Uncertainty is
Has been and always will be
Where I sit, with Love
Has been and always will be
Where I sit, with Love
The gentle, ever-nurturing rains mingled sweetly with my tears as I bathed in the forest today. The unbridled joy and love of my sweet Tosha – as she drinks in universes of sounds and smells that are beyond my ken – is a healing balm to a heart broken by the anger, confusion, polarization and fear that threaten to tear apart a community I love with every fiber of my being.
Ah, how fragile we are indeed.
Here in the woods, I’m invited by the spirits of my mother and grandmother to sit in the cool comfort of the mystery even as the fires of passionate curiosity and intention to be of service to this world burn in my heart.
Embracing this divine paradox is nothing new in my matrilineal ancestry; it clearly inspired my mother and grandmother in their thirst for reliable empirical findings that might heal this world.
Dr. Lavinia Gould Fox |
My maternal grandmother, Dr. Lavinia Gould Fox, was a pediatrician who raised two daughters as a single parent when my grandfather suffered a psychotic break. She continued her pediatric research until she was 91, and only ceased her work then because she could no longer make her way to the Stanford campus.
My mother, Dr. Nancy Wertheimer,
was not only a renowned epidemiologist and Harvard PhD in psychology but a carpenter, gifted visual artist, writer, and probably the most ardent worshipper of beauty I’ve ever known.
Dr. Nancy Wertheimer |
Professor Michael Wertheimer |
My father, Professor Michael Wertheimer, who was among other things Ram Dass' (then Richard Alpert's) Masters Thesis adviser and a director of the American Psychological Association, has always been deeply committed to rigorous empirical inquiry when faced with uncertainty.
His father, Professor Max Wertheimer, the founder of Gestalt theory in psychology, was utterly devoted to bringing disciplined critical thinking into all of his work (beautifully elaborated in his book “Productive Thinking.”).
Professor Max Wertheimer |
Certainly my male forebears instilled in me a similar impetus to be as rigorous as possible in thinking things through critically – recognizing that my own “beliefs” and hypotheses were empty indeed if not informed by the most reliable data, analysis and verification processes available.
All of which bring me to today, where we find ourselves in the trackless land of the emergent “post-truth” era. An era in which the predominant paradigm asserts that “my beliefs are just as valid as your data,” and surfing YouTube hyperlinks on the internet as “research” is put on a par with scientific, peer-reviewed research that might span months, years or even decades.
No wonder I feel like a stranger in a strange land.
Particularly in a time when the virus that seizes our attention is surrounded by SO much uncertainty, whether in:
• the accuracy of testing and infection/mortality rate data (where Bayes’s Theorem might come into play – but THAT is a vast subject that I might explore in an entirely different post in the future),
• the range of effects from the novel coronavirus (from asymptomatic carriers on one hand to people suffering and often dying from catastrophic kidney, lung, and brain failure on the other … or a spectrum of victims ranging from old, infirm people to healthy young adults suffering massive hemorrhagic strokes or children sickened and dying from pediatric multi system inflammatory syndrome),
• the question of whether or not we actually gain immunity after recovering from the initial disease, or the bizarre pseudo-scientific pronouncements of how a loosely-defined phenomenon of “herd immunity’ might be our salvation …
It’s really quite a rats’ nest. I suspect you knew that already.
So … do I know “the truth” about coronavirus?
Of course not. Nor, at this stage, does anybody, really.
Yet I see many people I love and respect claiming to have a lock on “the truth” and dismissively telling those of us who might question it to “do your research.”
When faced with uncertainty, I will follow in the footsteps of my forebears and look toward clear-headed, disciplined, peer-reviewed, carefully-vetted empirical research. Along with this comes the difficulty of living with deep uncertainty while this necessarily tedious process plods along – all while we’re living together in a world that demands that we respond decisively as soon as we can.
I get it. Many of us find ourselves in a major financial crisis, with almost no ability to work or reliably plan for the future. And the stresses of distancing impact us on so many levels – emotionally, spiritually, physically and practically. (Among other things, I’d love to be able to freely offer a hug to any of you reading this now …)
With this backdrop, a clear, black-and-white, simplistic explanation – especially as it might involve a “conspiracy” – about COVID and the circumstances surrounding how the powers-that-be are dealing with it (or, for that matter, might manipulate it for some nefarious advantage) understandably has a LOT of appeal. All the more so because we’ve seen ample evidence over time of the faults and avarice of the pharmaceutical industry and for-profit medical machine.
Yet this does not warrant abandoning our critical thought or consigning an entire body of disciplined investigative journalism and scientific inquiry to the status of “fake news”. Dismissing an entire body of inquiry as MSM (main stream media) might be tempting as a way to confirm cherished beliefs – and to grossly oversimplify a truly gnarly human crisis – but it is facile, extremely divisive, and ultimately dangerous.
The characterization of journalism as the “Lügenpresse” in the Germany from which my grandfather and his family fled in 1933 was pivotal in cementing fascism there. Such a characterization is dangerously dividing us here in a time when we – more than anything – need to look out for one another.
May we remember that the greatest enemy we face – in many ways greater than the virus itself, which seeks only to replicate itself indefinitely – is polarization itself.
If you’ve read this far, you have my deep gratitude. I send my love out to you all.
Thank you❤️������
ReplyDeleteThank YOU for reading this, Marianne! 🙏🏼💜
DeleteI wanted to share a comment that first appeared on Facebook from my friend Prem Vidu; very thought-provoking and heart-provoking as well:
ReplyDelete"Beautiful writing brother. And so lovely to learn about your family... quite the lineage you are a part of! Wow Jai Ma!
I do have a question though. How does all this “empirical” knowledge explain your deep devotion to a little man in a plaid blanket that isn’t even alive anymore? (I know the love affair with a guru FYI... beyond) However I’m pretty sure science, even the best, can’t explain that. In fact the world watching that would consider you crazy. Mad. In a cult. Where does “emperical evidence” leave us for this experience of love. Beyond the minds need to cling to certainty.
Please understand I’m asking in the gentlest and most sincere way I can. There is no confrontation in me. I would really love to hear your thoughts and how you harmonize these things.
Thank you brother. 🙏🏻
Ps. It’s wasn’t a long read 😉"
It inspired me to think deeply about his inquiry ... and here's my reply. I hope it might inspire some introspection for many of us:
Delete"This is a beautifully-framed inquiry and question, dear brother. And worthy of a longer, more carefully-considered answer than I have time for at this moment ... hoping I might more clearly elucidate my perspective on this at a later date.
DeleteBut, to begin with, I would like to bring forward two very important points about empiricism and reconciling this with spiritual beliefs of almost any nature.
The first point is that any inquiry we embark upon takes place against the backdrop of the miracle of existence itself. And the further we dive into this mystery, the clearer it becomes that the moment we try to look at “God“ as a thing among things, we are missing the point altogether. The potential and actualization of anything that ever was, is, or will be is embodied in something that is transcendent of any efforts we might have to conceptualize it.
DeleteWhen we examine the phenomenology of all that arises from this realm of infinite potential, it always makes sense to me to look at what we might be able to quantify and what we cannot.
So I embrace the paradox of being in complete awe of everything behind creation even as I might try to use the best possible observational and analytical techniques to understand its mechanisms.
In virtually any methodology or belief system, if we dig deeply enough, we eventually wind up at something that is either a point of faith or what might otherwise be referred to as an axiom. It may not be provable yet it becomes the underpinning from which we build a whole set of observational techniques and logical arguments and worldviews. I would say that a good way to put the axiom or point of faith underlying empirical inquiry into context is to say that the foundation of it is something we like to refer to as “objective observation.“ And of course this is a term that has a great deal of potential for controversy, with some people making strong arguments that true objective observation is not even possible for the human mind.
I frequently get wrapped up in this point for a very long time in my own philosophical conversations with my father, Professor Michael Wertheimer. He does not appreciate the idea that the foundation of empirical inquiry might be considered a point of faith akin to those that support a wide range of what we would refer to as religious beliefs.
Because I could go on and on about this, let me simply use the shorthand that my brilliant biochemist/physicist nephew Herschel Watkins has shared with me for addressing this question. To misquote him perhaps, “Science is the best tool I have yet found in my efforts to try to understand the mind of God.“
To continue:
Delete"To move into why it is that I have such reverence for the great Indian saint Neem Karoli Baba, a rather quick and dirty way for me to explain it would be that he is relatively simple philosophical approach to what it means to lead a spiritual life speaks to what I consider to be the “heart of God.“
And (for me anyway), that “heart of God,“ in our expressions of it as human beings, is to focus ourselves unswervingly on loving service. In one sense, one might say that the philosophy that Maharajji espoused could be considered a “four step program“:
One. Love people
Two. Serve people
Three. Feed people
Four. Always remember God
One might go on to say that there’s a fifth step, which I would characterize as “when in doubt, refer to step one.“
And, although one could certainly discuss myriad attributes of step 4 for a very long time, one important summary of it is for me is to always remember that there are elements of this universe that are entirely beyond our ability to conceptualize or understand. Yet even there, in this beautiful twisting of the cosmos, we find the very wellspring of Love itself.
Among other things, when I speak of love here, it is not just an exquisite emotion that fills our breasts, but a verb to be put into action as we seek to serve each other to our very highest capability.
Virtually anything that we do to serve our own immediate needs will cease to be of value or relevance once we have passed on from this physical plane. Yet what we do in love and service for our brothers and sisters contained within it will carry that beautiful, all too often elusive quality of the eternal.
I hope this begins to answer the question you posed, my beloved brother. I so appreciate it, because I think we can all come to a greater clarity about how we might best serve in this world if we dig deeply into introspection to understand our own cherished beliefs.
May you be richly blessed in all that you do. "