Each of us controls almost nothing, but influences almost everything

Having devoted myself to watching the lengthy Oscars show this evening, which sucked up much of my time, I'm going to take a shortcut by revisiting a theme introduced in a previous blog post about Brian Klaas' book, Fluke: Chance, Chaos, and Why Everything We Do Matters.

As I recall saying before, what Klaas says is very much in line with Buddhist notions of emptiness and interdependence. In that worldview, entities, including us, are empty of inherent existence because nothing stands alone, a part unaffected by other parts of the cosmos.

Yet this isn't how most people view themselves. I recall the uproar in this country when Hillary Clinton said "It takes a village to raise a child." Many, especially conservatives, were outraged. Hey, they said, parents are totally capable of raising a child; that's their responsibility.

Not true. Children are affected by all kinds of other influences: teachers, other children, neighbors, shopkeepers, relatives, television programs, books, pets, toys -- the list goes on and on. And each of us is an influence on people we both know, and don't know.

Such is the way of the world: a web of relationships. There are various ways to look upon this fact.

On the positive side, none of us leads a solitary existence, as we're an integral aspect of something much greater than us. On the negative side, none of us can fully control what happens to us, as we're an integral aspect of something much greater than us.

Klaas writes:

However, no single locust can direct the swarm. An insect can't decide to move the swarm east or west because the outcome of any individual movement is unpredictable. As Scott Page rightly points out, each individual controls almost nothing, but influences almost everything. The same is true of us. 

Swarms and sandpits are useful analogies that help us understand why we're so often lulled into a false sense of security. We delude ourselves into believing we're in control, until we are, yet again, thwacked by a devastating crisis, such as a financial crash, a disruptive new technology, a terrorist attack, or a pandemic.

But rather than understanding those inevitable avalanches as the normal functioning of the system -- a sandpile existence working exactly as it's designed -- we mistakenly think of them as "shocks."

...Modern society is a complex system, seemingly stable, teetering on the edge of chaos -- until everything falls apart due to a small change, from the accidental to the infinitesimal. 

...Over the past several chapters, we've seen how an intertwined world means that everything matters, as little ripples reshape lives and upend societies. These ripples give rise to a world that is far more random and accidental than we tend to believe, undercutting the mantra that "everything happens for a reason."

...It all leads to a single, seemingly unsettling conclusion: we live in a world that is far more unstable and uncertain than we'd like to imagine.

Since I'm only about a third of the through Fluke, I'm interested in seeing what lessons Klaas draws about how we can best handle this inherent instability and uncertainty. We all need someone or something to lean on when times are difficult.

For some people, this is religion. For others, this is family and friends. For others, a cause deserving of devotion. There are many ways of seeking firm ground on which to stand. But at some point, it is virtually inevitable that personal or societal earthquakes will shake our foundations. 

Knowing that this is coming seemingly helps us prepare for the inevitable ripples that Klaas speaks of in the quotation above. Flowing with them sometimes is the best we can do.

Comments

[Ron E.]

Yes, I get the point that we are not in control and yet everyone and everything influences the whole which as you mention Brian: “As I recall saying before, what Klaas says is very much in line with Buddhist notions of emptiness and interdependence. In that worldview, entities, including us, are empty of inherent existence because nothing stands alone, a part unaffected by other parts of the cosmos.”

Maybe again, it all comes down to how we think about everything, how we form concepts that imagine we are in control. If as the non-duality proponents state we are all part of the whole then it stands to reason that everything affects everything else – and what it all comes down to is that the overriding reason we think we have control is that we believe we have a separate autonomous self.

Joan Toliffson puts it more succinctly: - “Nonduality recognizes that nothing ever actually resolves into a persisting form, and that the apparent self at the centre of our experience, the apparent “me” who is seemingly authoring “my” thoughts, making “my” decisions, and performing “my” actions, is nothing more than a mirage with no actual substance. It is a phantom created by a mix of ever-changing thoughts, sensations, feelings, stories, mental images, and beliefs. Everything is happening by itself.
By giving open attention to the bare actuality of what is, prior to all the words and explanations about it, by relaxing into the simplicity of just this, it might be noticed that no problem and no self remains. There is simply hearing, seeing, thinking, sensing, etc. And when the thought-created confusion pops up, it can be seen for the illusion that it is, and in the seeing, it dissolves again quite naturally.”

[sant64]

TREASURE BEYOND MEASURE V

Page 157: "Sant Mat avoids politics. In their great wisdom, the Masters have always kept themselves aloof from politics."

But on page 155, we read "Charan was keen to stand in the elections of 1945, but had to relinquish the idea because of an unexpected government ordinance."

Back to page 157. which tells us "From time to time, political leaders have come to the Dera to meet Maharaj Ji (Charan Singh), especially at election time...but the affairs of satsang have always remained aloof from politics."

Charan Singh wanted to run for office, and when he (and Gurinder) became guru, they constantly gave private audiences to a stream of politicos. But this behavior had nothing to do with an actual interest in politics. The guru just....likes to talk to politicians for no particular reason. Don't ask questions.

Take note you ardent satsangis who want to get up close and personal with the guru. Tired of sitting way back in row 744 during satsang? No problem. Simply run for some political office and get a private meeting with Babaji.

Anyway, when I first read TBM I totally missed that part about Charan running for office. I completely trust that Charan would been an honorable politician, and not done anything untoward, like, I don't know, publicly condemn and threaten the Supreme Court because they modified a law on abortion.