1- What is different about Crossing The Creek?
2- Why hasn't this been done before?
3- We live in what is called a "death averse" society. What does that mean and why is it so?
4- How could Michael Holmes possibly know any of this stuff?
6- How?
7- Does that mean I would have to adopt Michael's points of view?
1- What is different about Crossing The Creek?
Answer: Crossing The Creek combines the physical, medical, emotional and spiritual aspects of dying process into a unified and sensible whole. It describes dying process as a logical and purposeful period of transition rather than as just some bad stuff that happens shortly before we cease to exist. It is not dogmatic but recognizes and accepts spiritual phenomena commonly observed by caregivers to the dying in a matter-of-fact way. And finally, it is based on first-hand experience with dying people and their families. In other words, it is not an academic construct, it is real.
2- Why hasn't this been done before?
Answer: We live in a society and an age that demands the separation of 'Church' and 'State.' The realms of 'science' and 'spirituality' are held to be fundamentally distinct and separate. This is baloney of course. It is quite possible to study spirituality scientifically or to approach science with spiritual awareness. But there are so many egos, hidden agendas and doctrines at stake that experts in one area of study tend to adopt a condescending attitude and hands-off approach to the other. That is fine... unless you happen to be dying. At that point we humans desperately want these two fields of study to compliment, not contradict one another. At that point we want answers... ones that are actually helpful. Until we are dying however it all seems rather hypothetical, so we try not to think about it.
We also live in an age of 'experts.' We hear trite comments about "thinking outside of the box" all the time but for all practical purposes we put little value in what anyone says unless he has been thoroughly trained to think inside of one box or another and has all the credentials to prove it.
The net result of these attitudes is that it is easy to find any number of 'religious' interpretations of dying process, and 'scientific' descriptions of the biological deterioration associated with aging and death abound. But to find something that combines these two perspectives into a cogent whole is almost impossible... unless of course you happen to stumble onto Crossing The Creek .
3- We live in what is called a "death averse" society. What does that mean and why is it so?
Answer: Ours is a capitalistic society. That's great, but it has certain consequences. One of those consequences is that most things are driven by the market, or 'marketing.' Selling candy, cars and computers is one thing, selling death is rather more problematic... particularly since the threat of death is used to sell almost everything else.
Hospice calls what they do "end of life care." We intellectualize about our belief in an afterlife from time to time and many people subscribe to some religious doctrine or other, but our day-in and day-out default thinking pattern says: "death ends life." It doesn't, but that is our default thinking pattern just the same. And one of the primary driving forces behind this thinking pattern is the market.
If you doubt this for one instant, spend an evening watching TV commercials and take particular note of what is being sold and the marketing technique used to sell it. You will find that a startlingly high percentage of what we buy is bought so as to prevent our aging... and ultimately, our dying. Our default view of death is created largely by advertising agencies interested in selling us everything from an SUV to Viagra, and the unspoken threat behind their sales pitch is that we will grow old and die unless we fork over the cash. In other words, dying is not portrayed as something normal, natural, purposeful or even inevitable... it is portrayed as a failure that is avoidable if you are clever and purchase the right products.
Burdened with this decidedly perverse attitude we quite naturally do everything in our power to NOT think about death and dying at all; i.e. we become "death averse." The net result of which is to gradually sink into increasingly bizarre and macabre misinterpretations of what dying is all about.
To learn more about this, read my book - Key Elements Of Transitions.
4- How could Michael Holmes possibly know any of this stuff?
Answer: First and foremost, if you really want to learn something about dying, ask a dying person. Even more effective is to ask... and observe... a lot of dying people over an extended period of time. That is how I learned this stuff. Asking an academic about dying process is akin to asking a man what it is like to give birth... and a man with a hidden agenda at that.
The answer to this question also goes back to the "thinking outside of the box" thing. I am not paid by some university, so do not suffer from academic limitations of thought. Neither am I schooled in theology so have no interest in promoting any particular religious viewpoint. I swear allegiance to no group other than dying people... with whom I have spent a lot of time, listening and observing.
The driving force behind my motivation is dying people. One day I awoke to find myself dealing with them (in hospice) and they were desperate for answers. I quickly discovered that neither 'science' nor 'religion' (using those terms broadly) had the answers dying people were looking for. This, combined with the realization that I too was going to die someday sort of jump-started my quest for practical answers.
What I found was that 'science' and 'religion' actually do have answers... just not on a stand-alone basis. The two must be combined to be helpful to the dying. The problem is, proponents of each perspective often have hidden agendas and tend to view the other with distrust. I am an egalitarian in that regard, I view them both with a healthy skepticism. My only agenda is to find out what actually works for dying people. If a theory is validated by practical experience, I could hardly care less where it came from.
One of my favorite responses to the question, "How do you know?" comes from the movie, Michael (naturally.) In it a journalist (Andie McDowell) asks Michael (John Travolta), "How do you know." He responds simply, "I pay attention." (To hear the audio version, click here.)
The "different strokes for different folks" factor comes into play here as well. Most folks work very hard at NOT thinking about death and dying. I think about those things every day. It's what I do. Maybe you think that's strange?
To me, the study of dying process is a fascinating blend of philosophy, psychology, spirituality, medicine, family systems theory, parapsychology and sociology... not to mention quantum physics and the study of consciousness. Personally, I cannot think of a more absorbing subject. And since 100% of us will die, its relevance is undeniable. However, if dying process is not your cup of tea I would not be terribly shocked.
5- Can I learn enough about dying to receive some benefit without having to obsess on it the way Michael does?
Answer: Yes.
6- How?
Answer: Read my books.
7- Does that mean I would have to adopt Michael's points of view?
Answer: No... definitely not. And that's the point.
I have seen first-hand that most westerners have problems with dying because they don't think logically about it. And they don't think about it logically precisely because they have fallen into the habit of letting someone else do their thinking for them (scientists, doctors, religious leaders, politicians, wall street etc.) My books demonstrate how to get outside of that box and think your own unique thoughts... but once out, you're on your own.
To learn more about this, read my book, Dying To Know.