[Excerpt  Be and Become, © ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

In an earlier section in this chapter it was suggested that to be at-one with others and the world around us requires that we be more ourselves. That we be more individual and that we need to honour our deepest desires and goals.

Perhaps we can more clearly see the reverse of this principle in operation by considering the many serious detrimental effects arising out of the denial of Endividuality (expanded, empathic, enthusiastic individuality).

In many cultures, politicians believe that “getting tough on crime” is a solution to the perceived increase in crime. We need only observe how the United States has some of the most severe penalties for criminal behavior (including the death penalty) of all the Western democracies and yet

the US now has the highest rate of incarceration in the Western world—four times that of Australian and most European countries. In 1990, the US prison population was 300,000. Federal and State jails in America today (1997) hold more than 1.2 million inmates’.1

On a broader scale,

In fact,

neither the lash nor the executioner, neither the psychiatrist nor the psychologist—and certainly not the prison—has been shown to provide measurable increments of crime control.3

And yet, despite this,

Generations of research have failed to disturb the commonsensical but false view that increased severity of punishment will produce less crime, that increased reliance on imprisonment is to be preferred to other nonincarcerative punishments.3

Clearly, despite the long history of imprisonment and punishment, research has so far failed to establish a link between punishment and the deterrence of criminal activity. Getting “tough on crime” is clearly not the solution to the increasing rate of crime. Yet we still see legislators and politicians ignorantly introducing pernicious “zero-tolerance” laws—laws which inevitably must breed greater dis-ease, lawlessness and alienation.

Lets consider some aspects of American culture so that we can come to understand the root cause for the high rate of crime in their society.

If we look down the right side of the Table of One and All, under the heading “Western culture” we can readily see that the United States qualifies for being the epitome of “maleness.”

It is a society which sees reality as being strictly local. It is a highly individualistic, competitive, free-market, business-orientated right-wing society with a strong adherence to fundamentalist religious doctrine. Hence the noticeable influence of the ultra conservative Moral Majority in American politics.

Out of this strong bias towards “maleness” comes a clear and unavoidable emphasis upon right and wrong. The culture has a clearly defined division between what is considered Good and Evil. (As an aside, it is not a coincidence that traditionally it was the man of the household who was usually the strict disciplinarian).

Recall from previous material in this book that such a strict delineation of Right versus Wrong (Evil) ultimately results in a denial of individuality. Which in turn leads to criminal behavior. When we recognize that criminals are in fact in a state of emotional dis-ease, we can more readily understand why increasing the severity of penalties only goes to increase the crime rate. If this is still not easily seen, consider this analogy: Imagine a child who is sick, someone who is feeling poorly. With this analogy it follows that:

• 1. David Hay, “A Time Bomb Ticks Behind Prison Bars,” The Sydney Morning Herald, August 16, 1997, page 28.
• 2. Norval Morris and David J. Rothman, The Oxford History Of The Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1995.
• 3. a. b. Morris and Rothman, page 257.

As mentioned earlier, our unconscious potentials emerge into our ego-awareness in the form of deep-felt desire and passion. That energy is converted into useful results and form (the arts, sciences, humanities etc.) through the agency of action. When we deny that energy by foregoing the achievement of our dreams, we do harm to ourselves and the society as a whole. And of course, in line with the ideas presented in the section “Downward causation,” cultures which do not allow free expression of that potential (of converting dreams into reality) suffer the consequences. Constrain the individual and you’ll find an economically-impoverished society.

A deep sense of fulfillment requires that we fulfil our deep-felt sense of purpose.

On a more immediate level for many people however, is simply being able to find solutions to everyday problems. Many people engaged in the daily struggle of life have little time to consider their deepest desires. Their first priority might be to pay an overdue bill, or to meet some arduous work deadline. As mentioned earlier, someone starving to death will give little thought to their purpose in life, other than to survive their immediate difficulties.

Within the minutia of daily living, then, we are often faced with the trials of needing to find solutions to pressing problems. Many people simply don’t have the time to consider what they would ideally like to do in their lives. I’ve asked many people what they would do with their lives if they had no financial worries. I usually ask what they would do if they had say, $20 million nett sitting in the bank, with no outstanding bills to pay, or houses, cars and boats to buy. Most people usually can’t answer that question in any meaningful way.

Many people, it seems from my experience, are so focused on daily living that such considerations are never seriously entertained. In other words, most people are so distracted by the demands of physical existence they give little thought to feeding their spiritual needs.

In Chapter Three, the idea was introduced that to be happy (and healthy) requires that we find a balance between "order" (e.g. financial stability, job security) and "chaos" (creativity, growth, freedom of choice, spontaneity, surprise and change).

Our ability to meaningfully materialize order in our lives directly affects our health. In other words, as mentioned in Chapter One, being able to effectively and easily find solutions to the problems which beset us as we go about life is of primary importance to our well-being. Or, put simply:

It should come as no surprise therefore, in view of the material in this book, that health professionals who have conducted decades of extensive research have

When considering the causes for disease, most people think in terms of external physical causes, such as smoking, obesity, over-exposure to the sun, carcinogenic chemicals etc. But according to extensive research by Professor Michael Marmot at University College, London, such physical factors (as diet, smoking, blood pressure, physical exercise and social support)

Which is to say, in line with the ideas presented in Chapter Four, perceived “physical causes” can’t be the core reason for the physical effects of disease.

Within the context of the material presented in this book, the foregoing is obvious—our spiritual unconsciousness manifests into physical reality, in the form of our personal, intimate circumstances. Poor health means some internal emotional experience is causing that physical dis-ease.

Research conducted by Professor Len Syme and Marmot has shown that the higher the social status, the greater the emotional well-being of the individual, with a corresponding lower rate of disease for those individuals. In other words,

According to Dr. Richard Wilkinson of the University of Sussex:

In independent, prior research, Dr. Michael Jelinek, a Melbourne cardiologist found:

From a World Health Organization report:

And, as far as work roles are concerned,

The linking of lower social status with poor health is fairly direct. According to Syme,

The ability to control personal destiny directly affects the degree of ease (and its negative conjugate: dis-ease) in people’s lives. As Professor Syme explained:

The degree of well-being is inversely proportional to the degree that people feel themselves to be victims. In short, a “victim mentality” engenders ill-health. Our well-being is directly related to how well we can master our lives. It is not lower social status or material disadvantage per se that causes ill-health but the attitudes that are endemic with lower social status.

It is our attitudes towards life, and our relative self-worth through comparison to others in our immediate cultural environment which determines our health.

Part of this connection between social status and health can be understood when we realize that there is an over-emphasis upon hierarchy and order within Western societies. In other words, the translation of inner-potential and self-determination in Western societies is geared to one’s position within the hierarchy (social status). In essence, the lower the hierarchical position, the less choice and freedom to fulfill hopes and aspirations.

Getting “to the top” is considered the “holy grail” for most people, whether it be in one’s social group, or work environment. Once again, our Western culture is based upon competition with others within our community, generally at the expense of cooperation (refer to the Table of One and All). Other studies have shown that people from cultures in which great importance is placed upon family and community (e.g. Eastern cultures) suffer when they emigrate to Western individualistic cultures. Expatriate Japanese and Greeks who emigrate to Western societies suffer higher rates of disease than their native country folk. The higher rates of disease are not able to be solely attributable to change of diet. The higher rates of dis-ease are attributed to the lowering of community ties and support typical within western cultures.

In being biased towards “separateness” (“small i” individuality, structure, hierarchy, order) our culture rewards “winners” and basically ignores “losers.” We can easily determine how much we adore “winners” by observing the enthusiasm (and media coverage) of sporting events (in which there is always a “winner” and a “loser”). In our Western society there is a pervading sense that if one is not a “winner” one is worthless and undeserving of societal blessing. It should come as no surprise to learn that around half of those who commit suicide are unemployed.

High social status affords an individual greater opportunity to exercise greater personal control over their lives, and personal control enables one to live with more ease.

1. 1. Norman Swan on ABC’s Radio National program “The Health Report: Mastering the Control Factor: Part Two”, introducing research conducted by Professor Len Syme of the University of California, Berkeley, 16 November, 1998.
2. 2. Professor Len Syme, ABC’s Radio National program “The Health Report: Mastering the Control Factor: Part One,” 9 November, 1998.
3. 3. Frederick Ehrlich, “In sickness and in wealth,” The Sydney Morning Herald, September 21, page 17.
4. 4. Ross Gittins, “The sickening state of social status,” The Sydney Morning Herald, March 25, 1998, page 17.
5. 5. Melissa Sweet, “The Heart of the matter,” The Sydney Morning Herald, November 15, 1997, page 36 News Review section.
6. 6. “The Social Determinants of Health: The Solid Facts,” World Health Organization, Europe.1998.
7. 7. Syme, 9 November, 1998
8. 8. Syme, 9 November, 1998
9. 9. Syme, 9 November, 1998
10. 10. Ehrlich, “In sickness and in wealth,” page 17.

[Excerpt  Be and Become, © ProCreative, Sydney 2000]

With the assistance of the Table Of One and All (TOA), we can now begin to understand in deeper terms the ways in which gender roles have been allocated within our culture and why those roles are so rapidly changing.

The Table enables one to get a sense of where these changes are heading and what changes in generational beheviours we can expect in the future.

As covered in Chapters Three and Four, the Wave-Particle Duality (the inseparable duality of the Immeasurable and the Known-Physical) is a universal quality of all matter and energy. We can therefore expect to see Feminine-Wave <=> Masculine-Material qualities reflected in all aspects to our lives.

Life is, if you like, the inseparable duality of the material and the mysterious (refer Table 9.1).

If we review the Table of One and All in which mind is correlated with wave, and body (physical reality) with the particle, we can appreciate physicist Danah Zohar’s observation that:

Recall that any distinct allocation of “femaleness” or “maleness” is simply a leaning towards those qualities. Contrary to the appearance of the split wings of the TOA,  men who might be perceived as being very materialistic (“masculine”) are never entirely devoid of some feminine characteristics, such as emotion and cooperativeness. Similarly, women who are very feminine are never entirely devoid of some masculine qualities such as being objective, active and knowledgeable. Females lean towards the wave-collective qualities. Males lean towards the physical (objective, material, individualistic) qualities. Refer to Table 9.2.

It is also highly pertinent to remember that

Accordingly, we can expect that many of the still-clearly observable differences between the sexes will disappear as societies mature—when we recognize the fundamentally nonlocal, interconnectedness of life. We can expect that as women become more ‘masculine, and men expand their emotional boundaries, cultural roles, such as fatherhood and motherhood, will blend and blur.

However, while we might expect that the marked differences between the sexes will diminish as we gain greater awareness, a basic “masculine- feminine” duality will continue. As Zohar noted:

The basic inseparable-duality of “separateness” and “oneness” will continue to manifest in varying ways. Once again any distinct gender biases are mainly due to humanity’s fundamental belief in “separateness” (strict locality, distinctions, definition and fixed boundaries). A belief which began most significantly around the time of Plato (Refer Table 9.3.)

In other words, the term “traditional” is a reference to the relatively modern industrial,technological era of humanity and in particular the Industrial Revolution.

Overall however, we observe that this learning towards either maleness-individualism or femaleness-collectivism occurs not just in humans but almost universally in animal and plant species. Historically the difference in the roles of the sexes has been quite marked.

This ‘leaning towards’ is to varying degrees dependent upon conscious, subconscious and unconscious mechanisms. The genetic determination of femaleness (bodily characteristics such as breasts, ovary glands etc.) can readily be accepted at this point in history as being an unconscious one.

Cultural gender roles are increasingly becoming consciously available having hereto remained subconscious for most people.

Additional notes (updated November, 2011)

Continuing research confirms the above gender stereotypes, particularly in the workplace:

According to the 2011 Bain/Chief Executive Women survey, "What stops women from reaching the top?"1,

Men were two more likely to rate other men as good problem solvers than women. This may come as a surprise to many women working in senior roles in business -- it certaintly did to CBW president, QBE chairman and director-elect of AGL, Belinda Hutchison, who fundamentally rejects the assessment.

Women go about problem solving differently and don't necessarily take credit for the solution in the way men often do, she says.

Wom tend to be more collaborative whil men are often much better at self-promotion.

1. 1. Danah Zohar, The Quantum Self, Flamingo (HarperCollins Publishers) London 1991, page 83.
2. 2. Danah Zohar, The Quantum Self, Flamingo (HarperCollins Publishers) London 1991, page 113.

• 1. Catherine Fox, "Gender parity will pay off .. now to sell it", The Australian Financial Review, Tuesday, 22 November, 2011. www.afr.com