There is a group of humans who's language includes uvula - waving as part of their language sound pallet. Not only could a person like myself not make this(these) sound(s), it is unlikely I would even perceive it(them). (Not from inherent inability, but because I am an adult and the developmental opportunity has passed, similarly my ears lost the high-range sensitivity from disuse) There are differences in these persons experienced reality and my own. This population, in fact, admirably illustrates difference. They possess an ability that I do not. We are, in a practical sense, unequal. From their perspective, I could be said to be disabled, lacking both an ability to produce part of the sound spectrum, and also to perceive that spectrum. We are certainly equally human; yet we are not equal in capacity or performance.
What does it mean to all be created equal? If equality is esoteric and figurative, rather than practical and literal, how does it differ from a "Noble Lie"? Does our Equality rest on the claim of Created equality - we are equal in some otherworldly, god-derived sense, because God "created" us so? Is it a legal fiat accomplished by declaration? Or are we equal in the Animal Farm sense - as in, we are all equal, but Some are more equal than Others?
The Buddha seems partial to compassion. While that is another kettle of fish, it is an answer of sorts to this topic for myself. I am sure I could dredge up a similar Christian rationalization too. We have lots of choice about the world we perceive. Part of our shared humanity is the investment=suffering equation.
We live in a world in which we are connected in diverse novel ways. Our social dynamics really need a greater level of complexity, in order to really make the most of human potential. Dolphins clique up in a complex manner, with second, third, and fourth order sociopolitical alliances that vary and alter depending on circumstances. Other groups and individual dolphins can be enemies or allies depending on where and when they encounter each other - the behavior suits the dolphins best interest, rather than some code. As it sits right now for humans, the kind of fluid consensus building behavior I am talking about is really only practiced by the legal weasels and mercenary politicians behind closed doors, rather than in the open by respected leaders.
There is a pressing need to build excuses, or motivation, preference, desire, within ourselves to promote compassion and practical consensus-building. I am promoting compassion here expressly because of the way compassion nurtures consensus. When in my interest, it should be possible to respect people who hold hostile or opposing views to my own. It should even be possible to find common cause with such persons, on such occasions when doing so would profit my goals or needs (this threatens to branch off into "can the end justify the means" discussion).
The media has an agenda of its own (whatever you may think that is). There are lots of causes trying to address specific issues, but few voices raised to promote better, more complex and practical consensus building in general. That is where our countries attention should be spent - on building a social desire for modern, practical engines of democracy. These practical democracy engines could benefit humanity on a wide spectrum of levels. But to harness this well of potential, the people of our nation need to be hungry for that kind of change.
We live in a troubled, fractious nation. Our country has been taught to know a constant hunger for safety from the threat of terror, and a shifting faulty economy. As the nation starves for solution to economic and civil unrest, so too our nation must nurture a hunger for obtaining broader solutions: we need to WANT to obtain consensus. It is well and good that we have political parties that represent differing philosophies, but the system is incomplete - it needs a means of bringing the machine all together following an election. And more generally, the nation needs to be hungry, to desire, the sort of connectedness and civil communion in which practical consensus can regularly be realized.
We as humans are created equal in many senses, many perspectives. But you would need a pretty loose definition of the word "equal", if you were to claim that "U.S. citizens all enjoy equal opportunities, treatment and privileges". So, within me, I see two related areas of desirable growth. Both of these are topics which recommend themselves to a broader audience. The first, is the need to nurture a desire for access to an at-will compassionate perspective: to want the capacity to empathize when chosen or desired. The second, is the ability to develop a sensitivity to how much objective utility a particular instance of situational cooperation offers- the ability to see when the practical deployment of "on-demand" compassion offers utility or benefit. More people might choose cooperation and achieve consensus, if the path were more clearly marked and the map widely published.
After reading this again to edit for clarity, it occurred to me to offer a caveat. I am in no way advocating a lessening of compassion, or that I or anyone else create a means of limiting or lessening/limiting the amount of compassion I/they employ. I advocate broadening the conditions and situations in which compassion and cooperation occur, to the greatest degree practical and reasonable. We need to be responsible in safeguarding ourselves, and whatever causes or values we support - balancing caution against whatever gains we may secure.
There are perspectives that allow us to see humanity as all equal, in some sense. Humans can share similarities, but are not the same. We are challenged by a wild array of difficulties: how we pursue our lives makes a statement about our convictions. How we frame our struggle, identify and name our goals, foes and foils, gives to our selves their aspect and identity. A clever, gifted individual might - with an unusual degree of luck, happenstance, and indulgence - be to some degree self-realized. But we are none of us self-made. With motivation, practice, and attention, it is possible to achieve occasional, even regular, periods of self-awareness. Promoting healthy, positive prosocial desires, like at-will compassion and situational social cooperation and consensus-building, seems like a safe, practical intervention.
No comments:
Post a Comment