Dan wrote:
> I know it is difficult at times, but if for a moment we as a people
> could step away from our individual problems,
What other kind of problem is there? If an asteroid were discovered
headed our way and would wipe out all life on Earth in a matter of a few
months, wouldn't that translate to each person as an individual problem?
Each individual is about to die.
But, assuming we could "step away" from our individual problems, to what
would be be stepping toward?
Social problems? But social problems are just individual problems that a
large number of individual share. But all of one's individual problems
are also social problems to some extent. Going through a messy divorce,
lost your job, having trouble with the kids, the neighbor, car won't
start? No one person will have all the problems -- not at the same time,
anyway -- but whatever the problem, you'll be in good company. So when
we work to solve our individual problems, and succeed in solving it, we
have alleviated by that small amount, the total social problem. Whatever
the problem was, it is now a little smaller. Then we can go out and work
on the next problem on our list. Life is just an unending sequence of
problems to solve. This is not pessimism. When we aren't working on
problems, we get bored. It's just possible that the lack of problems
(challenges) in life is more a cause of suicide than too many problems.
Or are we expected to step away from problems in general? But if we
ignore problems, they generally just get bigger -- and now things are
worse. So what was accomplished?
> or believing that life
> isn't fair,
Well, life is not fair or unfair. That's not really a description of
life. One of those problems that many people have in many societies is
when people who think life *should* be fair take power. "It's just not
fair that some people are (rich, healthy, happy, successful, talented,
etc.) while others are (poor, sick, miserable, failures, couch potatoes,
etc) and they think they can "fix" this imbalance of nature.
> or that you deserve more out of life.
Justice, like fairness, is not something that exists in nature. We, as
humans, form societies that incorporate such concepts, but they are
man-made constructs, like buildings and roads. The rub is, we can form a
fair society or a just society. We cannot have both. In order to be
just, we must allow people to suffer the consequences of their actions.
In order to be fair, we must balance consequences. So choose one.
> If for that moment
> we could think as a human being.
As opposed to thinking as a....?
> Not as ourselves as that human being,
> but for the entire human race; one human race as one human being.
Sorry, even if I wanted to, I can't. The human race does not think. Only
humans think. This human race you speak of does not really exist as a
concrete concept. It is an average, an aggregate of all the individual
humans. Just as the average family may consist of 2.3 children, say,
there is no actual family that has 2.3 children. Just as there is a
"human race," there is no one person that matches that picture. We are
all different. We have different goals in life, live in different
circumstances, have different abilities, skills and talents. We all look
at life just a little differently than everyone else.
> For that moment, as humanity stands as one, we look at the world about
> us to take in its beauty. Take time to feel very fortunate to be
> alive. We feel every fiber of our being work as one. We know that
> without this oneness, without this coordination of all our parts, we
> could not stand here today. We could not step into peace.
Faulty analogy, trying to link people to society like the parts of the
body to the body as a whole. The body is not an amalgam. It is composed
of things that are actually different. A muscle cell is different from a
blood cell. They did not choose their function and cannot move over to
take on a different role. The human race is composed of humans. While we
are all different, that difference is just a variation on a theme. We
are still all humans and in that we are all the same.
When parts of a body work together, they have no choice, they make no
decisions, they have no preferences. When people work together, they
must agree to do so. They must each see a benefit, a goal they all
share, or they don't bother. Why work for the benefit of someone else
when you get nothing in return? That's slavery and while slavery is not
a good thing to implement on the human race, it is also unnecessary.
Remember our individual problems? For each problem, there are other
people who, at any given time, also have that problem. No one probably
is suffering from all your problems at the same time, but there is that
group over there with this problem, that group over there with that
problem, some more over there that want to accomplish this goal, and so
forth.
While no one person or one group of people are trying to solve *all* of
society's problems, all of society's problems are getting worked on by some.
> In that moment of clarity, we must come to understand that it is not
> just up to the leaders of the world to direct us to peace.
Well, now you seem to have thrown out a couple of twists right in the
middle here. Who are these "leaders" and what do they have to do with
anything we've been talking about? And what is this "peace" you have so
far just used as a floating abstraction?
By peace, do you mean the absence of war? If so, on what scale? Just
international war or gang war or the occasional bank robbery, mugging,
rape or drive-by shooting? But these are just problems, like messy
divorces, etc. So you consider it, on whatever scale you have in mind,
as a Pretty Important Problem. That's fine, you will find there is a
group of people who think the same way. So get with that group and work
to solve it.
In the meantime, there are many groups solving many problems. And these
groups think their problem is a Pretty Important Problem. Go ahead and
work on your problem but don't get in the way of other groups working on
their problems. Otherwise, *you* become a problem that must be solved.
> We realize
> that first step must come from all of us, that all of humanity must
> work together to lift our leg, to move forward, to place that step in
> front of us, to step into peace.
No, there is no one problem that requires all of us to work to solve it.
Even the asteroid, if it can be stopped or turned away at all, needs
only a fraction of the human race to work on it. Any more than is
necessary and they'll just get in each other's way and the problem is no
closer to getting solved.
> This decision is up to us. I believe in our heart we know what to do.
No, I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong. If you think there is a
problem that is more serious than what is commonly perceived, then it is
up to you to convince us. To do that, you must address our head, not our
hearts. Then you must convince us that you have a likely solution...
> Deep down inside, once you get past the everyday struggles of life,
> there is a part of the human spirit that yearns for the serenity and
> wellbeing that comes when the path to peace is chosen.
It certainly doesn't look that way. Look around you and see how many
people are yearning for serenity. I don't mean talking about it -- I
mean doing it. About all the serenity anyone can take at any one time is
a two-week vacation. Toward the end, they can't wait to get back to work
and start DOING SOMETHING WITH THEIR LIVES!
Sure, a little serenity now and then, in small, manageable pieces, is
fine. We all need to recharge our batteries now and then. Serenity is
like dessert -- great in small doses but unhealthy as a staple.
> So in that
> moment as humanity exists as one in the glory that is life, let us
> remember the responsibility and the outcome of humanity's future is
> ours and ours alone;
In a way. I can only take responsibility for what I can control and I
can only control myself. I assume that this is pretty much the same for
everyone. I would certainly like to have a long talk with anyone who
claims to take responsibility for me. Not even my wife can take that
responsibility. If not someone that close to me, then who?
> that we have the power this very day to take the
> path that leads to world peace. This decision, this simple decision is
> ours to make. I encourage you to take that step me, into peace.
Yeah, but how? We just can't solve humanity's problems by working on
humanity's problems. We work on our own problems and as we work our way
to better lives, lo and behold, humanity is the better for it.
You can't raise up humanity -- you can only raise up humans. And no
matter how hard I might try, I can't know what is best for you as well
as you do. Nor can you know what is best for me as well as me. Where we
find we have some problem or goal in common, we can cooperate and work
together. Otherwise, the best we can do for each other is not get in
each other's way.
Sorry if this doesn't jibe with your dream of everyone holding hands,
smiling and chanting as we march off to Do Great Good. But, you see, I'm
not all that interested in such dreams. I have too many problems to solve.
--
Tomm Catt
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is.
|
