A
Very Other 'Hospice Experience'
My experience as an employee at a hospice is a perfect example of
how the lack of in-common knowledge and understanding of what I
generally language as Exceptional Human
Experiences can generate all sorts of mayhem, starting with a supervisor whom I dare
say is unfamiliar with the concept and has never taken a studied look at this website, although I mentioned
it when I was first interviewed there for a job. I thought she
might want to see what I had been doing for the previous three years,
which might give her more insight into what I was capable of if she
chose to hire me. But if she did see it, it doesn't appear to me she
grasped the meaning of the content. This
is not about fault-finding, by the way, but rather, the influence of
lack of knowledge about a rising understanding that could add a specially helpful, qualitative difference for the entire field of hospice
care.
Several situations have come up over my tenure there that
illustrated a lack of understanding of ‘all things
EHE’. I don’t think it
is the Experiences themselves or the idea of Exceptional
Human Experience; it's just lack of awareness of the whole
premise and field of study.
In my experience here, all
she knew was something that [vaguely] meant a great deal to me, and I believe
the only pigeon hole she could conveniently drop me into without further
efforts to understand what did not appear to be relevant to our work together was
“religious.” Or even spiritual in the sense of being all but another word for religious.
Given this, it is understandable why pretty much anything along
these lines could be imagined to be possibly objectionable to someone
with supervisory responsibilities in a working environment.
Not only that, but concerning the particular place in question,
we lived in the heart of the so-called Bible belt where people are even more
sensitized to such issues, from the standpoints of people who want to
convert others to their beliefs and of those who are protective of
others in a workplace not being annoyed by this kind of behavior.
So to a certain extent I empathize.
For
Want of a Bridge of a More Universal Understanding
My point here is that there is a general lack of awareness regarding 'all things EHE' as experience common to all of
us -- not as religious or even spiritual per se, nor a
matter of belief or nonbelief -- but simply a normal part of what it means
to be human in our everyday world. This is the bridge that needs
to be built, now.
Although the idea of near-death and out-of-body experiences, etc. is
widely recognized these days, it's still not likely
ordinary dinner conversation. So we are barely a step ahead in this
regard than we were before even these terms became part of our household
vernacular. An appropriate setting in which to entrust such stories and their
inferences and significance to each other and to let that build into a
common knowledge is yet to be realized in our culture, which is
one of the essential purposes for wHeretwoworldsTouch.com, as well as
ahhh-thelight.com -- to help
build this bridge.
Misunderstanding:
A Foremost Challenge to Global Peace
[and
perhaps more so: the lack of desire to understand, alas]
Going
back to my work situation: In every case, the seemingly
"objectionable" subject
surfaced as part of a casual conversation.
It just came up, and there was always something from the other
person/s involved that set it off, such as their interest in such
experiences in the first place or something about their lifestyle that suggested a more
embracing view of such things as generally spiritual, or trading
getting-to-know-you dialogue, such as, what are you into outside the
work environment? Each case
was different, because as soon as my supervisor brought it to my
attention as “a concern,” naturally I did not create the same
[loaded] mistake again, at least not under the specified circumstances, as for
instance, with a client in the first example cited below. And these
were occasional, like months apart.
I was very responsive to this not becoming “a thing” that felt
to be a threat in any way in an environment where little
misunderstandings, I was learning, could get loose from their mouse cage
to grow into godzillas that appear to sit on buildings and cause undue
alarm. Great example of belief being more 'real' than unexamined
fact, not to mention: and cause more harm. A 'godzilla'
could be a very real mayhem-maker, nevertheless, such as in the case of
a client who might naturally assume I am representative of my organization's
philosophy, etc. I certainly agree
and respect this.
Given how
loaded this was for my boss, I also did not want this obfuscation to cost
me my job! It seemed to me
she herself was the one who felt threatened as a supervisor with a lot
of responsibility, and who didn’t want to have to be bothered by just
one more thing she didn’t have time for. Makes perfect good sense,
which is why I have almost never tried to explain more to her than she asked
for.
But for me, that is all the more reason 'all things EHE' need to become
part of our general human knowledge base. Why live with the
pervasive, grief-causing fear of godzillas when you can have a shared
heaven-on-earth instead -- and a return to a meaning-filled, purposeful
existence shared by everyone? [I'm not saying it won't take some
work! ..]
The irony of this being such "a problem" within a hospice-type
organization was certainly something to chew on. Interestingly,
one of the nurses sympathetic with my web project gave me a heads-up about
one whole juicy issue of the monthly magazine produced by the national
hospice associated with our local organization, which was devoted to
just such experiences, appropriately matter-of-factly, as integral to
what is, especially around issues of death and dying, a normal and
helpful topic of discussion for those who lead us there as clients.
Belief has nothing to do with it; they happen. It was basically
saying we should openly acknowledge and accept them as deeply
significant, enriching parts of our lives and be prepared to be present
to those in need of our support and comfort-giving -- which could
include, again, depending on the client, shared knowledge of these types
of experiences and in particular their possible significance to those
who are either dying or grieving the death or eminent crossing over of a
loved one.
But my boss never mentioned this to me, so
I did not broach the subject with her, such as her feelings about
it. Having done some online research into hospices and this
strange fear or attitude, turns out that the guiding philosophy in this
regard varies considerably from hospice to hospice, even within this
national organization. But to my way of thinking, the corporate
office was saying this subject matter is just a normal part of our
lives, which of course I take as a very positive sign.
It's
the Piece of Paper That Counts ..
My role within
this particular institution as “a receptionist” and not as someone with more
professional standing, I believe, also has contributed toward this being
more of a problem than it might otherwise have been.
About once a month we had a full-organizational meeting [there were over
200 people employed here], and nearly always, the meeting
was started with something inspiring, heartening, uplifting --
like a wonderful personal story or a poem or skit. As you can imagine, in a hospice
of this magnitude, there were pa-lenty of such stories and creativity,
although this
was the first time I had heard anyone share any exceptional experiences
as part of this heartful ritual.
Indeed, and shortly after the national hospice incident above, at
one such meeting in the spring of 2008, one of the professional people
who works in the classical hospice part of the campus [comprising a
mere fraction of the entire staff] told of many people over the years
who have seen the same ghosts and have heard and experienced things in the
hospice building where a sizeable number of individuals have come to
die. I really sat up and
took notice of the people around me, who were naturally enthralled with
her stories -- she told quite a few. No one seemed offended or
like they were having any strong reaction to what was being said.
It was so normal!!! Not two freckles removed from sharing ghost
stories around the ol' campfire, something nearly all of us grew up with
in one form or another.
Far as I could tell, the only person
having a reactive
jolt was me, because I was not allowed to mention any such thing with
not only our clients -- and these were stories many clients were sharing
with each other and with hospice staff -- but for all intents and
purposes, with our
staff. After a while, it seemed that every other time this
became a topic of discussion with coworkers, it would in some twisted
way come back to my attention from my supervisor with a raised
eyebrow. To my knowledge, I was the only person -- perhaps in part
because I
had a particular interest in such things -- who had been told I could
not talk about such things with others! But here was this
professional person who could
speak openly of such things without being censured. That
was perfectly fine! And
everyone walked away feeling inspired, and like, wasn’t that
interesting! And that was all there was to it.
How
Can We Together Make the Essential Difference That Frees Us From These Unhealthy
Opinions and Patterns that Damage and Hinder Our Progress Individually
and as a Species?
That event -- simple, straightforward, trusting, valued and enjoyed -- beautifully
portrays how natural and comfortable we can be with this subject, without fanfare or ruffled
feathers flying. And from this shared knowledge and understanding
comes much peace and strength for the times when any of us are faced
with death-and-dying issues. These stories fortify us, add
validation to our personal experiences and those of loved ones, which
brings an entirely different feeling to our grieving that is at once
more inclusive, supportive, hopeful and healing; they help us to let go
the pain and to be more accepting of what we call 'death' as a part of
life, and not as "the end" of life. Even when we are alone, we don't
feel so cut off and walled in when we know with each other that we have
this incredible Larger-Life understanding in common, not as a matter of
belief any longer, but as a universally recognized part of the Human
condition.
Not being able to speak, not having such an in-common, often
experiential understanding is a world removed from a universal,
taken-for-granted part of Life that we as Human Beings are much more
aware of together than we were in the past. Do you feel that
difference?
What
Does Science Have to Say About This?
Consciousness studies, transpersonal psychology, the idea of an infinite
spectrum of states of awareness that embrace who-knows-how many
dimensions beyond the familiar four -- this is now an integral part of
cutting-edge science in a multiplicity of fields of study, well
supported by the hard sciences, such as physics and biology.
Social scientist Carl Becker addresses this issue. He wrote,
Physicist Max Planck summed it up in his autobiography: "(Observing
a major scientific debate) gave me also an opportunity to learn a
fact—a remarkable one in my opinion: A new scientific truth does not
triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but
rather because its opponents eventually die off, and a new generation
grows up that is familiar with it."
Coming from a
scientist who rubbed shoulders with the leaders of twentieth-century
physics and philosophy, this statement is a scathing denial of the
widely touted ‘objectivity’ of scientists. Planck confirms that
the reasons for theory rejection are more psychological and
educational than theoretical or scientific.
To put the case
a little strongly, many of the logical positivists and Skinnerian
behaviorists of the 1950s and 1960s neither converted to nor consented
to the new waves of psychology. But they are now becoming supplanted
by a new breed of scientists who have themselves experimented with
meditation and mind-altering drugs, and who can no longer accept the
mechanistic philosophy of the nineteenth century and are hence much
more open to the possibilities of survival research. The next century
may see an increasing liberalism in this area, coinciding with an
increasing interest of ‘legitimate’ young scientists in
alternative paradigms which allow for the survival or reincarnation
hypotheses. --Dr.
Carl B. Becker
How
Do We Successfully Convey This to Our Entire Global Culture?
I fully believe we can and quite effectively. Drs. Raymond
Moody, Jr. and Elisabeth
Kubler-Ross, with some major assists from academia did
wonderfully well on their first go, coaxing people out of their closets about
these experiences, starting in the late 1960s. They also boosted
the confidence of their research subjects to open up and share their
experiences with the world-at-large, which is when the ball really got
rolling. [It probably didn't hurt that they finally got rid of all
the dire diagnoses in the Physicians' Desk Reference that used
to land Experiencers in mental institutions and the like. ..
Oh, and educated us about "spiritual emergencies" [Thank you
to the Grofs! -- that
was big.]]
The professional interests could encourage and help
facilitate, but it was up to the Experiencers themselves to walk out of
the closet, pick up that ball and do something as a result. And
they did! People today are far more aware of the fact and
implications of these Experiences. If no one had had another
experience since that time, this alone was a profound healing for many,
many Experiencers. [Dannion
Brinkley's story is a perfect example.]
This 'picking up the ball' is true of every human being who has been affected by EHEs/EEs,
both their own and those of others. We can together, enmass,
and in this way pick up and carry the whole Earth into an
abidingly meaningful and sustainable future in our transformed hearts --
"If enough
of us do it," says Rhea White.
Integral to this collective work, we must share our
stories with each other in order to mutually validate the power of the
truth the sharing brings home to Experiencers and Empaths, which
initiates this natural developmental [EHE]
process. This is
how we get to learn maybe we're not crazy after all, or delusional,
etc. This is the only way we can know that many many other people
have had experiences like our own. In fact, this is how we come to
learn they are innate to the human condition, and they come with Gifts
that transform our lives and that can ultimately make a planet-wide
difference. Again White's hopeful refrain: "If enough of us do
it."
It's just a matter of choice, when we get down to it -- the paranoid
craziness of all types of runaway meaninglessness and wrong-headedness
and lack of heart and science without a conscience or felt sense of
responsibility, etc., etc., ... OR ... a world sluiced with
meaning and purpose and dignity and mutual regard. And
consciousness being the basis for the material world, which is where a
lot of scientists with conscience and concern, by the way, are
now immersed in as 'the next great frontier'. With here and
there signs that science
and spirituality / religion may be gradually losing their accustomed
defensive ramparts and beginning to merge in fascinating ways --
beginning to show up like the tracery of green
growing shoots rising through the still-hot ashes after a forest fire, the
signs are everywhere.
But we can't do this unless we together are very
clear this is a normal part of human experience. We can't do this
from a frankly archaic hierarchical infrastructure that still insists
some people are more important than or better than or whatever than
others. We can't do this
if someone is going to use such things to convince someone else of their
superior beliefs or nonbelief. We cannot do this until at least
the tipping point of enough of us really, really gets it that "I am
you in another body."
Think about it.
Meanwhile,
Back at the Ranch ...
Here are examples where it was not
acceptable [for me as a nonprofessional] to speak of such things within this
particular hospice culture:
1. When I was new to the organization, an
adult client started talking to me about how alone heshe
felt with hir
spouse deceased. I said something to the effect that the loved one
who left may be closer to hir and the children than ever before and that
it's quite common people are contacted by those who have passed into the
other world, probably citing the well-known survey conducted in Wales in
the 1980s indicating that 60% of people who had lost their spouses said
they had had at least one affirming [EHE] Experience with their spouse
since their passing. This reminded hir of an incident -- I believe
not hirs but that of a friend, suggestive of this, which heshe told
me. I then shared an experience in which one of my deceased
relatives visited me soon after his passing, which was enormously
healing for me.
The conversation lightened this person's mood and renewed hir strength
and hope. I wrote down my website address for hir, where there are
quite a few stories of this nature, some of them long studied by
scientists, as well as resources where heshe could get more information
about them. I made the point that just knowing about such things,
whether we have an experience of this nature or not, can boost our hope
and confidence that life goes on in, evidently [and evidentually], some
highly meaningful and beautiful way, that people do not just
'die'.
Heshe has remarked since how helpful this was for hir. A counselor overheard
our discussion apparently and told my supervisor. I found out this wasn't
cool a week or two later, when my supervisor took me aside for this
purpose [the only time in my life I ever got written up for something!].
Now, how might this have been different, if the same incident evolved
within an environment, such as this national hospice organization
itself? Although I don't remember
this type of terminology in the articles I skimmed, it's obvious
they were talking about the same thing, here referred to most often as exceptional
human[izing] experiences. I can imagine this
would be quite ordinary [and appropriate] in the eyes of those who chose
to dedicate a whole issue of their journal to this topic.
2. The subject came up with a counselor who brought in a
musical instrument associated with Tibet for a public event and I was present when she and another counselor
were discussing their
individual experiences with meditation.
It did not feel inappropriate to me to ask her about the the Tibetan
artifact and meditation, which led to some conversation about the anathematized
subject in question. My supervisor later came to me and said this was
not appropriate,
because she said I had a "poor understanding" of boundaries, and this person
evidently felt offended because she had more conservative religious
preferences that made this uncomfortable for her.
Apparently, my supervisor felt the need to “protect” the
counselor, or maybe the counselor felt a need to be protected??
I certainly was not led to this important understanding by the
counselor in question. In fact the conversation was so open and
relaxed, I mentioned my website, because it felt to me this resonated
with some of this person's interests. Other people there knew of this project, and those who
have seen it for themselves have made a point to share their very
positive feedback and interest. I never had an inkling this
person may have felt discomfited or out of her element.
So this was another jolt. If this counselor or the two counselors
had conveyed something very other than highly eclectic and open interest
in these "spirituall" [not religious] types of things, it
would never have occurred to me to bring up my favorite subject in the
first place. I do not agree with my boss's assessment of my
"lack of boundaries." I agree with her entirely that
this is a sensitive subject matter, and I'm very discriminating whom I
talk with and what I say in this regard. If sometimes I
miscalculate a given person's interest or openness, I would think that
is simply par for the course of being human. Not being a perfect
reader of people, however, is not the same as "boundary
issues."
Here's another contribution to the puzzle. These people
counsel clients everyday whose beliefs
along the lines of things religious/spiritual cover the widest possible
spectrum of possibilities, and they must be willing to meet their
hospice clients exactly within their belief system as an affirming and comforting
presence. So go figure why this was considered
"offensive," especially since I'm probably more
hyper-sensitive to meeting people within the context of their beliefs,
etc. of this nature than even the counselors, because this is my work,
and it's but one piece of theirs, and not their favorite or most
exercised.
I have been paying attention, by the way, to surveys that have been undertaken, both
locally and nationally, about client views concerning the quality of
care given by hospice staff. One of the very few things that
regularly gets significantly poorer marks [regarding needs being unmet
or misjudged] is their spiritual concerns. Maybe one day, such organizations as this one I have worked
for will understand the wisdom of turning to our organization, or
others with a similar purpose, for a
more open-ended way to be present to people's needs in this
regard. We also use a neutral languaging that allows us to all
meet as one human family on the same page. As we become better
known for what is offered along these lines, I'm sure clients [and
professional agencies alike] will find it helpful to turn to us for a
safe place in which to explore and to share these kinds of
life-inspiring incidents and how they can not only comfort us, but also
give us a whole new perspective on LIFE-Writ-Large and within the
context of our everyday concerns. This is, again, possibly the
most fundamental objective of this web project.
3. I often sit at a desk within a few feet of a kitchen door,
where employees daily eat lunch or snack and yak. It’s hard not
to overhear people’s conversations without a bit of effort to block it
out. A number of times I’ve
heard counselors and others discussing things
that could just as easily have been me talking about the very things my
supervisor said I cannot talk about -- in other words concerning the
kinds of experiences and their impact that this web project is about.
I confess I do not know what to make of this kind of seeming
discrimination. And maybe this is as much in my head as hers,
since, without a clear, mutually acknowledged understanding between us,
we're both left doing the best we can to interpret what the other is
saying, thinking, feeling. Sadly, even among the
best-intentioned people [such as my supervisor and the incredible staff
of this hospice organization as a whole], the quality of genuine
willingness that is necessary in order to be present to each other in a
way that is nutually comfortable, safe, transparent, with unconditional
regard and trust, especially in a hierarchical type of relational
environment, is like hens' teeth -- R.A.R.E.; it's probably not going to
happen.
