The idea is that we transcend our identity and what it identifies with, from being that identity or self to go beyond what binds us, so as to become a greater, broader and deeper self, and act or be functional in the world. (East meets West? For example, see Acceptance and Commitment Therapy.)
How far to go? Each to their own? If one was to go all the way, then what? These questions require further transcendence. Otherwise we may give up or accept that within limitations we can improve and hopefully pass on something of our achievements to others or off springs.
However, this more, better, greater will not do. Our limitations only multiply in others and future generations as more of the same. The exponential peak of our time indicates this. We must go beyond the human condition and the horizons of our globe, our generations and gender.
Progress or the “more” in particular directions can only mean the displacement of the multifactorial and the multidimensional, seemingly boundless (ie. beyond multifactorial systems) reality from our human world. It is the gravity of genocide that makes us play the numbers game to ensure our future on Earth. Yet precisely the power and glory by which we hold to certainty holds us in track to our exponential end.
Yes, we should transcend our anxious, tight and narrow self and find our deeper, broader self and conviction to base our commitment to face the world with. However, we must distinguish the self from the whole self in order to actualise our truth as a part of our whole, and realise our relation with our whole self, who is of reality.
Yes, this is the fundamental change, required through the ages and which presses on us now. Our relation with a whole being of reality, of whom we are a part, and who is and has been there, always, but for our identification with our projected reality within it.
A universal truth and reality. Without it we remain an isolated part, struggling and mesmerising in isolation from our whole. We all individually belong as an identity to a whole being who is, who is in reality, and is of reality.
A universal truth and reality ? They are contentious terms in philosophy and science, and politically incorrect as an absolute. We establish the sanctity of our identity psychologically, in philosophy and ethically, and struggle to safe guard it politically. Our world views are based on “I’m it” and “that’s the world out there”, our perception having an objective but also a subjective aspect, and our belonging to a community of others. We try to embrace the diversity of our convictions and actions, and ensure the safety of individuals and groups.
With limited resources however, and despite the advances in industry (including agriculture beyond subsistence and sustainability), finance, commerce, communication, transport and employment, consumerism driven by boredom and fear can only increase our distribution problems and inequality. We must appreciate our part in who exists and is alive, next other whole beings on Earth and in homeostasis with the environment (as all creatures are while alive). Otherwise we will continue in our need and want to be met and to live, as an identity set away from our whole who is.