Sometime ago – more than 45 years, when food was still plentiful in communist Romania – I heard for the first time that ‘many people dig their graves with their teeth’. I was too young to understand the deeper meaning of this. That sooner or later each of us will meet the consequences of our previous decisions.
15 years ago I read a book written when I was a toddler. Almost 60 years ago. The Social Construction of Reality by Berger and Luckmann.
The fact that propaganda machines give too much power to symbols doesn’t mitigate the fact that some people find that flying the confederate flag is intended as an offense.
All people, men and women alike, are born, nursed and initially educated by their mothers. By their mothers, inexorably women!
Some of the feminists, mostly women, act as if they want to exact revenge over their former ‘masters’. Over men. Whom they perceive as oppressors. Most of the feminists, from both genders, believe that women should be equal to men. That they are not yet so and that this is the most important problem which has to be solved in order for mankind (?!?) to go forward.
Being raised under communist rule – where women had been put to work, hence granted a lot of ‘equal rights’ – by a very ‘progressive’ pair of women – mom and grandmother – I grew up having the impression that men and women considered themselves partners. That being how my father and mother treated each-other.
I used scare-marks around progressive because neither my mother nor my maternal grand-mother considered themselves as such. Only behaved in that manner. Which I grew up considering to be normal.
Illusions, like always, end up being shredded. Very soon I learned that not all people had been born equal.
And that I had been dealt ‘the better hand’… So I didn’t waste any more time/energy to consider the matter! For 40 or so years…
This is not the good moment to delve into details. Enough for me to say that my quest – to understand as many as possible of the consequences ‘inflicted’ by the limited nature of our consciousness – led me to feminism. To ‘feminism’ seen as a social phenomenon.
Already convinced – since early childhood, conviction beefed up by the relation built in concert with my wife, that men and women are equal partners in the adventure called life, I was confronted by a huge dilemma:
Why on Earth so many women raise their children – both future men and future women – in the conviction that men are entitled to be served and women are meant to indulge their wishes?!?
Is it an attitude imposed by the overbearing men? Hence easy to unlearn?
Or is it an evolutionary thing? Hence harder to leave behind…
I continue to be under the impression that my most important break-trough to-date is that each individual conscience is primordially concerned with its own survival. Not as much with its ‘physical’ survival as with the conservation of the good impression it has about itself. With maintaining its self-esteem! For instance, this is the reason for so many of us having such a hard time when trying to ditch a bad habit! Because we have to admit first, before ourselves, that we’ve been wrong for so long! That we’ve been acting foolishly since adopting that habit.
Coming back to the main subject, who would like to be? The proud mother of a highly successful man or the mother of a below average Joe? Small wonder then that in the current cultural environment we continue to raise highly assertive men. And, sometimes, women. On the other hand, if you’ve been a submissive woman all your life, how do you feel in the presence of assertive women? Uncomfortably? Even more so if the assertive woman happens to be your daughter?
So, could it be possible that we are stuck in the present situation because we’ve conditioned ourselves to over-value the glitzy part of what we call ‘success’? And because we’ve not yet learned to forgive ourselves for past mistakes?
Ernst Mayr, an evolutionist, put it this way: ‘Evolution is no way about the survival of the fittest. “Fittest” to what ?!? since evolution is about being able to cope with change… In reality, evolution is about the demise of the unfit!’
Same here.
We can fight ourselves into the ground, chasing ‘success’.
Or we can thrive together. As equal partners, complementing each = other.
“Better to be a dog in times of tranquility than a human in times of chaos.” The true version of the Chinese ‘curse’ too many times translated in English as “May you live in interesting times”
Not so long ago, a presidential candidate told his audience “People… my people are so smart!….And loyal! you know, I could shoot someone on the 5th Avenue and not loose votes!”
As things happened, he was right. His people did vote for him. He, a guy who had previously bragged about ‘grabbing women by the pu$$y’.
Four years later, the People changed their mind. And voted to send him back to Mar-a-lago… He told ‘his’ people the vote had been rigged. The ‘smart ones’ believed Trump to the tune of eventually chasing Vice-president Pence all over the Capitol in an attempt to convince him to ditch the result of the vote. Against all evidence, as certified by all pertinent authorities.
Currently, there is an increasing number of people floating the idea that ‘democracy’ isn’t for everybody. The notion isn’t exactly new – see the ‘debate’ pitting ‘republic’ against ‘democracy’ – but lately its promoters have become even more brazen. They posit that since people are not equally endowed – intellectually, mostly – they should be tested before being allowed to vote. Nothing new under the sun? The whole thing is nothing more than a rehash of the notion put forward by Robert Heinlein in Starship Troopers?
Not exactly! Heinlein proposed that full citizenship – including the right to vote – should be extended exclusively to those willing to put their life on the line. ‘If you want to decide the future, you need to commit yourself to defending the present. With your life, if necessary’. Quite a difference from ‘I’m not OK with how you may vote so I’m going to look for ways to disenfranchise you, under various pretenses.’
The way I see this, we’re confronted by two things. An increasing lack of trust amongst us. And an burgeoning amount of intellectual dishonesty.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.“
As per the United States Constitution, Arms are supposed to be kept and borne with the main goal of protecting the free State. Which State was supposed to be governed by a government “of the people, by the people, for the people“. Nowadays, under the pretext that ‘the government is more often the problem than the solution’, the defenders of the Second Amendment “as it was written” maintain that Arms are necessary so that the people may defend itself against an overbearing government.
Otherwise put, whenever I don’t like the outcome of an election, I need to be able to start a(n) (un)civil war. An attitude born out of a complete distrust in our fellow citizens’ ability to vote ‘right’.
And a simpler version. I don’t trust all my fellow citizens’ ability to vote reasonably but I trust all my fellow citizens enough to let them walk around armed to their teeth. Unconditionally, in some states.
Coming back to Marcus Aurelius’ pronouncement, who is the one smart enough to determine whether those 10 000 actually have no idea about the subject at hand? Not to mention the fact that Marcus Aurelius never actually said it…. Wrote it, more precisely.
And why do I choose to believe this guy Sadler instead of trusting the bloke who had created the meme? Because Sadler makes sense. And because Sadler had put his name forward – remember Heinlein? – instead of cloaking himself in the shadows of the internet.
Holidays are very good opportunities to reconsider, And to learn new things.
These days I learned that while having nothing makes you feel ‘uncomfortable’, having too much can be very limiting.
If you have just enough, you can go forward. Explore new venues. Learn new things. Enjoy life!
If you have too much, you spend too much time and energy protecting what you already have. Trying to get more… The venues open for you to explore are suddenly reduced to one! Only one… You become the guardian of your fortune! Can you enjoy such a life? Are you sure? Have you examined the alternatives? In earnest?
‘Are you implying that all wealthy people are unhappy? Unable to enjoy their lives?!?’
On the contrary, my dear Watson! I’m only saying that being wealthy is complicated. “Just enough” is a matter of individual ability to cope. That enjoying wealth needs a lot of skill. And that being wealthy comes with a lot of responsibility! Towards yourself in the first place!
And towards your kids, family and the rest of the gang…
Basically, reasoning is nothing more than a ‘dialogue with myself’. When I ‘consider a thing’ in my mind, consciously, I practically put my brain to work. I order my memory to summon up all the data it has on the subject and I ask my frontal lobe to process that data and to reach a conclusion. In theory… In the real world, my amygdala – the piece of the brain where emotions are processed – already has an opinion about everything which crosses my mind. The more familiar the thing, the stronger the opinion. The more often my mind – meaning I, had expressed itself regarding a subject, and the more recently, the stronger the opinion my amygdala already has about the matter. If the matter is considered for the first time, and has no connection with anything else I had already ‘conclusioned’ about, only then my amygdala might keep its opinion for itself. The key word here being ‘might’…
Since this is nothing more than a blog post, I’m not going to prove my opinion. To discuss the importance of the fight-flight mechanism and to mention that this mechanism had done more – evolutionary wise, than reason for our survival. For us having the opportunity to develop this vaunted capacity for reason…
I’ll just end it abruptly. Mentioning that our individual consciousnesses use reason as a tool. To arrange facts in such a manner as to confirm the already reached conclusionary opinions put forward by our amydalae. “To win arguments”, if you will, including when debating with ourselves. Only when the facts – the harsh reality, contradict in a flagrant manner the already held convictions we might change our minds. The more immediate the danger we put ourselves into by sticking to our convictions, the more likely we are to cave in to the facts.
To the facts as we perceive them… Which is yet another story!
“Tough times create tough men. Tough men create easy times. Easy times create weak men. Weak men create tough times.“ American proverb “Wealth lasts only for three generations: one to make it, one to keep it, one to squander it“ Chinese proverb “If you raise your children, you get to spoil your grandchildren. If you spoil your children, you get to raise your grandchildren.“ Popular word of mouth
There’s no denying that, on average, each generation fares better than its predecessor.
Then why some people end up worse than their parents? Is it a social thing? Is it in their upbringing? Is it the consequence of bad personal choices?
The easy way out would be to consider that legislation, material status, the culture one was born into and even the upbringing offered by the parents are nothing but circumstances. And, ultimately, it’s the individual who makes the call. And bears the consequences… But the above mentioned individual doesn’t rise from and into a complete void… so I need to go deeper!
An equally true but somewhat more useful observation would be that we’re dealing here with something more important than mere wealth.
‘There’s no such thing! Nothing is more important than Wealth!’
Yeah, right… Individual people keep squandering the personal wealth accumulated by their forefathers, the humankind keeps going forward and you tell me personal wealth is the most important thing here…
But you do make a good point. Your insistence, obsessive even, about wealth being the crux of everything is very relevant. Since I agree with you that wealth is important, indeed, then maybe it’s the ‘insistence’ which is causing the problem…
First of all, allow me to make a simple distinction.
There is wealth – structured opportunity, I’ll discuss this notion in another post, and there is personal wealth. Opportunity which belongs to somebody. When an individual squanders the wealth inherited from their parents – or even that which they had managed to put together themselves, the wealth itself – the accrued opportunity – doesn’t disappear from the face of the earth. It just passes from one hand to another. Most of it, anyway. For the simple reason that most of today’s wealth is expressed in money. Which is fungible.
‘OK. So individual people squandering their inherited wealth do not represent such a big problem. The total wealth already present ‘on the face of the Earth’ remains (more or less) the same, no matter who owns it. And since new wealth is created everyday, the humankind, on aggregate, goes forward.’
That’s how things used to be. That’s how things had evolved for the last ten millennia or so. Ever since our forefathers had invented agriculture. Agriculture and money… Land and money cannot be destroyed. Buildings and almost everything else which carries value can. Be destroyed. Land and money also, actually, but it’s a lot harder to do it.
But there’s a catch here.
For wealth to do its trick – to function as an opportunity, people have to have access to it. That’s why, for example, people do not keep their money under the mattress. When deposited in a bank, money will end up being used. The bank will lend them to somebody who needs it and that somebody will put that money to work, In no matter what shape or form. Kept under a mattress, money becomes mostly useless. At least for the time being… And this is where ‘insistence’ – our obsessive insistence – that money is the only worthwhile goal for any respectable person becomes counterproductive.
‘Are you a communist?!?’
On the contrary, my dear Watson!
In fact, Marx had been just as infatuated with money as Milton Friedman was going to be a century later. With more or less similar results… Friedman taught us that greed is good. Profit uber alles. That getting money trumps everything else. That getting money is not only good for the individual itself but also commendable. That everybody should make it their goal to become rich! Marx, on the other hand – please remember that the ‘other’ hand is nothing but similar to its twin – advocated for all wealth to be stripped from its rightful owners. See what I mean? Both Marx and Friedman had been thinking only about ownership. Who owns that wealth!
On average, we deal with the same situation. According to Friedman – pushing his advice to the very limit, there’s no problem if someone owns all the money in the world. If it so happened, so be it. According to Marx, nobody should own anything. On average, the wealth corresponding to each living human in both situations would be the same.
We already know the consequences of Marx’s teachings. When all the wealth present in one country is managed by a very small number of people, the whole situation goes south. Fast. Very fast! We also know what happens when the market is cornered. Becomes suffocated by a monopoly. The whole situation goes south. That’s why we cherish the freedom of the market!
Doesn’t make much sense? To insist that the market must be free and simultaneously maintain that ‘greed is good’?
Yep! My point exactly…
The vaunted human capacity for reason may have more to do with winning arguments than with thinking straight. Illustration by Gérard DuBois Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds New discoveries about the human mind show the limitations of reason. By Elizabeth Kolbert February 19, 2017 https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/elizabeth-kolbert
For some reason, there still exists a considerable number of people not yet convinced that what had been experienced in the Soviet Union was “a true socialist/communist form of government”
The sad reality is that the Russian Revolution did establish a true socialist form of government! As per Marx’s teachings. The communists had been in charge of things, and the things failed to become better. In fact, they had become worse. Eventually, the Soviet Union – along with all other socialist attempts, had crumbled under their own weight.
Those who want to find better alternatives to democratic capitalism – good luck with that – need to find another word but socialism to describe their goal. Or wait a few generations before attempting to give it a new meaning. The current one had been wasted by the likes of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim, Ceausescu…
Happiness is an illusion. A figment of our own imagination. Hence we shouldn’t waste our time thinking about it. Various sources all over the internet.
Here’s my take on this subject. The more imaginary a thing is, the easier it is to make it happen. IF you do it your own way! According to your needs and wishes…
Now that I’ve put behind the easy part… Like many other natural things, happiness is a gift. You get a healthy dose of endorphins after a workout, an orgasm after having sex and a moment of happiness after doing something right. IF you put your heart in it! In any of the above…
But there’s more to it. While you can work-out anytime you wish, you need a partner in order to build an orgasm. Did I hear a chuckle? Thinking about working out a single handed orgasm? Can you do it without using your imagination? Really?!? Not only that you need a partner – at least an imaginary one, the intensity and quality of the orgasm vastly depend on the interaction between you and your partner. And on your mind set before, during and after the ‘close encounter’. Happiness, whatever moments of happiness we’re blessed with from time to time, is the result of a far more complex interaction. To experience it, you have to be in sync with the universe. Not with yourself or with your partner. With as much of your patch of the universe as possible.
When working, out or in any other way, you’re basically alone. The quality of your involvement depends basically on you. Irrespective of you working alone or you being part of a team, you ‘come first’. When making love, you and your partner become one. For a while, your two me-s get close enough to experience synchronicity. Getting in sync with the universe – doing the right thing, is like making love ‘on steroids’.
There are a couple of catches though.
You need to conserve your me. Your inner self. Not your identity. That, your I, is only the exterior shape of yourself. Constantly rebuilt to match your exterior. What you need to preserve is the inner spectator. The entity constantly watching over your identity. The entity which maintains the coherence of your identity during its constant reshaping. Your inner spine, if you will. And you must refrain from hunting it. From hunting happiness.
You can build up muscles through training. Hard. If you do it right, you get endorphins. Because you’ve done it right, not hard. If you do it only hard, you get torn muscles, not endorphins. Or you could build up muscles by swallowing chemicals. And end up with a ruined liver. While experiencing absolutely no endorphin rush. Because you fucked up. You chased ‘muscles’ and forgot about yourself. About the self ‘inside’ yourself.
You can get ‘relief’ by wanking. But that’s no orgasm… You’d prefer ‘masturbate’ instead? Would that make any real difference? Bring the experience any nearer to an orgasm?!?
Same thing with happiness. If your goal is to be happy, you’re too focused. On your ‘identity’.
Your inner self bestows too much attention on its ‘skin’. On your identity. And not enough on what’s happening farther away. That being the reason for you not being able to get in sync with the rest of the world around you. Not being able to do the right thing.
‘Six packs’, orgasms and happiness must come naturally. As a consequence of things well done. Otherwise neither are genuine.
According to the first, if you follow the precepts – to the letter – you get ‘there’. According to the second, avoiding the forbidden sets the stage for things going your way.
Unfortunately, things are not as simple as they look at first sight. The first meta-rule deals with individuals. Getting ‘there’ is each individual’s job. They have to do what they are supposed to and failing to fulfill any item banishes the unworthy from the cherished ‘prize’. The second one is even ‘trickier’. While its precepts must be followed, again, by the individual followers, the ‘spoils’ belong more to the community rather than to the individual. On top of that, they are not ‘certain’! Following the rule only ‘sets the stage’. Disobeying the rule makes it certain that the goal will never be reached while following it only ‘opens the door’. Makes it possible for each of the community members to search for their individual paths towards their particular goals.
Do I need to remember you that both these rules exist only in our heads? As figments of our imaginations? And that the difference between the two can be observed at the practical level?
The first rule can never be fulfilled. Nobody can follow it to its ultimate consequence. No matter how hard any of us might try. It would be like measuring with infinite precision. Something will always happen. Go wrong. Throw us back to where we have started. The second one also leads to disappointment. Some members of the community will inevitably attempt to cut corners. Take the easy way out … Hence the rule needs policing. You’ve certainly witnessed at least on occasion when ‘bad (money) has driven out good’… at least temporarily! Furthermore, some members of the community – while faithfully sticking to the rule, will still fail to get ‘there’. Set their aims too high, didn’t have what it takes… or simply had lots and lots of bad luck! But regardless of the why’s, not getting there still generates disappointment. Usually directed at the rule… and creates a lot of doubt towards the weltanschauung based on the rule…
Which way out? How to choose?
Would it be helpful to notice that, historically speaking, the communities which have followed the second rule, primum non nocere, have fared decently while those who had attempted to prescribe, and impose, a ‘recipe for happiness’ have invariably failed? ‘Don’t do anything, upon another, which you wouldn’t welcome when done upon you’ versus ‘treat all the others exactly as you would like to be treated yourself’?
nicichiarasa 