7 – Moving Toward the Ultimate 

The seventh essay in The Ultimate Journey concerns the ways we try to understand and talk about Ultimate things, the difficulties of doing so with words and concepts, and suggested ways to move forward.

Naming the Mystery

We do not know how this universe in which we experience consciousness came to be. Yet everything we surmise suggests it has been governed by laws from the beginning. There are at least 26 constants of nature upon which the existence of a universe necessary for human life depends. And since the beginning of human culture, the great wisdom figures have told us there are values and moral guidelines that are necessary as well. Every culture has lived by values and some kind of morality, and all wisdom figures have said that their source is God, the Tao, Buddha-nature, the Way, Allah, Brahma, Great Spirit, Ein Sof, and so on.

All these names are words we humans have created to point to the source of existence, as well as the source of the meanings and values that are important for human life. But each of these words is a human concept, and not one is the thing itself. All these words are meager attempts to make intelligible to our thinking minds something that is just there. This “Isness” simply appears to our consciousness as soon as we become aware that we exist.

The wisdom traditions describe this Source differently, but all assert that there is a larger Reality, “Something Greater” than our everyday perspective. For Plato and Socrates, it was the World of Pure Forms or Ideas: “There abides the very being with which true knowledge is concerned; the colorless, formless, intangible essence … knowledge absolute in existence absolute.” This World of Pure Forms provides guidance for human life—for those who learn to access it. Continue reading “7 – Moving Toward the Ultimate “

6 – Ten Levels of Myself – Part II

The sixth essay in The Ultimate Journey concerns the 4 highest levels of who we are.

Last week I explored the first 6 levels of our inner landscape, and hopefully made clear that these levels exist in every one of us, barring a severe dysfunction. The incredible diversity between people is explained by the fact that all these forces, currents, and levels mix together in endless ways. This is true whether a person is aware of them or not. If they are not within a person’s consciousness, they are in the unconscious, affecting that person’s life in multiple ways.

I also tried to convey that understanding the human psyche is incredibly complex, partly because all the parts of ourselves do not have clear boundaries between them; they do not fit into neat boxes. It is like trying to sort out the mix of sounds one hears on a busy street, or putting specific images and thoughts on the figures in a dream. In an attempt at understanding, we use names to designate the various parts of ourselves, but they are only rough pointers toward a world that is fluid, dynamic, constantly shifting and changing.

Increasing the difficulty of understanding, these various parts of ourselves do not function separately, but are constantly overlapping and influencing each other. The value of putting names on this inner landscape is to have a rough, though very imprecise, way of moving toward greater consciousness and awareness. The more we can do this, the more we will be able to bring all the currents together into a coherent life, one that is moving toward the possibilities we have consciously chosen—rather than being carried this way and that by forces about which we are not conscious. Accomplishing this was exactly what Socrates was urging us to do when he admonished each person to: “Know Thyself.”

An image I like is of the leader of a great choir working with the members, who at first are not singing in rhythm or harmony with each other, gradually bringing the many voices together into a beautiful song. In the same way, each of us has many different voices within, and the work of a lifetime is to find a way to bring all the parts of ourselves into harmony, working together toward a fulfilling life. We each have this capacity, no matter how we feel about ourselves right now.

The first 6 levels discussed last week are the voices that have been the focus of much of modern psychology, beginning with Freud, followed by Jung, Adler, and behaviorism, and then various branches of cognitive, humanistic, and self psychology. To understand the next 4 levels of who we are, however, it is necessary to turn to the wisdom traditions of the world. This turn starts with an understanding of the full self.

7. The Full Self: If the ego includes everything I am conscious of about myself, what shall we call the complete individual me, the “me” that includes the parts of which I am not yet conscious. For most of us, there is a lot within ourselves of which we are not conscious. Freud said that the unconscious is a territory much more vast than the small citadel encompassed by the conscious mind. Jung added that there is both a personal unconscious and a collective unconscious. The personal unconscious includes a person’s own individual repressed fears, buried anxieties, unacknowledged longings, unspoken hopes and dreams, unknown talents and abilities, and the disowned shadow.

My term for the ego plus the personal unconscious is the “full self.” Every culture has developed techniques for bringing unconscious elements into consciousness, and this has been the main thrust of many schools of western psychology for the last one hundred years.

In essence, your “full self” includes everything of which you are now conscious, along with all the unconscious personal desires, fears, images, values, beliefs, and thoughts. Psychological growth, in this model, involves developing a healthy ego and then incorporating more and more of your unconscious material into conscious awareness. As you do this, your healthy ego self will gradually move toward becoming one with your full self.

Some schools of western psychology stop here, but Carl Jung, in conjunction with much ancient wisdom, said the full self includes a connection to the “collective unconscious,” the name he used for currents of deeper knowing that are shared with others. Jung did not suggest he understood what this was very well, and no one to this day does either, but many people have experienced a shared deeper knowing that cannot be explained by any means we now understand.

One aspect of the collective unconscious Jung called the archetypes. An example of archetypes at work in animals is the way many have the ability to perform complicated tasks without being taught, or even seeing an example of an action. (Birds that have never had contact with their parents fly thousands of miles to the hereditary mating location of their species; other birds build complicated nests like those of the species without seeing an example, and many animals know how to raise their young by ancient species-wide methods even though they never experienced or saw it demonstrated themselves.) In just this way, Jung believed that each human can access an archetypal image of how to be a Nurturer, Mother, Boss, Warrior, King, Queen, Enlightened One, Lover, Submissive Subject, Dominant Partner, Caregiver, Artist, Tyrant, Healer, Peacemaker, Counselor, Spoiled Child, and on and on. Some Jungians have tried to explain the archetypes as being contained within the individual psyche. If this is the case, then the archetypes would be included in the full self that is contained within each person.

But there is another way to understand them: They can be seen as pure models for ways of being, similar to Plato’s Pure Forms, that exist in a shared field of awareness outside of, or transcendent to the individual. The existence of a shared field of awareness would explain many things that are today mysteries to us, such as the way flocks of migrating birds can act and move as one unit, as if they share one consciousness. This would also explain why people sometimes feel a crisis is happening to a loved one, even though there is no normal means of communication between them.

Other examples include the ability of people to move into synchronization without words, as often happens with soldiers on a mission, a sports team getting into sync, or jazz musicians playing together—the group coming into harmony while playing a song being composed as they play, each aware of the tone and timing of everyone else in the group without any recognizable means of communication we know. This ability includes dancers moving into rhythm with each other in a way that defies physical explanation, a couple sensing the thoughts and feelings of each other, and the incredible link that can sometimes exist between a parent and a child.

However archetypes arise, their presence is valuable. But they further complicate living a human life, for the many archetypes compete for our time and attention, and if they are not recognized and managed, one or more will take over one’s life. (Think of some of the world’s worst tyrants.) Thus, one important goal for each of us is to learn to use the energy of each archetype when it is needed and useful, but not to let ourselves be taken over and dominated by any of them—for therein lies madness.

To become conscious of our id energies and shadow elements, to manage the complexes and personas, and then use the archetypes in a contained and healthy way requires a strong, conscious ego. Many of these currents within are constantly pushing for attention and control, so the work of a healthy ego is to become increasingly conscious of all the voices, gradually expanding conscious awareness to include each and all—an ideal that is never completely reached by most of us. But it is a worthy aspiration.

     Where is the collective unconscious? As noted earlier, some argue that it is contained entirely within each individual, and some of Jung’s early writings can be interpreted in this way. There are countless problems with this interpretation, however, and Jung’s later writings strongly suggest a view more in line with that of Plato and many other wisdom figures. This broader view is that there is a shared field of awareness that exists beyond each individual. And this is the jumping off point for an exploration of the higher levels of the self, the ones that go beyond the theory that everything is contained in each person’s “skin-encapsulated” ego self.

8. The Witness: Several modern theories limit our identity to the ego and personal unconscious. For my part, I believe we include more, that there are several higher levels of identity into which we can move. The first of those levels emerges any time you are able to step back and observe yourself—are able to look at your life, your ego, and at other people without judgments, opinions, or defending a position. Haven’t you experienced this at times? It is the heart of mindfulness training. The one who is observing is not the ego self, but the witness; others call it the observer. It is the part of you that can rise beyond the ego, and even beyond all the unconscious material contained in the full self. This is to step into the level of yourself that can see the whole picture, including the ability to observe your own ego self.

Think of a time you were in a park, or on a trip, and did not know anyone. Perhaps you stopped and saw a family on a picnic, or an argument between two people you did not know, or a small crowd gathered around those playing checkers in a town square. You observe, appreciate the life unfolding before you, but do not feel caught up in any of the scenes in a personal way. You are simply an observer, a witness to all that is happening. Your ego self is not engaged in any of it, and no emotions are triggered in you.

For most of us, most of the time, every experience, everything we see or hear will trigger something in us, even if only vaguely. Most experiences bring back memories or excite hopes and dreams. But occasionally we have a moment when are just present with the scene in front of us and not caught by it in any way.

When this happens to me, I usually feel a tender warmth toward life, toward other people, or perhaps an animal I am observing. This experience is what I imagine brings the slight smile to the face of the Buddha as depicted in many statues of him. It is an expression of tenderness or compassion for those struggling with the issues of life, but detached from unease with praise or blame concerning oneself. It conveys an acceptance of life as it is, the good and the bad, the light and the dark. This captures the mood of the state the Buddha considered “deathless,” which is outside or beyond the individual body/mind we usually think of as who we are.

Related to this state, the remarkable thing I have discovered for myself is that I can practice moving toward this perspective at any moment. It is possible to learn to step into the place of the witness, become the observer of my own life, free from the fears, anxieties, ambitions, cravings, desires, and emotions that usually drive and govern who I am. And, any time I can step into this place, either by choice—or when it happens of its own accord—I have discovered the witness once again. Doing this can be very healing, and lead to much inner peace.

This witness or observing self has been recognized by all the wisdom traditions. In the Upanishadsof Hinduism, we find this passage:

Two birds, one of them mortal, the other immortal, live in the same tree.
The first pecks at the fruit, sweet or bitter;
the second looks on without eating.
Thus the personal self pecks at the fruit of this world,
bewildered by suffering, always hungry for more.

Thus, over two thousand years ago, whoever wrote this text recognized that there is a part of us that engages with the world, is caught up and absorbed in it, but that there is a second consciousness that can observe what is happening without being engaged.

The great German writer Goethe put it this way two hundred years ago:

Alas, two souls are living in my breast,
And one wants to separate itself from the other.
One holds fast to the world with earthy passion
And clings with twining tendrils:
The other lifts itself with forceful craving
To the very roof of heaven.

Many meditative practices are designed to bring forth the observer or witness. Learning to sit as the observer, we begin to notice that the mind has one thought after another and that this stream of multiple thoughts is often disorganized and confusing. But if we become proficient at observing this passing parade, we become less and less attached to its details. Our identity begins to shift from the one caught up in the action to the one who can observe everything without attachment. When this happens, we watch the parade as it passes by, with no scene compelling us to identify with it. This ability provides enormous freedom, as well as an incredibly broad perspective. As Henry David Thoreau captured this experience:

“By a conscious effort of the mind we can stand aloof from actions and their consequences; and all things, good or bad, go by us like a torrent. We are not wholly involved in Nature. I may be either the driftwood in the stream, or Indra in the sky looking down on it. I may be greatly affected by a theatrical exhibition; on the other hand, I may not be affected by an actual event which appears to concern me much more.”

Gradually, the more proficient we become at stepping into our observing self, the more the other parts of ourselves that had been unconscious are revealed. As we identify more and more with the bird that can watch without being caught up in the action, the parts of ourselves that had been unconscious drift into the view of the conscious observer. And, as these unconscious aspects appear to consciousness, we can see them more clearly for what they often are—fears, anxieties, desires, fantasies, enculturated beliefs, and embedded societal rules. Crucially, as this happens, we become less subject to their power. As we continue to shift our identity to the observer, we begin to let go of judging, which brings an exhilarating sense of freedom, as well as recognition that who we really are is more vast than anything we had glimpsed before.

The spiritual literature of the world is filled with reports of such experiences, and transpersonal psychology is increasingly exploring their importance for health and well-being. Arthur Deikman, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of California in San Francisco, writes of the importance of the observing self for psychological growth and development. The observing self, as he defines it, is fundamentally different from any other conception of ourselves because it cannot be turned into an object. It can observe, but it cannot be observed. This means that it is “featureless” and “cannot be affected by the world any more than a mirror can be affected by the images it reflects.” He continues: “In the midst of the finite world” is an “I” that is quite “different from the world.”

“All else can be objectified, has limits and boundaries that can be described. All else is a segment of a world of fixed or relative dimensions. The observing self, however, is not like anything else we know.

The way I have come to understand this is that when I look out at the world, my mind organizes what is out there into images, creating an orderly pattern that makes sense to me from my point of view. Since the work of Immanuel Kant (in some ways the person most responsible for the pivot to modern philosophical thought), philosophy and science have begun to understand that the mind receives input through the senses from the “blooming, buzzing confusion” out there (William James’ phrase), and organizes it into a coherent pattern in our minds, so we will be able to function in the world.

But what we see is not what is out there. There is an almost limitless amount of information “out there,” so the mind selects and organizes bits of that information into concepts and patterns that make our lives manageable. (One scientist estimated that we are able to take in only one-half of one percent of all the information available to us in fairly busy circumstances.) Thus, to be able to function within this endless stream of data, we form images and concepts in our minds, and thus, when we interact with the world that we believe is “out there,” we are actually dealing with images and concepts put together in our own minds.

In other words, in order to function in the world I have to create a concept of the world “out there,” as well as a concept of a self that is acting and functioning in that world. I must create an image in my mind of myself functioning in a world—neither of which is what it seems. This means I must think of myself as an object. And this object I create in my mind is my ego self. If I pay close attention, though, I will discover that there is a part of me that can look at, can observe, both the “world out there” as well as “me”—the ego self my mind has created of who I am.

If, for a moment, I try to turn my attention around and observe who is looking, if I try to discover who is creating the concepts, I cannot find it. I can create another concept of myself, but that concept is not my direct experience; another concept is not a direct observation. My only immediate, direct experience is of simply being aware—of observing. I am aware of people, of things in the world, of feelings, images, plans, hopes, and fears within me. Each of these can be seen only because it has been made into an object in my awareness. But as hard as I try, I cannot observe the awareness itself. I cannot find who or what is observing. I can only recognize that, in some way, I “am” it.

To get a sense of this, close your eyes and turn your attention inward, toward the observer inside you that is looking out at the world. If you turn and look at the one who is looking, what do you see? Don’t get caught up in ideas and concepts about this “I.” Try to get behind these concepts to an immediate experience of what is there.

When I do this, I realize that my immediate experience is of an openness, a receptive space in which ideas, images, and concepts come and go, form and dissolve. When I think of an object or person, it becomes a part of my awareness. Then, when I think about or look at something else, that becomes part of my awareness. Whatever I focus on is included, soon to be replaced by the next idea, object, or person that comes into mind. In my direct experience, this awareness is not an object like the objects I am observing. And, although I can have the thought, can form a concept that “this awareness is in my brain,” I have absolutely no direct evidence for this. I have no evidence at all that the center of this awareness is in my physical brain.

You can shift your attention in many directions: toward the sky, a tiny insect, a specific part of your body. You can focus on emotions, ideas, or another person. You can focus on the past or the future. So your awareness is not limited by space or time. You can imagine being in any number of different places—the seashore, a mountain top, a space station looking down on Earth. When you form these images, your awareness is not limited to here, or now.

As an experiment, think about a discomfort in your body. Now, think about a powerful emotion you experienced recently. Now think of someone you love. Next, think of a movie you like. Now look out and focus on the furthest object you can see. When I do this, as I shift my awareness, each thing I focus on seems to be a part of my awareness. When I focus on any of these things, it becomes an “object” to me, but none are the awareness itself. And these objects are not directing my attention to themselves one after another. What is? Something in “me,” a mysterious “something” that opens toward the most fundamental part of who I am.

Once again, try to turn and look at who or what this is. If you can’t find it, try for a moment to describe it to yourself.

When I do this exercise, I can never find the observer, but I do sense that it is quite different from the way I normally think of myself. Although many wisdom traditions talk about the witness, they do not all describe it the same way. I think this is because it does not lend itself to conceptions. To compensate, each tradition has created different words and images to talk about it. But all these words are imperfect. In fact, this awareness will never fit into any conceptual box. It is like trying to observe light, which we cannot do. Space that appears dark is not free of light, but only of objects to reflect the light. We can only see objects which reflect light, and so we infer light’s existence because we see the objects. Awareness is something like that.

9. The Higher Self: Some spiritual traditions stop with the witness or observer, but one characteristic of someone completely centered in the observer is that there is no motivation to act. Life is just “as it is.” There is no motivation to change “what is”—it doesn’t feel like anything needs to be changed. From the point of view of the pure witness, why would you try to change the way things are? The witness simply sees life as it is, and “accepts what is.”

Importantly, there are times in our lives when this is the ideal response—such as times when we are being driven by unhealthy urges and fears. But if everyone were centered in witness consciousness all the time, human life would grind to a halt. There would be no motivation for anyone to act. And, if some people were centered in the witness and some were not, and those who were not started acting from unhealthy motivations causing bad outcomes—then the witness would simply “accept what is.” A person centered in witness consciousness would have no point of view from which to decide how things should be any different than the way they are.

If a person is totally in witness consciousness, from where would the motivation to help others arise? And who would they choose to help, the robber or the person being robbed? If I look out at the world from a place of complete calm, I can see countless people engaged in endless activities that are creating pain, sadness, even starvation and death. But it is endless—the endless flow of normal human life. This cannot be fixed. To do anything requires choosing a specific place to start, a particular problem to engage, specific people to focus on, a specific place to give one’s energy and attention. But from the point of view of the witness, there is no basis upon which to make such choices. Thus, through the ages, most spiritual traditions have suggested that who you are goes beyond the witness.

This you, beyond the witness, does not just observe what is, but sees the harmony beyond the chaos and can provide guidance as to what is truly meaningful—for you and for other people. This is the still small voice within, the voice of conscience that says, “Don’t do that, even though it is popular.” It is the voice that calls you to the hard task, the one that provides a sense of the values that are truly important for your life. How can you separate this higher self from the ego? It is complicated, and usually involves a lifetime’s work. But one clue given by Jung is that, if a feeling inside suggests acting in a way that seem like a “defeat for the ego,” this is a sign you are having an “encounter with the Self,” your Higher Self.

Trying to think about this aspect of ourselves is especially complicated, because it goes so far beyond the categories of the thinking mind. The Higher Self is completely beyond thoughts and concepts. If we try to capture it in words, it slips through our mental fingers—which is why it is so often approached through riddles, metaphors, and parables. This is also the reason that different wisdom traditions might seem to be talking about different things when trying to describe this level of our being—and their words can create more confusion than clarity. It is quite possible all the words and concepts of the different traditions point to the same thing. Or perhaps they don’t. How will we ever know, because those who have truly experienced the Higher Self and want to describe it to the rest of us must use language that is totally inadequate for the task.

Despite this difficulty, however, most wisdom traditions say there is “something” that exists beyond the ego, beyond the unconscious, and even beyond the witness. Crucially, they all tell us this is the most authentic, the deepest or highest Self. Hindus call it the Atman; Quakers speak of the Inner Light or Inner Teacher; Christians tell us about the soul; Jews speak of the spark of the Divine within; some modern teachers call it our “essence” or authentic self, and many Buddhists say we find the Buddha within or that we become one with Buddha-nature. The images of Buddhist compassion through the centuries come from those who have gone beyond simply “accepting what is” and are living from this level of being.

Most importantly, all the traditions agree that only by discovering and living from this level of ourselves will we ever come to know who we really are, and only by doing this will we have a chance to live a truly authentic and fulfilling life.

10. The Unitive Self: Here, at the tenth level, we reach what Jung believed to be the final stage of existence:

“This is the decisive question for man: Is he related to something infinite or not? That is the telling question of life. Only if we know that the thing which truly matters is the infinite can we avoid fixing our interest upon futilities, and upon all kinds of goals which are not of real importance. If we understand and feel that here in this life we have a link with the infinite, desires and attitudes change. In the final analysis, we count for something only because of the essential we embody, and if we do not embody that, life is wasted.”

Jung did not think the goal of life was to disengage from the world, as some spiritual traditions suggest. Rather, he emphasized the importance of developing a healthy channel of communication between the ego and the Self in which the ego turns to the Higher Self for guidance. In so doing, we find the best way to relate to the Infinite, and the best way to implement the Self’s guidance into the living of our lives. In this model, the Higher Self is the link to the Unitive, the Numinous dimension, the Infinite. In Jung’s view, the goal of “individuation” is to become a whole human being, not someone cut off from human life. To become whole is not easy, of course, for it requires making the darkness in oneself conscious, getting to know all sides of oneself, forming a connection to the Higher Self—which connects us to the Infinite, and then integrating everything in a healthy way.

On this path you do not disown any part of yourself, since you can never truly get rid of any of the levels that are part of you. In fact, if you consciously—or unconsciously—reject or despise any part of yourself you will just drive those parts into your shadow, where they will wreak havoc on your life. If you haven’t owned your shadow, haven’t recognized how your shadow side is affecting everything that is going on in you, you will blame negative outcomes on others, or on chance. On the other hand, if you get to know your shadow, you will be able to integrate the enormous energy contained therein in a healthy way, and be able to use it in living of your life. Through a fully developed conscious awareness you will gradually be able to bring all the parts of yourself into balance and harmony, learning to use all your energies appropriately—like a dancer moving in perfect harmony with all the currents within and without.

In the three higher realms, the Witness, the Higher Self, and the Unitive Self, all the distinctions I am making with words ultimately fail, for these levels overlap and interact. But we can catch a glimpse of the whole. As Dante said at the end of the Paradisio:

Mine were not the wings for such a flight.
Yet, as I wished, the truth I wished for came
Cleaving my mind in a great flash of light.

Because he is a human being, Dante does not have the “wings,” the ability (metaphorically speaking) to fly into the highest realm. Yet his aspiration to catch a glimpse of the highest truth is so strong that his devout wish is fulfilled—not as a thought or concept, but by a vision that cleaved his mind “in a great flash of light.”

Like Dante, many of us on the ultimate journey long to catch a glimpse of the highest truth for ourselves. And, like Dante, sometimes our fervent wish bear’s fruit. But when it does, if we try to explain it afterward, it is crucial to keep in mind that the words we use to describe what we have seen are not “IT,” do not capture it, and never will. As T.S. Eliot said:

Words strain, crack, and sometimes break,
Under the burden,
Under the tension,
slip, slide, perish,
Decay with the impression, will not stay in place,
Will not stay still.

Our words cannot pin “It” down because our thinking minds, and the words and concepts that thinking minds use, are part of ego consciousness, and that consciousness always experiences itself as separate from the whole. In contrast, when experiencing the highest dimensions there is no such separation. Mystics of all traditions have confirmed over and over that when immersed in the highest dimensions one’s identity is not separate from others, or from nature, or from the Divine. One anonymous Christian mystic called it the “Cloud of Unknowing.” Experiencing this for oneself means becoming one with the Tao, waking up as the Buddha, or joining a chorus of Christian mystics singing, “My me is God” and “See! I am God; See! I am in all things; See! I do all things.”

The difference between the Higher Self and the Unitive Self is, therefore, hard to put into words. But to make an effort, when in the Higher Self, one still feels a separate self exists. It is beyond the ego and it is beyond the witness; this self sees how the whole fits together, but there is still an individual actor to which it is connected. When in the Higher Self, there is a perspective from which one looks at the whole, and in looking can see other unique selves who are also looking. In the Unitive state, however, what is experienced is that there is only One in the whole universe, and “That Art Thou,” as it is said in the Upanishads. In this place, there is no separate identity; who “you” are is One, and it includes “All That Is.”

The modern teacher Eckhart Tolle was trying to capture this when he said: “Can I sense my essential Beingness … my essential identity as consciousness itself?” Several centuries earlier, the Christian mystic Jacob Boehme said much the same thing after a profound glimpse. In his words, “The knower and the known are one.”

Stepping into this dimension—variously called the Numinous, the Tao, the Transcendent, the Infinite, God, the Divine, the Absolute, the Ultimate, Nirvana, the Great Spirit, Buddha-nature, Ein Sof, and Brahma—means moving beyond the observer and into the space captured by the Chinese poet Li Po:

The birds have vanished into the sky,
and now the last cloud drains away.
We sit together, the mountain and me,
until only the mountain remains.

In the tradition of Islam, it is to discover that, as Ibn al-Arabi, one of the greatest Sufi mystics and philosophers, said, “He who knows himself knows his Lord.”
Arriving at this place, one joins the 11th century Japanese poet Izumi Shikibu as she writes:

Watching the moon at dawn,
solitary, mid-sky,
I knew myself completely:
no part left out.

Many of these quotes baffle and intrigue, leaving me with a sense that there is much more to step into than I have been able to do fully up to the present. So they urge me on, urge me to continue the exploration of “Who am I,” until I eventually become the Ultimate that a few have been able to “Be.”

If you are on this journey, but are not yet fully established in the Unitive, do not be discouraged. There is never any reason to be discouraged—that is the ego talking. It is always the ego that wants to get somewhere else.

And don’t be concerned that many of the quotes I have shared are from long ago. Stepping into the Ultimate is an ever-present human capacity; it is a possibility for each life; it has existed always and will always exist. For contemporary confirmation, here is an account of a “normal” person like you and me. While on vacation in Cypress, Muz Murray was looking at the sea in the afterglow of sunset and suddenly, without warning, everything changed. In an instant, the world was new:

“I was shown that every cell had its own consciousness which was mine. And it seemed … that the whole of humanity was in the same condition: each ‘individual’ believing in his or her separate mind, but in reality still subject to a single controlling consciousness, that of Absolute Consciousness Itself.”

One more: C. G. Price, a farmer in England who was having financial difficulties and was trying to focus on nothing in particular except spreading straw for his livestock, said that suddenly:

“I seemed to be enveloped in a cocoon of golden light that actually felt warm, and which radiated a feeling of Love so intense that it was almost tangible. One felt that one could grasp handfuls of it, and fill one’s pockets. In this warm cocoon of golden light I sensed a presence which I could not actually see, but knew was there. My mind became crystal clear, and in an instant of time I suddenly knew, without any doubts, that I was part of a ‘Whole.’ Not an isolated part, but an integral part. I felt a sense of ‘One-ment.’ I knew that I belonged and that nothing could change that. The loss of my farm and livelihood didn’t matter any more. I was an important part of the ‘Wholeness’ of things, and transient ambitions were secondary.”

You can step into this place. As many mystics have said, it is closer than breath, than heartbeat. You cannot force it to happen, but you can open to the possibility. You can do that right now. For a moment, sitting in the experience of reading this essay, and the quotes shared within it, simply let yourself rest in awareness itself. Give yourself permission to just be “Beingness,” without thinking or doing anything. Don’t try to keep from having thoughts; just let yourself be consciousness itself. Do not try, just be for a moment, and let whatever happens happen, without judgment, without opinions, without preferences.

If you step into the Ultimate, will it last forever? What part of you is asking that question? Whoever it is, it clearly is not the you that is in the Ultimate. The Ultimate is timeless. And, if the Buddha is correct, it is deathless. Jesus said it is to be forever with Abba, “Father” in his native Aramaic tongue. And if Rumi is right, it is to be “one.”

I have thrown duality away like an old dishrag,
I see and know all times and worlds,
As one, one, always one.

Be well

David

All the essays in this series are being posted on my web site as they are written, at: A Meaningful Life  https://ameaningfullife.org

5 – Ten Levels of Myself – Part I

The fifth essay in The Ultimate Journey concerns the many parts of ourselves, the different layers that make up an individual identity.

The internal mechanics of the human mind are as complex as anything in the universe. Science has been investigating the mind for centuries, yet so much is not understood. One of the things that has eluded scientific explanation is consciousness—what it is, where it is, how it came to be.

The incredible complexity of individual consciousness defies mechanistic explanations; each is different, with layer upon layer of feelings, thoughts, wishes, memories, dreams, desires, fantasies, motivations. The chakra system developed in India is one way to think about this complexity, but many others have been developed through the centuries, including ancient ones within Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Confucianism, and Jewish thought. More recent models come from Jungian psychology, the enneagram, the Gurdjieff work, and Roberto Assagioli’s image of how the psyche works. All are valuable, and no single model is “best.”

One central question all these systems wrestle with is that of identity: “Who am I?” Each of us has numerous possibilities for how we will choose to think about who we are. And because our sense of identity shifts from moment to moment—and can change radically over a lifetime—a crucial question we each continually face is: What definition of who I am will I organize around now?

If you start to pay attention, you notice that shifts in identity usually happen at the unconscious level. But they can be made more conscious, and by doing this you will discover that growth and transformation are about developing the ability to consciously shift your identity from a smaller to a larger self, from an ego-centered outlook to an understanding that includes more, ultimately much more.

Working with identity, however, is difficult, partly because there are so many different ways I can think about who I am. One image I have found valuable is of a river into which many streams flow. Some streams come up from underground to join the river, others flow in from the surface. Rain and snow fall from overhead. In this river there are rapids and calm pools. Storms come and go, adding water to the river and sometimes agitating its surface. In this image, “I” am floating down the river of life, buffeted by every change of current. The whole river is the flow of existence, and in that flow, the little “me” floating along is trying to put together a coherent life. Occasionally, however, I have a sense that the river is also me, but this feeling is fleeting, and I don’t really understand what it means. Even more rarely, I sometimes have a sense that surrounding everything, interpenetrating it all, existing as All, is the Numinous, the Infinite. But words fail here.

For each of us, when we are young, the “small me” is mostly carried along by currents from the world around us as we try to fulfill the urges and desires that are constantly rising up from within (for food, safety, comfort, sex, power, and more). The main task of life, when we are young, is trying to balance influences from the culture over against the urges and desires coming up from within. According to a number of wisdom figures through the ages, the best way to do this is to make all the conflicting currents as conscious as possible in order to make good choices about how to spend one’s time and energy. If we do this reasonably well, we create a somewhat coherent ego self that has agency in the world.

The more we understand ourselves—the currents inside as well as the forces pushing and pulling from outside—the better we will be at making healthy choices and implementing them in the world. As we are able to do this with increasing skill, the better we are at steering our little ship toward a destination that seems truly valuable and important, rather than being carried this way and that by every passing current. The opposite is also the case: If we remain unconscious about the forces pushing and pulling from within and without, the more we are simply flotsam and jetsam bobbing along on the surface of the river of life without meaning or direction.

A Model: 10 Levels

When I was growing up, I came to understand myself through a model that was passed along from my culture by the people around me. It has been hard to disentangle from those views, often very difficult. Yet it has been exhilarating as well, as I accepted the challenge of separating my understanding of who I was from the early enculturation I was given. The result is a mixture of wisdom from my early years, letting go of misunderstandings and prejudices, and working to include wisdom from other cultures and traditions.

You will find below my current understanding of the levels of myself, developed over a lifetime. This model grows out of and borrows from many sources, but owes a special debt to the chakra tradition and to Carl Jung’s ideas. Interestingly, these two models seldom conflict—they just approach understanding who we are in different ways. In the model below there are 10 different levels of who I am. Thinking about myself in this way has helped me arrive at a deeper understanding and a more conscious life. May it do the same for you.

1. The undifferentiated self: A small child’s identity is not separate from the mother or from immediate caregivers; rather, it is merged and mingled with them, as well as with objects in the surrounding world. As we grow, however, a separate identity develops, but the young undifferentiated identity does not disappear—it is simply overlayed with self-images and identities that gradually push it into the background, into the unconscious. Since it is still present in the unconscious, however, the undifferentiated identity will reemerge in times of stress, group hysteria, or when the overlaid identities loosen for any reason (sleep deprivation, physical exhaustion, euphoria, mystical experiences, drug-induced moments, or mental illness).

Our first identity has its primary focus in the body, along with all the urges and desires centered there—first for food, comfort, safety, and security and then for sex and other pleasures (all these make up what Freud called the id drives). In our earliest years, therefore, you and I (along with everyone else) experienced these drives and desires as the center of who we were and what life was about.

2. The communal self: In many cultures, societal members are taught that the self should be identified with the group rather than with a separate individuality. Most ancient cultures placed greater emphasis on communal identity than does the modern world—and this is both a blessing and a curse. Each culture is different, and there have always been differences between how cultures molded the identities of their members, with some putting more emphasis on individuality, some on group identity. Those differences in emphasis remain today. Reporting on a study, Sharon Begley noted in Newsweek that when someone raised in a Chinese culture had the thought “mother,” the sense of “me” was activated, but not when a typical American thought about “mother.”

These differences are not all-or-nothing propositions, of course. At any given moment, each of us is somewhere on a sliding scale between oneness with a group and a feeling of individuality. Even in individualistic cultures, some people are more identified with the group than others, and in communal cultures, some lean more toward individualism than others (stories of members who were fiercely individualistic come down to us from the most communal cultures).

If, therefore, you were enculturated into a group identity, some individualism will inevitably find a way to manifest itself, for there is an urge toward individual fulfillment in everyone. If that urge is not given sufficient attention, it will burst forth in unconscious ways. For instance, those raised to identify with an extended family will act selflessly part of the time, but the individualistic urge, chafing at the bit, will push through at times and try to control the actions of others in the family “for their own good.” This is individuality asserting its power under the guise of group concern.

To add to the complexity of this picture, throughout our lives most of us will shift, sometimes toward greater individualism, then back toward increased communal identity, then back again to individualism. Freudian psychology deals extensively with these issues, and he defined the superego as the part of us that is enculturated to follow the rules of society. It is the internal voice that tells us to follow the rules of the group. Thus, when you are identified with this part of yourself, you think of yourself as the one who does what you are “supposed to do”—as the group understands it.

3. Personas: As we grow up, in order to fulfill the obligations we have been assigned, we each develop several roles we play within our culture, the faces we put on in day-to-day dealings with the people in our lives, roles such as rebel, good friend, athlete, life of the party, the adventurous one, the nerd, the outcast, beautiful person, the trend-setter, and on and on. As we get older, we continue developing personas, such as doctor, caregiver, housewife, teacher, sexual explorer, businessperson, and on and on. In our early years, we don’t consciously choose these roles; rather, the people in our lives tend to define them for us and we develop them with the encouragement of others (or sometimes in rebellion against the roles the people around us are trying to force on us). Most importantly, in our early years we think these roles constitute who we are.

Developing personas is not a bad thing; in fact, it is valuable and necessary. In Carl Jung’s view (who coined the modern usage of the term persona) they are crucial for many life situations. In the world, we all take on a role (boss, devoted employee, considerate relative, interested member of a group), developing a persona as a vehicle to create and maintain relationships. These roles are very useful. But some people spend their lives identifying with their personas, thinking these roles constitute all of who they are. (Think of a stern drill sergeant who carries that role home to his wife and kids, or a beauty queen who is always playing that role in all situations.) The difficulties of some famous people—several actors and politicians spring to mind—arise from the fact that they believe their personas constitute the totality of their identities.

There is, however, much more to each of us than our personas, and if we mature, we will gradually realize that the roles we play are not our full selves.

4. The complexes: Each of us has many different moods we can be in at different times, different emotional states that come and go. Most of us can be angry, fearful, playful, guilty, jealous, remorseful, insecure, confident, sad, and on and on. The thing we don’t usually notice is that we act and think quite differently when we are in each of these different states. Jung called these different internal points of view our complexes, and noted that each different complex sees the world and ourselves in a different way, sometimes very different.

As we move through life, we switch into one complex and then another, seeing ourselves and the world differently in each. For a taste of this, just remember a time when someone was late and you started becoming upset, feeling angry; perhaps you felt the other person did not value you. Suddenly, you receive a phone call and learn that person was in a car accident, and you move very rapidly into fear, or caretaking, or sadness. This switch can occur in an instant. So, which complex was the “real” you?

Different situations bring out our different moods, different complexes. Most of us organize around one of our complexes when at work, another during a romantic evening, and still others when playing sports, visiting parents, caring for children, traveling, or at a party. And to emphasize again, the way we think about ourselves and the world is different in each one. Think of the difference in how you feel about yourself when you are in a confident mood versus when you are feeling fearful; when you have just lost a contest, versus having won; when an invitation you extended is accepted versus rejected. Think of how other people seem different to you when you are angry versus when you are remorseful.

The way most of us go through life is that some outside event triggers one of our moods, and we believe for a moment that this is who we really are. (It is amazing how easy it is to identify with one current and then another, without remembering that just a few minutes before we saw ourselves differently.) Then, something else happens and we switch feeling states and the way we see the world changes. Most of us switch often, identified with first one and then another of our complexes. The more conscious we become, however, the more we will be able to recognize the different complexes and thus be able to choose the one that is appropriate for the current situation.

There is great freedom in being able to make such choices. It allows us to use our different moods wisely—which is much better than being taken over by one after another. Imagine what it would be like if you could instantly recognize when you were being pulled into your angry self, or guilty self, or insecure self—and could choose how much energy and attention to give each state rather than being taken over by one after another. Better still, what if you were able to use the energies of your various complexes intentionally by consciously choosing which one to be in. What if you learned to consciously combine several at once?

Complexes and personas overlap, but they are somewhat different. In broad terms, when in a complex, most of us identify so fully with that specific feeling or mood state that we lose any sense of separation from it—we think that is who we really are. On the other hand, when using a persona, with a little maturity we usually recognize that it is not our full identity; we remember that we are playing a role with others and they do not know all of who we are.

In this model I am building, the ego is everything we know and understand about ourselves. Thus, when we are caught up in a complex, in that moment that particular complex is who we think we are, so that complex and our ego self have merged in that moment. Think of a time you were so caught up in anger, or sexual desire, or fear that you forgot every other perspective. In such moments, there was no separation between your angry self, your sexual self, or your fearful self, and who you thought you were. You saw everything and everyone through the lens of that one current.

These are the moments in life you are likely to make the most serious mistakes. These are the times, when, a few minutes later, you are saying: “How could I have done that?” “How could I have said that?” The ability to raise such questions indicates you have moved back into a perspective that includes more than your anger, fear, or sexual desire. You now see that there are other points of view from which you could have chosen differently.

In this model, growth and development involve the ego becoming more and more aware of the various complexes within and strengthening the ego so that it cannot be pushed aside by any of your feeling or mood states. As your ego develops the strength and ability to make choices between the different currents within, sometimes you will choose to act from the energy of a complex, and sometimes not. As you become more conscious, the ego learns to stay present as the different complexes come and go, and you are able to make increasingly healthy choices that lead toward a balanced and coherent life.

To get a feel for this, every now and then stop and ask yourself which complex you are feeling most strongly at the moment. Are you angry, sad, confident, peaceful, or some other state? Consciously register to yourself the state you are in. Now ask: “Shall I try to shift my energy to a different state, a different mood, or shall I let this one remain the center of attention for now?” In this way, the ego can begin to play a more active role in managing your life, and you will begin to live from a broader perspective. This is the path to a healthy ego state. But first, it is important to recognize that we can have an unhealthy ego.

5. An unhealthy ego: This one little word, ego, has created an enormous amount of mischief. The word Freud used in German meant “I,” but it was given a fancy-sounding Latin name when translated into English, thus the simple pronoun “I” became the mysterious ego. The motives of the translator are unclear, but the translator’s audacity in changing Freud’s intent has given rise to great confusion and endless arguments.

There are many definitions for ego in the English language today, so let me give the one I prefer, which is also the one used by most mainstream psychologists: The ego is simply who I think I am as I go about living my life. It includes everything that comes to mind when I think of myself. In short, my ego is “me.” It is the “me” I think of as myself, my individual self, including all the thoughts, emotions, desires, values, responsibilities, abilities, body images, and memories of which I am conscious. (Of which I am conscious—that is the key phrase in defining ego.) My ego is simply my sense of who I think I am.

The ego can be healthy or unhealthy. Some people remain fairly undifferentiated, failing to develop much of an ego, thus remaining fused with other people and the world around them. They do not develop a clear sense of a separate self. Others develop an insecure ego, and still others a narcissistic one. For a narcissistic ego there is little or no concern for the needs and desires of others. It feels it is, and should be, the center of the universe, and that other people are objects to fulfill its desires.

Those who are wholly identified with the narcissistic ego (and most of us are at times), feel that the world should be organized for our enjoyment and fulfillment. The overwhelming sense is that everyone is out to get what they can for themselves, and everyone is in competition with every other person for the good things in life. For those organized in this place, the only restraints to action—if there are any—is fear of being punished, condemned, or blamed. Thus the need for rules and laws in all societies.

Make no mistake, however, extreme narcissists can be quite successful in the world. Skilled narcissists learn to manipulate others to get what they want, and can become very clever at seeming to follow the rules of society while surreptitiously breaking them. Some narcissists are good at getting others to focus on their wishes and desires (just notice how some celebrities are treated). Ironically, the narcissistic ego needs attention precisely because it is weak. It is always seeking more recognition, more praise, always wanting more of what it believes it needs. Trouble is, no matter how much it receives, it is never enough. Thus, the path to healing narcissism is for a person to get beyond their narcissistic wounds so they can feel truly good about themselves deep inside.

The difference between a healthy ego and a narcissistic one is that a healthy ego does not exclusively focus on itself but recognizes that others also have needs and desires and thus makes an effort to recognize the feelings and needs of others. A healthy ego recognizes that a big part of life involves being in good relationships with others and sees that it must take the feelings and needs of others into account. It therefore values mutuality and exchange. So, let us move to what a healthy ego looks like.

6. A healthy ego: As we develop consciousness of our inner self, first we become aware of the urges, needs, and desires in our first years, then those that developed on through puberty. These needs and desires are strong and urgent, and our early lives were mostly organized around fulfilling them as best we could. As consciousness continues to develop, we begin to sense that the roles we play are not who we really are, that beneath the surface is more than just the roles. We begin to develop a self that recognizes the personas are simply ways to interact with others. We are now developing a conscious ego self.

For example, you might behave in a friendly way toward someone at work but inside you realize you are seething with anger at that same person. In this situation, the ego knows you are angry, while the persona is the mask you are wearing as you act pleasant. The “you” that knows you are angry is ego awareness. Another example would be acting stern with a child to make a point, while inside you are feeling tenderness toward that same child.

With the emergence of ego awareness, the ego takes on the job of fulfilling our needs and desires. Using Freud’s terms, these urges and desires are our id energies, and the superego the part of us that has incorporated societal rules and tries to get us to obey them. These superego rules are the boundaries for our actions in relation to other people, the guardrails we feel we must stay within as we pursue our wants and needs. The ego mediates between the id and the superego as it tries to fulfill as many of our wants and desires as possible.

At this stage of development, then, your ego manages your life. It tries to balance all the internal currents and conflicts in relation to outer pressures and demands. To do this, it makes decisions and develops a course of action, while trying to get the id desires, the complexes, and the superego to go along with the unified plan. It operates by thinking things through and coming to conclusions about how it will use your time and energy: what it will commit to, the things it will decline, where it will place its attention, and the things it will try to turn your attention away from because they are not helpful for movement toward the overall goals.

When you reach this level of development, you recognize there are a lot of things you know about yourself that you are not sharing with others, with the result that people do not really know you. Therefore, to develop mental health, it is crucial to find a few people with whom you can share yourself more fully. This is a step toward a healthy ego, and if you don’t take it, you will never have true friends or loved ones and you will never receive honest feedback to use for growth.

As you are able to distinguish between your ego and your personas, and then become conscious of all the moods that sometimes take over your awareness, you are gradually able to drop a persona when it is no longer appropriate in a given situation (being stuck in the wrong persona is always a problem). And you are able to use the energy of a complex when it fits the situation, then put it aside when it does not. Your ego awareness becomes the manager of your life, bringing your personas and complexes into a well-functioning team. This is not easy, of course; it requires a lot of work to reach this level of self awareness.

Anyone who has tried to understand this process has discovered how amazingly complicated it is, as evidenced by the countless volumes that have been written trying to define and describe the internal mental system of a human being. To catch a glimpse of how mysterious and difficult understanding all this is, ask yourself: Where is my ego? How do I decide on what I will do and what I won’t do? Do I see the part of me that is formulating a plan of action? Do I always go along with the plan? If not, what part of me wants to go in a different direction?

These questions go on and on: When I wish for conflicting things—to eat a lot of sweet food but not gain weight, to watch a movie but also get some sleep, to attend two different events that are happening at the same time, to go on a date but also finish a project—how do I decide? How do I know when my ego is making decisions, versus an id urge, a complex, or the superego?

When I try to work through these questions, I realize that no part of this system can be seen clearly. It is all ephemeral, made up of vague concepts. Still, I have an intuitive sense that there is a part of me that is trying to organize my life, trying to fulfill as many goals and ambitions as possible in terms of career, relationships, health, adventure, romance, learning, and having fun. Amidst all these currents, there is some part of me that is trying to balance them all while also trying to manage my fears, anxieties, commitments and aversions—trying to navigate all the competing interests in my life as best it can. To me, that is my ego, but trying to get a handle on it intellectually is like trying to see an electron—I can only see the traces of its actions after they have occurred.

It is, of course, quite possible to use a different word to describe this part of ourselves. But it is not possible to live without some part of oneself fulfilling this function, prior to complete enlightenment or becoming totally merged with the Infinite. Thus, you have a functioning ego, whatever name you give it. What I recommend—since we seem to be stuck with it through broad usage—is that we all use ego in the way Freud, Jung, and many modern psychologists understand it.

This means, for me, that when I seek success, power, fame, prestige, or personal wealth, the pursuit is organized by my ego. These are some of life’s main motivations, and my ego has tried to balance and fulfill these goals much of my life. But also, when I try to be a good person, participate in a healthy relationship, help other people, or improve the world, these pursuits are also organized by my ego. In fact, when I pursue anything, it is my ego that organizes my life to be able to move in that direction. Even the desire for enlightenment, liberation, or to go to heaven is organized by the ego—which is the reason the Buddha said we must have the one “Great Desire” and Christians speak of “Holy Longing.” In short, the best word I know for the part of ourselves that tries to organize a life, balancing all the disparate currents, is the ego.

Crucially, in this model the ego is not bad; in fact, it is a totally necessary part of being human. I sometimes smile inside when someone says they want “to get rid of the ego,” because the only part of us that would have that thought is the ego. Just think about what that phrase actually means: “I want to get rid of I.” This is altogether different from asking: “Who am I?”

A few saints and sages have stepped into a field where there was no longer an ego present, but I have never read about any who did this by focusing on getting rid of the ego. Or talking about wanting to. It always grew out a profound moment that happened in a way that no one knows how to plan for, or make happen. I don’t think it was ever the ego that made such a thing happen. Thus, when a person says they want to get rid of the ego, it suggests an ego that thinks it will seem special to itself or others if it says it wants to get rid of itself.

In this model, the goal is to work toward developing a healthy ego instead of an unhealthy one, an ego that recognizes that other people are valuable and worthwhile. Then, as that work proceeds, it is learning to direct the ego toward goals that reflect higher possibilities and finding ways to open one’s identity to dimensions that are larger than the ego.

Once I have made sufficient progress on those steps, I might be ready to undertake the difficult work of beginning to let go of everything that keeps me from becoming my full self.

Next week: The 4 higher levels: 

7) The Full Self, 8) The Witness, 9) The Higher Self, 10) The Unitive Self

Be well

David

All the essays in this series are being posted on my web site as they are written, at: A Meaningful Life  https://ameaningfullife.org

Letting Go

New Year’s Day, 2021

For 20 years I offered an all-day program on the first day of the year to help participates develop intentions, experience community, and enter the new year prepared to learn and grow. Sadly, the pandemic has broken that tradition. In fact, 2020 was a terror in many different ways: the Australian and west coast wildfires, a record number of hurricanes, drought, heatwaves, loneliness, isolation, a bitter election, and a terrible disease.

So, instead of the regular gathering, I will offer here thoughts and reflections to help each reader create images and intentions to set in motion the best possible 2021.

One clear thought is that 2020 was a year of loss, of having to let go of many things. It was very difficult—physically, mentally, emotionally.

The pain and suffering are still very real, and we must not ignore or minimize them. After acknowledging them fully, however, we can set our hearts and minds on growing through the difficulties. Since we each had to let go of things during this past year, it is valuable to focus on the benefits of letting go. And the truth is, often growth and fulfillment do not come through getting things, but from letting go of the things that are keeping us from realizing who we really are.

The Tao Te Ching insists that fulfillment is not about adding things to your life, but subtracting things you are attached to that keep you from fulfillment. One Taoist practice consists of “subtracting” something every day, and a famous quote is, “If you doubt your ability to advance an inch, then retreat a foot.” Meister Eckhart famously said, ““God is not found in the soul by adding anything, but by a process of subtraction.”

Henry David Thoreau made a radical exploration of giving up things, and discovered that: “A man is rich in proportion to the number of things which he can afford to let alone.” The Buddha completely surrendered himself so he could awaken, first, leaving his life in the world, and then, under the bodhi tree, surrendering his attachment to living itself by saying he would either find what he was seeking or die there in the effort. That is complete surrender. And the story of Jesus is a painfully dramatic example of a complete letting go, for he felt called to surrender himself to being humiliated in the public eye, scourged, and, finally, to be crucified.

Most of us are perhaps not called to the extremes these great figures accepted as their mission. But their message, and that of all the wisdom traditions, is that we must each find the unique way in which we are called to let go of all that keeps us from fulfillment. As Rumi, the great 13th-century Sufi teacher, mystic, and poet said, the path forward is to:

Be ground.
Be crumbled, so wildflowers will come up where you are.
You’ve been stony for too many years.
Try something different. Surrender.

Another Rumi offering:

Take someone who doesn’t keep score,
who’s not looking to be richer, or afraid of losing,
who has not the slightest interest even
in his own personality: He’s free.

This, then, is the opportunity we each have during this time of trial—if we are willing to take it. We can use this time to take another step toward letting go of the burdens that are hindering our progress up the mountain toward greater peace, joy, and fulfillment. Some of the things you might consider letting go are:

ego expectations, ambitions, longings
images of what you want or think you need
desires, fears, attachments
judgments of yourself and others
numerous opinions
emotions that are no longer serving a healthy you

Exercise:

Think of something that is bothering you or worrying you
Then ask:
Why do I feel a need to hold on to this anxiety, fear, or worry?
(Most of the time we think we have no choice, but often we have much more
choice than we think.)
Now ask yourself: Am I willing to let this go?
If your sincere answer is yes, ask yourself:
         When am I willing to let it go?
I am I willing to let it go Now?

The Power of Intentions

The way you will live your life from this moment forward depends dramatically on your intentions. Your life will unfold in close relation to your deep intentions, conscious and unconscious. Your intentions will determine:

How you will spend your time
Who you will spend your time with
What you will focus on
The practices you will undertake
The values you will live by
The kind of person you will attempt to become

Through our intentions each of us is continually transforming ourselves from who we have been to who we are becoming. For many, this process is mostly unconscious, happening out of the habits and ways of thinking we were enculturated to accept when young. But we can make this process more conscious, take a more active role in moving toward the person we wish to be. The stakes are high. As best-selling author and Jungian analyst Robert Johnson put it:

“Consciously or unconsciously, voluntarily or involuntarily, the inner world will claim us and exact its dues. If we go to that realm consciously, it is by our inner work: our prayers, meditations, dream work, ceremonies, and active imagination. If we try to ignore the inner world, as most of us do, the unconscious will find its way into our lives through pathology: our psychosomatic symptoms, compulsions, depressions, and neuroses.”

        This sounds daunting—and it is. But the saving grace is that, although we will often fail in our efforts, failing does not mean ultimate failure. Each time we are able to regain our conscious awareness of what is going on, each failure becomes an opportunity. In fact, thinking you are supposed to be perfect is no help at all; it is a great hindrance. A Zen teacher was asked how he had made so much progress on his journey. His answer: “One mistake at a time.” Mistakes are not problems but “grist for the mill,” they are the way we learn and grow—if we acknowledge them and then make good use of them.

This journey of transformation is not easy, of course. The wisdom traditions are filled with stories of those who underwent great hardship, suffered despair, felt they would never make it, and endured “dark nights of the soul.” But all the traditions say the prize is worth the effort; it is the “pearl with great price”—the only prize worth having, the one for which everything else should be forfeited. How do we proceed in finding it? Rumi gave this suggestion:

“Little by little, wean yourself.
This is the gist of what I have to say.
From an embryo whose nourishment comes in the blood,
move to an infant drinking milk,
to a child on solid food,
to a searcher after wisdom,
to a hunter of more invisible game.”

You do not have to do everything at once. In fact, you can’t. Often the best way forward is “little by little.” But if you will make the effort, Thoreau offers great encouragement, saying that if you just begin, you will gradually “leave some things behind,” until eventually you will “pass an invisible boundary.” Then, at some point, “new, universal laws will begin to establish themselves around and within” you, and you will begin “to live with the license of a higher order of beings.” There is one condition, however. You have to give up some of the things you thought you needed. Carl Jung delivered the same message, saying we must “avoid fixing our attention on futilities” so as to discover the “essentials” that we are called to embody.

Some of the things each of us must leave behind are ideas about ourselves; conclusions about what the world is like; our certainties about the nature of reality. We crave certainties, yet they can easily become bars forming the walls of our personal prisons. At 16 I thought I knew a lot, at 25 I really thought I had it all figured out (arguing a lot and asserting what I thought was true), at 35 I was more reflective but still fairly confident in my beliefs. But the older I have gotten, the more I have realized how little I really understood back then. Yet I was confident in those beliefs. If I was so confident then, but now believe differently, perhaps my ideas will change again before this life is finished. As physicist David Bohm pointed out, in all of our theories there is a “lure of completeness,” the desire to think that we finally have it all figured out—at this present moment. Thus, one important lesson is that of humility. As T. S. Eliot said in the Four Quartets: “The only wisdom we can hope to acquire/ Is the wisdom of humility.”

A philosopher often thought of as figural in the development of existentialism, Martin Heidegger, came, late in life, to emphasize the importance of what he called “releasement.” He came to believe that life is a loving gift, and the way forward is to release into a thankful sense of being lifted up, to “let ourselves go” into something larger than our normal, ego selves. In releasement, we free ourselves from all sense of striving or attaining and open into “Being” itself. How? “By way of waiting.”

In his “Memorial Address” Heidegger says the primary reason we do not experience the full joy and peace that is the underlying nature of existence is our tendency to hold on rather than let go. He said the path forward is through “an openness to the mystery, a willingness to absolve one’s will, a sense of awe and wonder before the mysterious as well as the known, and an open waiting to be shaped by the Divine, the mystery of the world, and to experience the joy and peace possible in this existence.”

The Highest Possibilities of Life

Heidegger is pointing to the highest possibilities of life, a vision the saints and sages, prophets and enlightened ones through history have left to us. And the results they suggest are not simply to make us “10% happier” in our everyday lives. The rewards they offer are much, much greater than that. For instance, during the last months of St. Catherine of Genoa’s life, she was in great physical pain, yet continually manifested a spirit that was inspiring to those around her. Although still in a physical body, she was not centered there, but at a different level of her being, and the people around her experienced a beautiful energy radiating from her. How did she manage to do this? Catherine’s answer: “So clearly do I perceive thy goodness that I do not seem to walk by faith, but by a true and heartfelt experience.” She had opened into a direct experience of a higher level of being.

Similarly, in the last few years of her life St. Teresa of Avila experienced frequent raptures and joy in the face of great trials. Although in much physical pain, confined to her monastery by the Inquisition, being investigated for heresy, and with many of her closest followers undergoing terrible trials, Teresa gave off a palpable joy to all those around her, and during this time wrote one of the greatest pieces of mystical literature ever produced, the Interior Castle. Indicating the nature of her spirit during this time, when asked about the burdens her opponents were inflicting on her, Teresa wrote:

“Not only did this not distress me, but it made me so unexpectedly happy that I could not control myself. … I had no desire that they should do anything else than what they were doing, and my joy was so great that I did not know how to conceal it.”

The Medieval mystic Meister Eckhart goes even further, saying that the final result of a full realization of the highest possibility is “so great a joy and so great an unmeasurable light” that even to experience this for a moment turns all of one’s life, even all the struggles we have experienced, into a “joy and a pleasure.” The quote by Eckhart:

“I say it again: if there were a single human whose intelligence, were it only for an instant, could see according to the truth the delight and the joy which reign therein, all he may have suffered …  would be a trifle, indeed a nothing; even more, it would be for him entirely a joy and a pleasure.”

Images from Buddhism

The Buddha counseled over and over that we should cease identifying with the things we habitually think are so important, that we should give up grasping for what we think we want and quit spending so much time and energy trying to avoid what we think we do not want. He said the cause of the unsatisfactoriness of life is our grasping for and aversion to illusory things. The only escape from this unsatisfactoriness, this dukkha, is to wake up and realize that your mind is creating the prison in which you are living. To escape this prison, simply wake up and see life as it truly is; let the full realization of who you really are sink in. To do this is to be liberated from the misguided views in which you are stuck, and so to fly free like a butterfly from the prison of your mind-created cocoon.

If you will but wake up and see that “life is just life,” the good and the bad of it; if you will accept “what is” fully, then who you really are—not your small self, but the Buddha in you—will be able to live without anger, fear, greed, anxiety, or judgment. This last word is important, because judgments and opinions are the source of so much suffering. The Buddha’s counsel was to let go of any views that made you want  to cling, and all those that created aversion, so you can just be present with what is. If you can do this, without getting caught up in your stories and without projecting old wounds onto everything you see, you will be free, you will be peaceful and serene. Your identity will be, rather than with your small, ego self, absorbed in something greater.

What is this something greater? The Buddha said: “There is, oh monks, an Unborn; neither become nor created nor formed.” Your identity can be centered there. The Buddhist scholar and practitioner Edward Conze compiled from Buddhist texts a series of attributes great Buddhist teachers have applied to Nirvana (the ultimate possibility the Buddha described). Here are some of the many things they said about it:

It is permanent, stable, imperishable, immovable, ageless, deathless, unborn, and unbecome;
It is power, bliss and happiness, the secure refuge, the shelter, and the place of unassailable safety;
It is the real Truth and the supreme Reality;
It is the Good, the supreme goal, and the one and only consummation of life;
It is the eternal, hidden, and incomprehensible.

Delivering a similar message, Rumi said this:

In that moment you are drunk on yourself,
You lock yourself away in cloud after cloud of grief,
And in that moment you leap free of yourself,
The moon catches you and hugs you in its arms.

That moment you are drunk on yourself,
You are withered, withered like autumn leaves.
That moment you leap free of yourself,
Winter to you appears in the dazzling robes of spring.

All illnesses spring from the scavenging for delicacies.
Renounce delicacies, and poison itself will seem delicious to you.
All disappointments spring from your hunting for satisfactions.
If only you could stop—all imaginable joys
Would be rolled like pearls to your feet.”

Few people in history have been able to travel all the way to the final end the Buddha and St. Teresa and Mister Eckhart and Rumi describe. Perhaps very few ever will. But this does not matter. All that matters to you right now is:
1) start moving in the direction your clearest moments suggest you should go.
2) and keep moving, keep doing the work as best you can.

How far along the path up the mountain you will travel during the remainder of your life you cannot know, but you can commit to going as far as you possibly can. Who knows how far that might be? There are many, many examples of those who had great breakthroughs very close to the end of their lives. So, just keep going as best you can.

Exercise
Lie down or sit comfortably
Breathe fully and deeply for a few moments
Now, gently begin to feel yourself letting go
let go of the tension in your body, focusing on one area at a time
then begin to release old worries, fears, and anxieties
Don’t force or fight with them, just relax and release as gently as you can
Begin to let go of plans
of expectations
Let go of desires
of goals and ambitions
Gently release all your images of yourself
Gradually begin to realize that now, in this moment, you are just awareness
without judgment or opinions
Rest there
observe
Just be pure awareness
observe but don’t judge
let go of judging yourself, others, life
Just be

May you have a wonderful New Year!

David

Finding Peace Beyond the Darkness

December 24, 2020

Hello Everyone,

Who will you be on the other side? (The thoughts below are for those who did not receive this earlier through the Meaningful Life Center, and also to highlight the links at the end as a gift for the holiday season.)

As we move through this difficult time, it is hard to think of spring, of flowers, of the end of the pandemic. Covid has taken a heavy toll—in lives, as well as in our collective spirit. Now we have come to the depths of winter. The questions for each of us are: How can we use this time of darkness to move toward renewal and rebirth—which the solstice, Christmas, and a New Year all symbolize. How can we keep the flame of possibility for a better time alive? How do we nurture ourselves and others during this winter of our collective discontent?

The answers, of course, constitute the substance of what the great wisdom teachers through history have shared—that we must use the challenges of our lives as a stimulus for healing and growth; that we must cultivate a vision to which we give our energies, and we must use our intention and determination so that renewal and transformation spring forth from the ashes of our tribulations.

Ultimately, the only way to accomplish this is through metanoia. This word is used frequently in the original Greek of the New Testament by both Jesus and Paul, but is often translated into English as repentance. A much better translation, however, would be “to change the way we see things, to change our consciousness.” Metanoia points to the necessity that we must change our way of seeing, we must undergo a transformation in order to give birth to something greater within ourselves. Continue reading “Finding Peace Beyond the Darkness”

Lessons we can learn about Covid

Good morning,

Sweden is in trouble with Covid-19 again. After a successful summer and early fall, they are having another bad round of infections. They made another mistake.

Their success from early July to mid-October led them to complacency, to think they had overcome the pandemic. They relaxed too much. As colder weather came they returned to an almost completely normal way of life—restaurants and bars were packed, gyms and other sports and health venues returned to full operation, and they opened their numerous ski resorts, where people congregated in lines, on ski lifts, and especially at after-ski events.

Now they are paying the price. The number of cases is up significantly and an increased death rate will follow. As winter settles in they clearly need to take several actions, such as reinstating physical distancing and perhaps closing some bars, restaurants, gyms, ski resorts, and other non-essential businesses that bring people into very close contact.

Since the Swedes have not asked for my advice, however, I bring this up only to discover what we in the United States might learn. Just as my earlier posts have said we can learn from Swedish successes, we can also learn from their mistakes. But there is only one primary, on-going lesson: balance.

It is easy to develop policy if one limits thinking to one main goal, such as: 1) prevent immediate deaths in my region; or 2) keep the national economy functioning; or 3) save jobs; or 4) prevent deaths over the longer term caused by the breakdown of societal systems; or 5) prevent massive deaths in poor areas and countries; or 6) prevent the disruption of peoples’ lives as much as possible; or 7) prevent the loneliness, anxiety, and depression caused by lockdowns and other restrictive measures; or 8) maintain the freedom of individuals to live their own lives as they choose—and so on.

Finding a course of action that balances all these desired ends while taking into account human nature—the tendency of people over time to rebel against strict rules and find ways around severe restrictions—is a herculean task. But it is the only way to a wise and healthy outcome to many problems, and certainly to this pandemic.

In trying to envision the best responses we in the U.S. might make, I have often used Sweden as an example because they seemed to be searching for balance. They made two big mistakes early on: in the first months of the pandemic they did not focus on preventing the spread of Covid-19 in their numerous nursing homes, and in the first months they also failed to roll out a major testing program. But they corrected those mistakes and then had several months of very low infection numbers and a very low death rate. And they did this while choosing to live much more normal lives than most of the rest of the world.

Now, however, they have made a third mistake. Because things were going so well, they lowered their guard, relaxing their voluntary physical distancing measures and other safety precautions. It was too much, too fast. The lesson, however, is not an all-or-nothing one—this is the mistake much of the world has made. The lesson is to constantly seek the right balance, constantly try to speak to all of the above goals, not just one or two at a time.

Is there a perfect path? No.

What is the right mix of rules and restrictions? That is the dilemma each and every government in the world has been facing since February. Sweden, since they have done things differently from most other countries, is helpful in understanding both what works and what doesn’t. We can learn much from them, both good and bad. Those who vilify them would do better if they included some perspective in their reporting. Sweden is not some outlier in the harm suffered by Covid-19. They have ended up with about average results, compared with most western countries, while maintaining their economy and their way of life better than most.

Let’s look at the actual numbers: As of Dec. 15, 2020, here are some rankings of total cases since the pandemic began, per 100,000 people: (All data from the New York Times coverage of the pandemic)

Cases per 100,000 people
Belgium        5,353
U.S.              5,055
Switzerland   4,632
Austria          3,734
Netherlands   3,707
France           3,548
Sweden         3,349
Italy               3,095
U.K.               2,840
Denmark        2,012
Germany        1,663

Here are the numbers from some U.S. states:
Cases per 100,000 people
Wisconsin      8,164
Minnesota      6,813
Tennessee     6,742
Florida           5,325
Connecticut   4,360
California       4,189
New York       4,110
Oregon          2,278

As you can see, Sweden has done better than many European countries that have had far more restrictions, and much better than many U.S. states—even those like Connecticut that have had severe restrictions for months. Of course, the number of cases is significantly affected by how many tests have been given, so another important number is how many deaths have been attributed to Covid-19 in each place. Here are the latest numbers:

Deaths from Covid per 100,000 people
Belgium        159
Italy              109
U.K.               98
U.S.               92
France           86
Sweden         75
Switzerland   68
Netherlands  60
Austria          54
Germany      28
Denmark      17

Numbers from some U.S. states.
Deaths from Covid per 100,000 people
New York            182
Massachusetts   166
Connecticut        153
Florida                 93
Minnesota            81
Tennessee           81
Wisconsin            76
California             54
Oregon                29

Once again, you can see Sweden has done much better than some countries, and worse than some. It has done better than most U.S. states.

However, another factor must be considered: In some countries death is more likely to be attributed to Covid than in others. Further, there have been many deaths in some countries that have been caused by the measures taken to prevent Covid, whereas in others there have been few. This means that another number, that of “excess deaths,” is an important indicator for deciding which countries provide the best model for action.

In looking at this number, in the United States this year there have been about 350,000 excess deaths; that is, about 350,000 more people have died so far than would have been expected by the average of the last 5 years. (If 2020 had been a normal year we could have expected about 2,860,000 deaths, so by the end of this year we will instead have about 3,240,000.) About 2/3 of those excess deaths have been attributed to Covid infection. The rest are either unrecognized Covid deaths or deaths caused by our response to Covid. In Europe, there have been about the same number of excess deaths, around 350,000.

Now, let’s look at the countries in Europe with the most excess deaths:

Those with very high excess deaths:
Italy, Austria, Switzerland

Next, with high excess deaths:
Belgium and Greece

Those with moderate excess deaths have been:
Spain, Portugal, France, England

Those with some excess deaths, but not very many:
Netherlands. Hesse state in Germany

And here are the countries with little or no excess death:
Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany (except for the state of Hesse)

(Source: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps#z-scores-by-country)

And here are the percentages of excess deaths in some U.S. states and New York City:
New York City     72%
Connecticut         29%
Massachusetts     21%
Florida                19%
California            18%
Tennessee          16%
Wisconsin           16%
Minnesota           15%
Oregon                 8%
(Source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-death-toll-us.html )

    Compare those numbers to the fact that, as of the end of November, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Germany had a percentage of about zero excess deaths. (In the broadest picture, taking all these numbers in account, Germany has had the best response of all large western countries.)

Unlike the other countries above with no excess deaths, however, Sweden had a significant number deaths in the spring. How, then, can they have no excess deaths now? Because their excess deaths since June have fallen below the average. This is either because many of those who died in the spring were close to death already, and would have died this year in any case, or because Sweden has reduced, much more than many other countries, the number of deaths caused by measures taken to limit the pandemic.

The lessons

One of the lesson we can learn from Sweden, then, is that we must not rush to return to “normal life” as the pandemic subsides. Much of the world has several long, painful, dark winter months ahead. We must each do our part in trying to encourage and support each other as best we can during this time, try to protect others, share what we are learning, and together find the best path forward through this ordeal. And we must not let our guard down too soon.

We will come out on the other side of this trial. As I suggested in my last email, by July of 2020 a combination of the immunity that as many as 150 million will have from having been infected, plus the immunity many more millions will have from the vaccines, will break the back of this pandemic in the U.S. Life will emerge into the post-pandemic world.

What will that world look like? It will be different from before. Let’s work together to make it a better place. Here are some ways to think about that possibility:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT-HBl2TVtI 

https://www.dailygood.org/story/624/the-16-habits-of-exuberant-human-beings-kate-bratskeir/ 

May you have a peaceful and joyous holiday season,

David

Covid Action Plan

Good morning,

I had thought I had written my last essay on Covid-19 some weeks back, but it seems that another is warranted as the pandemic moves into its most dangerous phase.

If ever there was a time that those who are most vulnerable need to be careful, this is that time. For the next 3 months, the pandemic will reach its apogee in the United States, because of our failure to develop a national approach to address the problem. Sadly, many more people will die. But you already know this, so my offering today is not to dwell on those things, but to convey some information that might be helpful.

First, with all the talk of vaccines—which is very positive—it is important to remember that it will take months for these vaccines to have a significant effect on the explosion of cases. In light of that fact, there is another important fact to keep in mind—more than 60 million people in the U.S. have already been vaccinated. Anyone who has already been infected is very, very likely to be immune, and more and more evidence suggests that they will have immunity for a significant period of time.
The 60 million figure comes from this respected web site:
https://covid19-projections.com

This researcher’s estimate is that there were 54.9 million cases on Nov. 26, and since there are about 600,000 new cases every day now in the U.S., the total on Dec. 12 is over 60 million. This means that for every case that has been officially recorded, there have been 3.75 cases that were not found by an official test. In the early days of the pandemic, that number was estimated to be 10 to 1, but today, much wider testing has brough the number down to less than 3 to 1.

Of course, no one knows for sure how long immunity will last, but the last study I saw suggests it could be several years:
“How long might immunity to the coronavirus last? Years, maybe even decades, according to a new study—the most hopeful answer yet to a question that has shadowed plans for widespread vaccination. Eight months after infection, most people who have recovered still have enough immune cells to fend off the virus and prevent illness, the new data show. A slow rate of decline in the short term suggests, happily, that these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time to come.” https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.15.383323v1

I have also heard a good deal of talk about the danger of reinfection, but as of mid-October, there were only 5 cases of known reinfection in the world. And all those have extenuating circumstances. It is therefore clear that if you have been infected with Covid-19, you are safe for at least a year or two, and recent information suggests it could be much longer.

This is very important because, at the current rate of new infections, by the end of March the total number of people infected in the U.S. will be approaching 120 million, and by the end of June it could be 150 million, or 45% of the population

This number of infections is a terrible tragedy, and the death toll in its wake a horrible reminder of our failure. But since it is our reality, we must use this information to help us move into the future. And one critical use that could be made of it is that the precious resource of the new vaccines should be directed to those who have not yet been infected. To accomplish this goal, we should begin a free national campaign to offer a test to anyone who will take it to see who is a part of the 60 million who are now safe.

And right now, you and I can immediately participate. Kroger is now offering an antibody test at most of its locations. It costs $25 dollars and takes only 15 minutes. Many other testing facilities offer it as well. The test is not 100% accurate, but if you test positive there is a very high chance that you have had Covid-19 sometime since the pandemic began. There is also a very, very high chance you will not get it again in the next year, and there is a very, very, very high chance you will not infect anyone else. Tell everyone you know who might have been infected to get this test! It would be extremely valuable for them to know as they go about their lives.

It is important to note here that the antibody test is totally different from most of the current testing that is now going on. Most of those tests are viral tests, and they tell you if you are currently infected and if you are now infectious to others. If, however, you were infected more than 2 weeks ago, a viral test will show nothing. But if you were infected months ago, an antibody test will tell you that you were infected sometime in the past. Crucially, this tells you that you are extremely unlikely to get Covid again and equally unlikely to infect anyone else. People who have been infected are safe for the non-infected to be around. Wouldn’t it be enormously valuable for all those people who have immunity now to know that they have it?

If we knew this information about the 60 million people who have already been infected, and the 120 million who will have been infected by April, it would help us enormously in using the scare resource of the vaccines that become available for those who really need them. And it would help those who have been infected begin to live more active lives. If we started organizing our lives with this information in mind, we could begin to return to a more normal way of life.

Just think, if we could use the 30 to 40 million doses of the vaccines that do become available in the next few months for those who have not been infected, we would rapidly approach enough immunity to break the back of this pandemic, and we could begin to look forward to a time that it was not ruling our lives.

Thus, on a national level, while we are preparing to vaccinate millions of people over the next few months, we should be undertaking a massive effort to find those people who have already been infected. They do not need the vaccine now. This would speed up the process dramatically—if we only had that information. And we could have it. The tests are available. All we need is the national will, and for someone to step forward to pay for the costs—costs that are miniscule compared to the trillions that have already been spent in various ways in this country to fight Covid and especially to mitigate its effects. In my view, the federal government should have been paying for all tests all along, and certainly should now.

In the meantime, as you try to protect yourself, here is a good way to think about doing so:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/coronavirus-swiss-cheese-infection-mackay.html

Finally, we all need to be thinking about the future in terms of the terrible toll the virus, and our responses to it, have had on our society, and the ways we can begin to go about healing ourselves and our country. Here are a few articles to help with this thinking and planning process:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/08/opinion/covid-lockdown-isolation.html 
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/tis-the-season-for-shame-and-judgment/617335/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/09/opinion/coronavirus-mental-health.html 

To end on a more inspiring note, here is an old YouTube video that I have watched numerous times, with images from a person who knew suffering and found a way to look beyond it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxHnRfhDmrk 

May you be well,
and find a measure of peace in this turbulent time,

David

Covid Update

Good morning,

The Covid pandemic has taken a terrible toll. Each of us have had difficulties, but as we each struggle on, we must try to hold in our hearts as much compassion as possible for our 220,000 fellow citizens who have lost their lives; for the millions of their friends and relatives who miss them terribly; for the 80,000 who have died beyond the expected average of deaths this year because this virus has been stalking our land; for as many as 2 million people who have died worldwide, and for all those who are recovering from Covid-19 but are still suffering lingering effects.

And it is also incumbent upon those of us who have not gone hungry, who have not suffered the loss of a job (as perhaps 40 million have in the United States alone — perhaps 15 million permanently), to be mindful of the pain and loss around us, while trying not to succumb to the loneliness, despair, and feelings of grief that so many are fighting to overcome. Each of us must try to push though our own trials and do what we can for those who are suffering during this worldwide tragedy.

While holding this in our hearts and minds, it is also time to look toward what lies ahead — and there is some good news on the horizon.

First, it is reasonable to hope that in 9 months we will be past the worst of this pandemic. By that time there is a good chance a well-vetted vaccine will be widely available. Plus, since somewhere between 30 to 60 million people in the United States have probably been infected by the virus already and, though we do not know how long immunity lasts, almost all of them seem to have some immunity now. (If Covid is like similar diseases, immunity will last for a year or more.) Finally, a wave of new infections is sweeping the world right now, causing terrible suffering. But by next summer the number of people with immunity in the U.S. will have reached a level that, combined with the likely introduction of vaccines, will slow the contagion considerably.

The second piece of positive news is that Covid is not as deadly as was once feared. If there have been 5 total infections for each of those officially found to date through testing, then less than 1% of those infected are dying. Further, as our treatments get better and new medicines are found to help mitigate the disease, the death rate will continue to fall. The elderly and those with underlying conditions — physical conditions that make them especially vulnerable — must be very, very careful, but for everyone else, Covid is not as scary as it once seemed. I know a number of people who have had Covid and seem to have recovered fully with no lasting ill effects.

A third piece of possible good news involves the economy. Although many jobs have been lost for good, our economy is resilient. Many, many of us are creative and industrious. New jobs will come. If, as seems somewhat likely, the Democratic party wins both houses of Congress and the presidency, there will be a large fiscal package by early February that will help those who lost their jobs, support struggling small businesses, provide desperately needed funds to cash-starved cities and states, and give the economy a major boost. The stock market is already anticipating this fiscal stimulus in a positive way.

Lessons to Be Learned

Still, there are things we need to understand much more clearly as we enter the 10th month of this pandemic, and as the second wave of infections gathers steam around the world. One is a reality that should have been obvious from the time the first severe outbreaks occurred in Italy, Spain, and New York — this is, at minimum, a two-year issue. If we in the U.S. had had a better response — developing a national testing and tracing program as Germany did — the severity would have been reduced and there would have been significantly fewer deaths. But once widespread contagion was present on the European and American continents, the pandemic was inevitably going to be a long-term, difficult problem.

Island nations like Australia and New Zealand, by acting quickly, were able to prevent a major outbreak before it could begin. And, because they are islands, each has been able to contain the virus effectively so far. A very different containment example comes from China, a society with a widespread system of authoritarian control. Because surveillance and control systems were already in place, China was able to stop its outbreak by severe limitations on freedom that would not have been tolerated by the people in many countries. Countries with historical patterns of valuing individual freedom, and whose borders are in direct contact with other regions of the world, were never going to be able to stop the virus completely once it had infected a significant number of people around the world.

A third example comes from Japan and South Korea, both well-run democracies with a great deal of individual freedom. Both, however, have unique situations. Each is an island nation (South Korea is an island in the way it functions, because there is no traffic across its only land border with North Korea). And each has a fairly homogenous population, with widely shared values within the populace. Each also has historical and cultural patterns of people valuing the necessity of fitting into agreed upon social norms. This has served them well in instituting practices to limit the spread of Covid-19.

These advantages for dealing with the pandemic, however, are not present in most of Europe, the Americas, India, and most of the Middle East. This means that most regions of the world must now deal with widespread disease and death — and that we will be dealing with it for at least another year. We have built a world that is deeply interconnected, and if India, Brazil, Italy, Spain, and New York have widespread infections, the only path forward is to learn to manage the disease as we find the best ways to go on with our lives.

Further Lessons from Sweden

Because Sweden shares many of the characteristics of the U.S. and Europe, also because it had a fairly significant outbreak of Covid-19 in the early months, and especially because it has managed the pandemic in a different way from most other countries, their example can be instructive for the rest of us. Surprisingly, rather than value what might be learned through studying their alternative model, most observers have attacked Sweden because they have had the audacity to do things differently. For instance, a recent article in Time was vicious toward Sweden’s response to the pandemic. My first reaction to the article was to shake my head in amazement at the animosity being directed toward a country that has tried a different path from the one recommended by the “we know the truth and everyone else is wrong” crowd.

This antagonistic view of Sweden, a progressive country on many fronts, pervades much of the coverage in the U.S, making it hard for anyone reading the mainstream press to have a clear idea what is really going on in Sweden. My take is that they have made mistakes, but that there is much we can learn from their successes.

First, the mistakes: The Swedish authorities have said often they made a mistake in dealing with their nursing homes, and it resulted in far too many deaths of the elderly. Accepting this, why is Sweden criticized so much more harshly than New York? There was a much higher percentage of elderly deaths in New York in the early days of the pandemic than in Sweden. Why, then, aren’t the same writers calling Gov. Cuomo and the leaders of the New York murderers — like this article says about Sweden’s leaders?

The reason this is so important is that the early mistake with nursing homes in Sweden is totally separate from their overall strategy, just as it is totally separate from the overall strategy New York came to adopt. Many people died in New York nursing homes in the early days. That is clearly seen as a mistake, but New York has been praised for its actions since. The same should be true for Sweden — because its death and disease numbers today are better than New York’s.

Another mistake Sweden made (which they were slow to admit) was not starting a major testing program early on. But they have since corrected that mistake also — they are testing a higher percentage of their population every day than Germany, and they fall in the middle of the range for all of Europe.

Moving from the mistakes to the lessons, the article in Time makes it sound like Sweden claimed they had defeated Covid. But this is totally untrue. No one in Sweden ever said they would not have an increase in cases if there was a second wave in Europe. Of course that would be true, and they knew it. Unsurprisingly, the number of infections has risen in Sweden as colder weather has set in, just as they have risen all over Europe and in the United States. But anyone reading the Time article would think that things were going very badly in Sweden, compared to other countries, yet that is completely untrue. Here are the average number of new cases per 100,000 people in the last 7 days in several countries, as well as a few states in the U.S:

Netherlands   320
France           249
U. K.             186
Spain            183
U.S.              125
Germany       53
Denmark       52

Sweden         47

North Dakota 643
Tennessee     205
California       57
New York       51

Does this look like Sweden is now a disaster, as the article implies?

Further, these results are not because Sweden is testing less — they are doing as much or more testing on average as other European countries. And since Sweden is in a much colder climate than some, the seasonal effect is probably greater there.

One further point that needs to be followed carefully is that deaths in Sweden have stayed very low – less than one per day in the whole country (about 10% if what is happening per capita in New York right now). Crucially, while there are headlines in the U.S. about excess mortality being 80,000 lives during the pandemic (300,000 more have died in the U.S. since the pandemic began than the average number that would have been expected without the pandemic, but only 220,000 can be directly attributed to Covid), the excess mortality in Sweden has, over the last 3 months, fallen below the expected average.

In other words, fewer people have died there in the last few months than would have been expected if there had been no pandemic. There are several possible reasons for this, but one is that so many people in their 80’s and 90’s who were seriously ill died in Sweden in the early stages of Covid — people who would have died soon anyway but happened to be counted as Covid deaths — that now there are fewer deaths than would be expected because many of those people would have died soon without the pandemic.

As we register this, we must consider an implication that the plunge in excess deaths in Sweden suggests — that the measures we have taken to limit the pandemic have been the cause of many of our 80,000 excess deaths in the United States. Since Sweden is no longer having excess deaths, we must weigh the possibility that their less restrictive approach is helping to limit excess deaths.

This is, of course, painful to contemplate, and is perhaps the reason for the animosity directed toward Sweden — if their less restrictive approach is succeeding in containing the pandemic and also preventing excess deaths, then all those who have advocated stricter measures have to own up to the downside of their suggested approaches. And, however painful this reckoning might be, it must be undertaken if we are to find the best path forward till July 2020, and — heaven forbid — if there is ever another pandemic.

Here are some things Sweden has gained by their approach, and which might be part of the reason that their excess deaths have fallen below what would have been expected:

1. Normal social life has not been disrupted much all across the spectrum, so the spike in loneliness, despair, suicide, physical abuse, drug abuse, and all the other things we have suffered in the U.S. have not happened in Sweden. Suicides have not spiked. Death by drug overdose has not spiked. Abuse within families and overall murders have not gone up, as they have in the U.S.

2. People are not avoiding going to the doctor or to hospitals, or getting shots they need, so other types of illness have not gone up — while in the U.S. this seems to be one of the major causes of excess deaths.

3. Swedish schools for those 16 and under have stayed open, so there is not much controversy about how to handle schools; parents haven’t had to deal with taking over schooling and care for their young children, and children haven’t lost a year of education.

4. Numerous small businesses are not having to close for good, because they stayed open through the spring and summer. Bankruptcies are thus much fewer than in the United States.

5. Restaurants have stayed open and are therefore not going bankrupt in droves.

6. The Swedish economy has been hurt because of the slowdown of exports, but it is much heathier than almost all other countries in Europe. They will recover faster than most other countries.

7. They have avoided the protests and increasing split between points of view that have exploded in the U.S. and are spreading to many other countries today (Germany, Australia, etc.).

8. They mostly have normal interactions with each other without the extreme psychological effect that trying to communicate through a mask creates. It is becoming increasingly clear we will look back and understand that masks had a negative effect on people’s relationships with other people. Those outside our inner circle are becoming more and more “objects” to us, rather than human beings. I don’t go out much, but I find myself more and more avoiding interactions when wearing a mask because it is so hard to understand others with the muffling of words that masks cause, and with the difficulty of real communication without being able to see facial expressions. What are the long-term consequences of making conversation with most everyone we encounter so frustrating?

This argument is not to say there is no role for masks. There is a role. But, as Sweden clearly demonstrates, masks are not the key to controlling Covid. Most people there do not wear masks, yet they are doing better in controlling the virus than many countries with strict mask mandates. This suggests we should, rather than making masks a political issue (which both sides have done), be looking carefully to find the situations in which masks are truly important and get that message out clearly. At the same time, we need to be researching the situations in which masks are not really necessary — places where reasonable physical distancing is all that is necessary — so we can begin to return to more normal lives. The issue is not masks versus no-masks. The issue is, where are masks an important protection, and where are they not important. Can’t we find a way to get beyond name-calling and yelling insults at each other like kids on a schoolyard on this issue, and begin to work together to find an intelligent path forward?

For instance, if you are going to a doctor, a hairdresser, or a meeting or gathering in a closed space, or are going to be in close proximity to people outside your immediate circle for any length of time, masks can be valuable. But mandating masks for all public areas, outdoors, in fairly open spaces, and in uncrowded areas where people can keep a distance is just creating a backlash. One recent poll found that although a majority of people in the U.S. believe masks are a good idea, only 48% are wearing them when they need to. Wearing a mask must not be a purity test, and mandating them in situations that are not very likely to spread the virus is a serious mistake.

We need to focus on discovering when masks are really necessary and begin a campaign to encourage people, in a positive way, to use them in those situations — rather than battling over mandates. Societal mask mandates are not the answer in the United States — we are too independent and ornery for that. If an individual chooses to wear a mask any time they want, that is great. A store or business or private institution should be free to create mandates within their space any time they want. But broad governmental mandates are a different matter, and fighting about this is distracting us from the things that are truly important. Rather than creating more and more rules, we need positive educational messages, and we need to be focusing on the consequences of “othering” people — and not spreading fear in our society about the dangers of encountering others in the world. What will be the consequences of teaching our children that other people are dangerous objects to be avoided? I am seeing this all the time when encountering children on hikes in the mountains.

The Way Forward Today

The crucial steps forward today are:

1. An intelligent and thorough testing and tracing program paid for by the federal government.

2. Recognizing that Covid is being spread in specific places and ways: bars, family gatherings, colleges, workspaces that force people to be close together, social gatherings that don’t honor a certain amount of physical distancing, churches that haven’t developed effective practices, and sporting events without strict rules. We must work to find ways for people to fulfill their natural social needs while limiting the spread of the virus as much as possible. Rules that are too strict simply create a backlash and eventually a greater spread of Covid-19. We must balance what we are doing between the extremes of protecting ourselves and others while finding the best ways to go about our normal lives as much as possible.

3. We must recognize that rules and mandates have limited effectiveness in a free society — more and more people are finding ways to evade them as they become tired of the dramatic limitations on their lives. We must focus on practices that will be accepted by a great majority of people and with which most people will voluntarily comply. We must find practices that can be maintained with the least possible disruption of lives for another year, while avoiding rules and mandates that will continue to increase the backlash and rebellion already being participated in by a hundred and fifty million people in the U.S. The path forward is not for each side to condemn those with whom they disagree, but to look for things most of us can agree upon. It does not work for those advocating strict rules to shame and blame those who do not agree with them, and it does not work if a lot of people believe the rules should be looser and thus openly flaunt the truly important guidelines.

4. Do everything we can as a society to fund the research and do the necessary verification to find effective and safe vaccines.

Once again, we can learn something from Sweden here. They have not done things perfectly — but it would be good to recognize there are valuable things we can adopt from their contrarian experiment. If things suddenly go wrong there, we can learn from that. Until and unless that happens, one lesson so far seems to be that a moderate position between the extremes is the sanest path forward.

For instance, in Sweden they have consistently taught their citizens the importance of keeping a physical distance when interacting with others not in one’s immediate circle. Most people in Sweden are therefore doing this voluntarily, as opposed to our experience in the U.S, where millions of people followed the rules for a few months, but then became rebellious and went too far in the other direction, increasingly going to parties, bars, family gatherings, vacations without much distancing, and participating in crowded situations of all kinds. Perhaps this would not have happened if the rules had been less strict to be begin with. It seems pretty clear that, besides an effective testing and tracing program, the most effective Covid strategy is for most everyone to voluntarily keep some physical distance most all the time from those with whom they are interacting. My personal experience is that this is not very hard to do, once you make it a consciously chosen habit.

If we in the United States are to come through the next 9 months as well as possible, each of us must make an effort to give greater respect to the views of those who have a different understanding of how to respond to this pandemic, and we as a society must find a middle path that begins to heal our divisions, creates jobs in spite of the spike in infections, and rebuilds our economy as we also try to save as many lives as we possibly can.

May you be well,
May you be safe,
May you be at peace as much as possible in this strange time,

David

Covid – What now?

Good morning,

It feels like things are shifting in both good ways and bad in the worldwide crisis of Covid. There is a decent chance there will be a vaccine that has been sufficiently tested and has proven moderately effective by next summer, and by that time, perhaps as many as 30 percent of the people in the U.S. will have had the infection and have acquired some immunity. This is not certain, of course, but there is reason to believe that the pandemic will slow considerably at that level of penetration. It also is not known how much immunity a previously infected person will have, or how long it will last, but there is good reason to believe there will be some immunity for the great majority who have been infected (this is the case with most similar diseases).

That 30 percent rough estimate comes from several studies that show there are often 10 times as many infections in an area as the actual number who have tested positive. Since in the U.S. almost 6.5 million people have tested positive, this would mean that as many as 65 million have already been infected. And since we are averaging over 40 thousand new cases a day, getting to 30 percent of the population seems more than likely by next summer, using only a 5 times multiple.

That so many people in the U.S. will have been infected by that time is, of course, part of the really bad news. And it did not have to be this way. Many, many mistakes were made in this country that were not made in others. On a more positive note, the percentage of people who die after infection is dramatically lower than the earlier numbers people were using. The reasons are that a much younger population is now being tested, many people other than those who are very sick are being tested, treatment protocols have improved, and the early estimates of the percentages who would die were much too high.

On the negative side, our failure to develop a national strategy and to implement an effective testing program means we are in for many more months of the spread of this disease. And very, very sadly, many more deaths. The wild disparity between locales, some not taking sufficient preventive measures and others using overly severe lockdowns and unrealistic rules for too long has been a disaster. The lack of an agreed upon national plan has caused confusion, rebellion, and an acceleration of the breakdown of trust in our government and our ability to pull together toward a common goal. All this means there is much economic hardship yet to be endured. Reviving our economy and healing the fabric of our torn national spirit will be a long, slow process – if we can accomplish these things at all.

But this is exactly our task. We must each do what we can. No one can know the outcome of a great struggle whilst in the midst of it. Each of us can only make our best effort to do what we can. A few quotes that help me in these difficult times:

Clare Pinkola Estes:
“Ours is not the task of fixing the entire world all at once, but of stretching out to mend the part of the world that is within our reach. Any small, calm thing that one soul can do to help another soul, to assist some portion of this poor suffering world, will help immensely. It is not given to us to know which acts, or by whom, the critical mass will tip toward an enduring good. What is needed for dramatic change is an accumulation of acts, adding, adding to, adding more, continuing.”

Try to be kind and considerate, remembering the words of Philo of Alexandria:
“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle.”

Also take to heart this advice from Kurt Vonnegut:
“Be soft. Do not let the world make you hard. Do not let pain make you hate. Do not let bitterness steal your sweetness. Take pride that even though the rest of the world may disagree, you still believe the world to be a beautiful place.”

And this from Morris West:
“It takes so much to be a full human being that there are very few who have the enlightenment or the courage to pay the price. One has to abandon altogether the search for security and reach out to the risk of living with both arms. One has to embrace the world like a lover. One has to accept pain as a condition of existence. One has to court doubt and darkness as the cost of knowing. One needs a will stubborn in conflict, but apt always to total acceptance of every consequence of living and dying.”

Dealing with Covid today

Starting from where we are now, several factors should mean this country will be in a much better place by the fall of 2021 in relation to the pandemic. And we can hope this will be the case in relation to our political nightmare as well. But what to do now? The four things we should already have done, and which can still be implemented to a certain extent, are:

1. Develop a national strategy and be consistent over time, making modifications, but not abrupt changes (which requires thinking in an appropriate timeframe).

2. This means recognizing that Covid-19 is still going to be at least a 1-year problem and not something that severe rules or shutdowns can fix.

3. In developing a national strategy, make sure it fits a large majority of the people, so most of the population will buy in voluntarily over time.

4. Once the above points are in place, use persuasion and not mandates.

The only way rules and requirements work over time in a democracy is when most people voluntarily comply. We cannot do what China did with a lockdown. China is a very authoritarian state – they could lock down and make it work. That was never a possibility in the U.S. The model I have used often is Sweden. They developed a set of guidelines and began persuading the citizenry, not ordering them or arresting them for non-compliance. Their schools remained open, as well as most of their businesses.

Someone asked if the cultural differences between the U.S. and Sweden would have made their response to Covid less effective in the U.S. There is no question that dealing with Covid here was more difficult and complicated than in Sweden. But they basically used the above four points as their basis for action – and we certainly could have done that. And can now.

In the U.S. it should have been vividly clear from the beginning that overly strict mandates would create a growing backlash. To stop the spread of Covid does not require every single person following every rule. It just requires that most people make an attempt to do the important small things a lot of the time. And this will only happen in a country as diverse as the U. S. if the great majority of people accept that it is important to try to comply with the requested measures. Getting most people to make a good faith effort to be careful – that is the end result that will have the greatest positive impact over a long-term time frame.

To understand how severe measures do not work, consider France. After an initial surge of cases in March and April, they used severe rules to beat back the rise in infections. As they have tried to return to normal, however, their infection rate has exploded. The last weeks in August and beginning of September have brought a higher infection rate than at any time in the spring.

Or consider India. India did a very early lockdown, before there were many cases in that country. But this policy has been a complete failure. After two months, the economy was collapsing and more and more people were refusing to accept the lockdown. Today, India has perhaps the fastest spreading incidence of Covid-19 in the world.

The chart from Sweden is completely different. They added a testing and tracing program to their initial policies, and the rate of spread has now fallen dramatically. Crucially, the number of people dying from Covid is only 3 or 4 a week in the whole country – much better than New York, or France, and many other countries that were being held up as success stories.

Sweden made mistakes, the biggest being they didn’t put in place a well thought out testing program early on. Doing so is what allowed Germany to be successful. Sweden should have done that, and we should have done so in the U.S. Our two biggest mistakes were not developing a national plan and not developing a well-funded and well-thought our testing program. This is why our death chart is a disaster compared to Sweden’s (note that our chart is measuring thousands of deaths, while Sweden’s is individuals, and they have been averaging less than 5 deaths a day for 6 weeks, and about 1 a day for the last 3 weeks):

In a national plan, there needs to be a provision for a fairly dramatic lockdown in specific areas that reach an overwhelm level, like New York in April. But it needs to be time-limited (perhaps 3 weeks) and geographically specific so people can know how to plan. This means accepting that the goal cannot be to eradicate the disease quickly. By late April it was clear that Covid-19 was already so widely spread in the U.S., and the world, that eradication would not be possible. Now, the goal has to be to manage it as best we can with testing, tracing, and isolating infected persons. We will not get rid of Covid-19 by lockdowns or severe mandates – we must learn to manage it while also learning to live our lives as fully as possible while it is with us.

At some point, the combination of sufficient immunity because of having had an infection and an effective vaccine will turn the tide on this scourge sweeping the world. Many, many lives and jobs could have been saved in the U.S. if a national strategy had been developed and implemented until that result was reached. It needed to be a strategy that the great majority of people would voluntarily adopt, however. Still, it is not too late to make a difference. Many lives and jobs can still be saved if a thoughtful policy is implemented. This remains our challenge as citizens and as a country for the next year or more.

To end on a positive note, here is some of the best news I have read – a 15 minute test for home use that can be made cheaply is close to approval. If approved and widely distributed (hopefully with government financial support), people can know in a short time if they are infected, can test themselves often, and if they are infected, most people will make a sincere effort to protect others for a couple of weeks. This could be a game-changer:
At-Home saliva test

In the meantime, you can now buy a test on-line, take the sample at home, and receive the results in 2-3 days.
Covid test
or
Covid test

(My previous essays on the pandemic are on my web site under the heading “During the Time of Covid.”)
David’s web site

May you be safe,
May you be well,
May you live a full and meaningful life
In this time of Covid.
David

Covid Lessons from Sweden

Sweden is a country of about 10 million people with one large metropolitan area, Stockholm. The State of New York has about 20 million people, with a large percentage in one large city, New York. Both had severe outbreaks of Covid-19 in the spring of 2020. New York, after its terrible outbreak, is now being hailed as a success story in the fight against this disease, while Sweden is frequently criticized. From press reports in the United States, you would assume New York did a much better job in fighting the pandemic than Sweden.

Let’s look at the situation more carefully:
Sweden had suffered a total of 5,743 official deaths from Covid-19 as of July 31, 2020, which is 568 deaths per million people. This is one of the highest rates in Europe, and a good bit higher than their immediate neighbors Denmark and Norway. It is, however, better than some European countries such as Belgium, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Italy. And it is only one/third the death rate per capita of New York State, which had 1636 deaths per million people in the same period. The State of New Jersey has about a million fewer people than Sweden, but New Jersey has had an even higher death rate than Sweden or New York, at 1743 per million residents.

Importantly, although the policies of New York are being seen as highly effective, approximately 57 people died in New York from Covid-19 the first week of August, while Sweden had a total of only 3 deaths in the same period. Also in New York, after a severe lockdown the infection numbers plummeted, but not as much as they have come down in Sweden. Why, then, is New York being seen positively and Sweden negatively in many press reports?

Basically, it is because Sweden took a less strict approach in dealing with the pandemic than many other countries, and those that used more restrictive measures would like to believe they were right, that they needed to do everything they did. It is time, however, for a thoughtful examination of both the failures and successes in Sweden, in hopes we might come to a better understanding of how best to deal with Covid-19 for the rest of 2020, in 2021, and as we plan for potential pandemics in the future.

Sweden’s plan
As word of this new disease began to be more widely known in late January 2020, and several countries began to lock down or curtail movements and interactions, the leaders in Sweden made a decision to follow a different path, which was recommended by their health experts and scientists. The underlying assumptions were:

1. The world would be dealing with Covid-19 for a long time
2. Locking down for a few weeks would not get rid of the problem
3. Locking down for an extended period would have dramatic negative consequences on all aspects of peoples’ lives
4. Therefore, their goals would be:
A. Find actions that would flatten the curve of rising infections so the medical establishment would not be overwhelmed
B. Limit the spread of the disease as much as possible
C. Do so in a way that could be sustained for a long period of time—as long as Covid-19 was significantly active in the world
D. Develop measures that the people of Sweden would support voluntarily and overwhelmingly, measures they would adopt and continue to follow for at least a year or two
E. Take into account that severe measures would be likely to create a backlash that would undermine any initial efforts at mitigation
F. Educate the people of Sweden quickly and thoroughly about what they needed to do to protect themselves and others
G. Keep as many of their schools, businesses, and normal social venues open as possible so people would not undergo the trauma of more life disruption than was totally necessary
H. Limit activities and close facilities that emerged as primary sources of infection

Following these ideas, they chose not to shut down their country as many others were doing. Rather, they chose to strongly encourage their citizens to voluntarily adopt measures to protect their health, such as wash their hands often, keep a physical distance from people not in their immediate circle of family and friends, venture out less often, and limit gatherings to 50 people or less.

Understanding the importance of going to school, especially for younger students, they kept schools open for everyone under 16 years of age. Most businesses remained open, including restaurants. No masks were required, but some people began to wear them voluntarily.

Many pundits outside of Sweden have said they were choosing herd immunity, but the leaders of Sweden have consistently said this was never their goal. They have consistently said their goal was to flatten the curve so the medical establishment would not be overwhelmed, and then to find a way for their people to live as normally as possible in the midst of a pandemic that would go on for a long time.

Mistakes were made
As the leaders of Sweden have admitted, they made mistakes in their approach.
1. Sweden has an older population than most countries, a significant number in nursing homes, and they had severe outbreaks of Covid-19 in their nursing homes. This led to a higher death toll than many other countries. Almost 50% of their deaths so far have been in the nursing home population. Whether this was the result of their main policy decisions is not clear, since a number of other countries that had extensive lockdowns have also had a high death toll in nursing homes. This was certainly the case in New York. But the leaders of Sweden have said repeatedly that they did not do enough to protect their elderly population when the pandemic began, and recent numbers suggest they have corrected this mistake.

2. They did not begin an extensive testing program as early as several other countries, which delayed their ability to respond to outbreaks. They have now corrected this problem and are doing extensive targeted testing.

3. They did not focus on the problems of crowded housing in immigrant communities, such as the Somalis in Sweden, which led to higher infection and death rates in immigrant communities. Again, this was a problem in many other countries, so it is not clear how much Sweden’s overall policy was the cause of this mistake. And again, the Swedish government began to take significant steps to mitigate this problem, and it is working.

The effects of the mistake with the elderly and infirm on the overall death rate is important to note. Of the 5,743 people who had died in Sweden from Covid-19 as of July 31, their ages were:

90 and over – 1498 (25%)
80-90 – 2384 (42%)
70-79 – 1236 (22%)
60-69 – 394 (7%)
50-59 – 160 (3%)
Under 50 – 71 (1%)

Thus, 67% of deaths were among those over the age of 80, and another 21% were between 70 and 80 years of age. This means that the total number of people under the age of 70 who have died from Covid in Sweden is 625, or about 20% of total deaths. The number of all deaths of those under 50 is 131, about 4% of the total. Thus, the number of deaths for people under the age of 60 compare favorably with many other countries with lower overall death rates, as well as with many countries that used much more dramatic measures to try to limit the disease. Needless to say, Sweden’s numbers are all dramatically better than those of New York or New Jersey.

Perspectives on the death toll
The Swedish government, following the recommendations of their health scientists, decided on a strategy they believed would save the most lives over the long haul. They concluded this pandemic was going to be a long-term problem, so they searched for a path that did not involve trying to shut down the country, a path that would not disrupt peoples’ lives more than necessary over a sustained period of time.

They specifically said they wanted to avoid shutting down and then having to deal with when to open back up. They saw the dangers of shutting down, trying to open, and then having to shut down again—perhaps going through that cycle over and over. Rather, they tried to find a path that was sustainable for at least a couple of years, and would allow them to gradually adjust rather than going from one extreme to another.

Crucially, they were searching for a path the vast majority of the people of the country would embrace voluntarily for the long term, for they understood that strict lockdowns and regulations ran the risk of rebellions by people who started to feel their lives had been disrupted unnecessarily for too long. Keeping these things in mind, and to put the number of deaths in Sweden from Covid-19 in perspective:

90,000 people die every year in Sweden from all causes (the average each year for the last few years).

This means that by the end of 2020 (assuming current trends continue) Covid-19 will add about 6% to the total number of deaths, bringing that number to about 95,780.

However, since so many deaths from Covid have been among the elderly and infirm, some of those people would likely have died from other causes in 2020 if they had not died from Covid-19. Others in those groups would have died in 2021 and 2022, so the mortality average for those three years will most likely not go up by even 5,780 over those three years. If that turns out to be the case, and current trends continue, Covid-19 will have added less than 2% a year to the total number of deaths in Sweden for those three years. And 67% of those deaths will have been among those over 80 years of age.

Each and every death must be taken very seriously. Yet we are dealing with a worldwide pandemic, so the number of deaths has to be understood in this light. Many, many people around the world are dying, a significant number of whom are dying from starvation caused by the methods used to try to limit the pandemic. As we fight the disease, we have to be mindful of the negative consequences of our actions aimed at suppression. Besides starvation on a grand scale, we are already seeing other diseases being left untreated because of measures enacted to stem Covid-19, as well as increasing suicide, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and domestic violence. There is no safe path through a pandemic once it begins. Even those countries that locked down immediately and seem to have contained it are dealing with immense problems, one of which is that they cannot remain locked down forever, nor seal themselves off from the rest of the world for years to come without dramatic losses in their economies and way of life. There is no place to hide from a disease that is spreading rapidly all over the world and will do so for years. Today, among as much as 40% of the world’s population—perhaps 3 billion people in Africa, Brazil, several other countries in Latin America, much of India and Pakistan, and on and on—Covid-19 is basically moving through the populations unchecked.

Therefore, we will only know which strategies worked best in dealing with this pandemic after 2 years or more, when we will be better able to see how the disease has played out over time in various countries using different approaches. (A) Will closing off to the rest of the world, as New Zealand has done, be the best long-term path? Can countries that are not isolated islands follow such a plan? And what will happen when New Zealand tries to open up to the rest of the world? (B) Is the authoritarian model of China, imposing great control over all actions and movements of its citizenry the most effective path? Would the people in democracies be willing to accept this approach? And even though this has worked in the short term, as China tries to open its economy to the rest of the world, will it continue to work? (C) Will the focused and efficiently organized testing and tracing program implemented early on in Germany prove the best path? Will it continue to work as Germany tries to remove restrictions and open up more to the rest of the world? (D) And amidst all these approaches, what can we learn from the significantly different strategy followed by Sweden?

Current results
And as of today, August 8, 2020, the Swedish strategy seems to be paying off. Their daily infection rates have plummeted while the infection rates and death rates are beginning to go up in many other countries that shut down and are now trying to reopen. Some of those openings are now being delayed, and some countries are going through the painful process of closing down again. Others that closed down early on, like India, have had to abandon that strategy to a great extent. So far, Sweden has avoided these problems. They have maintained a consistent approach and their infection rate keeps falling as they continue along the same path they have been on, making minor adjustments as they go. As Swedish epidemiology expert Anders Tegnell said recently, Sweden has done as well or better than many countries that are attributing their results to lockdowns, but, “We have managed to do it with substantially less invasive measures.”

And importantly, as mentioned earlier, they now are having on average less than one death every other day in the whole country from Covid-19. If this continues, the overall death rate per capita in Sweden will look much better in the coming months. Since there are so few new deaths occurring in Sweden, while deaths in the rest of the world are still rising, many countries will pass them in deaths per capita in the next few weeks—including the United States as a whole. Significantly, many of the countries that are now passing Sweden employed severe lockdowns, while Sweden did not.

Looking at these results in the larger picture, one of the most important lessons we can take from Sweden is how vital it is for the government of a country to develop a well-thought-out program in response to a pandemic, one that the vast majority of citizens will support. In a democracy, once this is done, the leaders have to go to the people and educate and persuade them, so that most citizens will voluntarily implement the plan. This was perhaps the greatest failure in the United States.

No one approach to this pandemic has emerged as the best so far. Successful countries have used different approaches. The one thing common to all successful countries has been the adoption of a consistent, coordinated approach. And in democracies, for any plan to work it must make sense to most of the people and be effectively presented to them.

Economic impact
The Swedish economy has, of course, been significantly impacted by the crash of the global economy. Many of the Swedish people stopped going out and shopping as often as usual, especially older people. This was exactly what the Swedish government encouraged—they did not make this mandatory like some countries, but they encouraged it. Their plan was specifically put in place with the understanding that locking things down more than absolutely necessary would create major problems.

Also, with regard to the economy, the Swedes have a lot of exports and a great deal of tourism, so they certainly knew that these areas of their economy would suffer. This has been true for most every country in the world, even those that have had very little Covid-19. The Swedish economy will not recover fully until the world economy does so.

But today, there is little question that Sweden’s economy is healthier than many others in Europe, or elsewhere in the world. In the first quarter of 2020, their economy actually rose slightly, while European countries overall had a net loss of about 4% of GDP. In the second quarter, GDP in Sweden fell 8.6%, yet this was much better than the rest of the euro zone, which contracted by 12.1% (and by 11.9% across the broader European Union.) The Spanish economy recorded the sharpest decline among member states, falling 18.5%. In the United States, GDP fell 5% in the 1st quarter of 2020 from the preceding quarter, and another 9.5% below that in the 2nd quarter. Crucially, the U.S. has spent perhaps as much as 4.5 trillion dollars dealing with the pandemic so far (maybe as much as 21% of GDP) with much more in store. (These are rough guesses—we will not know the actual figures for some time.) In contrast, Sweden has committed perhaps half that percentage of GDP, and is in a much stronger position to bear the financial costs, since government finances and debt are in the best condition they have been since the late 1970s.

Overall observations about Sweden’s approach
On the negative side, they had too many deaths in their elderly and infirm populations. But whether this increased loss of life was a result of their overall strategy is not clear, for they made a decision early-on not to use extraordinary measures such as ventilators and long-term intensive care to treat most people in these two categories. Whether this was right or wrong can and should be debated, but it needs to be clearly understood that the higher death toll in Sweden, compared to many other countries, was not primarily caused by their overall approach to the pandemic. Rather, their initial higher death rate resulted from a decision about how extensively to treat those over 80 and those who had other serious complicating conditions.

Another mistake was the failure to start a comprehensive testing program early-on, which likely increased their overall number of deaths. Swedish officials have, in fact, acknowledged this. And they have acknowledged a failure to deal with their immigrate populations as well as they should have.

On the positive side:
They flattened the curve of infections so that the medical system was never close to being overwhelmed.
They did not shut down schools, so they aren’t having to deal with how to open schools in the fall.
They didn’t shut down restaurants, so they aren’t having to deal with that issue.
They didn’t require masks, so they don’t have to decide when people do not have to wear them, and they are not dealing with the revolts many countries are experiencing against mask-wearing.
They didn’t close down most businesses, so they can continue living and working more normally than most other countries, while making minor modifications to their plan.
They have not had the psychological fallout of increasing suicides, loneliness, depression, drug and alcohol abuse, or domestic violence.

They asked for peoples’ voluntary cooperation rather than imposing mandates, so they have not had to deal with rebellious groups flaunting the rules and causing new outbreaks. This is especially important for young people, who feel a need to go to school, have social interactions, meet new people, look for new opportunities, find new relationships. To try to lock down these activities among the young for months on end is a fatal mistake to any plan in a democratic country.

The people of Sweden were not given the message that they should fear each other. Rather, they were encouraged to go on about their lives as normally as possible, while at the same time taking intelligent precautions. Pictures and films of the people of Sweden living fairly normal lives throughout the pandemic present a totally different image than we have seen in most of the world. People seem much more comfortable with each other—smiling, laughing, interacting, living more normal lives than most people in the world today. What might we learn from this?

Dangers of too-strict actions
Covid-19 is a serious, dangerous disease. We must take various intelligent actions to keep it from causing illness and death.

At the same time, we must understand that strict actions to prevent it can and do cause harm themselves. Teaching a child to be careful is critically important, but overdoing it leads to a fearful child who has a hard time participating in life. Marijuana has dangers, but overly strict laws filled prisons in the United States and destroyed many lives. Pain medications can be a blessing when used to relieve pain appropriately, but are a great danger when abused. Automobiles have provided enormous benefits, but they kill and maim many millions each year around the world. Every country has decided that even though they are dangerous, automobiles shouldn’t be banned completely. Rather, each country constantly searches for the best balance between control and freedom. The same principal applies with this pandemic—the goal should be to find the best balance possible between limiting the disease while helping people live full and fulfilling lives.

Looking at the overall picture carefully, we can see the dramatic negative consequences being created around the world by the strict measures implemented to prevent the spread of Covid-19. Considering that few of these negative consequences are happening in Sweden and many fewer would be happening worldwide if every country had followed Sweden’s path makes vivid that most of these negative consequences are being caused by the strict methods employed to limit Covid and not the disease itself.

1. The United Nations World Food Program estimates that 250 million people may face starvation by the end of 2020 as a result of the economic measures taken to limit the spread of Covid-19. Food banks have been overwhelmed even in the United States, the richest country in the world.
2. UNICEF said in a recent report that more than a million children aged 5 or younger will die every six months because of the disruption to medical systems caused in some places by Covid crowding, but in many others simply because people have become afraid to visit medical facilities due to the fear that has been created around the disease.
3. The World Health Organization has warned of a looming mental illness crisis, the result of “the isolation, the fear, the uncertainty, the economic turmoil,” brought on by fear of the disease and actions being taken to limit its spread. As one interviewee in the U.S. put it, “The threat of the virus seems minuscule compared to our mental and physical exhaustion.”
4. Nearly half of Americans report that the coronavirus crisis is affecting their mental health. A federal distress hotline received about 20,000 texts in April compared with 1,790 during the same time last year. “People are really afraid,” Oren Frank, head of an online therapy company observed. “What’s shocking to me is how little leaders are talking about this.”
5. In the United States, parents are postponing children’s health checkups, including shots, putting millions at risk of exposure to preventable deadly diseases. Around the world, tuberculosis usually claims 1.5 million lives each year, almost a million die each year from HIV/Aids, and about 620,000 from malaria. Until this year, we were making progress against each of these diseases. But in 2020, interviews with dozens of public health officials worldwide suggest that: “The lockdowns, particularly across parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America, have raised insurmountable barriers to patients who must travel to obtain diagnoses or drugs.” This will lead to a surge in disease and death in the coming months.
6. In the United States alone, the economic consequences of shutting things down has led to an expenditure of perhaps as much as 4.5 trillion dollars. Much more will eventually be spent. Yet the economy still contracted at a 33% annual rate in the second quarter of 2020. Fifty-five million people have filed for regular unemployment, another 12 million have filed for the special unemployment program, and this doesn’t count the 10-20 million who were not eligible for either. Perhaps half of those jobs had been reinstated by mid-July, but much of that was because almost a trillion dollars a month has been injected into the economy by the government. A lot of this was necessary, but it has saddled our young people with an incredible burden. We must therefore constantly ask ourselves: Which restrictive measures are absolutely necessary?
7. Suicide, depression, drug abuse, anxiety, despair, and domestic violence and abuse have exploded in several countries around the world. Just recently a headline in the U.S read: “Children Vulnerable to Abuse Are Imperiled as Caseworkers Stay Home.” The article went on to say that many investigations of abuse or neglect have been delayed or curtailed during the pandemic, leaving many, many children vulnerable to great harm.
8. Overly strict rules and mandates cause a backlash—people will eventually rebel. Today, all over the world, more and more people, especially young people, are saying, “We followed the rules for months, totally disrupted our lives, and it was all for nothing. We have to go back to living and we will take our chances.” Telling them to keep their lives on hold as they begin to understand that Covid-19 will be around for a long time will not work. The reason it is unwise to impose greater restrictions than necessary is that it leads to more and more people breaking those rules.
9. When I walk through a large grocery store today, I hear people with masks shouting at those without masks. And I hear those without masks yelling at those who have them on. There is a building anger and despair in our country everywhere I turn. I seldom see people look at each other and smile. Rather, they avoid each other, try to stay away from each other. We are becoming more and more afraid of other people. People we don’t know are a threat, even many we do know—and this is causing us to treat each other in ways that are breaking our society apart.

This problem was presented in stark terms by John Feffer at Tomdispatch.com, in an article posted on July 29:
“I don’t trust you. Don’t take it personally. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a friend or a stranger. I don’t care about your identity or your politics, where you work or if you work, whether you wear a mask or carry a gun.
“I don’t trust you because you are, for the time being, a potential carrier of a deadly virus. You don’t have any symptoms? Maybe you’re an asymptomatic superspreader. Show me your negative test results and I’ll still have my doubts. I have no idea what you’ve been up to between taking the test and receiving the results. And can we really trust that the test is accurate?
“Frankly, you shouldn’t trust me for the same reasons. I’m not even sure that I can trust myself. Didn’t I just touch my face at the supermarket …
“I’m learning to live with this mistrust. I’m keeping my distance from other people. I’m wearing my mask. I’m washing my hands. I’m staying far away from bars. I’m not sure, however, that society can live with this.
“Let’s face it: trust makes the world go around. Protests break out when our faith in people or institutions is violated.
“Now, throw a silent, hidden killer into this combustible mix of mistrust, anger, and dismay. It’s enough to tear a country apart, to set neighbor against neighbor and governor against governor, to precipitate a civil war between the masked and the unmasked.
“Such problems only multiply at the global level where mistrust already permeates the system—military conflicts, trade wars, tussles over migration and corruption. [In the past] there’s been enough trust to keep the global economy going, diplomats negotiating, international organizations functioning, and the planet from spinning out of control. But the pandemic may just tip this known world off its axis.”

Conclusion
The danger of infection from Covid-19 is a serious problem. But there is the separate problem of the consequences that actions taken to prevent its spread can cause. Rather than experimenting with the strictest approaches or imposing sweeping mandates to defeat this disease, we must look for the path that can succeed in overcoming it with the least disruptive effect on peoples’ lives, the path that allows each country to function as fully as possible while the effort is underway. Trump’s know-nothing statements and actions have poisoned the waters of trying to find this moderate path, pushing well-meaning people to move too far in the other direction. This in turn has caused more harm. Promises of short-term victory have been disastrous, both on the part of Trump, but also by those who suggested that lockdowns would do the trick.

The reason Sweden is important is that—unconcerned about what Trump says or thinks, and willing to defy those who have pushed for overly strict measures—they have experimented with a path much less disruptive to society and to peoples’ lives. And their approach seems to be working.

Is this path a real possibility for the United States? We should at least be considering very carefully the parts we might adopt here. Sweden made mistakes, and we can learn from their mistakes. Further, what will work in each country will be different from what is working in Sweden. But by carefully examining and thoughtfully considering what is working there, the U.S. and many countries will be better able to find the best path forward for themselves.

May you be safe,
May you be well,
May you live a full and meaningful life
In this time of Covid.
David