This post probably won’t make that much sense if you do not read the previous post, Dadirri and complexity.
I am not a US citizen, so take this as you will.
The US is, in my opinion, broken. Trump and the Republicans, again in my view, have broken it.
While I think Republicans should probably acknowledge this (given what they claim about being the party of responsibility), and it would make life easier for all if they did, it seems highly possible they will never do so. It would mean admitting they were wrong.
In our society, that seems hard for anyone to do. Admitting error no longer seems to mean mean you can now move on, and refrain from doing it again. Nowadays admitting error, is admitting a grievous sin and moral failing. It means loss of status and condemnation from your own, as well as the others. It is, effectively, wrong to admit being wrong. If you admit one thing you did was wrong, then everything you ever believed and did could also be wrong. People would laugh and mock you. You would be swept away by those who are more confident. If it feels good, do it again.
This is a kind of pathology of positive thinking: admitting a ‘bad’ supposedly makes for more bad to come. This means the ‘bad’ is never faced, and never acknowledged.
However, allocating blame, and contradiction, is far less important than acknowledging the brokenness, and sitting with that brokenness and all we feel and all that is. Blame, or reasoning it all out at the start, is not Didirri. Didirri or receptivity is openness to the reality of what is. It represents a pause, a being with whatever is present, an acknowledgement of reality, so we may proceed or carry on.
One possibility is that the US may never be repaired.
Perhaps some may not want it to be repaired, because it is useful to them for it to be broken, or because repair would admit the damage they caused. But this does not matter. Blame does not explain, nor does it heal, it may just reinforce the brokenness – especially if we start with blame.
The reality seems to be that Americans will have to live with that brokenness. They can be still, and open to possibilities that arise from that brokenness, or they can rush on and say things are not harmed or brush the harm to one side. What if we were open to that brokenness? To the possibility it may never be repaired, but we still have to live?
If we refuse the brokenness, we may never be receptive to solutions. We may never sit with those who do recognise the problem, or with any others. We may not be able to face the silence, and the possible confusion, or pain, of recognising complexity. But those who wish to move on peacefully have to respond to the situation and its full complexity and respond fully. We have to respond healthily to wounds, not ignore them or punish them. That takes Dadirri.
The problem is probably never the ‘them’ but always the ‘we’. We can act, but we cannot peacefully make ‘them’ act.
This is difficult. Society is not geared for silence. The media does not like silence, as they exist for noise, they exist for advertising, they exist for your involvement, they exist to tell you things. Politics exists for drama and noise, displays of conviction and condemnation, not for being together. Business exists to tell us what to do, and what to buy, and how important business is, not for a peaceful soul.
What in the US leads back to silence, to shades and complexity, to perception?
Americans supposedly believe in prayer. Can they sit with God and wait for silence to speak? Can they admit life’s complexity? Can people admit there is something to heal, which does not mean the others become like them? Can we surrender a desire for control, or to only see the ‘positive’?
Can people stop rushing? Will they listen, and by example of that listening, show the way?
Receptivity may not be easy, but we can all stop and start to listen, and be open, without demanding a result.
Anyone can start.
That might be enough to start something new.