Still Up for Acceptance

Our problem originates in sperm. You and I were the first. We beat out a billion others. We journeyed more vigorously, more purposefully, more competitively than all the others, or if not, then by some accident of time and space we were the first one to meet the Glorious Goal. And now it remains in us; that deeply imbued atavistic sensibility that continues to invigorate us with a need to be better than others. So we judge and disparage and disassociate and condemn. We compete and deplete and disavow and dismiss. We claw, clutch, calumniate, confound and confuse. And we each want to reach Heaven, a heaven, the heavens.

Ignobility vies with nobility. There is intention and honour and integrity. We espouse the five knightly virtues, those of Frankness, Fellowship, Courtesy, Compassion and Cleanliness. And by cleanliness we connote purity of thought and deed. And by purity of deed we denote right intention, right action, and righteousness of spirit. And spirit is essentially evolutionary, we presume, or what’s a heaven for? We aspire to progress, to be pure, to be better than we were before, or why proceed through the lessons of life? Yet we innately understand that we or others are O.K. at any given grade level, at any given age, at any given level of development, at any given rung of hierarchy or of insight, enlightenment, progress or pilgrimage. Or do we? Therein lies the rub.

The friction between us persists. Judgment reigns. Differentiation fragments, apportions, divides, quantifies, equivocates and then dispenses with us. We clump in small groups, flock into larger groups, coagulate into clubs, name, nationalize, civilize, and condemn. The other is less than, or worse, more than. And the degree to which we perceive ourselves measured, apportioned, relegated or approved of, matters. It matters not only to our selves, but also to others. Why else would we choose schools, neighborhoods, cities, and even countries? Us versus Them. We versus They. Me versus You. Let’s compete! And who indeed amongst all of us herein shall be first? Shall win? 

Integration is not completeness; and it is. The paradox is in integration’s complexity of seemingly being too accepting of the status quo without sufficient attachment to a preferred outcome. Between left and right is the metaphorical fence, and the fence-sitter can hardly perch without some or other instigation to have him declare himself. Passion, plans, preferences, and powerful actions are still the purveyance of being integrative; it is non-attachment to the product that apparently gives others the problem. Sew then wisely the seeds of instigations. Acceptance of the ongoing totality is not easily comprehended, it seems, or we would surely not be so contentious. Integration absorbs, assimilates, includes, incorporates, and accepts all of everything, infinitely. Yet in each of us, in the now from moment to moment, integration is a journey of enlightenment, a journey of awareness, a journey of evolution.

Evaluation or Judgment? Preference or Need? Heaven or Hell? It’s all really up for complete acceptance.

Still?