I received a comment to my last blog (freedom response, vol 2) that I found intriguing and thought I'd respond to. And Adrian, please feel free to correct me if I misinterpret you.
As I see it, the comment basically says that what I call for is a violent change, an internal revolution of the soul, and that without leadership to guide us, we will fall into an anarchy of the soul, a directionless, violent confusion. That the only beneficial path of internal growth is the golden rule- to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That this path is not loud, is an internal growth between yourself and the universe, and that no one particularly needs to know about your personal process.
Now, this made me think quite a bit, because on one level I agree. Revolutions are bloody, frequently providing no actual change, and that peaceful change sounds beautiful and harmonious.
But does that actually work? Can systematic, positive growth occur without it causing some sort of rupture? I would say probably yes, but in our modern world almost universally no. In an environment entirely conducive to personal growth, an environment encouraging people to push themselves and protecting them when they fall, a so-called "social health care system", yes that would probably be true.
But I don't think we live there. Anyone who feels that there is anything wrong with the direction we are going has to conclude that one of the things we most surely don't have is a society that is conducive to this process. If everything was happy and hunky-dory, I wouldn't be writing this in the first place.
To me the great injustice our society does is to block us from being able to listen to ourselves, to pressure us not to find ourselves, but rather to accept their model. The corporate model of society says that we should all fit into advertising niches. But I say we don't! That no person is just a collection of other people's ideas.
Here's the issue though- with rare exceptions, we have all been brought up in this system. To even allow yourself the time and mental space to really think explore your values is a break with what we've been given.
If we don't revolt against what we've been given, and what we've been given is slavery, then there is no way for us to find freedom.
And not all revolutions are bad. Some have been quite necessary, and have caused positive changes. The American revolution comes to mind. The emancipation of India from the British. The end of apartheid. To name a few. In all these cases, an external force was causing such a constraint on the members of the society that revolution was an appropriate response.
Perhaps, then, revolution can be positive when it is not providing a cycle of who from society is in power, but when it involves revolting against an outside force oppressing a local population. In other words, advertising's pressure on an individual's value system.
I wish that we lived in a world that allowed for peaceful development of the soul. But I don't feel that we do. And, unfortunately, the issues facing humans in the upcoming century have greater implications for all of us and the world as a whole than our problems ever have before. We don't have the luxury of waiting for people to slowly come to their understanding. I genuinely fear that if serious steps aren't taken now, the tide pulling us in a very bad direction will be too great.
We may have to get to an abyss to learn to fly, but if when we get there we haven't taken the time to build any wings, we're probably fucked.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Andre- you made me think of the sincere challenge you're speaking of. Its contra-intuitive and its not loud.
I think it was Chairman Mao who said in a bolstering response to Marx: "A revolution is not a tea party. It is a violent insurrection where one party overthrows another."
A sick society is a reflection of ailing leaders and weary citizens. It sounds to me like you're calling for everyone to consider an internal revolution. A revolution of the human spirit.
But if history teaches us anything about revolutions, it is bloody and ugly. There always seems to be casualties.
As controversial as it is, Noam Chomsky poignantly remarked of our contemporary age "Terrorism is the voice of the unheard."
But I'm not sure that's where we want to go either with a revolution, externally or internally. Without foundation, without leadership, too many who try alone often are left to conclude at an anarchy of the soul.
You query two main things in your blog entry - 1) perspective ; 2) motivation. With perspective, simplified, it seems you get two different sides on the coin of motivation. Motivation being the real issue- a cost measured in golden rules.
Who is right?
The categorical imperative might be distilled down to the golden rule. Do onto others as you wish the universe might do onto itself. Alone. Yet sensible for everyone in the universe.
Without paradigm and idolatry, without bloody revolutions, quietly making choices, crossing currents, no one knows you are free, except you and the universe.
"Much madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
'Tis the majority
In this, as all, prevails
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,--you're straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain."
-Emily Dickinson