Why beliefs trump reality

Before anyone gets the wrong impression (whereby I'm fairly sure that this plea comes a bit late), I would like to reiterate something I never tire of saying. I am not just beating up on my home country. I am merely using them as an example, for in many cases, the USA is simply the best example of what I'm talking about. The root causes, the root feelings, the root beliefs and the root reactions are evident across the entire world, both West and, mutatis mutandis, East. We're all human beings and no one is exempt. We all have similar moral potential, and we all have inherent weaknesses. That's what makes us human. But it is always easier to ignore than to acknowledge, let alone accept.

It just so happens that I agree with Einstein that patriotism is an infantile disease. We are born where we are born by virtue of an inexplicable cosmic accident. To use that as a basis for unquestionable allegiance to one's birthplace is, in my mind at least, just silly. We are made into unswerving loyalists, we weren't born that way, so when you place your own country, for example, above all others, it is not a fact, it is simply a belief that you have taken on for any number of reasons, some perhaps OK, others questionable.

The point I really want to make is that we buy into this belief because it makes us feel good, it makes us feel worthwhile and it makes us think we have a purpose. We want to believe we are the good guys, that what we do is good and right and proper and admirable. And, there is nothing essentially wrong with any of this, as far as it goes. The problem is, however, that it goes much farther and deeper.

When confronted with evidence that contradicts this most fundamental view of the world that we have, we become fearful and insecure. We simply don't want to believe that things are different than the way we want to think they are. We will do everything in our power not to look these facts and this possible evidence in the eyes. Why? I don't know for sure, but one reason is certainly because we think we will no longer be the person we once were. That may be true, but it's not bad. Sure, it may be unpleasant, even painful, but closing one's eyes to reality doesn't make it go away. No one ever said the truth would make us happy, but it is truly the case that it is the truth which sets you free.

FDR once noted that we really have nothing to fear but fear itself, and he had a point. Whether you like his politics or not, he still had a point. I believe that now, more than at any other time in my short life, we are being called upon to face our fears. We can't give in ... or can we? Fear is more often that than not the root cause of hate, and when you begin to hate on the basis of your beliefs, for whatever reason, you have removed yourself from the world of reason. Hate is a powerful emotion, one of the most powerful in fact, but it is destructive, not only for others but for oneself. Hate is a poison that destroys one from inside every bit as much as the actions it calls forth wreak destruction on everyone and everything toward which it is directed. And, I must say that it saddens me to see and hear as much hate being spread about as I do these days.

As cynical as I may be, I would still like to think that we're better than that.

No, not yet ... please

For all of you who haven't quite caught on yet: no, today is not the First Day of Christmas. For that, you have to wait another 12 days. You're going to have to be patient. If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go here and find out. If you're disappointed, well, sorry, somebody had to tell you sometime.

What's often fascinated me the most about this joyous season of the year is that there are many, many businesses that generate 75% or more of their revenues during these few weeks. What do they do the rest of the year? If they're in retail, do they just wait around for customers who never come, paying rent on space they're not really using, paying employees who aren't really doing anything? I'd be the last person to fire the people. I think these companies should continue to pay the employees, close down the store, and re-open when it's worth it. And are there still factories cranking out stuff year round even though they're only going to unload it at the very end of the year? How inefficient is that? What kind of bonuses do those CEOs get?

Are you starting to get the hint that maybe -- just maybe -- some of the stuff we do -- and place so much value on -- are simply, well, nonsensical?

We're strange creatures, we human beings. Recently, I (re-)read a quote from Charles Darwin: "It is not the strongest or most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change." Personally, I think he's right on this one. And then I see us buzzing around in our pre-Christmas frenzy, doing the same things as the year before, causing the same problems as the year before, buying the same junk as the year before, giving it to the same people as the year before, or, if I'm a business, finally greeting those same customers as the year before, or receiving the same orders as the year before, and counting my money as the year before, and I start wondering what it means if Chuck was right. If he is, we're doomed.

OK, I'll admit it: I think we're doomed anyway, and it's not Christmas all by itself that is going to be our undoing. No, it's deeper than that. Christmas is just one of the many examples of how human beings do the same thing over and over again but expect different results. That, according to Einstein -- no intellectual slacker -- is the definition of insanity.

As far as I'm concerned, Christmas is as good a reason as any to be jolly. Fa-la-la-la-la-la-la, but watching the scene play out, I have to admit that I do wonder a bit about our sanity. There's a big difference between feeling merry and simply being out there where the busses don't run.

The 4th of July

Yes, yes, yes, it is that time again. Break out the BBQ, fire up the coals, get ready for the fireworks ... it's time to celebrate. This is a big day for Americans, that's for sure, but what is it exactly they are celebrating? This is not a question that just sprang to mind. I've been asking it for most of my life. Most Americans will tell you, it was on July 4, 1776 that America declared its independence from Britain and became a new nation (though it took a war and 13 more years to establish that fact), signaling a new era in the development of the nation-state and enshrining freedom and liberty as the hallmarks of this new phase of existence.

Now, I really don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but right here at the outset, I find myself confused. Historians agree that the Peace of Westphalia (1648) marks the birth of the modern nation-state. The USA certainly wasn't the first, and as we have seen over the course of the last 366 years, nation-states come and go. Just ask Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, if you don't believe me. There are older people in the Czech Republic who have had three different nationalities in their lifetime and they've never left their village. Just what kind of a role does the nation really play in our lives?

And how is it that these people -- or any of us for that matter -- become citizens? I have an American passport because I was born there. How did I come to be born there? The luck of the draw. There is no rational reason why I couldn't have been born in Sub-Saharan Africa or in China or Tibet, or on some Lapp island above the Artic Circle. We place absolutely no value on chance or coincidence in any other aspect of our lives, but when it comes to which passport you can get, one's place of birth is a really big deal. A mere chance event has everything to say about one's loyalties, one's obligations, and one's commitments. Why is it only applicable in this case?

OK, maybe it's about the ideas of Freedom and Liberty. Well, back there in 1776, only white, male property owners were free. There was still indentured servitude; women were chattel; slavery was not only legal but acceptable, and we were on the threshold of carrying out the systematic and ruthless genocide of all those people who were there before the Europeans came to "settle this savage land". What does freedom and liberty mean to these people? And, how free is a country with a concentration camp in Guantanamo where they can send their own citizens without due process (provisions of the NDAA)? How free is a country which brutally suppresses peace demonstrations (cf. reaction to the Occupy movement)? How free is a country that spies upon and collects data on its citizenry for no other reason than they they can? How free is a country that enslaves its more fortunate young people with life-long debt and which denies opportunites to its less fortunate (read: poor) youth? How free is a country that blatantly expects more for itself than for any other country (say, like Iraq)?

Don't get me wrong: I love holidays as much as the next fellow, maybe even more. I love celebrating and having a good time and being able to spend quality time with family and friends. You will have to excuse me, however, if I don't get all choked up and teary-eyed. I'm saving that for such a time that the USA (or any other country, for that matter) actually makes an honest attempt to live up to the ideals they claim to hold so highly. If you want me on your side, walk the walk, don't just talk the talk.

So, who are we?

It turns out, the everyday (to us), rather mundane, act of pointing, is one of humanity's most profound gestures. Only humans point. Yes, you can forget the apes and other simians who do not do it in the wild and dogs which have been specifically trained to so.) Pointing is unique to humans.

Raymond Tallis, in his fascinating book, Michelangelo's Finger, tells us that due to the physiology of our hands (in particular, fractionated finger movements: separating and unfolding of index finger), we are physically able to point at all, but pointing itself consists of four essential components. You need a

1. producer – the person doing the pointing;
2. pointer – used by the producer to do the pointing
3. pointee – that which is pointed out and
4. consumer – the one who benefits from the pointing.

What is more, pointing; that is, genuine, meaningful pointing, has three fundamental characteristics. It is, namely,

1. dialogic – interactive; that is, it is for someone else’s benefit;
2. specific – it singles out the referent, a particular pointee and
3. directional – it is away from the pointing hand.

And this what makes it uniquely human, for the act encompasses five unique points of human self-consciousness. Pointing is

1. uniquely sustained;
2. uniquely complex;
3. unique to its contents;
4. uniquely stitched together internally both within a moment and between moments and
5. uniquely interwoven with self-consciousness of others.

This last point is particularly important. The ability to point, the ease and naturalness with which we do it (babies do it and understand it before they can even speak), shows that this ability is intimately linked to the explicit awareness of one’s own body, but even more importantly, it is linked to the explicit awareness of another’s mind.

We are not just hunks of self-mobile flesh. We are not mere animals, even if we share much more of our being with our animal cousins than we may like to admit. We humans -- and it is this which provides us with the most significant and fundamental distinction to other sentient beings -- know there are others, and we know that these others are just like ourselves. To ignore or deny this is simply to deny one's humanity.

The next time you are trying to make a point, or simply pointing something out, or even merely pointing at something, you may want to keep your uniqueness in mind. Now you know, and knowledge, as it is also well known, obligates.

References
Tallis, Raymond (2011) Michelangelo's Finger: An exploration of everyday transcendence, New York, Atlantic Books.

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 ...