I’ve been reading about a phenomenon occurring within the social milieu of high school students. It appears there’s a censorial application called ‘cancelling’ that groups impose upon those they find to be politically incorrect (you, know, from a high school perspective), out of sync or in some way offensive to the group. The cancelled individual becomes persona non grata, looses any sort of identity or recognition and is ignored as non-existent, which, I suspect, among socially needy adolescents may very well be devastating.
I can kind of understand negative reaction to someone spouting racist, sexist or misogynistic commentary among their peers, those whom the offender might wish to befriend. But it seems at some point confrontation is warranted. An attempt, maybe, to understand the offender’s point of view or at the very least informing him/her that his/her comments are upsetting and inappropriate, whereby an understanding may be reached, a consolidation of views that will reasonably determine the potential or lack thereof for future friendship.
Maybe the social milieu of politicized adults could benefit from similar interventions.
I find myself spending a lot of time, lately, following the real-time reality drama that is the daily news. As soap operas go, the story lines, being divisive and antagonistic to a considerable degree, don’t lend themselves to feel-good reaction, but I’m captivated, hard-pressed to turn away from the unfolding events available to me almost as soon as they happen. What I’m experiencing in moments of contemplation between bombardments is more often than not anger and anxiety as soundbites reemerge in my thoughts.
So, It’s pretty clear this obsession of mine is interfering with my true goal of achieving eudaemonia: a peaceful tranquility beneficial in so may ways, manifesting in personal health and greater care for others, which, it’s additionally clear to me is a vastly superior stance to dwelling on issues beyond my capacity to change in any meaningful way.
Time, I guess, to shut down the laptop, turn off the Newshour, catch my breath and re-establish the countenance that I know will make me happier and more useful.
I’ve been reading about some pretty disturbing trends on college campuses these days. It appears there’s a growing tendency to eliminate curricula and class discussion that might be offensive to sensitive students who will, it’s purported, wilt under the exposure to real world beliefs inconsistent with their own.
The push-back against ‘offensive’ commentary has gained legitimacy, been embraced by some faculty (mostly members of the psychology departments, I bet) empowering some students to employ censorial behaviors, shutting down class discussions and disrupting lectures by certain visiting speakers who are found to be unacceptable to the beliefs and delicate sensibilities of the sophomoric sophomores.
What seems to be happening, rather than lively debate on important issues, is an elimination of discussion and reinforcement of the inclination of our primitive brains to tribalize: nothing as comforting as an easily identifiable evil to rail against.
I have to wonder if some of our educational institutions have lost site of their essential purpose: to create strong creative thinkers able to make a difference.
Upon reflection it’s become apparent to me that the idea of fear can be thought about in different ways: there’s practical fear related to immediate concerns for family, friends and personal survival and then there’s the existential fear of one’s life ending, the inevitable extinction we all face. Well, at least those of us not expecting the heavenly reward of immortality. For those whose strong beliefs and strong faith lead them to the second scenario I guess there’s not much to think about other than to stay on the straight and narrow. Even these folks, I suspect, have an occasional doubt in between Sunday reassurances.
The question, then, becomes, for pretty much all of us, how best to deal with the inevitable end to our earthly existence. The fear, of course, isn’t death itself since once dead fear isn’t an issue. The fear is the anticipation, the preliminaries; potential debilitating illness, loss of control over your life, possibly the inability to be of support any longer to those who depend on you. All one can hope to do, I guess, as one nears death is to realize the inevitability of such events and approach them with dignity and the knowledge that a good life has been led (which hopefully is within the realm of reasonable truth).
Anyway, I haven’t time to dwell on it all: I’ve got people to see, errands to run and projects to complete. I have a life to live in the eternity of now.
I’ve been thinking lately about the concept of fear. It is, after all, a psychic inevitability that we all must wrestle with, something we can only experience in the moment as relating to something that potentially could occur in the future. Personally, I accept anxiety as a familiar if not constant companion, worrying as I do in the abstract about national and global issues and more specifically about intimate relationships and personal situations.
The ancient Stoic’s stance, intended, no doubt, to ease one’s mind, reduce internal acidic build-up and so forth is an intellectual one requiring strength of mind. Don’t dwell, the thought goes, on that outside of one’s control, act when it’s possible to act, set aside thoughts of potentially dire events that you have no possibility of affecting. Such advice pretty much rules out agonizing over most of what one hears and sees on the news, and, as I think about it few of my personal concerns for family and friends are within my power to affect in any meaningful way. The Stoics, I’m sure, would counsel me to let events take their courses, let things play out as they will.
So I guess I’ll just try to stay informed, vote when the opportunity presents itself and give folks a call once and awhile so they know I care.
I’ve been reading, lately, about the beginnings of the religion of Islam. It appears the prophet Mohammad realized, early on, Truth was available as belief in a single all-encompassing deity that could be appealed to by each faithful man or woman. Each supplicant, through engagement in personal devotion and by leading a virtuous life would come to realize a heavenly reward.
As I think about the Christian belief in a triune but singular God and the promise of immortal reward for one’s resistance to sinful ways, I can’t help but recognize significant commonality, you know, in the way humanity seeks appeal to a higher Truth and hopes to avoid mortal extinction through adherence to a Supreme Being.
The divisiveness playing out these days as a result of fundamental extremism on both sides of the religious divide doesn’t seem to fit with the common tenets these religions share. One has to wonder if the essentials have some how been lost in the interpretations.
I’ve been reading that our brains evolved over the millennia to serve pragmatic purpose, you know, solve basic problems of survival: how to fend off dangers, procure nourishment and such. I have to wonder, if this is indeed the case, how and why, exactly, a pleasure center that responds to something as trivial as art evolved. It seems reasonable that our primeval ancestor was happy to experience a sharp and clear visual image as it would certainly be advantageous in hunting, foraging and warding off dangers, but at what point and for what reasons did our minds evolve to include the concept of beauty?
I can only imagine that at some point our primordial hunter may have been walking along a beach when his eye caught an unusually shaped piece of driftwood. Thinking about the bison pursued in the morning hunt he came to the stunning realization that this broken shard of willow resembled, quite accurately really, a large running animal. In this instant of cognitive brilliance we must assume the beginnings not only of animistic spirituality but the birth of art as well.
It all snowballed from there, I guess.
The ancient Stoics were of the opinion that in order to maintain a stable and strong essence a man has to prepare a bit by voluntarily practicing austerity, depriving himself (or herself, women too, of course) of certain basic human needs for a time in order to strengthen him/herself to face the inevitable difficulties life will most certainly offer at some point, probably in the not too distant future. This means, I guess, one should suffer a bit in order to steel oneself to better face future personal disasters, which could mean turning off the phone and laptop but could be a real challenge like spending time with the homeless for a while.
This idea got me thinking about Diogenes the Cynic, who for very different and less personal reasons, voluntarily lived the life of a social outcast dressed in rags, living in a wine cask and existing on handouts. But, living the meanest of existences he feared no loss which enabled him to live with absolute integrity.
He exhibited great strength of character unaffected as he was by the cultural trappings of the day, unintimidated by the power players of the time. Even Alexander the Great addressed him respectfully. (Bob Dylan’s admonition ‘you have to serve somebody’ doesn’t apply to Diogenes).
Well, as much as I admire Diogenes commitment, I’m not about to give up all my creature comforts, but I can see the value in modest deprivation, you know, as a way to prepare for the inevitable ill winds.
Maybe I’ll go camping for a while.
I’ve been reading, lately, about the conflicts that developed between the ancient Romans and early Christians. The Romans were polytheistic, their many gods acquired for the most part from the Greeks were represented by magnificent marble sculptures housed in elaborate temples that played significantly in their daily rituals. Through sacrificial offerings the gods were appeased whereby good fortune reigned upon the Romans (well, the monied ones anyway).
The monotheistic early Christians were reluctant, to say the least, to recognize the Roman gods much to the displeasure of the Romans, and, so, suffered some pretty nasty earthly ends for their defiance, that is, until the visionary emperor Constantine converted, tossing the ball into the Christians court. The game changed big time; churches were built, idols and temples destroyed.
Over the centuries to follow the Christians, through draconian laws and inquisitions singled out the heretics, finding ever more creative tortures to convince the pagan Romans of the truth of the Cross. Tit for tat, I guess.
Other than who or what was worshipped the rub seemed to be primarily about the right way to live. The Romans ate, drank and were, more or less, happy in their licentious debauchery, recognizing as they did, the shortness of life while the Christians lived in severe austerity forgoing anything they saw as sinful in nature, suffering this life for the rewards of the next.
Notions of how best to live one’s life have been somewhat softened these days but the dichotomy persists. I guess we’re pretty evenly divided as to which path is the best one to take. A good case could be made, I think, for pursuing a middle way.
I’ve been reading that one’s political affiliation is the primary determiner of the position one assumes regarding the hot-button issues of the day. Well, maybe not everyone’s, but the suggestion is that a political stance is determined to a great extent by social relations, how one identifies with those around her: a kind of in-group, tribal association that leads to consumption and regurgitation of the appropriate sound-bites consistent with the ‘correct’ political view.
To support such a perspective my very credible source suggests that, when questioned, most on the political fringes (which now make up around 40% of the electorate) have little knowledge of the nuances of the issues: global warming, health-care for all, world trading agreements, capitalistic regulation, the social safety-net, the plight of immigrants are all seen through the lens of political bias; which accounts, pretty much, for the divisiveness in the contemporary social dialogue: each side demonizing the other aided and abetted by profit-seeking punditry.
So, I guess the question is, how to discourage unreasoned dogmatic belief and encourage critical thinking: thinking carefully about both sides of issues and side-stepping political flashpoints. It may all be left up to a younger generation to re-find enlightened thinking; their power is growing, after all, funeral by funeral.