Ice Cream and Evil

I posted earlier on the subject of choice, concentrating on the issue that some people have with allowing others to make choices. I want to discuss now another aspect of choosing, which is how to make a choice; especially gaining information in order to choose. For example, in order to decide what kind of ice cream you enjoy or wish to have, what do you base your choice on? There are many factors to consider, but if you come across a new flavor, and you haven’t experienced those ingredients before, how can you know if you’ll like it? I hope that many of you have just answered, "Try it!" Not only is it an appetizing method of choosing and gaining more information for making that decision, it is an experience: something more you have gone through to give yourself another in a (hopefully) long series of instructive moments in life. Each attempt, even the failed or unpalatable, is at least more information to make further decisions from. We often need all the help and detailed information that we can acquire, so making those mistakes and learning from them leads towards what we do desire: success. Whether we want to find the most delicious dessert or a job to spend one’s life doing, this method works equally well. So, if mistakes are beneficial and necessary, why do people spend so much time avoiding them? It is because we are trained to do so, we are constantly told as we mature, to “Get it right!” and “Not screw up!” In addition to being kept from opportunities and experiencing things, we are kept from learning those important lessons, as well as the benefit of learning about ourselves and our world. After all, the only way to know evil is to encounter it, the only way to know right is to do it. If children are kept sheltered from danger and not told about real threats to them, how are they ever to understand what to avoid? How can they truly know? The fairy tales they hear disguise the dangers they will face and only teach them to listen to and obey their elders. What happens when they grow up and the elders are not around is they are lost and still need someone else to direct them. It is important for our children to learn these lessons for themselves so they can be better prepared to avoid future problems and know what they actually want.

What Is Wrong With...?

It may be a bumper sticker, but it still holds true what it says, “None of us is free if one of us is jailed.” The idea being, of course, that if we don't all get there together none of us can truly get there. This statement may seem ridiculous on its face, but it bears some thought. After all, what is wrong with some or even one person “getting there” and why if one person does would we all need to? Competition, and its adjunct capitalism, is based upon the concept that every situation results in either ‘win’ or ‘loss’. The idea being that if only one can ‘win’ then all will want to be that one and strive for it, but only that one individual will succeed and gain the reward; all others will ‘lose’, resulting in feelings of defeat and envy, discouragement-any number of things which supposedly motivate them to try all the harder next time. These people are not actually ‘losers’, they are capable and deserve their own reward, and are just as worthy of a tangible prize for their considerable efforts. This is part of the problem: no one should have to put forth such energy in an endeavor to receive nothing in return. Competition always results in a substantial misuse and/or waste of effort and energy. Further, competing means that every participant loses. The very act of competing against one’s fellow employees or applicants, classmates, family and friends, etc., creates tension and strife. It is undesirable and unnecessary since the same outcome can be achieved with different means, which preserves everyone’s self-worth and contributes to the harmony and performance of the whole group. Finally, every ‘win’ is only temporary; so even the happy ‘winner’ will be unhappy later when they ‘lose’ too. When the only way to succeed is to ‘win’-whether in a sport, relationship, or job-we miss the point.
The point of performing a job is to do the best one can, not just to out-perform another person; in recreation the idea is to play a game the best one can, not just better than a particular opponent. In a relationship this attitude could mean that one is out to ‘win’ arguments, always be “right”, or in charge, and/or make the decisions. Competing or inciting competition means that you are driving people to fight against each other which cannot be beneficial. The only real ‘winner’ is the person who reaps the rewards of the efforts of all the participants, which more and more is none of the competitors, but someone who already has power. Basically the artificial creation of inequalities is unnecessary and deprives every person involved of integrity, compassion, and unity. The idea of interdependence is key in many philosophies, and in practice allows for all people to ‘win’. When we recognize the necessity of everyone and their contributions and stop fighting against each other, then we will be able to achieve more and “get there” more happily.

What We Need Now Is a Leader

The cult of the single individual, who is responsible for all success, is a farce. Focussing on one person makes the group effort less prominent, instead all the team's efforts are attributed to that individual. This allows or forces us to disregard the others involved, even when there is no way a single person is actually able to do these things. The ramifications of this thinking can be seen if one looks at the aggrandizement of C.E.O.'s across the United States through the 1990's, and the results speak for themselves. While the criminal actions of those involved in schemes like Enron are specific to those executive officers, they would not be possible if a greater amount of attention were paid to the structure as a whole. Political movements, riots, companies, religions, and families are not single-person institutions, it always requires a team, a group, a community, all these examples and more require a multitude of people to function. What the denial of groups means is that we cannot recognize the power that they have, the true power of numbers of people coming together for a common goal. We remain distracted by the illusion of power that one person out front, the "leader", seems to command. By concentrating our attention on one person, we are dis-empowered; because we no longer recognize the power we have in a group, we only see that we have no power as an individual. Instead of recognizing all of the people who prop-up that figure, we focus on the figure, rather than noticing the efforts of the team, some individual is chosen to receive the reward of all their combined efforts. The result is a shift in the balance of power, from the many to the few or the one. Instead of the politicians being representatives of the people, those who elect and direct the politicians now leave the governance entirely to the ones they elected and are left out. These officials do not have the right or "mandate" to 'lead' us, we are the ones who lead, who determine the course of our lives and our country. Just as Abraham Lincoln stated in his address, "...a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." The government is simply an apparatus to carry out our decisions, not some paternal organization gathered to make the best judgments for us. Certain groups are realizing their power, they are acting in a concerted manner, addressing issues that they care about. Are the rest of us just going to lay back and watch in bewilderment the actions of these people? That is exactly what will happen if we are waiting for a person to come along and give us some direction.

Control and Power

Having no time to think about what is happening or why leaves one without the ability to recognize when things are out-of-kilter. Everything seems to be as it should, yet one has no way to judge since the entire basis of understanding the world that one uses is skewed-there is no other frame of reference. Being immersed in a situation can make it impossible to really understand the situation itself. There are many examples of flawed thinking being accepted, my favorite being the "flat-earth" theory that most people and cultures ascribed to until the 'Middle Ages', whereas we now know (believe) the Earth is spherical. Some tribes believed that a person with an image of another (such as a photograph or doll) allowed the image-holder to exert their will over the person in the image; if one grew up in that culture, one would think that is true. All these beliefs limit what a person can accomplish, after all it is impossible to sail around the world if it is shaped like a platter rather than a globe. Similarly, there can be no rebellion against the person who has power over you, whatever manner you were raised to believe it is exerted through: by having your image, maybe that children must obey their parents in all things, or that one must do whatever is necessary to win. Yet, just like the world we live on being a sphere and not a disk, the fact remains that the individual retains control even when they think someone else is in control of them. Whatever the method, it is used to hold one back from realizing that fundamental truth: that each individual has the power over themselves, no one else. Even in the most rigorously controlled environment we know of, and here I speak of the military, where every action is directed by a 'superior' and it is understood that 'subordinates' are compelled to follow 'orders'. Simultaneously the 'subordinate' is responsible for determining the validity and/or moral correctness of those orders and is expected to disregard any that are improper. The power of those who control is exercised through the simple, regular folks that do as they are told, the people who delude themselves with "I'm just doing my job", and those who are so busy "making a living" that they have no time for a real life. It is a subtle form of control that insinuates itself into one's thinking. The goal of the system is that one not be given the ability to understand one's subservience...to be kept in ignorance of the very fact of one's enslavement. These controllers know that if we no longer follow nor allow ourselves to be their pawns, their control will cease and they will no longer have their power. We suffer to support them, not the other way around; the overbearing parent who constantly reminds the child that (s)he has, "sacrificed so much so that you can have everything!", the worker who is paid nearly nothing for laboring and tolerates the abuse of a boss who berates him/her, "you better be grateful, if you don't there are ten others who will take your place!", and the regular citizen who is dying from pollution yet is told, "we can't make the polluters stop or clean up their mess, they have so many other responsibilities." Which is the greater inconvenience: one less unique individual (a father/mother/son/daughter/sister/brother/etc., a person with real positive impact on others' lives) or one less business entity (which cannot produce its wares without killing actual people)? Even I can recognize the contributions of corporations, but I still don't think their existence entitles them to destroy the lives of others-they aren't even alive. Realize that the company doesn't provide and care for the workers' family, the worker does. Without the corporation, the worker does survive, but without the workers, the corporation is no more. Who has the real power here? You should know the answer here: the complaining parents' child, the slave-driving company's worker, the suffering citizen, and the lowest-ranking member of the military-because they all do. Buying into it and excusing it "because it can't change, it has to be this way" is inexcusable; denying ones' own power to serve those who cause your suffering isn't noble or righteous, it is stupid and ridiculous. This is not to blame individuals nor-especially not-true victims, what I discuss here only applies in everyday life, not that one special situation where an individuals' power is taken away by force, such as a rape or tornado. Even then the person is not powerless, even if they cannot stop the events from happening-generally they still retain their mental powers. Being able to think is the greatest power one has and it is the most constant. Which brings me back to my original point, which is: having that mental capacity subverted from the beginning to allow control by others can be the most insidious form of manipulation. Any situation or series of events which is designed to keep one from thinking about what goes on is suspect and should be regarded warily. Not that you'll necessarily be able to tell when that is.

Signs of Intelligent Life

What is it that defines intelligence, and I defy you to answer, "...being smart." The answer I will use here is that intelligence is simply the ability to think: to learn, reason, and theorize; it is not satisfactory in an academic or scientific manner, but serves the purpose we need it to here. The problem with the question is that once answered, it only leads to another question: what is intelligence for? Once we do know what intelligence is, we need to understand what it means for us. We do not have only enough brainpower to move our bodies and react to situations, that is to say we do not operate simply from instinct, although we definitely have predetermined responses or reflexes, both physically and psychically. The ability to think leads to the development of many technologies, certainly, but what else does it offer a species? It must serve a purpose aside from allowing one to solve problems and make tools. Isn’t the surplus simply wasted if that is its only function? Is intelligence something outside that, something intended for different uses which is wasted on those pursuits? Just as we don’t have hands solely to carry things, cogitation is not simply to imagine weapons. Each of these tools serves multiple purposes. The purpose of hands is not only to strangle and strike, but also to caress and hold gently. The ability to think demands the use of that ability, we can’t avoid it. So, when we use this ‘intelligence’, what should our goal be? Since we have it, and it can be used for so many things, what are the areas we should be investigating and focusing on? It seems that each new level of understanding leads to further questions, just as most pursuits in life may have no ultimate answer. Yet, if we aren’t to just blunder through life reacting and living as chance should have it, what does this ability allow us to do? Humanity’s prodigious ability to think is one of very few things we have going for us. Comprehending and understanding ourselves and our environment are the keys to our survival individually and collectively. We are not meant to live as salmon do, nor as bees; not that we are more or better than they, just that we have abilities they do not. Finally, an answer! However, one which only opens up another line of inquiry: which solution will allow us to survive? Once we recognize its purpose in our existence, we still need to agree upon implementing a response to our problems. For that we all need to agree upon the information we’ll use to formulate our answer, which is a topic for another time.