, trivialize or exile religious language and ceremony, rather they insert it within the secular language and ceremonies of the Republic and its democratic institutions. For, as with Washington's refusal to be King, America's Civil Religion secularizing act is one of separation, not annihilation. It is not a separation using an impermeable barrier. Hardly. The historic and ongoing contentions before the Supreme Court witness to the fact that the separation barrier is not a difference in kind but in degree. For it was a barrier accepted by both the Religionists and Secularist of the Revolutionary Era. The recurring question for me is, Into what institutions and with what new language and ceremony does the translation occur?

The Founding Fathers lived in a Biblical world as children of Abraham. While the Puritans in New England were the least secularized, what the Founders were separating from was an Abrahamic inheritance of Biblical language, imagery and ceremonies. The Civil Religion first emerged with scant concern that it was not Biblical. Few in the Constitutional Congress would contest that they lived in a Christian world, and that Christian beliefs and values were the basis for building a new society. Nor would they doubt that a divine agency moved the world. For them their secular work was part of Divine Providence.

The fundament of this Civil Religion is that America is a Chosen People, a Covenanted People, journeying through a Land of Promise. It is a land with a Frontier horizon both physical and spiritual, where Good meets, slays and conquers Evil. This is a Big Story with an account of origin revealing that it is a People constantly purified and purifying. One set upon a Manifest Destiny. A People set apart from "the Old World." A world deemed Old in parallel to St. Paul's New Testament Old Man/New Man imagery. Europe and all other cultures were judged Old, which meant Fallen, Lost, Depraved. The Abrahamic continuity is fairly obvious when discussing these concepts.

Civil Religion's sectarian tenets deny Biblical fundamentals

In reading the founding documents and the speeches of the Founders it is readily apparent that this Civil Religion has Biblical roots. Yet, what I hold is the most significant defining feature of the forming Protestant sect is the denial of key Biblical fundamentals which denial defines the fundamental beliefs and doctrines of the Civil Religion. This denial marks the translation of Biblical language and imagery into secularized forms. For example, doctrinally, Original Sin slowly gives way to a belief in the Perfectibility of Man. Culturally, America is everything "new." New England, New York, New Haven, New Jersey, and so forth. In brief, the Civil Religion discards any of the Shade concepts and dogmas of traditional Religion. As Moses took the Israelites through the Red Sea, so has the Biblical God purified and renewed his People by taking them across the Atlantic Ocean, where, however, they have achieved Saint Paul's claim that Christians are New Adams and have cast off the Old Man as well as the Old World, namely, the corrupt values of European society.

While Perfectibility is a secular concept, it is held with religious fervor. This denial of the Religious Shade, with the concomitant transfer of power from the clerical, sacred realm into the institutions and Rights of Democratic Society, defines the Civil Religion as a splinter sect of the broader Protestant movement.

In this vein, as a People, Americans are no longer, as the Abrahamic people were, unfaithful and in need of prophets to call them back to Righteousness. Rather, Americans have a Manifest Destiny, which is a companion belief to the British "White Man's Burden." Americans feel blessed and guided by Divine Providence. Although it is still voiced today— "America is a Christian nation"—it was more publicly proclaimed and a commonplace phrase heard throughout the country's first two centuries. Albeit, there is no national church, given the First Amendment's separation of Church and State.

What I see, as some scholars have, is that America itself is a national church, but in Sacred Secular form. Architecturally, this is exemplified by the Crystal Cathedral. The translation of specific Biblical language and imagery of the Chosen People into concepts of Manifest Destiny, Human Perfectibility and Divine Providence rewords and re-images the Abrahamic Big Story but sustains its Lone Male concept of dominion. The Republic through its democratic institutions exercises Adamic authority, in a pre-Fall manner. It is as if America is the Garden of Eden.

The denial of the Abrahamic concept of Original Sin explains why America Civil Religionists have no way to understand their own Evil, their Shade heartfelt acts. This provides insight into why America has yet to either name or ask forgiveness for its evil deeds. For example, for slavery, genocide against the Native Peoples, dropping the Atom Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and, recently, the unprecedented invasion of another country, namely, Iraq.

Sacrificial bloodshed

What is of great consequence to me in understanding the Sacred Secularism of the Civil Religion is a very subtle translation of a central heartfelt act of the Abrahamic tradition, that is, sacrificial bloodshed. In the Abrahamic tradition, Joshua is the first general who commits a massacre based upon the command of his god. (See, Joshua, Chapter 8). At the end, he annihilates the city. Then, he sacrifices to his god. Joshua's action is a template for genocide and ethnic cleansing. All of which is justified as a Crusade or Jihad.

In America, sacrificial bloodshed is no longer ritualized in a church or a temple. It is not a liturgical action performed on behalf of a religious group, rather it is transferred as a Right of the individual, of every citizen to shed blood, namely, through the exercising of his right to bear arms. This Right expands to gird not only the eventual establishment of a Standing Army (which the Amendment was first drawn to prevent) but to effect the transfer to each individual Citizen the clerical and priestly right and obligation to shed blood as Sacrifice. Through the Second Amendment, the Sacred Secular translation from being an Abrahamic religious warrior to being a Civil Religion warrior is effected.

The constitutional identity of citizens, male and female, is henceforth derived from being an armed warrior. It is a Right derived from the underlying obligation to serve the State. The translation of dominion perfected through this Amendment is that the State rather than the Church is the ultimate moral authority. Through this Amendment the Church is not just separated rather it is excluded from exercising any authority in terms of the declaration and conduct of war. Here, the Abrahamic mantle of Joshua is completely transferred to the State. Constitutionally, the only religious war that can be acceptably waged is an American War, which must be declared by Congress. In America the "Deus vult! ("God wills it!") of the Christian Crusades can only be uttered by the State ("America wills it!") Those who yield and adopt "The American Way of Life" are draped by a mantle of sanctity and an aura of inviolability as if they had entered the Abrahamic "Holy of Holies."

For me it is notable that every group which strives to obtain Equal Rights eventually discovers that it can only attain cultural acceptance by becoming a soldier warrior. American slaves were offered freedom if they joined the British army. For the Colonists, some achieved temporary battlefield freedom by serving as military substitutes for their Masters. Others earned their freedom after military service. In every generation, those on the outside of society, e.g., immigrants, illegal aliens, first time youthful criminals, etc., have found social acceptance if they completed military service.

Of greater insight for me is the emergence of the female warrior as woman soldier. While feminist Equal Rights were first articulated in political and economic terms and objectives, there was always a claim that "if women were in power" that the way males were running society and the world would be radically changed. It was forwarded that not only political power and social policies would begin to reflect a woman's values and concerns, but that society would move away from the testosterone charged male way of solving everything through war. The actual translation, however, occurred at a deeper level in the communal psyche and soul.

As with freed slaves, so freed women were only free to become soldier warriors. They were freed to act out their roles of dominion in new dress. They were not allowed to exercise their blackness or femininity except in Warrior's Quest mode. For me, this inevitable translation of freedoms into the restricted Lone Male masculine mode of being a Warrior's Quester is only understandable once the sacred sexuality character of Biblical Genesis is clarified. As long as women fulfill their roles as Eves, as derivatives of the Adamic male, then how they do this is just a matter of style. Liberated women, in the main, could have not acted in any other way. The only option open to them is the Big Story of Lone Male Dominion. There is no way within the Religious Big Story and its Secular and Scientism versions for anyone to claim a Right other than the Right to act as an Adamic male or his derivative.

Shedding blood is how the warrior achieves full identity. While "You shall not kill!" is an Abrahamic commandment, the Abrahamic tradition spawned warrior nations from Jerusalem to Mecca to Catholic Rome. I see a significant translation of the need to actually slay an enemy in cold blood into the spiritual acceptance of shedding blood as the act of forming identity in the story of Abraham's call to sacrifice his son Isaac. Although he did not slay Isaac, Abraham had accepted in his heart that to appease his God he would slay Isaac. What the Abrahamic God wants is for humans to live as Warrior's Questers in every phase of their life, not just at ritual moments of actual blood-shedding or on the battlefield. Rather, they are to live in their hearts as on the Warrior's Quest. This is what Abraham understood and modeled for his people.

For generations there has been an American myth of innocence which was applied to the People as a whole but especially to American women. They were esteemed as the keepers of the hearth and the source of virtue. Wars were seen, as they have been for millennia, as a male compulsion. Culturally, women were seen as pacifiers and the bearers of orderly and mannered society. Feminists would cite the apparent lack of a female goddess or the overwhelming maleness of Genesis to set themselves apart from this warrior madness. Yet, as I see the Shade Mother in Genesis, so have feminists failed to see the Shade Mother in the broad Warrior's Quest tradition but especially in America.

Once America is understood as a Protestant sect of Civil Religion character, the emergence of the female as Warrior's Quester is understood in terms of its historical and cultural roots. merican women have been the Shade Mothers who nurtured Warrior's Quest children. Today, the emergence of the Female Warrior as soldier is a fruit of that reality. To "be all you can be," as the US Army states, now applies equally to young females. And it means to be a soldier, a blood-shedder.

# Chapter 75: The rise of the Cleric-Citizen and divinely inspired institutions

During the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers spliced the Colonies' Puritan root with the Revolutionary root of Enlightenment Christianity. God, while still a Judge, became in character and practice, Benevolent. This Benevolent God of Love removed Himself from direct involvement in the political sphere, which was handed over to mankind, and He withdrew to a realm of inspiration and unrelenting faithfulness. These are influences of two 18th century theological movements: Deism and "Natural Theology" of William Paley and his ilk. Whereas laws in the Puritan theocratic society were seen as direct expressions of Biblical verses and commandments, in the New Democratic Society laws were direct expressions of the Will of the People as inspired by the Divine Commandments. In time, "In God We Trust" has come to stand to define—in largess and restriction—this relationship.

What happened during this rise of Democracy in religious terms? The Founders and Framers, although many were church-going Christians, when they acted in the political sphere felt that the institutions they were establishing were divinely inspired. They did not surrender the belief which for millennia anointed the King with Divine Right. Rather, they transferred that anointment to We, the People—and to themselves as the practical (utilitarian) instruments of God's Will. These deistic Enlightenment Christians, whose political values ruled the day even for those of Evangelical sway, were cautiously skeptical-to-atheistic concerning the supernatural, and consequently they had a very practical concept of revelation.

Traditional Abrahamic supernatural revelation posited a great divide between God the Father and His errant children. In rejecting this, these Founders asserted a veritable closeness to Divinity. It is a closeness in direction proportion to His distance from every day matters. The Creator had left the world like a tightly wound timepiece on the fireplace mantle. He was away since his children were of the Light, and directly revealed His will and intentions through their practical, everyday, mundane actions. For these freshly born "Americans," the "natural" was itself all that was claimed by the supernatural. For example, a sunset: rapturous and transcendental. The intricate accuracy of a multi-cog mechanical clock: unity so harmonious. The stark beauty of the Declaration of Independence: inspired word. The orderliness of the Constitution: fair and just. The purity, exacting and proportional measure of punishment and justice in the newly conceived penitentiary system: perfect balance. Each and all were sensate, visual, kick-the-wheels proofs of the intimate harmony between the Father and His children of Light.

For me the insight into the character of America's Civil Religion, to the formation of American identity through Warrior's Quest rituals, and the translation of the core vision of the Religious to the Sacred Secular Big Story is clearly shown through the history and formation of America's prison system. As stated before, America's prison system is a penitentiary. While it has conceptual antecedents in Europe and elsewhere, it was fully formed and implemented in America. The penitentiary is the only social institution successfully transplanted into European society and culture. As America's global dominance expanded so was the penitentiary system, in values and architecture, implanted in and copied by other societies.

Few cultural historians have analyzed and weighed America's penitentiary movement as an interpretive tool for understanding "America." None have examined it in terms of Civil Religion. I realize that I am presenting a most peculiar and challenging analysis and interpretation. I recognize that mine is an interpretation offered by the outsider, who actually saw all this—as few academics ever will—from the Inside.

# Chapter 76: Sacred Secular power of punishment

The Penitentiary

As noted, the rise of "America" took place during a period called the American Enlightenment. It was a time when ideas from many cultures were widely circulating. Multi-culturalism is a hallmark of American society and culture at every phase. Many forget that the Colonials spoke many tongues, and that an educated man of the day even knew how to work his way around a Greek, Latin or Hebrew text. Europeans had been sailing around the globe for centuries, and these former Europeans, now Americans, continued this trend. Often, because the Colonies were few in number and the population small in comparison to today, many forget that both Columbus' trip and the arrival of America's future founders was part of a globalization movement catalyzed to a great degree by the European mastery of the seas. The times were Revolutionary all throughout Western culture, not just among these British colonists. It was a time when the leaders self-consciously observed how Western culture had progressed in comparison to other cultures, and found the West, all in all, superior. Above all, the religion of the West, Christianity, was the crowning achievement and prime index of this superiority.

Today, a common observation is that the Founding Fathers were noble but not perfect. This, however, was not part of the popular history that was soon written to glorify, almost deify, the Founders. They were described as supremely confident in their appointed role in the unfolding of Divine Providence. Until a shift in post-World War II historiography, most American history books were more hagiography than critical biography. The imperfectability of the Founders was not part of the popular imagination, nor an interpretive tool of the classroom, until the social and intellectual upheavals of the 1960s. Although they strove to create a nation with Liberty and Justice for All, where people could engage in the pursuit of Happiness, the Founders were also Shady characters. Slavery, the disenfranchisement of women, the slaughter of the Native Peoples, etc., stand as a few examples of their Shade. The age was not as "enlightened" for these latter groups as it was for the dominant white male governing sector. The voices of these for whom it was more a "worst of times" than a "best of times" is still yet to become a tool for a radical re-interpretation of America's history. Regardless, when I look at their Sunny Spot, the noble ideas and ideals as well as the courage of those who fought the Revolution still make for an inspiring tale about human achievement. It was their day in the sun, their time to bask in a large Sunny Spot. In the main, their own self-reflection found that the Experiment in Democracy was Good, just as God had seen in Genesis, "And behold, it was very good."

As I grant to the historians of "the best of times" who have made much, over the first two centuries, about America's Sunny Spot, that is, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, Send me your poor ... so I peered America with Inside Sight. Now, as noted, since the 1960s, histories of some of those in the Shade have become mainstream academic topics. These include but are not limited to Blacks, women, Native Americans, gays, and Chinese. A "Peoples History" movement among scholars presents the times from the perspectives of laborers, farmers, and others who were not highly educated nor in the expanding elite sector. These histories have unveiled much that is in America's Shade.

No one, as far as I know, has written a convict's history of America, and I am not about to do that! Rather, my contribution stems from the fact that I wasn't supposed to discover the Inside Shade of America. By socio-economic status and standing, I was possibly to become a historian of the penitentiary, but one who wrote with academic "objectivity" and not with Inside Sight. It was not part of my career development plan, nor that of my monastic Masters, for me to end up Inside. Some would say that my having been Inside disqualifies me from making an objective analysis and interpretation, and that my claim for Inside Sight is a self-deluding fiction. I can accept that criticism, and it does cause me to weigh my words a bit more carefully. Yet, my personal fear is that I will not be as honest about what I've seen and experienced because of the biases of my white, male, middle-class and Classical education. I have to work equally as hard to avoid my own prejudices.

# Chapter 77: "Penitentiary" vision of "separate confinement"

When I first began to study the penitentiary, I thought that my dissertation research would be over quickly. The received text, based upon Alexis de Tocqueville's conversations with the Quaker Roberts Vaux, seemed to say that the whole vision and project was driven by the values and efforts of Philadelphia's leading Quakers. I anticipated that my research would be a simple narrative exposing and evaluating how this small but highly influential Protestant sect translated its theological notions and spiritual practices into a penological vision which served the rise of Democratic society and culture. I was led down this path due to an analysis and an almost verbatim account which populates the criminology textbooks for over one-hundred and fifty years. In the main the textbooks' historical account stated:

"The first idea of a reform in the American prisons belongs to a religious sect in Pennsylvania. The Quakers...had always protested against the barbarous laws which the colonies inherited from their mother country. In 1786, their voice succeeded...." (Alexis de Tocqueville, 1833)

"Few realize that America gave to the world the modern prison system. Fewer still know that it was chiefly the product of the humanity and ingenuity of American Quakers." (Harry Barnes and Elmer Teeters, New Horizons in Criminology, 1943)

So, my first approach to my research was with the intent of quickly writing an historical treatise and moving on in my academic profession. Two factors de-railed my fast-track plan. One, through reading primary Colonial and Revolutionary texts, I quickly found that this "The Quakers did it!" history was more legend than fact. It is readily evident from the records that The Pennsylvania Prison Society, (PPS) successor to the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons, was the voluntary organization which formulated the penitentiary vision. The PPS's records are continual from Revolutionary to present times. (See, http://www.prisonsociety.org)

Through reading the Minutes of the early Pennsylvania Prison Society, it became clear that the penitentiary was indeed a secular institution created by Secular men inspired by Christian values, and by Christian leaders inspired by Secular democratic ideals. Further, that these men saw the penitentiary in a sacramental perspective, and that they were comfortable with the State, here Pennsylvania's legislature, taking total control over corrections and the operations of the penitentiary. PPS' membership included ministers from every major Philadelphia denomination, Quaker leaders (who however do not have official ministers and consider each person to be a minister of the Gospel), and who were led, for forty-five years, by the Episcopal Bishop William White. Consequently, while the Quakers were involved, PPS' penal reform seemed best characterized as an ecumenical movement. Why, then, did history record the penitentiary as a product of "the ingenuity of American Quakers"?

Second, my research became quite complicated when the then most acclaimed histories of the Sixties which covered the rise of the penitentiary and other asylums ignored both the Revolutionary Era activity referenced by de Tocqueville, that is, 1786 and the influence of the PPS. Rather, these new histories began their accounts in the 1820s. These are the highly influential works of David J. Rothman, The Discovery of the Asylum (1971), and Michel Foucault, Madness and Civilization (1965). This omission continues to mark the prestigious The Oxford History of the Prison (1998) edited by Norval Morris and David J. Rothman. In the latter, the influence of the Quakers is oft cited, but it is of the English Quakers more than the Americans, and again of involvements which occurred after the visionary work of the PPS.

Right from the start, my research took a dramatic turn as I wondered why this history of the Inside was basically a story of misdirection both in fact and interpretation. The facts could be somewhat readily explained by assuming a set of academic presumptions which led to poor scholarship. Often academic "schools of thought" define their specialness by denying or omitting the contributions of previous schools of thought. Here, certain prominent American historians downplayed and/or omitted any religious influences on the formation of American Democracy. For me, the fact that such prominent historians "jumped over" the Revolutionary decades aroused a suspicion that it wasn't simply a disdain for certain facts of religious history. Rather, I sensed that what was being omitted had more to do with the interpretations of what America was, is, and can become, and that this was the issue at hand. In one sense, these academics started from a Secular stance because they didn't want to discover the full import of America's Shade. In fairness, I doubt if this reflects a self-conscious bias.

Right from the start then, I had a Shady experience of this founding institution of America's Shade. As the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution indicate how broad the Founders drew their Sunny Spot, so is the penitentiary an indicator of how broad they drew their Shady sport. All this led me to realize that "America" has never been correctly understood by its leading intellectuals. This bold statement is true since all but the very few have reflected upon the significance of the prison as the inner darkness of the Nation.

My interpretation could be accounted pure fancy except that, as noted before, the same men who met at the Constitutional Convention during the day met at night in one of several voluntary societies. These voluntary societies were as numerous as the social ills they sought to address, from how to care for the poor, the elderly, and fallen women to how to control freed slaves, the growing tide of immigrants, and the criminal element.

Next to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights has to be placed the documents of the Pennsylvania Prison Society. Its theory of "separate confinement" exquisitely matched the beauty of the noblest aspiration of the Founders. It was a vision fit for an Enlightened Age. As a model it approached human nature, the duties and obligations of society to the individual, the concept of public safety, and the value of a rehabilitated citizen to the common-wealth with a simplicity, elegance and harmony unmatched except by the Newtonian models its designers sought to emulate.

That this vision was lost before the first penitentiary building was built, namely, the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia in 1828, only serves as a fact which provides revelatory insight into why America is unable, today, to offer a vision for living on the Earth. Cynical voices will review what I describe and interpret and say that this "separate confinement' penitentiary idea quickly failed because it was as unsound as many of the "scientific beliefs" of the same Age have proven to be. Yet, I simply ask that this fact be reflected upon: that the penitentiary was and remains the only social institution transported and transplanted back to Europe, from where it has become the architectural model for prisons, worldwide. Of note is that Alexis de Tocqueville and Gustave de Beaumont came to America to write, "Reflections on the Penitentiary in America and its Application in France." They wrote this, published it, and de Tocqueville stayed to observe these peculiar people called Americans.

What is found by observing the failure of the separate confinement vision of the early penitentiary movement is a very odd to disturbing situation. The penitentiary was based upon separating criminal individuals from other inmates, so that individual reformation and rehabilitation could begin. When over-crowding led to the abandonment of the idea, and the notion of "solitary confinement" took hold, the single-cell architectural concept was not re-designed. The result was the start of the practice of warehousing inmates, which defines the practical effect of the prison system over the last several centuries. Prisons are no longer penitentiaries in that there is no effort to realize any penitential results, such as confession, repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation. These latter results were to be catalyzed by visits from the upright Christian leaders of the PPS.

The early separate confinement vision was people-centered, and it sought to create relationships. New relationships through which the inmate could build a new life once his time was up. Once the prisons became warehouses, as they remain today, inmates were digitized and handled like inventory. I know this in my soul. I have been "Lock up and Count!"ed and digitized as 8867-147. From a penitentiary vision which imagined that an individual could be reformed if attention were paid to him, Americans have created an Inside which is very Shady and where there is scant intent or attention to treating the individual, other than in keeping him/her alive at the barest level of sustenance.

The penitentiary vision was lost but the prison as warehouse "vision" prevailed. Others will call attention to the fact that the penitentiary/prison system quickly became the "social space," that is, the democratic institution in which the rejected, discarded, disabled, deformed, demented and damned were housed. Freed black, poor immigrants, fallen women, the unemployed, and war veterans are just some of the groups which have plodded through the prison grounds and its recidivistic revolving door since the first penitentiary, Eastern States Penitentiary, was opened in 1828. "...but everything remains the same."

The penitentiary/prison as democratic institution reveals the desolate Shade of America. The Inside is a place of desolation, abandonment and despair. Unhappily I have to state that I don't think that America will ever be able to handle its Shady Inside in any other fashion. Note, now I am stating that it is the religious community which has crippled and disabled American democracy from gaining insight into its Shady Inside. The same PPS ministers and Christians leaders who forged the penitentiary vision failed to grasp the import of their authorizing the Democratic State to assume total power and authority over the traditional ministerial tasks of confession, reconciliation and forgiveness.

In their defense, they acted with the best of intentions, and the crushing impact of immigration was an Unintended Consequence, as it remains today, of foreigners misunderstanding America's Sunny Spot. For many who came seeking "Streets paved with gold!" all they got was time Inside. More, the Civil Religion took deeper root as the American trait of rugged individualism meshed with the rising and relentless optimism soon captured by the phrase "Manifest Destiny." Americans of all stripes were on a mission to spread Big D democracy. In a time when the social and cultural Sunny Spot was deemed unbounded, who was to care for those locked in the Shady Inside?

As you seek to understand both how America is the "worst of times" for those Inside as it is your "best of times," consider that the penitentiary is an anchor institution of America's Civil Religion. And that it functions as a sacrament of this Civil Religion. It is a sacrament in that the sacred duties once reserved to clerics and religious ministers was being preserved but now as expressed through Democratic institutions crafted by citizens. Consider, as I do, that although without clerical garb, these PPS Americans were still clerics, but now each a cleric-citizen.

It is evident from the records, as noted, which are continual from Revolutionary to present times through the voluntary organization they formed, The Pennsylvania Prison Society, successor to the Philadelphia Society for Alleviating the Miseries of Public Prisons, that these cleric-citizens were comfortable with presenting themselves as the proper vehicle for this tremendous effort of designing the correctional structure of the democratic society. Comfortable, so it appears, because they were doing exactly the same thing, exercising the same sacral power, as they had previously done in pre-Revolutionary times as ministers and active Christians. For them, the moral, spiritual—and as it can be judged—Big Story task they undertook, they did so with ultimate confidence that they were so Chosen to do. Through their actions they revealed their comfort with being cleric-citizens.

Those who formed this foundational democratic system of justice and punishment were, in the main, clerics and active Christians. When they acted politically—wrote Memorials to the Legislature advocating the design and implementation of the penitentiary system—they dropped their clerical titles. At first, this seemed to be an insignificant gesture. But was it? I could find no other such moment in American or Western history in respect to a moment of nation building and the formation of government. Across societies and culture, Religious clergy always use their titles. They do so in societies where it expresses the secular power they wield, where church and state are mingled. It could be assumed that they would do it in America to readily express that they are separated from secular power. But these American clerics did not do so. Rather, they, apparently without a need to comment, simply put aside their sacred designations. Bishop William White, the Episcopal bishop of Diocese of Pennsylvania for forty-nine years (1787-1836) simply penned, "William White" on the Memorials the Society submitted to the legislature. Bishop White also served as Chaplain of the Continental Congress from 1777 to 1789, and then as Chaplain of the Senate, so everyone knew that "William White" was Bishop White.

Some have argued that it is more telling that the largest segment of members of the PPS listed their occupation as "merchant." This led these historians to interpret the penitentiary as being a response to the dynamic of a nascent capitalistic culture. They view the penitentiary as a response to the changing needs of labor, and as a system of social control in a rapidly expanding country. I value these latter insights when it comes to discussing why the penitentiary movement failed, and why it then became a system which built itself upon a denial of the penitentiary vision. This is discussed below. Actually, during the formative years of the PPS, a significant number of members were Quakers. These were merchants and they saw no conflict between being a merchant and a spiritual agent. Notably, Quakers have no ministers and each Friend sees her/himself as a minister of God, not formally ordained, of course. Quaker involvement in social reform was and is an expression of their faith. Every Early American social justice movement had a disproportionate number of Quaker members as compared to other denominations. For me, the other Christian members of the PPS were acting like Quakers in presenting themselves without religious identity, rather as cleric-citizens.

Typifying the easy transfer of both acts and terms from the religious to the secular was evidenced in that the punishment system was called a penitentiary, and that personal, moral and spiritual reformation was intentionally plotted and held to be inexorably effected by the terrorizing action of the offender's confessing conscience. Indeed, one of the foremost visionaries of the system, Benjamin Rush, referred to this confessionary institution as a "House of Terror."

"Let the avenue to this house be rendered difficult and gloomy by mountains and morasses. Let the doors be of iron, and let the grating, occasioned by opening and shutting them, be increased by an echo that shall deeply pierce the soul." Dr. Benjamin Rush, Quaker reformer, 1787

This is possibly the most radical and interpretively significant fact which I have unearthed. It is that the Enlightenment activists, like Rush, had an unshakable faith in their own abilities to rationally analyze and then fashion an institution which by the simple act central to its formation, here, the mere act of incarceration, achieved its goal. The formation was "separate confinement" and the goal was personal reformation caused by repentance. In this light, the penitentiary thinkers were scions of the medieval sacramental theologians. They were builders as inspired and awed as were the medieval cathedral architects.

# Chapter 78: Sin and crime

In this period, Sin was now not so much a crime—indeed, not the Big Story Original Crime of Edenic Sin—which everyone committed through Adam's act, as it was that crime was a personal sin. It was the criminals, the outlaws who became the secular scapegoats. They carried the weight of collective sin in their personal acts. It was not Society which needed to be reformed and punished as it was the individual. Only the individual is outlaw, not Society or the State.

The disestablished, separated American churches surrendered their spiritual authority to name sin and punish and forgive sinners. It quickly became tradition and culture in America to not call the Nation to a day of penance, as had the Puritans. For America cannot sin, only some of its bad-apple citizens who commit crimes sin. There are no National Sins. That is why America has not been able to hear the indictment from those it has oppressed and warred against.

As a Nation America is deaf to the cries for justice of the Native Americans, interned Japanese-Americans, women and the working poor who disproportionately serve time in prison. The call is for the individual to reform his/her way. Americans, as a corporate person—"We, the People"—know not how to confess or repent. The Evils Ones are outside of America or "Inside" as prison is termed and known, especially to the inmates, themselves. And Inside they are invisible.

Criminal redeemers

The penitentiary was a response, in part, to the Colonists' concern over public punishments. As in Europe, in Colonial Society criminals were publicly punished. They were lashed, placed in stocks, branded, tarred and feathered—if caught, Quakers in New England had their ears clipped. As was happening in Europe, public punishment produced an unintended consequence. The general public often became sympathetic to the chain gangs and inmate work crews. In a curious way, citizens were identifying with the convicts, and a great concern swept the West as to the proportionality of punishments. "Make the punishment fit the crime" was growing as public sentiment. Not infrequently, crowds turned from cheering when the convict was lashed, to cursing the officials who continued to inflict the punishment beyond what was deemed proportional.

The penitentiary vision was to place each convict in a separate cell. Historians call this the "separate confinement" approach. Every effort was taken to prevent one convict from seeing another. The practice of placing a hood over the head of the inmate when he entered and exited prison developed as part of the penitentiary discipline. In his separate cell the inmate had a small garden and only the Bible to read. Once a week the upright citizens of the Pennsylvania Prison Society visited the inmate to provide Christian and moral inspiration and fellowship. However, the linchpin to successful reform was the anticipation of an event which had the markings of a religious conversion.

The most influential school of philosophy during this period was the Scottish School of Common Sense. Among its views it held that humans are morally accountable for their actions. If this is true, they would argue, there must be within each person a moral faculty. This moral faculty is an essential feature of human nature. The PPS members were very realistic people. They did not have sentimental or idyllic notions about criminals. True to their Christian heritage they recognized moral depravity, but they also believed in reformation, repentance and salvation. As Benjamin Rush, M.D., a leading penitentiary theorist opined, the penitentiary should be a House of Terror, ideally, built on a hill overlooking a city or valley of villages. It should have humongous iron gates which when closed at night would clang with a deep sonorous and chilling screech which would resound throughout the area and which parents would use as an object lesson in scaring children to be virtuous.

The purpose of the Bible was to set the inmate thinking about his crime and about God's severe justice. He was to see himself eternally damned in the fires of Hell. Since this was the only book available to read, the weekly PPS visitors focused on using it for moral education. But these reformers did not believe that penitence could be produced by force or violence. Rather, like their Catholic kin, they understood that the inmate needed to come face to face with God. According to the Common Sense philosophy, conscience was an active faculty which could be awoken to its perfidy. It was a reflective agent which would turn accuser—an accuser from whom the inmate could not escape! Who knew his every thought, his every dodge. As a natural moral faculty his conscience would awaken the criminal to the presence of the moral light God had designed into human nature.

What was anticipated was that the criminal's own conscience would awaken him in the dark of the night and indict him. It was accepted that there was no terror like the internal terror of an accusing mind. So, there alone, separated, in the still of the darkened night, this conscience manifests first as a tiny dot of light but then it burst into a startling beam which spotlights the inmate. He has nowhere to run. There is no escape. All eyes are upon him, Divine and human. He hears the voice of God and the voice of society. As anticipated, fear and terror shakes his every bone. Since the inmate possessed common sense, it was inevitable that he would seek forgiveness, repent and seek advice about how to reform his life. Such was the common sense goal of the penitentiary.

I make a very peculiar claim about the penitentiary. Based upon historical research sifted through personal experiences of incarceration, I see prison as both a) a Civil Religion sacramental institution and b) the institution which reveals America's concept and valuation of what it means to be human.

# Chapter 79: Penitentiary as Civil Religion sacrament

The penitentiary is best understood as a Civil Religion sacrament. It is clear that the penitentiary was influenced by the Catholic tradition of penance and the confessional, and the broader Protestant Christian notion of confessing oneself a sinner before proclaiming Jesus as Savior. All that was necessary in the penitentiary was for the inmate to accept moral responsibility. There was no requirement for him to profess a religious conversion. Rather, most in the society of the times including the PPS members, especially those who were professional ministers, would anticipate that the released inmate would find a Christian group with which to continue his quest to understand the Bible. But there is more to the penitentiary than just affording the inmate this opportunity to read the Bible and be confronted by his conscience.

What I assert has to be grasped is the transfer of sacral power into democratic institutions. While the Revolutionary Era thinkers and leaders were beset by self-doubt, skepticism and a fear that they would ultimately fail, they demonstrated a character bolstered by an unflagging optimism which was grounded in the self-evident truth that God had constructed human nature with a moral faculty which when guided by sound Reason would make manifest His Providential Plan. As stated before, many of the founders of the PPS came to the table with ministerial powers. They knew that the Abrahamic god's Plan had unfolded through church structures. Now, they knew that it was unfolding through the Republic's democratic institutional structures.

In Catholic sacramental theology, the moral character of the priest who is hearing a confession is of no importance. He could be a murderer or rapist. Such would not prevent the sacramental act from happening because through the sacramental act God was made present and forgave the penitent. In like manner, the role of the PPS members as weekly visitors was of secondary importance. What was of essential importance was the design of the penitentiary. It was imperative that the inmate be separated, that he have his own space, and that he have access to God's word. With these conditions it was accepted that his moral reformation was inevitable. The penitentiary could not fail to reform.

The penitentiary and intimacy

There was a respect for the human person at the core of the penitentiary movement. More, there was an honoring of his intimate space. He was single-celled. He was unknown to other inmates. He was given respect as a moral equal by the prison administrators and the PPS members. It is not surprising that an early foreign visitor to America called the penitentiary a "divine institution."

As I see it, the penitentiary reveals the fundamental values of the Founders. They had a respect for the human person and honored the realm of intimacy while without flinching that they wanted to situate the offender in a terrifying and terroristic moral environment. Nevertheless, this penitentiary vision and heartfelt action soon vanished. All that was and remains till today is the penitentiary's architectural design.

For several decades the PPS petitioned the legislature to create a penitentiary designed around the single cell concept. When, in the 1820s, this came to fruition, the design was intact but the vision had been vanquished. What happened? Simply, overcrowding. Immigrants and freed slaves overwhelmed city and state correctional facilities. Inmates were celled in small groups and readily got to know each other. There was a countervailing correction vision termed "solitary confinement" which superseded the PPS' "separate confinement" vision. The first implementation of solitary confinement resulted in forty-five prisoners committing suicide. All that was left of the penitentiary was the cellular architectural design which persists to this day. Prisons became warehouses and Big Houses where a workable plan for reformation took second place to the practical needs of correctional administration. In short order, the lock-step and the lash—plus punishment in solitary confinement, The Hole—became fundamentals of "Doing time."

No coherent and useful correctional vision has arisen since the demise of the penitentiary movement. Yet, America continues to warehouse more inmates than any other advanced society. I have long pondered what insight into America can be gained by determining what the prison system does for American society, today.

# Chapter 80: Inside Sight: prisons reflect the soul of America

In the Early American penitentiary, certain Christian vices were administratively vanquished. The inmate had no access to liquor, bad companionship or sexual seduction. In the old prisons inmates had to provide for their own meals, could purchase liquor, were housed with miscreants of all ages and character, and could procure sexual services. Not too often the jailor provided these services or access to them for a fee. When the penitentiary reform took hold, one objective was to install prison guards and administrators of Christian character and good-standing in the community.

Once the penitentiary became the Big House, and the vision of solitary confinement with it associated corporal punishments won the day, the status and treatment of the criminal as a human varied greatly. The history from the 1820s to today is replete with cyclical calls for reform and a like cycle of a return to oppression and inmate abuse.

Although the penitentiary vision of separate confinement disappeared, what prisons do remains the same. Prisons are the institution in America where the core values of what it means to be a human person in America are institutionalized. Despite endless reports on recidivism and the failure of prisons to significantly impact the crime rate, Americans still believe that prisons work. Otherwise, I surmise, the penitentiary design would have long ago been ditched.

So, what does the penitentiary as warehouse, as School of Crime, and as an arena of violent punishment tell us about America as today's vision?

Separate confinement was a Sacred Secular vision. Today, the prisons are run by a completely Non-Sacred Secular vision. There is scant attention paid or commitment to reform or rehabilitation. "Doing time" is accepted as punishment, though there are cyclical calls to make prisons tougher, matched by cyclical calls to reform them when they become dens of corruption and brutality.

As I have experienced it, prison is an island of exile. Those in them are more abandoned by society then sentenced to punishment. The message which an inmate receives from the institution is that he/she is worthless, unloved, and a blight on society which, if America weren't so civilized, should be executed on the street corner.

Though it is clear that prison as an institution has always been a institution of social control, and one whose clients are the poor, the outsider, the immigrant, the economically dislocated and the under-educated, its primary purpose—it would seem reasonable to infer—is to forge an acceptable American citizen. This acceptable citizen is one who follows the prison dictum, "Do your own time."

In prison inmates form gangs for protection while at the same time they are ceaselessly counseled to not get involved with others. They are encouraged to break all former family and social binds. And here is the kicker for me, they are encouraged to find Salvation through Jesus. Yes, it is that blatant. While there are non-Christian ministers and counselors allowed in or on staff, the system advocates Christianity.

Prison Christianity calls the inmate to become a patriarchal warrior, but one who abides by society's rules. He is encouraged to resume his position as patriarch of a family, and so receive the rewards of obedience from women and children. As far-fetched as this might sound, it is consonant with my experiences.

Those inmates who do not follow this path of self-reformation find refuge in gangs. Without gang identity an individual is lost. He is hopelessly consigned to being gang raped and brutalized. Consequently, most inmates find a way to join a gang.

Contemporary prisons are wastelands. The inmates are the scapegoat dressed with the sins of society and cast out into the desert wilderness. They are not expected to return. In fact, inmates seek to become invisible once they leave prison. They do not want to return, so in most cases they go deeper into gang activity.

The fact that few prisoners die in prison is, for me, a perplexing characteristic of modern prisons. Clearly, just about everyone gets out. They return to society. They are not reformed, only made more hardened and more violent. Why is such a result of incarceration tolerated?

I see America as the Garden of Eden and prisons as the land East of Eden where Cain and his ilk reside. From this perspective, prisons, at a deep cultural level, validate the Religious Big Story as it is expressed in America as a Sacred Secular Big Story. To be American is to be Chosen, and to be Chosen means that someone must not be. To accept that Americans are not exiled but living in the Garden, someone has to be living in exile. To feel Saved, there must be someone who is clearly Not Saved, who like Cain bears a mark which, among other things, identifies him as a murderer.

America, as a vision, cannot exist without Prison, which is the unacknowledged Shadow. While Americans have acknowledged their genocide against the Native Americans, admitted to the injustice of interred Japanese-Americans, passed legislation for women suffrage, it has not repented and asked forgiveness for these same acts. To me, America as a Sacred Secular vision can never act, for it is a religious sect whose very definition is that it is free of Original Sin and its consequences. A core belief: America may have flaws, but it is Perfectible.

Yet, it is fair to ask, Is my perspective skewed by what they claim as the source for their insight, namely, I am an ex-con, to wit, of a violent felony? It is worth recalling the Charles Dickens quote which I previously cited. This famous British author made a visit, right after the first penitentiary opened, to the Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia. By this time, the solitary confinement movement was winning the day. What he peered and saw back then, so do I claim the prison system still reveals today.

As cited in Part 1, it is worth reviewing what Charles Dickens wrote, in 1842, in American Notes:

"In the outskirts, stands a great prison, called the Eastern Penitentiary: conducted on a plan peculiar to the state of Pennsylvania. The system here, is rigid, strict, and hopeless solitary confinement. I believe it, in its effects, to be cruel and wrong. In its intention, I am well convinced that it is kind, humane, and meant for reformation; but I am persuaded that those who devised this system of Prison Discipline, and those benevolent gentlemen who carry it into execution, do not know what it is that they are doing. I believe that very few men are capable of estimating the immense amount of torture and agony which this dreadful punishment, prolonged for years, inflicts upon the sufferers; and in guessing at it myself, and in reasoning from what I have seen written upon their faces, and what to my certain knowledge they feel within, I am only the more convinced that there is a depth of terrible endurance in it which none but the sufferers themselves can fathom, and which no man has a right to inflict upon his fellow-creature. I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain, to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body: and because its ghastly signs and tokens are not so palpable to the eye and sense of touch as scars upon the flesh; because its wounds are not upon the surface, and it extorts few cries that human ears can hear; therefore I the more denounce it, as a secret punishment which slumbering humanity is not roused up to stay. I hesitated once, debating with myself, whether, if I had the power of saying 'Yes' or 'No,' I would allow it to be tried in certain cases, where the terms of imprisonment were short; but now, I solemnly declare, that with no rewards or honours could I walk a happy man beneath the open sky by day, or lie me down upon my bed at night, with the consciousness that one human creature, for any length of time, no matter what, lay suffering this unknown punishment in his silent cell, and I the cause, or I consenting to it in the least degree." (Chapter 7)

My interpretation is significant because it uncovers the institutional structure of America's Shade, that is, the penitentiary prison system. Social critics can downplay the significance of the genocide against Native Americans, and/or the systematic destruction of the culture and lives of American slaves, and/or any other group which has been the victim of an American public policy of injustice as an aberration or the bad acts of a few rotten apples. They can then point to later American efforts to rectify these injustices (historical and ongoing) as an indication of America's Sunny Spot. They can shout, "Everyone's welcomed into America's Sunny Spot!" I, however, see this type of historical interpretation as an act of misdirection. Most American historians of note are, willingly or not, historians of America's Civil Religion. They, in the main, tell a Sacred Secular story which perpetuates America's belief in itself as a Chosen People who are guided by Divine Providence and living out a Manifest Destiny as they provide moral leadership for all peoples and nations.

I hold that when you grasp the role and function of the penitentiary prison system as part of the formation of the Revolutionary Democratic American vision, you then begin to understand the scope and character of America's Shade. Consider that the penitentiary was intended as, and remains, the Democratic institution which continues to oppress Native Americans, the Black and Afro-American populations, and all others who are judged criminal. Since Sandstone Federal Correctional Institute is the closest federal penitentiary to the major Native American reservations in the Midwest, as well as to the largest urban population of Native Americans in Minneapolis-St. Paul, it incarcerates the highest percentage of Native Americans in the country. This is so because all crimes on a Reservation are federal crimes. Iron Moccasin was just one of the many "State raised convicts" I met. His life-to-date was a story of Sandstone as a revolving door between the Rez and the White World. Statistically, the incredibly high percentage of young Black Afro-Americans who spend some time incarcerated is well documented. For me, I see the penitentiary as being Democracy's institutionalized Shade spot.

My Inside Sight reveals that Democracy requires that a segment of its population be incarcerated. Somehow "The System" doesn't work unless certain sectors of the population are imprisoned. Moreover, my personal experience Inside showed me that the prison-as-warehouse has no imagination or vision for the betterment of its citizens. Those Inside are truly exiled. There is no plan or desire for them to return to full and healthy citizenship. Prison in this light is an institution of Genesis' Shade Mother and Father who are abusive parents.

After reflecting upon prison as a Shade institution of Democracy, I realize why historians, theologians, cultural critics, etc., have avoided studying the prison system and/or using it to interpret Democracy. Simply, there is no place within the Civil Religion version of Democracy for an acknowledgement of the Shade. America imagines itself the Garden of Eden and its citizens (at least its Founders and governing citizens) as Adam before the Fall. To recognize the Shade is to acknowledge the Fall, and so to stand accountable for the Shade which We, the People possess.

If We, the People continue to be believers of the Civil Religion's theology, then We will always be involved in an Endless War against someone who is not-Chosen, that is, anyone who is non-American. This is so because if We do not recognize our Shade, then We will continued to be governed by it. For me, it was only when I owned my own violence that I understood and began to practice nonviolence. My Inside Sight keeps in front of me the depth and breadth of the Shade of my personal Story.

Globalization, at the moment, is substantially driven by forces which have created and which sustain America's Civil Religion. For many, globalization is a code word for "The American Way of Life." I hold that this does not have to be how globalization unfolds. However, to appreciate my analysis and interpretation, and to be prepared to assess the Earthfolk imagination and vision, the dynamics of the third Big Story, that of Scientism's, must also be grasped.

# Chapter 81: Summary

Most individuals mix elements of the three dominant Big Stories to form their personal Story. The Sacred Secular Big Story is best exemplified by analyzing and interpreting the development of "America." America was imagined during a period in Western history called The Enlightenment. A confluence of secularizing and newly formed religious concepts and movements occurred to give rise to the peculiar imagination which produced America. The beheading of the French monarch, Louis XVI and Martin Luther's symbolic beheading of the Roman Catholic Pope are two secularizing movements. Louis' decapitation is an icon of political secularization. Luther's disposal of religious imagery is an icon of religious secularization. Three American Sacred Secular spaces are the Quaker Meeting House, the Crystal Cathedral, and Washington, D.C.'s National Cathedral. Together they reflect both the movement towards secularization within the Religious Big Story, and the tension which exists, even architecturally, within America's Sacred Secularism vision.

"America" is a Protestant sect. It is what some scholars call a Civil Religion. This is a loosely defined sect which I see more concretely defined after examining the reasons for the rise of the penitentiary vision and practice. America's Civil Religion is defined by its denial of certain Abrahamic Biblical fundamentals. America's Civil Religion forwards beliefs that America is a Promised Land and a Chosen People. It, however, denies Original Sin and instead affirms Human Perfectibility. America's "history" is better described as a hagiographical chapter in God's plan of Divine Providence. Americans are to exercise Adamic dominion over any New Frontier which arises, nationally or globally.

The penitentiary vision was formulated by male participants in the Constitutional Convention. At night they met in discussion at the Pennsylvania Prison Society (PPS). They formed the Shade institution of the American Democratic vision. This was to be a "House of Terror," with the terrorizing agent being that of an individual inmates' conscience. The PPS members believed that "separate confinement" in a single cell with no outside contacts except those of the male PPS Visiting Committee and with only the Bible to read would inevitably, somewhat sacramentally, effect reformation. The religious shift which occurs is that the individual carries the Shade of society. Society has no Shade. It is the individual who is called to repent and reform. Whereas in the Abrahamic Biblical tradition the group, here the Chosen People, are called to repent and atone. This sense of corporate Shade was also part of the New England Puritan society. In stark contrast, the American penitentiary was envisioned as a "divine institution." The members of the PPS were, in effect, cleric-citizens who assisted in transferring to the Democratic State sole authority in handling matters of criminal justice.

The significance of the penitentiary is that it is Democracy's Shade institution. It initially became and remains the core institution which handles society's Shade people, e.g., Native Americans, slaves, young Afro-American males, immigrants, returning war veterans, etc. My Inside Sight reveals that when a society or an individual does not recognize and accept responsibility for their Shade then they are themselves governed by that Shade. In this light, America is doomed to be a society involved in an Endless War to exercise its dominion over some Shade people, that is, those assessed as non-Americans. Criminals are those who have lost or betrayed the American Way of Life. If they are reformed by their venture into Democracy's Shade then they become Democracy's Redeemers.

# Chapter 82: Non-Sacred Secularism

Non-Sacred Secularists would be pleased if the Religious Big Story totally vanished from the human imagination, especially the bastard concept of "Sacred Secularism." For them, the American notion of "separation" has always been and continues to be a strategic defense against Religious Oppression. "Separation of Church and State" is a necessary tactic in the campaign to obliterate the Religious Big Story. For these disciples of the Kingly beheaders, "secular" means the abolition of any religious idea or practice. For them atheism or agnosticism is an integral part of the secular vision. They hold that there is no such aspect of reality called the supernatural, the spiritual or the holy. For them a commonsense, practical approach is for humans to look at one another and admit, "We're all we've got!" When they articulate a morality or a code of ethics, instead of invoking Revelation and/or a set of religious absolutes as their source, they hold that a social morality can be developed sourced in a Secular Humanism.

Where the Religious Big Story sees humans as Fallen and life on earth as a punishment, Secular Humanists see humans with optimistic, even happy, eyes. Humans can choose to be good or evil. Humanists go with the view that most people seek to create a Good Society, and that it is self-evident that if everyone respects one another and works towards what is best for all that everyone will be happier. At their core, humanists look with steely eyes at human foibles, atrocities, and idiocies and say, "We can do better." Humanists trust in what they perceive Nature to have given humans, and one natural characteristic is human reasoning and creativity.

For humanists the creation of the Religious Big Story is an example of how human imagination can go astray. It is a Big Story which is a case study in how not to go about building the Earth. For them, there is a positive movement occurring within Evolution which indicates that humans can make and have made progress. Most Secular Humanists would attribute humanity's lack of progress towards truth to the obstruction of religious authorities and their inhuman moral code. At their best, Secular Humanists strive to live a life based upon harmonious relations among all peoples, the pursuit of the Common Good, and according to an ethic which creates a beautiful and pleasurable world. To wit, "Good people tend to do good, evil people tend to do evil, but for a good person to do evil that takes religion." (Steven Weinberg, physicist, posted at National Secular Society http://www.secularism.org.uk )

Secularism's roots

As a term "secularism" was used for the first time about 1846 by George Jacob Holyoake to denote "a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life. "More explicitly, he stated,

Secularism is that which seeks the development of the physical, moral, and intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point, as the immediate duty of life—which inculcates the practical sufficiency of natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism or the Bible—which selects as its method of procedure the promotion of human improvement by material means, and proposes these positive agreements as the common bond of union, to all who would regulate life by reason and ennoble it by service. (Principles of Secularism, 17)

And again, "Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable." http://www.newadvent.org

In the United States, the American Secular Union and Freethought Federation (ASUFF) (now defunct), stated its goal as the separation of Church and State so "that our entire political system shall be conducted and administered on a purely secular basis." (See, among other contemporary champions of the ASUFF tradition, the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/)

The Secular Big Story has no central authority or scripture. It has no traditional creed(s) or public institution(s) equivalent to a church, temple, mosque, sacred grove or holy space. There is no global secular authority such as the Vatican and its resident Pope. Although there is no central authority nor secular creed, several organizations have articulated their version of the secular vision. Among them are "The National Secular Society." http://www.secularism.org.uk The NSS publishes a list of "General Principles" which articulate what I have found to be shared by most self-identified secular groups.

The National Secular Society's General Principles

The National Secular Society's General Principles are as follows:

Secularism affirms that this life is the only one of which we have any knowledge and human effort should be directed wholly towards its improvement.

Affirming that morality is social in origin and application, Secularism aims at promoting the happiness and well-being of mankind. Secularism demands the complete separation of Church and State and the abolition of all privileges granted to religious organizations.

Secularism affirms that progress is possible only on the basis of equal freedom of speech and publication, and that the free criticism of institutions and ideas is essential to a civilized state.

It asserts that supernaturalism is based upon ignorance and assails it as the historic enemy of progress.

It seeks to spread education, to promote the fraternity of all peoples as a means of advancing universal peace to further common cultural interests and to develop the freedom and dignity of mankind.

To remove an impediment to these objectives, we demand the complete separation of Church and State and the abolition of all privileges granted to religious organizations.

In general, Secularists would value Scientism's Big Story's approach to knowing what is real and true. But accepting Scientism is not a requirement of the Secular Big Story. Rather, Non-Sacred Secularists focus on rejecting any notion of the supernatural or states of existence beyond the human. They state that what humans can know is only what we can sense, that is, reality is what is right in front of us. They have an optimistic sense of the future and hold that, given sufficient time, humans will figure out the answers to the basic problems of Life. This is an upbeat belief in the power of human reason to progressively improve the human condition. While they see corruption and evil in the world, they see such as sourced in human choice. They find no need to tell a fantastic tale such as in Genesis where humans are Fallen Sinners who continue to be plagued by a serpentine Devil. As noted in the following section on the Scientism Big Story, these views also resonate with many aspects of the Scientism Big Story vision.

# Chapter 83: Secular Humanism

For some Non-Sacred Secularists their sole concern is doing away with religious influences, especially in the public space and government. They focus, primarily, on legislation and law suits to achieve their objectives. Other—notably, not all—Non-Sacreds feel that it is equally important to develop a morality which provides secular answers to the Big Questions. These are called Secular Humanists.

According to the Council for Secular Humanism: http://www.secularhumanism.org

Secular humanists accept a world view or philosophy called naturalism, in which the physical laws of the universe are not superseded by non-material or supernatural entities such as demons, gods, or other "spiritual" beings outside the realm of the natural universe. Supernatural events such as miracles (in which physical laws are defied) and psi phenomena, such as ESP, telekinesis, etc., are not dismissed out of hand, but are viewed with a high degree of skepticism.

This is a movement of the late 20th Century originating in the 1970s. As the Council states, "Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles."

"A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children."

What has arisen to challenge all concepts of the Secular, and notions of a moral secular humanism, is the Internet.

# Chapter 84: The Internet as Non-Sacred Secular space

As prison is a Sacred Secular space, so is the Internet a Non-Sacred Secular space. Since the fall of atheistic communist Russia, a Non-Sacred Secularist has not had a purely secular space to meet where he/she would be unfettered by moral restrictions of the Religionists or even what some Secularists would call the bourgeois morality of Secular Humanists. (The speck of Cuban Communism appears irrelevant to me.) As stated before, "America" is a Secular space nurtured by a Sacred Secular vision of separateness. In America, the Non-Sacred Secularist, with a pure vision of no Religion (which includes not even wanting atheism), is always fighting for space in the public arena as well as the political. Inside America there is no purely secular space. "America" is only secular in a peculiarly sacred way, so it is impure.

Now, there is not only such a Non-Sacred Secular place, but it is a place of the stature of "America." The Internet is a Non-Sacred Secular vision which defines a range of heartfelt actions which, as I see it, has the potential to vanquish all other Big Stories, including the Sacred Secular Big Story of "America." The Internet stands to accomplish what the French Revolution failed to achieve in the political space, by establishing a special Secular space called "hyperspace" or "cyberspace" which will/can be inhabited not by a nation but by everyone worldwide.

Non-Sacreds will only fully grasp the dominion of Sacred Secularism expressed through its space, namely, "America," when they peer at and sit in silence with the Internet. They will see and grasp the extent and ferocity of American dominion as it struggles to exercise dominion over the Internet. This struggle for dominion in cyberspace will expose, for the pure Secularist, the extent to which "America" is a Protestant sect.

Presently, "America" as a power, a vision and a set of moral heartfelt actions dominates the globe. It has achieved this state of dominion which it assesses it rightly holds as the fulfillment of its Sacred Secular vision. Only the Internet holds the promise of being able to unseat "America" as a global presence and power.

I realize that this is a very peculiar perspective on the Internet. But it is the first truly pure Secular space created since the beheading of the French King. While that secular space was maintained, socially and politically, for a very brief span of historical time until Napoleon crowned himself Emperor of the French and King of Italy in 1804, the Internet provides Non-Sacred Secularism with the ability to redefine time and space. More, in redefining what a purely Secular "time" and "space" means, the Internet redefines what society, culture and market capitalism mean. Of note is that the Internet is a physically near-boundless and atemporal world. The Internet is Non-Sacred Secularism Triumphant. Clearly, in my view, the Internet is a driving force behind globalization. The question at hand is what type of Big Story will the Internet create, and based upon that Big Story what kind of personal Story can you and I create in the new globalized world?

"Ike" as Internet icon

The Internet was conceived as part of America's Cold War military defense strategy. General Dwight D. Eisenhower, when serving as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in World War II, saw the efficiency of the German autobahn when the Allies moved against Germany. As President, "Ike" had a prescient and sagacious vision. He stated, in 1955:

"Together, the united forces of our communication and transportation systems are dynamic elements in the very name we bear—United States. Without them, we would be a mere alliance of many separate parts."

At the same time as he authorized the concrete Federal Interstate Highway system, other military and academic researchers were working on the communications aspect of the same defensive strategy. They came up with the very non-concrete sphere of cyberspace. At the same time, jet travel shrank the globe, practically eliminating the restrictions of time zones, especially for business travelers and commerce. This was occurring at the same time that Teilhard's vision was maturing and beginning to have its impact on the forces which would convene Vatican Council II. Early on, at the birth of globalization, the Sacred and Non-Sacred Secular forces were developing in tandem to create what became the World Wide Web.

Internet roots

Understanding and reflecting upon both the historical facts and the symbolic character of many of the Internet's developmental phases and characteristics is useful for gaining insight into the peculiarities of the globalization movement. In some ways, globalization arose as America assembled all its great minds to solve the problems of what to do with the device which America created that had the potential to destroy all life, worldwide, namely the Atomic Bomb.

Physically, the Internet is a worldwide network of decentralized telecommunications systems and devices. There is no Central Administrator. No one owns the Internet. There are "open" organizations which have formed to set standards for smooth operations. Among them are The Internet Engineering Task Force (ITEF) http://www.ietf.org and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) http://www.icann.org

The Internet functions somewhat like language does for humans. All humans speak a language but there is no such thing as language. It exists through various vocalizations, signs and symbols. Language is a uniquely human experience, although communication is a shared aspect with other species. A new born baby is expected to speak someday. Parents do all types of things to evoke speech, but there is no one parental act or set of acts which enable the child to speak. When the child does speak—"Suzie said her first word, today!"—the parents are all excited about this marvel, which is quite pedestrian in that all normal children eventually speak. In this light, the Internet is called "virtual reality." But what is that? It is another oxymoronic phrase with a theological odor—the "spirit in the machine" image. I find "virtual reality" to stand in the communication tradition of such phrases as Virgin Birth and Sacred Secularity, while also conveying a mysteriousness akin to the incomprehensible Holy Trinity.

The Holy Trinity is "three-in-one." Common experience asks, Three gods or one? While Christians are told that the experience of Divinity is the experience of this triune God, and that such a belief is foundational to the dogmas and creeds of the Faith, few other than mystics are satisfied by the various attempted theological explanations. One version of a famous story relates how Saint Augustine, a seminal Christian theologian, was walking along the beach pondering the Holy Trinity. He came upon a boy who was pouring pail-full after pail-full of the ocean into a larger bucket. The bucket was filled to the brim and sloshing water out as quickly as the boy put more in. Saint Augustine said to the boy, "You can't fit the ocean into a bucket." The boy responded, "Neither can you fit the Trinity into your mind. The moral of the tale may be Just smile!

Internet history

As a project and as a hardware/software network the Internet began as a communications research project of the US Department of Defense. Its development was led by what Ike had espied, namely, the "military-industrial complex." Actually, this proved to be a "military-industrial-academic complex." During the 1990s as personal computers and corporate networking expanded off-the-charts, to most, the Internet seemed to appear as if out of nowhere. However, it hadn't. Here is a skeletal outline of its growth based on the "History of the Internet" at http://www.davesite.com

In response to the former Russian Soviet Union's (USSR) launch of the space satellite "Sputnik" in 1957, the ARPA/DARPA formed within the US Department of Defense (DoD). Its name switched back and forth over the years from the Advanced Research Projects Agency (1958 & 1993) to the Defense Research Projects Agency (1972 & 1996).

In 1962, Paul Baran of the RAND Corporation (a vest pocket shadow government agency), was commissioned by the U.S. Air Force to study how it could maintain command and control over its missiles and bombers after a nuclear attack. This was to be a military research network that could survive a nuclear strike. It had to be decentralized so that if any locations (cities) in the U.S. were attacked, the military could still have control of nuclear arms for a counter-attack. As a military project, the Internet designers sought ultimate flexibility, redundancy and decentralization in order to respond most effectively to a nuclear attack. If the computers were blown up on the East Coast, others in Texas or Guam or wherever else the military had secreted servers on the Net could continue to operate. It was a starfish like creature. The starfish, when partially cut up and thrown back into the water, regenerates into several new creatures. The objective was to create a self-healing and regenerative communications system.

Baran's finished document described several ways to accomplish this. His final proposal was a "packet switched network." Packet switching is the breaking down of data into datagrams or packets that are labeled to indicate the origin and the destination of the information and the forwarding of these packets from one computer to another computer until the information arrives at its final destination computer where it is reassembled into a whole datum. This is crucial to the realization of a computer network. If packets are lost at any given point, the message can be resent by the originator.

1968 ARPA awarded the ARPANET contract to BBN Technologies. BBN had selected a Honeywell minicomputer as the base on which they would build the switch. The physical network was constructed in 1969, linking four nodes: University of California at Los Angeles, SRI (in Stanford), University of California at Santa Barbara, and University of Utah. The network was wired together via 50 Kbps circuits.

1972 saw the first e-mail program created by Ray Tomlinson of BBN. The Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) was renamed The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (or DARPA).

ARPANET used the Network Control Protocol or NCP to transfer data. This allowed communications between hosts running on the same network. In 1973 development began on the protocol later to be called TCP/IP. It was developed by a group headed by Vinton Cerf from Stanford and Bob Kahn from DARPA. In 1974 Cerf is the first to use the term "Internet." The new TCP/IP protocol allows diverse computer networks to interconnect and communicate with each other.

In 1983 every machine connected to ARPANET uses TCP/IP. In 1986 the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is established as a technical forum. Developments progress in hardware and software, and from 1992 onward, notable advances are made in the creation of an Internet language called "hypertext" and "graphical user interfaces." These provide the language and easy-access-gateways for the general computer user.

Various organizations such as The Internet Society are formed on the open organization model to provide a modicum of standardization to guide Internet expansion. As the new millennium opened the Internet was expanding exponentially and dynamically, creating the global communication phenomenon from which emerges something only oxymoronic language can approach, namely, "Virtual Reality" and the "World-Wide-Web."

Virtual Reality

While my perspective on the Internet is peculiar, there is no accepted definition or interpretation of what "virtual reality" is. Here are several attempts at taming the beast.

From Cyberpunk at http://project. cyberpunk. ru/idb/virtualreality. html

Virtual Reality (VR), also known as artificial reality, artificial worlds, virtual worlds, virtualities, is a fully-immersive, absorbing, interactive experience of an alternate reality through the use of a computer structure in which a person perceives a synthetic (i.e., simulated) environment by means of special human-computer interface equipment and interacts with simulated objects in that environment as if they were real. Several persons can see one another and interact in a shared synthetic environment.

VR can be considered as a visual form of cyberspace. There are many definitional approaches to the term, several of which, according to the "Hacker's Jargon" at http://www.science.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/i/introduction.html include:

"cyberspace /si:'br-spays'/ /n./

Notional information-space loaded with visual cues and navigable with brain-computer interfaces called cyberspace decks. There are serious efforts to construct virtual reality interfaces using conventional devices such as glove sensors and binocular TV headsets. Few hackers are prepared to deny outright the possibility of a cyberspace someday evolving out of the network.

The metaphoric location of the mind of a person in hack mode. Some hackers report experiencing strong eidetic imagery when in hack mode. Independent reports from multiple sources suggest that there are common features to the experience. In particular, the dominant colors of this subjective cyberspace are often gray and silver, and the imagery often involves constellations of marching dots, elaborate shifting patterns of lines and angles, or moiré patterns."

Others have called cyberspace, "The mutual connective fabric of the conceptual universe. An encounter halfway between here and not-here (which) can be visual, acoustic, or conceptual." It is, "A community linked through electronic media, experimenting with new forms of social organization."

Still others claim that it is, "A new universe, a parallel universe created and sustained by the world's computers and communication lines. A world in which the global traffic of knowledge, secrets, measurements, indicators, entertainments, and alter-human agency takes on form: sights, sounds, presences never seen on the surface of the earth blossoming in a vast electronic night." (Michael Benedikt)

Clearly, Internet users are struggling to understand what cyberspace actually is. For me, the secular character of cyberspace is most telling.

Virtual Reality as Secular space's Inside

What is significant to me is that "Virtual Reality" is a secular space which is not restricted by national boundaries. It is not even global, in that global describes a physical measure. Virtual Reality has an interior dimension which exists nowhere else. In its interior—when "online"—information flows with minimal restrictions over secrecy, copyrights, privacy, etc. To establish a traditional legal framework, a legal specialty in Internet Law formed driven primarily by corporate concerns. Despite these legal efforts, and the moral chastisements of many cultural and religious leaders, such restrictions or legal rulings are quite difficult to enforce.

Simply, the Internet is an ever-evolving "something" both in its physical hardware character as well as in its software program. Here, the "program" is the online user. Users find themselves, when "online," transported to a purely secular interior space where there are no fixed identities or moral restrictions. Of significance is that this secular interior provides a novel space for the expression of human intimacy.

# Chapter 85: Online identity and intimacy

A human's identity is a way of expressing both interior character and personal intimacy. As a human identifies him/herself, so they give keys and images to other humans as to whom they "really are." They indicate to which groups they belong, from family to religious to political to socio-economic. Forming identity is so significant that there are many initiation rituals. From corporate orientations (becoming a "company man" or inculcating the "corporate culture") to religious initiation through the rite of Baptism, to educational organizational such as pledging a fraternity, and so forth.

People have multiple identities, but they are all part of the whole which conveys "The real me." As humans identify themselves in multiple ways other people form a concrete idea of the complexity of personal identity. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, which might include, for example, geographic identity—"I'm a Westerner. I live in America. I'm from New York. I live in SoHo." Employment identity—"I'm a government worker. I am an accountant. I work for the Department of Education." Religious identity—"I'm a Christian. In the Roman Catholic church. However, I am an "American Catholic," a dissenter from the Vatican's dogma. I am in the Catholic Worker tradition." Sexually—"I am a heterosexual. I have herpes. I use Viagra." And so forth. These are the multiple identities of one person which, taken together, "really identify" who that person is.

The individual on the Net is a node. A node can be a computer or some other access device. On a network, a node is a processing point. Every node has a unique network address, sometimes called a Data Link Control (DLC) address or Media Access Control (MAC) address. Most users connect to a LAN (local area network) either through a wired or wireless connection. There are various network protocols used to identify nodes. Most Net users are familiar with the TCP/IP protocol which assigns an IP address, such as 1.160.10.240, to their computer. From this perspective, the individual is his/her TCP/IP IP address. His/her IP address is his/her Web identity. Very few users, however, have what is called a "fixed IP address." Most are continuously supplied a temporary and random IP address each time they log-on. Simply, humans are fleeting address numbers on the Internet. (In the snail mail world, the Post Office wants you to stay in one place. In the online world it is more efficient for you to be always on the move.)

Cyberspace allows not just for numerous identities but for non-real and unreal virtual identities. In the offline world, the average person anticipates that at some point they will be called to be whom they say they are. Someday someone will ask for proof of identity in real time, face to face. It is then that all these multiple identities must form a coherent whole—"It's me!"—or else there is embarrassment, even possibly an indictment for fraud.

In striking contrast, Virtual Reality is in a peculiar world called "online." While the surfer is offline somewhere accessing the Net, it is his/her interiority which is surfing the Web. The surfer's individual identity can be endlessly redefined, moment to moment. As she/he clicks from website to website, chat room to chat room, instant message to email, so can his/her identity change. As a "virtual person" an individual can become anyone at anytime. They can expose who they "really" through providing offline images, or they can hide who they really are and present themselves through unreal identities, e.g., fanciful User Identities and/or fake images. They can switch from offline (real) to online (non-real) Internet IDs, endlessly. Although some web services, e.g., email groups, ask for real world identification information, there is generally no way for them to check this out. Of course, in the e-commerce world every effort is made to link hard data to the online identity. But few websites or other services have either the desire or staff to perform or enforce such a thorough security process. Groups, likewise, can be anonymous or masked or straightforward. Few ever expect to meet face to face with those they contact via the Net.

The Internet challenges the user to own her/his own real identity. Many find the opportunity to assume virtual identities to be playful. Being "online" is like being at a masquerade party. The user can have lots of fun challenging others to figure out who she/he is under a fantasy name such as greatlover@xyz.net or ohiogenius@rrz.net There is a proffered "cathartic playfulness" as Internet promise.

The Internet's "best of times" optimists see that it has broken through every physical border. That the Net has changed the world, creating the first cyber-citizens. These are people whose personal network is created and sustained by virtuality. The Net's impact on commerce led to a frenetic "dot com" boom in the 1990s, which, although it was judged a financial disaster by many, redefined how just about every business does business. Every business, from the Fortune 100 to the local pizzeria, could become global. Materials could be sourced from any supplier anywhere in the world, at anytime. The Net enabled the marketplace to operate 24/7/356. The Internet is always "online."

As with the inventors of the Atom Bomb, who forecasted that wars would end because no one would launch a self-annihilating nuclear war, so the developers of the Net often forecast that it will create generations of cyber-citizens who "Think locally, act globally" on just about every aspect of their personal and public life. For some, the Internet is the perfect globally accessible public space to "Sit down and works things out." They see much of history's tragedies as impacted by late or false or misinformation. For them, the immediacy and global "right now" to global information enables humans to make informed decisions which were impossible in the pre-Internet world.

The Internet has grown from the early days of simply sending text emails to being a portal which sends every type of communication. Videoconferencing, e-conferencing, Instant Messaging, image and photograph attachments, video e-mail to interfacing with cellular phones and TV broadcasts are now commonplace. Personal computer (PC) production software enables desktop editing and publishing of near-Hollywood quality multi-media programs.

For the Non-Sacred Secularist, cyberspace and the Internet create a space which neither the Religious nor the Sacred Secularist can pollute. Abrahamic dominion can never conquer the Internet. It is simply too non-patriarchal and non-hierarchal. It has "flattened" the world. True as this may be as the fulfillment of the Non-Sacred Secular vision, what range of heartfelt actions does the Internet afford?

# Chapter 86: The Internet's Shade

What is the dark side, the Shade of this luminous World-Wide-Web, the www-dot? I see the WWW as the ultimate secular space. It is truly global and can be accessed through a relatively simple computer connection which has become ubiquitous, especially with the advent of wireless PCs. Its space is virtual, and as such there is no central authority. There is no permanent "is" in the WWW. WWW's "is" is virtual. This means that "you", the physical individual, can be online from any location in the world. From this perspective, the WWW possess an uncontestable power of dominion. Yet, the exercise of this dominion lies in the hands of the individual user, not in some patriarchal or hierarchical authority figure such as Adam or the Lone Male God. The Internet user conjures up the Net and creates whatever reality she/he wants or can imagine.

The WWW is not anarchy. Rather, it is individuals exercising personal, even intimate, dominion. This dominion is the individual's ability to create himself in any image he wants. The Net surfer has no Baptismal name. No family surname. No street address. There is no "let us create in our image" of the gods. There is absolutely no "create in our image" reference. Rather, the individual creates solely according to his/her imagination.

Through the WWW the individual sees and present himself as he wants. For those who see the Net as a "worst of times," the Internet is the venue of trickery. It is a Fool's Adventure. For them, those who venture into cyberspace are like Alice In Wonderland. They caution that all that can be found in cyberspace is fakery, fraud, deception, betrayal and the rape of innocence. Indeed, the Net is almost all Shade. They caution that individual safety is best secured by being part of an identity group, and that when online there is no protection from those whose only motivation is to cause harm. Even your family, sitting in the next room watching TV, cannot protect you. Yet, for many Secularists who hold the "best of times" perspective, this exposure is worth the risk. There is more to be gained from the Internet than lost.

It is evident that what most judge to be pornography is the main "content" of websites. As sex sells advertising time on TV, so does it drive web revenues. The explicit nature of most sex websites is such that the average person would label them as pornographic. With Inside Sight this exposes the connections I've made between the Garden of Eden's valuation of intimacy and that of society's Inside, namely, prisons.

While there is a debate over the definition of pornography, I define it from an emotional perspective and in terms of intimacy. A pornographic act is one wherein you use or are used as if a sex toy. It is also one which does not truly seek intimacy, rather merely access to your private parts. There is no serious intent for what most people would call "relationship." A former Supreme Court Justice, Potter Stewart, tried to explain "hard-core" pornography or what is obscene by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced...[b]ut I know it when I see it...." My test is simpler, "You know it when you feel it." You know when you've been "used" as a sex toy. You know when you have not been loved and respected.

In the intimate moment you tap into a deep brooding emotion of belonging. You are flushed with feelings of tenderness, vulnerability, and belonging to another. Pornographic moments tap into feelings of aloneness, abandonment, and defensiveness. As to the latter, you feel invaded, often robbed.

# Chapter 87: Non-Sacred Secularism's Annihilation of the Goddess and the Feminine

As with the Religious so does the Secular Big Story seek to annihilate the goddess and the feminine. The Secular attitude towards Sensual Preciousness and sacred sexuality is brazenly evident in popular Western culture. Where Secularism lacks a high priest who can articulate their concept of secular space, it does have a Sensual Preciousness high priest in Hugh Hefner.

I see the secularization movement, when peered at, as heavily focused upon the control of sexuality, both individual sex and how sexual intimacy is experienced within the family. Communism had at its core so-called revolutionary notions about family and free sexuality. In this vein, the family unit still remains the control valve of post-Maoist China. In like manner did and does the Vatican continue to evangelize for its concepts of sexuality, intimacy and family. As I peer, it is in their shared views on Sensual Preciousness (that there is no such thing) and on sacred sexuality (that there is no such thing) where the Religious and the Secular Big Stories interconnect. For each, the female, the feminine, the Intimate Other is invisible. There are no goddesses except as they are subjects of penile domination. To read/see Playboy is to read/see Adam and Eve in the Garden.

"Playboy" is an apt phrase for the Secular self-image as sexual actor. Playboy sensuality certainly does not lead to preciousness and/or make present the Other's preciousness. Playboy's sexuality is certainly not sacred, and does not make present a Beloved. Rather sex is "doing it," which is a cast in terms of playing or of "just fooling around." Humans play with each other's body. In brief, men and women are sex toys each for the other. They engage in mutual masturbation, which is the ultimate pursuit of one's solely pleasured self.

In the Playboy sexual world, humans are simply genital playmates. Getting-off and coming are the ultimate and only objectives of sexual intercourse. Whether this is by oneself in masturbation or with others in group masturbation is not of issue. The stated personal goal is expressed in the phrase, "Was it good for you, too?" Meaning that "I have no idea what you were experiencing as I was pleasuring myself with your body." Pleasuring oneself is the objective, and if that happens to one's sex partner, all the better. But better not in the sense that one has transformed his/her lover into a Beloved, but that one has achieved mastery of the other's body and expertly masturbated them better than or at least equal to how they could do so alone.

Playboy's mutual masturbation sex toy activity is the very visual and explicit heartfelt action of the Warrior's Quester as sexual actor. If necessary, the Warrior's Quester engages in domination. Nothing should stand in his way. Sexual toys and other devices are accepted instruments, at times de rigeur. But Playboy also strives to present Warrior's Quest sex with a gentler hand of dominion. While she ("sex goddess," not Mother or Sensually Precious goddess) is lauded for her beauty of flesh, for the Playboy male, women are as invisible as are the pictorial monthly Playmates' natural but imperfectly airbrushed skin and reconstructed mammaries. While Playmates are just glossy paper-mates, what is termed "hard-copy," they have been re-born as "virtual" sex goddesses of the Internet. There, they are simply and always ready to stimulate, online or off-line, 24/7/365.

In like manner, Secular women see themselves as erotic stimulators. They dress without modesty. They are naked without blushing. They open themselves to as many males at one time as opportunity permits. To be penetrated by cocks at every orifice is ultimate testimony to one's fulfillment as sex goddess. I see these Secular women as Shade women like Eve.

There is a subtle but telling significance in the difference, as my Inside Sight discerns, between nudity and nakedness. Playboy's women are nude. Nudity is a posture of exposure. The Playmate shows "all," yet reveals nothing intimate. In Genesis Adam and Eve are nude until they eat the Apple. Then they experience a moment of intimacy, that is, they become aware that each is naked before the other. Nakedness is a relational term. Adam and Eve were "embarrassed" and sew aprons of fig leaves. Playmates are not naked. They prance around without blushing. They have no modesty and would find such a silliness. They are there to be used on the spot by anyone, male or female, for genital stimulation and pleasure. As we Earthfolk see it, nudity is sex in the Secular public space or public eye. Nudes may be termed "sex goddesses" but they express no creative intimate presence or spiritual power.

Since America is the homeland of the Playboy movement of Warrior's Quest sexuality, it is telling that most mainline American religious denominations and sects have moved into the Playboy camp. They have done so under the rubric of "Free Sex." Protestant groups have almost wholeheartedly subordinated their sexual morality to Hefner's notion of sexual "spirituality." Even the more self-proclaimed progressive denominations have mingled Playboy with strands of feminism and come up with a devaluation of marriage, sexual morality, and any notion of sensual preciousness. Priests, rabbis and Protestant ministers have surrendered their moral authority over sexual issues to Hugh Hefner. In brief, Playboy's non-Sacred Sexuality is source for both the Sacred Secularist and the Non-Sacred Secularist's personal Story. In like manner, a certain camp within the feminist movement deems pornography as a step forward in Liberation. I presume both groups consider Hugh Hefner as Secular icon.

As another icon of Secular sexuality, Las Vegas is the legacy of the Puritan "city on a hill." It is a city in the wilderness of the desert, a moral frontier where all vice is virtue. More telling is that Las Vegas, like the Internet, is a fundamentally virtual city. In it you find whatever you want, from the pyramids to castles to foreign cities and countries, all there but not there, at least not geographically or real-time. As with the Internet's ability to allow the user to live without interiority, to live with a virtual identity, in Las Vegas, so it is claimed, you can be whomever you want to be without any responsibility for your heartfelt actions ("What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.").

Roman Catholics and other more traditional religious groups maintain a vigilant watch over the decline of sexual morality, but unfortunately it is not a crusade driven by respect for the goddess or a veneration of female sensual preciousness or a spirituality of intimacy. Rather, it is a desire to keep women invisible and subordinated in more traditional ways and customs. In short, the Playboy trump of Protestant sexual morality plays the same hand for women as does the traditional Catholic cleric.

The Secular Big Story expresses the no-sacred sexuality values of Genesis, and taps into Genesis' brooding emotions of dreadful fear and miserableness. Both develop their sexual imaginative by interpreting how Adam and Eve related in the Garden. It is an interpretation sourced in the fear of the goddess, of the feminine, of the Other as Precious and Beloved.

Once again, I sit in silence with the Internet as Secular space. I ponder the fact that the vast majority of websites are linked to the sexual abuse of children and women. It is telling that the Net is dominated by pornography. In one sense, Hugh Hefner's fondest wish was fulfilled in that the Web is the ultimate virtual sexuality space. When online all types of masturbatory sexual stimulation are available. These are offered to anyone of any age, with access being simply limited to the knowledge and ability to logon.

The "best of times" rosy upside of the Net is that it can be used to communicate information other than sexual titillation. People can share information which can lead to intimate exchange and growth. But the consummation of such intimacy requires being off-line, back into the world of the five senses. Sacred sexuality rituals of Sensual Preciousness cannot make present the Beloved while online.

Despite the fact that "sacred sexuality" appeared, as a term and movement, on the Internet before it was listed in reference books and encyclopedias, the clear fact is that, at its core, it is a Secular space wherein the presence of the goddess and her Beloved are not.

# Chapter 88: Genesis as a Secular Story of atheism

Genesis is a "Death of God" story, here, Death of the Goddess. When you compare Genesis to other Creation Stories of its time of origin, the proclamation of monotheism can be justifiably identified as a secularizing movement. From the time of the many gods of "let us" forward to the Rib account, only one apparent God exist and it is a Lone Male. Monotheism and same-sex sacred sexuality are twin revelations. There is no Mother Goddess. Eve is yet to be created. Life, however, is Good—the Lone Males are in Paradise!

Although I claim the presence of the Shade Mother, the tradition does not. It transmits this Lone Male imagery. It also curses the family and the workplace. Reflect upon these last statements. Isn't it clear that Genesis is reducing the Sacred Sunny Spot down to ridiculous tininess? There is not only no other gods, there is no other Mother God. This is an Oneness of singularity which burst forth into an image of Secular atheism.

Genesis achieves what many modern Secularists seek. It de-sacralizes (makes unholy) women and the feminine. Also, it de-sacralizes family, in that there are no Mother and Father gods, and no children in the Garden. Clearly, also sexuality, as the Story asserts that there is no sacred sexuality, or even more peculiarly that there is only same-sex sacred sexuality, which latter phrase begs the meaning of the word "sexuality" in that there is no hint of relationship nor nary a scent of intimacy conveyed.

Then Genesis goes beyond Secularism in its claim that the Earth is not holy and must submit to human's Adamic dominion. Some Secularists would temper this by asserting the fact that humans and the Earth are inseparable notions and realities. While not claiming the Earth as sacred, they advocate a strong ecological ethic. Such an ecological ethic has no ground or root in Genesis. As I read Genesis, it does not matter what humans do to the Earth as they exercise dominion, for Earthly life is not real and true Life. Such remains for the post-death transit to the Pearly Gates.

Non-Sacred Secular thought, in my analysis, is a Sacred Secular concept. It states that everything which was once Religious is now Secular. It doesn't annihilate nor negate Religious power or authority, rather it usurps them. I find this usurpation principle to be validated in the penitentiary experiment where, as I have pointed out, the authority and power over criminal justice issues and practices is transferred, via the Pennsylvania Prison Society, from the Religious Big Story tradition to that of America's Sacred Secular Big Story. I find validation of my interpretation of Non-Sacred Secularism as a concept of Sacred Secularism in that, when the "separate confinement" penitentiary vision fails due to over-crowding, the transition to using prison as a human warehouse is seamless. Within the Sacred Secular vision of "America," then, is an Inside which is a Non-Sacred Secular space! The Sacred Secular Shade and that of the Non-Sacred Secular are one and the same. If you play this in reverse, the only reason this transfer could take place is that such a Secular Shady space is the Inside of Genesis, that is, the Garden of Eden. In the penitentiary, Religionist and Secularist tap into Genesis' defining Shady brooding emotion, that is, of miserableness.

My analysis also aids in explaining why Americans are so fanatical about certain of their claimed Secular characteristics, e.g., being a place where the Church and State are separated. In fact, as my Inside Sight observes in Genesis, the Church and State traditions in America share a common ground and root in the atheism of Genesis' Shade. To bring all the imagery together, the Civil Religion of America is a religion of atheism. The Civil Religion is not monotheistic. In fact, no specific god is proclaimed. The trite, "In god we trust" and "under god" phrases are humorous fillips to a Religious tradition whose Lone Male God is—Isn't it obvious?—an image of misdirection. In point of fact, in Genesis there is no god, "neither male nor female made we them!" True to the Religious tradition, the apt phrase "the Civil Religion of atheism" is wickedly oxymoronic.

# Chapter 89: Summary

Non-Sacred Secularism is what most people consider to be "secularism." Even those whom I term Sacred Secularists rail against "secularism." When they do so they mean Non-Sacred Secularism. The latter's defining characteristic is that it seeks to be non-Religious when it answers the Big Questions. Non-Sacred Secularist are, in the main, atheistic. They focus on "what is here now," "what is real," and, most often, "what can be validated scientifically." Notions of "common sense" and a "Common Good" are acceptable. There are various cross-over points with different types of Scientism Big Stories. For some, the Secular Big Story is itself a Scientism Big Story variant in that it starts, as scientific analysis does, with methodological doubt about any cause which is claimed to be not-natural or super-natural. While both camps of Secularism have no central authority, no scriptures and no creeds, various voluntary organizations have formed which articulate the particular principles of each Secularism camp. Among these is a movement called "Secular Humanism" which seeks to provide guidelines for dealing with ethical and moral issues.

Secular Humanism is the basis from which many Secularist form their personal Story. As three sacred spaces were identified which assist in understanding the tensions which exists within the concepts of and among the people who hold a Sacred Secularism, so the Internet is the space which provides insight into the peculiar characteristics of Non-Sacred Secularism. he Internet's Sunny Spot is an "online" world-wide-web which is accessible by anyone from anywhere at anytime through a computer connection. This WWW creates a virtual community which is truly global.

The Internet's Shade is reflected in the fact that most websites, website content, and revenues are created and driven by pornographic agents. In one sense, Hugh Hefner of Playboy is Secularism's no-sacred sexuality iconic High Priest. He acts out the same no-sacred sexuality presented in Genesis. As with Adam, Playboy sexual morality does not value the female, the feminine or the goddess. Females are simply fleshly sex-toys, to be used for momentary pleasure and then discarded (or, at least, rinsed off). Playboy's sexual morality is common to both the Non-Sacred and Sacred Secularism imagination.

While many social critics, from Charles Dickens forward, have bewailed the prison system as a failure, it continues to operate. It does so with the same single-cell format and the same focus on the individual which the "separate confinement" theory advanced. This is so despite the fact that the penitentiary movement broke down due to external forces, among them, the ever-rising tide of immigration, freed slaves migrating to urban areas, and the economic dislocation which is endemic to industrialization. Historically, from the moment the first "separate confinement" designed penitentiary was opened (1828), the penitentiary theory was long dead. Note, the architectural solution prevailed, but for centuries Americans have been flailing about trying to develop a social and organizational theory to integrate with this atavistic and anachronistic design. The prison continues to function as a warehouse for offending humans. It has no social or religious theory as its ground.

I was perplexed as to why prisons continued to operate, unless I realized that I had failed to identify the objective(s) achieved which count as "success." Instead of its being an anomaly, I see the prison-as-warehouse as providing a key insight into the brooding emotion into which the Secular Big Story taps. The insight I've obtained is that the Non-Sacred Secular is a form of Sacred Secularism. Its linkage was first exposed when the "separate confinement" theory failed as the warehousing theory succeeded. The linkage is only explicable by grasping both forms of Secularism's common ground in the Shade story of Genesis.

My conclusion is that the reason the transfer from sacred to secular dominion in terms of the power to correct and punish went so smoothly is that the Civil Religion which defines "America" is atheistic at its core. "America" professes neither a monotheistic god nor a panoply of polytheistic divinities. "In god we trust" and "under god" are humorous asides which cleverly misdirect Americans' attention. What Americans don't see is that as they celebrate their Civil Religion, they are making manifest themselves as a Sacred Secular People.

# Chapter 90: Secular Big Story's impact on a personal Story

My Roman Catholic understanding of Secularism

I never remember any Nun or other Catholic telling me that I was not a full-blooded American. American Catholics acted as if their Americanism was impeachable, though there were complaints that "we" weren't treated as such by "them," normally denoting Protestants. Occasional stories in the "secular media" pointed out that others had their doubts. My father was my example of how to be a good and dutiful American Catholic. He took me to a Church where the Stars and Stripes bookended the sanctuary with the Papal flag. We marched in the quintessential Catholic "Knights of Columbus" parade, just as we waved flags, blew off fire-crackers, ate BBQ hamburgers, etc., on the 4th of July. Dad spoke of his military service in a way which made going to war seem like a religious duty. Of course, "Nazism" was considered a demonic force, so the religious tone was easy to accept.

I knew that I would grow up and complete military service. This was never in question. I registered for the Draft while a novice monk, in full Franciscan robe. I completed my mandatory two years of ROTC while at St. John's University in Minnesota. In fact, I was in Army dress when another student said, quite off-handedly, "They just killed your Commander-in-Chief." While I anticipated that my professorial career would be at a Catholic school, I was open to the idea of a public school, if such beckoned. However, I never attended a public school until I entered the joint-doctoral program sponsored by the Graduate Theological Union and the University of California, Berkeley.

I have to admit that, for me, "secular" connoted "temptation." Usually, secular was used when referring to "secular morality," which was a code word for "sexual immorality." Hugh Hefner's Playboy empire brought Secularism to bed with American Catholicism. It is not a stretch to say that all American sexual morality, including all the Abrahamic sects, expresses Playboy's sexual imagination and morality. I, myself, altered my attitudes towards contraception, pre-marital sex, and same-sex sexuality along Playboy's line. This was before prison. After prison my Inside Sight clarified why Hefner, to steal St. Paul's image, is a Second Adam.

Vatican Council II, simply and dramatically, opened the doors to a rapprochement with the Secular Big Story. Clearly, I was a Sacred Secularist, in light of Teilhard's influence. But it was the Council which stated that I, and all laymen, were called to provide moral leadership in the "modern world." Since the Council Father's did not interpret Genesis as I do now, they did not anticipate how readily the Secular Big Story would consume chapters in my Religious Big Story. As I found the penitentiary movement to be a case study in discerning how traditional Religious authority, here over criminal justice matters, is transferred to Sacred Secular authority and institutions, so is the triumph of Hugh Hefner over Papal authority the case study relative to sexual morality and practices.

Prison takes me Inside myself

As quoted before, Fyodor Dostoyevsky stated that if you want to understand a society or culture, then look inside its prison. The same holds true for one's own imagination and personal Story. My Inside Sight exposed how much I was on the Warrior's Quest. I realized this primarily in terms of my sense of intimacy. I had gained insight into how I could only be nonviolent if I admitted and engaged my violence. But now the issue which prison presented was one of intimacy.

I accepted my identification as an "in-mate." I was mated to the Inside of America. I walked about the prison yard conscious of being an prisoner of conscience, both Inside America and the Church, but more so as an American Prisoner of War. Somehow, I wasn't a Catholic Radical in prison. I had left my Catholicism splayed on the courtroom floor. In prison, for the first time ever, I experienced myself as a Secular Man.

I tapped into the atheism which bridges Genesis and prison without realizing it. Prison was a totally non-holy, non-precious place. Prison delivered the Insight about the same-sex sacred sexuality of Genesis, and it is where I had to confront and accept the homoerotic theft of the Crucified Jesus as I heard the adorational groans and fervent pleas of his High Priests as they sucked and fucked their ways to mutual masturbatory frenzy and pleasured release under the first wave of darkness after Lights out!

If being Secular meant being an atheist who finds no one and no place holy, then when paroled I was a Secular Man. I had to accept that all I had previously considered holy, sacred, and precious was simply the result of some trickery. Either some self-deception or a deception effected by an imagination or a force more powerful than I.

I was also Secular Man in that I gave my allegiance to no one. I cared little about being an "American." I assumed the air of a global citizen so as to avoid caring about any nation's people, anywhere. My personal Story had nary a completed sentence.

Corporate Secularism

My life took a decidedly Secular and capitalistic turn in that I entered corporate America. I had married and had a six month old son when a 1979 tax reform measure in California, called "Proposition 13," deep-sixed my academic pursuit. At 35, no longer a theologian, academic, Catholic nor even a concerned citizen, I became a capitalist. I placed my foot on the lowest rung, that of being a door to door encyclopedia salesman. I rose rapidly to positions as a corporate senior sales and marketing and business development manager for small to medium size national companies and clients. I was in on the opening chapters of the computer, cellular and software industries.

I bought into the high flying energy of the commission sales world. I worked all the time building my organization. I described myself as entrepreneurial. I indulged all my competitive instincts and sought to dominate, yet I had learned that "people make profits," and so I leveraged all the skills I had learned as a teacher and anti-war community organizer into making others successful so as to achieve my own success. During the following three decades, I won national awards for personal sales and building highly productive sales organizations.

Then I joined a team of freelance Texas hot-shots who focused on turning around stalled start-up companies. This was the early 1980s and I quickly learned the Shady side of market capitalism. I met wheeler-dealers, high-rollers, and many, too many, "paper millionaires." I could survive following my own management style, but I often battled and lost with those whose Adamic dominion was a bit more pure and steely than mine. I walked the Warrior's Quest pathway but with a bit of a residual limp of nonviolence. Needless to say, the decades showed me how and why capitalists need to ceaselessly battle—for not to be engaged in a battle is to be simply dead! The role and rejuvenating effect on the Market Warrior of the seductive elixir provided by nightly engagements with Playboy "sexual warriors" was also quite evident.

I remained married for twenty-eight years. I co-parented two sons, and managed to live a bit above the middle class life style. In its own modest way, mine was a fairly typical chapter in living the American Way of Life. For most of my marriage, I lived in a small semi-rural town outside of San Diego. I was my sons' Youth League basketball coach, rabid booster during their high school years, and typical small town dad. My now former wife stayed at home during the boy's formative years, and returned to obtain her Masters and then begin her own career in higher education management. During these decades, the family did not attend church, and my sons grew up in a non-religious environment. Outsiders would label ours a secular family, although, of course, intellectually my sons grew to engage the concepts and values of my personal religious history and activities.

# Chapter 91: The Internet's secular space as atheistic hope

In 1983, while surfing the Secular realm of the Internet, I encountered websites and links to the world of sacred sexuality. At the time, this was not a phrase of common discourse nor of academic pursuit. As I explored these links, I began to encounter and engage those whom I now know as Earthfolk. I met them in Secular "virtual reality," a space in which I had become comfortably at-home.

Now, it was Secular space which launched the next phase of my journey which led to Sensual Preciousness. Secular space is, theoretically, unlimited. Unlike Sacred spaces, everyone is allowed in. There are no Chosen People, although there are elites of all sorts who keep trying to hog as much space as they can. Until the Internet, political power and identity determined if you could enter a Secular space. American Democracy, Russian Communism, Chinese Maoism each touted its secularity in terms of its tolerance and inclusiveness. Each stated that it was the champion of the little guy, and that in its society a fierce egalitarianism existed which enabled anyone to rise to the highest levels. However, politics has its creeds, sects and "holy wars" just as religions do, and so Secular space was never fully realized until the Internet bloomed.

For possibly what may be looked upon, at some future date, as a very "brief window," the Internet is not presently politically controlled. Nation states, notably Secular American and Secular China, are attempting to do so. This action, I'd argue, reveals the Sacred Secularism which grounds each of those national Big Stories. However, the point to be made is that while logged online, you can be whomever you want to be. Your identity is created by you. It is not limited by any offline realities, such as you genetic make-up, political affiliation, financial status, and so forth.

The creative opportunity, of course, is to tell the Truth or Lie. It is the moment back in the Garden when the Serpent approaches Eve. In like manner, the Internet approaches you. It offers insight into the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Internet is, in this vein, "that of the male which speaks to the female." It enables access to belief systems, Big Stories, personal Stories, moral systems, previously secret information ... via an almost endless array of websites which you can visit. On these you create your own personal reality. For virtuality enables you to expand the realm and reach of your personal presence as no other space ever has. Cyberspace is potentially unimaginable in respect to the boundaries of what you can imagine!

America—or any other nation, like Uganda or Peru—can never be truly Secular in that they do not offer unlimited access either to physical entry or personal imagination. There is a defined "American Way of Life." It may be judged to be Good or Evil, but the point is, is that it is a limited way. The same is true in Uganda or Peru. Only the Internet is global in terms of space. Again, in that regard, it affords you the opportunity to carve out a personal Story that shows how you image yourself and the Other to create a global community. Or, how you do just the contrary, that is, how you create a self-absorbed, fantasy world where your exist off somewhere in cyberspace in an isolation never before approached as to intensity. You no longer have personal presence, for you are lying to yourself about who you are as you become some fantastic cyber-character who taps into the world-wide-net in order to not-be. You achieve what the French existentialist philosopher Jean Paul Sartre discussed, namely, you are simultaneously Being and Nothingness.

This aspect of Non-Sacred Secularism holds out great hope for the development of the Internet as Secular space. If the Sacred Secularists find a way to cordon off and/or block access and/or own sectors of the WWW, then globalization will move in a decidedly retrograde fashion. The Internet holds out the possibility that a highly radical and revolutionary imagination will evolve to lead the forces of globalization in a direction where all peoples and all cultures will be honored and respected while cooperatively collaborating in developing a world-wide-web of the human heart. Here, I am expressing my atheistic hope that the gods and goddesses will return whose image we share. If this hope is realized, the personal presence of male and female will be, once again, fully manifest as it was before the Abrahamic Warrior's Quest was imagined in Genesis. If the globalizing forces which want to turn the Internet into a divided sub-set of Sacred Secular spaces is kept at bay, the Internet stands to serve as the cooperative and collaborating space for imagining a global community which taps into the brooding emotion of being comfortably at-home on the Living Earth.

The Internet's atheism can connect to that of the Garden of Eden, or it can give voice, once again to the "let us" polytheism of Genesis, Chapter 1. The choice, actually, is yours.

# Chapter 92: "Best of times, worst of times" and Sunny Spot and the Shade

The Secular Big Story is relatively new. As noted it is sourced in a stream of religious secularization of which Martin Luther is an icon, and in a stream of political secularization of which King Louis VI is an icon. As a moment of Revolution is a best of times for the revolutionaries and a worst of times for those in authority, so does the Secular Big Story, in both of its camp, possess that characteristic. Each camp also has its Sunny Spot and Shade.

While I place a root of the Secular Big Story in Genesis, in that at its imaginative core it is atheistic, it is more than a sub-story in the Religious Big Story. It is, as the formation of the penitentiary illustrates, a Big Story which holds the potential for imagining a society where all former aspects and practices of the Religious Big Story are translated and transferred into secular imagination and organizations. This potential will be realized by carefully examining the Sunny Spot and Shade of the Religious Big Story and then consciously using that insight for developing a Secular Big Story which is clearly aware of its own Sunny Spot and Shade dynamic.

I found that the reason the Religious Big Story has never been able to imagine a world without war is that, in its narrative, the Earth is totally in Shade. Earth is the Vale of Tears. It is where the Shade Parents, Mother and Father, make themselves present as Warrior's Quest parents. They abuse their children. They crucify them. They curse them. This way of imagining is, as I've claimed, sourced in the atheism which is at the core of Genesis. It is a monotheistic atheism. "I am the Lord they God, thou shalt have no strange gods before me.

This imagination has severely limited a person's ability to carve out a personal Story, restricting such to that of a Warrior's Quest personal Story. In this personal Story, in every moral arena two characteristic are prominent. First, that the individual has no personal moral responsibility, rather he must Obey and follow the authoritative commands of a priestly caste who claims special knowledge of God's revealed truths. Second, consequently, there is no way for an Abrahamic to develop a personal Story which makes presence nonviolence. Because, as stated before, nonviolence is a way of creating with your violence, and in the Abrahamic tradition the individual cannot own his own violence, rather a Substitute, here Jesus, must act in his stead. This type of atheism is also an a-humanism, since it does not believe in nor imagine a robust, sensually alive and world-creating humanity.

At the present, the Internet has quickly become the imaginative tool of the Warrior's Quest. The Internet's Secularism is currently steeped in the same imagination as found in the Garden. Yet, this dominance can be overcome. The Internet can blossom in atheistic hope if its Shade is recognized, and a re-imagining occurs which strives to expand the Internet's Sunny Spot. Here, the expansion includes the individual's right and ability to make himself globally present. For him to experience himself as a global citizen through the communication reach of the 24/7/365 network.

If this atheistic hope is realized—if as John Lennon imagined, "no religion too"—then the assessment made before that the Internet is currently disempowering folks will be overcome. But, at the risk of hammering a nail with a sledgehammer, let me call you once again to pay attention to the interplay of the Sunny Spot and the Shade. Unless each one is simultaneously identified and respected, the Warrior's Quest will continue to dominate the Secular Big Story. It is the Abrahamic denial of the Shade as a Sacred space which humans can enter that has resulted in all Abrahamics living life on Earth "virtually," that is, in exile. Jesus as the Christ is the prime example of this denial of the Shade as Christians are called to surrender and submit their lives to him. The claim that he, and only he, Saves (moves into the Shade and rescues the Captives) cripples the imagination because to effectively imagine requires creating with your insights and experiences drawn from your Sunny Spot and Shade. Odd as it may sound, a Non-Sacred Secular space is required for you to tap into the brooding emotions which will enable you to imagine a Big Story where you state in your personal Story that you are comfortably at-home here on the Living Earth.

I read this atheistic hope as a sub-text within one Vatican Council II citation:

Thus, little by little, a more universal form of human culture is developing, one which will promote and express the unity of the human race to the degree that it preserves the particular features of the different cultures.

# Chapter 93: Summary and Key Points

What I want to add to the Summary information presented at the end of Sections 2.B.2. a & b is that a careful look at the histories of the Religious Big Story and the Secular Big Story in its Non-Sacred and Sacred Secularism camps reveals not only imaginative and conceptual linkages and transfers of authority but, more tellingly, a common tapping into the brooding emotions which ground Genesis. These include feelings of abandonment, miserableness, and not feeling comfortably at-home on the Living Earth. The Religious and Secular Big Stories are both atheistic accounts which find the Earth to be not-holy and not precious. Each endows humans with dominion over the Earth. Neither can imagine a world without war or humans as other than on an heroic Warrior's Quest. Yet, this is Secularism as influenced by the Religious Big Story and expressed as Sacred Secularism.

In Non-Sacred Secularism, the Internet is the quintessential Secular Space in that its atheism has no godly Angels with Fiery Swords standing at the portal of the Garden of Eden. If the globalizing forces which want to turn the Internet into a divided sub-set of Sacred Secular spaces is kept at bay, the Internet stands to serve as the cooperative and collaborating space for imagining a global community which taps into the brooding emotion of being comfortably at-home on the Living Earth.

Key Points

Secular and Scientism Big Stories tap into brooding emotions of two shared iconic images which anchor globalization, namely, Atom Bomb Mushroom Cloud and Starship Earthfolk

Big Stories continuously re-played in versions on telecommunication public media networks

"Hollywood" develops both Sunny Side and Shade aspects of Big Stories

Secular's camps are "Sacred Secularism" and "Non-Sacred Secularism"

Viewer is being grounded in a "deep" Sacred Secular experience

A clear and significant translation of imagery between three Big Stories

A not so clear, quite subtle transference of Lone Male dominion as the basis of patriarchal authority

Background of my Secular Big Story

Raised in sectarian Roman Catholic school system

Irish side of family had a minority mentality, "less than full Americans"

Church outlasted many cultures and will outlast "America"

No problem balancing two allegiances

Stars and Stripes in sanctuary with Papal Flag

John F. Kennedy's election solidified "Proud to be an American!"

Vatican Council II's impact on my Secular Big Story

Addressed its message to "men of good will"

Global and multi-cultural message

"A new age in human history."

"... a more universal form of human culture is developing .... "

"... ever increasing number of people are raising the most basic questions ..."

"Thus we are witnesses of the birth of a new humanism, one in which man is defined first of all by his responsibility towards his brothers and towards history."

My analysis and interpretation of the Secular Big Story

Secular and Scientism Big Story often need to talk about the other, simultaneously

Well documented history of how Secular and Scientism evolved from Religious Big Story

Secular and Scientism are relatively new Big Stories

In answering Big Questions, most Secularists use scientific or Scientism explanations

One thing Secularists know, namely, that humans should not act as if they have a special or secret knowledge, that is, there is no Revelation from a divine source

"Secular Humanism" is a quest to develop a Secular ethic and morality

Sacred Secularism

"Sacred Secularism" best exemplified by the vision called "America"

Study of the penitentiary provides insight into how Religionists readily developed Secular institutions

"America" is a Protestant sect referred to by some scholars as a Civil Religion

Secularization icons are King Louis IV who was beheaded, and Martin Luther who symbolically beheaded the Pope

Both of the former changed the style, but not the substance, of patriarchal authority

Lone Male dominion is a root of Secular Big Story

Luther's "priesthood of all believers" and his removal of spiritual devices, e.g., relics, statutes, icons, and many rituals stressed that the individual is in direct contact with God in Jesus Christ through an act of faith

Luther is part of a de-sensualization trend

Quaker Meeting House, Crystal Cathedral, and National Cathedral, D.C., reflect the tensions within Sacred Secularism

"American Enlightenment" is characterized by Deism and a Natural Theology which makes God less personal

Universe is Reasonable and God is Benevolent

Prison is America's Inside and its Shade

Civil Religion's uniqueness lies in its denial of certain Biblical fundamentals, such as Original Sin

Civil Religion lack self-awareness of its Shade or its Inside

American are a covenanted and Chosen People with a Manifest Destiny which unfolds according to Divine Providence

Instead of Fallen, Americans are Perfectible

America is called "Christian America" although there is separation of Church and State

Civil Religion exists in this novel separation space

personal Story in Civil Religion is limited to expressions of the Warrior's Quest

Revolutionary Era Americans became "cleric-citizens" who formed "divinely inspired institutions," among which was the innovative penitentiary

Pennsylvania Prison Society members are inspired Christian ministers and leaders

"Separate confinement" and focus on transformation caused by an individual's conscience grounds the prison discipline which claims the Shade as existing in individuals but not within society or the State

Cannot understand how Democracy was seeded in genocidal blood until you grasp the role and function of the penitentiary as America's Inside and link to the brooding emotions of the Garden of Eden

Although "separate confinement" theory failed, the single-cell and focus on changing the individual's sense of intimacy continue in the subsequent prison mode of human warehousing

Charles Dickens' 1842 critique of the penitentiary inmate as a "Man Buried Alive" provide insight into history and current correctional practices and why the prison remains a sacrament of the Civil Religion

Non-Sacred Secularism

Secularism is a relatively new Big Story

Principles articulated by voluntary societies

Main defining characteristic is to claim that there is no Sacred anything, that is, no sacred space like heaven, no sacred person like Jesus, no sacred beings who are supernatural

"Good people tend to do good, evil people tend to do evil, but for a good person to do evil—that takes religion." (Steven Weinberg)

Morality is social in origin and application

This life is the only one of which we have any knowledge and human effort should be directed towards its improvement

"Secular Humanism" has a primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general

A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children

The Internet as Non-Sacred Secular Space

Not controlled by a central authority

Content not controlled

Access open to anyone with computer link

Accessible 24/7/365 from anywhere

"Virtual reality" is imaginative space where "you" can log-on with any identity

Internet roots in needs of post WWII "military-industrial complex"

"Cyberspace" is Secular Inside

World-Wide-Web during "best of times" empowers individuals to participate in new group-identity, that is, as a global citizen

WWW during "worst of time" is Trickster, notably, with pornographic mask

Evaluation of the Secular Big Story's impact on how a personal Story is written

No problem being an American Catholic although other forces saw "us" as "less than true Americans," e.g., Protestants

"secular" normally connoted "temptation"

"secular morality" normally translated as "sexual morality"

Hugh Hefner is Secularism's Sacred Sexuality High Priest

Playboy sexual morality is same as in Genesis: women are invisible, and sex-toys

Secularism is mainly atheistic

Linkage to atheism at core of Genesis

Became a corporate senior manager, lived the middle-class life style

Internet is Secular Space wherein author found "sacred sexuality" and first contacts with Earthfolk imagery

Internet is atheistic in that it is accessible to anyone with computer connection

Internet has no Angel with Flaming Sword at website portal

Certain "Sacred Secularism" globalizing forces want to cordon off, block access, and control website development

Internet offers opportunity to creatively imagine yourself as a global person and to find ways to collaboratively develop your personal presence in a world-wide-web of the human heart

If the globalizing forces which want to turn the Internet into a divided sub-set of Sacred Secular spaces is kept at bay, the Internet stands to serve as the cooperative and collaborating space for imagining a global community which taps into the brooding emotion of being comfortably at-home on the Living Earth

# Chapter 94: Scientism Big Story

Background of my Scientism Big Story

As to Scientism, it was a topic of my everyday life. My dad was a chemist with a broad Western Classical education. This was a bit unusual for his Catholic generation. Since Science was considered to have an atheistic philosophical core, most Catholics of his time shunned the moral temptation inherent in the training to become a scientist. However, Notre Dame was a leading university with a highly respected chemistry department, lead by Rev. Julius Nieuwland, C.S.C, who invented synthetic rubber (neoprene). My father graduated from there in 1932. He was on the wrestling team, which earned him a Yearbook tag of "width and wisdom go together." Also, as part of a Civil Engineering course he aided in the layout of the university's golf course. Upon graduation, he eagerly launched his career as staff in a commercial laboratory.

I was always aware of my father's work. He'd bring home small vials of the plastics he was developing. He was proud of what he did. Since dad was a man trained in the Western Classical tradition, he always positioned matters within an historical sweep of events and ideas. I'm sure, at some time, he pointed out the atheistic temptation of doing science, but in the main I grew up understanding that anything developed or discovered by human reason was simply a further manifestation of the majesty of creation and the unfathomable mystery of God's world. It was "God's world." Yet, to highlight the reality and import of the Catholic tradition's moral discomfort with the basic philosophical underpinnings of Science, I need to tell you about dad and how war impacted him.

After enlisting, after Pearl Harbor, dad was made a Lieutenant, j.g. He, almost immediately, was assigned to a base in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. My mother was greatly relieved to have her husband stateside. She had just delivered her third child, with her oldest daughter just turning four years old. Not long after his arrival at Oak Ridge, however, my dad calls to tell mom that he is being shipped to the South Pacific. What happened? In brief, dad learned that he was working on a weapon of mass destruction, namely, the Atomic Bomb. Oak Ridge was part of the Manhattan Project. As dedicated a conservative Republican citizen as he was, and as morally responsible as he remained, dad could not in conscience, as a Roman Catholic, work on a weapon which negated every premise of the "Just War" theory. (See, Part 1, Section D.) He never discussed this with me, and I only learned about it after his death in 1968 through some personal letters my mother shared with me as I prepared for trial in 1972. As happened, before he shipped out I appeared in my mother's womb. I was born while dad was at war and did not see him until I was almost two.

Intellectually, then, my upbringing prepared me to seek an accommodation, if not an integration, with the Secular and Scientism's Big Story. As I've presented in Part 1, my courtroom defense moved beyond accommodation and forwarded a defense that integrated all three Big Stories. My faithfulness to my Catholic Big Story required that my Secular Big Story's patriotism be phrased as I titled a post-trial memoir, "Patriotism Means Resistance." (See http://www.minnesota8.net/Trial-Documents.htm where this text is updated as "Outlaw or American Patriot?") This was an integration mediated by the Scientism Big Story inspired by Teilhard de Chardin. Yet, integration or accommodation...Whatever!... I lost all three as meaningful and useful Stories at the moment the judge declared that I was "irrelevant and immaterial," and demanded that I surrender five years of my life to satisfy the demands of American Justice.

Pause a minute here with me. My "Patriotism Means Resistance" stance was my personal Story which I carved out of the three dominant Big Stories. I imagined a "world without war." I tapped into a deep brooding emotion of peacefulness which resulted in my doing what you can, justly from your point of view, judge to be a criminal act. You might also call it the act of a desperate and/or demented and/or duped guy. But I must say this, I did speak to my times. I did act upon my beliefs. I did put my life in harm's way. I consciously spoke and acted ... yet, who could have expected what happened?

I didn't anticipate that my Stories and actions would be so nonchalantly disregarded and so callously dismissed with a judicial sleight-of-hand and judged "irrelevant and immaterial." I had not anticipated the amazing spiritual power which the System possessed to render me invisible. It was a truly miraculous act. There I stood, at one moment alive, articulate, passionate of heart ... and the next, an specter, a mute, so cold and dead of heart that my humanity was authoritatively and magisterially judged "irrelevant and immaterial." I entered prison a man without any Big Story and, consequently, no personal Story which made any sense to me or anyone else.

# Chapter 95: Vatican Council II's impact on my Scientism Big Story

Many Catholic and other critics of the Council cite that it was flawed in that it built upon the theology of Teilhard de Chardin. One Documents' paragraph even presents the image of "Christ, the Alpha and Omega." While Christ as the Alpha and Omega is found in Christian scripture, its use was a respectful and reverential nod towards the insights of Teilhard. His influence can also be read, once again, in the very optimistic statements about science. As I've mentioned, many Catholics like my father, had grown up fearing the temptation to their faith caused by engaging in scientific thinking because of its philosophically atheistic basis.

The Council's pattern persists. It situates its affirmation of scientific work within a call to recognize God's design and the individual's moral responsibilities. "...the Council wishes to speak to all men in order to illuminate the mystery of man and to cooperate in finding the solution to the outstanding problems of our time." God's design is one of "mystery," a term which implies that reality is basically unknowable by rational thought. This is a very traditional sentiment, that is, that rational man needs Divine Revelation to understand the world and the human situation. Yet, the quite dramatic and historic character of this sentence is that the Council is speaking to the scientific world to invite cooperation and work collaboratively to develop solutions to international problems! Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Nicolas Copernicus, Leonardo Da Vinci, Giordano Bruno, most certainly Teilhard, even Albert Einstein and surely most believing scientists were enthralled.

I cannot restrain the positive here, but as you will read in the section on "Sacred Scientism," what the Council is advancing is its traditional advice to the scientific community to listen to the Catholic Church's moral counsel. Non-believing scientists who read these passages might not be as charmed as I was. However, for me, all this "cooperation" talk was a green-light to engage Science's Sunny Spot and Shade.

For earthly matters and the concerns of faith derive from the same God. Indeed, whoever labors to penetrate the secrets of reality with a humble and steady mind, is, even unawares, being led by the hand of God, who holds all things in existence, and gives them their identity. (My emphasis.)

Consequently, we cannot but deplore certain habits of mind, sometimes found too among Christians, which do not sufficiently attend to the rightful independence of science.

In conclusion, however, I must honestly position the following short sentence.

"But when God is forgotten the creature itself grows unintelligible."

This is both proclamation and warning. It kept me focused on Teilhard's insight that all knowing is human knowing as well as the truth that scientists still face the temptation of Faust's Bargain and of the seduction of power manifest in the tale of Frankenstein.

# Chapter 96: My analysis and interpretation of the Scientism Big Story

The key connector between Scientism and Secularism is that most Secularists accept the scientific method as the proper rational tool for knowing and seeing the world and reality. Some Scientism advocates meld the Religious Big Story with their own, forming either a "Sixth Day" or a "Sacred Scientism Stewardship" story, but others reject Religion with the same disdain as do Secularists.

Instead of valuing common sense as the Secularists do, Scientism adherents apply the scientific method to obtain an understanding of what something is or what is happening. Since the scientific method properly works with exploring and ascertaining empirical data, there is no necessary theory or Story which emerges from its application. Scientism is the peering at and sitting in silence with empirical data and telling a Story which makes a whole narrative out of discrete parts. The Scientism Big Story has two camps, namely, a Sixth Day Scientism and a Stewardship Scientism. The latter position scientific data within a Religious or quasi-Religious Story. The Non-Sacred Scientism advocate finds no usefulness in traditional Religious stories. Scientism in hand with the Secular Big Story are the driving forces of globalization.

The gist of Scientism's Big Questions and Answers are as follows:

Where do humans come from?

Scientism looks at the fossil evidence gathered by evolutionary scientists and theorizes that everything which is present right now is here because of past physical and biological activity. Physical and biological activities describe the vision termed materialism. For Scientism, as with Secuarlism, there is no realm of experience, knowledge or existence other than what is right in front of us, what humans term "nature." Evolution describes a random process of mutation and natural selection which accounts for the development of complex structures and species from simpler structures and species. In this view, everything which is human is explainable by understanding humanity's material base. The categories others use to describe humanity, such as body, mind and spirit are, in essence, ways of talking about how the basic material of the life force has evolved. Scientism rejects any special Revealed knowledge or supernatural realms.

How did humans get here?

Scientists have discovered an Evolutionary Process which proceeds by randomness, mutation and natural selection. Neither scientists nor Scientism can point to the "missing link" which shows how organic life came from inorganic, or how self-critical rational thought arose from instinctual behavior. While Scientism values humanity for its distinctive and "evolved" characteristics, it notes that human life is just one option Evolution took. Although Scientism cannot answer all questions about how life evolved, e g., how the brain "thinks," Scientism is confident that humanity as a species will someday become extinct.

Where are humans going?

The short answer is, wherever evolution takes the human species. By all observation, this appears to be towards extinction, which is the fate of most biological entities. Entropy, Isaac Newton's Second Law of Thermodynamics, will win the day. A minority voice, basically from Quantum physicists, articulates a premise that the Earth is a self-sustaining, self-correcting biological unit. A few aver that it is a Living Earth. Others hypothesize that humanity is evolving to a novel state which we cannot, at present, identify. This is the result of looking at whole systems and/or working with a holistic methodology.

Why are humans here on Earth?

Evolutionary evidence does not speak to this question. Humans are here because they are here. For many this question is a search for an answer to, Are humans special? Some Scientism advocates, as would Secular Humanists, hold that humans can create a world of meaning, such as a Good Society or a State of Happiness. Some even believe that such is where Evolution (with a captial E) is going. But since evolution is a material process, one driven by randomness, and since everything is subject to the law of entropy, humanity as a species will eventually become extinct. In the meantime, so goes the hope, scientific research will enable humans to live a fuller "human" life.

When did humans first appear?

Consult the continually updated, latest findings of evolutionary scientists.

How are humans to act?

Evolutionary scientists hold that every species adapts in a strategy of survival. However, "survival" is not a conscious plan, rather it is more a "decision" made through the process of natural selection, which moreover is a process not knowable or accessible to human thought or manipulation. Scientism advocates join with the Secular Humanists in hoping that the inventions created by humans will truly enhance human life and be instruments of the species' long-term survival.

Why is there Evil in the world?

Pure, empirical science can provide little evidence for why humans act for Good or for Evil. At times in the history of science, experiments have been conducted to determine if there is a genetic or any biological explanation, predictor or "hint" for assessing whether someone will become Good or Evil. Such efforts have proved little that is conclusive or even hypothetically useful.

Evil is a particularly human description of certain actions, based upon their outcomes more than on their intent. Evil appears to be the result of individual actions. Meaning, that Evolution explains group phenomenon, and in that light the group cannot be described in terms of Good and Evil. Evolution proceeds by its own processes which are beyond human control.

Still others suggest that technology is not only an extension of biological processes, e.g., a shovel is an extended hand, but that technology-as-biology is the next stage in progressive and integral evolution. Here, bio-technology is not an appendage nor a replacement but an eventually higher state of human existence. From this perspective, technology will also provide resolutions to various Evils. This is especially notable in the futuristic musings about nascent cyber-technologies. The Future is forecasted as an existence where the causes of most evils will be resolved through benefits accrued from human biological integration with technology.

As with the Secular so the Scientism Big Story lacks a traditional scripture or central authority. More, it lacks even a professional organization which attempts to articulate its main principles. For some it is a sub-story of the Secular Big Story. However, I see it as a Big Story in its own right, and one that has cross-cultural influences where the Secular does not. It is possible to hold to the Secular Big Story without affirming Scientism and vice versa. However, both have developed from within the Religious Big Story.

Abrahamic roots

Historically, the scientific method arose in a world dominated by the Religious Big Story, notably of the Abrahamic tradition. During the early centuries Semitic and Western people looked to the Scriptures, in most instances the Holy Bible, for an explanation of the natural world. Certain astounding accounts, such as the sun standing-still over Jericho as Joshua laid seige, were accepted because they were in Scripture. People did not feel that anything in Scripture was false, although it was filled with God's mysterious ways.

More pointedly they did not feel that human knowing could in any way counter what was in the Bible, for it was Divinely Revealed. If it was in the Bible, then it was true, and the individual would just have to figure out how their senses were deceiving them. Moreover, since the human senses could not be trusted, the average person needed an intermediary to interpret the Bible. This intermediary, an anointed and ordained patriarchal male priest or prophet, was specially Called by God to study and interpet the meaning of His scriptures and laws.

Over time, the scientific method took hold as people began to assert, "I believe what I see!" And demanded as proof, "Show me!" This meant, to demonstrate a proof directly using the five senses. It would be a proof which did not need an intermediary to interpret. Rather, it is a proof which every human could interpret, and so a notion of common sense arose. "It just doesn't make sense!" became a challenge confronting those who held to the unerring character of the Religious Big Story. Culturally, at first, scientists had to justify why people should trust their senses, but in time it became the case that Religionists had to justify why people should not trust their senses.

Scientism's use of nonhuman models of interaction

The scientific community imposes upon itself a rigorous and focused discipline which is characterized by a healthy skepticism. It only claims to know something through sensory evidence. With scientists relying upon machines, the human senses, as noted before, have been enhanced and the scope and reach of their fields of sensation amazingly re-defined. Science now senses microscopically and macroscopically, reaching into the atom and scanning the edges of the cosmos.

The scientific method restricts itself to using observations, hypotheses and deductions to offer empirical explanations. It restricts itself to understanding reality and truth by testing only that which can be repeated and so evaluated by an independent third party. In this light, it is an ahistorical mode of observation. In contrast, history is the interpretation of non-repeatable events which occur once. Humorously, the scientific method enables time-travel by "going back" and repeating an event which happened in the past, but history does not. Providing an historical explanation, then, is always a matter of interpreting a one-time-only happening.

Scientism arose when thinkers began to model human interactions on the model of non-human interactions. In the first wave of Scientism, the scientific facts reflected upon were mainly those which were observable by the five senses. The physical world of early biology and astronomy supplied the most useful models. Intellectuals and others would say, "What if human society is like nonhuman society?" They would model human organization upon theories derived from watching bees or ants or animals in-the-wild ("state of Nature"). In time as the sciences became more mechanized and individuals could peer into the micro and the macro, the approach remained the same, namely, that the nonhuman observation or data was used to interpret either what human interactions or values are or should be.

Scientism holds that scientists can enter an objective, value-neutral space where the results of observation and interpretation can be universally expressed and applied. he essence of this scientific space is that it lacks any subjectivity, here, meaning an observation or interpretation tinted by individual emotions and so, by that tint, polluted and inapplicable to other than the individual observer. To achieve this state of objectivity, I hold that the scientist has to tap into a brooding emotion which nurtures detachment. It is an emotion which consciously seeks to discipline the senses in terms of moderating and modulating them so that they do not "interfere" with objective analysis and interpretation.

Scientism's lack of an authoritative definition

Scientism, like Secularism, is historically and culturally a recently minted word. It is a way of interpreting data produced by the scientific method to answer questions which cannot be answered by the scientific method. It theorizes and infers from empirical data answers to non-empirical questions. Those who hold to this Big Story, in whole or part, identify themselves as scientists or scientific thinkers, whether professional or amateur.

Lacking a professional association's definition, the Internet yields the following. "Scientism is a belief that scientific knowledge is the foundation of all wisdom and that, consequently, scientific argument should always be weighted more heavily than other forms of wisdom. Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science." http://www.wikipedia.org

Scientism emerges when scientists approach and interpret historical questions. It is an approach buoyed by a indefatigable optimism that "given enough time" solutions to Big Questions can be articulated with near-scientific, almost-empirical terminology and imagery. Scientism advocates are at once as eager to apply the scientific method and reasoning derived from a base of skepticism to the Big Questions as they are to patiently hold in abeyance an incomplete Big Answer until further research is conducted. I see Scientism as living in a world which has more questions than answers, Big and small. Scientism lives with a core tension between human senses and human imagination. In a phrase, Scientism doesn't want "enthusiasm to outstrip evaluation."

# Chapter 97: "Soft Sciences" and my "knowing through sensual immersion"

Scientism thinkers assert that Big Answers are best developed by starting with an empirical fact and carefully reasoning towards a hypothesis/theory. Since the Scientific Method does not handle non-repeatable events, the study of particularly human events, such as historical events and human behavior, are approached by methods of study informed by the scientific mindset. In time, there arose the "social sciences" which dealt with non-repeatable events approached by testing evidence as empirically as possible. These came to be called "soft sciences" in contrast to the rigorous "hard science" of the empirical approach.

Since human experience is an historical experience, I argue—against the increasing influence of the Secular and Scientism Big Stories—that only modest insights and gains are derived from the "social sciences" or from a scientific study of human life. This is so since so little of what makes a human "human" can be subjected to a repeatable scientific experience. Scientism approaches the human experience with the tools of intellectual analysis anchored in data obtain using the five senses. I approach the human experience with analytical tools of "sensual immersion" which is an discipline anchored in data obtained using the "five-senses-plus," that is, as interpreted by human emotions. As stated before, how humans feel determine how they think, although thinking reinforces feelings. Knowing using the discipline of "sensual immersion" is thinking with feeling, and feeling with thinking. In this light, Scientism's and my approach to knowing the world and humans is quite different. I hold that humans are known and understood through personal engagement and a sharing of their intimate presence. This is a non-sensical approach to the Scientism advocates.

In contrast to my skepticism about soft "social science," Scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth. For them, everything can be subjected to scientific scrutiny. As I see it, this is one critical and quite telling point where the Secular and the Scientism Big Stories intersect. Namely, that there are no boundaries to scientific exploration. As in the Secular Big Story, Scientism is atheistic in that there is no holy ground, no taboos, no area—human or non-human—which cannot be investigated, probed, dissected, analyzed, etc. For me, the Secularist and Scientism thinkers grant no absolute or fundamental right to anything human, such as the right to privacy or the inviolability of person, either physical or psychological.

Although all Scientisim advocates would argue for the superiority of the scientific method over any other way of knowing, there are camps within Scientism. As with my perspective on Secularism, I see two approaches to how Revealed and Scientism truths are interrelated. Since the scientific method, as did the secular perspective, developed and evolved within the Religious Big Story, like categories can be applied. There is a "Sacred Scientism" and a "Non-Sacred Scientism."

# Chapter 98: Sacred Scientism

Since the scientific revolution occurred as a chapter of the Religious Big Story, there is a tradition which reveres science as the Handmaid of Theology. Historically, just about every early scientist was a professed Catholic or Christian. They rapidly built upon the seminal work of Muslim scholars, their Abrahamic kin. Since, in these early centuries, to challenge the Religious Big Story was to court execution and/or invite the scrutiny of the Inquisition, the emphasis was on how science provides insight into God's amazing creation.

Since, today, the scientific method is respected as a sound and rational way of knowing, it is difficult to feel the dread and fear which plagued many early scientists. Galileo's plight is well known by many, but his invitation to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine to look through his telescope is an iconic moment. At that time Catholic theology held that the physical world manifested the nature of God. Consequently, when Galileo looked through his telescope and saw spots on the sun, what he saw was unbelievable—and so unimaginable—to many. Cardinal Bellarmine, an astute and encompassing intellect, however, refused to even look through the telescope. Why? Because he knew that it could not be true. God was perfect as was the Sun and to see spots on the sun was to see blemishes on the face of the divine. This fact, if real, would imply many things, including that God was imperfect, which was theologically impossible. For the esteemed Cardinal, if he did look and if he did see sun spots, he would know that it was the work of the Devil. He lived in a world of fear where demonic temptation to sin was of greater weight than the data capture of the then faddish scientific experiment. The Cardinal tapped in the Religious Big Story's brooding emotion of miserableness.

Cardinal Bellarmine would not eschew the scientific method. Rather he would judge it irrelevant based upon his understanding, derived from the account of Creation in Genesis, that "God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." (Genesis 1:31) The study of Nature could not and does not contradict the Religious Big Story. Only human ignorance and pride prevents people from seeing God's Hand in everything natural.

Sacred Scientism draws upon Aristotle and the use of his philosophical method by various Catholic theologians, notably Saint Anselm and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Their approach is captured in the phrase "fides quaerens intellectum"—"faith seeking understanding." This expresses not only a mental discipline but an emotional state. For the Sacred Scientism advocate feels that God is in control of the world. The world is part of the Kingdom of God. True to the Religious Big Story, humans are fallen creatures and life on Earth is a miserable existence, consequently, God's Judgment is to be feared. Yet, inside that fear is a deep feeling that all is right with the world, if only humans could better understood God's mysterious ways. This optimism is grounded in God's mysteriousness. It is not an optimism, however, which vanquishes an Abrahamic's spiritual fear and dread.

The consolation for Sacred Scientism is that there is a Divine Design. One that can be known through the human intellect for it is an Intelligent Design. This is accompanied by the concept of Divine Providence which states that God has a Plan for humanity, even though the individual or even the Church may not see it clearly. In this tradition, to gaze upon Nature—with a hoe or a microscope or the Hubble telescope or a Bubble Chamber—is to see endlessly amazing displays of God's unfathomable Wisdom and Beauty. As such, Nature is simply ever amazing. Ever revealing more and more of the Divine mystery.

Within the Sacred Scientism camp there are scientists who, scions of Cardinal Bellarmine, conduct scientific research and develop applications and who hold that scientific knowledge can hardly ever, and even at its best only minimally, assist in answering a Big Question. They accept the scientific method as restrictively applicable in the empirical realm. Since humans cannot time-travel, and since scientists can only conduct an experiment in the fleeting moment called "Now," science cannot and should not attempt to answer Who, What, When, Where?, etc. They judge such attempts to be fanciful and attractive intelligent guesses at best, and a pure mumbo-jumbo of science fiction at worst.

Yet, even within Sacred Scientism there are two distinct camps. One is the "The Sixth Day" camp, and the other the "Stewardship" camp.

The Sixth Day Sacred Scientism

The Sixth Day camp accepts scientific data on its own terms, that is, that it is true to the senses, that it is empirical data. But they will admit little else about what empirical data says. They accept empiricism while holding fast to the Religious Big Story which subordinates all scientific data to Revealed truth. They accept a tension between empirical and Revealed data, but this is only reflective of their broader acceptance that they are "in the world, but not of the world." Yet, it is important to realize that they do not doubt nor deny scientific facts and truths, as would an adherent to the Religious Big Story (a Creationist). In this light, when scientists forward a theory to explain their data, these Sixth Day advocates are less accepting. For them, scientific theory is by definition a reasoning process, aided at times by non-empirical acts of rational deduction and/or induction. Such induction/deduction is seen as a shade above guess work.

The Sixth Dayers, for example, hold that there is scientific evidence confirming a rise in temperature in the seas and that there are dangerous forms of pollution, but they reject the theoretical interpretation of global warming. For them, global warming is what scientists can only see when they use the scientific method and employ reason. They hold that when scientists only look for empirical or reasonable data and interpretation, then that's what they get. Their view is to trust in the Scriptural Word when it comes to dealing with non-empirical data. So when God said on The Sixth Day, "It is very good," He meant that creation is excellent. They hold that, through the dominion over nature granted to Adam, the world is working as it should, if only all their fellow Scientismists could see properly.

The Sixth Dayers accept both the natural and supernatural world. But it is only the supernatural world, through Revelation, which can provide insight into human nature and to humanity's future. The natural world will end, that is, all time will end in a apocalyptic event.

As exiles living in fear and dread of their judging God, The Sixth Dayers follow the Warrior's Quest. For them Life itself is the battleground between Good and Evil, God and Satan, and in respect to knoweldge, the quest to shed Light on Darkness, to discover Truth to dispel Error. All this aligns with the Warrior's Quest drive to express dominion over all. In contrast to the other Scientism camps, The Sixth Dayers do not question Lone Male dominion or patriarchal authority.

The Sixth Day camp is in ascendancy in America. This version of Sacred Scientism is often a companion view to that of the Sacred Secularists.

Sixth Day Scientism Big Answers

Where do humans come from?

The Garden of Eden

Humans are souls

The Body is dust

Evolution is part of Deity's Design but not overly important because

Nature will disappear through an Apocalyptic Event

How did humans get here?

Created by Abrahamic God

Creation is "good" and excellent

Genesis' "The Rib" is primary account of human creation

Where are humans going?

Heaven

Why are humans on Earth?

To serve God in this life and the next

Manifest Adamic dominion as part of God's Providence (Plan)

When did humans first appear?

Unknown timeline

Partial acceptance of Evolutionary timeline

Not a significant Big Question

How are humans to act?

Follow Revealed Truth and Laws

Use scientific method to obtain empirical data

Skeptical and cautious about natural theories

Governing authority from God

Warrior's Quest vision and imagination

Stewardship Scientism

Both camps of Sacred Scientism feel the tension between scientific data and interpretation and Revealed data and interpretation. Stewardship Scientism is the heir of the Aristotelian tradition within Christianity which holds that "faith seeks understanding." This phrase implies that the task of understanding is a faithful act. Where The Sixth Dayers worry about the Devil using scientific data to corrupt humans, the Stewards see scientific data as another way God has given humans to see the splendor and beauty of His creation.

Historically, Stewardship Scientism traces its approach to the tradition of Natural Theology. This has evolved into a Creation Theology which affirms, as The Sixth Dayers do, that Creation is excellent, but which holds that what is discovered by science is a tool for spiritual insight and growth. They hold that "as below, so above" which means that what is discovered on Earth reflects what exists above, in heaven. Teilhard de Chardin is one representative of this group. He was so enraptured by modern scientific advances that even within the horrific destruction caused by dropping the Atomic Bomb he espied the glory of Creation revealed. He wrote an essay with a quite exceptional and admittedly peculiar title, "Some Reflections on the Spiritual Repercussions of the Atom Bomb." Two quotes are:

"To fly, to beget, to kill for the first time—these, as we know, suffice to transform a life. By the liberation of atomic energy on a massive scale, and for the first time, man has not only changed the face of the earth; he has by the very act set in motion at the heart of his being a long chain of reactions which, in the brief flash of an explosion of matter, has made of him, virtually at least, a new being hitherto unknown to himself."

"The atomic age is not the age of destruction but of union in research. For all their military trappings, the recent explosions at Bikini herald the birth into the world of a Mankind both inwardly and outwardly pacified. They proclaim the coming of the Spirit of the Earth."

Before prison, I read these quotes as just a bit of unbridled enthusiasm for something new and awesome, that is, nuclear energy. Now, I read them as the clearest statement of how the Shade can completed absorb the Sunny Spot. Here, Teilhard is a blind seer.

Stewards take into account that the scientific method is a way of human knowing. For them what the adjective "human" bring to bears is the insight that everything which is essential to becoming a normal human occurs within relationship. Physically, humans are born from within a union of parents. Psychologically, humans grow within family units. Socially, humans are a communal species. Spiritually, humans are part of a Whole, a Oneness which is the Ground of Being. Humans are a part in a Whole, a Oneness which is greater than the sum of its parts.

Stewards observe that everything which makes humans "human" occurs within a pull relationship wherein a new sense emerges. For example, a primal and fulfilling human emotion, such as Love, is best described as a pull experience. Meaning, reaching the state of "being in Love" is effected by two who somehow experience being a thirdness. Loving is a coupled emotion, wherein the two forge a new identity as lovers. A useful image is two candles merging their flames to produce a third, then moving apart, to become two distinct flames again.

When other primal human experiences, such as Honor, Respect, Comfort and negatives such as Fear, Betrayal, Hate are examined, each comes to be through human relationship. Feeling honored, respected and comforted as well as feeling fearful, betrayed, or hated are states of being which are relational. As obvious as this may appear, the significance is that for you to fully know something in its resplendent humanness, the event, datum or act must be placed within the perspective of its place, function or value within a relationship. There is nothing human which is not within a relationship.

Alpha and Omega

For Stewards, there is a need to look backwards in time with all the tools of scientific inquiry towards the Alpha Point. This is where the scientific method unearths amazing fossils of creatures, societies and cultures. This Alpha information needs, then, to be interpreted while looking at the Omega Point. This is where the soft sciences assist the Steward. But notably, the Steward's looking forward is like an individual pausing to reflect upon the meaning of a fossil or an event. The Steward's thinking is situated within his sense of where this Alpha information is pointing, namely, towards Omega. It is the Steward's assumption that all Life is within a relationship which orients him to anticipate that what he is discovering is a fuller and greater human truth and simultaneously one that is effecting a fuller and greater human experience. In this light, Stewards will discuss a mind-sphere which surrounds the Earth, and, for most, a heart-sphere which surrounds the mind-sphere.

Stewards come from all religious and spiritual traditions. As stated before, there is no Scientism authority or scripture. Stewards use varied spiritual language and imagery to capture and express their sense of how knowing as a relationship occurs. For many Stewards the emergence of Quantum physics and its associated sciences has created a scientific language which requires discussing science as a knowing born from within a relationship. For many, Quantum describes a "weird science" in that most of the former "rules of science" (Newtonian science) no longer explain the Quantum world. For example, in the Quantum world light can be both a wave and a point of energy. Again, something can be in two places at the same time. Further, truth, certainty, reality can never be found or reached, only approached or approximated.

What Stewards see in the Quantum universe is a mysterious, somewhat mirthful, bizarre and playful dimension. It is a universe in which the observer is told that they are part of what they are observing. That their simple act of observing changes the reality of what they are investigating. While the language and imagery of this weird Quantum world is not that of everyday culture, it inspires Sacred Scientism advocates who claim that they sense that what the Quantum world is enabling them to see is that humans are part of something which they will never comprehend. It is like the insight into humility which overcame a few nuclear scientists at Almagordo who realized that they had unleashed a power they could not and would never be able to control.

At this moment of humility arises a sense or reverence for Life which moves the Stewards to look up and ahead, within and without, and to feel their deep feeling of absolute, intricate, even intimate, interrelationship and connectedness with everything. They tap into a brooding emotion of being peacefully at-home on Earth; for some, at-home on a Living Earth. Stewards grasp that the Web of Living has a mental complexity which can only be understood on the model of relationship. Namely, that human thought is not just something pushed out by the Alpha engine of a human brain, but that it is something simultaneously being pulled out of that brain by another Omega presence. This Omega presence is the synaptical mind-sphere which surrounds the Earth as the mind does the human brain. This mind-sphere is the brain of the Earth, which is, in this perspective, the whole which is greater than the sum of its parts.

Noosphere and Divine Milieu

A Steward posits that human consciousness is not simply a species specific characteristic. Rather, that humans manifest the consciousness of the Living Earth. Since the Stewards intuit a mind-sphere ("noosphere") around the Earth similar to the human mind's relationship to the brain, they consequently infer that every human act creates a pull force, drawing evolution forward towards a fuller manifestation of love. It is love because what loving is, is the relationship most primally human. To be human is to tap into the brooding emotion of deep, longing, ever desirous loving. The science of the Stewards is a science of mind and of loving. For them, there is a heart-sphere which also draws the human heart forward. Life, then, is a wonderful and amazing love affair. Many find Teilhard's phrase, "The Divine Milieu," to be an apt image in their imagination.

What is significant for me is that the Stewards see the Earth as infused with ardour and the attraction of affection. It is not just a ball of dirt. As a living presence everything Earthly which exists has its roots both back in time, that is, within the evolutionary process, and forward in time, that is, within the process of loving. Stewards are loving caretakers of the Living Earth.

Where The Sixth Dayers accept scientific data but do not use it to develop answers to the Big Questions (which they leave to the Religious Big Story), the Stewards peer at scientific data, sit with it in meditative silence, and feel the human aspect of such data, namely, the presence of loving energy. The Stewards see Nature as the poetry of the super-or-hypernatural. Such an approach is anathema to the Sixth Dayers.

Some Stewards are pantheists. Others are panentheists, seeing God's love or divinity present within everything. While lovers, caretakers and stewards of the Earth, the Stewards do not all see the Earth as Living in the way I do. I see you and me as Earth's consciousness, conscience and creator. For me, Earth is eternal. For now, note that while the Stewards hold that through evolution spirit and matter co-mingle, they also anticipate that there is a next stage of evolution wherein matter may disappear or be jettisioned as the body is upon death. In this light, the Stewards notion of spirituality continues to express a sentiment of the Abrahamic tradition which seeks to find a release from, or move beyond, or shed the natural, the physical and the bodily. For me, this is still an anticipation of an Apocalyptic event, although it may be one that is more a whimper than a bang! For me, the Stewards are still not as comfortably on Earth as I am.

# Chapter 99: Warrior's Quest

As influenced as my own development towards nonviolence was by the Sacred Scientism of Teilhard de Chardin, and that of others whose vision led to imaging myself as a Steward or a caretaker of Earth, there is no necessary reason not to follow the Warrior's Quest. In fact, I indicted myself after the trial as a nonviolent Warrior's Questeer (in imitation of John Wayne). I realized that I had often tapped into the brooding emotion of dominating as I protested. It wasn't until I re-examined my Secular Big Story and saw the value of the Secular Space as a re-imagining space that I was able to see a way to move beyond the Warrior's Quest which, up to that time, seemed to be the only way to integrate the Religious, Secular and Scientism's Big Story so as to move beyond them.

Stewardship Scientism's Big Answers

Where do humans come from?

Evolution wherein matter and spirit co-mingle

Humans are spirits evolving

The body and physical world will transform into spiritual existence

A mind-sphere (noosphere) exists and is growing around the Earth similar to the mind-brain image

Emphasize first Genesis account of Creation—"male and female"

How did humans get here?

Intelligent Design

Natural Theology unveils the God whose Divinity is an emergent phenomenon

There is an "implicate order" which human knowing can naturally intuit

Where are humans going?

Evolving towards a fuller spirit which is next human evolutionary phase

Evolving from Alpha's push towards Omega's pull

Why are humans here on Earth?

To obtain fuller knowledge of God's mystery

To build the Earth, the Kingdom of Man, as fulfillment of Genesis "make in our image" into Kingdom of God

Stewards being faithful caretakers

When did humans first appear?

Determined by the evolutionary timeline

How are humans to act?

As Stewards, who like Adam, were granted dominion over all

Which dominion is expressed as being Earth's caretaker

Act ecologically with a sensitivity to the common good, the greater good, being a healer and with a holistic vision—as if living in the Garden of Eden where all was in peace and harmony

Follow the Warrior's Quest but as non-violent warriors, peaceable warriors, happy warriors

Both groups of Sacred Scientism advocates are seen as muddle headed by the Non-Sacred Scientism camp.

# Chapter 100: Non-Sacred Scientism

Non-Sacred Scientism holds that science proves that there is only a material world. That what humans sense, and can only know, is this material world. Their tradition overlaps in part with the Non-Sacred Secular tradition. Both claim that the Religious Big Story is a confused jumble of contradictory stories. They find the Abrahamic tradition to be bizarre, fantastic, and impelled by a wild imagination. For some, all religions are rooted in the psychedelic experiences of a given culture. For them the word "supernatural" denotes a dissociative state similar to a psychotic episode. At the base of belief, in a twist on a famous anti-religious saying, is an opiate. This is something which drives humans crazy, be it an actual herb, intoxicant or scary story.

For Non-Sacred Scientism the supernatural tales of Religious Big Stories are best understood as products of collective humanity's childhood. Just as children are prone to wild exaggeration and misinterpretation of everyday things, such as shadows or thunderclaps, so are Religious Big Stories products of an immature humanity. Science, for them, is the language of mature adults who have control over their thought process. The significant truth in this perspective for me is that becoming mature has more to do with understanding and mastering one's emotions than simply gaining knowledge. The Non-Sacreds would, however, argue against my emphasis on emotion, stating that thoughts control emotions, not vice versa. For Non-Sacreds everything human has a material base. Humans are a matter of biochemistry, electromagnetics and the laws of physics.

For Non-Sacreds, Religious belief and all supernatural claims are sourced in a disorder of brain chemistry. Consequently, all human thought and emotion is a matter of biochemical activity. What they observe is that humanity has a wild imagination, and that it can scare itself to death. Why humans can and do scare themselves "to death" is a conundrum, but Religious stories and cultural mythologies make the Non-Sacreds point that humans are willing to tell horrible stories, such as a Wrathful God who hates them and exiles them to a cursed Earth. They have no truck with the enraged and fearsome Abrahamic god who cast his children out of Eden and consigned them to a life of pain and anguish. Here I would agree with the Non-Sacreds that whoever was writing Genesis was feeling pretty down and out, bummed out by something. Just consider, "What consolation was derived from writing this account in Genesis?" The Non-Sacreds would suggests that the writer's brain synapses were misfiring. When Non-Sacreds read other mythological tales and spiritual stories they find much of the same, namely, that most gods, goddesses and other divinities are regaled as terrible beings to be approached with fear and trembling since they evoke a sickness unto death.

Non-Sacred Scientism rejects the Religious Big Story and the inspired interpretations of Sacred Scientism because their Big Answers are contradictory and confusing. They are not sound explanations of anything natural or human. For the Non-Sacreds, it takes a super-human or a supra-human effort to be a believer in the super or supra-natural. And the resulting effort at belief leads only to a miserable sense of self and life.

Occam's razor

As the basis for interpretation the Non-Sacreds consistently apply Occam's Razor. This is a rule that interpretive and explanatory entities should not be multiplied needlessly. It holds that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable, and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known.

For the Non-Sacreds there is always a material explanation. For their critics, the Non-Sacreds' use of the word "material" often appears to assume a non-empirical character. It appears to be as sensual a term as the Stewards' use of loving. However, when the Non-Sacreds peer and sit in silence with their data, they do not feel an Omega pull, only the Alpha push of entropy downward towards atomization.

On their own terms, the Non-Sacreds see themselves as the only group willing to just be human. They look at all the Big Stories and Big Answers given by those who talk about Revelation and other Sacred Stories as acts of simple imagination. While they value imagination, the Non-Sacreds discipline themselves to listen to the evidence of the senses and not impose upon sensory evidence an interpretation which causes mental indigestion. True to their scientific heritage they prefer interpretations and theories which are simple, beautiful and elegant. What they receive from the other Scientism camps is just more gobbledygook.

The Non-Sacreds claim is to the clear and obvious results of their tradition. They would ask, "Who doubts that progress has been made in key human areas, such as medicine, public health, longer life span, global travel, technological innovations, down to light bulbs, microwave ovens, and the Internet?" They would encourage the Religious and Sacred Scientism followers to be patient. The Non-Sacred are infused with a relentless optimism which girds their vision and imagination. It is an optimism that is grounded in the history of the scientific movement which they interpret as stating that, given enough time, humans can solve any problem using evidence derived from sensory knowing.

"America"

The Non-Sacred Secular's concept of government has an appeal to the Non-Sacred Scientism thinker. "America" was conceived and created by many who can be claimed as heroes of the Non-Sacred Scientism tradition. Many of the Founding Fathers, who considered their time to be an Enlightened Era, saw America as a great experiment. The word "experiment" was a currency of the times. For them, the creation of the secular which separated Religion from the governing sphere was seen as an achievement of right thinking and clear-headed analysis. "America" was as revolutionary a concept as was Copernicus' discovery of the heliocentric cosmos.

Small "q" questions and no absolutes

Non-Sacred Scientism approaches the Big Questions with skepticism. They are, in fact, considered the wrong Questions. The proper Questions are small case "questions." What humans should be concerned with is developing a more scientific culture where the focus is on what we do know, on those questions which arise from what we know, and an inquiry about what are the significant next things for us to know? When it comes to discussing values or the range of heartfelt actions, the Non-Sacreds would be wary of absolutes. For them, there is no necessary code of conduct for humans. They accept that every culture, such as the Abrahamic, imposes its morality upon the scientific community. They see this in terms of "The War of Religion against Science"

Since there are no Scientism authorities, I judge the Non-Sacreds from the experiments which the tradition has conducted. With the Non-Sacred Secularists so do the Non-Sacred Scientismists hold to the principle of imposing few to no barriers on experimentation. While some may personally disdain the human degradation of the Nazi experimenters, Non-Sacreds accept the medical knowledge gained by such atrocities. In like manner, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were scientific as well as military experiments. For them, the Mushroom Cloud was an "Aha!" moment which inspired them, among other efforts, to shoot for the moon.

While obtaining knowledge is the driving force behind Non-Sacred Scientism, what they know about "human nature" is that myriad civilizations and species have come and gone. They describe Nature as a battleground testing the survival of the fittest. They describe Human Nature as having always been in a State of War. To them violence is a natural, consistent and persistent human characteristic. Their own work is a battle against ignorance. To call them Warrior's Questers is a compliment. The discipline they follow is that of the Warrior's Quest, namely, to exercise dominion over all things, living and inert on the Earth.

Enlightened Humanism

Yet, Non-Sacred Scientism also has a humanistic yen. After all, scientists are humans. Even if they reject grand political theories such as Democracy or Socialism, they grasp that to do their research and experimentation that some level of civility must be maintained. A certain level of Enlightened Humanism finds a home among Non-Sacreds. Their appeal for this ethic is not to absolutes about human nature, but to the simple observations about the practicalities of everyday life. If humans are to live together, a certain ethical code of behavior can be reasonably negotiated, even legislated.

The Non-Sacreds reject my claim that all knowing is human knowing. For them humans can control their emotions to the point where there is scant impact on an experiment or fact. They would apply Occam's Razor to my claim for human knowing and find that it is not the simplest explanation, and so not give it weight or priority. Consequently, they start with the sensory world and deduce from that the material basis for all existence. Hypothetically, some Non-Sacreds tolerate and grant the Religionists and Sacred Scientismists the possibility that someday scientists will discern a non-material aspect of existence, but that highly hypothetical possibility is a long way off.

Non-Sacred Scientism's Big Answers

Where do humans come from?

Material Evolution

There is no Supernatural

How did humans get here?

Evolutionary Process

Randomness and mutation

Where are humans going?

Entropy forecasts the breakdown of everything

Extinction of the species

Why are humans here on Earth?

Unknown

"Here" is all there is

When did humans first appear?

Evolutionary timeline

How are humans to act?

Develop an ethic guided by reason

Enlightened Humanism is an option

# Chapter 101:Scientism's Big Story's impact on a personal Story

What has science wrought? In the "best of times" the history of science reads like a non-stop intellectual orgy. Ideas after concepts after re-imaginings after new visions ... and then a list of "benefits to humanity" which span the discovery of the heliocentric universe to penicillin to the computer I am writing on at this moment. What drives this scientific world is the imaging of all reality, including human, in nonhuman terms and with nonhuman models. Everything is a "machine" which speaks in a mathematical language which can be reduced to a binary digital code of 1s and 0s. From the inner workings of the atom to the cogitations going on in my brain right now, which isn't "my" brain (but that's another line of scientific discussion) everything can be mapped, coded and processed, even your biological genes.

At every turn some field of study which seeks to call its research "scientific" is uncovering new facts and interpretation of the planet's and our human past. At the same time, we hear about a fabulous future where we will live almost forever as cyborgs, more than likely in a space colony circling some distant planet in a star system light years away. Among our key nationalistic adjectives most Americans would state that we are a "scientific culture." Ever since the Russians put the first satellite into space (Sputnik), America has committed itself to being the leading scientific community on the planet.

The Secular and Scientism Big Stories enable their followers to carve out personal Stories wherein any moral dilemma is seen as solvable. The critical trait to note here is that there is no Sacred space, no Holy of Holies, accepted by most Secularists and Scientism advocates, so there is no limit placed on "morality." This is a subtle point with far-reaching impact on how a scientist carves out his personal Story. Consider that the Sacred space is a defined and limited space. It is bordered by facts and truths of Revelation. If you adhere in any way to a Big Story in a Sacred camp, then your moral options are restricted. As an individual you are to start your moral reflection by entering a Sacred Space (e.g., temple, confessional, opening the Bible) to find out what your restrictions are. There are certain moral questions which have already been decided for you, e.g., Thou shalt not steal and Thou shalt not kill.

In the Secular and Scientism worldviews such a claimed "Sacred space" is assessed as a culturally conditioned idea. As such, all morality is culturally specific. However, this is not an unrestrained relativism because each culture also has political, economic, and social constraints which impact moral decisions. Here, consider the acceptance of the "scientific findings" of the Nazis who performed torturous and deadly medical experiments on concentration camp inmates. It is unimaginable to certain Secularists and Scientism advocates that any "medically beneficial" knowledge would be ignored, discounted or destroyed. In this case, the Scientism account includes acknowledgement that the Nazi's were inhuman but that the results were not. The subtle sub-text here is that "After all, we're just machines, so we regret the sufferings of individuals. We hold those who suffered as heroes in the Advancement of Scientific Knowledge!" Only the Sacred Scientism advocates voiced their moral qualms about this, but they could not do so on scientific grounds. That is, they could not claim that the Nazi's results were scientifically unsound. They did not reject it as Shady knowledge, rather they rejected it on the political grounds that the Nazi's were Shady evil people. For me, this Nazi experimentation matter affirms that, in the final analysis, the Warrior's Quest based Scientism Big Story's Sunny Spot is identical with its Shade. In brief, for Scientism all scientific knowledge, however obtained, is good in itself. The Atomic Bomb is America's Sunny Spot! Right?

I have to accept that the Sacred Scientism I professed at my trial, which was grounded in the Roman Catholic tradition of "fides quaerens intellectum" (of "faith seeking understanding") and that of Teilhard de Chardin was, as a Big Story and part of my personal Story, vaporized on August 6, 1945 at the same moment during which the first human was vaporized. I struggled with this, read and re-read Teilhard's "Some Reflections on the Spiritual Repercussions of the Atomic Bomb." Only as I sat Inside prison did I realize what a Mad Scientist my former hero was! I re-read and reflected upon his statement that,

I shall not seek to discuss or defend the essential morality of this act of releasing atomic energy. There were those, on the morrow of the Arizona experiment, who had the temerity to assert that the physicists, having brought their researches to a successful conclusion, should have suppressed and destroyed the dangerous fruits of their invention. As though it were not every man's duty to pursue the creative forces of knowledge and action to their uttermost end! As though, in any event, there exists any force on earth capable of restraining human thought from following any course upon which it has embarked!

"...who had the temerity to assert ..." This is a phrase which scored my Inside ears. I realized that my father had had such temerity. I chose my father over Teilhard. I still do.

My faith, finally, could not and cannot in any manner understand the Atomic Bomb as other than the fulfillment of the Abrahamic vision of identifying other humans as Intimate Enemies. I am certainly a lesser mind than Teilhard but I've traveled to some Shady spots I think he missed. It is painful for me to state, but it is clear to me, that Teilhard's Scientism Big Story is completely sourced in the Abrahamic Warrior's Quest. He stands in league with the Nazi scientists. Quite often I find him quoted and his vision championed by those who seek to model globalization as a movement properly driven by unfettered dominion.

It is sometimes very difficult to be driven back to the same set of images and language with which to interpret a Big or personal Story. However, the militarization of science clearly shows the triumph of the Warrior's Quest in the three dominant Big Stories. I anticipate that you might bring up "the race to the moon." I'm old enough to remember watching JFK make that announcement on TV. I too swelled with science fantasy infused enthusiasm when I mulled over the fabulous promises of being able to live in a Space Colony, or possibly on the moon, before I died. But, four decades later, what is the answer to, What is driving dominion based globalization's space programs? Is the Space Station a merchant outpost being prepared to sell Earthly goods to aliens? Or is it the platform which the lingering specter of former President Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" defense calls home?

Scientism's Sunny Spot is unbounded since all humans are endowed with dominion over the Earth. While Scientism speaks about this dominion in Secular terms and not Religious, there is no authority in the Scientism community which seeks to or can limit scientific probes, that is, research. External agents can limit scientific probing, e.g., America presently restricts certain types of stem cell research. In like manner, many Western nations support a ban on human cloning. Nevertheless, I anticipate that science fiction and Hollywood will prove prophetic in that somewhere there is an island with a cyborgian Dr. Moreau. Somewhere there is a basement with a cyberspace Frankenstein seeking to utter, "It's alive, virtually!"

There is no other Big Story which unnerves me as does the Scientism one. As I stated, the present prison system has no social or philosophical theory as its imaginative base. Prisons are warehouses. In the late Sixties, Dr. Jolyon "Jolly" West was the chief architect of the Center for the Study and Reduction of Violence as Director of the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute. He led a movement which held that personality was a social construct. At the Springfield federal prison in Missouri, selected inmates were put through deprogramming sessions where their intimate ties to family and friends were systematically destroyed using psychotropic and psycho-technological drugs and techniques. The objective was to break down their relationships with family, friends and cohorts and then rebuild them. How this rebuilding actually would occur, I am at a loss to say. The end-result was a niche population of zombie prisoners who spent most of their days in a drooling stupor. I met some of these "Jolly graduates" at Sandstone. At the time, this type of "inmate management" was touted as the wave of the future.

The "best of times" Scientism analysis and interpretation is that, given enough time and through working unrestrained by any morality, scientists will discover and implement the next step in human Evolution. Then the body will live forever in some bio-techno state. The mind will, by use of designer drugs, be healthier and operate at a higher level of consciousness. In this view, the human Sunny Spot will not only be unimaginably bigger than ever known, but it shall shed its "little light" throughout the cosmos as these ultra-humans inhabit interstellar space, possibly, even co-exist in other dimensions.

If you don't want to be bummed out by accepting "the worst of times" scenario that we are living in an apocalyptic age, then you can ponder the upside potential of the Internet as Secular space. It appears—and this might be a fleeting apparition which I am discerning—that "Information Technology" cannot be controlled by any one government or body of scientists. While the Internet was created by militarized scientists, it has become the Unintended Consequence step-child of that community as it became a world-wide-web for personal and multi-cultural communication. Not surprisingly, every government, notably America and China, is seeking to put this genie back into the bottle. If the Internet remains an unrestricted Secular Space, "virtual" reality might become the only space where humans can create a global community. At its best, the Internet stands to add a new group-identity category to those of the personal, familial, social, and cultural/spiritual. It could actually become the global identity space. However, as noted before, the Internet has blossomed from a Shade military space, and is mainly a Shade pornographic cyber-space steeped in Abrahamic vision and values, e.g., women as sex-toys. For it to develop its Sunny Spot requires a vision and an imagination which none of the three dominant Big Stories can provide.

Militarized science achieved the vaporization of intimacy. This fact numbed my mind for years, and it took prison to make me face its full import as a Shade act of the most evil intent and consequence. No matter how hard I try to still retain some of Teilhard's perspective, the act of the vaporization of intimacy continues to stagger my imagination. Instead of Teilhard I now reflect upon my dad's refusal to work on the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Bomb. His act anticipated the insights of the Earthfolk, but this is for a later telling. Right now, I have to ask you to consider, Can you construct a Scientism Big Story which holds your world together? Can it make you feel other than miserable, and tapped into the brooding emotion of dreadful fear? I tried and failed.

# Chapter 102: Summary and Key Points

Scientism was part of the intellectual milieu of my family. My dad was a chemist who was also trained in the Western Classical tradition. We were advocates of the long-standing Roman Catholic school of "fides quaerens intellectum" that is, "faith seeking understanding." In this view, everything discovered by Science could, and inevitably would, demonstrate the mystery and beauty of God's universe. In school, I received doses of Creationism, but there was never any doubt that Catholics could be excellent scientists. I just had to look at my dad.

Vatican Council II appeared to blow off the oppressive lid which the Church had historically placed on scientists and scientific inquiry. The Council's Documents encouraged engagement with all thought, secular and scientific. However, it reminded the world that, "...when God is forgotten the creature itself grows unintelligible."

Scientism has its Sacred and Non-Sacred camps. Sacred Scientism is consonant with the Catholic tradition which sees "Theology as the Queen of the Sciences." Non-Sacreds would scoff at that curious phrase. Sacred Scientism leads many to a belief in pantheism, where everything is godly or divine or pan-en-theism, where god or the divine is manifested through everything. The latter was my and Teilhard's viewpoint.

Non-Sacred Scientism holds that, given sufficient time and while working in an environment unrestrained by morality, all the truths of the universe will eventually be known and controllable. They see a future with cyborg bodies, life-times approaching millennia, and humans living in every reach of the cosmos, possibly even in other dimensions. They hold that the human Sunny Spot's growth is unimaginable and simply fantastic. They rarely are deterred by examining the Shade, which they account for in terms of errors which can be corrected.

I see both Sacred and Non-Sacred Scientism as rooted in the Abrahamic Genesis story. Despite my own infatuation with Teilhard—whose views I argued with great ardor before my jury!—I have come to see all Scientism camps as shackled by the Shade of dominion. At their base, each camp believes that humans can control their environment. They see themselves as Masters of the Universe, even if that is a muted undertone to the softer phrase, "Stewards of the Earth."

When I research Scientism accounts I am simply dumbfounded by how seemingly genius humans can systematically avoid reflecting upon their Shade. It is as if the Atom Bomb had never been dropped. It is as if the Nazi medical torture did not occur. Certainly nothing too disturbing happened during the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment, right? Has it been forgotten that some of the scientists at Alamogordo considered that the atomic testing might ignite all the oxygen in the world and so annihilate all mankind? Yet with "scientific courage"—or is it Dr. Strangelove's madness?—they heroically forged ahead. After all, remember, the military was itching to drop that Bomb, and the scientists/Scientismists "had to know" if the damn thing worked!

In the hierarchy of group identities, there is really no "scientific community" in either the social or cultural/spiritual categories. There is no central scientific moral authority. There is, as in other areas, peer review and a lot of professional pressure, but none of this creates a meaningful restriction on action. Consequently, there is no one to answer, "How far is far enough?" even if this question is asked, which is not often. Rather, it is the individual scientist who makes a personal moral decision whether to probe or not, whether to act in a way others would judge immoral, though not unscientific. The only group identity guidance provided is by non-scientific groups such as corporations and the military.

A scientist can carve out a personal Story but he does so from a disjointed Big Story. He can join a "professional family" which provides, as just stated, a certain level of peer review. However, his corporate identity ceases to be grounded in "pure science" as his corporation seeks either market driven profit or military objectives. At the corporate identity level, the scientist ceases to be a scientist as he is not able, nor even invited to, provide moral direction to the "scientific community." The latter is as vague as to stand as a phrase of misdirection. This is so because there is no scientific culture, rather science is the handmaid of the corporate and military cultures. While some scientists attempt to write about the or a "spirituality of science," this is writing whose genre is more akin to science fiction in how it is received by the writer's scientific peers.

What I am recognizing and giving its proper respect is the atheism at the core of the Abrahamic tradition. This belief in no-god-but-my-god is an atheistic stance in respect to all other gods and goddesses. Monotheism is an atheistic movement. The ultimate proof of this atheism is not as much intellectual as it is emotional. As I've stated, the icon created and shared by all three Big Stories is that of the Atomic Bomb Mushroom Cloud. When I peer at it and sit in silent reflection I am present to a Warrior's Quest people whose Big Stories have led them to the brink of self-annihilation. They are, in an image of recent currency, suicidal terrorist bombers who are willing to blow themselves and the Earth if need be to smithereens. How are you to feel, what brooding emotion do you tap into, when your hear God's Revelation and it is that you are not-Chosen? When your national identity as an American is sourced in the core ritual of being a soldier in an Endless War? When the brainiest of your scientists gather to create an apocalyptic weapon they cannot control? When your personal identity is grounded in a Warrior's Quest vision which may ask you someday to be the suicidal terrorist bomber who vaporizes yourself, the Earth, and every other human?

When you begin to tell these Big Stories, and as you start to carve out your personal Story, how might you answer the question, Who then among us is the criminal mind?

Key Points

Background of my Scientism Big Story

Dad was a chemist trained in Western Classical tradition

Creationism in schools but mostly openness to science which was "American"

Never heard moral criticism of Atomic Bomb nor of experiments such as the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment

Dad requested transfer when heard he was working on Manhattan Project which was developing the Atomic Bomb

Teilhard de Chardin's Scientism Big Story integrated all traditional Catholic doctrines with Evolution and scientific research

Teilhard was a paleontologist and co-founder of Peking Man

My trial version of Teilhard's Scientism was judged "irrelevant and immaterial"

Vatican Council II's impact on my Scientism Big Story

Council was influenced by Teilhard's thought

One reason it was so open to science and multi-culturalism

Why it was seething with optimism

"But when God is forgotten, the creature itself grows unintelligible"

Shade always present, re: Faust's Bargain or Frankenstein horror

My analysis and interpretation of the Scientism Big Story

Two camps: Sacred Scientism and Non-Sacred Scientism

Both value Evolution and trust the scientific method

Abrahamic roots of each camp in Genesis granting of dominion over the Earthfolk

Both use nonhuman models to explain human existence

"Scientism is a belief that scientific knowledge is the foundation of all wisdom and that, consequently, scientific argument should always be weighted more heavily than other forms of wisdom."

Natural explanations which eschew supernatural and paranormal speculations

Embrace empiricism and reasons as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life

Given enough time and a research environment not encumbered by morality all truths will be uncovered and mankind will advance to next level of evolution

"soft sciences" use scientific method whenever possible

"Scientism" is a soft science

Sacred Scientism is either pantheistic or panentheistic

Non-Sacred Scientism is atheistic

"best of times" almost abolishes any consideration of "worst of times"

Shade matters are defined as errors which can be remedied

Sacred Scientism has "Sixth Day" and "Stewardship" camps

Sixth Dayers are Creationists

Stewardship are like Teilhardians

Stewardship is basis for ecological spiritualities and "Creation Spirituality"

Stewardship is rooted in Genesis' dominion

Quantum physicists develop a Sacred Scientism using nonhuman models

Quantum physics is basis for many current Scientism Big Stories

Non-Sacred has only small "q" questions not capital Qs

Enlightened Humanism is argued by some Scientism advocates

However developing a human morality using non-human models of knowing is as difficult for Scientism advocates as it is for Secularists

Evaluation of Scientism Big Story impact on how a personal Story is written

Science has become militarized

The icons its creates for a Scientism advocate include the Atom Bomb, the Space Station which serves as a base for "Star Wars," and medical torture experiments conducted by Nazis and Americans at Tuskegee and in certain prisons

Like the Secular Big Story, Scientism is dominated by the imagery, language and values of the Warrior's Quest

Scientism's roots in Biblical Genesis determine that the moral issues are all approach from a desire to exercise dominion

Sacred Scientism, as exemplified by the Roman Catholic tradition's "faith seeking understanding" and the vision of Teilhard de Chardin, has lost the day to a militarized Non-Sacred Scientism

Sixth Day Sacred Scientism is a rendition of the philosophy of Creationism

Stewardship Scientism is the basis for certain ecological spiritualities

Stewardship, however, still manifest dominion in that it seeks to control Earthly processes

No personal Story is as restricted as that derived from Scientism Big Story because, Paradoxically, the Warrior's Quest morality is that there is no morality, only victory

Penal experiments which defined personality as a social construct and which deprogrammed inmates until all their intimate bonds were broken and then "rebuilt" using psycho-technological devices and means is an example of the deep and dangerous Shade of Scientism

# PART 4 – IN SEARCH OF INTIMACY
# Chapter 103: Personal ending point

I've often wondered what draws someone like me at an early age to enjoy sitting in sacred spaces like a church or a confessional. From the first I was attracted to the church. There was a bit of intellectual curiosity but, as you might expect, it was more of a feeling. I felt safe inside the church. I felt at peace when the Holy Mass was over and I had communed with my god. But, even more, I was there with my dad. He and I went to Daily Mass for most of my youthful years. We communicated intimately with one another through shared rituals. I realize, now, that he was driven more by obligation and duty than I was. Yet, when we prayed together, even in silence, I felt a bond with him. This despite the fact that I have to relate that my father suffered a life-ending crisis of faith which was marked by great despair. His greatest spiritual challenge was accepting the death of my younger brother, Joseph

My brother Joseph and one mosquito

I've waited until now to relate Joe's story because it is about intimacy. It reveals a lot about my insights into intimacy's Sunny Spot and Shade. When the event took place I did not understand it in these terms. If I related this story before now, you might have been misled. You might have thought that it was ever-present in my consciousness, whereas until "Mother" it was suppressed, deep down in my own Shade. It was there because to recall this story is to tap into the brooding emotions I felt in prison, namely, of abandonment, despair and feeling exiled. More, it tapped into my primal Abrahamic brooding emotion of feeling that God is my Enemy and I, His. Only in prison did I face, full-on, that I am God's Intimate Enemy. Prison became the Garden of Eden and I was there as Adam at the moment I was being exiled and cursed. This is how Inside Sight is bestowed. At that moment when you look your Shade Parent in the eye and see hatred where there should be love. You see yourself as not-Beloved.

The story is about my youngest brother, Joseph. He was the last of nine, the fourth son, being born with four immediately older sisters. Naturally, he was the apple of everyone's eye. I was thirteen when he was born, and he was as much my child as my brother.

When we lived in New Jersey, we spent two weeks each summer in south Jersey "at the shore." This was a compact summer cottage in Forked River that we shared with my Uncle Gene's family. They came in July. We came in August. The best part of summer was swimming in a nearby lake where I and my sibs learned to swim to the raft as a rite of passage. The area was often beset by heavy rains and armies of mosquitoes. This story, however, is about just one mosquito.

I was sitting on the couch in the family room reading a book when Joey, just two years old, ambled up the stairs. We all knew that he had had a restless night. He had kept most of us floating in and out of sleep crying throughout the whole night. Once up the stairs, he walked over and lay down next to me. Within minutes he raised his head, slightly turning upwards to look at me, and then he began to spew and spit foam. His eyes rolled wildly and I jumped up yelling, "Mom. Dad. Something's wrong with Joey!"

"If you cannot give life, then don't take it away!,"

I said to the jurors. Did I "say" it? Or did the words fly like spears to pierce their souls?

"If you cannot give life ..."

Joey went rigid and into a relentless fit. Mom and Dad rushed him to the local bar, seeking help. The nearest hospital was more than forty miles away. Someone doused him with booze since his head was simply ablaze. Of course, we kids didn't know what was happening. My parents lived out that nightmare of nightmares as they found themselves powerless to help their sweet child. Joey lived in a vegetative state for nine years. He died shortly before my dad. The mosquito had killed twice.

One mosquito bites a bird and becomes a carrier of encephalitis. All of us, brothers and sisters, have said repeatedly that it was unfortunate Joey did not die right away. While we took him home to live with us, he required twenty-four hour a day attention, and was totally non-communicative. At the same time my father's company was bought by 3M. Dad was from the generation where you worked for one company all your life, as did his brother. The stress of all this only weakened a constitution with inherited heart problems. Dad's mom had died while he was at Notre Dame. Fatefully, Dad had a heart-attack. His job prospects went from difficult to impossible. Thanks to the generosity of 3M, my Dad was offered the position he had at first refused, that is, moving to Minnesota.

We traveled to Minnesota on a long, sinuous, sluggish train. We arrived in a world as surreal to us as Mars. Hastings, Minnesota in 1960 had a population reaching towards five thousand. We were an urban family, and both my mom and dad were born in New York City. Down the street from our new home, miles of cornfields unfolded beyond eyesight. Only now do I appreciate all they faced and overcame. In time, Joey had to be placed in a nursing home run by Catholic nuns. At the same time, my four younger sisters were consigned to a residential high school also run by nuns. I chose not to spend my junior year at the local high school. So, I left for the seminary, back East on Staten Island. Only my older sister and her husband remained in the same town with my parents.

Joey's death simply undid my father. I remember watching him weep over my brother's coffin and whisper, "It won't be too long, Joey, and I'll be with you." A bit over a year later, Dad died of heart failure. On my father's gravestone is written, "They Will Be Done." I've always hoped that he found the courage in his last moments to utter that phrase. This was Christmas, 1968.

Of course, these events impacted everyone in the family. Such are always crushing events, and life-altering. I had just graduated with my Masters and was teaching college theology in the Chicago area. Within months I was drafted and returned to Minnesota to fulfill my two years of Alternative Service as a Conscientious Objector. I served as a staff member at the Newman Center on the University of Minnesota campus.

I guess Joey's story was reawakened when Gordy Nielsen came into my office and told about his Search and Destroy missions. As Gordy testified at my trial, "Instead of a hootch, it was a home ... instead of a gook, it was a human being." Joey and Gordy conspired to whisper into my distraught ears, "Intimacy."

What happens when intimacy is dishonored or destroyed? Simply, humans cannot be human. Although he was present in body, Joey could not share intimately with me. I often held him in my arms and felt the beating of his heart, the moistness of his breath, but we could not be intimate. Yes, he was present to me and I to him. But by intimacy I mean the ability to establish a relationship wherein we mutually become present each to the other as Beloved. Oh, I think you can sense how much I loved my brother. It is not a matter of love rather it is a matter of how we humans grow as humans. We do so by sharing each other's intimate space.

You can call the body a machine, that is, a version of "hootch." You can name the other as Intimate Enemy, that is, call him "gook." You can do so but only at your own peril. For you jeopardize your ability to grow as a human. When you dishonor or destroy another's intimacy, you are acting homicidally and suicidally.

When I was in prison walking the Yard, immersed in almost daily philosophical discussions with my rap partner Brad Beneke, I was confounded as to what anyone thought was happening to me by locking me up. As I've stated before, I wasn't being physically abused. Humiliated, yes, but not beat-up. I was suffering psychologically, but it was more from personal internal causes than anything the Hacks were directly doing. It appeared as if my punishment was simply to consist of hanging around with nothing to do. In time, I realized, "That's it!"

Prison's goal was to induce a Joey like state. My body was in lock-up but my mind and soul were nowhere. They wanted me to reach a state of non-communication. Everything in prison is geared to move you away from developing intimate relationships. All the personal identity tools which you possessed on the outside are taken away. In prison, every aspect of who you are belongs to The Man. Much like defining the Internet as a new group identity category, so does belonging to The Man become your only identity. Inside you no longer can manage a truly personal or familial or social or cultural/spiritual group identity. At any time you are His. It is a godlike possession. The Man certainly is the Lone Male, but as only present through His Shade aspect of ruthless dominion. I learned, as all inmates do, that, instead of being Beloved, I am dog-shit, society's feces. Most importantly, I am the Warrior's Quester's booty. He locks-me up, and like an anxious Midas, checks on me throughout the day and night at cyclical "Lock Up and Count!" inspections.

I couldn't give life to Joey. I will not take life from you. "...you are not a gook, you are a human being."

This is why they feared me, although I didn't know it at the time. They knew what I now know about myself. It is that no matter what they do, I will always find my brother Joey present through your presence. I also know, now, that as with my father I am intimately present to you through shared social, cultural and spiritual rituals, most significantly, the ritual of Peace and War.

# Chapter 104: "Getting back to..." what?

Some inmates focus on figuring out how to rehabilitate themselves to the point where they can "Get back on track," "Get my life moving, again," and "Get right with God." They want back into the American Way of Life. Out on parole, I wasn't so sure that I wanted back into anything. Not America. Not the Catholic Church.

In the main, most of my fellow Resisters left prison and developed as normal a life as they could find while remaining committed to social justice and/or liberal causes. A few went over the fence in the other direction. One I visited sat with a shotgun in his hand and a copy of the Bible and the Constitution in the other. He was living in a poor, mostly Black neighborhood and was trying to convince the men to take up arms. He had some notion that Black and poor men were not being manly enough, and that they needed to show their women and children that they would defend them and their homes. His was not a leftist revolution, rather he was interpreting his Roman Catholicism in respect to the "culture wars," and this time he wanted to be on the side of the angels. However, it seemed to me, his angel was the one with the Flaming Sword guarding the gate of Eden. Anyway, it was all too "political" for my tastes. As were the actions of most of my activist friends. was tired of having and being someone's enemy, of calling myself as some did a Peace Warrior. I just wanted to get married and raise a family.

If anyone could be criticized for "losing the faith" both religious and political, I was the prime candidate. I left prison and spent four years in doctoral studies and as a project director for a prison reform program. But then I went Madison Avenue. I became a door to door encyclopedia salesman. To boot, I achieved a modicum of success. In Los Angeles and then New England, I had an organization with over three-hundred part timers. I turned all my energies to arousing an army of sales reps. I inspired them with "You can do it!" and "Create a win-win situation!" and "Who'd like to go with their family on an all paid week's vacation tp Acapulco?!" I engaged the raw greed of individuals who needed to make some extra-money or who wanted to win a prize. I stood before thousands of wildly cheering competitors at annual conventions and was draped in "Manager of the Year" ribbons, handed crystalline plaques, bedded in Presidential suites, and so forth. I had a lot of fun. But as you might anticipate, my Inside Sight made me quite aware of my own Shade and that of the revered "Market Economy."

Since I wanted to return to college teaching, I was more than miffed that I was successful in business. I kept telling myself that I'd make enough money and then "Five years and you're out." But then there was the mortgage and the boys and the new cars and the .... You know that storyline. Actually, if I hadn't spent time in business, I would not have discovered the key insight into emotions and feelings. I thought in order to make sense out of my past life that I'd have to delve into academic research and analysis. Actually, all I had to do was go out and sell.

# Chapter 105: People want to Belong

Have you ever tried to walk up to a strange house, knock on the door, create an instant moment of friendliness so that you are invited in, then sit down and within an hour walk out with a $600 to $2000 check or contract? Can you imagine the number of times you have to try to do that and fail before you actually make a sale? Then, how would you feel if this is what you had to do every day? It's what I did right after passing my doctoral oral exams. Today, cold-calling in-home sales is an almost extinct market niche. You can imagine why when you consider how few hours a day you are home alone or there with your mate. For most employees, more time is spent at the office and in work-related activities than at home. This shift is a response to the heated up global economy, which runs 24/7/365. It also weakens family identity as workers define themselves more in terms of corporate identity.

What I learned is that selling is an emotional transaction. You cannot talk someone into buying something. Despite your mastery of features, cost benefits, savings, special discounts, freebies and other inducements, the customer buys if you accomplish two things. One, they buy you. Two, you make them feel that they belong. Trust and Belonging. Now, I developed a grid of six buying emotions: use, profit and fear are what most non-sales people think it's all about. Sure, the client asks himself. Can I use it? Will it make me a profit? If I don't get it will I lose my competitive edge? But these three don't make for a strong close. Pride, emulation and belonging do. The client says, With this product everyone will think I'm smart (or successful or on the cutting-edge). This is the benefit of brand identity. When you don't have brand identity, as most of my small start-up companies did not, then you sell the client on being "first in the area," "a trend setter," "on the benefits you can offer your clients which others can't," and other client-relevant pride stimulators. Emulation taps into some of the same benefits. I spent more years than I like to recall selling legal software. Lawyers and law firms are emulators. The first question they ask is, "What other firm has this product?" Never fails. But it is Belonging which is the only emotion which really counts in the long run.

Belonging is providing the client with a sense of value. You make them feel that they are part of your company by showing them how your company sees itself as part of their business success. You focus on making ongoing connections in non-sales areas. You find ways to provide your client with non-sales services, e.g., your company might engage in a common philanthropic endeavor or you promote them in your newsletter or on your website. Likewise, you try to get your executives into professional and social organizations with theirs. This is a long discussion, but my point is that when you make the first sale, your goal is to make the fifth sale. This approach is a client retention strategy.

What I learned from all of this is that everyone makes decisions based upon emotions. And that the emotion of Belonging establishes the strongest bond. So, as I began my search to understand why my Big Story landed me in prison, I was being conditioned to look at how Big Stories sold themselves to their followers. I started looking for how Belonging functioned to clarify why so many people talked one way, e.g., talked American, "This is the greatest land in the world. Land of the free. Home of the brave," while acting another way, "Keep out the immigrants!" "Put the savages on reservations." "Let the poor serve as soldiers." In short, I began to perceive how the Shade creates a sense of Belonging.

I came to an understanding of the Shade and Belonging, again, through selling. It was my personality to tell a prospect the shortcomings of my product if they asked, or if I thought they should know. My first sales managers thought that I was nuts! I, however, simply didn't want to scam anyone. Fortunately, I began with World Book encyclopedias, which was an exceptional product. My focus, also, was on showing how this Book helped the parents help their kids. The pricing was fair and there were no "bait and switch" type deals to be made if someone declined to buy. However, after the World Book company was sold, I entered a different sales world. I worked in early Cable TV, then within the entrepreneurial start-up movement in the early 1980s, then as a developer of the first cellular phone distribution networks, and then within the fledgling computer software market, especially legal software. Here, I quickly gained insights into the reasons why many see salesmen as just a nick above criminals. This included high level executives who were pitching woo to venture capital funders. For my purposes here the one relevant fact was my learning that you never touched on Shade matters. Or, as one President asked his VP when I was being hired, "He understands the grey areas, right?"

The grey areas. I have to chuckle because, at that moment, I didn't understand the grey areas at all. I am, however, a "quick study." I realized that in business transactions it is assumed that you are not telling the whole story. Let's just look at the software business. When the personal computer market opened and individuals could buy "software" and their own piece of "personal" hardware, who spoke about iffy issues such as upgrades, new versions, training difficulties, etc.? This was the period when everyone was computer illiterate. No one knew how to critically evaluate software simply because they had never used it before. Did the executives and product development teams know that the product I was selling was obsolete even before the ink was dry on the contract? Let's see, what did I state about Americans and Original Sin? It is part of the Civil Religion to deny Original Sin. It is certainly part of the business practices of these Civil Religion believers not to talk about Shady matters.

Seasoned sales veterans will snicker at what I'm saying. How else can matters work? In fact, they twist the Shady features of their products into benefits. "When you're given a lemon, make lemonade." So, they develop Belonging from a Shady perspective. Namely, "If things go wrong, I'll be there for you." They pitch the benefit that they stand by their product's defects! Actually, this creates a vicious cycle. The client buys the obsolete product and has to rely upon the seller to help him make it work which requires buying upgrades and revisions, which of course are simply current products in the endless stream of upgrading and revisioning, and then engage the seller in training on the various versions ... it goes on. So, what is the salesman's goal? Simply, sell the product by any means. Get the account. Once the product is installed then the client Belongs simply because to remove your product and engage another seller is too costly. In time, your product becomes part of your client's legacy infrastructure, and so you've achieved client retention! The rub is that everyone knows that this is the game. To steal another's installed client you work like hell (smoothly and professionally of course) to convince them that you are not as Shady as your competitor.

This is all more humorous than bleak. But it should show you why my zeal for the Market Economy is somewhat subdued. Ethical issues are confronted only at crisis points. Morality is never a topic of conversation. The words fair, just, equitable, proportionate, etc., rarely arise. All this said, I've met some exceptional innovators and internationally recognized executives who are concerned about topics such as corporate responsibility and fair trade. Yet, they are, tellingly, not tapped into the primal brooding emotion of the Big Story for which Market Economics is a chapter. Since they were unaware of America's Shade, they remained, despite their best efforts, devotees of America's Civil Religion and as such agents of dominion.

# Chapter 106: The three Big Stories and intimacy

Like most intellectuals and academics, I look for the simplest way to present an idea or describe a movement. At the same time, no one wants to be simplistic, which means passing over truly significant but knotty facts or events. As I've previously stated, the worst trap is to imitate Procrustes. He offered his visitors a bed for the night. What they didn't know is that if you were too short, Procrustes put you on the rack and stretched your legs. If you were too long, he lopped them off. In literary pursuits, this applies to those who hack the facts to fit their story. Since I've covered a lot of material and introduced personal interpretations, I strove to avoid telling a story which would end with your saying, "Yeah. He just should've said at the outset that the three Big Stories are one and the same. He wanted to throw them out before he began."

I used my personal experiences to fend off that judgment. Again, you could hold that I bent those to fit my beef that I got whacked and sent to jail. However, it truly didn't unfold that way. It's hard for me to tell you how difficult it was to write in the previous section that Teilhard de Chardin tapped into the same brooding emotions as did the Nazi scientists and those in America and elsewhere who accepted their tortured results. Teilhard was my intellectual and visionary father during my college years. I took him into the courtroom. I still admire a lot of his work and his life although, with Inside Sight, I now perceive his serious shortcomings. Moreover, he, like my own father, remained an Abrahamic. However, unlike my father Teilhard failed to intuit how the Abrahamic Sunny Spot is consumed by its Shade.

For two decades after prison I was plagued by deep personal uncertainties and anxieties. I threw myself into sales management because I couldn't make any further sense out of all the books I had read and all the research I conducted. So, it is fair to state that my Inside Sight was purchased at a steep price. I didn't, and don't, want easy Big Answers. Or in Dietrich Bonhoeffer's phrase, "Cheap Grace." I went back to re-examine and re-evaluate everything because I wanted the deep violence which permeates our world to stop with me. I wanted to find a practical and impactful way to carve out a personal Story not based upon dominion. In prison I became the dog-shit they wanted me to be. I make no bones about the transforming power of dominion. So, I sought transformation into what I wanted to be, namely, Beloved.

Theologically, everything which I had mastered, I began to re-examine. I certainly did not start out with exploring Genesis. It was only after I had read the early works of Margo Anand on sacred sexuality and the Tantric tradition that I began to wonder why there was no sacred sexuality in the Abrahamic tradition. When I did discern that Genesis' Big Question is, "What to do with women?" it, again, only made sense when I also Inside Sighted the presence of the Shade Mother. If I hadn't met the Shade Mother Goddess in prison, I would never have even gone looking around the Garden for Her in her Shade presence there. Like most, I would have continued to interpret the Garden as the abode of the asexual Lone Male God, and so continued to fall for and follow Genesis' artful misdirection. That is, to miss the fact that Genesis is, at its core, a story about intimacy as Sacred space. And, that Lone Male dominion over the intimate space is what links all three dominant Big Stories.

# Chapter 107: The Abrahamic labyrinth of intimacy

When I look back, my journey appears to me as through a labyrinth of intellectual and emotional pathways, dead-ends and insights. Here is how I trace my route, in a basically chronological ordering.

I find safety and comfort in Sacred spaces such as churches

Through ritual I share a deep intimate bond with my father

My personal Story is the Catholic Big Story in miniature

My brother Joey is stricken (1958) and family moves to Minnesota

I enter the seminary, become a young monk, but find that I don't fit

My reason for leaving the seminary was emotional, although no one spoke in those terms back then

I tapped into and rejected the Catholic brooding emotion of feeling miserable

My leaving the seminary is a great disappointment to my Dad (1962)

I study science and philosophy in college, and am part of an Honors Program focused on the Great Books of the Western World (1963-1966)

This Program introduces me to the wisdom of the Secular and Scientism Big Stories

Vatican Council II reforms the Catholic Big Story as it addresses all men of good will around the world

I obtain permission from the local Bishop to enter the Librorum Prohibitorum (Library of Forbidden Books) to read the writings of the censured visionary Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. (1964)

My Honors thesis is, "Teilhard de Chardin's Personalizing Universe"

My brother Joey dies, August 1967

I complete a Masters in Theology, but my focus is on academics (the Patristic period) while my peers are running about protesting the war, burning draft cards, etc. (1968)

My father dies, Christmas 1968

I file for Conscientious Objector status based upon the Documents of Vatican Council II and the vision of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J.

I teach college theology and am challenged to get involved in anti-war and social justice after several meetings with Fred Hampton of the Chicago Black Panthers and Fred Ojile of the draft raiding "Milwaukee 14"

I read about Dorothy Day's "Catholic Worker Movement," the writings of the Trappist monk, Thomas Merton, the civil disobedience of the "Catholic Radicals," Phil and Dan Berrigan, S.J.

I am drafted and start serving my two years of Alternative Service as a Conscientious Objector on the staff at the Newman Center on the University of Minnesota campus

Father Harry Bury is the Center director. He is a dynamic Peace Priest who later, with others, chains himself to the American Embassy gate in Saigon

I preach and teach. Young men come by the droves to discuss the moral issues surrounding the war. I meet heroes and cowards.

Fred Hampton is assassinated in Chicago by the police (December 4, 1969)

About two weeks later, Gordy Nielsen, a Marine Vietnam Veteran, drops by my office and proceeds to tell me that he wakes up at night and threatens to beat his wife. His wife and kids fear him. Neither of us had heard about post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD).

Gordy recounts his Search and Destroy missions. "In dealing with myself, coming back and thinking I was right. And thinking that the things I had done were right because it was what I had been taught in Boot Camp, and then viewing it from the other side, instead of a gook, it was a human being. Instead of a hootch, it was a home. That really socked it to my head. It really blew my mind. Because I have never thought of a hootch being a home, it was an old grass hootch. And they were peasants, they weren't people." Gordy Nielsen, US Marine. Medaled veteran.

Wherever I go, young men, draftees and especially returning veterans, challenge me with Gordy's charge, "What are you going to do? You're articulate. You can reach people like we can't."

I ask myself, "What does it mean to be a Catholic theologian when war is raging?" Was I a teacher, a preacher, a scholar or what?

I discern that the Selective Service System is the core ritual which binds all American males. I describe draft raids as "socio-political sacramental acts."

For the first time ever, I visit the Twin Cities Draft Information Center and meet numerous draft resisters. (January 1970)

Joe Mulligan, S.J., arrives from Chicago and inspires many to become draft raiders as he did as part of the "Chicago 15."

February 1970, I am part of the "Beaver 55" which is the largest draft raid in American history. Over fifty-four draft boards destroyed in one night. The largest metropolitan (Hennepin and Ramsey counties) draft board and some rural boards were administratively centralized in St. Paul and Minneapolis. Twenty people worked for six hours or more destroying paper files for which there were no copies. As a hostile witness, the State Director said at my trial that we had crippled his ability to meet his quota for over a year.

I take hundreds of blank draft cards and official stamps from the desk of the State Director of Selective Service, Colonel Philip Knight. I bring them to Toronto. Deserters, draft evaders, war resisters in Canada return home with valid draft cards. Years later the FBI makes me aware that such actually happened.

July 10, 1970, I am arrested and become part of the "Minnesota 8"

My trial, based upon religiously principled Defense of Necessity, opens January 1971.

I am sentenced to the maximum five years in federal prison.

I receive permission to argue my federal appeal, as attorney pro se, in St. Louis. I wait six months for a decision. (A long story about why this delay occured!)

I develop a friendship with Daniel Ellsberg, who was a witness at my trial and tried to release the Pentagon Papers there. (Another long story!)

Mike Therriault and I enter Sandstone Federal Correctional Insitution in June 1972.

While in Sandstone US Attorney General John Mitchell is the first ever Attorney General indicted. In disgust I stop watching TV and play lots of basketball.

I am truly intellectually and spiritually mute. I can make no sense out of the Religious, Secular or Scientism Big Stories. I have no personal Story.

"Watergate" unravels. Daniel Ellsberg's release of the "Pentagon Papers" catalyzes the movement to impeach President Richard M. Nixon.

I'm at the Bottom, in the joint, as the general mood in America shifts. I am paroled late July 1973, after serving fourteen months.

I leave for San Francisco in 1974. I work for the American Friends Service Committee in a prison reform project. I want to know why America's prison system is as it is. I need to figure out what "they" thought would happen to me when Inside, and I needed to figure out what did happen to me when Inside.

I return to doctoral studies, "Historical Studies," in a joint doctoral program of UC-Berkeley and the Graduate Theological Union (GTU), 1974-1978.

1975, I marry and move to Los Angeles. Teach at a local Catholic high school. My first born, Jedidiah, arrives January 5, 1978.

I pass my doctoral comprehensives on June 5, 1978. On June 6, 1978 a special election approves "Proposition 13." This is a tax reform whose immediate impact is that all higher education jobs in the public sector are frozen.

I join World Book Encyclopedia company as a door to door salesman in the LA suburbs.

I quickly rise to top national manager over the LA metro area. My success was sourced in developing multi-ethnic sales teams.

I shift my energies into developing my corporate identity. My personal Story is as a "corporate player," but I have no coherent Big Story.

After World Book is sold, I move back and forth across the country several times for the ever-more-moneyed position. I serve primarily as a sales and marketing senior manager for small or start-up companies.

Nicholas is born December 27, 1983.

While on-the-road in nameless and numerous hotels, I write and publish, "Prison, Bottoming Out, Mother" in 1983.

My personal and Big Story have one word, one image, "Mother."

I move to Ramona, CA in San Diego area in 1988 to work for a software company.

I live the small town, middle-class lifestyle. Coach youth basketball, etc.

However, I had stopped going to Church on a regular basis ever since I left prison.

My sons are not raised in any religious or spiritual tradition.

I continue to read and write in hotels as I travel nation-wide managing my sales teams.

The Internet becomes my research tool. I become familiar with neo-pagan movement, e.g., Starhawk, and the works of Margo Anand on sacred sexuality (her "skydancing").

I begin to meet those I call "Earthfolk."

I begin writing early versions of "Sensual Preciousness: a spirituality of intimacy."

I am divorced in 2004. I move back to Minnesota to be with family.

Doris Baizley is commissioned by the St. Paul "History Theatre" http://www.historytheatre.org to write a play based upon the times and events of the Minnesota 8. Source is my post-trial memoir, "Patriotism Means Resistance" reworked into "Outlaw or American Patriot?" (2005)

"Peace Crimes: the Minnesota 8 vs. the war," runs in February 2008, attracts 4,000 folk. "Peace and War in the Heartland" promoted the play by making presentations on ten regional campuses. http://www.pwh-mn.org

For other details, see http://www.minnestoa8.net

# Chapter 108: The Market as God

Although I had lost my personal and Big Story, I survived by tapping into the brooding emotion which links those who aspire to success in the Market Economy. You might chuckle as you imagine me de-Sixties-izing myself. I dressed in three piece suits, trimmed my beard every day, worked on weekends, and eagerly tracked the weekly sales reports to determine my regional and national standings. I really "got into" the heady dynamic which drives multi-level marketing and direct-sales groups. I drank more booze than I should, but that went with the turf. When I went into an aversion therapy program to manage my drinking, that also fit into the high-powered, go-go lifestyle. Whenever one goal or barrier was overcome, others rose up. I wanted them to rise up! I was, once again, back into Warrior's Quest mode. This time, however, I was winning. Or so I thought at the time.

As I worked in corporate America I gained Inside insight into the Market Economy. What I discerned is well expressed by the renown theologian, Harvey Cox of Harvard Divinity School. I came to understand how "theologically textured" is America's vision of economics. In his article, "The Market as God," he notes:

The lexicon of the Wall Street Journal and the business sections of Time and Newsweek turned out to bear a striking resemblance to Genesis, the epistle to the Romans, and Saint Augustine's City of God. Behind descriptions of market reforms, monetary policy, and the convolutions of the Dow, I gradually made out the pieces of a grand narrative about the inner meaning of human history, why things had gone wrong, and how to put them right. Theologians call these myths of origin, legends of the fall, and doctrines of sin and redemption. But here they were again, and in only thin disguise: chronicles about the creation of wealth, the seductive temptations of statism, captivity to faceless economic cycles, and, ultimately, salvation through the advent of free markets, with a small dose of ascetic belt tightening along the way, especially for the East Asian economies.

Cox's insight is that of a sage sociologist and academic professor. What he saw, I validated through laying my personal hand on the engine of Mammon.

However, I also thoroughly marveled at the Market's Sunny Spot, namely, how it is an open opportunity for just about anyone willing to gut it out. My first sales teams consisted of recently arrived immigrants from Korea, China, Japan, Thailand, Philippines, even Eastern European and Communist countries. I was successful because I applied my belief that "People make profits." And for a time I thought that my rise to fame and fortune was unstoppable. But then I ran into my own greed, which knocked me off the tracks for a while. Soon I was engaged by a wave of brash young entrepreneurs who were hell-bent on making Texas size fortunes before they were thirty-five. With them I learned what was at work in the bowels of the Market, down among the boilers and in the sewers.

I came, again, to a section of the Garden of Eden. It was over-stuffed with magnificent material goods. However, buried under the bushes were the bones of the not-Chosen. I learned the difference between small-scale capitalism where managing in line with "People make Profits" can lead to a fair and equitable situation for all concerned, and that of large-scale capitalism which makes the world run. In short, the latter is a militarized economic machine. As much as certain far right ideologists rail against Big Government, there isn't a fortune made in America (nor probably in the world) which wasn't, as the saying goes, built upon a crime (I'd add, "a war"). Quite often it is either a filching of the government's treasury or a theft of international resources abetted by government agents.

On the small scale, capitalistic companies can tap into being like families. They engage their workers in matters which directly impact their personal, familial and social group identities. However, this is truly a very small segment of companies. On the large scale, people are expendable and treated as commodities. This is not a new insight nor do you need Inside Sight to assess the situation in this light. I mention it because the greatest impact of the earliest phase of economic globalization was the destruction of intimacy. Companies quickly adopted the large-scale corporate values and justified their actions solely in terms of monetary gains, and in further imitation disregarded the impact on personal lives.

From every avenue in this labyrinth, I arrived to confront an issue of intimacy. In respect to my hierarchy of group identities, individuals lost control over their personal identity as their lives were ripped apart and tossed about by economic entities which no longer even paid lip-service to being a "company" in the sense of companion. In general, the American worker now accepts the fact that he can be globally relocated, replaced, outsourced or re-engineered at a moment's notice. The brooding emotions which the worker taps into as he worships The Market as God are the Abrahamic ones of feeling exiled, cursed, and abiding in dreadful fear.

# Chapter 109: Exiles don't belong

I understand why you readily see the three dominant Big Stories' Sunny Spot and then prefer to focus on their best-of-times interpretation. You do this because of the primal brooding emotion which links all three. On the surface, the three Big Stories enable you to tap into a range of very positive emotions. Here are just a few examples. Each enables you to be optimistic. That is, you can be Saved, right now, simply by proclaiming belief in Jesus Christ. Or, you can become Number One because the Market Economy offers unlimited opportunity. Plus, scientists are working on solving every major conundrum which has caused problems for humans. Then, you can feel proud. As an Abrahamic, even in secular guise, you are Chosen. Likewise, scientists have already achieved the unimaginable, that is, taken us into outer space and onto the moon.

Most significantly, you can Belong. As anyone can become an Abrahamic by an act of faith, so anyone can also become an American. America's Statue of Liberty welcomes you. Democracy invites you to become an equal participant in sharing power. The benefits of scientific achievements, notably in the medical area, are accessible to all through private and public insurance programs. Moreover, there is no "space" you cannot enter, either social, cultural or physical. If you work hard enough you can acquire sufficient wealth to join the upper economic strata. You can possess the same high-tech toys, have access to the finest schools, join the most prestigious social clubs, etc., simply through personal effort. The stock market is there for anyone who wants to generate wealth. Lastly, if there are any barriers, this is a litigious society, and there are legions of lawyers and civil rights groups which will assist you in overcoming any experience of victimization.

Isn't Belonging the primal brooding emotion of the Abrahamic tradition as expressed through its Religious, Secular and Scientism Big Story? Isn't Belonging the goal you seek to reach as you carve out your personal Story? Consider again, that Genesis is about Belonging. Of course, you really only Belong if you are male, an Adam. But it is really more than that. You can Belong if you act like a Lone Male. Again, read Genesis from Day 6 to Day 1. Eve is "in" because she accepts her Lone Male role. She accepts being a derivative of the male. She becomes an adjunct female Warrior's Quester. She is Shade Mother.

However, when the Serpent enables Eve to see her own Shade Mother brooding in the misty Dark Vapors, she gains Inside Sight into another role for herself, namely, as a goddess. To prevent her from acting as a goddess, all hell breaks loose and she and Adam are consigned to live as exiles on the cursed Earth.

Exiles simply don't Belong.

Dominion means "Might makes right."

The best-of-times interpretation, then, comes to dominate the three Big Stories. It is a best-of-times expressed in Warrior's Quest terms and images. "Thank god! We humans have been shown The Quest and The Market. We have been offered Salvation and Wealth." Nevertheless, this happens if and only if your personal Story emulates the Warrior's Quest. Which is, in stark terms, the exercise of global dominion.

Now reflect upon dominion. It readily expresses itself as "Might makes right." If you have dominion you are accountable to no one on Earth. You can do with the Earth what you like. Since you are Chosen, you can also do what you want with the not-Chosen. And here is where I began to flounder concerning what the truly basic brooding emotion was. It just seemed too superficial to say that it was fear. Or even feeling miserable. Or being terrified out of one's mind. So I looked for rituals and icons since the words I was hearing all seemed to simply try to "bait and switch" me into buying a bill of goods.

What I found is what woke up the Earthfolk. Volume 1 develops this storyline. For now, I simply want to focus on the icons. I grew up in an iconic and ritual world. Crucifixes, rosary beads, pictures of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, scapulars, Christmas crèches, Holy Mass, the Seven Sacraments, monastic prayer manuals and painful disciplines, it goes on. Somehow these icons had prevented me from seeing the Shade, and it was only the Secular iconic prison cell which woke me up. Sitting in solitary I laughed at myself. "Finally, you've found the Holy of Holies! Fucking A, man!"

# Chapter 110: Sunny Spot and Shade are one and the same

I asked myself, "What is the primary ritual which grounds all three Big Stories?" And, "What are the dominant icons of these Stories?" I came back to the Mushroom Cloud of the Atomic Bomb and that first picture of Earth from outer space which has led to calling Earth either The Blue Marble or Starship Earth. Both were, as noted, the result of vast military efforts and missions. I realized that never before in human consciousness have such images been seen. Only since August 6, 1945 have we humans presented ourselves with an image that shows how our Sunny Spot and Shade are one and the same.

The best minds of Western Civilization—drawn from the scientific, political, academic and military communities into the Manhattan Project—considered how to respond to the Shade of Nazism and the Japanese enemy. They came up with the Mushroom Cloud. Of its many implications, this was a foundational globalization event in that it spoke to every human who gazed upon it. Note the significance of this fact because it is not the American Mushroom Cloud, for when Americans gaze upon it, the Cloud does not discriminate and say, "I will not spew radioactivity upon you, America." Rather, the Mushroom Cloud made the first global statement. It said, "Humans do not Belong on Earth."

The Mushroom Cloud is designed to kill everyone and every living thing. It is a fitting Abrahamic icon because it affirms that the Earth is a dirt ball and a Vale of Tears. Nothing on Earth is of any value, only life in heaven is. So, if humans bring down upon themselves the Apocalypse, what Abrahamic would demur? Rather, they would chant, "It is fitting. It is right. It is just." This Catholic liturgical phrase aptly fits as a response to sighting the iconic image.

Scientists, in the main, chose to carve out their personal Story using the Abrahamic imagination. Here, I note for your reflection that what identifies Nazism as an expression of the Abrahamic imagination is this shared Warrior's Quest to create a weapon of mass destruction. Every scientist could have chosen as my father did—I am confident that there were others like him—and expressed their patriotism through employing their scientific talents otherwise. However, the scientific community made its Faustian Bargain. The Mushroom Cloud is the Scientism Big Story's prime icon.

The Scientism Big Story, then, does not spring from the inspiration of "pure science." Such ceased to exist on August 6, 1945, and consequently the science behind the initial phase of globalization remains militarized science. The militarized scientist recognizes no Shade, and probes and explores without regard or expressed need for moral guidance. This is so because the Mushroom Cloud is both Sunny Spot and Shade. In this milieu, scientists approach all global problems with Might Makes Right confidence. "Since we can do it, we will do it!"

As I called attention to how Secular movies and films rehash and represent Abrahamic stories and values, so curiously is Secular Hollywood a prophetic entity. Every scientist has now become Dr. Strangelove. All aspire to set up their labs on Dr. Moreau's Island. I do not back an iota away from saying that the Scientism Big Story is being imagined, today, by Mad Scientists—Frankensteins!

The Secular Big Story also hoists the image of the Mushroom Cloud as icon. It is telling that America, which I've described as a Sacred Secular imagination, offers Democracy with this "Either join us or we'll nuke you" deal. This is a version of the swagger in "Walk softly and carry a big stick." This was clearly the back and forth message between the United States and its Cold War enemies, notably Russia and China. Each side took pains to ratchet up their missile count. The American sub-text was always "Better dead than Red!" This enabled Americans to tap into a type of apocalyptic patriotism which has manifested itself in an endless stream of wars since the end of the War to End All Wars supposedly ended. As a people whose Shade is their Sunny Spot, Americans proclaim all their wars to be "The Good War."

The core Secular ritual which binds your personal identity to all group identities, then, is clearly the act of warring. At http://www.minnesota8.net/Kroncke/FXKwritings.html I've an essay titled, "Presidential Evangelist for War." I argue that it is inevitable that an American President wages a Good War declared or undeclared. It is a matter of religious compulsion and fervor, that of the Civil Religion whose faith and economy is driven by endless war and its unbridled consumption of land and markets. On that site, I expand upon war as liturgy in another writing, "Vietnam Undeclared." At this point, I simply want you to consider that if the root is one of Chosenness, and if the main interpretive model is acting according to Warrior's Quest values, then the emotion of Belonging is tapped into only when the individual feels that he is at war. It doesn't make any difference whether the battlefield is a miniscule country like Grenada or a formidable country like China. What counts is that to achieve Abrahamic Belonging, you must engage in the heartfelt act of warring.

# Chapter 111: What did I do that made them so afraid?

When I tried to tie all my thoughts and feelings together, I came back to the simple question, "What did I do that made them so afraid?"

As I see it now, I simply wasn't holding my world together as they were. I went into the courtroom and stated that Jesus was not a warrior, rather that he was a nonviolent healer. Yeah, sure. That annoyed them but it didn't seem to be what pushed their buttons. In fact, I had long since come to the point, by trial's time, where I didn't care what Jesus had done. I just had to personally do something so that when I awoke in the morning I could look myself straight in the mirror and say, "You might be fucked up, but you're doing it!"

I did finally figure it out, but I didn't understand it all, namely, that I wasn't feeling like they were. Hmm. My actions made them feel ... How? Just unsafe? Was it that they needed me to affirm their feelings that the Viet Cong were our enemies? No. Here's where it all goes back to my time in prison. Remember when I told you that a guy stood up and asked me if I was a fag? That's the key as I sense it.

They feared that I wanted to be intimate with them. Their fear was deeply sexual, because they conflated sexuality with intimacy. You can laugh and imagine that they saw me as wanting to take their cocks away. I was, unknowingly at the time, tapping into the brooding emotion of feeling intimately Beloved. If you go back into Genesis again, what Adam and Eve did not have in the Garden were intimate moments. Only when the Serpent speaks with Eve does she approach Adam and together discover their nakedness. Of course, then they are exiled and become the not-Chosen.

I thought that I was "nonviolent" whereas I was being intimate. Even I would have been slightly uncomfortable with that word, back then. As fitting the times, the fag-baiter also confused sexual technique with sexual intimacy. Yes, I wanted to be intimate with every human because I wanted to discover my own intimacy. I intuitively but not consciously realized that the Warrior's Quest prevents me from exploring the rich tapestry of maleness. It does so because a full-blown maleness tapestry would have an image of the Serpent sewn into it. The Serpent affirms that there is a point of maleness where I can speak with my femaleness. It is a moment when my full male godding is realized as I embrace a female who is present in her full godding. While this moment has aspects of fear, dread, and terror as one's deep nakedness is seen, its real import is that it is a moment of creating, of imagining a fuller humanity, of giving birth to the world.

Was it all that simple? The Warrior's Quester mocks, "Peace is unimaginable!" And all I was saying is, "Imagine Peace!" Such is unimaginable for the Warrior's Quester because "Imagine Peace!" is a phrase which evokes the imagistic icon of you and me embraced as Beloveds. Whew! ... Males embracing, now that's scary. "Am I my brother's intimate?" The Warrior's Quester trumpets, "You don't need anyone else but yourself to be human." And I was countering, "You're not human unless you are present as a Beloved." The Warrior's Questers thought that I wanted to stick my dick up their asses and play sperm soldier. All I wanted them to do was put down their phallic guns and see every other person as themselves, as precious. As was testimony, "... instead of a gook, it was a human being."

Why is this insight into the preciousness of everyone something only Inside Sight endowed? Why did I have to sit down in an institution where the Shade and the Sunny Spot are one and the same to catch the scent of this preciousness? Why did I have to gaze upon the Mushroom Cloud to grasp that it can all change if we imagine one another as precious and Beloved?

I came to the Inside Sight of myself in respect to intimacy because I was present at the nightly liturgy of same-sex sexuality in the prison dorm. I was present—and as a witness so a participant—in this Shade ritual. Please understand that. Just as it was my hand upon Enola Gay's bomb-bay door releasing the Atomic Bomb, so was I deep into same-sex sacred sexuality because I was too an imaginer of the Abrahamic Warrior's Quest. All of us males—Lefties, Right-Wingers, Revolutionaries, High Priests, etc.—were steeped in the Shade emotion of not-Belonging, of living as if we were exiles. And if you live as an exile, you then approach the other as if he is your Intimate Enemy.

In prison I discerned that I truly held others as precious. I had never lived with such a diverse group of males. Of every hue of the rainbow. Of every sexual preference. Of every socio-economic and cultural background. Every male who is labeled in one of the three dominant Big Stories as my enemy was now a fellow inmate, and someone I found I could imagine as precious and Beloved. Ironically, as the Warrior's Quest asserts, prison is where the Serpent resides. And I did find myself as Serpent. Like Eve, prison endowed me with Inside Sight with which to understand and imagine that of my maleness which speaks with my femaleness.

# Chapter 112: Primal brooding motion of post-traumatic stress

The prison-blues which had jumped me from the start of my time Inside paled in comparison to my after prison personal version of post-traumatic stress syndrome. Naturally, I didn't back then relate PTSD to doing time, only to warfare. Recently, when I started to work with East African refugees, I read a website where someone stated that the whole community, specifically Somalian, was gripped by PTSD. Bingo! "Dummy, you were a war refugee and didn't know it!"

How else to even begin to explain the savagery and dysfunctionality of the Abrahamic Big Story than to define it as a product of a culture rooted in an event which caused PTSD? How to explain the fact of why Genesis was ever composed? Look at Genesis. It is the tale told by a people who experienced a trauma so psychologically and spiritually overpowering that they lost faith in the gods and goddesses. The "let us" phrase in Chapter 1 is the background against which the Rib story is developed. The Rib story opens with its atheistic act of rejection of the gods and goddesses as the One God is presented. Consider the depth of horror and terror which must have occurred to this Abrahamic people such that it presents a God who is not only a solitary wanderer in the Garden but one who is not Beloved. Remember, the Shade Mother is hidden, and she remains hidden for Abrahamics to this day! They will read Genesis today and tomorrow and still not spy her in the misty Dark Vapors. So, this is a people who have come to reject the gods and goddesses. Why did they do this?

There are a range of scenarios to consider. My interpretive tool is that Genesis reads like a story of revenge. It is written by someone who is so psychotically off-balance that he convinces himself that only Lone Males should exist. This statement not only reflects a rageful anger at women, but it is also a story of spite. It conjures, "Woman, you do not exist!"

Why was this written? Did actual women or womanly traits lead to a loss in war? Were the original Hebrews former prisoners of war who had lived so long in the Shade as captives that they wanted to create a world where they could wreck havoc without being called to account by any god or goddess? If there was only one exclusive and excluding God, and if it was their God, then who could bridle any exercise of their dominion? When Joshua obliterated Ai, into what brooding emotion did this people tap?

Genesis so twists and contorts common sense reality that I can only assess it as a story steeped in evil deeds of the darkest sectors of the Shade. How else can it adopt the Warrior's Quest and claim that you are not-Chosen? Does this stem from their not being Chosen? For me this is how harden criminals talk. If they've been State-raised-convicts, that is, passed from one public institution to the next, for example, from orphanage to foster homes to juvenile halls to prison and out and back again, theirs becomes a revenge personal Story. When you listen to them their version of how the world works is skewed in ways you find it hard to believe they really accept. However, it hardly taps into the weirdness of Genesis' revelation that the male body is the birthing body.

Why has this revenge Big Story lasted for so many millennia? The "let us" phrase hints of an oral tradition of a "time before." I can only surmise that if the end result was the expulsion and exile from the Garden, then there had been a spiritual war of sorts. Even if, as I do believe, the Lone Male god did not win the celestial battle, he at least convinced himself that he did. He believes that he is the only god. His bait and switch on humans is that he's sold us a bill of goods, namely, that some of us are Chosen and some are not-Chosen. He has taught us to imagine one another as Intimate Enemies. Why would a "god" do this? Tell this outlandish tale? Make you and I feel so damn miserable?

I conclude that those composing the Abrahamic Story were suffering from PTSD. Here is a widely accepted definition.

Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD, is a psychiatric disorder that can occur following the experience or witnessing of life-threatening events such as military combat, natural disasters, terrorist incidents, serious accidents, or violent personal assaults like rape. Most survivors of trauma return to normal given a little time. However, some people will have stress reactions that do not go away on their own, or may even get worse over time...People who suffer from PTSD often relive the experience through nightmares and flashbacks, have difficulty sleeping, and feel detached or estranged, and these symptoms can be severe enough and last long enough to significantly impair the person's daily life.

"PTSD is marked by clear biological changes as well as psychological symptoms. PTSD is complicated by the fact that it frequently occurs in conjunction with related disorders such as depression, substance abuse, problems of memory and cognition, and other problems of physical and mental health. The disorder is also associated with impairment of the person's ability to function in social or family life, including occupational instability, marital problems and divorces, family discord, and difficulties in parenting. " National Center for PTSD http://www.ncptsd.va.gov

If the intended end result of Genesis is the obliteration of any memory of Her, the Mother Goddess, which translates into all humans being Lone Males whose maleness cannot speak with the female, then can you infer that something ghastly and traumatic has occurred? If you use some Inside Sight and see that the message is about intimacy, namely, that there can be none between humans, then how damaged do you apprise these Lone Males to be? If what is celebrated as icon is the phallus, and if it is claimed that Eve was born from Adam's ejaculate through a same-sex masturbatory act, then what do you infer is going on in their homes? What type of parents did Adam and Eve have? Is it a far stretch to name them sexually violent, abusive parents?

The Secular and Scientism Big Stories do not have to offer their advocates only the Abrahamic tradition with which to carve out personal Stories. But, as assessed from identifying the Mushroom Cloud and Starship Earth as militarized icons, it seems that the die has been cast. All three dominant Big Stories sustain and reaffirm the "nightmares and flashbacks" through Secular and Scientism narratives which continue to make you "feel detached or estranged." This is a primal brooding emotion of the Warrior's Quest.

When "related disorders" is referenced, which ones do not dominate Abrahamic and especially Western Culture? Which ones are not known "side effects" of the disruption which Abrahamic rooted globalization is causing right now? Which of the following have not been topics on a TV special or blockbuster movie?

...depression, substance abuse, problems of memory and cognition, and other problems of physical and mental health. The disorder is also associated with impairment of the person's ability to function in social or family life, including occupational instability, marital problems and divorces, family discord, and difficulties in parenting.

# Chapter 113: If you can, convince me that my Inside Sight is criminally insane!

One final note is that "PTSD is marked by clear biological changes as well as psychological symptoms." In this light, I hold that the Abrahamic Warrior's Quest has changed human biology. People feel as if they are machines. They act towards one another in nonhuman ways, namely, they treat their bodies as sex-toys. They work the Earth as if it is cursed, that is, as if it only produces scarce commodities and is not bountiful and blessed. In the realm of evolution, how humans feel, that is, what brooding emotions they tap into, determines how they, if they so will, transform. Genesis has imagined a world wherein you are in post-traumatic stress. The proper end for you then is to self-annihilate and so end your misery. Does the icons of the Atomic Bomb Mushroom Cloud and Starship Earth boldly trumpet that this self-annihilation is begun?

However, I can and do imagine a world which is non-Abrahamic. One which is not of the Warrior's Quest. One wherein I live as if I am no one's Enemy, and where I hold myself open to behold you and be beheld as precious and Beloved.

My discovery of the Earthfolk vision and imagination came through my walking a different walk than that of the Warrior's Quest. It involved practicing how I imagined you to be. It began the day I started practicing "living as if I am no one's Enemy." I do this as I approach you, every day, as a Beloved.

This is where Volume 1 picks up. I am at the point where I accept that you might be living by one or all of the three dominant Big Stories. They work. The world is as it is. We are living in an Abrahamic apocalyptic age. A certain phase and form of globalization is steaming ahead, driven by the Abrahamic imagination as expressed through the three dominant Big Stories. I accept that you might want to continue to imagine yourself in your religious-secular-scientific Abrahamic image of being Chosen, and as having global dominion over all the peoples and every aspect of the Earth. All I ask is that when you answer, "How do you feel things are going?," that you honestly open yourself to the brooding emotions which arise as you contemplate the icons of the Mushroom Cloud and Starship Earth. That is, of tapping into the range of feelings sourced in post-traumatic stress.

All said and done, as I see it, globalization is a movement which challenges you and me to imagine what it means for us to be intimates. Are you my Intimate Enemy? Or are you my Beloved? For Big Answers to those Big Questions, let me introduce you to the Earthfolk vision and imagination.

# Chapter 114: Summary and Key Points

Upon reviewing my life I see it as a search inside a labyrinth of intimacy. Of course I didn't know it was such when I began. My life has been, overall, a very conservative venture in the sense that I have been trying to figure out how to hold the world together. In my earliest of years the Roman Catholic Big Story held my world together. It was secured by an infrastructure of beams and bolts which sunk deep into ancient history and a tradition which had weathered many storms. My world was replete with icons, imagery, language, rituals, holy books, and so forth. I was aware, from an early age, that there was a distinction between being American and being Roman Catholic. The "Roman" part was the give-away adjective. The fact that certain neighbors did not go into my church, or not to church at all, heightened this sense of separation. Clearly, the strongest reinforcement came from being part of the Catholic School system, where athletic contests against "public schools" were cast as if battles within a Holy Crusade. At this time, Church rituals actually were family events, and so became for many moments of intimate sharing. This was especially true for my father and me.

When my youngest brother, Joseph, died, it was as if he had been slain by God. His life was gone in a breath. While neither I nor anyone in the family would blame God, I experienced it as a lesson in intimacy as sacred space. I did not use "intimacy" back then. However, I realize now that this moment when Joey went from being a normal two-year old to a vegetative human was my first conversation with the Shade Parents. It was a cruel moment which was so impossible to comprehend that we spoke of it as a misfortune or a cruelty of Nature or an "act of God" but meaning this in the sense of "uncontrollable Fate." Yet, deep down inside me I knew that—but it took until I was Inside to fathom this—God had declared me His Intimate Enemy.

Joey was there, alive, then he was not. Was it torture for God to allow his body to persist over time without even a nano-second of intimacy? It was as if I had killed Joey. As if I was God's warrior who had come upon one of the not-Chosen and slew him. Did it matter whether it was Forked River, New Jersey or inside some hootch in Vietnam or in South Dakota at Wounded Knee? Can I turn this all upside down, with the pain which Inside Sight does inflict, and see Joey's life as a sacrifice for mine? Was he there to lay down his life for me? To put his life in harm's way so that I would ... would what? "See" the face of God? "Feel" the hand of God? "Hear" the anguished call of those for whom Genesis wrecks its havoc and revenge? Was Joey there to celebrate the lives of all the not-Chosen?

My Roman Catholic Big Story had a chapter for handling my Joey experience. It included claims about God's Mysterious Ways and the Sacrifice of Jesus and even gooey passages about God loving Little Babies who are His Special Angels. In my psyche and soul, the brooding emotion Joey tapped into and shared with me went unnamed.

My misinterpretation of Vatican Council II also rested upon a notion of intimacy. As most "Catholic Radicals" I heard phrases about the People of God and engaging the modern world and being a citizen of conscience and Total War ... and thought that a Revolution was afoot, whereas it was more a bit of after-dinner conversation about how the Church could get more converts. After my business years in sales and marketing, I laugh at myself for having been such a sucker. "Bait and switch" is how I look at the Documents, now. It's like using sex in advertising. The ecclesiastical counterpart is to use democratizing and individualistic sounding phrases. The Council Fathers were no dummies. Rather, one of the reasons "The Church" has perdured is that it knows how to re-frame and re-package its main message. Clearly, in the West, people were talking about individual rights, free intellectual and scientific inquiry, and democracy. Now, this might sound jaded and cynical, but I truly don't care to strike those tones. I'm really standing up to what happened to me, and trying to omit the sugar coating of aging remembrance.

Instead of asking questions as to whether I believe, for example, that Pope John XXIII was sincere, spirit-filled, holy, etc., I am asking you to look at the impact of Vatican II now over fifty years later. Like my wrong-headed preaching about the nonviolent Jesus, so I have to admit that Vatican II radicalized me, but as an unintended consequence. The upside is that I also see the awesomely large wave of departing Catholics as a lesson in point about how a personal Story can lead to your being burned at the stake, imprisoned, or simply kicked out onto the streets to join the hordes of homeless souls. My failure to understand what my Roman Catholic Big Story (and its Abrahamic tradition) were really about "saved me" from a life of writing obfuscating tomes as a Defender of the Faith.

Vatican II, again unintentionally, provided the map for my finding the Holy of Holies. I followed the route to "The People of God" and stood on the street-corner and preached to "all men of good will" that "Total War" was immoral. They locked me up. They cast me into a deep crevasse of their Shade ... I, finally, got Inside!

The significance of what I've just said is that I am the type of kid who went behind the altar to "see what was there." When the priest opened the small golden tabernacle doors behind which lay the "true body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ," I craned my neck to see what was there. This strain of spiritual curiosity is also what drove me to enter the monastery, to see how holy men lived. All my walking on my knees following the twelve Stations of the Cross, all my mild flagellations after Culpa, all my wetting my chest and then inviting the below zero winter arrows to pierce my flesh, all the time I spent meditating "On the Wound in the Shoulder" caused by the Cross He carried ... was an attempt to get Inside to the Holy of Holies. Thanks to my misreading of Vatican Council II's revised map, I got there in June, 1972.

So, I got Inside. What did I find? Intimacy. The whole place was one big eraser of intimacy. They go at your body: prison garb, digital identities, Lock Up and Counts, no personal space, either physically or psychologically, and so it went. And, they got to me! I was Inside, but I didn't know it. I was there, but I wasn't tapping into any brooding emotion other than being lifeless, a being without words to speak, rituals to perform, someone to hug.

My Inside experience led me to other Inside spaces. My three decade adventure in sales and marketing took me to The Market, and Inside myself in ways I would never have discovered as an academic theologian. My work with immigrants laid part of the foundation for my understanding of how a personal Story is carved from a Big Story. I also learned a lot about "America" as I experienced it with the Inside Sight these cultural aliens and foreigners possessed. I remember when my leading Korean saleswoman was studying for her citizenship test. "Korea has five thousand years of history," was all she had to say to convey her mixed feelings about becoming an American. She was giving up a lot even as she made the choice to pursue the American Dream.

Business showed me the truth behind "People make profits." It was a curious lesson. I found that if I could translate sales success into a direct impact on something happening in their personal lives, I could sit back and watch them climb the mountain, and so put me at the top of mine. It wasn't exploitation as much as it was an act of enabling or coaching. Sure, money was the discussed reward, but the trick was to not talk about money, rather to talk about what they were really seeking, which ranged from becoming more financially secure to getting a nagging spouse off one's back to fulfilling a small, personal dream, such as spending a week in New York City, all expenses paid. The Shade side to this is that I learned, from personal deeds that it is easy to exploit someone. It is easy to abuse one's own talents. To turn the art of persuasion into an act of dominion.

My forays into corporate America opened to me the insights which Harvey Cox explored in his "The Market as God." I guess it is the fervor of top executives which shook my spiritual roots. These men could impact the lives of hundreds to tens of thousands with a simple decision to re-locate a plant. They could be Moses or Joshua. That is, they could lead people to a Promised Land or they could order the mass extermination of a village, town, city or way of life. Consolidation, downsizing, re-engineering and like movements were the early sign-posts of a certain reaction to globalization. Like many in my age bracket and profession, I relocated five times in a seven year period, with three transcontinental jaunts, before deciding to stay put in a small town to raise my sons, "no matter what." The latter meant that I began to be a traveling consultant. A worker with portfolio but no fringe benefits. Fortunately, my family managed to sustain a middle-class lifestyle, send the boys off to college, and own a home for twenty-eight years.

I don't want to be simplistic and say that The Market is all about intimacy but it simply is. When people talk about The Market they tap into a brooding emotion of tumultuous insecurity. Lingering in the back of everyone's mind is that The Market crashes, and that stock market paper fortunes can vaporize in an instant. It is a fitting economic emotion to companion the one evoked by that of the Big Story's iconic Mushroom Cloud. What I'd like to point out here is that all that The Market and business is about is relationships between people. Nothing happens, economically, if you do not sell or buy. It is that uncomplicated. Once that kindergarten arithmetic lesson is forgotten, then The Market whirls out of control. This means that The Market is people. Somewhat akin to Vatican II's "People" in the People of God phrase. Entities, such as the Roman Catholic Church and The Market, which re-imagine themselves as other than "people" are doomed to creating a world of uncertainty, anxiety, and miserableness replete with an impending sense of catastrophic doom.

Since the Warrior's Quest militarizes every aspect of its Big Story, you can only write a personal Story in like terms and images. Since you are offered only the most crippled sense of what it means to be male, that is, become a Lone Male Warrior's Quester, even possibly in the guise of a "Peace" Warrior, then you cannot write a personal Story which is other than a re-hash of the relationship revealed in Genesis. Dominion translates into "Might Makes Right." This moral dictum permeates every aspect and corner of the Warrior's Quest world.

For me, time Inside prison, the Church, The Market, and "America" has been a journey towards understanding intimacy. I've stated that the Warrior's Quest Sunny Spot is its Shade. That is, dropping the Atom Bomb was the crowning achievement of the Abrahamic people as Americans. For American Warrior's Questers, vaporizing human beings is the most magnificent, splendid and awe-inspiring ritual act that sheds Light on the face of the Abrahamic God. It is a face at once resplendently Sunny and forebodingly Shady.

When I was in prison, all my "bleeding heart Liberal" views about convicts were put to the test. I lived with dangerous men! At coffee break some would boast about people they killed, raped, scammed, duped, etc. There were men Inside whom I thought should never leave prison. One lesson I learned is that few cons die Inside. It was a disturbing fact. Moreover, I found that explaining a life of crime by telling weepy stories about being an unwanted child, life in foster homes, sexual and drug abuse, dropping out of school, and such storylines which tug at the heart of most good-doers, well, it's all "bait and switch"! I say this because it leads to a lot of Good Intentions paving the way to hell. When you buy into that story, you miss the true Shade which prison is. You miss seeing the Dark Mother in the misty Dark Vapors of the Visiting Room. You forget to focus on prison as a warehouse and on the foundational role it continues to play in advancing America's vision of Democracy within the globalization movement.

In a similar light, I told my draft board that I didn't want to go to Vietnam because I knew what I would do. Put me in the middle of a group of psychotic people who —for whatever reason!—are shooting at me and I will do whatever I can to make it stop. Yes, I will discuss the role of the soldier warrior in the Earthfolk imagination. Just anticipate that it will be a very limited role. My dilemma is what to do when all around you are Warrior's Questers? Sure, I will always work hard to create as nonviolent a situation as possible. But suppose I'm in Vietnam watching someone —from either side—get ready to shoot another person. Can I ever find a morally pure spot? Not if I'm willing to accept my Shade, which is my own violence. The easy path is to consider yourself a peacemaker and go off to war. That is how most soldiers imagine themselves. It is more difficult to grasp your Shade violence and go off to peacemaking. To imagine yourself as anything but a Warrior's Quester. To live "as if I am no one's enemy."

At this point, I just want to re-affirm that when you pick up a gun and murder someone, I realize that it is my hand on the trigger as well. In like manner, when I meet a convict who has lived a life of crime, all his offenses are mine. My first step would be to have him face his Shade. But being an Abrahamic American Warrior's Quester, he's as unlikely to do that as is the president, the corporate executive, the priest and others who have never faced their Shade, and who continue to refuse to even imagine that they have a Shade.

One impact of globalization is the uprooting of vast numbers of people from their ancestral hearths. This happens at every level of society, from slave-wage migrants to corporate Fat Cats. When I look with Inside Sight all around the globe, the icon of the Mushroom Cloud and the militarized Starship Earth simply stagger my mind. What an impoverished imagination! How truly ignorant can the best and brightest of our leaders be—governmental, military, but especially scientific—to have created a weapon they cannot control? I mean you have to be not just stupid but truly ignorant. So, the question is, What have all these geniuses been ignoring? Let's go back to Genesis. It is right there at the start. They are ignoring the revelation that intimacy is the sacred space wherein humans experience what the gods and goddesses experience, that is, being Beloved.

Join me and imagine all as sensually precious. Together, let's practice "Sensual Preciousness: a spirituality of intimacy."

Key Points

"If you can't give life, then don't take it away!"

One mosquito slew my brother, Joseph

My brother's death tapped into the Abrahamic brooding emotion of fearing God as Intimate Enemy

Scientists who seek to know humans using non-human terms and images treat the body as a "hootch" and people as "gooks" (objects to be experimentally probed, analyzed and then discarded, that is, "wasted")

Prison seeks to induce a Joey-like state of non-communication by destroying the possibility of intimate relationships

I left prison neither an American nor a Roman Catholic or an Abrahamic in any guise

Business lead me to the Inside of The Market (Harvey Cox, "The Market as God")

I saw how "People make profits" works, and how it can readily turn into its opposite, namely, exploitation

I saw how small scale business can address social and even cultural group identities and so create a family-like environment

On the large scale, as evidenced by the history of the Roman Catholic Church as it became a global entity, this "People of God" imagery is lost

Early phase of globalization creating vast amount of refugees, dislocated workers, and homeless at every level of society from field workers to corporate Fat Cats

People want to "Belong" is an insight into the strongest buying emotion

To what or what does the Warrior's Quester belong?

Warrior's Questers belong to an rageful Father who has kicked them out of the house

Warrior's Questers tap into post-traumatic stress (PTSD)

Warrior's Quest is walked by roving exiles who rape, pillage and burn the Earth and all the not-Chosen

PTSD characterizes the Abrahamic tradition. PTSD is the outcome of Day 6 and the expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

PTSD aptly describes a people whose history is one of endless wars, whose popular culture extols violence and pornography, for whom healthcare means drug-dealing, and whose realized fantasy is the possession of a nuclear power, all of which are prelude to the total destruction of intimacy in all life forms and the Earth, herself

As Genesis is a revelation about intimacy, so is the Earthfolk Big Story an imagining of Sensual Preciousness, that is, with each person beheld as precious and Beloved

Imagine!

END

# APPENDIX A – BIG STORY AND PERSONAL STORY WORKSHEET

At various times in reading Sensual Preciousness, you might find it beneficial to return to this page to answer additional questions and/or amend and annotate your previous answers.

Big Questions

Here are the Big Questions used in the body of Sensual Preciousness. The bullets are additional questions to assist you in your self-analysis. You should jot down other questions which come to you as you use this worksheet.

Where do humans come from?

Are humans created? "Created from nothing"?

Did whatever is "human" exist, always? Meaning, is whatever makes humans "human" an integral part of some primary substance or energy or source?

Is what is "human" a product or end-result or manifestation of a primary non-human process, e.g., did Life evolve or develop from non-living matter or elements?

Is the human race a seed from an alien culture?

Other:

How did humans get here?

A Creator god created them.

A creating force created them, e.g., evolution.

A creating presence created them, e.g., Intelligent Design.

Humans have always been "here" on Earth as part of the Living Earth.

Other:

Where are humans going?

To a heavenly place.

To a higher plane of consciousness.

Nowhere. "Life" just blips out!

Nowhere human. Part of the Eternal Return/Recurrence pattern of all Life.

Nowhere. All Life and Earth will be destroyed. Entropy triumphs!

Wherever they "consciously" choose to "imagine."

Back to a Mother Planet once the alien Mothership returns.

Evolve into an integration of technology and biology, a new bio-tech life form.

Other:

Why are humans on Earth?

To serve a god who has a Plan for humans. Humans are god's stewards.

To atone for an original offense, such as "Original Sin." Fell out of Paradise.

To achieve personal fulfillment, e.g., psychological integration, and be healthy.

To unleash their interior powers, e.g., of higher consciousness.

Humans are an "evolutionary epi-phenomenon," and as such will eventually disappear as all species will. That is, humans are an evolutionary blip! on the cosmic radar screen.

A question which cannot be answered?

Other:

How are humans to act?

Follow absolute moral code sourced in a Revelation.

By guidelines of human Reason.

In pursuit of Truth, as known through the scientific method.

According to dictates of the survival of the fittest.

Follow legal rules of a given, sovereign nation state.

Whatever is necessary to achieve ecological balance and harmony.

Whatever maximizes and optimizes achieving status of being "Number 1."

By determining what is the path to personal health.

By balancing individual needs with social goods.

By dictates of social justice, with a special focus on helping the less able and less fortunate.

Other:

Why is there Evil in the world?

There is an Evil god.

The Benevolent god tests humans by tempting them.

Humans brought it upon themselves by defying God. This is conveyed in the story about Eve and The Apple.

Evil is merely the absence of Good. If people took time to reason matters through, and then act upon their insights, they would prevent Evil.

Individuals are Evil, not humanity. That is, "Immoral Man, Moral Society."

Evil describes actions which logically follow from who you imagine Other people are. If you imagine them to be your Intimate Enemy, then many things they do are Evil.

Evil normally results from collective stupidity, that is, the group cannot see what the individual can. That is, "Moral Man, Immoral Society."

Other:

B. Personal Story

Based on what you determined about the general outline of your Big Story, what is the range of your heartfelt actions? That is, what are you convictions? These are beliefs, actions, values, etc., for which you are willing to risk your life, even to the point of putting yourself in harm's way and/or sacrificing your life. Here are some opening notions to stimulate your self-reflection.

I am willing to die for my country.

I am willing to kill others to protect my country.

I am ready to protect my family, even at the cost of my own life.

I would never lie.

I would never lie in a situation where someone else might suffer physical harm.

I would never intentionally harm someone.

I would use violence for a just cause.

No one has the right to tell me what to do.

If I consider a law immoral, I will not comply, no matter what the risks or penalties.

I would never knowingly break a law. I respect all legal authorities.

I am prepared to lay down my life for my neighbor, in a perilous situation.

I always seek counsel before making a significant moral decision.

I see Others as my Intimate Enemy.

I am comfortably at-home here on Earth.

I would never intentionally pollute any aspect of the Earth.

I would never take a life, not even support an abortion.

No one is perfect. I strive to be non-judgmental about someone until they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are wrong, have erred or are immoral.

God is watching me. I'm just human. I seek to comply, as best I can, with divine truths.

The best we can do is determine what is best for all in any given situation of common concern.

Every person is on a spiritual journey. There is nothing bad or evil about people, they just do bad or evil things. They can be healed and/or forgiven.

It is stupid to do other than play it safe. Watch out for yourself and the rest of the world will be better for it.

There is no such thing as the "Common Good."

I'm here to serve others, pure and simple. Life doesn't make sense, but I can make sense out of Life!

The best each of us can do is give and receive pleasure. Whenever I can, that is how I judge why I do something, that is, to obtain and give pleasure.

It's a fact, this "War between the Sexes"!

As long as no one's health is harmed, any high-risk or out-of-the-mainstream physical, sexual or psychological act is okay. Be healthy and play!

When I am in a society with values other than my own, I comply with them. If something is legal there but not in my own society, that's okay with me.

Others:

C. For Further Self-Clarification

What is your overall emotional feeling about life?

Do you believe that there is such a thing as "communal feeling"?

If so, does it impact your individual feelings and thoughts?

What is your definition and description of "intimacy"?

Have you ever felt "Precious"? and/or "Beloved"?

Is there such a thing as "sexual morality"?

In what situations do you or have you ever felt a) shame, b) embarrassment, c) pride, d) deep fear, e) upsetting confusion, f) deep happiness?

D.Your Specific Thoughts and Comments

# APPENDIX B - LINKS

The Internet as an information resource has changed an author's presentation of references and sources. Formerly, a Bibliography revealed, to a great extent, the intellectual works which were stored in the author's personal bookcases or accessible through his academic institutions. A Bibliography conveyed the sense that the works cited were "official" or "mainstream" or "approved by peers." With the Internet, treasure chests of documents and information are made available with just a browser and a mouse-click from anywhere around the globe, at anytime. Unfortunately, the Internet's strength is its weakness, at least from the "authoritative source" perspective. That is, anyone can post a website and "publish" information, however shoddy, ignorant, prejudicial and/or silly.

The following Links are listed in respect to the Internet's best quality, namely, that you can be networked. Almost every informational website has its own "Links" to other websites. Quickly, you can obtain counter-views, dissenting opinions, in-depth research, contact information for an authority or authoritative institution, or even link with a bizarre and "far out" commentator. At the least, "surfing the Net" sharpens one's skepticism as it simultaneously never ceases to amaze in respect to "where" it takes you. After all, it is all "cyber-space" and, like it or not, by using it you are a "cyber-naut."

One hard-copy, "offline" book or article is cited for those who do not have ready access to the Internet.

The Links are presented in respect to key ideas in Volume 2

At anytime, you can readily shift to your own linkage. There are free and subscription services for every thematic encyclopedia you can imagine. From the subscription Encyclopedia Britannica to the free Wikipedia to various encyclopedias of religion, scientific disciplines, etc. There are also online libraries, one of note is the subscription service "Questia."

"Google" and "Yahoo" are your doors to research and imagination. Who would have imagined that "serious scholars" would google and yahoo!? But such "cyber-sounds" are just one indication of the merriment of Linking.

AUTHOR'S WRITINGS

http://www.minnesota8.net/Trial-Documents.htm Includes trial documents and memoir, "Outlaw or American Patriot?" Trial documents present the "Defense of Necessity."

http://www.outlaw-visions.net. Includes "Prison, Bottoming Out, Mother" and "Vietnam Undeclared" and "Resistance as Sacrament."E-book links.

ATOMIC BOMB

Manhattan Project Preservation Association. http://www.childrenofthemanhattanproject.org/CG/CG_03A.htm

http://www.atomicheritage.org/

Remembering the Manhattan Project: Perspectives on the Making of the Atom Bomb and Its Legacy, Cynthia C. Kelly, editor, World Scientific Publishing Company (April 2005)

Nuclear Weapons Image Gallery. http://zvis.com/nuclear/nukimgdht.shtml

Starship Earth. http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo8/A08_MP.PhotosFS.gif

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/Apollo8/Apollo8.html

Lord Shiva the Destroyer. http://www.lotussculpture.com/shiva1.htm

J. Robert Oppenheimer, video clip. http://www.atomicarchive.com/Movies/Movie8.shtml

CONSCIOUS EVOLUTION

Evolve http://www.evolve.org/pub/doc/index2.html

Association for Global New Thought http://www.agnt.org/

Noetic Sciences http://www.noetic.org/

Conscious Evolution: Awakening the Power of Our Social Potential, Barbara Marx Hubbard, New World Library (January 1998)

GLOBALIZATION

International Monetary Fund http://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/ib/2000/041200.htm

The Wombat. http://www.globalcommunity.org/flash/wombat.shtml

Bioneers. http://www.bioneers.org/

History of the Internet. http://www.davesite.com/webstation/net-history.shtml

International Forum on Globalization. http://www.ifg.org/

Global Research. http://www.globalresearch.ca/

Globalization and Its Discontents, Joseph E. Stiglitz, W. W. Norton & Company; 1st edition (April 2003)

OUTER SPACE

Review and evaluation of early projects. http://www.newint.org/issue123/space.htm

Space Colony Art from 1970s http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/70sArt/art.html

Review of book which started space colony movement. http://www.space-frontier.org/HighFrontier/

High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space, Gerard K. O'Neill, Collector's Guide Publishing Inc; 3rd edition (October 2000)

"We stay bound to Earth at our peril." http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/colonize_now_011030-2.html

"Space and Human Survival." http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/survival.htm

PLANETARY CULTURE

Earth Charter. http://www.earthcharterusa.org/

Sri Aurobindo. http://www.sriaurobindosociety.org.in/index.htm

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

The Future of Man, Image (April 20, 2004)

http://www.godweb.org/godand.htm

http://www.gaiamind.com/Teilhard.html

Riane Eisler

The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future, Harper, San Francisco (September 1, 1988)

http://www.partnershipway.org/

http://www.scottlondon.com/interviews/eisler.html

The Gaia movement

http://www.gaiamind.com/evolve.html

Jean Gebser

Ever Present Origin : Part One: Foundations Of The Aperspectival World, Ohio University Press; Reprint edition (August 31, 1986)

http://www.gaiamind.org/Gebser.html

http://www.noetic.org/

http://www.gebser.org/publications/index.html

Marija Gimbutas

Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe, 6500-3500 B.C.: Myths, and Cult Images, University of California Press (June 1982)

http://www.levity.com/mavericks/gim-int.htm

http://www.shadowdrake.com/neopagan/marija.html

http://www.telesterion.com/esotericbooks/gimbutas.htm

Lindisfarne Association. http://www.pacweb.com/lindisfarne/ Its "Fellows" link presents a long-list of interrelated thinkers.

James Lovelock

Gaia : A New Look at Life on Earth, Oxford University Press, USA (November 23, 2000)

http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/

Partnership Way. http://www.partnershipway.org/

Elizabeth Sahtouris

EarthDance: Living Systems in Evolution, iUniverse (October 2000)

http://www.ratical.org/LifeWeb/

William Irwin Thompson

Coming Into Being : Artifacts and Texts in the Evolution of Consciousness, Palgrave Macmillan (June 15, 1998)

http://www.rain.org/~da5e/Thompson.html

http://photosynthesis.com/William_Irwin_Thompson.html

Jonna Macy http://www.joannamacy.net

POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

National Center for Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/

Robert J. Lifton

Destroying the World to Save It : Aum Shinrikyo, Apocalyptic Violence, and the New Global Terrorism, Owl Books (September 1, 2000)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5531.htm

Christopher Lasch

Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations, W. W. Norton & Company; Revised edition (May 1991) http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/040208 "Narcissism and the culture war."

http://www.reviews.ctpdc.co.uk/lasch.html

RELIGIOUS BIG STORY: ABRAHAMIC TRADITION

Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, God's Phallus And Other Problems for Men And Monotheism, Diane Publishing Company (September 30, 1994)

Off With Her Head!: The Denial of Women's Identity in Myth, Religion, and Culture, H. Eilberg-Schwartz and Wendy Doniger, University of California Press (November 1995)

Mary Daly,

Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women's Liberation, Beacon Press; 2nd edition (June 1, 1993)

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/daly.html

Matthew Fox

Original Blessing: A Primer in Creation Spirituality Presented in Four Paths, Twenty-Six Themes, and Two Questions, Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam (October 9, 2000)

http://www.matthewfox.org/

Feminism and Christianity

Wisdom Ways: Introducing Feminist Biblical Interpretation, Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza Orbis Books (November 2001)

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/chris.html

Feminist Liberation Theologians Network. http://www.his.com/~mhunt/FLTN.htm

Norman Gottwald

The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 BCE, Sheffield (October 1999)

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1308

James Hillman

Archetypal Psychology, Vol. 1: Uniform Edition of the Writings of James Hillman Spring Publications (November 2004)

http://www.menweb.org/hillmaiv.htm

http://www.jungatlanta.com/DecodingHillman.html

Information Center, Womyn for Womyn http://www.icwow.org/index.htm

The Inquisition's judicial manual.

The Malleus Maleficarum of Kramer and Sprenger, Montague Summers, Dover Publications (June 1, 1971)

http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/

The Jesus Seminar. Westar Institute. http://www.westarinstitute.org

"Lesbian Feminism and Queer Theory: Another "Battle of the Sexes"?"

http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/WMNS/Projects/Porteousd/Lesbian%20Feminism%20and%20Queer%20Theory%20Another%20Battle%20of%20the%20Sexes.htm

Jacquelyn N. Zita, Body Talk: Philosophical Reflections on Sex and Gender, Columbia University Press (1998)

Erich Neumann

The Origins and History of Consciousness, Bollingen; Reprint edition (September 18, 1995)

"Erich Neumann: Theorist of the Great Mother," Camille Paglia

http://www.bu.edu/arion/Volume13/13.3/Paglia.pdf

Camille Paglia

Sex, Art, and American Culture : Essays, Vintage; 1st edition (September 8, 1992)

http://desires.com/1.2/sex/docs/paglia1.html

Rosemary Radford Reuther

Goddesses and the Divine Feminine : A Western Religious History, University of California Press (May 1, 2005)

http://www.progressivechristianwitness.org/pcw.cfm?id=16&p=5

http://www.aquinas-multimedia.com/catherine/earthspirit.html

http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/xian.html

Jane Schaberg

Illegitimacy of Jesus: A Feminist Theological Interpretation of the Infancy Narratives, Sheffield Academic Press (March 1995)

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/illegit.html

Bishop John Shelby Spong

The Sins of Scripture : Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love, Harper, San Francisco (April 1, 2005)

http://www.bishopspong.com

Phyllis Trible

Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Overtures to Biblical Theology) Augsburg Fortress Publishers (June 1984)

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/img/assets/6396/TribleP_FA51305PDF.pdf

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1838

WATER. Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual. http://www.his.com/~mhunt/index.htm

Mary E. Hunt, A Guide for Women in Religion : Making Your Way from A to Z, Palgrave Macmillan (December 17, 2004)

RITUALS

Starhawk

Spiral Dance, The - 20th Anniversary : A Rebirth of the Ancient Religion of the Goddess: 20th Anniversary Edition, Harper, San Francisco; 20th Ann edition (October 1, 1999)

http://www.starhawk.org

http://www.reclaiming.org

http://www.his.com/~mhunt/index.htm

The Global Oneness Commitment. http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Homas_-_Homa/id/2153

WATER. Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual. http://www.his.com/~mhunt/index.htm

Black Elk

Black Elk Speaks: Being the Life Story of a Precious Man of the Oglala Sioux, University of Nebraska Press (December 2000)

http://blackelkspeaks.unl.edu/blackelk.pdf

http://www.indians.org/welker/blackelk.htm

SACRED SEXUALITY

Sacred Texts. http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/index.htm

Tantra http://www.newfrontier.com/nepal/whatis.htm

Playboy Philosophy. http://www.playboy.com/worldofplayboy/faq/philosophy.html#1

Margo Anand

The Art of Sexual Ecstasy, Tarcher (December 1, 1990)

While difficult to find a website for her and her former "Skydancing Institute," her works are seminal for an introduction to and an understanding of Sacred Sexuality. She presents an integration of the ancient Hindu Tantric tradition with Western values.

David Daida

The Way Of The Superior Man: A Spiritual Guide to Mastering the Challenges of Woman, Work, and Sexual Desire, Sounds True (October 31, 2004)

http://www.deida.info/

Ken Wilber

The Essential Ken Wilber: An Introductory Reader, Shambhala (September 14, 1998)

http://www.kenwilber.com/index.html

"Great Sex Without Intercourse," http://www.nvsh.nl/Website_Engels/Texts/Sexual_Information/Basics/Skills_1.htm

http://www.askmen.com/love/love_tip_150/197_love_tip.html

http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/healthinfo//pdfs/GreatSex.pdf

SECULARISM

American Atheists. http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/roots/

Council for Secular Humanism. http://www.secularhumanism.org/

National Secular Society. http://www.secularism.org.uk/

SCIENTISM

Scientism, a definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

"How science correlates to Christianity, atheistic scientism, and New Age mysticism"

http://www.ldolphin.org/olkhov.html

David Bohm

Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge (November 15, 2002)

http://www.david-bohm.net/

Bill Joy

Why the Future Doesn't Need Us : How 21st Century Technologies Threaten to Make Humans an Endangered Species, Random House Audio, Abridged edition (March 28, 2006) Audio CD

http://www.tecsoc.org/innovate/focusbilljoy.htm

Ray Kurzweil

The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence, Penguin (Non-Classics) (January 1, 2000)

http://www.kurzweiltech.com/aboutray.html

WAR AND WARRIOR'S QUEST

War quotes. http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_war.html

Peace poem. http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/peaceday/poem/6poem.asp

Daniel Ellsberg

Papers On The War, Simon and Schuster (1972)

http://www.ellsberg.net/

Every Church A Peace Church http://www.ecapc.org/peacemakingarticles.asp

David Harris

Our War: What we did in Vietnam and what it did to us, Crown (September 3, 1996)

http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/february97/terry.htm

John Keegan

A History of Warfare ,Vintage (November 1, 1994)

http://www.militaryreadinglist.com/authors/K/john-keegan.htm

"Muscular Christianity." http://atheism.about.com/od/religiousright/p/MuscularChrist.htm

Warrior Culture of the US Marines. http://www.usmcpress.com/warriorculture.htm

"The Warrior's Code." http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE02/French02.html

S. Brian Willson. http://www.brianwillson.com/ "We are not worth more. They are not worth less."

WORLD RELIGIONS

Internet Sacred Text Archives – has numerous relevant links.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/time/index.htm

http://www.sacred-texts.com/time/origtime.htm

Mircea Eliade

The Sacred and Profane: The Nature of Religion, Harvest Books (October 23, 1968)

http://mythosandlogos.com/Eliade.html

www.beliefnet.com

Vatican Council Two

Bill Huebsch, Vatican II in Plain English: The Council, Thomas More Association (February 1997)

http://www.progressivechristianwitness.org/pcw.cfm?id=16&p=5

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/

Institute for Interreligious Dialogue. On the Abrahamic Tradition. http://www.iid.org.ir/iide/Conference.asp?T=2&L=11&ID=

Thich Nhat Hanh

The Miracle of Mindfulness, Beacon Press (May 1, 1999)

Thich Nhat Hanh: Essential Writings, with Robert Ellsberg, Orbis Books (June 2001)

http://www.seaox.com/thich.html

# APPENDIX C—GENESIS 1-3

Source: http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Genesis+1-3

The Creation of the World

1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." 7 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. 8 And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

11 And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." It was so. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens." 21 So God created the great sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." It was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

The Seventh Day, God Rests

2:1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. 2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.

The Creation of Man and Woman

4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created,

in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— 7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed. 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to spring up every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food. The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 A river flowed out of Eden to water the garden, and there it divided and became four rivers. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon. It is the one that flowed around the whole land of Cush. 14 And the name of the third river is the Tigris, which flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

15 The LORD God took the man put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." 19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,

"This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

The Fall

3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.

He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" 2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

8 And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, "Where are you?" 10 And he said, "I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself." 11 He said, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?" 12 The man said, "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate." 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

14 The LORD God said to the serpent,

"Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat

all the days of your life.

15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

16 To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

17 And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife

and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,'

cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;

18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground,

for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

20 The man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. 21 And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them.

22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—" 23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. 24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Copyright© Crossway Bibles.

# AUTHOR INFORMATION

Francis X. Kroncke is a seeker whose has journeyed through the monastic life, the theological academy, federal courtrooms, a federal prison cell, and the byways of corporate America. In 1970, he took his Catholic theology into the American courts as he defended his draft board raiding crime, re: the trials of the "Minnesota 8." During and after serving time, he explored the dark, Shadow side of America...and his own soul. In his published essays he has focused on the ancient call which is heard most distinctively in the institutions and through the experiences of the dark side of the biblically based Western and American cultures. The article, "An Outlaw's Theology," was published in the journal Cross Currents (June 2011). A companion piece, "A vision of coupled presence," appeared in the journal Theology and Sexuality (2011). Also available on Smashwords are the novel, "Kill the Dove!" about the Sixties and prison, and "Outlaw or American Patriot?" a trial memoir. See, other writings, interviews, the play, "Peace Crimes," etc. at: http://outlaw-visions.net

Links:

The "Minnesota 8"

"Peace and War in the Heartland"

"Earthfolk"

"Outlaw Visions"
