The myth of freedom

As promised last time, I'm going to turn to the other half of Ben Franklin's equation: liberty, or freedom, as we most commonly call it. No, I'm not going to go into a discussion of the details of differentiation between the two. We all have a general understanding of the word, and we all profess with certainty that we are, in fact, free, but just short of an outright, apparent dictatorship, we couldn't be more wrong.

Another wise man, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, once remarked that "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." I would maintain that this statement applies to some degree to just about all of us, but it hits the proverbial nail on the head as far as Americans are concerned. Going back even further, no one less than Aristotle noted, that whoever prefers security to freedom is rightfully a slave. That pretty much describe post-9/11 America.

You can't voluntarily gut your own Bill of Rights, limiting or suspending your rights to freedom of expression, speech, and assembly, eliminating of the right of habeus corpus, allowing yourself to be arrested on mere suspicion of terrorism only to be potentially turned over to the military and suspension of all legal rights, gutting the 4th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, allowing your elected representatives to gerrymander you out of the value of your vote, standing by while certain segments of the population are denied even their right to vote, and introducing so much money into politics that only those who have have a say and think you are living in a free country. You can't see one video (since you don't often see it on the news) of the dispersal of an Occupy demonstration or almost any demonstration for that matter and think that you live in a free country. And, especially if you are a person of color, you cannot begin to imagine how tenuous your own existence is should the State decide to clamp down on you, as was the case in the wake of the Ferguson demonstrations, for example.

None of that, my dear friends and readers, speaks of freedom. None of it. Each and every one of these is evidence of how severely your rights, and hence your freedoms, have been restricted. The worst of it all, of course, is that Americans, at any rate, demanded that it be done to them. They voluntarily gave these rights and freedoms up, in the name of -- quite ironically -- national security. Mr. Franklin was right all the way around.

One important point to keep in mind, however, is that none of these rights is ever coming back. Oh, we were all told that these were temporary steps necessary to get the situation under control, but I'm going to let you in on a little secret: power never relents; once you give up anything, especially your rights and your freedom, you never, ever get it back. Mr. Franklin said you don't deserve them anyway, and I happen to think he is right.

Enter Mr. Goethe. Yes, those who took all that away from you have not tired since telling you, impressing upon you, suggesting to you, convincing you that nothing has really changed. But it has. Those who took all that away from you lied to get it, just like they lied to start the wars that would increase your fear which would demand more action and more restriction and more control. Enter good old Aristotle: keep me safe and I'll do your bidding.

Americans, for the most part, have never really been all that free, but they are less free now than they have ever been. Depending on where you live, you know which sports teams to root for, which church to attend (and you'd better attend one of them), which religion to believe in, which party to vote for, and whom to associate with. Peer pressure has never been writ larger than in America, and, I have to admit, America is really good at it. But whether you're pressured by your peers or by the police or by the legal system, it doesn't really matter. In the end, you adjust, adapt, and submit. You like to think you're free. You love to tell yourself you are, but in reality, you're just grist for the mill.

The myth of security

Since I left off with Ben Franklin last time, it seems fitting to, in a way, pick up where I left off, with Ben again. Among the many other notable things he said, he pointed out that "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Let's just deal with the latter of these notions; I'll come back to the other one next time.

What Franklin described as "safety" in his day is what we call "security" nowadays. A little less than a decade-and-a-half ago, my fellow Americans fell for this one in a big way. The events of 9/11 drove the stake of fear into their isolationist hearts and they were confronted with a dose of reality that made them more than willing victims. Total data collection, unwarranted wiretapping and evesdropping, computer-analysis of all email communication, the rise of unchecked police power, the suppression of rights unseen since the founding of the country, and for what?

Nothing, really. Oh sure, go to the airport and you'll be inconvenienced, but are we safer? Are we more secure? Are we better protected? Not in the least.

In spite of all the invasions of privacy, the intrusions into our personal lives, the repression in public spaces, and other inconveniences we've been made to suffer, not a single terrorist act, in the US or anywhere else in the world, including the most recent attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, was prevented. We've even toppled governments (elsewhere of course), carried out physical assassinations (e.g., Bin Laden) or have murdered countless innocent civilians (the drone program), and we've still got an Islamic State and Boko Haram and a vast number of wannabe organizations that are threatening all of us in ways that we couldn't imagine not all that long ago.

Of course, it's not only national security that is at issue. Though the rates of violent crimes is declining throughout the Western world, America in its gun fanaticism is seeing an increase in the number of accidental homicides. The more guns, the more people are going to be killed. Anyone can be shot, given the flimsy nature of house construction or the thinness of the walls in apartment dwellings. Without a system of health insurance, anyone and everyone is exposed to health dangers that can't be addressed, and the recent outbreaks of previously eliminated contagious diseases are cause for concern. And then we have the lack of labeling of food products, the machinations of the processed food industry, the secrecy surrounding fracking company chemicals, the multitude of accidental poisonous spills, the decline of environmental protection worker health and safety regulations and, well, you've got the perfect combination for a high probability of death by just about anything other than old age.

Americans, for sure, but increasingly we in Europe, are facing a noticeable lack of both safety and security, both generally and in Mr. Franklin's sense of the word. The world has always been something of a dangerous place, but the illusion of safety and security we have created for ourselves is probably the greatest danger of all. Our surest thing is a blatant false sense of security.

The myth of unity

You can think what you want about America's Founding Fathers. I have -- I'll be honest -- more than just mixed feelings. Yes, yes, yes, they might have been products of their times, but history is replete with great thinkers and doers who looked beyond and were not just victims of their own particular time and place of birth. That's part of my dilemma, I suppose: if these guys were such great visionaries (as is so often claimed) why couldn't they see beyond their own cultural context, why couldn't they envision something more universal, why were they tripping over their own feet to set a standard for the world to come?

To me, the most enigmatic of all the Founding Fathers is Benjamin Franklin. I'll admit it: he has been ever since I was forced to read his autobiography in 11th grade. Granted, I didn't always do what I was told, but I waded through that one. I was taken aback by the contradictions and enthralled by the moments of genius. I couldn't believe any text could be that boring, but found such inspiration for life, that I live quoting the man.

It was Uncle Ben (not he of rice fame) who inspired me for this post. Ben, when arguing before the Continental Congress on what the colonies should do in regard to the Crown, let loose a most impressive statement: "Either we hang together, or we hang separately." What wise words.

Right here at the beginning of American history, at a time when the idea of the individual was concreticizing in the Enlightenment mind, Mr. Franklin quipped out a truth that would stand the test of time. He knew, and the circumstances dictated, just as they do today, that it was in togetherness, in overcoming petty differences, in seeing the bigger picture, in cooperation in the face of adversity, in solidarity that something new could be achieved. The world recognizes the French Revolution, which transpired 13 years later, as the irruption into modernity, but it was Mr. Franklin's simple statement that made that other revolution possible. Yes, in the Enlightenment, in the Age of the Individual, in the transition from collectivism to individualism, Uncle Ben reminded us that we are only strong and capable of survival when we band together, when we collectively react, when we cooperate, not when we compete.

Since then, as history as patently demonstrated, the individualists have done what they could to gain the upper hand. Our own current, post-modern attitude is that the individual is supreme, but Ben knew, and we know deep inside, that the individual is nothing without the collective to support him (or her, as the case may be).

The antithesis of the Roman adage to divide and conquer is Mr. Franklin's admonishment to pull together. Not quite 100 years later, one Charles Darwin would generalize this idea into his theory of evolution. It's as obvious as the noses on our faces, but there is a significant number of individuals these days who would like the rest of us to think otherwise. And they are doing a damn fine job of it, I hate to admit.

We -- America, any modern, Western country, any significant political organization or grouping -- praise the individual, raise him to almost godly status, but we know, and have known for quite a long time, that real strength lies in coming together. That's why our ideal of unity is a mere myth. It does not and cannot exist. We mouth the words, but we live our actions: me first, everyone else second; as long as I have mine, you're free to try and get yours; it's every person for themselves.

No, Ben was right. if we don't hang together, we'll hang separately. It really is that simple.

The myth of justice for all

If you don't have shared values; if you erroneously believe that you can do everything yourself; if you refuse to recognize that where and when we are born has a lot to say about what's even possible in our lives; if the notion of personal responsibility is perverted into a justification that it's your own fault if things are better for you; and if you believe that only the individual is capable of anything positive; it is, well, simply beyond my ability to imagine, let alone comprehend, how you can think that we're all treated equally in the eyes of the law.

In the United States, money is free speech, though there's no hint of that in the First Amendment. In the Western World in general, there is the legal precedent that social standing, background or history, may not be considered in assessing your standing in society. For anyone who wants to see -- and I realize that means "damn few" -- it is clear that different measures are applied to different individuals in our everyday reality.

To me, the most emblematic, the most telling, the strongest statement of the negation of the notion of "justice for all" is the notion of "affluenza". Don't get me wrong, I'm quite a fan of linguistic dynamics, of the ability of a language to change and adapt to the world around it, of neologisms, and more, but "affluenza" ... well, that one, I must admit, stopped me in my tracks.

It was, I believe, a judge in Texas (otherwise not known for its forward-thinking decisions) who declared that a young man who was drugged and drunk and who drove into a crowd of people, killing several of them, was, in fact, innocent (and sentenced accordingly) because he suffered from "affluenza": he came from such a rich family, that he was no longer able to determine the difference between wrong and right. It wasn't an isolated incident; the defense has been successfully invoked since then. How, in the name of all that's holy, does that make any sense at all? How can money absolve you from moral responsibility? Well, in a "society" in which the only real value is money, money talks, and the guilty walk.

There was no outrage. There were no demonstrations against the injustice. There was no outcry, no anguish, no speechlessness, unless you take the silence that thundered across the land as speechlessness. It was just another day in paradise, just more business as usual, another instance of "nothing to see here". It passed as good as unnoticed. And all of us, whether you like it or not and whether you want to admit it or not, had our hands stained with blood that day. Some community service, a few hours doing something for others so that maybe, just maybe, it starts to dawn on you that there are other people on this planet other than yourself ... that was it.

On the same day, not a small number of people of color were frisked, searched, pulled over from traffic, arrested, incarcerated, sent to prison, and executed for alleged crimes that they may or may not have committed. (When you have an error rate of 5-10% of innocent people being executed, you can't really claim anything for the "system" other than it doesn't work.) And there was no outrage, no demonstrations, no outcry, no anguish, no speechlessness, just business as usual.

You're a person of color in America, you're an immigrant, most likely Muslim, here in Europe. You're different in that you are not what we aspire to be. Too many want to suffer from affluenza. They dream of it. They long for it. Justice should be blind, but only so long as she doesn't see me.

The myth of shared values

When I was a very young child, I fell in love with the image of painting oneself into a corner. The picture in my mind was more than rich enough, and there were -- don't ask me why -- enough comic strips and cartoons that materialized that image before my very eyes. I always wondered how that was possible? How can you paint yourself into a corner? How little can you know about what's going on around you to end up in a situation like that? And then I grew up.

We like to think that we're a free and open, a tolerant and forward-looking society, but all we've really done is paint ourselves into a corner. We have those flag-waving patriots who still believe in "my country, right or wrong" even though the world has recognized America for what it is: the latest version of Empire which acts not based on values but on violence. We have those free-market libertarians who think that money is the answer to all problems and the more they have themselves the more the problems are solved. We have those gun-crazy tea-baggers who think that the government is out to get them when all it's really concerned about is seeing to it that those that have get more and those that have less get less. Then we have all those hopelessly exposed racists who can't bring themselves to admit that the United States simply hasn't overcome its genocidal history. And, of course, there are my favorites, the über-Christians who want God to save America from the satanic machinations of a crypto-Muslim dictator, who can't take enough away from those who need it most, who deny science -- publicly and without shame or contradiction -- and who don't hesitate a second to decry, condemn, pursue, and persecute anyone who even thinks of straying from their own perverted view of Christianity.

How, in the name of all that's reasonable, can we even start to think that we have anything even approaching shared values? Which values might these be? It's obvious from recent legislation, attempts at legislation, Supreme Court decisions, and other public phenomena that there are so many splintered, specific, interest groups which are patently unable, and unwilling, to even think of speaking with any other group that the mere thought of "shared values" is not only chimerical, it's downright absurd. Who is speaking for whom? And when? And how? And why?

No, dear reader, we have achieved the complete and utter disintegration of all that we once held in common. We have a society -- if one may even use that term -- of fragmented, dispersed, alienated, isolated, and unreconcilable pseudo-groups, which are, in turn, plagued by self-centered, self-absorption, and egoistical individuals who all trying the best they can to get what they can for themselves, and to hell with everyone else. Where is the basis here for shared values? Please excuse me if I don't see it.

The real losers in this scenario, of course, are those who can't get beyond themselves to see that the entire evolution of humankind (... and no, I have not forgotten that the majority of Americans no longer accept the theory of evolution ...) has been possible because of one, single trait that has set us apart from all others: our ability to cooperate, to work together for the benefit of all.

Now, I don't want anybody thinking I'm just picking on Americans. They may be closer to me than other nationalities, but they are not unique. Every single Western culture is suffering from the same malady. As is so often the case, though, the Americans have taken this misery to a heretofore, unseen level of sophistication. All of us in the West suffer from the disease. The Americans are simply better at it than the rest of us.

And that is the corner into which we have painted ourselves: the inability to recognize, to acknowledge, to accept, to engage, and to deal seriously with an other (or, Lord forbid several other) point(s) of view.

The myth of self-sufficiency

If we follow the line of thinking that's been forming over the past few posts, we have to ask ourselves just what are the consequences of the thoughts. There are lots of folks, particularly in the West, who like to think that they are somehow self-sufficient individuals who are untouched by the situation of others. These are the biggest fools of all.

The debunking of the myth of the individual pointed out that our set of values are determined to the largest extent by the circumstances and timing of our birth. The debunking of the myth of personal responsibility made clear that the choices we have to make in life are largely determined by factors outside ourselves. The debunking of the myth of equal opportunity showed us that external circumstances limit and determine what kinds of choices can even be made. In sum, it would seem that there is little about what we do or can do that is solely determined by ourselves. But, there is more.

Who amongst us builds their own shelter, digs their own wells, grows their own food, weaves their own cloth and sews their own clothes? Who amongst us is completely self-taught and self-educated? Who amongst us has and needs absolutely no social or other interaction with other human beings? I can't think of anybody. Can you? I didn't think so. The answers to these questions determine what it would mean to be self-sufficient. We can't be. We aren't made that way. Human beings are social creatures and we have evolved to cooperate with and depend on others for our well-being and survival. I don't know what's wrong with that. I don't know why that's the indication of some sort of weakness. I don't know why this fact should be so vigorously denied, unless ...

You have been conditioned to believe that it is a sign of weakness. This is the fact, actually, only in the West. Other cultures across the globe are very other-oriented. The Japanese are well-known for being a collective culture. The role of the family in Mexico and South America is also widely known. Only in the West, particularly in America, we have this crazy idea that the problem with life and the world are others. This wasn't always the case, and there are still pockets of resistance in rural areas for the most part. I started off in life in a multi-generational household. There are still areas where the aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents are close enough to visit, at least weekly, if not daily. What is more, school, sports team fanship, church or other organizations promote dealing with others. Truth be told, we are engaged with and want to be engaged with others most of the time. And as long as it's fun and everybody's getting along, we're all for it. The moment things get sticky, a bit problematic, or challenging, we think for some reason that we have to withdraw to the impenetrable fortress of self-sufficiency. If you take a moment to step back and look at the big picture, you quickly see how silly it is.

No, dear reader, we are all in this together, and I mean all of us, every single, last one of us. It may be the family, the people in the neighborhood, the community, the state or nation ... it really doesn't matter. All of these "levels of otherness" make quite clear that none of us -- regardless of how much we might like to be (for whatever distorted reasons) -- is an island unto him or herself. What make us individual and unique is our own set of talents and strengths, our own frailties and weaknesses, and these are complemented and compensated by the talents and strengths, frailties and weakness of others.

For the like of me, I can't figure out why that's a problem of any kind, but the myth of self-sufficiency drives us apart. We need to pull together.

The myth of equal opportunity

It should be clear by now that every one of us is faced with different circumstances, different timings and different contexts within which we make our personal decisions and choices. I would be the last person to maintain that one's environment, one's social standing, one's economic situation is to blame, or is responsible for who or what one is or becomes in life. What I am saying, however, is that we can't completely ignore these factors either. The overall context in which we find ourselves always shapes and influences which choices we are presented with. I can't imagine that I will ever be in the situation to decide whether to buy the Bentley or the Rolls. A lot of things would have to change in my life for that choice to even become a possibility. I have also never been in the situation in which I had to decide whether I buy shoes or food, but there are many people on this planet who are. Are there right or wrong choices to made in either of these situations? I don't think so. It all depends on what got you to where you are and where you think you are heading after the decision. To blame the outcome merely on the decision is more than short-sighted.

It is quite obvious, at least for anyone who has even a minimal understanding of what the world is like, that different people in different contexts have different opportunities. Rich people in America are faced with much different choices that poor people there. Poor people in America are faced with much different choices than poor people in Iraq. Which choices one can make are determined to a great extent by the circumstances in which one finds oneself. When things are good, you certainly have better chances of making good decisions. When things are bad, the chances of making bad ones increases as well.

To assume, or worse, allege, that everyone has the same opportunities is simply ignorant. Rich people may be able to decide between Harvard or Yale for a college degree, but a poor person in rural Mississippi may have to decide between finishing high school or day-laboring to feed his mom. The opportunities of the two individuals are anything but equal. The notion of equal opportunity is a myth for the simple reason that it is an abstraction at such a level as to be theoretically admirable but impossible in practice. In other words, it's a nice thing to say in order to extract yourself from the awkward situation of having to admit that some people have it much better than others, and those with more don't have it because of anything they've done themselves, nor are those with less necessarily responsible for their shortcomings. In other words, it gives us all a convenient excuse not to have to deal with the fact and reality of any given situation, rather we can retreat into an unreal, abstract sphere where we may remain untouched by anything as dirty as reality.

The myth of equal opportunity is just like the myth of personal responsibility or the myth of the individual. They are merely excuses to not to have to think very deeply at all about things that affect everybody, those near to us and those far away. If you believe in the myths, then you also believe that you can absolve yourself of any responsibility for anyone else. And that, dear reader, is the wellspring of inhumanity. In invoking the myths we remove ourselves from the lives of others. Whatever befalls the others is their own doing, and I can wash my hands of any and all responsibility. What a cold, lonely world that must be.

The myth of personal responsibility

As we saw last time, where and when you are born has a massive impact on who you become. But, I know there are many of you who believe that it is up to each of us individually to make decisions in our life that affect its outcome. To a certain extent, that's true, but it's not an absolute truth. We in the West, in the so-called advanced, industrialized world, like to think that everything that happens after our birth is simply a matter of the choices we make in life. Make the wrong ones, you have a bad life; make the right ones and life is good. This is, of course, pure and utter nonsense, because it ignores everything we talked about last time. The choices one makes cannot be seen in isolation from when and where you were born to begin with. Let me explain.

We can take me as an example. I don't mind. I was born and raised in a humble but secure environment. There was a feeling of excitement and optimism for the future. My family, the church, and the school all impressed upon me the hope for a better future. All I had to do was stay in line, obey authority, look out for myself, and work hard and I would have a good life, mostly likely a better life than my parents.

But let's say, just for contrast, that I was born in Sub-Saharan Africa instead. Now I find myself in an impoverished and hostile environment. There's a feeling of desperation and the future is as far away as the next meal. I'm surrounded by family, my tribe perhaps, but there's no school, a traditional religious establishment to impress anything on me, for everybody's doing everything they can to stay alive. I have little choice but to stay in line, adhere to the established hierarchy, and looking after myself means struggling day and night to survive; there is no harder work. And what is going to change? Very little, if anything, and whatever change happens will be slow in coming.

Do you really think that these two me's will be making the same life decisions? If you do, you are in serious need of a reality check. My circumstance of birth, where and when I live growing up, all impact to a large extent which choices I can make, which decisions I'm even confronted with. I don't think this should be all that hard to understand, but for reasons unbeknownst to me, it apparently is, for when I hear acquaintances, friends, strangers on the street or talking heads on the TV, they can't have taken this simple fact into consideration. They spout their platitudes of self as if they were universal principles of life. They're not.

This is not to say that there are individuals who do manage to escape their environment and themselves. I have the greatest respect for them. But to assume that if one person can do it then anybody can do it is simply foolish and naive. One person wins an Olympic gold medal, then anyone can win one, but not everyone can. In this case, not only your own physical disposition plays an important role, but so does your opportunities for training, access to the right people and contexts, and sponsors of all kinds. It's not just the desire of the individual; there are a wide range of factors and decisions and, yes, downright luck that go into it. For every single gold medalist, we should remember, there are 1,000 ruined existences of those who tried and did not succeed. Their failure cannot be attributed only to their individual decisions. Too many people and too many circumstances were involved to justify such a simplistic view of reality.

The circumstances of your birth and your environment may not be to blame for who you end up becoming, but to act and believe as if they had no influence at all is disingenuous.

The myth of the individual

Even though it's now pretty clear that I keep repeating myself, let me slide down that slippery slope again. There is a modern myth, a misunderstanding really, that life is just up to us, that life is simply what we make of it, that the individual is the final arbiter of his or her fate. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

It is exceedingly difficult to distance ourselves from ourselves, but that's what I'm asking you to do: to take a step back from yourself, a step far enough to take an objective view of yourself as a person, and to take a closer look at what you see. I'm going to pose a few questions to help clarify that picture.

• Where were you born? (I, for example, was born into a run-of-the-mill, working-class family, in Western Pennsylvania.)
• When were you born? (Again, for me, it was near the beginning of a very strong economic upswing, though the country in which I was born was still at war in the Far East.)
• What was life like when and where you were born? (Things were relatively simple, straightforward, everybody knew how they fit in (or didn't fit in) to the community; we went to church regularly; parents, older people, teachers, police and other professionals were treated with deference, if not respect.)
• How did you come to be born where and when you were born? (And for this one, personally, the only answer I can find that makes any kind of sense to me is that I ended up there by pure chance.)

That's right, pure chance, a mere accident of fate, if you will. One day I woke up and there I was in small-town America, surrounded by a way of life that I was taught to accept and respect, that was full of unspoken rules and customs, ways of doing things, accepted topics of conversation, attitudes, and more, none of which I had any idea about before I got there and merely accepted because, well, that was all I knew. In other words, much of who you are today was established in that context in which you were born and that context has to do with the timing of your birth and the circumstances of your environment. That, if anything, is just the way things are, and there is nothing that you can do to change that.

The early years of life are the most formative years. Any child or developmental psychologist will tell you that, so let's try a small thought experiment: try to imagine that you were born somewhere else. Try being born in a ghetto where you are forced to live because "your kind" suffers heavily from discrimination. Try being born into utter poverty, in the middle of nowhere. Or, try imagine you were born in another country, say, Poland, or Nigeria, or Bolivia, or India. (This last experiment will be all the more difficult the less you know about anything outside your home country.)

Now, I ask you: who do you think you would be if the timing and placement of your birth were different? Do you really think you would think, believe, and act just like you do now? If you do, I have to question whether you really seriously tried the thought experiment.

If you were born poorer or richer, all your surroundings change. If you are born in another country, you grow up loving that country, not your current one. If you are born in an economic crisis, things develop quite differently than if you were born in a period of economic growth and stability. In other words, the cards a shuffled anew, and you are a completely different person than the one you are now. And that's why the "individual" is for the most part a myth. We are who we are largely by virtue of the accident of our birth. No more, and no less.

Winter is here again

Many winters have come and gone since I started my Great Journey. Of some of them I was aware, and there are others that have melted away without leaving the slightest trace.

What I have noticed in recent years is that they're getting colder. Well, in the way I'm thinking all the seasons are starting to cool off. Oh sure, temperatures are increasing. Physically, climatologically we're experiencing a global warming, and its effects are being noticed the most in the developed regions of the world. We have the time and opportunity to devote to things like that.

But inside ... well, that's a whole different story. Inside, it's getting colder. Inside, we're getting colder.

This is also in my experience a developed-country thing. We in the West have got it good ... in some regards, too good, in others, there is plenty of room for improvement. But I've noticed a coldness descending upon our hearts. We're too ready to blame the victims for being victims. We're too quick to judge by appearances. We're ignorant of our collective history and when we find out how different it is from what we were told -- in school, at home, in church, wherever -- we distance ourselves and cry foul when we as individuals are asked to accept our responsibility from it. We're lightning fast at generalizing from our own anecdotal experience and so slow and recognizing, let alone, acknowledging the bigger picture.

The detachment from others that comes from individualization has many positive aspects. It is a good and necessary part of our development that we become our own persons, but we become less, not more, of a person when we allow that detachment to actually separate us from others. We can still smell, hear and see far beyond the boundaries of our own bodies and those oders or aromas, those wails or harmonies, those nightmarish images or inspiring visions still affect us ... if we let them. Most people know on the inside how they are affected, even if they don't often show it on the outside. To know more, to use our other senses, to taste or to feel, we'd have to get closer, but we don't ... for fear of becoming infected, I suppose.

And so we distance ourselves from our own world. We avoid being touched or touching. We stay aloof, unmoved, ensconced in our individual little fortresses that we foolishly think will protect us from what's "out there". And we become isolated, and lonely, and cold.

Many winters have come and gone since I started my Great Journey. And they're getting colder.

Another turn of the wheel

September is coming to a close. For a lot of us moderns (in the Northern Hemisphere), it means the end of summer and the beginning of autumn. For a lot of cultures, both past and present, it means the end of a year and the beginning of another. The vernal equinox is recently behind us. Day and night were in balance, and from now until the winter solstice, darkness will increase at the expense of light. It's nothing new. It's been going on as long as any of us (humans - past or present) can remember.

We moderns like to think we're above all that "superstition". The change of seasons is a meteorological phenomenon, nothing more. There's nothing magical, mystical, or even significant about it. It happens every year and will happen every year in the future as long as any of us live.

Pretty straightforward, isn't it? Pretty sad, too, isn't it? Yes, it's sad. Do you remember when you were a child and the world was full of magic? Make-believe was real. Fairy tales were true. The world was populated with ghosts and spirits and pixies and who knows what else? Sure, we like to tell ourselves, the time come when we have to grow up, but does that mean we have to stop being enthralled by the world? What if -- just, what if -- we could be reasonable, responsible adults and still maintain some of that mysterious magic of childhood? What would be wrong with that? If we take the time and make the effort to think back to those times, most of will find they were the happiest and most creative times of our lives. For too many young people, for children, today, they are anything but that. Today's children, for the most part, have to grow up fast and tough. There's no time for childishness, for magic, for anything that doesn't help us make a buck. Now, isn't that grand?

When seen in a certain light, our lives today are not all that different from those of our forebears. Oh sure, we have electric lights and appliances, indoor plumbing and heating, and the marvels of modern science. But, at bottom, most of us have a dangerous, demanding, and too often exhausting struggle for existence. Living from paycheck to paycheck really isn't all that different from living from one harvest to the next.

Taking to time to acknowledge the turning of the wheel, be it of harvests or seasons, is a way of allowing that magical creativeness that is a part of each of us to recharge and rejuvenate ourselves. We don't have to leave the magic behind us as we get older, we need to find new, perhaps adult ways, of incorporating it into our lives.

Of course, if you have no idea why you're even here, you won't know where to put it anyhow.

The meaning of life?

The controversial, yet nevertheless fascinating, German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once wrote, "He who has a why to live can endure almost any how." If you've been following the most recent posts, you'll have little trouble understanding that I think the man was onto something.

Another German (language) thinker, Viktor E. Frankl, survivor of the Holocaust and psychoanalyst, said, "Challenging the meaning of life is the truest expression of the state of being human." Those of who you've been following the most recent posts will have little trouble understanding that I think this man was onto something as well.

There is no lack of "good" advice as to what you should or should not be doing at any point, at any stage, at any minute of your life. Most of this advice is naturally well-intended, but we all know about how the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. While not necessarily being so critical of such intentions, in the end, what really matters is not what think or believe, but what we decide to do about it. Frankl also informed us that "A human being is a deciding being." At this point, I also feel compelled to remind us all that deciding not to do something is still making a decision.

There is no book on the face of this planet, nor has one ever been written, that contains the answer to question regarding the meaning of life. The only person who will ever be able to answer that question is you. And, you can only ever answer it for yourself.

No one is more surprised than me at how many words I can find to throw at this one particular topic, but given the magnitude of the question, the importance of the answer, the consequences of decisions made on that basis, I feel justified in trying to get this horse up on its feet again. You see, when I look out into the world, at the state of affairs, at the news -- from shootings in Ferguson to the Ukraine to Iraq (again), through all the political posturing going on in both East and West, to what we're doing to our home (the Earth, in case you were wondering) -- or merely at my fellow commuters trudging to work everyday, I have to ask myself repeatedly why we make life so hard on ourselves? If there were such a thing as aliens and they were "checking us out", they would have to be confused by the sheer degree of contradictions we foist upon ourselves each and every day.

And so, I can only encourage -- admonish -- each of us to take a step back from the brink, for the edge of whatever abyss (actual, psychological, emotional) we've driven ourselves to and reflect for a while on the "why" of your own life.

The meaning of life

Taking the time to come up with a reasonable, considered answer to the question "Why am I here?" is worth the effort because it provides you, quite simply, for your own personal reason for living.

People with severe depression, terminal illnesses, who are imprisoned, being persecuted and tortured, starving to death, or worse often lose (at least sight of) their reason. I am saddened deeply when I think that so many will leave this place without ever having the slightest inclination of why they were ever here. But you, dear reader, are in a very privileged position: you have the time, the ability and the wherewithal to do just that: find your real reason for living, for being on this planet at this time, in whatever place you are. But as I never hesitate to remind you: it's not just about you, it only starts with you.

You may discover "a" reason for your life, but is it "the" reason? How would you know? Remember, you are not alone here. There are plenty of others around you all the time, some close physically, some genetically, some psychologically or socially ... your mileage will vary. How does your reason stack up against theirs? How compatible is it with theirs? How much in conflict is it perhaps? Is your reason better/more important/more worthwhile than theirs? What makes you think so and what do you think you ought to do about it? My guess is that you'll come up with a pretty significant number of reasons along the way to finding the "real", the "true", one.

One of the things that both amazes me and simultaneously disgusts me at the same time is how lightly we take such questions and how ready and willing most of us are to assert our reasons over and at the expense of others'. I think it's all too clear -- and even a casual look around you or at the news on any given day will confirm -- that way too many people think their supposed reasons are much better/more important/more worthwhile than others'.

What entitles me (or any of us) to more water, food, shelter, clothing, natural resources, security, happiness, recognition, or love than anyone else? Why do I think I should have more of any of these and that others should simply have less? How did we come up with the idea that coincidentally being born at any given place at any given time should determine what I may be allowed to even expect from life, let alone justify the reason for my existence? That's never really been clear to me and no one has ever explained it in any reasonable way. And so I continue to wonder, to be amazed, and, of course, disgusted.

I'm not foolish enough to think that many of you will take up the challenge. It's much easier to dump a bucket of ice water over your head (or not) than to stop and ask yourself what is the real meaning of your own life.

Take a step back from the brink

The last couple of posts were a bit of an excursion, a slight diversion. They were, if you will, simple exercises in what I was implying in regard to knowing oneself.

If we're honest, most of get up in the morning, go about our daily business, find fleeting moments of happiness, others of frustration and aggravation; we chat with others about nothing in particular and wish the world were a better place, but are, for the most part thankful, that we live in a pretty good part of that world. And that's it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not faulting anyone for that ... the phrase "most of us" implies at least that I'm part of that group, though I have my days when I don't really feel like playing the usual game. (On those days, I generally write this blog.)

But here's the thing ... well, two things actually: first, we're not here just for ourselves; without others there would be none of us individuals. But, second, the deeper, more important question is why we're here at all? I know, I know, you're thinking, "he's finally lost it," but I haven't lost anything at all.

Seriously, did you ever really stop to think about it? Why are you here, where you are, why do you even exist?

Any quick-and-dirty answers you might come up with ("because I was born", "because my parents had children", or any other nonsensical statements) are not answers at all. They are things we say so we don't have to think. Materialistic science will tell you that we -- any and all of us -- are here by mere chance; we're accidents of nature; there's really no reason at all. Some people may be satisfied with that, but I would bet that if they took some time to seriously think about the question, they wouldn't be so satisfied anymore. Fundamentalist religion will tell you that you are here to participate in some Grand Scheme in which a select few will live forever and the vast majority of others (mostly because they didn't say the right things at the right time or didn't do the right thing when told to by someone who had said the right thing at the right time) will be tortured forever and ever. Sounds more like a Sadistic Plot than a Grand Scheme if you ask me. It also sounds like a useful way to dupe a lot of people so that they can be controlled more easily. In other words, even some of the alleged, thought-through answers aren't answers either.

No, the only person who can answer the question for you is you. You are the one who has to take some time, stop and think, and come up with your own personal answer. It won't be easy, I can assure you, but it is worth the effort.

Over the brink

The observant follower of the discussion is certainly starting to think that our ideal community is going to start degenerating rather quickly. Not everyone is equally talented, tolerant, capable, or willing. The group being bigger than any single individual represents a new order, a higher order, an hierarchical order which means that some will start wanting more for themselves or those closest to themselves and others will start feeling entitled to more for whatever reason.

I agree that this is precisely how we think these days. And I would hasten to point out that this is precisely the root of most of our problems, both individually and collectively. Implicit in this reasoning is that some are somehow "better" or "more deserving" than others. But it is at this point that we may just have things backwards.

Let's look at this from the other way around. In any given group, there are going to be individuals who need more help and support than others. Babies need more of such than children, who need more of such than young adults, and while adults should be generally close to self-sufficient, some aren't and once one passes a certain age, we start needed more and more help and support from others. What is more, someone will always be sick or injured or mildly or seriously impaired in some way. In other words, by turning the viewpoint around we see that we don't start from the strongest, we start from the weakest. If we can provide for them we can certainly provide for ourselves as well.

In the almost 1,000,000 years of proto-human and human activity on this planet, you would think that by now the "accepted" view of things is questionable. We don't live in anything like an ideal world and we certainly don't appear to be getting any closer to one either (rising income inequality, number of people without enough food and clean water, global warming in the name of profit, suppression by radical religionists, perpetual violence inflicted by alleged lovers of liberty ... the list goes on). There are many who maintain it is simply not in our nature to be otherwise, but the mere fact that even one of the species (say, me) can imagine things being different by means of a simple shift of perspective (and I am certainly neither unique nor alone), we can safely assume the ability to imagine is our true nature, and our ability to act upon that imagination is a part of "who we are" as well.

The shift is a simple one actually: it is away from having power over others to using ones' own powers to help and support others. The energy, the resources, the effort, the time is probably the same regardless which way we work, but the direction makes all the difference in the world. It would be a different world, and I believe a better world.

Of course, we can just continue on as we have, but it's only a matter of time -- and not all that long, I would guess -- that we'll simply be over the brink. It really is our choice.

Over the edge

We are not alone. We are never alone. Well, unless we have become an anchorite, eremite, hermit or recluse.

No matter what all those post-Enlightenment, neoliberal, self-centered individualists try to tell you, it has never been, nor will it ever be, simply every person for him/herself. We have evolved, we are built, we are programmed, and we are by nature social beings.

Yes, the family, either nuclear or extended, is the starting point, and I know that not everyone's family life is all that ideal. Family can be a blessing or a curse, but there are so many factors that play into that, both individual and genetic/collective. In extended families, or even small communities, there is the possibility that one always finds a "parent", a "sibling", someone who is there for one and for whom you can be there for too; others with whom we can share, both good and bad times, happy and sad feelings, who can provide advice, encouragement, or, when necessary, admonishment when we need it.

But here's the thing: everything that I've said about the individual up to this point -- his or her fear of confronting themselves, of needing to take up the Quest, of embarking about the Hero's Journey -- all of these things apply to the family/clan/community as well. Collectively you must establish who you are, what you believe, what is important to you, what you stand for, and what you want nothing to do with. You must seek and find your collective identity.

This will never be as firm, as grounded, as your individual identity, but it also need not be. The group, more than the individual, will change over time. Young ones will be born, partners will be sought and found outside the core community, so compromises must be made, perhaps expansions or contractions of long-held ideas. Who knows? Like every individual, a group, too, must develop, grow, adapt, and, hopefully, gain in wisdom as well.

The picture that is developing is rather simple. I extend as far as the other and the other ends at me. With those with whom we share interests, viewpoints, ideas, thoughts and desires, an overlap exists and the edges of our selves become slightly blurred and permeable. They are not so sharp and distinct. The commonalities bind, the differences enhance. In the group, we each become more than we are individually.

Sounds a bit too ideal doesn't it? Maybe so ... but maybe not.

Self-awareness and the awareness of others

Anyone who has been slipping in and out of these blogs over the time I've been writing them, and especially anyone who has been following lately will have recognize that this idea, this notion, this concept of "the Other" plays a big role in what I write. If you've noticed, I've done my job. If you haven't, allow me to get a bit more direct.

Think about it: all of us are here in this reality (at least, I hope, all of you who are reading this); we share a common space (here) and a common time (now); we have common feelings, such as being happy, sad, frustrated, relieved, and more; we may speak different languages, but we all communicate (for better or worse); we have different backgrounds and experiences, but we nevertheless can relate to one another because of this (not in spite of this); we all dream and hope and yearn, and we know that other human beings do so as well. As I never tire of saying, we have much more in common than whatever it is that makes us different.

One of the real advantages (and unfortunately, obligating characteristics) we have as human beings is that we know, are aware of, recognize, and (often begrudgingly) acknowledge that there are other creatures in this reality, in this here and now (and for the more advanced, that then and there) who are very much like ourselves. In other words, we are aware of ourselves (I keep getting the feeling that there is a "me" in "my head" who experiences things) and we are aware of others who are like ourselves (that is, "you's" and, in general "others", who experience similar things as well). We take this all for granted, I know, but if you stop and reflect upon it, this is quite an amazing, if not mysterious, state of affairs. For as much as we love our pets (as we should), they're not doing this. For as much as we are stunned by the capabilities of whales and dolphins and chimpanzees and bonobos, they aren't doing this either. They're close, I'll give you that, but they are not quite there (perhaps, yet, but that remains to be seen). Without going over the top, I have to admit, that there is something about us humans that makes us different (not necessarily better ... and Lord knows, judged by our behavior, not at all better) than our animal cousins.

The simple fact is we are capable of much different things than they are, and, what is also worth noting, those things of which we are capable, can have a far greater impact on others, our environment, on the world in general than any of our cousins can generate. In other words, knowing about, being aware of the consequences, or impact, of our thoughts and our actions, in simplest terms, obligates us to be more conscious of whatever it is we are doing. This is, I admit, an extremely difficult idea to grasp. It is, nevertheless, more important than ever.

We don't have to go so far as to believe that we are the pinnacle of creation or the end-purpose of whatever. What we do have to realize is that since we are capable of so much, our responsibility for what we do is just as great. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. Instead, it means we should be careful (of what we do).

Summertime

"Summertime ... and the livin' is easy ..."

Just quoting a popular song. That's how it should be, but it's not how it is. There's lots going on in these parts, including big family events, and, well, that easy-living part is somehow escaping me.

It's OK, though. After all, I have a family, an intact one as well. That's something of a rarity, let's face it. I have kids who don't mind when we (the parents) come to visit, and not just because we'll be leaving soon. I have kids who don't mind coming to visit, because they know they can't overstay their welcome. We don't have a lot of relatives around -- unfortunately -- but those we have, we appreciate, and ... guess what ... they don't mind if we come to visit and we don't mind if they show up on our doorstep either. In this regard, I'm one very lucky person.

Families just aren't what they used to be, I know. There are those that went sour in the good old days and there are those that never get it together in our rough-and-tumble-hectic times today. Societally, big families are (again, unfortunately) frowned upon (have three, or more!) kids and show up at a sit-down restaurant ... anywhere, and see how you're greeted. Given the amount of time we have to devote at work being productive (for little or no reward) and how many families who are fortunate enough to find enough work only have it if everyone, including the kids, are employed, it's surprising that we even have the concept anymore. It's so sad. Really sad. I'm not one to yearn for the "good old days", that weren't really, but I do think we've done ourselves a disservice, as a culture and as a society, they we have more or less destroyed the family.

Don't get me wrong, families are not a panacea for anything. Every family has their up and their down sides. Some are better than others, but when we think back over the last few posts, it isn't hard to realize that what I'm advocating is a place where we think -- no, where we feel -- we belong. This simple sense, this feeling, of belonging is very important for us human beings. Anyone who has experienced it knows exactly what I'm talking about. Anyone who hasn't doesn't know what they are missing.

In this day and age when family and relatives may be far away, because we all have to do where the work is and travel has increased the chances that we end up somewhere else, we may have to piece our "families" together ... plastic families, if you will. There were times in my own life when our friends served as proxy uncles, aunts and grandparents for my own children whose real relatives were an ocean or a continent away. They aren't the worse for wear because of it, and they certainly appreciate(d) it all the more when they were able to spend time with their "real" relatives. It all has to do, in the end, with what you think is important in your lives.

Even though we had no real family around most of the time, we still opted for family. Why? Because spending time with and engaging "the other" is always worth the effort.

Just a handful of years

No one should get the idea that I'm making fun of people who love their country. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I am merely saying that I, personally, don't understand the fascination, because you are born where you are born by mere chance and whatever it is you call your country today might something very different tomorrow.

What I suspect lies behind these feelings, though, may be worth thinking about, namely, our common, individual desire to belong: to be a part of something meaningful, to be accepted, to know there is something greater than ourselves, something that gives us a feeling of safety, security, and being welcome ... somewhere we are not just lone, often lost, individuals, isolated, alienated, and lonely.

We humans are, at bottom, social creatures. We need and desire the company of others. We're not rugged individualists who can survive on our own (well, except for a couple of eccentric hermits). We function best in groups, and this is OK. It's what makes us what we are and it is something we need to seriously recognize and acknowledge, not merely hoot and holler about from time to time. It's never about just "I" or "me", part of being human is knowing and embracing "we". Studies have shown that we do best in groups that do not exceed about 150 individuals. Fortunately, for us, each of our 150-people groupings overlap with other 150-people groupings of people in our group. While the intensity of the relationship decreases, the principle of relationship remains: we cooperate, we try to get along with one another, not necessarily compete. Cooperation is the natural state of being, not competition.

Obviously, that's not how things are in the world today, for a whole litany of reasons, most of them bad ones. It is unfortunate that things have developed this way, for our world is not a better place for it. We have inverted the natural state of things, from cooperation to competition, and while we have made great advances in some areas, we have ruined and destroyed a lot along the way. I think we can get just as far, less destructively, if we are true to who we are. It's time to change our minds and shake off that which is simply alien to our nature.

If anything, this simple message is at the heart of just about everything I have been posting on this blog for the last five years. The official anniversary is tomorrow. A lot of words have flowed over the network in that time, to be sure, but when one writes, one always wonders whether one is making any sense as well. Anyone who has ever tried to find something worthwhile to say for any period of time, regardless how short, knows precisely what I'm talking about. For some, five years is nothing, but for others it's half a decade, a significant chunk of life. I would be lying if I said I was weary of writing, but it is not always easy to find the right words to say what it is I really mean. Sometimes it flows, and sometimes it is simply very frustrating.

On this occasion, then, I would like to thank all of you who bother to read these posts. Whether you agree or not does not matter: I write so that you can read, and I appreciate that you do. For those whose feel their toes have been stepped on, I'm sorry, but I can only call things as I see them. I would be doing both you and me a disservice to simply be agreeable all the time. We're allowed to and should disagree on things, for it is only in the interaction, in the dialog, that truth may be found.

None of us is born with the Truth. We all have it search for it together.

Us vs them?

When you get right down to it, it has been quite a journey from the so-called evils of capitalism to being enriched by the culture of others. It's always a journey. It's always an adventure. It's what we call life. You can believe what you believe and you can advocate any system you want, but in the end -- and this is fate to which capitalism itself must submit -- is whether life, the world is ready to accept it. In the case of capitalism, it is obvious, the verdict has already fallen. The only ones unaware of this are, unfortunately, the capitalists themselves. Sure, they still have the power to destroy the world, to put an end to reality as we know it, but that won't be the end of everything; it will only be the end of capitalism and us.

As I have never tired of saying, there are alternatives. All of these, of course, are based on one simply premise (assumption, if you will), namely that "the other" (whoever and whatever that may be) is every bit as important as ourselves. We have to ask ourselves who these "others" are, but even a moment's reflection shows us that they are simply whoever is not us. I agree, that sounds rather simplistic. Of course the others are who are whoever I'm not, but it goes just a bit deeper than that. We assume, quite incorrectly I might add, that everybody is just like ourselves. Nobody is like ourselves. Our fate is that we -- each and every one of us -- is an individual and therefore unlike anybody else.

The paradox is that while we are are all individually unique, we share a number of ideas and beliefs, regardless of what our cultures have told us. For example, a modicum of food, clothing, and shelter are ideals that every one of us has. Add to this, a bit of security, to be reasonably healthy, to know that it's worth getting up for tomorrow. What all of this entails will vary of course: to some a warm bowl of porridge suffices, though for others it must be a multicourse meal. Though different in detail, both simply desire not to be hungry.

This is what I find so difficult to get my head around. Even is we are multicourse-meal types, why do we begrudge the other her porridge? I just don't know. It's an age-old problem, but it simply needn't be. Only the begrudger can make the difference, but only if he wants to. When we look out into the world today, it becomes pretty obvious very fast that too many multicoursers don't want to. That's bad, to be sure, but even worst, it is sad.

My sadness comes from the fact that I can see the day coming with our poor porridge-eater will have to go hungry because our I-have-to-have-more-for-me guy has found a way to get the porridge, too. At some point, it will all just blow up, most likely from the bottom. At the same time, as we have seen over the last few posts, from the top, the system is killing itself ... and it's taking every single one of us with it.

It's time to stop.

Those "others" that we so often despise and look down upon are really not trying to take anything away from us who falsely believe that we've worked hard and deserve all that we have. They, like the rest of us, just want to live something resembling a decent life. If we can't help make that happen, then we don't deserve what we have. It's very simple.

And when we consider how fast the world is getting small, it won't take long for many more to realize, it's not a matter of Us vs Them. It's only us.