Michelangelo's Finger

As sometimes happens, through a rather odd series of coincidences, I've been having my nose rubbed in something that's really not the centerpoint of what I need to (or should) be focusing on. This isn't a common occurrence in my life, but it's not exactly rare either, and I have learned over the years that it's better to devote some attention to it or it will come back to me in a much more demanding, if not insistent, way at some other time, most likely a time when I'll have no time for it at all. In retrospect, say, in reflecting on my recent series of postings, I can see where this has been bubbling up toward the surface.

There is no doubt in any of our minds, I'm sure, that we are -- and should be -- seen, experienced as, and taken for individuals. Though more pronounced in some than in others (whereupon it is most often referred to as an "ego"), somewhere "in there" -- in our heads, or brains, or minds, or ... -- there is something we think of, and call, an "I". It is not clear what this "I" consists of or how it comes to be, but it's pretty clear it is there. I have very materialistically perceiving friends who will be quick to tell you that whatever that "I" is, it is an illusion. After all, there is only matter, and the laws of physics and chemistry, and these do not (at least up until now) actually allow for the presence of this "I".

Some of you are shaking your heads in some kind of amazement, and I can understand that. Science is a wonderful tool and it has provided us with a lot of knowledge, but it is not the be-all and end-all of knowing. It is, as it's name implies, a way of knowing, but not the way. It is good for some things, and not so good for others. It is good when it comes to physics and chemistry, for example, but it starts getting weak in biology (has trouble dealing with the issue of "life"), and it certainly has nowhere to start when it comes to something as elusive as our I's, that is, with human consciousness in particular, but consciousness in general. Whatever makes up what I call/think/believe is my "I", it's not material, that's for sure. So, for the moment, we're just going to let the materialists stew in their own self-contradictions and move forward into this, admittedly, mysterious domain.

We don't have to delve deeply into any kind of science, or psychology, or neurophysiology. For the moment, it is sufficient that we simply stop, recognize and acknowledge that there is this thing, or person, or whatever, we call an "I". What is more, we also know -- or at least strongly suspect -- that there those others running around whom we refer to as "human beings" appear to also have such an "I" and that they, too, know they have one, and most likely suspect that we do to. I realize that this seems a bit obvious, but as I never tire of repeating: digging into the obvious, rooting into whatever it is we take for given and for granted, is an extremely rewarding, and sometimes enlightening, experience.

In other words, I'm aware of myself and I am aware of others. These others appear to be like me in that they are also aware of themselves and aware of others. And, all of us are aware that everyone else is aware. This isn't gobbelty-gook, it's a genuine starting point.

In fact, there is a very famous panel on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, entitled the Creation of Adam. It's a special painting, not only for its central placement on the ceiling, and not only because Michelangelo, who absolutely detested painting (he wanted to sculpt), painted it in a single-day, but he also painted it freehand; that is, without the aid of a charcoal tracing, which was the normal method of producing such works of art. In this picture God is about to touch Adam's index finger with his own ... or perhaps, He is merely pointing at/to Adam. What does it matter?

Saving private me

It should be obvious by now that we're not in good shape. And by "we" I mean all of us -- every single human being on the face of the planet. Yes, other people in other cultures have other pressing problems than the (let's admit it, rather high-level, comfortable) problems that we in the modern, industrialized, rich West are confronted with. The vast majority of people are the planet are still struggling with ensuring the basic necessities for themselves, so anything that we "complain" about simply pales by comparison. Still, I acknowledge that those reading this post are in a very fortunate position, even if they don't know it, recognize it, or acknowledge it themselves. It is only a matter of time, I suppose, until those "behind" us will have caught up to us, and what is more, all of us who have come as far as we have at least know what lies ahead of the others. If we wanted to, we could make their path less arduous than the one that we -- as a civilization -- have had to tread.

If ...

I stress this point for the simple reason that our wonderful Enlightenment thinking has condemned us to individuality. We think of ourselves as individuals, independent of and free from others. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

We like to think that we are free and independent, but as the example with Mr. Bush showed and as we experience every day in our own little, individual lives -- from the golden handcuffs that some of us wear to the this-job-or-no-job decisions that others must make to the desperate struggle for survival that still others are confronted with -- we don't always have the choices available to us that we would like to have. No one does. We're simply not as free as we would like to think. And our everyday existence constantly reminds us that we will never be as free as we would like.

The soothing ointment in this injurious drama is more available than we think as well. Having been forced into thinking of ourselves as more individual than is necessary, we have a way out. We don't have to be rugged, completely independent individuals. (Truth be told, there are none ... this individual is every bit as fictitious as unicorns.) We are not only allowed, but at bottom we are required, to be members of communities, but only if we recognize the value, worth, and pure existence of "the other".

There is a world of difference between members of my own club or fellow fans. The Other is the one I chose to recognize and acknowledge as being like me in the most basic and essential way imaginable: as another human being. That person's culture, language, customs, mannerisms, or attitudes toward life are irrelevant. What we share is our humanness: our being lost, our having feelings and desires that remain unfulfilled, our basic needs and wants, that we share the same physical space at the same time. You are like me, and I know it.

The time has come, for any number of reasons ... be it the impending environmental catastrophe, the suffering and deprivation caused by war, the denigration suffered at the hands of political or financial interests ... to simply assert our humanness, not our individuality, for our own sakes, but, more importantly, for the sake of The Other.

The power of the unconscious

We've awakened to a world that has no meaning. Nothing really makes sense anymore. As a result, there is a (I must admit, misguided) tendency to revert to what we think we know. We think the Enlightenment thinkers knew what they were talking about. They did, I suppose ... then. But, now we have, well, now. Too much has changed in the meantime.

Whether we like Freud or not, whether we think he was correct or not, we do owe him this much: he made clear that there are "forces" at work in our lives that we can neither see nor consciously control. There is, in a manner of speaking, a good portion of unpredictability in the most reasonable and rational decisions and courses of action. This unsettles most of us. It is a cause for anxiety, and the most common reaction to this anxiety, since we really don't know where it is coming from, is to simply ignore it.

We've become experts at ignoring (or is it ignorance, I'm never really sure).

With the proliferation of media, particularly social media, we can pick and choose what we what to be confronted with. We seek out like-minded thinkers, people who share our attitudes and opinions, we look for those who are like us, not different. Sometimes they root for the same teams, brandish the same colors, or simply use skin color as a criterion of distinction. Yes, these kinds of choices run the gauntlet from harmless to destructive. It is now easy for any of us to simply get lost in the mass, to be part of the crowd, to stay below the radar of individuality. But isn't this really a problem?

On the one hand, we like to think of ourselves as individuals, of free-thinking, self-choosing and deciding persons who are the captains of our own destinies, not mere pawns of Fate, as it once was. At the same time, I don't see a lot of these independent, individual free thinkers actually standing up for anything. Social injustices, for example, are simply beyond their control. There is nothing that any of us can do about a lot of things. The economy is just the way it is ... what can we little people do about it? There are other groups (clans? tribes? ... has only the label changed?) who aren't pulling their weight, contributing their fair share, but we only pick on those who we think we're better than.

It would seem that we're right back where we started from: no, this is all not a matter of Fate, but (truth be told ... or just believed?) there's nothing that I -- as an individual -- can do about anything. Have we given up? caved in? yielded? surrendered? What have we done to ourselves? What's wrong with us? Has the unconscious risen to take the place of the fate we once displaced?

To be perfectly honest, I don't know for sure ... but, I do have my suspicions

The Enlightenment's (no doubt, well-intended) emphasis on the individual has led us to believe that everything in life is up to us as individuals. We know, however, from everyday experience, that there is too much going on, too much at stake in the world for any one of us to deal with it adequately. We're lost. We felt we've been left alone. We feel isolated and alienated. And we're right: we're all of these things. What we have lost, more than anything else, is the awareness, the knowledge, the assurance that there are others just like us, that we have more in common with others than we have certainty only within our own selves.

The promise of redemption through individuality has shown itself to be little more than the threat of our own demise.

What's really at issue

So, what's really at issue here?

It would seem that we are confronted with a number of interrelated conundrums: are we individuals or are we not? are we responsible individuals with free choice or are we not? may we be judged by our actions or only by what we say? do we get passes if we're in a high enough position and act against our own beliefs? can you do something that causes widespread grief and destruction and still be considered honorable? are we truly solely responsible for our own decisions? are there no mitigating circumstances?

These are not easy questions to answer. And there is no reason that they should be.

One of the real issues with which we are confronted at denizens of the modern, industrialized, consequently rich, Western world is that we no longer know what is right and what is wrong. There are so many mitigating circumstances with which we are all confronted. When they happen to us, they are a tragedy. When they happen to others, well, they should just learn to suck it up and deal with it. Why is that? One of the reasons, I believe, is our misunderstanding of the notion of "individuality" which was bequeathed to us by the Enlightenment.

There are some of you, I am sure, who wonder what it is that I have with the Enlightenment. I admit, I mention it quite a lot. It was an important period in our development as a species (homo sapiens, that is). It was the Enlightenment that gave us the free-willed individual. It was the Enlightenment that dethroned God and promoted Science to the arbiter of what is "true". It was the Enlightenment that introduced the "Rights of Man" (and I have purposely chosen to phrase this as the Enlightenment thinkers phrased it, not what some these days think it should be, namely "human rights"). It was the Enlightenment that demythologized the world, exalted Reason above Belief, and that displaced the human from the Center of Being, just as the Renaissance had displaced the Earth as the Center of the Cosmos. For Americans, this is a particularly beloved time, it would seem, for America's own (sacred, if not holy) Constitution is a product of the Enlightenment as well.

My concern is more mundane: it's 250 years later ... has nothing happened in the meantime? It would seem a lot has.

Just for starters, how about: the rise of the nation-state, the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the rise of capitalism and the counter-effect of Marxism, the consolidation of European powers, the introduction of evolutionary theory, the development of Freudian analysis, the discovery of relativity and quantum theory, the two-time attempted suicide of Europe (WW1 and WW2), the destruction of meaning (via post-structuralism and deconstructionism) and much, much more. All of these things have transpired, yet our thinking remains every bit as much rooted in what came before, as if none of it had happened at all.

It would seem that we've cherry-picked what we like and tried to discredit the rest. As I see it, however, that which we so gleefully discarded is now coming back with a vengeance.

Not Fate, but Free Will?

There are a couple of consequences that follow on from our elimination of -- or stated perhaps somewhat more modernly -- our supersession of Fate. For us in the West, it has meant the development of and the focus upon the individual. An individual is one who makes his or her own independent and free decisions about just about anything, from what to eat to what to become in life. We in the West love the Individual, because the very notion itself seems to endow us with unlimited freedom. And, if there is anything that Americans, in particular, love to claim that they love, well, it's Freedom. But just how free are we? Just how free can we really be?

Let's go back to Mr. Bush and his little war that I was so bothered by ... after just a little background (to explain why what I have to say is not "political"). Mr. Bush chose to run for the office of President of the United States. Mr. Bush chose a career of what used to be known a "public service". In other words, Mr. Bush -- of his own free will and accord -- chose to subject his decisions, his opinions, his actions, and the consequences thereof to public scrutiny. And, it is for this very reason that we can look at, think about, and discuss his actions independent of any political persuasions that any of us have. His defenders, of whom there are many, would maintain that he had no choice: given the events of 9/11, given the growing threat of terrorism around the world, given the increasing hostility toward America and all it may or might be perceived to stand for, he had no choice. (This is not something I'm making up hypothetically, it is an argument with which I have been actually presented.) Of course, the question arises, in light of the fact that we are free, unique and independent human beings, why he, in this particular situation, had no choice. What do we call it when we have no choice in what we do? Yes, Fate. But, (I'm pretty sure we agreed last time that) we've superseded Fate. It is our choices that determine who we are and how we are perceived.

We all should remember that I was quite open about the fact that I wouldn't have wanted to be in his shoes at the time of making that decision. On the other hand, we may also not forget that he -- as a consequence of his own free and independent choices -- did want to be in that position. Do you see the contradiction? How can you want to be in a situation of your own free will and accord and then claim that you have no choice? Either you believe we have the will to choose, or you don't ... and if you think there are degrees and shades of whatever that color our ability to choose, then it only seems reasonable to grant others that same concession.

Anyone, not just the (alleged) most powerful person in the world, can be in a position in which s/he actually has "no choice.

(And here's the political statement, and then I'll drop it: this is not a state of affairs allowed for everyone. If it were, we wouldn't have a general attitude that the poor are poor by choice, or that they stay poor by choice, or ... I think you get the point.)

So again: either things are a certain way or they are not; either individuals are free to make choices (and if the most powerful person in the world is not in such a position, then who, might I ask, is?); we are either masters (or mistresses) of our fate, or we are not. What are we?

It's not Fate ... at least not any more

Though change itself is inevitable, it is not a matter of Fate. Yes, there was a time when humankind saw things that way, but we're past that now. We (should) know that while change must (and should) be, we do have a say in which changes and to what degree they take place. It is not often that we can do this on our own, but we're not just hapless victims of whatever it might be that Life throws at us. We might not always be as in charge, as in control, as some of us might like to be, but within given limits, there is still a lot each and every one of us can do.

A lot of it, however, has to do with what we perceive is within our purview. As I never tire of saying, perception -- how we see the world around us ... very (if not, most) often, how we choose to see the world around us -- plays a significant role in what we believe we can or cannot do, what can or cannot achieve, in the world.

There are a number of people who have made this their life's work. They were struck by the discrepancy between what is and what we think things are. A lot of factors play into this. There's no question about that. But, in the end, it is still a matter of what we choose to perceive, what we choose to see, and what we believe we see. What these people have also pointed out, however, is that the great leaps and bounds of so-called "progress" are, upon closer examination, rather small, almost insignificant steps along a very long path. It is not a single road we all travel, and it turns out that there are innumerable ways for us to get off track. Not the least of which is, of course, thinking that we see something that perhaps is not there.

For example, in some recent posts, I talked about the notion of "honor" in relation to former president Bush. Needless to say, I received criticism for being political. When you look back upon what I had to say, however, it wasn't Bush's politics that were at issue. It was simply his actions measured against a notion given by a certain word, namely "honor". While in detail, what honor entails may vary between you and me, its essence is rather sound and solid. "Honor", for example, not has to do with doing what is right, it has to do with doing more than we expect as being the right thing to do. Honor, for example, is not something that obtains in and of itself, rather it is something that is perceived by others. Without others, there is no honor.

We moderns; that is, those of us who have been born post-Enlightenment, have been born into a world in which the individual has a say. Prior to the Renaissance, there is as good as no talk about, no real discussion of the individual, only groups had any meaning. Those of us who were born after Nietzsche (that is, everyone reading this post) have also been made aware that our individual will plays a huge role in what happens to us. This has become so commonplace that many of us have forgotten that this is not an absolute, but rather a relative state of affairs. While we all have such a will, not all of us are able to use it to the same extent. A poor person in a third-world country obviously has a much narrower range of opportunities than those of us who were born in the enlightened, prosperous, industrialized world. Nevertheless, we ascribe to them an independent and unique self and will, and thereby we have eliminated Fate from determining what we can and cannot, what we may and may not do.

Or have we?

... be changed?

Yes, ... be changed. Change is going to happen. That's just how things work. You can fight it, or you can be a part of it. This is one of those issues in which abstention is not an option.

Doing nothing means we will be changed. We'll have no choice, no influence on the outcome. We can only react, not act. Granted, we may not have much influence on the whole problem, but, as I pointed out last time, we always have the option of changing ourselves. And if we change ourselves, as pithy as it sounds, we have changed the world.

Now, what kind of change is within our control that might have a world-changing impact. I know that most of you figure you're pretty OK just the way you are, but I'm here to tell you that you aren't. You, me, everyone ... we all need to change, and we all need to make the same change: we have to stop putting ourselves first. What, you ask, are you talking about? My whole life revolves around others, and I'm here to tell you that it doesn't. You are the center of your own little world. We're all the centers of our own little worlds. And, that, my friends is the real issue.

We're pretty much programmed that way. From the time we can hear, we're told we have to look out for ol' #1, that if we don't take care of ourselves, no one else will, that you have to be your own person, that you can't take crap from anyone else, that you have to get yours before the others get theirs. We get it in varied and subtle ways, but we get it day and night, 24/7, on the Web, on TV, on the radio, at work, at school ... simply everywhere and everywhen.

While I will be among the first to admit that there are those of you who have done a pretty good job of resisting, but even you haven't gone far enough. For those of you who I've described quite accurately, it's obvious that you have to get started on yourselves immediately. But we all need to change, either in direction or intensity ... it doesn't matter to me, but we have to start putting others first ... not saying we put them first ... actually putting them first.

It doesn't have to be everyone all at once. This is something you can do in small steps, if great leaps are not really your thing. Pick one person a day (or week or month ... no, a year's too long) and put them before yourself: literally, figuratively, seriously. You can start local, too. No need to pick some unknown person from sub-Saharan Africa (unless that's where you happen to be), you can start with your family, friends, next-door neighbor. It doesn't matter, as long as you do it.

If we all do it, I suspect we have a chance for a better future. Yes, it means fundamentally changing the way you think, but what's wrong with that? I mean, if you always think what you always thought, you'll always get what you always got. It's that simple. Still skeptical? Fine, be that way, but when the world does go to hell in a handbasket, you won't be able to say that no body ever gave you the chance to save it. I did.

Change or ... ?

Things aren't what they used to be, and for the vast majority of us, they're not getting any better. There is not just one single thing that's bringing us all down.

It's not just that the political system is broken, or that capitalism has gone off the deep end. It's not just that we're changing the climate and destroying the planet through our addiction to plastics and oil. It's not that our schools are failing or that people are simply getting dumber. And it's not just a matter of crawling into our own little cocoons and ignoring anything in the world that doesn't quite suit us. It's not because we've lost our faith in God or that gays can marry or that women want equal pay. Oh sure, there's a bit of truth in each one of these things, and each one, in its own way, is contributing to the feelings of powerlessness and helplessness that each and every one of us feels each and every day.

Things change all the time and every one of these things has changed and will continue to change as long as we're alive. Some of them could be show-stoppers, like an environmental collapse, a large-scale armed conflict because of food or water scarcity, or perhaps a global financial meltdown. Any one of these things could happen, but these are all things that we, as human beings, have significant influence over. Fewer activities that aggravate the climate, better distribution of resources, particularly essential resources, and a more equitable financial system are all within our power. The problem as I see it, though, is that they are not within the will of most people. We think these are big-ticket items, and we're just too small, too insignificant to have any real influence on them.

In the undeveloped world, we know (or at least suspect) that too many are simply embroiled in an everyday struggle for existence. In the developed world, we see this becoming increasingly the case: rising unemployment, downward pressure on wages, unstable employment when you have it, low-wage jobs, often part-time (even if you're "lucky" enough to have more than one), rising costs of food, rent, transportation ... the list goes on and on. What can any of us little people do about all of that? That's a good question, and I can assure you, there is no easy answer.

We can choose to do nothing, and hope for the best, but we all know deep down that the best will be the worst. If any one (or more than one) of those too-big-to-do-anything-about systems fails, we'll have no choice but to merely react. And when we all react at once, it isn't going to be a pretty sight. On the other hand, even though we may not be able to directly change and of the big things, the one item over which we (should) have complete control is ourselves. Yes, in the end, regardless of what you think about any of it, it all comes down to you anyway. Change or ...

What I do get, though

There are some of you who figure I'm just another Bush basher. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Sure, he was an awful president, but I can hardly remember a time when we had a good one. It's an impossible job, I suppose. I certainly wouldn't want it, but there are those who do, for any number of reasons. I don't particularly care what they are, because for as long as I can remember, none of them -- at least judging by their actions -- had much to do with me or you or any of us little folk. I can't help but feel that they really don't care all that much.

And for those short-term thinkers who think I'm playing the left-right card, I'll have to disappoint you there too. First of all, the political left and right was a creation of the 19th century, and that's where the idea belongs. We should be beyond that. After all, it is 2014. Even more poignant is the fact that the US doesn't know what left and right is. Politics there, when seen from the outside, where I am, is simply a matter of conservative and even more conservative. To be perfectly honest, America became a one-party system a long time ago: that one party may have two tiny wings, if you will, but truth be told, there's really not a dime's bit of difference between them when you get to looking closer.

No, it's all about power in the end. With Obama, it's not always obvious, only when he starts persecuting whistleblowers or droning innocent civilians. With Bush, it was easier. It was more obvious. His whole crew was about power, and violence, and they didn't hesitate to let everybody know. Clinton was truly slick enough to create enough diversions that we overlooked his deference to Wall Street and his commitment to US hegemony. Bush I was just a weak Reagan, and Reagan was an actor, pretending to be president but really just trampling over little people and waging fake wars for fake reasons, supporting wherever possible macho Central American dictators. Carter got the boot for not acting macho enough; Nixon and his henchman Kissinger were all about secret illegal wars in and around Vietnam. The top priority, in all cases? The common factor amongst them all? Image. An image of power. An image that scares others into doing your bidding. The unfortunate state of affairs is that really starting with Reagan, it has become more direct, more in-your-face, more violent, more aggressive, more intolerant, more ideological, and downright meaner.

And oh, by the way, this is not about government power either. Americans love their limited-government ideology, but oddly enough, those who are truly wielding the power can use that to distract most people from what is really going on. The shredding of the Constitution, the gutting of the Bill of Rights, the pervasive surveillance, are one side of the coin, but it's not because the government per se has something up its sleeve. No, as the old saying goes, "follow the money": the supremacy of property over human rights, the recent Supreme Court rulings on money as speech, the unjust legal system, the for-profit prison system, the privatization of the education system, and all the rest of these moves are put in place not so the government has more control, but rather that certain moneyed interests have more control ... of the government. When you take a step back, you realize quickly that what we normally think of as "the government" is merely a strawman for the real powers that be.

In keeping with theme that started this thread, I can only add, that going with this particular flow strongly reduces the likelihood that what you're doing is honorable.

Why don't I get it? (It must be beyond me)

When we get to the big things, we get to the heart of the matter.

Bush's big thing: quite obviously 9/11. This was a catastrophic disaster. Words can't describe it. The trauma it caused is incalculable. How one reacts, what one does in light of such an event, clearly reveals a person's values. And it was here -- I'll be perfectly honest -- that not only Mr. Bush, but most of the world let me down. Don't get me wrong, I understand how revenge works; I understand what motivates one's thoughts about getting even; I understand rage, and anger, and grief and pain and suffering and all that goes along with it. But the reaction under Mr. Bush's leadership unfortunately said more about him than anything he did before or thereafter. It was his -- by virtue of his position in the world at that time and that place -- defining moment. And what did he do?

He lied.

It was, and is, known that Bin Laden, his terrorist group, and his blindest followers were Saudis, not Iraqis. For as much as an evil tyrant Saddam Hussein may have been, for as much as he may have sympathized with the attackers, it was known that he was not behind the attacks, but Mr. Bush insisted he was. It was at this juncture, for whatever reasons -- and here I'll be forthright as well: I don't believe a one of them a good one -- Mr. Bush and his team made Iraq the focal point of our attention. He fixed the blame, not the problem; he channeled America's anger for his own (or his administration's) purposes; and he did no dishonestly.

He lied. He misled. He mocked and bullied anyone he could to get his way. And, in the end, he got his way and unjustifiably attacked a sovereign nation which had no real issue with the US, one which was not guilty of much more than being a nuisance for American corporate, military, and political interests. His lies led directly to the deaths of over 4,000 American and over 100,000 Iraqi soldiers. His lies led to the deaths of close to a million people in the end, when you consider the consequences and civilian collateral damage of that war. And then, on top of it all, it was his administration that not only authorized, but condoned, the use of torture -- a practice until then allegedly abhorrent to the American psyche -- without the slightest hesitation or remorse. That particular war, a war of blatant aggression, the way it was waged, and the treatment of its victims are all in direct violation of agreed standards of human rights, the rules of military engagement, and international law. It's at this point that this man's honor escapes me.

He was at the top. He was the person responsible for everyone down the chain of command. He was the Commander-in-Chief. So, if you argue, it was those below him over whom he did not have enough control, then he was a failure as a leader, a manager, and a human being, for I never heard him speak out against these people or anything they did. It all happened on his watch. It was the Bush presidency, more than any other since the 50s, that (re-)cultivated the idea of the Ugly American.

So where is the honor? What makes this man so honorable? That he went jogging with a disabled vet? I just don't get it.

And that's why the picture bothered me so much. Apparently, I failed to get something important, again. Apparently I missed something. Apparently some people find him and what he is responsible for honorable, but for me, as always, actions speak louder than words.