Thirty years ago my favorite singer-songwriter released a song with the same title as this post. Bruce Cockburn was accurate in his description of the vibe of his time, but also IMO *our* time as well. He traveled the world, sat in cafes and looked around as he traveled, and tried to extract the *trends* he saw going down in the different places. Then, being a deeply spiritual person, he tried to extrapolate from these trends what they might mean about our collective future as humans sharing this blue-green ball in black space. As usual, he was prescient.
http://www.uulyrics.com/music/bruce-cockburn/song-the-trouble-with-norma\ l/ <http://www.uulyrics.com/music/bruce-cockburn/song-the-trouble-with-norm\ al/> Bruce IMO was brilliant at capturing what he saw as "normal" in the places he traveled to and the people he observed. And I think he did an admirable job of it in this song. But the real "take away" of the song for me is the phrase that follows the Subject title of this post in the chorus: The trouble with normal Is it always get worse. Lately, taking advantage of my summer vacation, I've had occasion to cruise a few more of the spiritual drive-ins on the Internet than usual. Some of the trends I've seen there among the participants uplift me and make me feel all warm and fuzzy again about the spiritual path, and where it might lead. Other trends...uh...not so much. What I'm pondering over this glass of beer in this cafe is the latter trend's representation of what constitutes normal. And, if Bruce's insight is correct, what will these forums -- and these people -- be like in a few years when their idea of normal actually gets worse. For some posters -- sad to say, on any of the forums, the rare ones -- normal is writing about high, shiny shit, and conveying to others their continuing joy at watching it hit the cosmic fan. For others -- sad to say, often the majority -- the normal of a "spiritual" Internet forum seems to be all about taking that same shit and re-flinging it at others through their writing. For the latter, a joke becomes a deadly insult, one that "has to" be responded to not just with one rejoinder, but many. Some turn the tiniest, most petty affronts into multi-year vendettas. Others just get their buttons pushed about some criticism of or witticism about their teacher, their path, or them personally, and feel the need to lash out at the heretics. I wish that I could say that this tendency was limited to TM and FFL, but sadly I cannot. I have seen this same over-reactive behavior on dozens of Internet forums over the years, and on five of the six I haunt lately. They are pretty much like all other Internet forums in terms of the "flame quotient" and the chronic over-reaction. Reading them, I question sometimes why these forums are designated "spiritual." Fortunately -- so far -- the sixth has remained the sole exception. This gives me hope, and the impetus to write this rap. The sixth forum seems to consist primarily of long-term spiritual seekers who have decided to try to walk on the Internet the talk of their philosophy. They have decided to go for a (in their view) higher definition of normal. I find that reassuring, especially because the forum is unmoderated. Because otherwise, I mean...WTF? Did we all start meditating and climb aboard the spiritual Magic Bus all those years ago just to settle for everybody else's idea of what constitutes normal? I know I started walking the spiritual path because I was looking for a better version of normal than I was experiencing everywhere else. I think a lot of us who signed on back in the late 60s or early 70s felt the same way. Why then do so many people *who* started walking the spiritual path all those years ago feel that there is nothing the slightest bit "off" with a definition of normal that involves going postal when someone posts a belief or opinion that runs counter to their own? WTF? Did they *forget* why they started walking the spiritual path? Did they give up on the view of "enhanced normal" or "more normal" that path and its dogma presented to them? Are they, after all these years questing for a better definition of normal, willing to settle for the Internet's version of normal? WTF happened? I have no answers. I'm just pondering the topic in this cafe today over a beer. If you have answers to what constitutes normal for 20-to-45-year spiritual seekers -- or should -- you guys can work it out.
