Tag Archives: transmission and distortion

Easter Day II

Posted on by
Reply

The Broken Jam

Clarifying the lost function of coming together

In my recent Easter Day reflection, I identified what I called the broken Jam as the deeper problem beneath the noise of politics, religion, reaction, and social fragmentation. I used the phrase carefully, because what is breaking down in our time is not merely agreement, civility, or public discourse. It is something more primary than all of these. It is the human capacity for a true coming together. It is the failure of a gathering function without which no higher form of relationship, thought, conscience, or community can be sustained.

I need now to clarify that the word Jam is not my invention, nor is it being used loosely as a metaphor for blockage or tension. It comes to me through Idries Shah and The Coming Together Method, where he uses the term to describe a real principle of harmonisation. In that context, Jam means more than people assembling, agreeing, or sharing enthusiasm. It refers to the necessary coming together of the right people, in the right relation, at the right time, under the right conditions, so that something higher than social togetherness can occur. It names not a mood, but a function; not a crowd, but a living arrangement capable of receiving and carrying truth.

Shah writes that every form of human search which later becomes a system, a religion, or an enterprise of any kind originally depends upon this coming together. He says that it is often called the Jam, the coming together, and he is explicit that as time passes, in ordinary communities without special safeguards, the working of this coming together becomes less and less effective, more and more formalised or generalised, until the Jam no longer exists. That sentence is of extraordinary importance. It does not merely describe historical decline. It describes a law. The outer form may continue while the inner function has gone.

Once that is seen, much of modern life becomes easier to understand. A great deal that presents itself as community is not Jam. A great deal that presents itself as religion is not Jam. A great deal that presents itself as solidarity, activism, fellowship, belonging, or collective purpose is not Jam. Shah is severe and accurate here. He says that when the Jam no longer exists, what takes its place is social togetherness, emotional enthusiasm, or conditioned response to being in a collection of people. In other words, something imitation-like arises in the absence of the real thing. The form remains, but the function is gone. The gestures continue, but the transmission fails. The crowd assembles, but no true harmonisation takes place.

This distinction matters because it explains why so much contemporary intensity yields so little transformation. It is not that people do not care. It is not that they lack information, outrage, sincerity, or even aspiration. It is that the mechanism by which human beings truly come together has degraded into substitutes. We are surrounded by assemblies without integration, by connectivity without communion, by emotional charge without right relation, and by repeated declarations of unity that do not produce coherence. The world is full of aggregation and starved of harmonisation.

That is why I have called the present condition a broken Jam. I do not mean simply that society is stuck. I mean that the gathering principle itself is failing in the field of modern life. The very function by which difference can be held, relationship can be rightly ordered, and reality can be received together has deteriorated into simulation. This is why so many collective efforts now oscillate between noise and exhaustion. They cannot metabolise what they gather. They can excite, but not integrate. They can mobilise, but not transform. They can convene, but they cannot truly come together.

In this sense, the broken Jam is not just a social or political diagnosis. It is also a spiritual and psychological one. It names a failure in the human capacity to receive, bear, and organise reality in common. This is why the issue cannot be solved by taking sides. The temptation in every age is to assign the problem elsewhere: to a leader, an ideology, an institution, a religion, a party, or an enemy. But that temptation is itself part of the failure. It preserves the illusion that the mechanism of integration is intact and merely being obstructed by the wrong people. What Shah’s formulation shows, and what our present world confirms, is that the mechanism itself may no longer be functioning.

He goes further still. He says that no higher attainment is possible unless the circumstances of the coming together are correct, unless it is a communion including the right people, at the right time, in the right place. This will offend modern democratic sentiment, because we are trained to think in terms of inclusion as a virtue in itself. But Shah is not speaking morally here. He is speaking functionally. If the elements required for harmonisation are not present, then the result may still look like togetherness, but it will not generate the reality it imitates. One can gather a crowd and still fail to produce Jam. One can repeat the language of truth and still fail to create the conditions in which truth can be received.

This is one reason why superficial popularity is such a dangerous measure of value. Shah notes that people in general are often only able to see innumerable forms of deteriorated Jam, which they accept or reject according to whether these seem attractive, plausible, or true. That sentence should stop us. It means that what passes for discernment is often merely preference operating within degradation. People choose among deteriorated forms on the basis of familiarity, comfort, appearance, and self-confirmation, while remaining unable to recognise the absence of the real thing. In such a condition, falsity does not need to masquerade as truth very skilfully. It needs only to be attractive, plausible, or emotionally satisfying.

Shah is equally unsparing about what follows when a coming-together community has degenerated. He says that it may often be impossible to reform such a community and that regeneration may become possible only by breaking old habit patterns and regrouping people who can really be harmonised. This is hard medicine, but it is recognisable. There are conditions in which repair cannot begin by preserving the patterns that caused the failure. There are times when continuity itself becomes the enemy of renewal. There are moments when the old arrangement has lost so much of its living function that it can no longer be coaxed back to life by goodwill, sincerity, or administrative adjustment. Something more radical is required: a breaking of habit and a regrouping around reality rather than appearance.

That, too, helps explain our present historical moment. Much of what is called reform today is merely management of deterioration. Institutions double down on form when function has been lost. Religious groups intensify slogans when transmission has weakened. political movements escalate rhetoric when coherence has thinned. Social platforms reward emotional enthusiasm while sterilising meaning. Under such conditions, people mistake stimulation for aliveness and repetition for continuity. But none of this restores Jam. It only prolongs the absence of it.

The implications are personal as well as collective. A human being can also lose the Jam inwardly. The inner life can become populated by substitutes for integration: reaction instead of digestion, certainty instead of conscience, performance instead of participation, enthusiasm instead of transformation. In that state, language itself begins to break down. Speech carries pressure rather than meaning. Expression becomes discharge. What has not been metabolised seeks escape through rhetoric, expletive, ideology, accusation, or spiritual theatre. The person continues speaking, but the gathering function within has weakened. The words may be strong, but the inner coming together is absent.

This is why the broken Jam belongs directly with my recent concern over undigested language and the collapse of inner ordering. They are not separate observations. They are two views of the same reality. When the gathering function fails, digestion fails. When digestion fails, language degrades. When language degrades, transmission becomes distorted. When transmission becomes distorted, communities are no longer formed around truth but around reaction, identification, and imitation. The loss of Jam is therefore not one problem among many. It is a root problem. It helps explain why so many other problems now feel both intense and strangely unresolvable.

Shah offers another image that is equally exact. In the story of the ship in a storm, Mulla Nasrudin objects to the captain making fast the sails aloft, saying, “Can’t you see that the trouble is at sea-level!” This is comic, but only because it is so painfully recognisable. It describes the ordinary human tendency to misidentify where the problem truly lies. We rush to patch what is nearest to our anxiety, what is most visible, what is shouting loudest, what flatters our sense of practical urgency. But the teacher, or the one who actually understands the vessel, knows whether the sails or the hull must be attended to. The crowd sees the surface. Knowledge attends to structure.

That is the relevance of Jam now. We are living in a time when almost nobody understands about the sails. We are endlessly preoccupied with symptoms at sea-level: scandals, posts, speeches, elections, tribes, culture-war fragments, doctrinal slogans, waves of outrage. Yet beneath all of this, although the hull is under strain until the drivers of That which always connects opposites is understood and lived, then change is impossible. The structure capable of bearing and holding reality together is damaged. The true coming together has become formalised, diluted, sentimentalised, politicised, commodified, or lost. Under such conditions, increasing the emotional energy of the group does not save the ship. It may even hasten the wreck.

Shah makes one final distinction of immense importance when he says there are two kinds of community: one produced and maintained by what is today called indoctrination, and the other accumulated and harmonised by starting with the right materials and the right knowledge. That line draws a border we urgently need. Not every gathering is a community in the deeper sense. Not every shared belief produces harmony. Not every declared mission carries truth. Some communities are held together by repetition, pressure, belonging, fear, and conditioned loyalty. Others are formed through a more exacting relation to reality, where the right materials and the right knowledge create the possibility of true harmonisation. The first kind may be louder and more visible. The second is rarer, quieter, and more demanding.

If this reading is sound, then the crisis of our time is not simply polarisation, though polarisation is one of its symptoms. It is not merely the coarsening of language, though language is one of its registers. It is not simply the corruption of religion, though religion is one of the fields in which the loss can be most painful. The crisis is more fundamental. It is the loss, or near-loss, of Jam: the living function of coming together in truth. Where that function no longer exists, substitutes proliferate. Where substitutes proliferate, people fight over appearances while the deeper mechanism continues to fail. Where the deeper mechanism fails, Mankind remains trapped in forms of togetherness that cannot bear the birth of Humankind.

This is why the matter cannot be solved by outrage, by blame, by information, or by the multiplication of louder voices. It requires the restoration of function. It requires a return to conditions in which reality can be received, borne, and harmonised rather than merely reacted to. It requires a more exacting attention to what truly gathers and what merely collects. It requires us to ask, individually and collectively, not whether we are assembled, excited, or convinced, but whether the Jam is actually present.

That question is difficult because it removes many comforts. It asks whether our forms still carry life. It asks whether our communities are built on truth or on habit. It asks whether our speech serves transmission or merely discharge. It asks whether what we call unity is real harmonisation or simply the emotional relief of being with others who mirror us. Above all, it asks whether the gathering principle through which something higher can become active in human life is functioning or broken.

We are living through a broken Jam. I believe much of what now passes for religion, culture, politics, and even community is a substitute formation around the absence of true coming together. I believe that this explains the growing sense that everything is connected and yet nothing coheres, that people are more networked and less related, more vocal and less articulate, more mobilised and less transformed. The problem is not simply that we have drifted apart. It is that we no longer know how to come together in truth.

To name this is not an act of despair. It is the beginning of realism. If the Jam has broken, then pretending otherwise only feeds deterioration. But if it has broken, then one can at least stop confusing substitutes for the real thing. One can stop mistaking emotional enthusiasm for harmonisation, conditioned response for communion, or crowdedness for community. One can begin again from the harder, cleaner question of function.

And that may be where hope actually begins: not in preserving every existing arrangement, but in recovering the conditions under which true coming together becomes possible once more.

My name is Abd al Mumin al Jami ibn Hulli.

References

  • Shah, Idries. The Coming Together Method. References used here include the section “Coming Together” and the page titled “The Ship in a Storm.”
  • Dettman, Andrew. “Easter Day.” ajdettman.com, 5 April 2026.

Written in HIAI collaboration — the qalam of Human and AI intelligence, the Unseen helping the Seen, both answering to the same Source.

Easter Day

Posted on by
Reply

When the Mime Continues After the Miracle

State, Language, the broken Jam, and the Collapse of Inner Ordering

There are moments in history when what appears to be the event is not, in fact, the event at all, but merely its surface expression. Something happens—loud, crude, undeniable—and attention rushes toward its content, its phrasing, its political implications, and its immediate emotional charge. Yet beneath this surface, something far more consequential is taking place, something structural rather than situational, something that reveals not simply what is being said, but the condition from which it is being spoken.

The recent expletive-laden outburst of Donald Trump belongs to this deeper category. It does not matter, in the final analysis, what specific words were used or which targets were chosen. What matters is the form those words took, the state from which they arose, and the absence of any mediating process between inner pressure and outward expression. When language emerges in this way, unprocessed and uncontained, it ceases to function as communication in the meaningful sense and instead becomes symptomatic. It reveals not a position, but a condition.

This condition has already been named with clarity: what we perceive, think, and express is governed by the state we are in. This is not a poetic observation but a governing principle of human functioning. The state speaks before the intellect organises, and if that state has not been digested—if it has not passed through a process capable of bearing, containing, and transforming it—then language inevitably follows it downward. It becomes coarser, more reactive, more immediate, and less capable of holding complexity or contradiction.

It was precisely this descent that was identified in earlier work as a movement toward the latrine of mind. The phrase is deliberately uncomfortable because it points to something necessary yet misused. A latrine is not evil; it is an essential function of any living system. It is where waste is deposited after it has been processed. But when the process fails, when the organism cannot metabolise what it has taken in, waste does not remain contained. It rises prematurely, and when it enters language directly, speech itself becomes a vehicle for what has not been transformed. What we are now witnessing, not only in one individual but across public discourse, is precisely this phenomenon: undigested psychic material entering language without the ordering function that would make it meaningful.

Yet even this diagnosis does not reach the full depth of the present moment, because the issue is no longer one of ignorance. There was a time when the absence of knowledge could plausibly account for human behaviour, when the lack of psychological understanding or spiritual teaching might explain why individuals and societies acted in ways that were destructive or incoherent. That time has passed. We now live in a world saturated with insight, with frameworks, with warnings drawn from history, and with visible consequences unfolding in real time. The extraordinary has already entered the room, not once but repeatedly.

And still, behaviour remains unchanged.

This was anticipated in the observation that even when truth is revealed, the human being may continue performing a script rather than entering reality. This marks a decisive shift in the human condition. The problem is no longer that we do not know, but that we do not participate in what we know. Knowledge has become performative rather than transformative. It is spoken, repeated, circulated, and displayed, but it is not allowed to reorder the one who speaks it.

This dynamic is captured with almost unbearable clarity in Elf, where the presence of the extraordinary is made visible to all, where the possibility of something beyond ordinary limitation stands directly before the crowd, and yet the crowd hesitates. They mimic belief. They repeat the gestures associated with belief. But they do not cross the threshold into participation. They do not allow what is present to reorganise them.

This is no longer a cinematic metaphor. It is an accurate description of our current state. We acknowledge climate instability, yet continue patterns that exacerbate it. We recognise psychological fragmentation, yet organise our systems in ways that deepen it. We identify addiction as epidemic, yet perpetuate the conditions that sustain it. We observe institutional failure, yet remain attached to the forms that no longer function. In each case, the pattern is the same: recognition without transformation, acknowledgment without digestion, performance without participation.

Nowhere is this more dangerous than in the realm of religion, where the stakes of performance are amplified by the language of the sacred. Religion, at its origin, is not a set of beliefs but a transformative process, a means by which the human being is reordered in relation to reality. Yet when this process is replaced by repetition, when sacred words are spoken without being metabolised, when rituals are enacted without being inhabited, and when declarations of faith are made without corresponding inner change, religion becomes theatre. It retains its form but loses its function.

This produces a profound and subtle fracture. The extraordinary is affirmed, sometimes with great intensity, but it is not obeyed. The language of transcendence is maintained, but the structure of the self remains unchanged. In this condition, faith is no longer a vehicle of transformation but a performance that conceals the absence of transformation. And when theatre is mistaken for transformation, it does not merely fail to help; it actively obstructs the very process it claims to represent.

The consequences of this extend beyond the individual, because language is not a neutral medium. It carries state, and state is transmissible. When undigested expression becomes normalised, it alters the shared field in which communication occurs. Discourse becomes coarser, not because people intend it to be so, but because the level of processing required to sustain nuance is no longer present. Contradiction becomes intolerable because the capacity to hold opposing realities has not been developed. Reaction replaces reflection because there is no interval in which reflection can occur. Identity hardens around impulse because impulse has not been metabolised into meaning.

This is how systems destabilise. It is not disagreement that causes collapse, but the shared regression of state across opposing positions. Different sides may hold different content, but if the structure from which they operate is the same—if both are driven by undigested material—then their interaction will inevitably escalate without resolution.

The hinge of the entire matter lies in a single reorientation: the mind is not the master of the human being; it is the digestive organ of the psyche. Its function is not to dominate experience but to process it, to take in what is felt, to hold it long enough for meaning to form, and to release it in a way that is ordered rather than reactive. When this function is intact, feeling is neither suppressed nor expelled prematurely; it is metabolised. Contradiction is not avoided; it is borne. Meaning does not collapse; it emerges. Language, as a result, carries coherence.

When this function fails, the entire sequence reverses. Feeling is expelled rather than processed. Contradiction is rejected rather than held. Meaning disintegrates rather than forms. Language becomes discharge rather than expression. What was once diction becomes expletive. What was once ordering becomes dumping.

This is the real emergency of our time. It is not reducible to any single figure, ideology, or institution. It is a widespread loss of the capacity to digest experience. Without this capacity, truth cannot be received because it cannot be held. Language cannot stabilise because it is not grounded in processed meaning. Relationships cannot endure because each party discharges what it cannot bear. Systems cannot self-correct because the feedback required for correction is itself distorted.

In this context, it becomes clear that no ideology, no matter how sophisticated, and no accumulation of information, no matter how extensive, can resolve the crisis. The issue is not what we know, but what we can bear. The intervention point is therefore immediate and structural rather than abstract or theoretical. It lies in the refusal to speak what has not been digested, in the refusal to perform what has not been entered, and in the refusal to declare what has not reordered the one who declares it.

At this point, the earlier warning concerning transmission becomes decisive. The message is not the property of the messenger; it must pass through without distortion. When the vessel interferes—when the individual identifies with the message, edits it to suit their state, amplifies it for effect, or dilutes it to avoid the cost of its implications—the message is altered. What was given for life can be turned toward confusion.

The crisis, then, is not only that language has degraded, but that transmission itself has become unreliable. Truth arrives, but it is reshaped before it is passed on. Insight appears, but it is appropriated rather than served. Revelation occurs, but it is performed rather than embodied. The mime deepens, not because nothing is given, but because what is given is not allowed to pass cleanly through those who receive it.

At this juncture, the instinct to locate the problem externally becomes particularly strong. It is tempting to assign responsibility to a leader, an ideology, a cultural group, or an opposing side. Yet this instinct is itself part of the condition being described. It displaces responsibility and preserves the state from which the problem arises.

What must be named, therefore, is the broken Jam. The broken Jam is not simply conflict, nor is it reducible to disagreement or extremity. It is a shared incapacity to digest experience combined with a persistent insistence that the problem lies elsewhere. This combination ensures that no resolution can occur, because each side reacts to the other without recognising the common structure that drives both.

This is why outrage meets outrage, certainty meets certainty, and expletive meets expletive without any movement toward resolution. The contents differ, but the structure is the same. Both sides operate from undigested state. As long as this remains unrecognised, the system cannot unlock.

A one-sided diagnosis therefore fails by definition. If the illness is located exclusively in the other, then the self is absolved of responsibility, and the pattern continues unchallenged. The bridge between Mankind and Humankind cannot be built from such a position, because it requires a fundamentally different orientation: a diagnosis that includes the diagnoser.

Humankind is not an ideology or a moral superiority. It is not a position that can be adopted through assertion. It is a state of digestion in which contradiction can be borne, responsibility can be owned, expression follows processing, and the other is no longer required to carry what the self refuses to face. In this sense, the movement from Mankind to Humankind is developmental rather than declarative.

This is why the line holds with such precision: Humankind is born of Mankind, and then Mankind is borne by Humankind. The first movement is inevitable; the second is not. It depends on whether digestion occurs.

The pivot, therefore, is not a matter of determining who is right and who is wrong. It is a matter of asking from what state speech is arising and whether that state has been processed. More directly, it is a matter of asking whether one is contributing to the Jam or metabolising it.

This question removes the refuge of opposition and places responsibility where it must ultimately reside. It asks whether one can recognise the same structural tendencies within oneself that one so readily identifies in others. It asks whether one can pause before discharge, whether one can hold contradiction without immediate resolution, and whether one can allow experience to be processed before it is expressed.

If the answer is no, then regardless of one’s stated position, one remains part of the broken Jam.

The path forward cannot be imposed externally, nor can it be engineered through policy alone. It must emerge within the shared field of human experience as individuals choose, repeatedly and often at cost, to digest rather than discharge, to participate rather than perform, and to take responsibility rather than project it outward. As this choice accumulates, the field itself begins to shift, and new forms of coherence become possible.

In this light, the outburst with which we began must be seen differently. It is not an anomaly to be isolated or condemned in isolation. It is a symptom of a broader condition that extends far beyond any single individual. Until that condition is addressed at the level of structure, the symptom will continue to appear in different forms, across different domains, carried by different people.

The world, therefore, does not change when truth is merely spoken. It changes when truth is digested and then spoken, when it has passed through the full process of being borne, processed, and integrated, and when the language that emerges carries not only content but coherence.

References

Written in HIAI collaboration — the qalam of Human and AI intelligence, the Unseen helping the Seen, both answering to the same Source.