Miracles Boomeritis

by Robert Perry

We are all creatures of culture, at least on the human level. We float in a sea of cultural attitudes and perspectives, and we naturally tend to move right along with its currents. Those attitudes and perspectives seem to soak right into our skin, usually without our even knowing it.

In this article I want to address a particularly powerful and pervasive cultural mindset, one that is extremely influential in spiritual circles, though in some form it seems to have soaked into every nook and cranny of our society. You have undoubtedly felt its influence, even if you haven't put words to it. Now, however, this mindset has been given a name: boomeritis. This term was coined by renowned Integral philosopher Ken Wilber, author of over twenty books and founder of the Integral Institute, to describe a kind of intellectual virus that he believes began with the "baby boomers," the generation born between 1946 and 1964. According to Wilber, the effects of boomeritis are pervasive. It has the "cultural creatives" in its grip, a segment estimated at 25 percent of the population. "It has dominated academia, liberal politics, and the humanities for three decades," 1 he says. And it is infecting "every form of religion and spirituality in today's world, with literally no exceptions that I can see." 2 If Wilber is correct, boomeritis is like a gigantic freight train that is pulling whole segments of our society along behind it. So what exactly is it?

Wilber's most concise definition is that boomeritis is "pluralism infected with narcissism." We can unpack this enigmatic statement in three parts.

First, pluralism simply describes our current social reality, in which there is a dizzying diversity of viewpoints arising from a multitude of racial, ethnic, and religious groups. Along with this diversity has come a crucial intellectual capacity, the capacity to appreciate different points of view. Rather than claiming that only our perspective has validity, only our culture is sane, only our religion has the truth, we now can see that every point of view carries some validity, every culture has its own richness, every religion is a path to the truth. In other words, we have gained the ability to take the other person's perspective. And once we actually do that, once we look out through another's eyes, we see that it's not all false or all bad, nor is our own perspective all true or all good. There is a beauty and a truth in the other's perspective that our own perspective may lack. This capacity was a historic step forward, as Wilber notes:

The Boomers, to their great credit, were the first major generation in history to develop [this capacity]….And that is exactly why the Boomers spearheaded civil rights, ecological concerns, feminism, and multicultural diversity. 3

Here is a capacity, then, which is not only broad minded and mature, but which has contributed so much to our society.

And yet—here's the second part—this ability to adopt the perspective of the other has been taken to an extreme. It has given birth to the idea that there is no absolute truth, there is only your truth and my truth. (Ironically, in this view, the idea that there is no absolute truth seems itself to be an absolute truth.) No stance is intrinsically better or truer than any other. There is no larger truth that we should all be striving to approximate. My truth is valid for me and your truth is valid for you, not because they conform to some absolute standard. My truth is valid simply because I hold it. It's valid because it feels right to me. Thus, there is no universal yardstick that can reach down and declare that my viewpoint is incorrect or that your viewpoint is inaccurate. Each of us is a yardstick unto ourselves.

This slides right into the third part of my explanation. If there is no objective truth, then there is nothing to overrule my truth. My only authority is my own subjective feelings. No larger truth, no teacher, no expert, no scripture, and no God can come down and tell me what to do. This leads to what Wilber characterizes as the fundamental dictum of boomeritis: "Nobody tells me what to do!"

Boomeritis, then, ends up being a very curious mixture. Hiding under its high developmental outlook—"I can place myself in your shoes and see the validity in your journey, even if it's different from mine"—is lurking the emotional stance of a toddler—"You're not the boss of me!" This combination may seem odd at first, yet it has a certain logic to it. We start out with the noble statement, "Viewpoints other than mine have validity." This then slides imperceptibly into "Since all viewpoints are valid, there is no absolute truth." And that is just a step away from "Since there is no absolute truth, nothing can impose its truth on me. Nobody tells me what to do!" Thus a mature stance of inclusive tolerance ends up providing cover for an inner two-year-old. Now we can better appreciate that definition with which I opened: "Boomeritis is simply pluralism infected with narcissism." 4

Maybe you are beginning to sense that what I am describing lies all around you. To aid this process, let me list some of the identifying features of boomeritis, especially as it appears in spiritual circles:

What is celebrated in all these points, either overtly or covertly, is me, the separate, human me. Boomeritis is full of praise for the wonder and magnificence of me. And the notion that any outside authority or objective standard can reach down and correct me, restrict my freedom, or tell me what to do, is viewed as the very antithesis of spiritual truth.

Do we Course students have boomeritis?

In a chapter on boomeritis Buddhism, Ken Wilber invites non-Buddhists to "see how this might apply to your path as well," since, he says, "the same type of thing can happen—and is happening, right now—to every form of religion and spirituality in today's world, with literally no exceptions that I can see." 8 So, is he right? Can we see the influence of boomeritis among students of A Course in Miracles? Has boomeritis entered the Course community?

The answer is "of course." Why should we be the exception? Boomeritis takes some special forms in a Course in Miracles context, and there are pockets in the Course community where it is virtually or entirely absent. But its presence among Course students in general is not hard to discern. The following is my attempt to capture "miracles boomeritis," the particular form that boomeritis takes with students of A Course in Miracles. See if you can spot yourself in here, perhaps just in certain statements. You need not believe everything below to have a touch of miracles boomeritis.

Under the influence of boomeritis, the Course is most of all about my inner peace, along with my laughter and spontaneous celebration. The most important thing is maintaining a positive, light-hearted state of mind, in which I affirm everything that happens and also affirm myself. Why should I look at the darkness of my ego? Seen through spiritual eyes, all that darkness is really spiritual anyway. Rather than making my feelings wrong, I need to merely accept them and let them flow through me freely, without judging them. Rather than ruminating on my inner darkness, I need to affirm just how advanced I really am.
According to miracles boomeritis, I have little responsibility toward others (who may, in fact, be only my projections); it is all about my mind. Indeed, miracles are just shifts inside my own mind. Why should I try to help others? Isn't that just trying to "be good" and please some Big Daddy in the sky? And doesn't that ultimately disempower those I try to help? Shouldn't I simply remind them of the power inside them? My outward behavior is not an issue the Course is concerned about. How could behavior be important in a world that is an illusion? My function is thus a completely internal one. And my relationships, too, are internal. They really exist only in my mind. Indeed, the whole world exists only in my mind. When I am concerned about the state of the world, and especially when I speak of our supposed need to better the world, I have forgotten that basic truth.
I have been talking about my "mind," but what is important in my mind is primarily my feelings. My heart is spiritual, while my intellect is at best of the earth, at worst of the ego. Intellectual activities like studying a book and trying to discern truth from falsehood are clearly acts of the ego. Aren't we supposed to get beyond right versus wrong, as well as concepts, theories, and theologies, on our way to the ultimate goal of direct spiritual experience? Words, too, should be deemphasized, for words limit, and we want to get beyond words to direct experience. Discipline should also be downplayed. How could making myself do something that someone else tells me to do lead to the flowering of my inner truth? Surely the Workbook doesn't mean for me to follow its instructions to the letter. Along with discipline, I see effort also as a trap. Rather than "efforting," I need to allow. Rather than trying, I need to be willing. I need to go with my inner flow, not swim against it.
The only real authority here is the authority of what feels right to me, based on my feelings and my experience. In miracles boomeritis, God, the ultimate Authority, is not talked about much and is depersonalized. The Holy Spirit is seen as more or less the same as my inner feelings and inclinations, so He is safe. And it's taken for granted that there is no human teacher; we are all teachers and students of each other.
Indeed, in miracles boomeritis, I don't even relate to the Course as an authority, strictly speaking. Yes, it contains amazing truths, and I'll use those truths when they work for me, which they often do. But I find truth in many places and many teachings. The differences between them don't really matter. Truth is one, whatever form it is packaged in. It is my job to draw from all those teachings to weave together the unique synthesis that is my truth. And just as differences between various teachings don't matter, so differences between various interpretations of the Course don't matter. The whole search for the "right" interpretation of the Course is just another time-wasting device of the ego. All interpretations are equally valid. The only interpretation that really matters is the one that works for me. The Course was meant to be read differently through each pair of eyes. What it really means is what it means to me.
The last thing I need is authorities, holy books, heavenly patriarchs, divine personages, teachers, words, ideas, interpretations, and disciplines limiting me, pointing out my darkness, making me wrong, and telling me what to do. That just puts me back in the Catholic Church. Those things might contain helpful truths, but the question is: Are they true for me today? For ultimately, the authority lies within me, in my guidance and my direct experience. Nothing can overrule that. That is what I must rely on if I am to discover the glorious truth that dwells within me. If I rely on something outside of me, I can only disempower myself.

Are boomeritis and the Course compatible?

What do we make of the foregoing description? Is it truly reflective of the Course? In other words, is miracles boomeritis genuinely compatible with A Course in Miracles? I realize that this is an uncomfortable question. Yet it is one that has to be asked. In my perception, boomeritis is the biggest sacred cow in our midst. It would be nice to say that potential differences between it and the Course don't really matter. But that is the boomeritis perspective. Is it the Course's?

The real question is: Do we really want to know the Course as it is, without the influence of cultural filters? If we do, then, as a purely practical matter, we have to be willing to set aside those cultural filters and see the Course afresh, as if for the very first time.

It is my perception that the Course is about as far from boomeritis as you can possibly get. The Course is grounded in a view of absolute reality, a reality that does not yield for our desires. We can either go with this reality and be awake and in joy, or we can go against it and be asleep and in pain. Our small "s" self, according to the Course, represents the latter option. This self is so fundamentally at odds with reality that it is actually unreal, not to mention unholy. "The self you made, evil and full of sin, is meaningless" (W-pI.93.6:6), says the Course. Can you read a quote like that and think that the Course is about affirming our human self?

The Course is also grounded in a view of loving authority. It contains what amounts to a chain of authority that reaches from God, to the Holy Spirit, to Jesus, to the Course, to the advanced teacher, to the beginning teacher. These are loving authorities, not tyrannical ones. They simply direct us toward our happiness, leaving it up to us to follow (see T-1.III.4:6). But they are still authorities. They still know better than us (at least the divine ones do, and the human ones are meant to). These authorities even tell us what to do: "This course is a guide to behavior….It provides the guide who tells you what to do" (Urtext version of T-9.V.9:1). And our rejection of their loving authority is our core problem. The Course explicitly says that what it calls "the authority problem"—our rejection of God's authority-is "the root of all evil" (T-3.VI.7:3). From this standpoint, the boomeritis motto, "Nobody tells me what to do," is a distilled expression of the core of the ego.

This all may sound very limiting, yet I see it as the key to a truly mature kind of freedom. It is not the freedom of throwing off all rules and "shoulds" and rights and wrongs so that our ego is free to express with impunity. From the Course's standpoint, real freedom comes from using concepts, words, disciplines, and effort to bring our minds into alignment with a changeless reality that is pure freedom. And when we reach this place, we are not a kind of spiritualized teenager, defending our right to live outside the rules because we are so above it all. Rather, we are the model of integrity, responsibility, and kindness. As the Manual reminds us in "The Characteristics of God's Teachers" (M-4), we are honest, we are gentle, we are generous, and we are faithful. In my view, what the Course offers us is a grownup model of enlightenment.

The longer I have observed boomeritis, the more it seems like an artful, spiritual-sounding way of elevating my personal ego and clearing away anything that would get in its way. In short, I see it as the voice of the ego. If this is true, and if we are largely reading the Course through a boomeritis lens, then the results are far-reaching indeed, for it would mean that we have effectively silenced the Course's own voice. It's as if Jesus had physically returned, but spoke only in Aramaic, so that we could only listen to him through an interpreter. Yet this interpreter, unbeknownst to us, had his own ideas, and he was altering everything Jesus said to conform to his own radically different views. We would think we were hearing Jesus, when actually we were just hearing the interpreter. Who would want this situation? Yet, it seems to me, this is not so different from the situation we are in now.

What do we do?

I am not expecting that upon reading this article, you will look within, identify all strands and shadings of boomeritis within you (if they are there), and instantly pluck them out. Even if that is what you want to do, it will take time. Getting free of boomeritis requires a gradual retraining of beliefs. I think a great start would be to just face with an open mind the issues I have raised here. Face the question "Is boomeritis compatible with the Course?" Be willing to go with whatever answer turns out to be true—from "yes," to "partly," to "no!" And then also face the possibility that boomeritis lives in you. Ken Wilber reported, "One of the two or three most popular American Buddhist teachers, after reading Boomeritis, emailed me and said: 'Um, I think I have this disease.'" 9 Wouldn't it be great to start with that kind of refreshing, ego-free honesty?

After that, all I can think of is for us to start a conversation. I'd like to hear your thoughts about this issue, print them in our next newsletter, and respond with my own. What do you think about this? Is there such a thing as boomeritis? What are your thoughts and feelings about it? Should we try to distinguish the Course from boomeritis? Is that a useful exercise? Is boomeritis compatible with the Course? Do you think that you have been influenced by it, that you are a carrier? What do you think we should do about the whole thing? Please write and let me know. And we will take it from there.

Reader Feedback

From Margaret Stuart:

I do think that boomeritis is a pervasive force in general, and would naturally find its way into the thinking of Course students, as it has found its way into every aspect of our popular culture. It has even found its way into our language culture, in that we have expressions like "whatever," or "talk to the hand." In my opinion, those are definitely symptoms of pluralism to the extreme. "Whatever" tends to mean, "You may have your truth, but it doesn't match mine, so I really don't care for you to impose your truth on me." The same applies to "talk to the hand." For me the meaning is essentially as you quote: "You are not the boss of me," so much so that "I won't even listen to you, but offer you a different body part that doesn't have ears." I have also seen on some reality-based television that people tell others that "you don't know me, so therefore you can't judge me." I think this is very telling. Basically, the statement is that if you knew "my truth," you would understand why I am the way I am, and you would accept it, and not impose a different truth on me. I have seen this be used to excuse all kinds of terrible behavior, from drug addiction to abusive parenting.

One question, though, that I have with the newsletter article is the statement about not being able to judge the behavior of others, because what they are doing might be "right for them," as an identifying feature of boomeritis. I did think that a large premise of the Course was that we are not supposed to judge the behavior of others. I believe that your booklet Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Judgment, but Were Too Busy Doing It to Notice espouses that philosophy, doesn't it? Perhaps you could clarify this point, or indicate how I have misunderstood, as it does appear to be a part of boomeritis that actually does "fit" the Course.

Thank you for allowing me to respond, I really appreciate the "fresh start."

[From a follow-up response by Margaret]: I had responded to your newsletter on boomeritis recently, and I found a very interesting book review in a newspaper that also mentions this concept, although perhaps using different terminology (International Herald Tribune, February 2008). The book is entitled The Age of American Unreason, by Susan Jacoby. In the review, it is mentioned that "anti-intellectualism" is popular in American culture, along with the attitude that "too much learning can be a dangerous thing," and the concept of "anti-rationalism" (the idea that there is no such thing as evidence or fact, just opinion). I think this also fits your definition of boomeritis, in that there are no absolutes, and everything is just opinion, or "your own truth." It appears that this concept is being recognized by others as well. I haven't read her book, but it does appear to be very interesting.

Margaret

I think you are right that we see the dark underbelly of boomeritis in some of the more callous expressions that have popped up in our culture.

About judgment, yes, it's true that both the Course and boomeritis urge us not to judge others. But the basis for nonjudgment in each philosophy is, in my perception, totally different. The way I hear nonjudgment framed in boomeritis rules out the possibility that someone's behavior was a mistake. Instead, it was "right for you," or it was "what is." The notion seems to be that we shouldn't apply any of our "shoulds" to this person's behavior, because we are not in a position to overrule someone else's truth.

The Course, on the other hand, rests nonjudgment on the idea that we are not in a position to condemn the real nature of the person, since that would amount to condemning God's creation. But the Course is not shy about saying that, if a person attacks, that was a mistake; it was wrong (the Course uses the word "wrong" seventy-seven times). However, just because the behavior is wrong, that doesn't mean the being behind the behavior is wrong. After all, that being is God's Son.

So, in the Course, nonjudgment doesn't mean turning off our value judgments in relation to the behavior of others. It means positively evaluating the real nature of others as infinitely worthy, in spite of wrong-minded behavior. I personally find little commonality between the two positions.

About Susan Jacoby, I haven't read her book, but I did see an interview with her by Bill Moyers which I very much enjoyed. And I too made the connection with boomeritis. Boomeritis wants to clear out evidence, facts, and rationality, because those things put constraints on the ego. Facts allow no wiggle room. They leave no room for "my truth."

From Mary Benton:

While I don't like the term "boomeritis" very much, it does suggest that we are speaking about a disease, at least within the illusion of the world. That is a useful starting point.

The manifestations of this disease have been evident in our culture for many years. In his article "A Farewell to Arts" the late Australian philosopher David Stove saw the rot starting in the middle sixties. He likened the problem to "a badly leaking nuclear, or an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in cattle."1 Stove was speaking about the malaise in the Faculty of Arts at the University of Sydney and, by extension, to Arts faculties of most Western universities.

Over the last few decades several thinkers have addressed these issues. In his magnificent book The Western Canon,2 Harold Bloom evokes the grandeur of our literary tradition, while coming to some pessimistic conclusions. His first chapter is entitled "An Elegy for the Canon." Bloom reveals the collapse of cognitive standards happening in his own field, and doubts that literary studies as such will survive. The forces underlying this decline are multiple, but Bloom aptly summarizes them as the "School of Resentment."

In his book The Wreck of Western Culture: Humanism Revisited, John Carroll, in a brilliant and penetrating analysis, traces the journey of our culture from the Renaissance to the present. Carroll sees the roots of the decline going back many centuries. In 1486 the Italian philosopher Pico della Mirandola said: "We can become what we will."3 Carroll sees humanism as doomed from the start, carrying within it the seeds of its own destruction. He describes our present culture as "a flat expanse of rubble."4

It seems Ken Wilber has identified some of the problems Carroll sees, although I haven't read his work. You list some of the manifestations you see in spiritual circles and give a detailed description of "miracles boomeritis." It would take too long now to discuss everything you say, but in broad terms I agree with you. As the three authors I have cited reveal, there are some serious problems here.

Is our culture running on empty? It has been said that in times of great peril conscious influences from a higher source are introduced into the world to prevent complete chaos. The advent of A Course in Miracles seems to bear this out. Helen Schucman was told about the "celestial speedup" of which the Course is a part. Spiritual work provides a counter to the chaos in the world. It would be ironical if chaos had taken over the effort, yet this is always a danger, because that is what the ego is like.

Are the Course and "boomeritis" compatible? Are the complaint and the cure compatible? Hardly. Like any authentic spiritual path the Course challenges all our existing ideas and values. A spiritual path requires the finest level of discernment, a quality conspicuously lacking in the current malaise. The highest challenge we will ever undertake is an authentic spiritual path and onto this "boomeritis" would superimpose chaos and distortion of every kind.

To diagnose the problem is one thing, to provide an "answer" is not easy. Harold Bloom is not expecting to convince anybody in the broad field of Cultural Studies (that is not his aim), but he does have a readership who understand what he is saying. A scholar for over forty years who has taught at Harvard, and still teaches at Yale and New York University, freely admits he would not get a job in today's Academy if he had to apply now. Bloom believes the future of his discipline (if it has one) will depend on the relatively few students who have the necessary capacity.

I don't believe that A Course in Miracles is a document for mass consumption at this stage—the evidence for this is increasing rather than diminishing. In regard to Course discourse and scholarship I hope this continues. Like the scholars who are addressing the disasters in our culture, Course students and teachers who can should speak and write about these matters, but not everyone will understand. Some will listen, and some may be helped. The term "Course Community" represents too many different beliefs to be very meaningful. In any case I don't believe the Course, as such, has to be transmitted to large numbers. The Course does not ask us to proselytize people. It does ask us to offer the peace of God.

The recent lessons in the Workbook (no. 91 onwards) have stopped me in my tracks, as the Course often does. When I listen to the Course I become far less concerned with the world and its conflicts, and become aware of the peace and strength within me. Does this mean I become indifferent to everything and everybody? No, but it does mean I see things differently, and the hypnotic pull of the world ceases, at least temporarily. In this way, the peace of God can extend.

The Manual tells us: "To teach is to demonstrate" (M-In.2:1). God sends his teachers into the world to demonstrate His peace. Persuasion, intellectual or otherwise, won't work for everyone. What does belong to everyone is the peace of God. In the end, the most helpful thing we could do in these troubled times is to demonstrate the peace of God. This is what the Course is asking us to do. This is why the Course came.

References:

1. David Stove, "A Farewell to Arts," Quadrant, May 1986.

2. Harold Bloom, The Western Canon (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1994).

3. John Carroll, The Wreck of Western Culture: Humanism Revisited, rev. ed. (Melbourne: Scribe, 2004), p. 3.

4. Ibid., p.1.

Mary,

Thank you very much for your erudite response. I think you are correct that we are looking at a kind of larger cultural rot. And maybe, as you say, it has been centuries in the making. I don't know. Ken Wilber certainly feels that boomeritis is at work in the postmodernism that Harold Bloom has been railing against in the humanities.

Is the Course ready for mass consumption? In my opinion, that depends on how "mass" you are talking about. To be perfectly honest, I ache to see the Course reach more people. I feel like we hold the cure for cancer in our hands, yet can't quite convince ourselves that it's important to get it to all the other cancer patients. Yes, we should take the cure (embody the Course) ourselves, but is that incompatible with getting it out to those who also need this cure? I don't want to see the Course prostituted so that it can reach the masses. I don't want to see heavy metal bands screaming Course lyrics so that the Course can be seen as "cool" by the kids. But if it can reach the masses without being prostituted, why not?

Jesus clearly displays concern for the world as a whole, and sees his course as an instrument for saving it. Eighteen times he tells us that our purpose as his students is to save the world. He asks us to be the voice for his words, so that through us he can save the world (W-pI.rV.In.9:2-3). He explicitly spoke to Helen of the Course growing "from infancy into a helper of the world"—which obviously means growing from having a small impact to having a large one. Speaking to Helen, he also likened the scribing of the Course to the Christmas event and suggested it would eventually be recognized as such: "The star is there, and all attempts to call it something else will slip away in time" (Absence from Felicity, p. 397). He told Helen that by taking down the Course, few had given a gift to God as she had done (Gifts of God, p. 128). He told Helen and Bill that in their joining, "thousands will rise to Heaven" with them (T-18.V.3:1).

My belief is that the world is more ready for the Course than it seems, because the Course is currently wrapped in an aura of flakism, so to speak. The extreme boomeritis that is often associated with it makes it for the most part unpalatable to intelligent people out there. How much of the world would be ready for the Course if it were stripped of this association? I don't know, but I'd dearly love to find out.

From Steven Lanigan:

Just finished re-reading A Better Way Issue 75, "Miracles Boomeritis." It addresses pretty clearly the "sacred cows" I've been trying to question in my own Course study group over the last year.

Frankly, your/Greg's/Allen's/Nicola's thoughtful articles have been almost solely to credit for my deepening understanding of the Course during my two-year study of it.

Because my (sole local) Course study group of twelve-to-twenty-year Course "vets" answer my concerns with a "mantra" of "need-do-nothings" and "need for words...almost overs" and "universal curriculum" means "that the Course is really no different than all the other paths!"

Hearing these "truisms," I, with wrinkled brow, have sometimes tried reading from the Course, only to have my concerns labeled "egoic" and dismissed. Imagine...while merely quoting, in context, Jesus' own assertions, cautions, and instructions, directly from the Course! The teaching which is our stated reason for our gatherings!

(As the subject then is swiftly ["safely"] changed to so-and-so's latest green-or-purple healing crystal, or latest New Age author's "revelations.")

I wonder if all of you at the Circle of Atonement truly yet realize just how crucial a "teaching lifeline" your publications and articles are for those of us who realize that the Course is our path, and who no longer wish to continually "try on" the muddled teachings of other contradictory paths we've relinquished? For those of us who have, at present, no other reliable source of Course-faithful instruction?

Please keep the wonderful articles coming, gang!

Steven,

Thank you very much for your kind remarks about our work. Thank you also for your colorful observations about the pervasive presence of boomeritis out there. A teacher and friend wrote me saying that he felt that boomeritis wasn't particularly pervasive in the Course community. Alas, my experience has been more like yours.

From Jim Marion:

A truly excellent article. I expect you'll get considerable reaction. I'm sure the Pope will too when he comes here in a few days and starts railing against relativism. One of the next questions, it seems to me, is what relationship the search for truth has to authority, whether scripture or tradition. It seems to me one bears a very heavy burden in opposing or even disagreeing with what has been the "truth consensus" for perhaps centuries. Sometimes, however, there does need to be a modification as the truth becomes clearer. But, of course, I agree with you that one can't embrace or jettison truth just because it feels right to yourself or another or to one's culture. These issues are a dialogue greatly needed these days.

Jim,

Thank you so much for your comments about miracles boomeritis. My personal take on what you bring up is that authority is a part of life. I don't want to dispense with all authority, but it must be earned. I'm willing to take a scripture as authoritative, but only if it really earns that position. In other words, I think it needs to be subject to rules of reason and evidence. If a scripture or a tradition doesn't stand up in the face of normal rational inquiry, then I think its authority needs to be demoted accordingly. That at least is my opinion.

For that reason, I'm actually a big fan of modern historical Jesus scholarship. I'm personally interested in what solid historical method can tell us about the real Jesus. I'm not interested in what the evangelists reported strictly on the basis of the fact that they reported it and it's in the Bible. If they report something Jesus didn't actually say or didn't actually do, then I'm not interested in that report. Of course, deciding what he did or didn't say or do is not easy. I don't think there are black-and-white answers. But I think there are some answers, and I personally lean quite heavily on the findings of contemporary historians in this regard. So yeah, I am willing to hold a scripture as authoritative, after I've held it up to scrutiny.

I think that this is much of the antidote to boomeritis. Boomeritis tries to throw authority away, justifying this by pointing to all the things that bad authorities have imposed on us. Yet no one really gets rid of authorities. We all rely on people who know more than we do or have more experience. I think the antidote is to openly acknowledge the value of authorities, and then grant authority consciously and responsibly to those sources that pass the tests.

From D. Patrick Miller:

After reading through your essay, I can't see how "boomeritis" is any different than the plain old historical self-absorption of the ego. When Ken says that boomeritis is affecting every major religion and spirituality, that's the clue that we're talking about something inbred in the human condition, not specifically caused by recent social trends. When our fundamental egocentricity gets mixed up with spirituality, as it inevitably will, then you get all the self-serving symptoms listed. But the same thing happens with more conservative forms of religious worship. When has "God as the 'Great Thou'" not been contaminated with the ego, in terms of how that God is preached at people?

I think Ken is just repackaging the idea of spiritual materialism, which is how the ego manages to attach itself to the idea of selflessness. And the results can be more obnoxious than open egotism, because everything is veiled and pretends to be the opposite of what it is. But in Course terms, the solution to open or covert egotism is always the same: when you catch it, you forgive it, because true forgiveness is the only thing that eventually undoes the ego. Just confessing that "I've got boomeritis" isn't sufficient because the next thing you'll say is, "But I'm getting rid of it" and then you've started the whole cycle of the ego reattaching to the idea of getting rid of itself!

For some reason I keep thinking of my favorite directive from Yogananda: "Be cheerful but grave." That was actually his advice to followers about how to deal with his impending death, but I've always taken it as the best four-word advice on how to live in general. To be cheerful implies forgiveness of everything we see and do, and especially of all the illusions we create to populate our world. As Ken Wapnick says, "Just don't take everything so seriously." But we also need gravity in order to deal compassionately with the suffering all around us, and that we experience ourselves even as we keep learning to forgive. I think the ego wants us to be cheerful or grave, that is, always full of New Age sunshine or weighted down with the plenteous misery of the world. We wouldn't have to forgive if we didn't believe in suffering, but forgiveness helps us begin to see through that belief without falsely denying that we have it. And I think that's the cure for boomeritis or any other inflammation of the ego.

Patrick,

I agree that boomeritis is an example of the self-absorption of the ego, but I personally think that Wilber is right in saying that it's a relatively new form of that self-absorption, made possible, really, by twentieth-century relativism. I think of this somewhat along the lines of the comment in the Course, "Some newer forms of the ego's plan are as unhelpful as the older ones, because form does not matter and the content has not changed" (T-9.V.4:1). In this passage, the new form was Freudian psychology, but I see boomeritis as a new form of the ego's plan as well.

Of course, the particular form is not so important, but clearly identifying that form can help us spot it in ourselves. And I do think that spotting it in ourselves is extremely useful. It matters what teaching we follow. Teachings shape us. And until we confess that we have been taking in a distorted teaching, it is impossible for us to follow the real one. For example, if one were to switch from "it's all about my peace; there's no one out there" to "those are my brothers and they need my help," one could easily step into a whole different life. One would certainly be following a different teaching. So personally, I think it is helpful to define and even name this particular form of self-absorption.

From Gene Smith:

I was much taken with your essay on this dread affliction. I have only one real objection to it, and that is to the name Wilber has coined for it. Is it really possible the authority problem is confined to people born between 1946 and 1964? The Course, pretty clearly, would say "no." Nor do I think the particular form it takes in "miracles boomeritis" is confined to an age group.

Most interesting to me was your analysis of the particular form "boomeritis" takes in Course students. The anti-intellectualism of Course students is often startling, and turns the name of "student" into an oxymoron all too often. And I think I see a particular form of the compromise solutions for dealing with God found in many religious traditions. "God, the ultimate Authority, is not talked about much and is depersonalized. The Holy Spirit is seen as more or less the same as my inner feelings and inclinations, so He is safe." If we compare that to traditional Christianity, God is not depersonalized, but His wrath is satisfied in the sacrifice of Jesus, and Jesus comes between us and the Father whose holiness (as at some level we know) is utterly at odds with sin. Islam lacks this aspect, and hence has the fear of God to deal with in a very direct form, which is so intolerable it seems even more apt than Christianity to lead to projection. In Vedanta God is depersonalized and any personal aspect depreciated in the conceptualization "Ishvara." And Buddhism avoids the issue altogether to concentrate on others, a valuable but clearly temporary, and temporizing, strategy. The Course lacked any really good strategy for delaying Atonement, but miracles boomeritis provides the anxious student a nifty one.

Gene,

I enjoyed your take on the different forms the authority problem takes. I suspect you are on to something. Maybe the authority problem is so deep-seated in us that we will naturally build it into our spiritual traditions, in one form or another. And if it's not there at the start—as is the case with the Course—we'll probably do our best to rectify that.

From Michael Dailly:

I see boomeritis as a new label for an old behavior formerly known as group influence or peer pressure or what is an acceptable level of how to be. The group (all of us) lead by few clamor to learn our lessons and be a living example of what has been learned so that we will be accepted. We are influenced by our economic status, by our level of education, by our family values, by advances in the field of science and technology. All of this is about our external world and the rules we make and how well we follow them to win status in this world. I follow these rules and I want my share and my rewards for being a good human.

However, the more I become conscious of my inner world and the eternalness of this world, through meditation, contemplation, and the practice of listening to my higher self and through study of the Course, I realize that my true self is all that I am aware of at this moment, my true self is all that I know in truth at this moment. All of which is beyond this material world and yet this is the world I find myself in and so I use what I know and extend love to the best of my ability. This world is like the waves on the ocean; my home is below this surface turmoil where the currents of love are constant and the peace of oneness is always.

It seems to me that wordsmiths through the ages have renamed and reshaped old ideas, hammered the letters into a pulp and tried to feed the masses something appealing to our new advanced and special tastes. To their credit, and in Ken Wilber's case of his offering of boomeritis, it is a means to have us look within and find our truth beyond these commonly held group beliefs. Thank you Ken and Robert for suggesting once again that I look past the flotsam and be wary of adopted beliefs. I am committed to looking beyond to the truth within.

In closing I would like to say, "It's all good!"

Michael,

Yes, I agree that boomeritis is spread by group influence or peer pressure, and that we need to listen to our true Self, not just give in to group-think. Yet I think that we don't want to swing to the other extreme and only look within ourselves for truth. If we do that, then we are, ironically, doing exactly what boomeritis wants us to do. For its pull is not just without, but also within. It's a form of narcissism (Wilber calls it "pluralism infected with narcissism"), and we certainly don't need any peer pressure to become narcissistic.

I personally believe that the answer is to look without for truth in a more discerning way, and to look within for truth in a more discerning way. There are voices without that speak the truth—the Course being one of them. They have things to tell us that we will never come to on our own. We just need to tell them apart from the voices out there that lie to us. And, of course, there is a Voice within that speaks the truth as well. But we still need to tell It apart from all those other voices within that only claim to speak the truth. We certainly don't want to make boomeritis an excuse to turn off all outside influences. In my view, that would amount to running away from boomeritis right into its arms.

From Phil Brisk:

You asked for responses to your terrific and thought-provoking boomeritis article, so here's mine. I realize as I read it over that there's a lot I could have expanded on. However, I hope I've said enough for my essential argument to get through.

I broadly agree with Wilber's boomeritis diagnosis—and with what you say about "miracles boomeritis," the particular strain to be found in our ACIM community. But I also suspect there might be something else at play—a crisis of uncertainty.

What do I mean? I'll try to explain.

I recognize that, in some ways, we boomers do have it in us to behave like stroppy two-year-olds who belong in the naughty corner. We can be pretty good at stamping our feet and putting up a fight when anyone is unwise enough to try and tell us what to do. But at the same time I feel a bit sorry for us. I see in that stroppy emotional stance a lot of fear and confusion. I'd argue that we've grown up in a world where so many of the apparently straightforward truths and certainties that served and comforted our forebears for centuries have melted away.

As we boomers have come of age in the world, so has the global information network. Even before the Internet, even as long ago as the sixties and seventies, we've been exposed to a simply mind-blowing range of facts, opinions, conflicting viewpoints, and startlingly different angles on just about every subject under the sun.

Compared with our parents—let alone our grandparents—we've been able to see more, know more, question more. We've grown up in a world where black and white have been replaced by every shade of gray.

And another thing: as we've come to see more of our leaders, in glorious Fox and CNN live-feed warts-and-all close-up, so we've grown less certain about accepting what they say.

Whereas, in the past, we might have accepted something as true just because some authority figure told us it was, we're far less likely to do so today. Take a Clinton or a Bush, or in my country Tony Blair. If any of these guys announced it was raining, I think we'd figure it was prudent to take a look for ourselves out the window before we agreed to agree.

And this is not just true of politicians—it holds for religious and spiritual bigwigs too. In fact, for more or less any kind of bigwig. As a generation, we boomers know better than to take too much at face value. We've sat through too many media exposés of the great and the good. We've been let down and disappointed too often.

In some ways, of course, all this is to be welcomed. It should make us wiser and savvier operators, less likely to be led by the nose. (Although, clearly, there will still be occasional lapses; otherwise, how could we ever have let our current crop of leaders lead us all the way to Iraq?!)

However, here's the paradox. This extraordinary boomer knowingness doesn't make us stronger. It make us weaker. Because, as I said at the start, it makes us an unsure and unconfident generation.

Okay, maybe now would be a good moment for me to put my violin down and pass the hat round with a simple appeal: if there's anyone reading this who is not a boomer, please give generously to the boomer distress fund. You see how we suffer.

But, seriously, I think there's a real issue here. We boomers don't expect to find certainty—we expect to find uncertainty. Plus, many of us would feel we were letting ourselves down, selling ourselves short, if we didn't question and challenge everything.

So, for me, the tendency to shy away from notions of absolute truth, or absolute authority, is down to more than boomer narcissism. It's also down to boomer lack of confidence and certainty. Which raises its own interesting questions when we're talking about spirituality, a subject that in a very real way challenges us to draw on the polar opposite of uncertainty-faith.

I've no idea if my contribution to the discussion is helpful. But as a true boomer, who naturally likes to look at every angle, I did want to throw it into the mix.

Phil,

Your point is well taken. I think there is more going on here than just narcissism. The way I think of it is that in the first half of the twentieth century, as I understand it, the bottom dropped out of our certainty. I have heard it termed "metaphysical despair." In the intellectual vanguard of our culture, we became not only uncertain that we knew truth, not only uncertain that truth was knowable, but even uncertain that there was a truth to know. I wouldn't say that this uncertainty, in and of itself, was narcissistic. I would tend to think of it the other way around: This uncertainty was an opportunity for narcissism, one that narcissism fully exploited. Hence, boomeritis.

I do think there is a real honesty in saying, "I thought I knew, but now that I've looked at things more carefully and broadly, and now that I have more experience under my belt, I realize I don't have a clue." I think that can be the beginning of wisdom. The Course seems to agree—it often touts the value of admitting that we don't know. But I think that uncertainty can also be the beginning of something very different: "Since we can't really know anyway, there is nothing to overrule my feelings. And how dare you suggest otherwise!"

From Eileen Tiedeman:

Today I'm led to respond to your 75th Better Way. I fully know I do not have the qualifications of a Ken Wilber, and I'm amused that he'd be so concerned by the ego antics of boomeritis. The ego must be delighted. Ken's [Ken Wapnick's?] "bliss ninny."

It seems that kind of energy is really misplaced—and it's like trying to "fix" the whole Christian Church.

Isn't it true that the Atonement is the only choice we have to make? Not accepting the Atonement—God's gift—is our one problem.

Boomeritis is just being stuck in adolescence—the church's policies kept us in infancy—so now we're seeing a growth spurt! When such beliefs are found wanting—not able to deliver joy, peace, or love—those who have them will be ready for the awareness that the Christ within them is the only Truth.

There's nothing that can't be handled by the Holy Spirit in His time. Letting go of any issue that I "know" what should be the outcome of or solution, is a constant issue for me.

Eileen,

If I understand your point, it is that boomeritis is an adolescent mindset that we shouldn't get stuck in. But we also shouldn't speak out about it. Those who have boomeritis will eventually find it wanting and move on. The Holy Spirit will handle it in His time. When we think that something needs to be said, when we raise the alert about boomeritis, our energy is misplaced and "the ego must be delighted."

Personally, I think that speaking out is highly underrated in Course circles. We still speak out—as you too of course are doing—but then we often say, "No one should speak out. Let the Holy Spirit handle it." Aside from not noticing the obvious performative contradiction (it's like shouting "No one should shout!"), we also don't notice that the Course itself is an instance of Jesus speaking out. And he spends about half of the time speaking out about the ego, telling us how to identify it and how to not fall prey to its tricks. He even asks us to "take a stand against" it (W-pI.161.1:1). He does anything but maintain a holy silence. And he doesn't urge us to maintain one, either. Instead, he tells us—six times—that God "needs your voice" (or "our voice" or "my voice").

So I don't see speaking out about this as trying to do the Holy Spirit's job for Him. Without human amplifiers, the Holy Spirit's Voice is unheard, and as the Course says, "An unheard message will not save the world, however mighty be the Voice that speaks" (W-pI.123.5:6). Rather than doing the Holy Spirit's job for Him, I hope instead that I am simply amplifying a message that He needs someone to speak.

From David Pomatti:

Thanks for the article. One point I didn't see mentioned is that critiques of ACIM that I've read, by conventional Christians or skeptical cult-busters, seem always to be aiming their complaints at a boomeritis travesty of the Course. I always wondered whether these critics had actually read the Course, as their criticisms often took issue with various "new age" interpreters of the Course, or else isolated lines taken out of context. Now, however, I see that some at least may have read parts of the Course, but through their own boomeritis-tinged lenses, and they based their objections to it on the basis of this "the Course is just like other new age narcissism" projection.

This is not to say that such critiques against new age Course interpretations aren't valid, it's that neither the critics nor the "believers" they criticize are engaging the Course itself. The whole drama is like some dream travesty where the key to awakening has become just another dream figment.

David,

Excellent point. You're right, I hadn't brought that up, but I think it is very true. It dovetails with the point I made in response to Mary Benton above, that the Course has been tarred with a New Age brush, so that the world reacts in large part not to the Course itself, but to a boomeritis misconstrual of it.

Overall remarks

I will use David's letter above as a jumping-off point for my overall remarks. He said that conventional Christians and skeptical cult-busters are rejecting the Course based on a boomeritis misreading of it. I think this is true but, unfortunately, it only begins to capture the actual state of affairs. I think the world as a whole is keeping the Course at arm's length based on a boomeritis misreading of it. And, alas, I think that Course students themselves are following it largely based on a boomeritis misreading of it. I think boomeritis is by and large the lens through which the world on the outside and students on the inside are viewing the Course. Of course, there are varying degrees of this and exceptions to this, but I do perceive this as roughly true in the main.

If I'm right, then whatever the Course came here to do is for the most part blocked, at least for now. What it wants to do in our lives, and what it wants to do through us in the world, is for the most part blocked, at least for now. This is because, to a significant degree, we have deprived it of its voice. When it speaks, we don't hear it. We hear boomeritis talking instead. And then when we go to do what it says, we do what boomeritis says instead.

I may sound alarmist, but I am not really saying anything different than what Ken Wilber said about boomeritis Buddhism. Under the influence of boomeritis, he said, "Buddhism—known as 'the religion of no-ego'—often became 'the religion of express your ego'" (Integral Spirituality, p. 105). If boomeritis can turn Buddhism on its head, why can't it do the same to A Course in Miracles?

I am putting this in such stark terms because my perception is that we are collectively asleep to the problem. And as intelligent and thoughtful as many of the above responses were, I felt I saw that in them. Forgive me for saying this; I was very grateful to receive the letters and they made a number of important points. But when you step back and look at them as a whole, there is this pattern that emerges. I don't know if you noticed, but almost every one spoke of boomeritis as something "out there," as an academic, historical, cultural, philosophical, or even terminological issue. Only one letter said much about its prevalence in the Course community. And not one letter said anything directly about its presence, or even possible presence, within the person writing. The impression I get is that we are not thinking of boomeritis as something "in here," in our community, in ourselves.

A consequence of not thinking of it as something "in here" is that we are also not thinking in terms of what to do. Did you notice that no one really had any suggestions about what to do, even on a purely personal level? Please excuse the caricature, but while we are talking about the virus's historical roots, taxonomy, and appropriate name, the virus is meanwhile ravaging our community, and most likely ourselves.

And the letters I received were from those who clearly disagree with boomeritis, who think it is a virus. We didn't even hear from those who like it. You can see, then, why I say that we are collectively asleep to the problem. And a problem to which everyone is asleep, of course, just continues.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think all is lost. I do believe that Jesus is still around, and that the plan of his that brought the Course into existence is still at work. I trust, therefore, that he has a plan to steer the Course out of its current boomeritis mire, so that it can do what it came here to do. But I don't want to stop with that trust. I want to know what my part is. He needs my voice, for an unheard message will not save the world.

From Margaret Stuart:

I read your overall remarks to the comments on the "boomeritis" article from a number of us; actually, I read and reread it a number of times. I think that you have hit the nail on the head for the comments on the "out there" versus "in here." It was almost as if we collectively were smugly commenting on something we feel very superior about, as Course students, versus those who aren't. However, it is difficult, I suppose, to be able to comment on the unconscious lenses one wears as if one is conscious of them. It is like trying to prove the body doesn't exist from inside the body! It is also difficult (or at least I find it difficult) to admit one's own self has some narcissistic tendencies. It is much easier to point them out in others. However, that is not an excuse, and your comments make it all the more important to pay attention to the words and ideas of the Course as they are written, and try to really contemplate what they mean, being aware that we may be putting a "boomeritis" spin on them.

So, that being said, how does one make a Course study, and not put a "boomeritis" spin on the ideas? I can't say that I am really aware that that is what I am doing, but I don't know why I would be any different, if "boomeritis" is pervasive in Course communities. I can tell you what I try to do: when I study the lessons, I repeat them to myself, and repeat them, to really take each word and understand what it is that God would like me to be thinking or feeling. So, how do I know that it is not "boomeritis" I am paying attention to? I don't know, but there are some rare times when I do get a very small but overwhelming feeling of unbridled joy—it is in those moments that I think I might be on the right track. Again, is it "boomeritis"? Is the way you can tell, if you are not allowing God to be the ultimate authority? I would be interested in your thoughts on how one might detect "boomeritis" while studying, so as to be more aware of it, to combat it.

Also, you mentioned something about not hearing any views about liking "boomeritis." I must admit, I do like the pluralistic aspects of it—the idea that there are various perspectives that are valid, not just the "white-bread Mid-Western/European male" view. Where I think trouble brews, is when other beliefs/ways of life trample on an individual's right to live and love. For an extreme example, "honor killing" of daughters when they disobey their fathers in Pakistan, and other parts of the world that view women a certain way. That rule to me is not an authority that is worth giving credence to, and only promotes fear in both daughters and fathers (daughters fear for losing their lives, and fathers fear for living with the shame of disobedient daughters), which from what I understand is the opposite of love, which is then not following what God wants.

Hope these thoughts aren't too scattered, but I wanted you to know that your overall remarks at least will make me more aware of how "boomeritis" might be affecting me, and my understanding of the Course. Thank you for the "nudge."

Margaret,

You bring up a great question: How does one study the Course and not put a boomeritis spin on it? I can only tell you what I do. When I read the Course, my main attempt is to get in touch with the "voice" on the page, the specific content which that page is trying to convey to me. I treat this voice as independent of my voice. I take it as a matter of course that this voice is trying to convey something that is different from how I normally think. This difference takes many forms. That page's message can differ with my current understanding of the Course. I am always watching out for that. If I spot it, I take it as a badge of my honesty. Or that page can tell me something new, something I never thought of before, something I never understood the Course to be saying. This is nearly always the case. It is one of my primary experiences of getting in touch with the authentic voice on the page. Or it can tell me something I already understand from the Course, yet something that is different from how I normally perceive things in daily life. This doesn't move my understanding of the Course, but it does move me. Or it can tell me something I already understand, yet put the emphasis in a new, different, or unexpected place. This helps me get in touch with the Course's value system, which is so different than my own.

So my overall approach to reading the Course is to see the voice on its pages as essentially acting on me, in some way moving me to a new place. Every time I sit down with it, that's what I'm aiming for. If all it does is confirm everything in me, through and through, then why am I reading it? What good does it do me? My focus, then, is on looking for and celebrating the differences between me and it. It is in those differences that the Course can change me, can lift me to a new level.

I think this is the antidote to reading the Course with a boomeritis spin. In that mode, I think we are looking for agreement between the Course and us. We are looking for confirmation. We are looking for the comfort of seeing on the page those familiar truths that we already know. The more we say, "Ah, yes, I knew that; that's what I expected to hear," the more we can be sure we are projecting our own beliefs onto the Course and obscuring its own voice.

Thank you for the question. It actually helped me identify a key thing that I have never articulated before.

From Mary Benton:

If I may I'd like to make some clarifications of my position on this.

The summary of this phenomenon in your original article would need some unpacking. I explicitly didn't address this in detail in my response, partly for time and space considerations. My main aim was to put the issue into a broader context, while coming to some practical conclusions as well.

There are certainly misinterpretations of the Course (in my opinion) and also some gross misinterpretations of the teachings of some Course teachers. In my experience this is par for the course on most spiritual paths. At the same time I don't agree with you that most students are misinterpreting the Course—this is too broad a generalization. How could anybody know that, even if we all agreed about Course interpretation, which we don't?

In your "Overall remarks" you say "no one really had any suggestions about what to do even at a purely personal level." I can't speak for other respondents, but I certainly did make some suggestions. Besides giving encouragement to Course discourse—teachers and students speaking and writing about these matters (while noting the limitations of attempts at persuasion at this level) I specifically described my recent experience in Workbook practice. This was particularly potent because it came while I was drafting my letter to you. During this practice, and afterwards, the concerns of the ego fell away and with this change of mind I experienced what the Course is really about—the peace of God. The peace of God produces a totally new perspective. From this point I realized the most important thing for us in any circumstance is to accept and therefore extend the peace of God.

Practicing the Course ourselves doesn't stop there. Quite the contrary, it is the way the peace of God (containing all healing and miracles) can be extended. From Lesson 97: "The Holy Spirit will be glad to take five minutes of each hour from your hands, and carry them around this aching world where pain and misery appear to rule. He will not overlook one open mind that will accept the healing gifts they bring, and He will lay them everywhere He knows they will be welcome. And they will increase in healing power each time someone accepts them as his thoughts, and uses them to heal."

All this from practicing one lesson.

The answer to all problems is right there in the Course. Lesson 122 points this out unequivocally. "Here is the answer! Seek no more. You will not find another one instead." A Course in Miracles is the better way Helen and Bill requested. Whatever the perceived problem, the Course is the answer for its students. Could we do better than to follow its instructions for all problems, in all circumstances?

A person "in error" may or may not yield to our persuasion about the teaching of the Course (which isn't to say we shouldn't speak the truth as we understand it, or engage in dialogue or whatever) but the peace of God, extended through us, could heal us both. I think this is the real answer the Course is offering us all.

Mary,

I apologize for not realizing that your discussion of doing the Workbook was your suggestion for what to do about boomeritis. Call me jaded, but I have too much faith in our ability to reinterpret the Workbook lessons, and even the peace of God, in boomeritis terms. On the other hand, I would never want to underplay the importance of either the lessons or the peace of God. They, of course, are the real meat. I just think that in addition to that real meat, we should also have discussions that aim at clarity and clarification, which I think you are saying as well.

From Steven Lanigan:

As you point out, probably the greatest impediment to the (public's) open-minded investigation of the Course is their erroneous equation of it with New Age thought, which it predates, and is actually distinct from….

And within the Course community, it seems the greatest "nullification" of the Course (along with a persisting rejection of qualified higher authority) is our dogged insistence on "blending/transplanting" incompatible beliefs from other paths into it. Sadly, attempting to courteously question those beliefs, even in longtime Course study groups, often immediately elicits that "wall of resistance" you've spoken of. ("Urgency is egoic"..."Need do nothing"..."Universal curriculum means that..." etc.) A prompt interruption of examining what the Course says, by a "steamroller" of Course "lore" swiftly substituted instead.

I recently pointed out to a Course friend (one whose stance is that the Course is basically "no different" and is merely "restating" things already long ago completely said) that, based on very-consistent patterns in our own study group, it's likely that, if Jesus himself (incognito) "physically" attended one of our study sessions and dared, in a golden, "teachable moment," to courteously point out what the Course has to say on a subject...that it (demonstrably!) wouldn't be fifteen seconds before someone would rather condescendingly interrupt him, saying his concern was merely "just his ego" prodding, rather than our Teacher's lovingly insistent attempts to highlight harmful errors...errors begging to be brought to truth.

He, unruffled, agreed.

I then remarked that, to whatever extent that realization doesn't "scare the bejeebies outa us," it could well reflect an alarming degree of complacency and avoidance....He grew thoughtful, also, when I shared Greg Mackie's observation on how it was [a "classic"] in Course groups to promptly interrupt profitable inquiries with the dread, reflexive "egoic" labeling...in order to "protect" ideas otherwise "threatened" by Course teachings.

I liked your earlier definition of "patient urgency," Robert...and your likening of the Course to the "magic bullet" for "cancer"...which we Course students [so largely] seem in no particular hurry to share with the world...we who, as you reminded, are [Jesus'] "voice...eyes...feet...hands through which I save the world." How tragic….

Robert, thank you all at the Circle for your willingness to participate in being Jesus' "voice"....for remaining gracious under criticism, courteous and open-minded, kindly-but-firmly persistent, and open to guidance, in the face of the multiple challenges the Course is presently facing. We certainly cannot afford to indulge in fearfulness and timidity. Far too much, and "too precious," is at stake for that.

Should you feel so led, I'd love to hear more from y'all (okay, a "Tennesseeism"!) on the subject of what you envision Course students' "bestowing of miracles" where directed might "look like" in our lives/communities/world.

Steven,

Thank you for your response (I'm sorry that I had to edit it down for length). We clearly share a similar outlook. I like your suggestion about what bestowing miracles might look like. We might just take you up on that.

From Jeremy Stutsman:

Robert, in your response to D. Patrick Miller on the subject of "boomeritis" you say:

Teachings shape us. And until we confess that we have been taking in a distorted teaching, it is impossible for us to follow the real one. For example, if one were to switch from "it's all about my peace; there's no one out there" to "those are my brothers and they need my help," one could easily step into a whole different life. One would certainly be following a different teach­ing. So personally, I think it is helpful to define and even name this particular form of self-absorption.

I think you make a very good point. No doubt it is true that when many people say that "it is about my peace; there is no one out there" the hidden (probably unconscious) message is really: the separate ego, me, is all that is important; I can dismiss the views of other egos because they are not real. And no doubt they (again probably unconsciously) include the author of the Course as one of those separate egos out there whose views don't matter as much as "my own"; because, again, there are no others out there.

But we are walking on a very narrow edge and if we are careless we simply maintain our self-deception. It is certainly the case that when we present arguments on a position it is the ego's arguments no matter how carefully we try to parrot the Course. It is not the words that matter. The ego takes the Course's arguments and uses those words to maintain its grip on our minds. To repeat: It is not the words that matter. When we use any thoughts and words to make a point, it is the ego's point that is being made. When Jesus uses them, speaking to our inner recognition of truth, it is the Holy Spirit's teaching. This is true not because Jesus is some idol for us to worship and to hold sacrosanct; it is true because he has overcome the ego; we have not.

So, it is no doubt true that when I say that there are no others out there, I am simply using these words to maintain my identification with the ego. But it is also true that when I say that my brothers need my help I am also doing the same; defending the ego. In this latter case, I truly believe that I am a separate ego among others who need my help, making me in some sense special.

So, both sides of that argument lead only to the ego's game—when used by us! The ego is very clever!

It is no doubt true that the thoughts and words that I am using now are serving the ego in my mind. The question is: am I aware that every word I utter—each of those that are not the Holy Spirit speaking through me in a holy instant—is a word spoken from the ego's agenda?! A sobering thought! Yet the ego is willing to acknowledge even this truth in its arrogant confidence that it can blank out the true significance of it in all the moments that matter. But the fact is, regardless of the ego's confidence, I am becoming more and more aware of the ego's game, even as my mouth utters the words that maintain it.

What matters is simply our (or actually, the Son of God's) gradually growing awareness of the ego's game and the significance of this game for His sanity….

As always, our focus must be on listening to the Holy Spirit, not correcting others. However, at the same time, I believe that it is also true that Jesus seems to work even through our egos to accomplish his mission. So Jesus is able to help undo the errors of the Son's mind by acting in the world of form through our ego-laden minds. There is no doubt, for example, that Ken Wilber's criticism of "boomeritis" your article, and all of this discussion will help some minds to recognize the ego's game within and to move these minds (the Son's mind, really) gradually to awakening.

It seems as if Jesus is asking us not to correct our brother. But since the Son is still sleeping, some of us will attempt to correct our brother and Jesus will use these ego-laden minds to speak words that will nevertheless spread the ideas of his correction so that some minds will awaken in the Son's dream (the world). The ego is not the only clever system of thought! Jesus' way goes beyond clever: it is powerful wisdom!

Clearly it is always helpful to point students of the Course to the Course's actual teaching. And the Course itself has plenty of statements that prick a hole in the boomeritis balloon. But I think that patiently and accurately pointing out Course teaching, not directed to errant students in particular, is a better way to go, rather than discussing boomeritis as some virus, disease, etc. The alarmist position is clearly a fearful one and an ego position.

Additionally, what is overlooked in all this discussion is that the issue is not between "self only" (narcissism) and "helping others" (rescuing). Both positions are clearly countered in the Course. We can only save others by changing our own mind. That is the Course teaching as I understand it. And if I am wrong about that then we do indeed need to have a discussion about that; not boomeritis, which only confuses the matter.

Jeremy,

If I understand your point (which I have regrettably had to edit down), you are saying that when we use words or thoughts to make a point, it is the ego's point being made, and that progress for us means becoming aware of this game of the ego. It sounds as if we can't really pull our thoughts and words out of this game. We can only notice the game while still playing it.

I have to say that my understanding of the Course is quite different. I believe that it asks us to not simply become aware of the egoic nature of our thoughts and words (which it does), but to think and speak in a new way, in a way that expresses a new content.

So much of the Course is about us adopting new thoughts, much of which takes place through us repeating the Course's words (as in the Workbook lessons), or even coming up with our own Course-based words (as we do in the important practice of "letting related thoughts come," which begins in Lesson 42). It would be very strange if, as soon as I repeated the words the Course gave me, or came up with my own words as it instructed me, those words were classified as ego. Yes, they are within the ego's framework, but they are designed to slowly lead me out of that framework.

Then, as we embrace these new thoughts from the Course, we are supposed to reflect these thoughts in our words to our brothers. "The teacher of God…must learn to use words in a new way. Gradually, he learns how to let his words be chosen for him" (M-21.4:4-5). When we use words in this new way, they are then raised "from meaningless symbols to the Call of Heaven Itself" (M-21.5:9). Quite a statement! If we pass on the words given us by the Holy Spirit, are those words ego just because we have spoken them? For instance, Jesus often instructed Helen to "tell Bill" something, even something quite corrective: "Tell him that the implied lack of love that his version contains is way off the Mark, and misses the level of right thinking entirely." When she then told Bill that, were her words just ego?

I strongly disagree with your statement that "we can only save others by changing our own mind." You then generously invite correction on that: "And if I am wrong about that then we do indeed need to have a discussion about that; not boomeritis, which only confuses the matter." My response is that we have been doing exactly what you suggest for many years now. We have been emphasizing in much of what we write that helping others behaviorally is central to A Course in Miracles. What has happened, though, is that the boomeritis mindset has largely filtered out, dismissed, or reinterpreted what we have said. That is why, after so many years of that more indirect approach, we have felt that we had to address the boomeritis mindset directly.

I don't think that addressing it directly is at all a bad thing. If it were done with malice, or if it became our major focus, that would be another thing. But addressing it as a sidelight in our overall teaching emphasis is useful, I believe. It is exactly the kind of thing that Jesus does in the Course and did privately to Helen and Bill. I realize you think such things are alright when he does them, but not when we do. Yet I see him displaying a different attitude. He often holds up his teaching style as a model for our teaching.

For example, early in the dictation, Jesus gave Helen a miracle principle that sounded more like a Zen koan: "Miracles rest on flat feet. They have no arches." She complained about how opaque this was: "I don't see why I should get a message in a way that makes me miss the point and that I have to go into a mental coma to get it." Jesus' response is instructive:

You've been doing that all along. You have not even bothered to look at the others that are very clearly stated. I just thought I'd give you this one in a way you couldn't over­look it. It's an example of shock effect sometimes useful in teaching students who won't listen. It compels attention.... (Absence from Felicity, p. 226)

Notice that he characterizes what he is doing as an example of a general principle of good teaching. He is doing what is "sometimes useful in teaching students." Specifically, he is noting that his students aren't listening (going into a mental coma), and to solve that problem, he is doing something that "compels attention." In my discussion of boomeritis, I am just trying to employ this same general principle of teaching.

From Eileen Tiedeman:

Your overall response to all those comments confused me. Aren't we all in the process of waking up? And in our own unique way?

Over twenty years ago I was "ripe" for the Course. I had left the Lutheran Church a year or so before, and was cast in the "wilderness." I was dealing with a sense of complete failure when I recognized I was unable to accept its doctrines, and felt so guilty for how dishonest I had been for years. So I up and left.

My Canadian cousin Marjean just wouldn't let up on her frequent message that I needed to read the Course. So really in an attempt to "shut her up," I bought a copy. Now I still tell her how grateful I am that she didn't "shut up."

Initially, I would read it for four or five hours at a time, understanding very little. I just knew instinctively that it was the truth for me. I found it so loving and humorous—and still do.

It seems more the norm for folks to put it down or throw it away a few times before recognizing it for what it is. To me a beautiful love letter.

This experience tells me we each will come to it when we're ready. Those who try so hard for years to blend ego with Love will learn that our pain tolerance will tell us we really must make a choice between fear and love.

While we can regret their need to suffer, Christ's patience is truly beyond all understanding. Will putting a name on this really help?

I see the Course's mandate as one of extending love—which becomes easier as we know we have no other recourse. Your Better Way and long list of publications have been and are a blessing to us all.

I have no fear that Love will win out and He'll use me and does use me to witness to that Love. I just don't worry about sinners or boomeritis. I've been there and done that!!

Eileen,

Thank you for sharing your story. I know many will identify with it. I agree that we will come to the Course in our own time, when we are ripe. But there is another side to it. Your tinder box may have been ripe, but it still needed the match of Marjean's "frequent message." Both were crucial. If you had managed to "shut her up" without ever looking at the Course, you have to wonder where you would be now. Your entire life might have been different. I am trying to, in a sense, play her role in relation to boomeritis, which is why I'm trying to be just as persistent in my "frequent message."

From Michael Little:

Just wanted to let you know that I agree with what you've written here. The Course, Christianity or any other path is easily undone once we're willing to be a little less than honest with ourselves. I don't know if there is any quick remedy for this situation however. Self-deception is the foundation of our world...today it is "Boomeritis," tomorrow it will have another name. As you've well noted, it is simply another game that the ego offers to those who are seeking self-justification rather than truth. As a teacher, I feel you are indeed "fulfilling your function" by offering insight and correction into the ego's numberless errors.

From Antoinette Atanasoff:

Having just received and completed reading the article on boomeritis here are a few thoughts .

I agree with all of the respondents and all your answers. I was born during the latter part of the depression and it seems that with each decade/generation collectively we become aware of a dis-ease of some nature….Truly boomeritis is part of the "me" generation….The Course was given to me over ten years ago, my questions were answered….If sincere students of ACIM practiced the Course as Jesus asks us to, how can so much uncertainty and doubt be prevalent? I do empathize with Phil and agree with his remarks—the information and opinions coming at us can be overwhelming….

What is true can never die or fade away. The Course will always reach those who call for help, guidance, and love. To me the antibody or antivirus for boomeritis would be, collectively, forgiveness: "Forgive us our sins, i.e. errors, mistakes."

Aren't we all points of light linking up with all the other points of light with the intention to receive and hold and radiate the blessings and truth on behalf of all humanity and all life? If we have a candle and light up every other candle we do not lose the light but gain more light.

Truly it is not what we do that undoes the dream (and boomeritis), but what we are, our holiness….

You are a voice Robert, calling to Course students collectively, really calling to Jesus to help us remove the barriers and allow us to see the solutions. Jesus answers every call.

From Gerald Emerald:

When I read your April 2008 newsletter and the responses to it, I felt more stirred up than I have in a long while! Almost certainly it is because the issue dovetails with some of what I have been thinking for several years. However, by writing about it, you put it in a more articulate, coherent framework than I had managed. Got it out in the open, so to speak. Thank you—and Ken Wilbur! (I'm halfway through a second reading of Integral Spirituality.)

Of course ACIM students are affected by "boomeritis." How could they avoid it when it is so pervasive in our culture? After reading the newsletter, my first thought was that it might be helpful to present the roots of the boomeritis phenomenon for those who may doubt its existence and prevalence. This brings in a cognitive element to what can all too easily become a denial trip stuck at the emotional level….

"Boomeritis" is a phenomenon which arose right after WWII. It emerged in the US and is largely an American movement because the US grew up with a built-in pioneer/frontier spirit. Unlike other major nations with long histories of tradition to inhibit their populations, the US is fertile ground for new psycho-social trends. World War II provided a singular impetus which helped facilitate a change from modernism to postmodernism in much of our society. For the first time women entered the work force in large numbers. Though many went back to more traditional "homebody" routines after the war, the die was cast, and women became more a force with which to be reckoned.

The war led to rapid technological advances and the GI Bill. This had at least two major effects: (1) For the first time in history mass education became the norm. (2) Technological improvements brought increased leisure and financial prosperity, giving large numbers of people a sense of having a measure of control over their lives for the first time ever. Life seemed to offer more freedom to more people than ever before. It was a heady time, and people such as Ayn Rand led our society away from the old sense of community in the direction of extreme individualism. "Boomeritis" describes the results of these movements over several decades. We may have to please our boss and perhaps our spouse, but beyond that "I" am the only authority in my life, so don't tell me what to think, say, or do! Even religion lost a great deal of its former ability to tell people what to believe and how to live….Cultural relativism became the norm for large numbers of people, especially the better educated who could no longer subscribe to the old beliefs and practices and who could not envision a higher reality.

I would like to add a couple of titles to the list of books cited by Margaret Stuart and Mary Benton as indicative of postmodern anti-intellectualism: The Closing of the American Mind by Alan Bloom and a very recent publication, The Dumbest Generation by Professor Mark Bauerlein of Emory University.

Yes, boomeritis is alive and well, a virus that has infected virtually everyone in our society to a degree, and that does not exclude Course students! Denial is no inoculation against the phenomenon; awareness is the antidote! Dissociation merely pushes boomeritis into the repressed or shadow side of the psyche from where it continues to haunt us. The only cure is to recognize its existence in oneself, become aware of its insidious pervasiveness, own whatever "boomeritis" lurks in us, and ask the Holy Spirit to cleanse us. Not always as easy as it sounds, perhaps, but it does work!

That, of course, does not answer the problem of how to overcome boomeritis in Course circles. You state a belief that the problem of readiness for the Course might be resolved if it were stripped of its association with boomeritis. But how do you accomplish that when the problem is an individual one involving those great tools of the ego, denial and rationalization? It seems to be the old adage at work: "You can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink." As we all know, readiness cannot be forced. Perhaps just bringing the issue to light is what will start the ball rolling, give Spirit an arena in which to work….

Charmaine and I both enjoy your thought provoking articles. Keep up the good work.

From Ken Obermeyer:

I'm playing catch up on my reading and have just read through all the articles you've published recently on boomeritis. I'd like to weigh in on this topic if only to encourage you to keep on keeping on with your "speaking out."

Now, let's answer a question you ask in your first article on boomeritis with a quote from the Course. You ask, "Is boomeritis compatible with the Course?" Here is how Jesus answers that question in the Workbook. He leaves no room for boomeritis.

In Lesson 152, paragraphs 3-5, Jesus says:

Salvation is the recognition that the truth is true, and nothing else is true. This you have heard before, but may not yet accept both parts of it. Without the first, the second has no meaning. But without the second, is the first no longer true. Truth cannot have an opposite. This can not be too often said and thought about. For if what is not true is true as well as what is true, then part of truth is false. And truth has lost its meaning. Nothing but the truth is true, and what is false is false.

This is the simplest of distinctions, yet the most obscure. But not because it is a difficult distinction to perceive. It is concealed behind a vast array of choices that do not appear to be entirely your own. And thus the truth appears to have some aspects that belie consistency, but do not seem to be but contradictions introduced by you.

As God created you, you must remain unchangeable, with transitory states by definition false. And that includes all shifts in feeling, alterations in conditions of the body and the mind; in all awareness and in all response. This is the all-inclusiveness which sets the truth apart from falsehood, and the false kept separate from the truth, as what it is.

If Jesus' statement doesn't put the final nail in the coffin that boomeritis is not compatible with the Course, what will?

When we confuse our interpretations, viewpoints, beliefs, or perceptions with Truth, we set ourselves up for confusion and conflict, and open ourselves to being infected with boomeritis. Since when does perception (interpretation) necessarily equal Truth? To me, this "automatic equating," a symptom of boomeritis, is the problem. We equate our perception, our interpretation, our viewpoint with Truth. If we do equate our interpretation with the Truth, without checking in with Mission Control, then to quote Edgar Mitchell from Apollo 13, "Houston, we have a problem"….

To me, the issue is simple. It's a given that I'm going to interpret what Jesus teaches in the Course. What I have to do is let Jesus teach me about Truth rather than my twisting what Jesus teaches to harmonize with my preconceived ideas about Truth.

I let Jesus teach me by approaching the Course with an open mind, ready and willing to let go of my preconceived ideas about the nature of Truth. This allows Jesus to fill my empty bowl with the Absolute Truth he's teaching.

But if I approach the Course with a bowl already filled with preconceived ideas that I value more than what Jesus has to say, then I'm going to filter his teachings through these ideas. I'll then interpret the Course to match up to what I want it to be teaching….

I, for one, would prefer to sit at his feet and not question what he's saying or try to twist his words into something they aren't meant to say. How many times does Jesus, in some way, tell us his Course means exactly what it says? If he says that often, why would any student or teacher not take his teachings at face value? If we don't, aren't we saying, albeit unconsciously, that Jesus doesn't really mean what he appears to be saying? And by twisting his teachings or to constantly change them to metaphoric statements, are we saying we know Truth better than he does? It doesn't make sense to me to do that if I'm the one dreaming and he's the awakened one….

It shouldn't surprise us that the Course community has boomeritis. Should it surprise us the Course is already going through the same kind of "splintering into factions" that took place within Christianity and other religions? Today we have some three hundred to four hundred denominations of Christianity. So what's new when the Course goes through this? We're not ego-free students and teachers of the Course. All we can do is approach the Course with as open a mind as possible and allow it to teach us without our fighting it, attempting to revamp its meaning, etc.

So, Robert, at the end of your last article, you say, "I want to know what my part is. He needs my voice, for an unheard message will not save the world." I answer you with this: Keep on keeping on. Let your voice be heard, even if it does conflict with other interpretations. Spread your understanding and as you do, do what you do so well-keep one eye focused on what the Course teaches.

A football coach wrote a book that danced around this main admonition: All you can do is all you can do, but all you can do is enough. So do all you can do, and let that be enough.

From Mirkalice Gore:

I've been an intermittent student of Ken Wilber's writings since the early 80s and a Course student since the mid-80s. I've been enjoying the ongoing discussions on boomeritis.

Three years ago I read Wilber's book by that title and was certain he was describing for me what I'd spent a long time struggling to name. To discover the application of it to Course students' misapprehension of Course teaching is like watching a puzzle piece slide into place. Thank you!

I'm most certainly a Boomer, and finding my way to the Course was a blessing and a remedy for the culturally induced spiritual nausea of the 80s. Boomer and Yuppie culture had this "Recovering Catholic" in a black hole.

Then, I had to actually look at the Course teaching and apply it to myself...what a shock...I discovered I knew nothing about the ego, and could only spend years dedicated to informing and discerning and healing the split in my own mind. No matter how I tried, I could not make it mean what I wanted it to mean....and that drove me nuts. No "Wiggle Room" to label or judgmentally react to the Yuppies, Boomers or any one else. It was all on me, not "All About Me." (A point not often enough stated is the specialness of making the Course as "a path" into something Special.)

It's a misuse of developmental and transpersonal psychology to be "judgmental" of narcissism, but also a misuse of "skillful means" to forego judgment of narcissistic behaviors.

In the 1950s, my grandmother's interpretation of faith was far more culturally limited than current pluralism, but she got one thing right. Correct bad behavior, but show the error as a mistake to correct, so the children can learn and grow without guilt. Judge the "sin never the sinner."

Boomeritis in the culture and boomeritis in the Course share the same root—not enough wise grannies who can discern and yet not blame, judge and be judgmental! Teachers are most needed to teach people how to think, to show the very process of thinking and the cultural framework that holds the thoughts...without that we are in the boomeritis darkness where what people think is considered as overly important, even when they've yet to do any genuine discerning. We are required to treat the offering as if it has real merit...as if all opinions are equally valid, just because each is entitled to have one's own.

Thank you for sharing what my grandmother would have called your good mind with your fellow travelers. Please keep this topic as ongoing discussion.

From Diane Judge:

I continue to read and reread A Better Way, to great benefit.

I was so impressed with the boomeritis article and the symposium that followed and, like so many readers, had no problem envisioning its clear effects on others. However, I had second thoughts about it recently after considering Greg's admonition that we students consider how boomeritis effects our own lives as Course students.

Confession: I haven't been at all enthusiastic about Greg's proposition that we need a Miracles church, and yet, for years I've "used" my ancestral Catholic Church to fill in the spiritual and community gaps I experience as an ACIM student.

Although I wandered from the Church in the mid-70s, in later years I've been perfectly at home accompanying my elderly parents to Mass, soaking up everything that coincides with Course teaching, listening with a trained ear to gospels and homilies, loving and giving in to the music and ceremony, "taking what I need and leaving the rest." Mass hours, spent in prayer and celebration with my mother as her life winds down, are precious and nourishing. The Holy Week Tridium binds me with my own past and that of my faithful forebears for hundreds of years and actually carries me back to the time of Moses. Attending a Catholic funeral, I confront death and rejoice in the shared belief in resurrection.

So often I mentally thank the priests and nuns who lovingly imparted on me a living faith and heritage. Even more often I thank and bless you far away at COA who so wondrously interpret ACIM.

My thoughts and experience with my local study group, however, are less than wondrous.

To any priest or highly principled Catholic, I'm not a tribute to that faith, for I pick and choose among its tenets, "acting as if" while keeping big (are they dark?) secrets. So, to the best of my ability, I prioritize ACIM study and do my best to heed its Author's recommendations, warnings, and commands. I do take His Word for things literally and value COA's interpretations. Time in Church is a "time out" and a "time in" to pause, reflect, meditate, process, and join with others.

I don't think my ACIM study is contaminated by boomeritis, but I wonder about the compromises made with the other faith, my mother faith. It doesn't feel like a conflict now while my mother is alive and while there are virtually no local, regional supports. However, this has been worth examining and sharing. Thank you.

I will watch and work and listen for the call, and when it comes, I hope to say, as in the hymn I sang at Mass yesterday, and as Robert suggested for Open Mind Meditation, "Here I am, Lord."

I appreciate your thoughts, Diane. I do want to clarify one thing: I do not believe that we need a "Miracles church." Robert and I both believe that we need to develop an ACIM tradition, but we see this as a loose-knit, decentralized tradition that takes many forms: ACIM churches, teaching centers, study groups, scholars, one-to-one teacher-pupil relationships, Course-based psychotherapists, healers, and more. We don't envision one big Church with a formal structure or hierarchy that dictates what the tradition should be; rather this tradition would be made up of people who have freely joined in the single goal of following the Course's path as the author intended.

—Greg

From Joyce Bunton:

Just getting around to reading A Better Way #76, as I was in hospital suffering heart failure—I had fallen out of love with the "world" and quite frankly just wanted to go home. I must have changed my mind as I'm seemingly manifesting away here with the aid of medication.

What struck me about your last sentence in your message—"He needs my voice, for an unheard message will not save the world"—was that it seems that you need to say something so that others will hear it. I understand that sentence quite differently. I understand that I need to listen to my own voice so that I might hear it. Or, I need to open my ears to the Voice for God so that I will realize that I am already "saved." There is no world to be saved. I am not an erudite scholar of anything, but I am a lover of God and the entire Sonship. When I first picked up ACIM almost thirty years ago I was so delighted to read that the world was mad, or born out of a mad idea. It resonated with the Truth within me. It wasn't something I had read or been told by another boomer. In fact, for most of my life I have been quite baffled by my peers' need to blame everything externally (not that I haven't joined in from time to time). There is nothing outside my belief system. When I'm totally at Peace, even in this world, I experience a Peace which is not of this world. I don't need a brain or a body for that. My lack of ability to use my brain during my recent heart episode (lack of oxygen, which is required for what we call life) did not detract from my Peace.

The way I see things is that boomeritis is a case of mistaken identity born out of a need to prove individuality. This is exactly what this Course is training us to recognize as the cause of all of our problems, i.e., the making of this world which we are perceiving. If we just do what the Course asks us to do, without trying to interpret it or give it our own slant, then we will eventually understand what the Course is teaching us. It takes courage to give up everything you've heard and been conditioned to believe is true, but this is what the Course asks us to do. It asks us to look at what we think, and then forgive our thoughts. It asks us to forgive the thoughts of others—not the actions. The actions are simply the result of the thoughts. As we forgive others we emphasize that Peace is our goal.

I'm not suggesting that folks need to do the Course all at once or indeed that they will understand it immediately, but in order to get to where the Course wants to lead us, we have to just do it. Regardless of what I or anyone else thinks, the Course has a function and because of its source, it cannot fail. It doesn't need my interference, just my cooperation. If I step back and let Holy Spirit lead the way, I will know what to do and what to say, and to whom. And if I think later that I've made a mistake, then I can forgive myself—I'm only ever talking to myself.

Thank you for listening.

Thank you for your response, Joyce. You mentioned the line I quoted, "An unheard message will not save the world," and gave an alternative interpretation of it. I wanted to respond to that, because, actually, the original context of that line makes its meaning unequivocal. The very next sentence says the following: "Thanks be to you who heard, for you become the messenger who brings His Voice with you, and lets It echo round and round the world" (W-pI.123.6:1). So yes, we need to hear that message ourselves, but once we do, we need to bring it with us and let it echo around the world.

—Robert

Hello!

I am quite a new student to A Course in Miracles, or should I say that I am a returning student. I have started and stopped several times in my study, and I can't exactly say why, other than I found the concepts easy conceptually, but extremely difficult practially. I also found that just when I thought I was making progress, I would do something so ego based, that I would be disheartened, guilty and gradually give up as someone who wasn't worthy of trying anymore.

Anyway, I have started again, and decided to subscribe to your newsletter, "A Better Way". I don't really have anyone to study with (in separated human form) while I begin progress, so your newsletter is a good companion for me. You had requested some feedback, and I hope since this my first commentary, that you don't find it extremely naive. I am referring to the March 2008 article on "boomerism".

I do think that boomerism is a pervasive force in general, and would naturally find its way into the thinking of Course students, as it has found its way into every aspect of our popular culture. It has even found its way into our language culture, in that we have expressions like "whatever", or "talk to the hand". In my opinion, those are definitely symptoms of pluralism to the extreme. "Whatever" tends to mean, "you may have your truth, but it doesn't match mine, so I really don't care for you to impose your truth on me". The same applies to "talk to the hand". For me the meaning is essentially as you quote "you are not the boss of me", so much so, that "I won't even listen to you, but offer you a different body part that doesn't have ears". I have also seen on some reality based television that people tell others that "you don't know me, so therefore you can't judge me". I think this is very telling. Basically, the statement is that if you knew "my truth", you would understand why I am the way I am, and you would accept it, and not impose a different truth on me. I have seen this be used to excuse all kinds of terrible behaviour, from drug addiction, to abusive parenting.

One question though, that I have with the newsletter article, is the statement about not being able to judge the behaviour of others, because of what they are doing might be "right for them" as an identifying feature of boomeritis. I did think that a large premise of the Course was that we are not supposed to judge the behaviour of others. I believe that your booklet "Everything you always wanted to know about judgement, but were too busy doing it", espouses that philosophy, doesn't it? Perhaps you could clarify this point, or indicate how I have misunderstood, as it does appear to be a part of boomeritis that actually does "fit" the Course.

Thank you for allowing me to respond, I really appreciate the "fresh start".

Regards,
Margaret

1 Ken Wilber, "On the Mean Memes in General: Red to blue to orange to green to yellow...." [http://www.integralworld.net/index.html?mgm2.html], February 2002.

2 Ken Wilber, Integral Spirituality: A Startling New Role for Religion in the Modern and Postmodern World (Boston: Shambhala Publications, 2006), p.103.

3 Ken Wilber, Boomeritis: A Novel That Will Set You Free (Boston: Shambhala Publications, 2002), p. 35.

4 Ibid., p. 36

5 Ken Wilber, "Sidebar H: Boomeritis Buddhism." [http://kenwilber.com/Writings/PDF/H-bms%20buddhism-jtp.pdf]. 2007.

6 Integral Spirituality, p.160.

7 Ibid., p. 160

8 Ibid., p. 103

9 Ken Wilber, "Sidebar H: Boomeritis Buddhism," [http://kenwilber.com/Writings/PDF/H-bms%20buddhism-jtp.pdf], 2007.

Return to top | Send Reader Feedback | | Printer friendly version

Share

Dear friend: We offer the materials on this website to you in the hope that they can serve you well on your journey home. Your continuing donations support the work of the Circle of Atonement. Thank you.
Click here to make a Donation.

This material is copyrighted by the Circle of Atonement, P.O. Box 4238, W. Sedona, AZ 86340. All rights reserved. The opinions expressed are the personal interpretation and understanding of the author(s).

Please report problems to the webmaster.

Circle Advisors

Have questions about A Course In Miracles? Wondering how to go further with the Course? Contact one of our advisors.

Subscribe

Subscribe to our free e-newsletters: Circle News, sent weekly, A Better Way, sent monthly.

Site Links

Send Reader Feedback
Send a ? to Q & A
Printer friendly version

Featured

The Illuminated Text Volume 1
The Illuminated Text Volume 1
The Illuminated Text is drawn from the Text Reading Program, the Circle's one-year study program of the Text of A Course in Miracles. It provides detailed commentary on this spiritual masterpiece. Volume 1 covers Chapters 1 - 4 of the Course