So what's stopping us?

If you've been following for a while, I think you can see a pattern forming. We need to talk. In order to talk decently and reasonably to one another we have to acknowledge the other person as an equal discussion partner. If we can do that, we need to be free enough to present a position without automatic and immediate rejection; it needs to be taken seriously. And, we can and will be different, but there is no one different that's always right. I think it makes sense, and the feedback I've received over the past couple of weeks confirm that I'm not the only one that thinks so.

So, the question immediately presents itself as to why it's not working. Oh, I don't mean between you and me. I'm talking in general. There's no real public discussion and debate. There's a lot of ignoring and ignorance being spread around. There's categorical rejection of certain ideas. We would rather label than lucidly consider who is saying what and why. There seems to be a theory-practice divide opening up. Maybe Jan van de Snepscheut was right: "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." What is this hurdle that we can't seem to get over?

I – personally – think the answer is pretty obvious. It's exactly as Pogo once remarked, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

The consequence of the line of thought I've been laying out lately is this: everybody has to change, at least a little bit. I'm not talking about weighing mine against yours or my buddy Jake's change against your Aunt Edna's. No, we simply all have to get off of whatever center we happen to think we're on and take another shot at it all.

From what I can see, nobody's got very many answers, but we've got one helluva lot of problems – or issues, if you prefer – and we need to start thinking about which ones we want to deal with and who else might be interested in helping out. But we won't, because we can't, and we can't, because we really don't want to. Change is something that everybody else ought to do, never something that anyone can expect of us.

Well, I never expect of anyone something I'm not willing to do myself. I've made my move. When are you going to make yours?

Individualism?

Yes, who decides who gets what, when and why, and how much for how long? These are the proverbial flies in the ointment, aren't they? You see, all this talk about equality and freedom is just fine ... until we get down to the nitty-gritty; that is, when it's about us, individually. We all know how that goes, don't we? Or do we?

The individual has come to play a very significant role in our thinking, not just because most of us tend to be bigger egoists that we like to admit, but because it has been told we're important, special, unique, or whatever all our lives. We somehow feel that everything and everything should be about us ... well, some do, but we all think we need to play a very central role in whatever happens wherever we happen to be.

Americans, in particular, have been brainwashed with the John-Wayne and Rambo individualists. The whole notion of Rugged Individualism was raised to an ideal almost as important, and as unquestioned, as the American Dream. It practically achieved the status of a "given", something we never really even think about anymore. The problem is, it is precisely these "givens" that we should be questioning. There never was such a type, and all that we have left is the hype. Staking out a claim in unknown lands was an act of hubris, not individualism. There were people there before who knew all about that land, but what's mine is mine, and, so the rugged individualist, what's yours is mine. It never really worked, but even if it did, it certainly doesn't work anymore. What is more, the idea of individualism itself is simply incompatible with we're-in-this-all-together, which is what we are slowly coming to realize ... reluctantly, admittedly, but to realize nevertheless.

What we should have realized by now, however, is that we are, and should be uniquely different from those around us. There is no need for a one-size-fits-all anything. It's not individuality – and that's what we're talking about here – that's the problem, it's the individualism. It's just too close to egoism.

As is so often the case, it's the "-isms" that get us in the end.

We're all in this together

It is the universality of the story, it's long-entrenched position in our Western culture that gives the story its poignancy. The digital notion of equality and the analog notion of freedom are constantly working with and against each other to shape and direct our lives. We are continually at the center of the interaction of these two forces.

The universality of the story also lies in the fact that it describes each and every one of us, as we are, here and now. Equality tells us that everyone is more or less entitled to the same kinds of things (and I'm not talking about possessions here ... that's a completely different issue that we may get to later), ideals, hopes, dreams, feelings of safety, security, health and more. Freedom tells us that it's not an all or nothing game, there are degrees of freedom: children are not as free as their parents, nor should they be, but they should be raised to be able to deal with freedom. In some situations, like the movie theater referred to earlier, we must limit our freedom ourselves. One way to think of it is that your own freedom stops where the next person's freedom starts. Equality reminds us that we're not naturally deserving of any more of it than anyone else. To put it another way: we're all in the same boat together.

As such, it is necessary that we find a way (or ways) to accommodate one another. We need to work with each other, not against each other to achieve common goals. In our boat metaphor, what benefits one of us (be she look out in the front or the guy holding the rudder in the back), benefits all of us.

What is particularly tricky (and intriguing) about the situation is that at different times for different reasons, individuals may have different needs, and this is part of the equation as well. Being in it all together does not mean that there are no reasonable or worthy differences that shouldn't be accommodated, for there are, and there should be.

The question that springs to my mind is, however, who decides and how?

Getting to no

There are any number of things that one could focus on in the story: the admonition not to eat of the one tree, the snake-like creature who lets the cat out of the bag (not dying, though we never find out how it knows this), the unsuspecting pair, the hapless defense ... and, as it is, in all the interpretations that were mentioned last time(and more) one of these "facts" have been the focus of interest. What I don't like about that approach, however, is the fact that I don't think you can get to any particular good interpretation based on any given "fact" or select combination of "facts". What is the point of the story? And it is this point that each of the allegedly fact-based interpretations apparently misses. They come up too short. They are only theological or sociological or psychological or ... . What's the bigger story here?

Without the admonition not to do something, we have no story. Without a foil (the snake-like creature) to initiate the tension-causing situation, we have no real story. Why? Because without a combination of these two events, our hero and heroine would never be in a position to make a choice. The situation is "rigged" if you will to enable them to choose. The story, in my mind, is about being able to make choices.

And why is this so important? Without the ability to make choices, we are not free, pure and simple. The degree of freedom which we can express is directly related to the scope of the choices we can make. Sure, after the "event", things end badly, in a sense, but not really. What happens thereafter is that our hero and heroine are simply responsible for the choices they make. Throughout the course of their lives, they will continually make choices, some good, some bad, some that turn out great and some that are disastrous. Just like the rest of us.

The important thing for me is that the protagonists in our little tale were eventually earned the right to say "no". It may be preferable many times to simply say "yes", but without the ability to say "no", we are not free. But, as the story points out, this is one of the hardest things we ever learn to do, which makes being free one of the hardest things we have to learn to be as well.