Competition, Saviours, and the Fate of Us All

There is a persistent idea that there is one answer: an individual, a correct path, or "way".  I see this in religions, with their "one true" gods and messiahs, in medicine, where disease A gets treatment B, and in government, where the answer to any and every problem is more and stricter laws being passed.  This single-solution thinking leaves us vulnerable to snake oil salesmen when we pin all our hopes on this or that all-in-one device. This becomes magical thinking when we believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that one answer can be applied to every situation. It's also self-sabotaging when we expect only one thing from ourselves, one way of being. We are all complex and experiential animals who vary in reaction and ability, sometimes from minute to minute.  We are capable of both amazing generosity and destructive selfishness.  We can be both saints and sinners, brave and cowardly, knowledgable and ignorant.  These are all just parts of being human.  Expecting one without the other-thinking a person is only either "good" or "bad"-is childish.  I am reminded of a phrase I heard years ago. I think many of us have heard of a "silver bullet" which eliminates a mythic problem. The real problem is neither of them exists; I mean neither the werewolves nor the "magic" bullet solution. The phrase which I heard is "silver buckshot" because there isn't one "bullet" that will dispel the "monsters" we need to deal with. Rather, by taking a larger-scale approach of putting a number of holes in the problem using different methods will we be able to truly and realistically solve these problems.  In my judgement, single-solution thinking is destructive and deceptive, there is no one size that fits all. It is not about having the right answer, or even one that everyone can agree on.

I don't claim to have "the answer", or at least I should not-especially after this post.  What I try to do is make observations and hope to instigate discussion. As individual and unique as every one is, as every individual is a universe unto themselves, I don't believe there can be such a thing as "one way".

Totally Brilliant Idea (Patent Pending)

In a flash of insight I had today the best idea of my life, and I've decided to share it with you here because I'm very excited about it.  This harkens back to the series of posts I did on capitalism (09-10), which I'm sure you are familiar with. What I will do is to get an appropriately-trained genegineer with an adequately-stocked laboratory to alter the makeup of the bacteria for the most common illness (the "common cold") and then patent that organism!  That would mean that every person who catches a cold will have to prove that it isn't mine or pay me royalties for usage of it!  Thank you, SCOTUS!

I had recently been doubting my genius, but I feel vindicated now.

Consent of the Governed

I brought up this topic in my post "Capitalism as Favoritism" of 15Mar09.  The idea here being that laws only have as much effect and last only as long as they are adhered to by those being governed.  This is not to say that laws cannot or will not be enforced by the sword or gun because it is certain that they oftentimes have been.  We have seen throughout history where an oligarchical group keeps power by terrorizing the farmers, workers, whatever majority there is.  However, even in the face of brutal repression by those using overt force there is a choice.  It is this choice, the consent, that we are concerned with. These citizens stand up, most often individually at first, and demand change.  Call it revolt, revolution, or reform-however it is characterized it signals the end of draconian rule by an elite class.  I wish that were the end of the story, but it is not so.  It is at this point that the governed consent to a law, series of laws, or entire government which become the new standard. Recognize that even now, after so many of these uprisings, there is still oppression and unfair rule by the elite.  How, if there have been so many examples of these circumstances being imposed and overcome, is this still the case?  How could it be that after overthrowing each dictatorship another springs up in its place?  My supposition is that no real change has taken place and that the reform is simply a "changing of the guard", if you will.  When the majority finally resist their government and succeed in changing the situation, they simply end up with a new elite class who hold the same interests: holding onto their power and status. My feeling is that the majority of people do not want to have the responsibility of wielding power or of adjudication.  I think most people enjoy living a simple life of work, family, and leisure and that it is actually abnormal to desire domination and strife.  I further suggest that it is this aspect which creates the systemic problem of a "ruling elite". Because it is only those few individuals who want to control and contend while others just want to get along and enjoy life.  It automatically creates a divide between those ambitious few and the rest. I think it can be addressed and changed, but in most cases up to now it is ignored so the problem persists.

Getting back to the point, I suggest simply that it is up to the majority to decide things, not the elite. When enough of the citizenry stop following a law or rule, it ceases to have any power.  Furthermore, without the majority following it means that the minority has no power.  "Leaders" are actually quite unimportant, as life and even government goes on without them; it is the masses of citizens which are vital to nations and to everyday operations.

I Would Do Anything for....

I feel a strong need to dedicate this post to Meatloaf, that is the rocking recording artist/actor.
Not the food product.

At any rate, my purpose is to discuss an interesting topic: the meaning of this claim about doing anything for some cause, person, or object. Oftentimes we hear someone claim that they would do anything for love or their family, I will call these individuals "claimants".  What is understood from this is that they would accomplish heroic feats or go to the ultimate limit to safeguard that object/ideal.  Mainly, it has been used to announce that the claimant doesn't mind death or serious injury in protecting said item.  I propose that claimants are being a bit grandiose in these statements.  Most of us are never called upon to do anything so drastic as putting our lives or bodies in harms way to protect another.  There are many documented cases of uninvolved individuals doing just that, in fact.  It doesn't really take a great attachment or forethought to act in extreme cases, just an openness to justice or relation to other humans.  These claimants can rest assured that they can, and will, still make the ultimate sacrifice if called upon.  This is still, however, worth examining because of the alternative I propose.  Rather than these improbable promises, I would support claimants instead to actually do something necessary: work on their own shortcomings.  Instead of holding out for that extreme and unlikely event (while not preparing for it in any way, I will add), I would suggest practical and meaningful personal improvement.  I propose that this active course is actually the more necessary and beneficial one.  This is because it accomplishes something immediately, it is rewarding for the claimant, and it demonstrates more concretely their intention and motivation.  It is also the more difficult choice.  It proves that the claimant means business and isn't "all talk".

How our Technology Has Outstripped our Humanity

We have ideas that are handed down to us from between 300 to 2500 years ago.  We hold on to blatantly incorrect notions that have no application to modern life. These ideas come into conflict with the discoveries that are made by science every day. We can now transplant genes from completely different species into others. This means, for example, putting genes from a jellyfish into a cat.  Where in this new world does believing in ghosts or luck have any relevance?  How does judging the worth of another person mainly by their external appearance serve?  I, for one, am suspicious and immediately mistrust anyone who is too attractive, well-dressed, or who has expensive accoutrements.  However, not every well-to-do, FUC (fine, upstanding citizen) is actually the morally bankrupt and reprehensible individual I judge them to be.  More to the point, these beliefs keep us from knowing and interacting with each other in meaningful ways. Every judgement about others is one more obstacle to really meeting them and opening up to them, which is the only way to actually relate.  It is in this relatedness that we find our humanity. When technology is simple and information easily comprehended, it poses no barrier to relating.  We can all agree that fire is hot and that being burned hurts.  It does not necessarily follow that fire is dangerous or useful, those are opinions that may differ from person to person.  If we can all find commonality and agreement on our reality then we can act in accord and in unison. If we believe different things, and especially believe incorrectly, that is an obstacle.  It is necessary to agree on facts and on how to use our knowledge in order to make the choices that lead forward.  When that happens, we will be able to actually fulfill the promise and live up to the capacity of our humanity.

Certainty is Comfort

The difficulty in life is that we do not know what to do-that we are unsure of our path, our goal, our selves.  We worry instead about how to pay bills, about raising children, pleasing our lovers, impressing our bosses, or the rut we find our selves in.  Everything in life is a challenge and there aren't easy, clear-cut answers.  Uncertainty is the most challenging thing to face in life and if we could feel sure of things, we would feel much better.  Certainty is safety to our minds, it is not being attacked, not being dumped into the street or by our lover.  Being certain of our health, our home, and our future allows us to enjoy all that life offers us.  Feeling lost and overwhelmed is commonplace and accepted, it's understood that we will be confused about all these things.  So how do we solve it?  We could recognise there is no way to actually solve uncertainty, that the future is uncontrollable.  That would be to admit that we are not the all-powerful, planning- and doing-beings we imagine ourselves to be.  Instead we create a system that we instill with the expectation that it has answers.  We convince ourselves that this process can solve all the problems, create certainty, and has a clear path to follow which will keep us safe.  The future is still just as uncertain and uncontrollable if we believe in hocus-pocus.  The problem lies in believing it and not acting in accord with reality.  If one gives up control of more areas of life and expects that everything will be fine just because of one's prayers, that does not solve the underlying problem.  It will just feel better, because there is no acknowledging of that undesirable uncertainty. 

Religion offers answers.  It does not necessarily offer real answers.

Legal Insanity

The legal system we refer to as one of "justice" is actually about retribution. It deals not with making things "right"; it deals only with making people pay, either in money or time. If something were broken, justice would require fixing it or replacing it.  When an item is taken, justice would say to put it back.  If someone is injured, justice demands they be taken care of and healed.  None of these remedies are as complicated or as superficial as the solutions suggested and implemented by our modern version of righting wrongs.  What good is done by building resentment and decreasing the ability to work and/or be productive? How does locking people away from family and friends effect a positive change as a result of the "crime"?  Some wrong has already been done, so how does another wrong make anything better?  There is no benefit to imprisoning citizens and it is not a solution.  At best, it could be said that the prison system, as it should be called, is a temporary fix to a larger problem.  This stop-gap measure should have been abolished years ago and not allowed to continue-and expand to grievous extent-into the 21st Century.  Locking up a small number of truly dangerous individuals for as short a period as possible is the only humane manner to address this problem.  In other, somewhat more civilised countries, it is done that way; even murderers are only kept locked away for a relatively short period.  Further, during their incarceration, they are actually rehabilitated and healed so that they will not re-offend.  The issue goes beyond "bad people" as some would say, and even beyond simple monetary poverty.  This is at heart a problem which stems from our neurotic notions of complete individual responsibility, which has expanded to such an extent that a person is deemed to be of diminished worth if they recognise they need help and ask for it.  We all acknowledge that no one actually "pulls themselves up by their own bootstraps", because even the staunchest believer in individualism drives in a car designed and built by others.  Even these rugged, die-hard foes of community will drink water drilled, purified, and piped to them by others.  No one person-and this includes all of history-does all the things needed to stay alive all on their own and lives within and contributes to a society.  It takes a small band, if not an actual village, to stay alive in the simplest sense of the word.  Some may be wondering what this has to do with law and justice.  It is only in the overpopulated, overcrowded situation that we are currently experiencing in which this could even be contemplated.  At any other time in history, we would value the lives of each individual enough that no one would ever be locked away.  In any other manner of living but this one we would acknowledge our failings as a society to those who suffer and are not given the basic necessities and opportunity to contribute to their community.  It is precisely because we have lost the idea of belonging together, of supporting each other, and of working together.  Only under these conditions could it be acceptable to make different, to "other", people who are truly just like ourselves.  It is only because we treat "them" as competition and as opponents to be beaten that we can justify this sort of behaviour.  If we were to admit that those who are in prisons, jails, detention centers, and labour camps are there solely because we could not accept responsibility for our society, things would be radically different.  We would no longer be able to shun and expel those who made mistakes.  We would have to see that they only did so because we are weak and selfish.  Overwhelmingly, crimes are monetary in nature: theft, mugging, even embezzling.  Next in line are "crimes of passion", spontaneous reactions to a perceived attack on a person's emotional well-being (most often a disrupted intimate relationship).  Addressing these things would be simple, but revolutionary, because they come from disregarding the innate value of each human.  Prisons are just another symptom of the same condition, and until it is treated all these problems will persist.  It is shameful that rather than stand up to our own failings we lock away "criminals".

Citizens United against..."Citizens United"

The title refers to the SCOTUS decision in the case "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission", which made substantial changes to recent election reforms and granted 1st Amendment protections to non-living, non-citizen entities.  As I said in a previous post (Control and Power of 20May05) the difference between an actual person and a corporation is vital...or, if you would like a quip, vitality. The very reason we have to deal with this is absurd but the effects are anything but a laughing matter.  I suggest you read up and pay attention to this and its effects; to see this happening is quite amazing, though-it is quite rare to witness such a blatant grab for power in the U.S.A.