Adaptability is at once the strength & the weakness of humankind. When natural disaster changes the world for the worse, humans adapt; this is obviously a strength, as it keeps humankind alive. But the same ability also ensures that when one group of humans enslaves another, the latter will adapt to their enslavement with ease and learn to accept it as the norm: this is a weakness.
If I were an ancient Israelite living during the time of King David, I would get married and have children, because I could count on my kids growing up in a prosperous country. But if I were an ancient Israelite living during the time of the Babylonian captivity, I would get married for the sake of companionship, if the opportunity arose; yet I'd refrain from procreating, to avoid contributing more children to slavery.
The most distinguished souls of a given eon, however, are those who, whether married or not, help any beings who currently exist, from very young to very old. For instance, I can think of nothing better than a person who adopts orphans and treats them compassionately; for these children are already alone in the world, and to aid them is to bring potential harmony to a situation that promises discord. As it is written:
"The bird a nest, the spider a web, man friendship." [William Blake's "Proverbs of Hell"]
Why don't we combine the sports of volleyball and soccer? It is fully within our power to do this. I say, let's act now.
Q: "I can't understand why anyone would work in the fast-food industry nowadays, since we know that the pay is too low to live on, the atmosphere is undignified, and the product is poison."
A: "All the negatives that you listed are outweighed by the positives of the experience. For one gets to meet new people, when folks line up to order during the lunch-rush; and then one gets to fondle coins & banknotes momentarily, when making change after each customer has paid for their meal (Science has proven that touching money is a tactile bliss); lastly, one also gets to scoop up french-fries, handle hamburgers, fill cups with soda, and mop spills when they occur. These things are rewarding, in & of themselves."
Q: "I now see why you continue to work in this industry, despite the wages being unable to support existence, the inhumane treatment from both customers and management, and the unhealthy product. You have persuaded me to switch careers and join you."
A: "Easy, now. Hold your horses. Not so fast, dear friend. Proceed with caution. My advice is: Do not make foolish decisions on impulse. First, before you officially quit your job and seek employment in the fast-food industry, please tell me: What is your current profession and annual salary."
Q: "At present I am a Doctor of Medicine. I earn an annual salary of $115,000. But that's just my day job. I also moonlight as an Attorney-at-Law, in Night Court, to make a little extra spending cash: that brings in an additional $160,000 annually."
A: "Now that I understand your situation, I definitely recommend switching horses in mid-stream and finding full-time employment in the fast-food industry. It will help to improve your character, and you might even happen to meet your future spouse. (Many people find their soul mate at the workplace, because falling in love is enjoyable.)"
Q: "Sounds great. I'll go fill out an application immediately. Maybe I'll see you sometime in the next couple weeks. Then I'll be able to greet you as a co-worker instead of a philosophical inquisitor. Goodbye for now!"
[The two shake hands & part ways, smiling.]
I was fascinated by the "Me Too" movement, and I wish that it would have continued and grown in popularity instead of fading. (It seems to me that the movement has faded; I'd be happy to find that I'm wrong about this — I'm just reporting my impressions.) Here's the online encyclopedia's current definition:
"Me Too" a social movement against sexual abuse where people publicize allegations of sex crimes.
The reason that I was (and am) cheering for this idea to succeed is that I believe it would eventually cure the entire culture. For I believe that our economic system of Money-ism is basically one big offence that "Me Too" would snuff out. Everything — yes, absolutely EVERYTHING that goes on within Money-ism is a coersion of the type that "Me Too" aims to remedy.
Think of the typical boss making a sexual advance upon the typical secretary. Even if the secretary doesn't firmly resist his or her boss's overture, we're urged to see the boss's attempt as an affront because he is abusing his power. The reason I favor this viewpoint is that, while following its logic, I can't conceive of a situation within our current economic system that would not similarly need to be labeled an abuse of power.
The flip-side of the coin is the question: What's the PROPER use of power? (And who is to say?) Sex is our wake-up call, but you can ultimately throw sex out the window (by which I mean: you can include sex while moving beyond sex to address additional styles of abuse) — for the entire sytem is based on a pyramid of authority where uppers tell lowers "You must perform this or that action because I'm up here and you're down there." I want to add, however, that I don't object to the idea that we living creatures are inherently unequal and perform different tasks with varying degrees of proficiency — no, I think that our natural weirdnesses are pleasant and desirable — I'm only annoyed at the idea that some of us are simply LABELED as authorities or experts after we bow to the pyramid sceme: instead, I say that authority should always need to PERSUADE whoever it desires to control. It should prove itself to ALL, not just the schemers on the pyramid. And I myself remain entirely unpersuaded by the money system.
I want to live. I want more and more life: I love life. But I also hate life, and I wish to abolish what life I hate. I never understand people who simply say "Suicide is wrong". For it seems to me that, just like the word "rebellion", the rightness or wrongness of suicide depends upon the circumstance. One must ask "What's the context?" before being able to say whether a rebellion or a suicide was just. In an oppressive regime, rebellion is not only ethically justified but it's a moral imperative; whereas, in a harnomious and compassionate regime, I'd call rebellion unwise. The same goes for suicide:
Say you're enslaved in 18th-century Brazil, and your owner, who whips you daily and keeps you in stocks at night with a collar around your neck which is studded with spikes to prevent escape, now comes and affixes an iron mask to your face: You ask him "What's this for?" And he answers "To prevent you from committing suicide by shoving earth into your mouth." In this case, it would be desirable to find a way to remove the mask and shove earth into your mouth.
My point is that, speaking as one who loves the Good Life and can't get enough of harmonious existence, I often find myself wishing that we humans who live in the early 21st century (pick a country, any country) would perform a global exodus in some fun way. By "fun way" I mean a mass heroin overdose, or anything that would make us feel better and better until we find ourselves embracing our loved ones in heaven, where everything is fine. But if we decide to do it via nuclear bombs or other corporate-driven mayhem, that's OK too; as long as we don't have to come back.
I'm only trying to say that life is a dream: so keep it wet. If it becomes a nightmare, just wake up & try again.
No comments:
Post a Comment