Crossroads, threshold, whatever

There are enough alarmists running around: the end of the world, the end of history, the end of capitalism, the end of who-knows-what. I'm not one of them. On the other hand, we are faced with a number of serious issues which, much like the nuclear destruction of the world in the 1950s/Cold War, which could mean the end of all of us, if we don't wise up. There is no self-destructive, nefarious cabal hiding somewhere waiting to end everything as we know it. As Pogo said so long ago, "We have met the enemy, and he is us" (1953). As my mother never tired of saying, we're all our own worst enemies.

There is little doubt in my mind that if we continue (as a society and a world) along our current path, our day are numbered. We're polluting faster than we can find remedies. We're using up resources faster than we can recycle and find substitutes. We're polarizing each other faster than we can make friends. We're oppressing faster than we're freeing. In short, we are doing our damnedest to bring on the end nobody really wants.

It's not a big deal. I mean, why should I get all upset about any of this? If we destroy our basis for living, none of us will be around to be the wiser. OK, a whole lot of people will no doubt suffer and slowly die anquishing and painful deaths, but what the hell, wasn't it worth it. That second X-Box, that 17th Beamer, that €40,000 bottle of wine ... it all was worth it, right up to the end. And since there will be nobody left, there will be no one to give a rat's behind what we had or didn't have before we checked out of life. When we are gone, no one will be left to care one way or the other.

Still, I am one of those helplessly romantic people who think the earth is an overwhelmingly beautiful place. It is full of magic and wonder and beauty. It can put up with abuse than none of us can; it provides for all who are there, untill they take more than they deserve; it is, unquestionably, the greatest mystery that we can imagine. But, what the hell .. there's money to be made. Right.

Personally, I'm not all that excited or depressed about being or not being here when it all goes down the tubes. Chances are very, very good that I'll be gone before it happens. In a couple of decades, I'll barely be a memory in anyone's mind. Still, I have grandchildren, as do my siblings. By default, I have children who are going to outlive me. I may not care about what happens to me -- after all, I had my chance -- but I do care about what happens to them. That's just the kind of person I am. If I merely sit back and watch those who think they know do whatever the hell they please till there's nothing left for anybody, well, then I'm just as guilty as they are. I have no desire to die guilty ... not because I'm afraid I won't get into heaven, but because it simply isn't necessary that I do. I still have a voice (though faint), I still have the opportunity (though diminishing), and I still have the means (though restricted) to possibly instill a moment of doubt about the wisdom of the world as it is in any number of others.

No, it is not for me that I speak. It is for others who so far have no voice, no opportunity, and no means. The difference between me and many folks, but especially between me and the capitalists, is that others, "the other" (in philosophical terms) is more important to me than myself.

I'm not alone, I know. But I also know that I am an anathema to the current rational way of thinking. We are at a crossroads, or a threshold, or whatever. We all have to decide what we want to do. The upside is there are many options available. The downside is that TPTB want to think we don't have them.

You're choice. Your move.

The real problem with "arguments"

We like to think that we live in a rational world, even if there is craziness going on around us all the time. We assume that rational is normal and that craziness is not. Unfortunately, like so many other things, this is merely an assumption.

Though held in high esteem, rationality is little understood by those who advocate it most strongly. In the rational world, if this is right, then that must be wrong; if this is good, that must be bad; if it isn't one, then, by default, it must be the other. This is -- and you'll excuse my directness -- simply insane.

The rational mind, the mind that we exalt these days, is a mind of either-or: there are always only two options -- Republicans or Democrats, freedom or slavery, good or bad, right or wrong, capitalists or communists (or socialists, or whatever else they decide is "the other"). The rational world, it would seem, is reduced a mere black and white. It is this, or it is that. The trouble is, our experience tells us that it is anything but ... the world is not either-or.

Rationality, like so many other well-liked notions, is simply an unquestioned assumption. Who decided when and where that there were only ever to be two options. While I may agree that there are two sides to every question, who decided that we're asking the right question to begin with? This reduction to simplicity is a dangerous path to be following. It assumes that there are only two options. There aren't. There are as many options as we decide to allow.

I have long advocated that we start thinking about "reasonable" and abandon "rational". To be reasonable is to acknowledge that there may be a third, fourth, or who knows how many other options available. To be reasonable means we can try this because it seems like a really good idea, and when we find out it isn't working as expected, we can modify it, fine-tune it without having to throw out everything we've discovered thus far. To be reasonable means that everyone has a say, and what makes the most sense becomes clear.

Unfortunately, capitalists (to simply stay with the topic) are not reasonable people. They are absolute rationalists. The fact that their entire system is built upon questionable assumptions not only never occurs to them, they deny that such is even a possibility. If you base all you believe on one single notion -- in the capitalist's case: private property -- then a questioning of that notion, that assumption in this case, is a life-threatening act. As such, they are willing to resort to life-threatening actions to enforce their point of view (cf. the current escalation of political violence against the citizenry).

Capitalism can only work if private property is the non plus ultra of human existence. It is the most fundamental, basic and essential assumption upon which the whole idea rests. This is an assumption. And one which I question vigorously.

It has become so that property rights have now superceded, have now overwhelmed, human rights. We -- you and I -- both as members of a community and living breathing human beings, are no where near as important as whatever resources may be under our feet. We have created a system of belief that holds to be true that things are more important and more valuable that people. And this, all based on an assumption. It is supported, of course, by another assumption, that the world can be reduced to either-or, that we live in a rational world. This assumption is just as faulty.

The time has come, dear reader, that we all start questioning assumptions.

Even more problems with "arguments"

In most general terms, we can sum up our discussion thus far as "capitalism is an economic system that uses 'stuff' (money and resources) to produce other 'stuff' in an attempt to increase well-being". Like any other statement (and by now you should be getting the hint: the use of some words simply demand further clarification), this one raises a couple of questions as well, such as "Whose stuff?" and "Whose well-being?"

Today's free-market advocate will tell you that you should be able to use whatever is available anywhere it may be and in the end, all of us will benefit or be better off. I don't think that's a misstatement of the argument that is at the root of the current economic debate. And here we come to the crux of the matter.

The entire capitalist argument (more stuff is better for everyone) simply holds no water and this for the very simple reason that is based on an assumption, and this assumption is faulty. We assume that more stuff is better, even in the face of contradictory information. Yes, more stuff is better for some (limited few) but not for everyone. The assumption is that if I am doing better, you'll do better too. There's no evidence to support this, it is merely an assumption. In fact, capitalism (both as conceived and practiced) is built on a whole number of assumptions, all of which fail to hold up under scrutiny, but more on that later.

The real issue with all argumentation these days is that the arguments themselves are built upon assumptions that are never questioned, they are simply taken as givens, as if they were normal. They aren't. Capitalism, for example, has told us that more is better and the word they use to describe that is "progress". To them it is progress that we now have cars, and high-speed transportation, for example. These things make our lives "better". But what is better? That I have to spend four hours a day getting to and from work? That I see my family less because I spend so much time commuting? That the pollution that is caused by both cars and high-speed transportation which is demonstratably ruining our health and threatening the planet is a small price to pay for what? convenience? What is better about that?

We pick certain things, say they are more important than others, and everything is OK. But it isn't. Yes, we've been able to develop cures to a lot of diseases, and we've created as many more (either through stress or genetic and chemical manipulation that could eradicate our entire species); we have reduced the amount of time we need to meet our basic needs, but we've filled that free time with producing for others so that they may have even more than they already do; we have developed technologies that could connect us instantly, but we use them to oppress and control. You will have to excuse me if I don't get the whole "progress" argument.

The reason I don't is because it, like capitalism, is based on an assumption: more is better. We know that in most cases this is not true. Chocolate is good, more chocolate may have adverse effects on our health; security is good, more security quickly becomes surveillance which is not such a good thing. Assumptions are dangerous things. We should be careful when dealing with assumptions. Our biggest problem is that we assume that assumptions are true. They aren't, they are simply assumptions. We need to be able to question our assumptions in order to be clear on what we are really demanding. This is a learnable skill that, unfortunately, most of us have never learned, and which many more have never had the opportunity to learn. Fortunately, it's never too late to learn it.

The next time: a few (hopefully) helpful tips.

More problems with "arguments"

We're actually pretty safe with our assumptions about something as basic and physical as "breakfast". Nobody really cares if you want cold pizza, steak and eggs, cereal, bread and coffee or a three-course warm meal. There are other things, however, that others do care about (for whatever reasons), but they, too, function a lot like breakfast. We do them, believe them, advocate them, support them, and, sometimes even, fight for them ... because we don't realize that, in the end, they're just like breakfast.

Let's stick with "capitalism" because it's something we believe we all know something about and just about every one of us has some kind of opinion about it. When we leave the realm of the concrete (e.g. "breakfast"), we leave the world of "nomal" for the world of "right". We may think it is silly that other people eat cucumbers and tomatoes for breakfast, but as long as their amongst themselves, it really doesn't bother us, it doesn't really affect us, and so we simply don't care. When it comes to abstract ideas (and "capitalism" is an abstract idea), we start thinking in terms of right and wrong. It starts mattering to us because it affects us directly.

What most people overlook at this moment is the fact that we have placed one thing (breakfast) into an individual framework (even though other cultures may do it differently, everyone if free to have for breakfast whatever the hell they like) while the other thing (capitalism) is placed into a collective framework, and by that I mean a framework that extends beyond the individual. Capitalism affects all of us, regardless of culture. (Oh sure, there can be variations as to how it is implemented from culture to culture, but the fundamental principles remain the same.) So, what is this "-ism" that affects us all?

In its simplest form, I suppose we could say that "capitalism" is an economic way of thinking in which capital (most often money, but it could also be resources of other kinds) generates weath. That doesn't sound bad at all, does it? Sounds downright harmless, if you ask me, but we all know that there is a lot of angry discussion surrounding the term these days. My last few posts could be seen by some (not incorrectly) as a direct attack on that very simple principle. What could possibly be wrong with that? It's a good question, and one that deserves an answer.

In our simple definition, we have two concepts that, at least to me, need further clarification: "capital" and "wealth". We think we know what these are, but I would ask, do we really? Let's work backwards. What is "wealth"? In many quarters, this simply means being rich, having a lot of money, having more than enough to satisfy subsistence requirements (food, clothing, shelter) and to be able to have some joy in life. In other words, it has something to do with an abundance of material possessions that makes life "more worth living" (or something like that). If we trace the etymology (history) of the word, we find that it comes from the Middle English "weal", meaning "well-being"; the "-th" ending indicating "a state of"; that is, wealth, at root, means a state of well-being. Hey, who could argue with that?

One problem arises when we mistake the words for the reality. What actually is "well-being"? Do we agree on what the terms means? I don't think so. For some it means having a lot; for others it means have very little (minimalists). Who's right? And then, we have the matter of capital? What's that? As intimated above, sometimes it's money, sometimes it is other things, like land, natural resources, or more).

At this point the observant reader will realize that some kind of tension is building. To move on, we need to resolve that tension, which I'll attempt to do next time.

The problem with "arguments"

Having thought about the last couple of posts, I thought it might be a good idea to take a break and explain something so fundamental that we tend to overlook it. The human mind is a fascinating object of study. How we think, why we think the things we do, how we learn, what we remember ... the list truly goes on and on ... are really quite mind-boggling subjects. We know something about how the brain functions, but we know very little about how it works. And, what is even more important, we have hardly any idea what "consciousness" is and how it may (or may not) be related to the brain. All we know is that the brain is involved.

Now, I'm not going to clear these matter up by any means. I'm not even going address most of them. What I am going to address is one way that we come to believe things and why we are ready to accept some arguments while rejecting others, even though those we reject may be more compelling. I'm going to keep this simple, but I'm not going to make it simplistic. There are some things about the process than everyone can, and should, know.

We all gather sensory data through our five senses (smelling, tasting, touching, hearing, and seeing). We don't, however, gather exactly the same data. Instead, we gather this data and process it through all the filters that our parents, teachers, society, culture, and friends have helped us to create. We like certain things, dislike others, really love some things and hate others. We all experience the "same reality", but we process it in very individual ways. That's one side of the coin.

While the five senses are a great starting point for physical things, they are not so well suited for abstract ideas and notions, things that happen only in our minds. Some people prefer red to blue, others prefer liberals to conservatives, some think capitalism is good, others that it is evil incarnate. This kind of perception is what has always fascinated me the most.

The point is this: regardless of what we get through our senses, we process it through filters that we have consciously and unconsciously created. Our experiences, upbringing, society and culture have all played a very significant role in all this. I have to go back to my overworked "breakfast" example to explain: What do you eat for breakfast (usually)? Why? When you look around the world to see what other people think what constitutes a "normal" breakfast, you will most likely find yourself asking, "Why would anybody eat that for breakfast?" Yes, why? Because to them, it is normal. Whatever any of us has for breakfast is simply "normal" to us. No more, no less. There is not one normal, but all normals are equal. What we know, what we are used to, what seems to suit us is what we consider "normal". There is nothing to prove it, there are no reasons to justify it that would convince others to change their ways. It is simply a matter of assuming that whatever we (and those around us) do is "normal". In other words, normalcy is really nothing more than an assumption.

Assumptions, however, are rather tenuous things. What happens if we find that our assumptions are misplaced? What happens if it becomes clear that our assumptions are harmful? What do we do?

Good questions. More next time.