BOOK REVIEW : How Soon Is Now? : From Personal Initiation to Global Transformation by Daniel Pinchbeck

Can the human  race survive? That is the question addressed by this book.

I’m not sure when I started thinking that we were doomed. Perhaps some time in the 1980s. It seemed obvious to me. We have an economic system dependent on ever-increasing levels of growth, which means ever-increasing consumption of material goods and energy, the production of which are eating away at our ecological life-support systems. Even before there was much attention being given to climate change, it was clear that we were headed toward a metaphorical cliff, and the fact that very few people, at the time, seemed to want to acknowledge it made it seem as if a solution was unlikely. Then, as now, I tried not to think about it too much, but it hung like a black cloud over my head.

Pinchbeck, after much inner-exploration with psychedelic drugs, has come to the belief that we have unconsciously brought this crisis upon ourselves as a way to motivate ourselves through the process of a dramatic metamorphosis as a species - that it is our initiation by crisis into existence as a specie organism - a fully-integrated global society. A similar idea has been expressed by Bruce Lipton and Steve Bhaerman in their book Spontaneous Evolution (Hay House, 2009), which he credits as an influence.

One of the problems with the ecological crisis (not to mention associated humanitarian and economic crises) is that they inspire feelings of fear and guilt in many of us. Fear and guilt can be paralysing emotions. How are we to be motivated to act? Those who would motivate us flood us with scary facts, but these just make us feel more frightened, guilty and hopeless, and so we turn off and seek some form of comfort in more materialism or superficial escapism.

What we need more than scary facts is hope. We need a vision of how something can be done. And Pinchbeck does a great job of outlining such a vision. Of course he can only sketch in the broad outlines of what is possible. He’s not a specialist in energy systems or farming or economics. He has to point us in the direction of those who can help us in these areas.

This is a consistently fascinating book. Pinchbeck’s hyperactive mind and personal, indeed sometimes confessional, approach ensure that. But I didn’t find it an easy book to approach. There is a bitter comfort in putting things in the “too hard” basket. I start to read that I should give up eating meat and minimise buying new products and a large part of me says, “Let the planet burn. Let the innocent people die. I’m not going outside my comfort zone.” And I don’t even drive a car. What is the response likely to be from those who live far outside the bounds of ecological limits? I’m reminded of Matthew 19:24 “…it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” There’s no room for excess baggage aboard the specie individual.

What is at the basis of this stubbornness? When faced with a challenge, sometimes we grasp it enthusiastically and sometimes we put our head in the sand. I don’t want it to be implied that I’m not a good person. That isn’t what Pinchbeck is saying, but it is how it feels. And how it feels is what matters to motivation. Why does it give us pleasure to do things which deep down we may feel we shouldn’t? Why does the rich celebrity who travels to Africa and sees people living in poverty (and does some charity work there), nevertheless live in a ridiculously ornate mansion? In our insecure state there is a kind of relief to be found in defying what our conscience tells us we should do. This is also the lure of the forbidden. Are we going to squirm in humiliation beneath the bully who says “You mustn’t!” or are we going to feel the power and release of screaming “I will!” To my mind this is the key impasse to the realisation of the kind of plan that Pinchbeck puts forward. His emphasis on the spiritual underpinnings of the transformation acknowledge this, but I think that there are aspects of this psychological dimension that need to be understood more clearly.

The cultivation of unconditional self-acceptance will need to provide the grounding for change. A fully self-accepting individual need not experience a call for a change in their lifestyle as a condemnation. It is through unconditional self-acceptance that we unleash our capacity for the love of others and thus provide a basis for true community. Without this there is a danger that a spreading cultural imperative to adopt an ecological lifestyle might manifest itself in a toxic culture of eco-shaming, equivalent to some of the examples we see today where political correctness has taken a particularly hostile form - decentralised authoritarianism in which individuals take out the frustration of self-imposed discipline by victimising anyone who doesn’t do likewise, or doesn’t appear to be doing likewise. A healing evolution has to be motivated by warm and generous feelings.

I suspect that some may be very nervous about Pinchbeck’s references to Marx and calls for a post-capitalist economic system. The problem is that we’ve seen capitalism bring us rapid technological development and an increase in material comfort for a larger proportion of the world’s population. And we’ve seen an alternative - communism - produce most of the worst horrors of the 20th Century. Capitalism’s success was riding on temporary trends. Now it’s in trouble. Can we transition to something which suits our needs better while avoiding the catastrophe that was communism? Again, I think a lot hinges on the psychological. Has capitalism worked well because it accommodates our selfishness, allowing that selfishness to be the motive engine that drives it, or is our selfishness a product of capitalism? Are we encouraged to want more and compete more because the system doesn’t foster a sense of community which would be counter-productive to it? Of course the two are not mutually exclusive, but I think new economics will be more likely to succeed if the insecurity of ego which lies at the heart of our selfishness is healed.

Pinchbeck also examines the subject of sexuality. Is our materialistic consumption partly fed by pervasive disappointment in our erotic lives? Are we meant to be monogamous? I think this is an important subject to look at. It’s been a troubled area for Pinchbeck himself. But when we repress any aspect of our being we also end up repressing our capacity for openness, honesty, spontaneity and generosity - our capacity for love. So if we are going to have a community which functions more smoothly and productiveness, it needs to be one which knows what to do about erotic desires as an alternative to repressing them. There is unlikely to be a one-size-fits-all answer to this, something which Pinchbeck acknowledges.

When it comes to spirituality, Pinchbeck really throws it all in. He even touches on reincarnation, clairvoyance, tele-kinesis and astral travel. (David Icke’s lizard men get a mention to.) This may lose him credibility in the eyes of many, but he does provide a lot of food for thought for the open-minded. Do these things seem more credible to someone who has taken ayahuasca? Maybe. Since I’m not prepared to take some of these things with a handful of magic mushrooms, I’ll take them with a grain of salt, but it is important to acknowledge that he is only presenting these things as “maybes” and the fact that he has a very open minded on these subjects doesn’t diminish the importance of the bulk of what he has to say. I think he is right that we will need something similar to the religious spirit - a shared vision of something greater than ourselves to unite and motivate us.

He places a lot of importance on the media as a possible way of generating fast change. If new trends spread like wild-fire across television and social media, why not the enthusiasm for this rescue mission along with all the information we will need to bring it about? And look at how the propaganda effort turned around U.S. society to fight World War II. It has to be said though that it is easier to appeal to our hedonism, our paranoia about germs crawling around our bathroom or our latent aggression and xenophobia, than it is to genuinely inspire us toward a community effort. We need autonomous individuals, not sheep, but with that caveat aside I think he is right that both mass and social media can provide us with the network we need to share practical skills and information as well as the kind of vision Pinchbeck provides us with in his book - one of a bright future that yet may be.

The Psychology of the Right Wing and the Left Wing

The state of mental health for humans is one of unconditional self-acceptance. When this state is compromised we become selfish, that is our attention is naturally directed away from the interests of others and towards the problem of our malfunctioning psyche. It is just the same as when we are using a piece of machinery and some part of the machinery begins to perform inefficiently. We will naturally direct our attention there.

The compromising of our self-acceptance begins in childhood. We may be treated by some others as unacceptable in some way for long enough to come to believe it. And we will tend to come into contact with some form of idealism/perfectionism, approaches to life which bring with them the idea that self-acceptance should not be unconditional, but has to be earned. At that time, of course, we are learning the rules of civil behaviour. Criticism of our behaviour is often simply helpful feedback which, all other things being equal, we won’t take personally. What eats away at our self-acceptance, and thus sows the seeds of selfishness, is anything which gives us the message that what lies behind our behaviour - i.e. our thoughts and emotions - are unacceptable.

There are many ways in which we may try to fix the problem once our self-acceptance has been compromised. We may use material things. “I’m acceptable because I wear a Gucci dress.” We may use religious affiliation. “I’m acceptable because I’m a Christian.” We may use token acts of kindness. “I’m acceptable because I have a sponsor child in Africa.” We may use our political affiliation. “I’m good because I vote Democrat/Republican.” We may use sport. “I’m acceptable because my football team won this week.” We may use our own achievements. “I’m acceptable because I got my Phd./climbed a mountain/had a hit record.”

These methods of addressing the problem of our compromised self-acceptance, while often effective in the short-term, are generally not effective in the long-term. Like the junky we are fine when we get our fix, but when it wears off we need more. We are trying to fill the hole, but we don’t know how to heal it.

Healing the hole requires learning the habit of unconditional self-acceptance, learning to embrace all aspects of our thinking and emotion, no matter how frightening or repulsive some of what we find in ourselves may at first seem.

There are other things which can have a healing effect. Physical affection and physical pleasure (as long as it is achieved without causing harm to ourselves or others) has the power to reconnect us with the state of unconditional self-acceptance (and acceptance of others) which characterised our infancy. And anything which enables us to achieve a cathartic release of repressed emotions - of anger, sorrow, etc. - helps to drain off that which separates us from that emotional state. Anything from crying at a sad movie to pumping one’s fist to death metal may be a way of getting back in touch with our deeper humanity.

It is no wonder that we see so much anger and violence in the world. To lack self-acceptance is to be deeply needy. There isn’t enough attention from others, enough material goods, etc., to satisfy the ravenous hunger of our need. Imagine putting a pack of hungry dogs in a cage and only giving them enough food for a quarter of their number. There may be enough food to feed us, but not enough of the requirements of our ego-satisfaction. So our frustration and feelings of hostility toward others builds.

To what degree do we try to accommodate selfishness, and to what degree do we try to suppress it?

In politics, the right takes the approach that the freedom of the individual takes precedence while the left takes the approach that curbing the freedom of the individual is justified by the need to prevent the domination of the powerless majority by the powerful few.

Both of these approaches are compromises, and neither even attempts to do anything about the deeper psychological problem which makes a compromise necessary. The dialogue between left and right is a dialogue about how much discipline needs to be imposed within the cage of hungry dogs. The only way to provide more food is to address the psychological roots of the problem.

If we were to go all the way to the right wing, we would end up with a dog-eat-dog society in which the weak would be totally dominated by the powerful. If we went all the way to the left wing, we would end up with an oppressive and dishonest society in which feelings of frustration and hostility would build and build beneath the surface, unable to find any expression because of the need to maintain some illusory state of politically correct harmony.

Each end of the political spectrum represents a dangerous form of idealism. Political decisions need to be realistic and pragmatic - they need to find the best compromise between the two sides of our nature.

Compromised self-acceptance can draw us to either end of the political spectrum. “I’m an heroic defender of the rights of the individual!” we may cry. Or : “I’m an heroic defender of the downtrodden, the planet, the animals, etc.” Just two different brands of junkie-dope. And there are plenty of pusher’s selling both brands.

The unconditionally self-accepting individual has no desire to be seen as a hero or to view themselves as a hero. They may do something which others regard as heroic, but the desire to be perceived as heroic is a form of competitive thinking which makes sense only from the perspective of the neurotic character armour. 

From political leaders to church leaders to cult leaders, there are plenty of people offering up a steady supply of junkie-dope. To keep getting it you have to keep supporting them. None of them want to set you free, because they are junkies too. They’ve forgotten what freedom feels like.

In most cases this compromised self-acceptance leads to a division in the psyche between our repressed feelings of frustration and our conscience.

The conscience is that part of our ego where we store our learned expectations about ourselves which includes any form of morality that we may have been taught by our parents, teachers, religious leaders etc. Our conscience contains our ideas about what constitutes good behaviour. Of course the feelings of frustration and hostility, which grow out of the selfishness which is a product of our compromised self-acceptance, are often in conflict with our conscience. These feelings lead us to do things we believe to be wrong, and we feel guilt as a result. This is the war within us.

It's the villain who gives the hero his hero status

In trying to make sense of the conflicts in the world around us we come to see them as outward manifestations of this inner conflict. The individual on the left is trying to live according to their conscience, and thus will see the individual on the right as a representation of their own rebellious feelings of hostility to that conscience, a rebelliousness they are trying to tame. And the individual on the right identifies with the rebellious tendencies in themselves and identifies those on the left with the oppressiveness of their own conscience, which tells them that they should be more concerned about the welfare of the powerless, the planet, the animals, etc.

I’m speaking here of very general tendencies, so I’m grossly oversimplifying. Within every individual, right or left leaning, there is a complex of elements of conscientiousness and rebelliousness against the conscience. And the conscience of every individual is different. But I think it is worth considering how the individual’s view of and interaction with the world around them tends to be a reflection of conflicts going on within their own mind.

The central irony of this dualistic strategy is that, if the hero-status of those on the left is dependent on fighting against the right and the hero-status of those on the right is dependent on fighting against the left, then the continued existence of the opposition appears to be in the best interest of both, even though the conflict itself is damaging the survival chances of all.

Ideological dogmatism - left wing or right wing - compromises the effectiveness of any attempt to manage society, because such ideology is the warped product of our internal neurotic battle. It is not founded in a rational assessment of our situation, whether that be an acknowledgement of the psychological state of individuals, the way an economic system actually works, or what our ecological limitations are.

The key factors for effective politics are -

1. Accurate information.

2. Capacity for cooperation.

3. Pragmatic rather than ideological decision making.

1. We have an unprecedented ability to gather and process information, but there are those who, rather than assessing information honestly, will cherry-pick data and present it out of context to support a personally or ideologically predetermined course of action.

2. Our capacity for effective unforced cooperation depends on our level of self-acceptance. If we are a well-fed dog we will be able to work happily with others, but if we are hungry we will only cooperate if beaten.

3. What matters is whether or not something works. “By their fruits shall ye know them.”

Materialism is Masturbation

Materialism is masturbation. It is something which can make us feel better when we are on our own.

“Am I a worthwhile person?” we ask ourselves. “Well a worthless person wouldn't live in a big house and drive a fast sports car, would they?” we answer. But the fact that we are asking the question means that, in a very real sense, we are alone. We are trapped in an ego, the insecurity of which keeps us turned inwards, keeps us obsessed with physical evidence that we are loveable, while cutting us off from any possibility of really loving or being loved by anyone.

But this doesn't mean that materialism is a bad thing. The route to our liberation is through learning that we are worthy, and, if material goods give us that message then that is a good place to start. We shouldn't feel ashamed of our materialism any more than we should feel ashamed about masturbating. In fact, to the extent that materialism is an addiction, it is a sense of shame associated with it which is the driving force of that addiction.

Addiction occurs when we need more of something to achieve that same effect, when the appeal of something wears off. No matter how right wing our political beliefs may be it is very hard to escape an underlying sense of guilt that we have luxuries while others are starving. But this sense of guilt doesn't help anyone, because the more it undermines our sense of worth the more material luxuries we need to compensate. So we are less happy and more addicted, and the starving are still starving.

Now we could adopt the form of idealism known as voluntary simplicity in which conspicuous consumption is eschewed and greater material generosity shown to others, but if this is another way for the insecure ego to prove its worth then we are still not healing where we need to heal and we may be contributing to the sense of guilt of those still trying to enjoy their materialism. It may just be another form of selfishness if what matters to us is how we are perceived and the net effect on the social system around us does not concern us.

The road out of addiction, whether it be an addiction to materialism or an addiction to idealism, is to enjoy it more and thus need it less. If the purpose of our materialism or our idealism is to convince us that we are worthy, then let it carry that message unadulterated by the guilt that may accompany materialism or the sense of superiority that might accompany idealistic acts. Pleasure is healing, and the more we are healed the more available we become to be a healthy part of the wider social system, and thus the more others benefit. Of course pleasures can carry a price, and it is better to chose a pleasure which doesn't do us physical harm. Taking heroin may be pleasurable at first, but the price of physical addiction far outweighs any temporary psychological benefits arising from that experience.

Masturbation is a healthy activity, an easy risk-free source of pleasure, but it carries an association of loneliness and accepting a substitute for what we really desire. And this is why I make the connection between it and materialism. We find our meaning, and our deepest opportunities for pleasure, in our relationship to others. Even when someone like Thoreau departed from human society for a couple of years to live in the woods and find himself, he found himself in relation to the natural environment, and that experience only achieved its full significance when he wrote about it and communicated his ideas to others.

Just as meaning is conveyed by a letter of the alphabet only when it takes its place in the context of a word, our meaning derives from our relationship to the whole of which we are a part. This is not to say that we should submit ourselves to that whole in the way that forms of idealism such as communism or various forms of religion would have us do. To submit is not to be a part of something but to be crushed by that thing, to cease to be a healthy part. We can only be a healthy part of the whole by being fully and completely ourselves. If discipline is required then we are not there yet.

Self-interest is the motivation for all human behaviour. Even in the case where a person may lay down their life for another, that individual has a belief system which makes death preferable to a life of knowledge that they were not true to that system. So we should not feel uncomfortable about making decisions based on what is in it for us. This is inevitable. If we think that we are placing someone else's welfare above our own then we are fooling ourselves. We may be following the dictates of our conscience, but it is our conscience and the suffering it might inflict on us which we are trying to avoid. The real question is how enlightened our self-interest is. Eating fatty food may give me a sense of comfort, but if I'm on the verge of a heart attack that comfort may be short-lived.

Jesus placed great significance, at the Last Supper, on the bread and wine which was being shared. Clearly what was important was the act of sharing. If we use the term God to describe the universal system of which we are all a part then anything which is healthy and is shared - such as bread or wine - is the flesh and blood of God. Any living system can only continue to live if the stuff of life continues to flow through it.

Of course it is possible to share something which is not good for the system. Lies, gossip, addictive drugs, disease - all of these things can be shared from one person to another and poison the social system. So, when seeking to find our meaning through sharing, it does matter what we are sharing.

Information is one of the things we share. The collective enterprises in which we engage, from playing a board game to running a multi-billion dollar corporation require the sharing of information. Factual information is the blood of the system, while lies are poison and wisdom is medicine. What spreads through the communication networks of the social system, such as the internet, effects the health of that system.

And pleasure is a key to healing. Where pleasure is shared significant healing is taking place in the fabric of the social system. If we want to be a part of a healthy system then our best chance is to find activities which help others while also giving us pleasure.

If materialism is masturbation, then sharing is an orgy!

You can also find this post on the How to Be Free forum here. You may find further discussion of it there.