The OMBAOWOW Creed

OMBAOWOW: One Must Becometh at One With One’s World.

I am increasingly persuaded that this singular phrase contains more wisdom than an alarming proportion of our institutions, and certainly more than several committees with which I have had the misfortune of becoming acquainted- for it appears to me, after long observation of streams, trees, birds, weather systems, and the curious behaviour of our own species, that the great tragedy of mankind is not that we are ignorant but that we are perpetually enraged in the labour of forgetting that which was once known instinctively, intimately, and without effort.

What is civilisation, but a vast and elaborate attempt to convince a creature born from the world that it somehow stands apart from it? We emerge from the soil, breathe the atmosphere, drink the water, consume the fruits of innumerable living systems, borrow every atom from processes older than memory itself, and then, having done all this, proceed to declare ourselves independent entities - as though a wave might proclaim its sovereignty from the ocean.

I have often suspected that were an intelligent visitor from some distant star to arrive amongst us, they would depart more bewildered than enlightened, for they would discover a species that speaks constantly of connection whilst arranging its affairs as though separation were the fundamental law of existence; a species that understands ecology yet behaves economically as though ecosystems were optional; a species that understands dependence upon nature yet speaks of conquering nature; that comprehends interdependence in theory whilst constructing institutions founded almost entirely upon the assumption that interdependence may somehow be ignored indefinitely without consequence. One can hardly blame the visitor for returning home with the impression that humanity has suffered some peculiar metaphysical injury.

Indeed, I sometimes wonder whether future historians (assuming the remain future historians and that they have not wisely abandoned the profession in favour of gardening) shall look back upon our age with the same mix of fascination and disbelief that we reserve for those eras in which learned men debated how many angels might stand upon the head of a pin; for they shall discover that we possessed all the necessary evidence before us, that every branch of inquiry pointed stubbornly toward the same conclusion, and that nevertheless we contrived to avoid it.

Let us therefore circle around to OMBAOWOW. The mycelial network beneath the forest floor appears to understand it exceedingly well, despite having accumulated neither wealth nor prestige. All living things participate in a reality whose primary characteristic is not competition, nor hierarchy, nor acquisition, but relationship. Everything becomes through everything else. Everything, in anything. The stream carries the mountain; the mountain directs the stream; the forest summons the rain, the rain nourishes the forest. Life itself advances through an endless choreography of mutual becoming, each thing transforming and being transformed by all that surrounds it. OMBAOWOW.

Only humanity pauses amidst this astonishing dance and declares itself a spectator. And what extraordinary arrogance this is - breeding loneliness - breeding confusion. For it is not merely that we belong to the world: the world is not a stage upon which we act, nor a resource awaiting extraction. It is not a collection of objects arranged conveniently around the observer. We are expressions of it, movements within it, processes occurring inside a process so vast that language itself struggles to encompass it. The distinction between self and world, whilst useful for practical affairs and avoiding collisions with furniture, begins to dissolve under closer inspection until one is left wondering whether the boundary was ever quite as substantial as one had imagined.

OMBAOWOW is essentially not about world government, world bureaucracy, nor any other scheme involving additional paperwork. Rather, I speak of a transformation of perception, a remembering, so profound that future generations may scarcely comprehend how we ever managed to think otherwise. They shall observe that every breath entered them from beyond themself and they shall wonder how their ancestors became persuaded that independence represented the highest expression of existence when the entire universe had spent billions of years demonstrating precisely the opposite.

So thus we must ring it aloud once more: OMBAOWOW. One Must Becometh at One With One’s World. The phrase appears ridiculous, which is encouraging, for the deepest truths often arrive wearing absurd disguises. Yet I confess that the longer I contemplate it, the more difficult it becomes to dismiss, until I find myself entertaining the possibility that all genuine wisdom, all genuine civilisation, and indeed all genuine sanity may consist in little more than the gradual recognition that nothing was ever truly separate from anything else, and that the long journey of consciousness is not toward domination, nor accumulation, nor conquest, but toward the rediscovery of the wholeness from which it first emerged.

OMBAO -WOW! :star_struck:

2 Likes

In response to your beautiful, poetic, inspirational post, I’m going to respond to the point above in the grubbiest possible way! My take on civilization is, it’s basic animal behavior adapted to innovative circumstances we humans introduced to the world - because of our innate animal behavior.

Let’s start with agriculture. That’s basically gathering. Except by scattering seeds on selected ground, we made the resulting crops easier to gather. What animal on this planet declines easier food? None that I can think of! Of course, early agriculture turned out to be a relatively miserable, unnutritious, sickly lifestyle compared to well-balanced foraging, but by the time people figured that out, crops and children and domesticated beasts had multiplied exponentially, and nearby foraging grounds were getting scare, so the “fittest” move to make was to persist with the agriculture and seek out any available improvements.

For those humans who preferred a hunting lifestyle, a fortunate new opportunity then arose: make other humans into prey. Why farm when you can just seize the crops? Not to mention seizing the farmer and his wife and children and turning the whole lot into enslaved labor? No more mastodon to hunt? No worries! Raiding and slaving and empire-building provided a ready outlet for those sorts of energies.

Notice in the analysis above, there is no sharp break between “nature” and “culture”. Our forebears acted entirely naturally, under circumstances in which humans has long since prior become the apex species on the planet. Why did Nature allow such tool- and weapon-wielding apes in the first place? Good question! Please do let us know what She tells you!

So I cast no blame on civilizations past for doing what came obvious. However, if we fail under current circumstance to implement needed changes to these patterns from the past, then there will indeed be blame to place.

Aren’t you and I and others who don’t see ecosystems as optional and so on part of humanity?

Maybe an alien species wouldn’t find much value in a category like ‘humanity’, given that human behavior is so diverse. Some parts of humanity appear to be actively working towards destroying the whole. Other parts are acting selflessly for the good of the whole, as if obeying some Transcendent Function, as Jung called it.

Just food for thought. I happen to agree with the spirit of your post.

In a different thread, my attention got returned to the metaphor in Plato’s Laws, which contains the metaphor of the iron cords are the golden cord. Quick summary:

In his final work, The Laws (Book I), Plato uses the famous metaphor of a puppet of the gods to explain the human struggle between reason and impulse. We are pulled by various internal “cords” or strings that draw us toward opposing actions. [1, 2]

The Golden Cord vs. The Iron Cords

  • The Golden Cord (Reason): This represents calculation, intellect, and the public law of the state. It is described as divine, soft, and gentle, guiding us toward virtue. It is called “golden” because gold is the most precious and flexible of metals, just as true reason must be the most noble and adaptable guiding force.

  • The Iron Cords (Emotion): These represent our base passions, specifically the raw emotions of pleasure and pain. They are described as hard, rigid, unyielding, and endless in variety. They are made of iron because, unlike the golden cord, they are earthly, “rust” easily, and pull us toward vice and irrationality. [1, 2, 4, 5, 6]

The Core Message

Plato explains that because the golden cord of reason is soft and gentle, it needs our active support to win out against the forceful, rigid pulls of the iron cords. Living a virtuous life is essentially the daily practice of resisting the “iron” tugs of immediate pleasure and pain by choosing to follow the “golden” rule of calculation and law. [1, 5]

My comment:

The Reason vs Emotion thing sounds very 17th and 18th century pre-Englightenment, but less so when we realize “Reason” translates Plato’s more spiritually-oriented Nous. Later thinkers (like Plotinus) expanded Plato noetics into the mystical, contemplative, quasi-religious system it really was. Instead of Reason vs Emotion (with Reason being the sort left-brain calculation favored by thinkers like Thomas Hobbes), I’d propose the Golden Chord as the spiritual, and the Iron Chords as physical/animalistic needs/drives that also were at the core of Hobbesian thinking). Notice my prior response to @Justin in this thread was generally Hobbesian, albeit filtered through Turchin, Kemp, Karatani, and others.

The Brenden Graham Dempsey model is that something like the Transcendent Function is emerging through energy complexification. To borrow Plato’s images, the iron chords are somehow transmuting into gold, through emergence. My view, by contrast, is the golden chord has been pulling the whole time - the Transcendent Function is indeed Transcendent. It lives in the neo-Platonic possibility space as formal causal and final causal to the world. The alchemy of iron into gold, is more the Ways of God than the Ways of Man. Plato, primarily. meant to teach us that. In the Laws (his final work) he was warming up to play and ritual as ways for how that needed to be embodied on wide social levels.

So to get back to the OP in this thread - we can picture civilization spinning up through purely dog-eat-dog Darwinian mechanisms. Turchin shows how that dog-eat-dog leads to global scale (what we have now) with external war being the great internal pacifier. Current conflicts in the news are still on that script. My more theologically-oriented hope however is that the Golden Chord has been drawing humans into this higher complexity the whole time, because dog-eat-dog works fine in Darwinian terms with simply the mass extinction of dogs. A species so stupid as to kill itself off (not to mention much of the biosphere in the process) is not exactly “fit”. The idea of humans waking up into a better way of being in the world requires a prior Transcendent Function, IMO.

1 Like

Thanks Robert for your comments.

Your take on civilisation through the development of agriculture and permanent settlements being inevitable may well indeed be true. That said, let us remember this adaptation was made possible by virtue of a stable climate - something we are effectively coming to the end of. Shy of geoengineering, with unknown consequences and issues of equity, the only logical forthcoming adaptation may be a return to nomadic, tribal societies.

I’m also unsure whether it is is equally inevitable for sedentary societies to develop as they have done. For example, we have seen enduring civilisations in South America, and Asia, that managed to still incorporate a more benign treatment and interconnection perspective on the natural world. These ended in most cases through European conquest or violent intervention.

As for why nature allowed this course, we have to recall that nature has no teleological direction. Even so, humanity may be unique in its capacity to both modify the natural environment to such a large extent, and in such a short space of time. I do believe we can turn to the many millenia of relative coexistence with other species to shift away from the perspective of inherent disharmony to that of a temporary social structure imposing our disconnection.

It is a valid point: humanity is not the same as the dominant society we find ourselves in. Many are aware or partially aware that the systems we rely on are destructive and inherently unsuitable. Unfortunately very few possess the means to do otherwise, which presents an illusion of collective consent and shared culpability.

I think the important question is, what does one do about it?

It seems to me that most of what you’re bringing up can be considered the shadow side of modernity. Along with all that growth and progress came externalities that the level of consciousness that created them couldn’t account for. Noticing these negative externalities was the primary directive of the postmodern. But where does that leave us? In my mind, it’s a critique that doesn’t ultimately serve a purpose. Finding the purpose, and the means of holding what’s valid from modernity and what’s valid from postmodernity in the same worldview, is what defines metamodernity in my book.

In my area, that generally implies a population reduction of 99%. By contrast, pre-industrial agriculture could support current population levels (with most living like medieval peasants.)

A very good work on this is here: https://files.libcom.org/files/Art.pdf

Generally, hierarchical, exploitative state-building was quite prevalent around the world before Europeans showed up. (So was running off to the hills to avoid hierarchical, exploitative state-building). European colonizers inserted themselves at the top of existing social pyramids and were quite frustrated when their new subjects refused to organize themselves into identifiable tribes in taxable villages.

This I agree with. The “back to nature” impulse is a good one, because many essential elements of a viable global system are wired pretty deeply into our basic biology. It’s not like I hate advanced technical culture (says the guy typing this on the Internet). It’s just that control knobs of attention should be adjusted to mind more what is happening in the physical stack and not so much what is available only through digital screens.