1413 TUESDAY Oct. 15th, 2024
An excerpt:
Throughout my writings I have tried to remain somewhat independent of my life's events, but time and time again I fail to do so and I am reminded of just how crucial a mind's connection is to its surroundings. A conscience is reliant throughout its life on its experiences and the ebbing flow of judgements, growth, and reflections further molding its shape. We are inextricably linked to our world, but by no means find ourselves shackled like slaves.
I, as of recent, have reflected much on the resilience of mind, the perturbations provided by chance, and how random and unpredictable this development seems. To be pure of mind and heart--whatever that truly means, perhaps instead to simply be a kind being aspiring to moral sainthood, is no doubt due in part to circumstantial privilege. In a sense, to be capable of kindness is a privilege or resulting from a set of privileges. Indeed, it comes with differential challenge given one's circumstances. Certainly there is effort to be expressed, but moreover the cards we hold impart a pressure on our future. Hence, I have given much thought to how much we can pass judgement acutely without context of someone's life. A lifetime is the backdrop against which we ask of moral actions, consequences, and study the nature of a fellow human. One would rightfully envision the murder afront Macbeth's castle as they would place it categorically out of order afront a relaxing Spanish villa. The consequence of the crime unchanged, the context sets our initial reaction, expectation, and subsequent judgement. But all else equal, would or should the punishment be equal? Be it unfair to say, a murderer grown up surrounded by war and suffering, accustomed to the utility of death, does not suffer the same moral chasm as the murderer raised in a loving, caring and peaceful country borne to a family that fosters kindness and empathy? Which is acting more in line with their environment, and does that sufficiently change consequence or dictate some greater form of sympathy and forgiveness?
Perhaps I am caught at a crossroads between subjective morality and pure understanding, or sympathy of some sort. We may understand better committing murder after a lifetime of learning its usefulness, but this does not unteach us that murder is, by and large, immoral. And yet, by insatiable curiosity, we desire to understand. But by what measure do we learn?
I have a habit of asking questions with no clear follow through answer. On this I reflect with patience as my mind tends to rush in search of fast satisfaction. Rumination helps.
I feel it reasonable to clarify that this contextual investigation is not in reference to justification, as one may have for self-defense, no; this reaches another point. I am questioning the relevance of the pretext for an action and rectifying this with the resulting effect; a measure of how much the backdrop affects our perception of a play, which too often in life, remains unlit upon first inspection. We see the actors in front of us, and get, only if we stand up and proclaim, "I don't understand your harshness, explain! This blindness is unfair, it's making for a poor show!" some looks of cruel judgement from the crowd, and one of appreciation from the cast. Only here does the light flicker, and as though empowered by the antagonist's or tragic hero's monologue, the stage is illuminated and actions given a full picture, satiating what hunger had been beckoned by the past void. And yet, the act is unchanged. No set piece moved, no script rewritten, or actions undone by this outburst. And yet all is changed in relation to the first perpetration.
I see much hate in this world around me, but to say this is indefinite or the norm is ingenuine and untrue. It is by our nature to be kind, and seemingly by the same nature to be cruel. The two come to a certain degree, hand in hand, but one is not nearly a consequence of the other. This is perhaps the nature of tribalism and what evolutionary psychologists would call just that, "within our nature" and yet humanity proves itself over and over in opposition to our biology. It is as our claim to intellect to refuse our biology and overcome misplaced instinct. We seek to fast, heal the sick, and work tirelessly at menial non-life sustaining tasks. We deny at many chances biological urges, but do not misunderstand; it is not mere abstinence or denial of worldly pleasures or some denial of subjective sin that makes us human, no. It is the critical appraisal of our actions, foresight, selflessness, and love for our fellow humans that defines us. To act against this is to rob oneself of your rightfully ascribed humanity.
And the troublesome question remains--how are we to judge anyone devoid of a life's whole context? Even a day, or an hour, can be illuminating, but it sort of sidesteps my point. The core of it: certainly we have some right to judgement, but what contribution is one to eight billion or more? Or less? Still undoubtfully valid, but with this reasoning it carries a certain humility and awareness of one's nuanced contribution to the whole. We are each one part of an all too large, too abstracted puzzle. What reason have we to seek exclusion of another part? To by one's own selfish action, deny the image its whole? Even if by some miraculous reason all parts vote out a fraction, they have denied themselves the knowledge of the whole. They have depraved themselves of a part of humanity, regardless of how problematic, how seemingly superficial or easily disproven by logic. In a rather objective sense, like a preacher would have us think of God and His gifts and curses alike, the realities are neither, all simply exists as He wills it. Perhaps as we look around then we too can shape ourselves to fit the puzzle, but the goal is indeed to fit, not to exclude and expand into that space for our own benefit. Indeed, perhaps the focus is shifted too far toward understanding and has abstracted the real objective: learning.
Such a moral framework does not preclude the right to opinion and disagreement, but instead provides a goal by which we are guided and aspire to reach. Such an impossible picture, by virtue of the world's chaos, is surely beyond our individual beings, but is nonetheless a reasonable goal to set aflame in our hearts. This acknowledgment does elicit some necessary form of doublethink, or some personal permutation of ideals to a more digestible one, since some find it illogical to aspire to an impossible (or at least supposedly extremely difficult, in the face of our current societal structure) goal. Such is the nature of working for the generation three lines on--we probably won't see the change, but slowly shadows lose shape, and the normalcy our children's children's children see will be the ideas once thought counterculture and revolutionary during our time. And in spite of the larger picture, we certainly have agency over our own microcosm of communities. Like a virus, ideas and attitudes spread from endemia to pandemia, and we all have ourselves a fan with which to direct the winds.
And with this framework you might say, "Ah yes, so we must hate hate! We must reject ignorance with a strong arm and righteous brow!" I say no, or not quite. The human condition is rarely equivocal with mathematics; and so two negatives here do not make a positive as the cliché goes, and neither does indifference to the negative. I ask of you this: consider what must be understood, and accepted. How else could one expect a truthful dialogue? If we magnetize ourselves with the same radical attitude, the two ends will never meet, and so both pieces of the puzzle remain depraved of their greater shape.
The goal then remains of change without hate. Opinion without a forceful or violent resolution. Open doors without exclusionary signs. As much as we can ourselves control, remain open, allow ourselves to feel and believe and connect and foster connections in the great eight billion (and growing) piece puzzle of humanity.
DFWYNLM #177
All this to say, I think when faced with a disagreeable situation, gather your thoughts, deliver a measured, empathetic and reasonable response. We in our everyday splendor still retain the capacity for understanding, the benefit of the doubt so to speak, albeit this itself is a privilege of the clear of mind and safe of being. There are levels to this; not every acute issue can be resolved in the same acute manner, and some situations may be impossible to resolve in a given moment. But as is always true, we have the capacity to align our mind and actions with what may provide the greatest chance at growth for all parties involved.
Comentarios