From dictionary.com: “righteous - characterized by uprightness or morality; morally right or justifiable; acting in an upright or moral way; virtuous.” To be critical of righteousness is to risk giving an impression of moral superiority when that quality in others is exactly what I am criticizing. On the one hand, I am allowed to think and surmise, but on the other hand, I must acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong. It is a dilemma. To excoriate righteousness is to promulgate and perpetuate righteousness. But to allow the active realization and consequent justification of (what I perceive as) wrongs, with no comment, is to promulgate and perpetuate disparity and injustice regardless of if I am right or wrong or somewhere in between. One could wait for a consensus and join up. But how does a consensus come about if no one speaks up? This consensus method of change slows progress because it takes considerable effort to properly load the bandwagon. Yet, we find forward movement, (which is not always progress), difficult without a consensus. In this current era of divisiveness though, I believe consensus is moreso a vocal rather than an actual majority; I believe the bandwagon is improperly loaded with sheep and driven by wolves; and I believe that is how some factions are moving forward though progress is at (best at) a standstill; and I believe the imperious righteousness of these drivers is exactly what I am speaking out about; and I believe this scenario is equally present and active on both sides of our nation’s political aisle. But in today’s environment, how do I state an opinion and work toward progress without seeming righteous and without seeming to take sides?

A few weeks ago, I asked myself a similar question: How do I influence compassionately with urgency? These questions are similar in that in both efforts I am working to connect, not divide; and I am working to progress, not maintain any sort of status quo. A few weeks ago, I determined that there were simply some individuals and some factions so single-minded and so entrenched on their path that they are incapable of reason. Considering this parallel effort toward tempering imperious righteousness, I am likely to face this same unmoving mindset if I am perceived to be fighting righteousness with righteousness.

It is interesting that, (regardless of the frequent dead ends, continued isolation and brick walls), I continue to seek ways to convince others of the wisdom in uncertainty and reason and actual expertise and active hope. In this climate of clashing confrontation, it feels like

• no one wants to admit that they may be wrong and so no one is willing to listen;
• no one wants to admit that their concept of how things should be is selfish and likely a relic from a different place and time;
• no one wants to admit that they are only as necessary as any other random individual from any other random city, state, nation, or continent anywhere upon this random planet;
• and no one wants to believe that to do for oneself is to undo for others and to do for others one must undo for oneself.

I am often wrong. I am willing to listen. My concept of how things should be will always be (to some degree) selfish. I, on occasion, harken back to better times. I acknowledge the objective rationality of the impartiality of comparative necessity, but my actions tend to reflect my self-perceived importance and superiority. I, on occasion, purposefully undo for myself as a reminder; but it is difficult. All of these factors contribute to competing divisive hubris, and this collection of individual hubris will ultimately determine our fate as a species; and that is scary.

Many would argue that confidence is necessary and that days gone by really were better and that randomness does not apply to them or theirs and that one must first love and help their self before they are able to love and help others. I argue that when a belief is strong and/or entrenched, it becomes true; for that individual. So, in turn, widespread strong and/or entrenched belief creates some form of consensus and often leads to imperious righteousness. I argue that even the most benevolent, kind, generous and seemingly unselfish acts cannot be done for both oneself and for others. Yes, others may benefit from my selfish actions, (and I do not belittle this consideration or devalue its contribution), but if there is even a smidgen of selfishness, I am doing for myself, thus undoing for others. At this point, many would argue, (and I agree), I am essentially saying that as an individual human I am incapable of unadulterated unselfishness. The best I can actively hope for is valuable overflow contribution. Still, on occasion, I work to find a way to exclusively undo for myself as a reminder to add some undoing in my doing. This consideration of doing and undoing is a very fine distinction, but I believe it is an important one.

I am again come to a conclusion that some paths are so well-worn, they will forever be trod upon.

I cannot undo what has been undone.