Imagine. A Relationship. by Karen Leslie Hernandez

Imagine.
A relationship.
So painful.
So needed.
Never.
What it needs.
To be.
Yet the
Desire.
For what.
For what.
Imagine.
A relationship
That’s not.
Doesn’t exist.
Isn’t.
A relationship
That strives
To go.
No where.
A relationship
Of fear.
Regret.
A grave.
Of nothing.
Imagine.
Never having.
Peace.
Honesty.
Truth.
Love.
But instead.
Loss.
Grief.
Emptiness.
A vacuum.
Imagine.
Needing.
Safety.
Craving
Life.
Time.
Needing.
The pain
To end.
Imagine.
Life.
Without.
Those who cause
Harm.
Detriment.
Yet.
Somehow.
Love
You.
As only
They can.
And it must
Be enough.
It is.
Enough.
Imagine.
Feeling.
Love
Born.
From birth.
Not from
Nurture.
Not from
Care.
From duty.
Deep seeded
Love.
Exists.
If only
Deep.
In a soul.
Felt only
Because.
Of Birth.
Innate.
Not from
Returned
Love.
Or acceptance.
Imagine.
The time
When.
Those
Who cause
Harm.
Are gone.
Will it be
More
Empty.
Void.
Cavernous.
Or.
Relief
With sorrow.
For what
Never was.
Never could have
Been.
Never had.
Needed.
Never.
Had.
Wanted.
Imagine.
A relationship.
Without words.
That
Hurt.
Sting
Create hatred.
Of self.
Of them.
Imagine.
Actions that
Show desire.
To see.
You.
To know.
You.
Imagine.
A relationship.
With
Them.
Old.
Mean.
Decrepit.
Ill.
Sick.
Blood.
A relationship
With one.
Who isn’t
Likable.
Yet somehow
Lovable.
Imagine.
How
It feels.
To love.
To hate.
Have anger.
Despair.
At what
Is.
Was.
Will be.
Never.
Never.
Without
Pain.
Always.
With sorrow.
Always.
Always.
With question.
Why.
Why.
Why don’t you.
Stop.
Hurting.
And instead.
Love.
Me.
Love me.
Just love.
Me.
Imagine.
A relationship.
That boasts.
I am broken.
I am broken.
I was broken
At birth.
As you are.
And have been
Broken.
Can we be.
Broken.
Together.
Imagine.
A relationship.
Karen Leslie Hernandez is a theologian and interfaith activist. She has published with several media outlets including the Women’s United Nations Report Network, The Journal of Inter-Religious Dialogue/Studies, the Interfaith Observer, and she is the only Christian to have published an ongoing Op-Ed Column with OnIslam out of Cairo, Egypt. Some of her past gigs include designing and teaching an Interfaith Dialogue workshop with Meadville Lombard Theological School in Chicago, as well as spending three years working with United Religions Initiative, in several different positions. An Over-Achiever, Karen has not one, but two theological master’s degrees – one from Andover Newton Theological School, the other from Boston University School of Theology. She did her BA at Wellesley College, graduating with honors in her major, Peace and Justice Studies, where she wrote her thesis on Al Qaeda and their misuse religion for political gain. Karen currently lives in California, works at two faith based non-profits, teaches workshops throughout the Bay Area, is pursuing a Doctor of Ministry degree at Claremont School of Theology, and she is also a certified domestic violence advocate.

Monkey See…by amina wadud

amina 2014 - cropped

When I was a little girl the Washington D.C. Zoo did not have that extra security fence between gawking spectators and the cages of certain animals.  My mother used to climb up onto the cage and hand peanuts to the monkeys.  I don’t know, maybe that was the beginning of my lifelong love of monkeys.  When I moved to Malaysia as Assistant Professor at the International Islamic University I was driving down a main roadway and along the side of the road I saw a monkey scurrying along much like we see squirrels in the US.  A new phase in my life began.  How many ways to repeat my mother’s antics?  Could I possibly top that? This introduction might seem silly but I just have to share one of the most sublime experiences of my life and for that I need to give you a feeling for just how much I love monkeys.

When monkeys are in the wild they are not always amenable to such antics as we humans can do or imagine.  I think that’s probably part of survival, don’t you?  Anyway, in Malaysia, even though they were as plentiful as squirrels and just as accessible, like squirrels they are not at our beck and call either.  We were pretty much limited to the evenings at a local park when they would come down from the trees and let us feed them. Like children do with Canadian geese at Merritt Lake Park here in Oakland, or any where they roam.  Once we climbed up more than 1000 stair-steps to the top of the Batu Caves a Hindu temple and tourist spot, to see the sights and feed the monkeys.  That time one wily monkey snatched the whole bag of food from my daughter’s hand while she wasn’t looking and that was the end of it.  No way to go back to the car and run back with more!  Continue reading “Monkey See…by amina wadud”

Field-Dependent or Field-Astute? By Charlene Spretnak

Charlene Spretnak is one of the Founding Mothers of the Women’s Spirituality movement. She is the author of eight books, including most recently Relational Reality. She is a professor in the Women’s Spirituality graduate program in the Philosophy and Religion Department at the California Institute of Integral Studies. For further information about her books, see www.CharleneSpretnak.com. 

Field-Dependent or Field-Astute?

While listening to an NPR station a few months ago, I heard a man – apparently a marketing whiz – say, “Teenage girls are a field-dependent market for us.” Hmmmm. There it is again, the long arm of Herman Witkin’s influence decades after his famous experiment in the psychology of visual perception in 1954, which found that male subjects tend strongly to focus on a foreground figure, while female subjects tend strongly to perceive figure and ground as a gestalt, or holistic totality. (These results have been replicated thousands of times since then, including cross-culturally.) However, following the experimental findings themselves, then came the patriarchal spin. Witkin assigned the positive, admirable label “field-independent” to men and the less admirable “field-dependent” to women. He and other psychologists extrapolated from his findings that women’s cognitive style is “conforming,” “child-like,” and “global,” being similar, as Witkin added in 1962, to the [supposedly] undifferentiated thought processes found in “primitive” cultures. He added that women’s “field-dependence” renders us unable to maintain a “sense of separate identity,” unlike “field-independent males,” whose cognitive style was seen as “analytical” and “self-reliant.” In more recent decades female psychologists have suggested that women’s cognitive style might well be re-labeled “field-sensitive.” But is that really sufficient? After all, it carries the connotation of women’s being supposedly “over-sensitive.”

Why does this matter now? Because the ground is shifting fast under the old view of reality as an aggregate of discrete entities (foreground figures, as Witkin would say), which may or may not relate to one another.  On the contrary, numerous discoveries in recent years indicate that the entire physical world, including humans, is far more dynamically interrelated – in both structure and functioning – than had been imagined (except by indigenous cultures and Eastern philosophy). Even as someone who’s been tracking the Relational Shift for decades, I was amazed by many of the recent discoveries – as well as the fact that this shift is now decidedly mainstream. Continue reading “Field-Dependent or Field-Astute? By Charlene Spretnak”

%d bloggers like this: