Tomorrow's regret is today's fear.
Today's fear is denial:
A desire to ungrow, and unlearn the lessons from the future;
A desire to lay back on soft pine needles, in the comfortable warmth of sunny dispositions and breezy conversations;
A desire to unhear cries for help and pleas for progress;
A desire to unsee wanton disregard and ruinous neglect.
Tomorrow's regret is today's fear.
I do not believe in money. I do not believe in property. I do believe in an organized system to maintain peace, and to care for each other and the world we share. In "this previous post" I advocated for no ownership and proposed an alternative but similar system. I won't rehash the entire post here, but I will give a flavor of the philosophy in the two quotes below:
"Then if we are associated for the sake of liberty, equality, and security, we are not associated for the sake of property; then if property is a natural right, this natural right is not social, but anti-social. Property and society are utterly irreconcilable institutions. It is as impossible to associate two proprietors as to join two magnets by their opposite poles. Either society must perish, or it must destroy property."
--Pierre Joseph Proudhon; (1809 - 1865)
"The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say 'this is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had someone pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: 'Do not listen to this impostor. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one!'"
--Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1854
Money and property are imaginary constructs that have bounced around between an organized system of opportunity and a bureaucratic system of ensuring status quo. Today we reside in the latter and this gap between opportunity and control is ever-widening. We are so caught up in divisive politics and pretentious grandstanding that there are no more good guys; there is no more common ground; and in this moment, there is very little societal learning and growth. Today, to be a moderate is to be indecisive; to sell out; to be a coward. But to pick sides is to perpetuate stupidity and ignorance. Yet pick sides, we must: the multi-mega in-your-face industrial size stupidity? Or the burrowing duplicitous contemptuous rat-face ignorance? We must choose the lesser of the evils.
I despise what we have become. And I realize that what we have become did not begin with elections in 2016; nor did it begin with the financial crisis of 2008. We have been working towards what we have become for decades. To give one person or one event all the blame (or credit) is to overcompensate; each one of us have contributed to this problem.
I would like to believe that we have reached the vertex and that our chaotic ineptitude will begin its transformation into energetic abundance; and perhaps the "energetic" piece will prevail sooner, but any sort of universal abundance appears to be some number of decades away. Regardless, we must begin.
And if we must begin with energy, I believe anger to be a fine impetus. I said "here" that I believe we should be angry; and I also said we should have a method to rationally prioritize that anger. If we can learn to consistently practice rational thought, which is most important when listening to the rat-face left or the in-your-face right, (especially if you are an enthusiastic member of the other side), then we have begun the process of transforming anger into energy. And once I have some momentum from consistent rational thought, perhaps I can focus that energy on productive output toward abundance.
If you find yourself agreeing that yes indeed, the other side should absolutely learn to practice rational thought, then you are still contributing to the problem. If you find yourself agreeing that yes indeed, both sides should absolutely learn to practice rational thought, then you are still contributing to the problem. It is only when I say, "I must consistently, in all circumstance, practice rational thought," that we will begin to move toward abundance; knowing that, on our current trajectory, tomorrow's abundance is today's presumption; tomorrow's desire is today's entitlement; tomorrow's despair is today's insolence.
And tomorrow's regret is today's fear.
Grow up!
"Unless you are happy to entrust the future of life to the mercy of quarterly revenue reports, you need a clear idea what life is all about."
The quote above is found in the introduction to "21 Lessons for the 21st Century" - Yuval Noah Harari's latest book. If this were a required essay question, (which in a sense it is), "What is life all about" may elicit many similar and grouped responses, but at its core the generalized answers would consist of (in this moment) 7,666,971,887 varying interpretations so full of depth and nuance that the most intrepid explorer, faced with this allegorical maze of narrow corridors in changing arctic to equatorial conditions, could never map even his or her own interior. And of those most intrepid explorers that embark upon this journey, some never return. I believe it is good to explore and poke around at some depth, but as passageways begin to narrow and climates move toward extremes, perhaps it is best to climb back to the surface to live another day. And for those of us who are at the surface and who are claustrophobic, I believe we would be just as well substituting "the hokey-pokey" for "life" in the quote above.
And perhaps they are more synonymous than our high-minded human brains would like to admit: active, communal participation is at least a place to start. But active, communal participation in and of itself is not as marketable and thus is not as profitable as is an autonomous, independent celebration of "Me" even though this marketing of "Me" that ultimately results in its own unrecognized communal participation is created to delude and deceive and keep us busy with high-minded self-importance so we are unable to actually do the hokey-pokey. I vote for the hokey-pokey.
As it is today, many individuals would refuse to "put their right elbow in" and many others would rather cut off their left arm than to "shake it all about." This is sad. We should strive for an honest and sincere ambidexterity. Yes, we will still own our leanings, and some small degree of duplicitous political correctness will invariably creep in, but the effort must be made.
I should shake my weak wing with wild abandon and put my whole self in, but instead, today, we feel compelled to choose sides and unfortunately the choices seem to be limited to us and them and the distance between us and them seems to be widening. Yet when I look closely, I see some circularity. In some specific aspects of this spectrum the far right and the far left are closer than they realize. And as the more moderate elements (as they sit today) continue to move and circle further left and further right, there may come a day in the not-so-distant future when, by flattening the segment we occupy, we have once again become moderate.
I do not claim to understand all the subtle intricacies of our political spectrum, and I am not a fan of generalizations or labels, but for the sake of argument if we label today's far right as nationalistic conservative traditionalism bordering on fundamentalism and favoring capitalism, and if we label today's far left as social democracy favoring capitalism, and if we acknowledge that some aspects of traditionalism overlap with some aspects of the nether regions of social democracy, then we can visualize these two extremes circling to meet each other where ultimately, (with the flattening mentioned above), the left becomes straight-up liberalism, the right becomes straight-up conservatism and the center becomes a form of social democracy. I believe this the most likely scenario because I believe today's younger generations influenced by today's culture will more likely move social democracy to center stage pushing dying pockets of nationalism and fundamentalism further right toward inconsequentiality; and this belief is supported by research and polls.
Regardless of the polls, there are those who will disagree with my conclusion of a most likely scenario, but a significant majority of those who would disagree will be insignificant in 40 years and many will no longer be casting votes in 20 years.
And, "That's the Jingle Bell...
That's the Jingle Bell...
That's the Jingle Bell Rock!"
Shake your weak wing with wild abandon and put your whole self in!
"The greatest delight which the fields and woods minister, is the suggestion of an occult relation between man and the vegetable. I am not alone and unacknowledged. They nod to me, and I to them. The waving of the boughs in the storm, is new to me and old. It takes me by surprise, and yet is not unknown. It's effect is like that of a higher thought or a better emotion coming over me, when I deemed I was thinking justly or doing right."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Occult" as in mysterious, secret or esoteric. To acknowledge Nature, and to be acknowledged by Nature, is not depraved or evil; it is to be Human. If I set myself apart from Nature, I am denying an aspect of myself that makes me whole. I am as much Nature as is the tree and the flower and the meadow and the forest. Dominion should never be part of the equation. To rule is to influence, change, alter, prevail without permission or agreement. If I am Nature, and if you are Nature, and if we are Nature we must seek harmony so that each of us may choose to flourish in a way that adds to and completes the whole. If I choose dominion I am severing a limb; I am performing a lobotomy; I am closing off a chamber of my heart.
As it is with me and you, it also is with me and the tree and the flower and the meadow and the forest. Though we are finding that Nature (believed to be non sentient) does communicate, and we know that Nature can be vicious in its momentary selection of the fittest, a tree does not appear to act with malice aforethought. A tree does not appear to consciously choose dominion for the "rush" that comes with power. If a tree (or a tornado or an alligator) does act divisively or destructively, I believe it is because it seeks sustenance and survival. Humans do not have to purposefully choose nonproductive and destructive dominion over a Nature that is perceived to be non sentient or non speaking. Humans do not have to purposefully choose nonproductive and destructive dominion over other Humans. Yet we do. Simply by creating an imaginary divide between us and them, we perpetuate dominion, which, in turn, undermines natural efforts toward the sustenance and survival of all Nature.
We claim to have dominion. Yet, in truth, if we continue on this trajectory, we will prove to be a mere footnote. And if all of Humanity becomes a footnote, then the most powerful and influential individuals who ever lived will be but footnotes within a footnote. So what is the point of dominion? This is the "higher thought" and "better emotion" that Ralph Waldo Emerson felt with "the waving of the boughs in the storm" making him reconsider his belief that he was "thinking justly or doing right." We should all reconsider our thougts of and our relationship with Nature. We should all seek harmony so that each of us may choose to flourish in a way that adds to and completes the whole.
Henry David Thoreau said, "Old trees are our parents, and our parents' parents, perchance. If you would learn the secrets of Nature, you must practice more humanity than others."
To look up at an old tree, and to look into an old tree, is to learn from strength, maturity and endurance; the embodiment of parental protection and benevolence. If old trees are our parents, then all of Nature is our maker. And if all of Nature is our maker, it follows that many individuals would want to ask who or what gave birth to Nature? To come closer to Knowledge of an Ultimate Maker, some feel dominion over Nature is a shortcut. Yet our distorted and dissonant dominion, as it is today, only ensnares and condemns; us, our parents, our parents' parents and our children's grandchildren. And if it is simply creation all the way down, we must first navigate here and now. And if there is an Ultimate Maker, it is still this first journey that matters most. Either way, regardless my desire to be God, today I am Nature. Today I must seek harmony so that I may choose to flourish in a way that adds to and completes the whole.
I may believe that flourishing is made more difficult by those purposefully seeking disharmony; but if I allow myself to be distracted or misled, I set myself apart from Nature. If I listen to distortion and dissonance, I am not listening to the old trees or the flowers or the meadows or the forests. If I react before considering the whole, then I have also lost sight of the One.
The One is whole. The One is Nature. The One is the here and now, knowing that the here and now will remain here and now for as long as Humanity survives. To hope for a future beyond this Natural here and now is to abdicate responsibility. To be distracted and misled is to ask my children's grandchildren to fix what I broke. To live by faith alone is to set myself apart; sever a limb; perform a lobotomy; close a chamber of my heart. I must work to seek harmony so I may choose to flourish in a way that adds to and completes the whole.
The fact that you did not see the pedestrian in the crosswalk, will not bring him back to life. And your refusal to acknowledge that winter is coming, will not keep you warm. And your disdain for those who disagree with you, does not make you right. And your apathy or hatred for those who are different from you, does not make them wrong. And your domineering certainty, will not garner legitimate or long-lasting respect. And your privilege, does not make you smarter. And your perceived entitlement, does not make you capable. And your efforts to do good for people, does not mean you are doing right by them. And your belief that you know what people want, does not translate to helping them with what they need.
As the pedestrian, it is not very gratifying to say, "I told you so."
One day, you will become the pedestrian and you will understand. But depending upon your vision, your anticipation, your disdain, your apathy, your hatred, your need for control, your certainty, your privilege, your perceived entitlement, your definition of good and your psychic abilities, that day and that understanding may come too late.
I am talking to myself as much as (and more than) I am talking to you. Many of those who have a greater need for this talking-to, are not listening.
How do I convince those in need to listen; not to listen to me, but to listen to their own inner workings. To see their self from outside of their self. To recognize willful ignorance as the circular reasoning that it is. (I do not agree with you because you are untrustworthy. You are untrustworthy because you disagree with me.) Circular reasoning.
If it is not an observable fact with tangible evidence and a consensus that crosses many divides, I have no choice but to say, "I don't know with certainty." Instead, if I am inclined to argue, I must say, "I believe." And I must concede, "you may be right." I cannot force those who know with certainty to sincerely apply this test and this process to all those things they know with certainty. This process is not difficult to understand, but for many it is difficult to implement because they perceive it as a threat to their essence and their way of life, and that scares the oblivion out of them. This intense and painful fear moves one to practice willful ignorance.
Willful ignorance perpetuates and compounds willful ignorance. And as we surpass a certain critical mass of willful ignorance, it becomes dangerous and destructive. I believe we have surpassed that point. To believe that my worldview---my ego---my willful ignorance should precede reality, is simply not very nice. Those who practice willful ignorance are not very nice people. Perhaps by appealing to one's sense of decency we will have some greater success in helping people inclined to argue to more frequently say:
"I believe..."
"I don't know with certainty."
"You may be right."
Those who abide by this process are Believers. Believers are nice. Knowers are not very nice. And large groups of Knowers or Knowers with excessive influence are dangerous; especially those Knowers who are also Doers. On the other hand, Believers who are Thinkers and Doers, are much more likely to understand reality and to contribute to the productive advancement of all of Humanity.
I cannot force a Knower to become a Believer. And though many Knowers see themselves as Believers, one cannot be a Believer who Knows.
The fact that you did not see the pedestrian in the crosswalk, will not bring him back to Life.
