Monday, May 14, 2012
When shows lose their way
I remember when the first ads started running for House back in 2004. I knew immediately this show would be something special. Call it a trained eye. Then the show premiered and consistently I was proven right. There were some hiccups along the way but all in all I was a true believer in the show.
Fast forward to the season 7 finale. I heard about it before I could even watch it and what I heard kept me from watching it. I heard enough to clue me in that there was no possible way what they'd done could be redeemed by a season 8 premiere and in the time that elapsed between the two, it seemed everyone else was on the same page. No one was clamoring for the new season like they'd done in the past. You could just smell it. The show was as good as over.
It didn't take an expert on the business of show to see that it wasn't a story designed to evolve the character. It was desperate. Can you imagine Lisa Edelstein's Cuddy having to justify her character forgiving House (as she would have been written to do at some point in S8) if she'd stayed with the show? This was the story equivalent of a drunk chick making out with her friend just to hear the guys howl. "Pay attention to me!" was the thinly veiled message David Shore was trying to send us as the audience. He'd lost his way and he thought this sad excuse for a story could distract us from that fact. What it did instead was give us roughly 17 useless episodes of Post Mortem making us wish the show was gone already rather than existing in some sad undead state.
In TV, its alot easier to set up a premise than it is to pay it off. That he resorted to something so artless and sad tells me he didn't know where House was going anymore or didn't know how to end it or didn't want to end it just yet. Maybe because he didn't have an ending or didn't know where his next meal was coming from but the long and short of it is, we're looking down the barrel of the very last episode of House and I'm just wishing that there was a hotline showrunners and producers could call when they've lost their creative mojo. Someone possessed of great wisdom and insight who could talk them down of the ledge that takes a once brilliant show right down the rabbit hole into the timeless land of squandered possibilities.
Considering the influence those flickering lights and artfully arranged words have on our culture, that's a job vacancy we've gotta get filled. Maybe a council of elders? Joss Whedon, Joe Straczynski, Shawn Ryan, Aaron Sorkin, Bill Lawrence, MCG, Sara Gamble, Hart Hanson, Ronald D Moore. Am I missing anyone?
Monday, April 9, 2012
The Conversation Begins: Free Speech
Generally speaking, people believe in their own right to free speech more than that of the guy saying something they don't want to hear. When they have something to say, the protection afforded it is absolute. When it's an idea that offends their world view, the issue is suddenly less black and white.
The fact is that, as much as its drilled into our national consciousness that freedom of speech is absolute and inviolable, there are many exceptions to freedom of speech. Prior to the terrorist attacks of 911 it was easier to argue that the limits of free speech were carefully weighed and reasonable when imposed. In the Post 911 world the floodgates seem to have flung wide on abridgments of our most fundamental rights. Where at one time we only had exceptions including laws against inciting to riot and libelous or slanderous speech that harmed a person's reputation causing significant harm; now we have precedents for so called Free Speech Zones, where protesters at a political event can be cordoned off and restricted in where they are allowed to protest, preventing said protesters from reaching their desired audience. The various Occupy protests have fallen under similar restrictions. Here in Winston-Salem, the Occupy protesters had to negotiate with the city for a mutally agreed upon location for their protest. If you want to silence a voice, the first step is isolating it. For decades our policy as a nation for dealing with Communism was containment, almost like a disease. These people are already infected, nothing we can do about that but we can keep it from spreading. Which now seems to be the approach to dissent of any kind. Contain the free speech so that you can minimize its impact.
Hearing all this, you might assume my position on free speech is that it's absolute but I remember when we had limited reasonable restrictions that seemed to be carefully considered and balanced to favor the common good. I still think those are reasonable limitations. An idea like any elemental force can be a tool for good or evil, for creation or destruction, it can free a people or enslave them. The first step in recognizing something for what it is are the boundaries that separate it from everything around it. Boundaries define what an individual, a town, a nation and a species are by what they find acceptable and what they do not. We have crossed into dangerous territory recently with our new broad and sweeping limits on freedom of speech. Whether we find our way back to a more measured and reasonable approach or become increasingly polarized and entrenched in our positions will say who we are and what we will become for the world that surrounds us.
The fact is that, as much as its drilled into our national consciousness that freedom of speech is absolute and inviolable, there are many exceptions to freedom of speech. Prior to the terrorist attacks of 911 it was easier to argue that the limits of free speech were carefully weighed and reasonable when imposed. In the Post 911 world the floodgates seem to have flung wide on abridgments of our most fundamental rights. Where at one time we only had exceptions including laws against inciting to riot and libelous or slanderous speech that harmed a person's reputation causing significant harm; now we have precedents for so called Free Speech Zones, where protesters at a political event can be cordoned off and restricted in where they are allowed to protest, preventing said protesters from reaching their desired audience. The various Occupy protests have fallen under similar restrictions. Here in Winston-Salem, the Occupy protesters had to negotiate with the city for a mutally agreed upon location for their protest. If you want to silence a voice, the first step is isolating it. For decades our policy as a nation for dealing with Communism was containment, almost like a disease. These people are already infected, nothing we can do about that but we can keep it from spreading. Which now seems to be the approach to dissent of any kind. Contain the free speech so that you can minimize its impact.
Hearing all this, you might assume my position on free speech is that it's absolute but I remember when we had limited reasonable restrictions that seemed to be carefully considered and balanced to favor the common good. I still think those are reasonable limitations. An idea like any elemental force can be a tool for good or evil, for creation or destruction, it can free a people or enslave them. The first step in recognizing something for what it is are the boundaries that separate it from everything around it. Boundaries define what an individual, a town, a nation and a species are by what they find acceptable and what they do not. We have crossed into dangerous territory recently with our new broad and sweeping limits on freedom of speech. Whether we find our way back to a more measured and reasonable approach or become increasingly polarized and entrenched in our positions will say who we are and what we will become for the world that surrounds us.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
The Old Man Speaks (Finally a new post)
A teacher of mine once raised the question of whether Rome really conquered Greece since Greece's ideas changed Rome so radically and may have been responsible for changing Romans from being pieces of a greater whole, to individuals concerned more with their personal advancement than the well being of their people as a whole.
This is not a simple question.
To quote a lyric from Sting "Men go crazy in congregations. They only get better one by one"
Is individualism necessarily selfish and nationalism necessarily selfless? I say no. Individuals stand up against oppression. And sometimes Nationalists will too. Nationalism also leads to an "Us vs Them" mentality. And the definition of "them" is surprisingly fluid. But even those who at first glance seem to be individuals acting in concert are just nationalists of a different stripe. They move as one in common purpose.
The fact that they are united behind an idea rather than a flag, that often demands alliegence beyond all reason, is certainly a point in their favor.
What seems to be missing from the current state of affairs is Reason. Reason holds beliefs to a standard that requires proof. I respect religious belief. I think it's a source of strength for alot of people when all else fails and it sometimes provides an avenue for making a leap of faith when that's the only path left that offers any hope at all.
But faith has a real fatal flaw built in. It demands that people believe in things absent any proof. Once a person has been accepted as speaking for/on behalf of God, people who believe in God are often predisposed to treat that person's words/ideas as beyond reproach. (See:The Pope)And there is nothing a politician likes better than a large group of people who will show up en masse to vote for ideas and policies that make no damn sense, based on nothing but the belief that the person selling them is a "Good Christian".
The ways this has corrupted Christianity in particular are beyond counting. The one that springs first to mind though is the prevalance of televangelists proclaiming in a loud voice that if you just believe, God will reward you with MONEY!
Seriously? From the same God who brought us classics like "The pursuit of money is the root of all evil"?
I mean, even as blind faith goes this is really REALLY bad. And the people who claim to be Christians while frothing at the mouth over those "damn politicians wanting to raise my taxes to pay for deadbeats who don't want to carry their own weight". Did they miss that whole "Give unto Caeser that which is Caeser's" thing? It was about money being an earthly concern and how "my father's kingdom is not of this world". But the modern carny folk of today's televangelists know their audience. People want money, promise it to them and they'll follow you anywhere.
Even if what you're preaching is counter to EVERYTHING they claim to believe.
But why do they want followers anyway? Remember what I said about people showing up to vote? The guy who can deliver people to the polls has power. Power those followers give him.
Remember I was talking before about Rome conquering Greece (or vice versa)? Alot of people look back on those ancient empires and think of how primitive they were. No cars, no computers, no technology at all as we know it.
But there was this guy named Ptolomey who was Alexander the Great's right hand man. And he did something truly remarkable, even by our modern standards.
He created a God.
See, after Alexander died and the inevitable fight was brewing about who would gain control of his empire, Ptolomey decided that he would focus his energies on holding onto Alexandria and making it clear that he was the rightful heir to Alexander.
One part of that process was creating stability between the three different groups inhabiting the city at that time. The Hebrews, the Egyptians and the Greeks. They had three different belief systems.
His solution? Serapis. A god that combined elements of all three belief systems. One god that all three groups could worship together.
He created a God to create Order.
Think about that.
No. I'm not trying to debunk anybody's Divine being. I've got one of my own. He's cool for the most part. Except when he goes MIA and I'm like "Dude WTF?".
I'm just sayin..."All that glitters... ain't God". Faith is a good thing but find it within. Seek your answers. Look for truth. Call out to God for it. Use every means at your disposal to reveal the nature of this here universe and take every chance you get to help every person you encounter who needs it. Not by shoving your own personal truth down their throat but by helping'em find their own. I grant you, its a complicated path sometimes. It lacks the comfort of battles fought alongside comfortable friends and obvious enemies.
It's a different kind of life. It'll be lonely at first but maybe not forever.
Or so I keep telling myself.
This is not a simple question.
To quote a lyric from Sting "Men go crazy in congregations. They only get better one by one"
Is individualism necessarily selfish and nationalism necessarily selfless? I say no. Individuals stand up against oppression. And sometimes Nationalists will too. Nationalism also leads to an "Us vs Them" mentality. And the definition of "them" is surprisingly fluid. But even those who at first glance seem to be individuals acting in concert are just nationalists of a different stripe. They move as one in common purpose.
The fact that they are united behind an idea rather than a flag, that often demands alliegence beyond all reason, is certainly a point in their favor.
What seems to be missing from the current state of affairs is Reason. Reason holds beliefs to a standard that requires proof. I respect religious belief. I think it's a source of strength for alot of people when all else fails and it sometimes provides an avenue for making a leap of faith when that's the only path left that offers any hope at all.
But faith has a real fatal flaw built in. It demands that people believe in things absent any proof. Once a person has been accepted as speaking for/on behalf of God, people who believe in God are often predisposed to treat that person's words/ideas as beyond reproach. (See:The Pope)And there is nothing a politician likes better than a large group of people who will show up en masse to vote for ideas and policies that make no damn sense, based on nothing but the belief that the person selling them is a "Good Christian".
The ways this has corrupted Christianity in particular are beyond counting. The one that springs first to mind though is the prevalance of televangelists proclaiming in a loud voice that if you just believe, God will reward you with MONEY!
Seriously? From the same God who brought us classics like "The pursuit of money is the root of all evil"?
I mean, even as blind faith goes this is really REALLY bad. And the people who claim to be Christians while frothing at the mouth over those "damn politicians wanting to raise my taxes to pay for deadbeats who don't want to carry their own weight". Did they miss that whole "Give unto Caeser that which is Caeser's" thing? It was about money being an earthly concern and how "my father's kingdom is not of this world". But the modern carny folk of today's televangelists know their audience. People want money, promise it to them and they'll follow you anywhere.
Even if what you're preaching is counter to EVERYTHING they claim to believe.
But why do they want followers anyway? Remember what I said about people showing up to vote? The guy who can deliver people to the polls has power. Power those followers give him.
Remember I was talking before about Rome conquering Greece (or vice versa)? Alot of people look back on those ancient empires and think of how primitive they were. No cars, no computers, no technology at all as we know it.
But there was this guy named Ptolomey who was Alexander the Great's right hand man. And he did something truly remarkable, even by our modern standards.
He created a God.
See, after Alexander died and the inevitable fight was brewing about who would gain control of his empire, Ptolomey decided that he would focus his energies on holding onto Alexandria and making it clear that he was the rightful heir to Alexander.
One part of that process was creating stability between the three different groups inhabiting the city at that time. The Hebrews, the Egyptians and the Greeks. They had three different belief systems.
His solution? Serapis. A god that combined elements of all three belief systems. One god that all three groups could worship together.
He created a God to create Order.
Think about that.
No. I'm not trying to debunk anybody's Divine being. I've got one of my own. He's cool for the most part. Except when he goes MIA and I'm like "Dude WTF?".
I'm just sayin..."All that glitters... ain't God". Faith is a good thing but find it within. Seek your answers. Look for truth. Call out to God for it. Use every means at your disposal to reveal the nature of this here universe and take every chance you get to help every person you encounter who needs it. Not by shoving your own personal truth down their throat but by helping'em find their own. I grant you, its a complicated path sometimes. It lacks the comfort of battles fought alongside comfortable friends and obvious enemies.
It's a different kind of life. It'll be lonely at first but maybe not forever.
Or so I keep telling myself.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
The Great Conversation
I read a book a couple years ago. The Right Mistake by Walter Mosley. I finally bought a copy in the last few days. To some, Mosley is seen as a mystery writer. I know about those books but I've never given em much of a look. The books I read by Mosley tend to be hard to classify. He's written books about issues of the day, at least one book about writing, some science fiction and books that fall somewhere between mystery, thriller, social commentary and character study. The Right Mistake is one of the latter.
It's about a character named Socrates Fortlow. An Ex Con who's spent more of his life in jail than out. And it's possible that all that time away was necessary to make him the man we find here. While many parents hope their son or daughter will be a mozart who's brilliance shows itself early and fully formed, it just might be the case that some lives don't find their direction and purpose til the eleventh hour and might very well be the better for it. Such would seem to be the case with Socrates.
This isnt the first book Mosley has written about Socrates Fortlow. It's definitely the one that had the most impact on me though. I won't detail the whole story for you. I'll just say that even after a lifetime in prison Socrates still has one wildly dangerous act left in him. He starts a conversation. And we're not talking about a purely symbolic danger here either. At least not from the point of view of the local police. No they get quite worried about his words and the people he chooses to say them to.
Which brings me to my primary point. Words. They can be dressed up noise that strut and fret their time on the stage and are soon forgotten. Or they can be massive and meaningful and change those that hear them forever.
Speaking just for myself, I know that when an idea comes to me fully formed from the distant back room in my subconscious or from source outside my head, I am changed. I confront old situations in new ways because the world is new in at least some small way. Possibilities present themselves that I had never recognized before.
So the world is new for me but so many people live their entire lives in that same old one. Because the world has become a machine that large numbers of us only exist to serve. You hear people talking about how the economy is doing. When that mysterious thing we call the economy is only a massive number of people making things that other people will buy and buying things that other people make. And this is vital. It must continue.
Or so we are told.
This is just one of many big ideas that needs to be part of a serious conversation about where this world goes from here. The future is happening every day and there has to be something better down the road that just buying stuff and selling stuff and struggling every day to mantain your place in this imaginary social contruct that we call the economy. Maybe once upon a time it was the best system available. Maybe it was the best we could do but no system should outlive its usefulness and this one most certainly has. The cracks are showing. The ink is fading from our monopoly money. The rules aren't real. This was all just a fiction meant to move people forward until our real purpose on this earth could be revealed. We've had enemies real and imagined, spontaneously occuring or when needed built to order.
It's been said that "If God did not exist, Man would have had to create him" or something like that. The same can be said for enemies. Great empires need great enemies. When they fail to arise on their own, we'll give em a nudge.
We, not just as a country or continent...but as a world have the chance to start the dangerous conversation that can bring about that new world. The one we only glimpse during times of crisis and watch receed from view as the world returns to "normal".
The hardest part for anyone who accomplishes great things is all that they have to leave behind.There's a better world waiting to be realized. We just have to stop settling for the comfort of the one we've got.
It's about a character named Socrates Fortlow. An Ex Con who's spent more of his life in jail than out. And it's possible that all that time away was necessary to make him the man we find here. While many parents hope their son or daughter will be a mozart who's brilliance shows itself early and fully formed, it just might be the case that some lives don't find their direction and purpose til the eleventh hour and might very well be the better for it. Such would seem to be the case with Socrates.
This isnt the first book Mosley has written about Socrates Fortlow. It's definitely the one that had the most impact on me though. I won't detail the whole story for you. I'll just say that even after a lifetime in prison Socrates still has one wildly dangerous act left in him. He starts a conversation. And we're not talking about a purely symbolic danger here either. At least not from the point of view of the local police. No they get quite worried about his words and the people he chooses to say them to.
Which brings me to my primary point. Words. They can be dressed up noise that strut and fret their time on the stage and are soon forgotten. Or they can be massive and meaningful and change those that hear them forever.
Speaking just for myself, I know that when an idea comes to me fully formed from the distant back room in my subconscious or from source outside my head, I am changed. I confront old situations in new ways because the world is new in at least some small way. Possibilities present themselves that I had never recognized before.
So the world is new for me but so many people live their entire lives in that same old one. Because the world has become a machine that large numbers of us only exist to serve. You hear people talking about how the economy is doing. When that mysterious thing we call the economy is only a massive number of people making things that other people will buy and buying things that other people make. And this is vital. It must continue.
Or so we are told.
This is just one of many big ideas that needs to be part of a serious conversation about where this world goes from here. The future is happening every day and there has to be something better down the road that just buying stuff and selling stuff and struggling every day to mantain your place in this imaginary social contruct that we call the economy. Maybe once upon a time it was the best system available. Maybe it was the best we could do but no system should outlive its usefulness and this one most certainly has. The cracks are showing. The ink is fading from our monopoly money. The rules aren't real. This was all just a fiction meant to move people forward until our real purpose on this earth could be revealed. We've had enemies real and imagined, spontaneously occuring or when needed built to order.
It's been said that "If God did not exist, Man would have had to create him" or something like that. The same can be said for enemies. Great empires need great enemies. When they fail to arise on their own, we'll give em a nudge.
We, not just as a country or continent...but as a world have the chance to start the dangerous conversation that can bring about that new world. The one we only glimpse during times of crisis and watch receed from view as the world returns to "normal".
The hardest part for anyone who accomplishes great things is all that they have to leave behind.There's a better world waiting to be realized. We just have to stop settling for the comfort of the one we've got.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Wayseer Manifesto: The Translation
Someone showed me a thing just now called WayseerManifesto.
There's a video on the website that is composed of scenes from movies and tv shows all designed to evoke a sense of people rebelling against oppression and striving to reach some conveniently ill defined goal.
Yeah. You caught that tone in my voice, didn't you? There's a reason for that.
It reminds me of the ad that the main character reads at the beginning of Ishmael. "Teacher seeks pupil. Must have an earnest desire to save the world. Please apply in person" The guy reads this and is annoyed. He figures the person who posted the ad is either a "new agey" type who foolishly believes that something as all encompassing as "saving the world" is possible or is a cynical bastard taking advantage of people who do. Either way, he's pissed.
Now, in Ishmael, it turns out that the ad poster actually has some serious knowledge to impart.
That being said, what makes me so quick to dismiss this Wayseer thing?
Well, I listened to it. The jist? Generic pablum pushing the idea that rules of any kind are inherantly wrong (Wait. Is that a rule?) And that an inability to articulate one's reason for believing something should in no way detract from the validity of that belief.
I'm seeing a gathering around a campfire. People trading stories of their beliefs. And because this belief system rejects any analysis or second guessing of its ideas or logical inconsistencies, everyone is right. No matter what they say. I hear this is how Scientology got started. (I didn't actually hear that but I can see it, yknow?)
I feel vaguely ridiculous for even dignifying this latest load of crap with an entry. But the fact that it got me writing again means there's at least one thing to recommend it.
This WSM thing, it offers what most things like this offer; universal unquestioning acceptance. Which for a whole shit ton of people in the world is in real short supply. There's something vital missing from the equation though.
People should not be universally unquestioningly accepted. There are damn good reasons to not accept people as they are. Society has rules, many of which are made for the general well being of all. If someone wants to take issue with certain specific rules, that's all well and good. But rules as a concept? Add to that this thing about "knowing things you can't articulate"?
Does anyone else see a problem with presenting an inability to articulate ones ideas as an argument for the rightness of said ideas? It seems like the Right wingers are ahead of the curve on this one. They've been inarticulate for years! Clearly its working out for them, right?
To the untrained eye WSM might seem cut from the same cloth as the Zeitgeist Movement and Ishmael. There's room for debate there but the intro video I saw (which should be as perfect a pitch for their movement as they can make it, since some people like myself won't dig any deeper if you don't grab me with it) set off every warning bell imaginable for something cynically crafted and just plain not good. Could there be more to WSM than it appears? Maybe.
but like the saying goes "When someone shows you who they are, believe them".
There's a video on the website that is composed of scenes from movies and tv shows all designed to evoke a sense of people rebelling against oppression and striving to reach some conveniently ill defined goal.
Yeah. You caught that tone in my voice, didn't you? There's a reason for that.
It reminds me of the ad that the main character reads at the beginning of Ishmael. "Teacher seeks pupil. Must have an earnest desire to save the world. Please apply in person" The guy reads this and is annoyed. He figures the person who posted the ad is either a "new agey" type who foolishly believes that something as all encompassing as "saving the world" is possible or is a cynical bastard taking advantage of people who do. Either way, he's pissed.
Now, in Ishmael, it turns out that the ad poster actually has some serious knowledge to impart.
That being said, what makes me so quick to dismiss this Wayseer thing?
Well, I listened to it. The jist? Generic pablum pushing the idea that rules of any kind are inherantly wrong (Wait. Is that a rule?) And that an inability to articulate one's reason for believing something should in no way detract from the validity of that belief.
I'm seeing a gathering around a campfire. People trading stories of their beliefs. And because this belief system rejects any analysis or second guessing of its ideas or logical inconsistencies, everyone is right. No matter what they say. I hear this is how Scientology got started. (I didn't actually hear that but I can see it, yknow?)
I feel vaguely ridiculous for even dignifying this latest load of crap with an entry. But the fact that it got me writing again means there's at least one thing to recommend it.
This WSM thing, it offers what most things like this offer; universal unquestioning acceptance. Which for a whole shit ton of people in the world is in real short supply. There's something vital missing from the equation though.
People should not be universally unquestioningly accepted. There are damn good reasons to not accept people as they are. Society has rules, many of which are made for the general well being of all. If someone wants to take issue with certain specific rules, that's all well and good. But rules as a concept? Add to that this thing about "knowing things you can't articulate"?
Does anyone else see a problem with presenting an inability to articulate ones ideas as an argument for the rightness of said ideas? It seems like the Right wingers are ahead of the curve on this one. They've been inarticulate for years! Clearly its working out for them, right?
To the untrained eye WSM might seem cut from the same cloth as the Zeitgeist Movement and Ishmael. There's room for debate there but the intro video I saw (which should be as perfect a pitch for their movement as they can make it, since some people like myself won't dig any deeper if you don't grab me with it) set off every warning bell imaginable for something cynically crafted and just plain not good. Could there be more to WSM than it appears? Maybe.
but like the saying goes "When someone shows you who they are, believe them".
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Harlan Ellison Speaks
"Don't be afraid. That simple; don't let them scare you. There's nothing that can do to you... a writer always writes. That's what he's for. And if they won't let you write one kind of thing, if they chop you off at the pockets in the market place, then go to another market place. And if they close off all the bazaars then by God go and work with your hands till you can write, because talent is always there. But the first time you say, "Oh, Christ, they'll kill me!" then you're done. Because the chief commodity a writer has to sell is his courage. And if he has none, he is more than a coward. He is a sellout and a fink and a heretic, because writing is a holy chore."
-Harlan Ellison
-Harlan Ellison
Thursday, March 10, 2011
MLK DAY 2009
What follows is a couple years old but reading it over I thought I should have it here too.
Every year I somehow someway end up hearing the "I have a dream" speech. Usually on NPR.It never gets old.
It makes you think about where we've been and where we are. He saw enough to imagine all the good that was possible and to warn of all the pitfalls along the way.
And even with all that warning, we still managed to hit most of them.
As far as we've come. We still fall so far short.
As a society we tend to look at the past from two points of view. We exalt the achievements of the past while at the same time being mystified by how far behind us they were to be faced with those problems in the first place.
He saw the path. He saw that in the struggle to achieve social and legal equality there would be the temptation to demonize all whites as "the enemy" and went out of his way to point out the white men and women that were standing with them that day. Because they recognized that we are not separate. The cause of freedom binds us all to one another.
And he warned of using violence in pursuit of that freedom.
Which reminded me of a buddhist belief that talks about how for your pursuits in this life to be pure they must come from "right thought, right speech, right action, right meditation, etc". The idea behind it being that it's not enough to want the right thing. You have to pursue it in the right way for the right reasons. When you use the wrong path to acquire that right thing then the whole thing has a fatal flaw built into it that will ultimately cause it to fall apart.
Lots of missteps we've all taken on this path. Some well intentioned and badly executed. Some badly intentioned and well executed. I get it. It's hard enough just to do the right thing, much less doing the right thing the right way.
It's like the old saying goes "If it were easy everyone would do it"
It's not easy. It's hard. Decades and Centuries hard.
Some want to build a better world. Some just want to get along. Make it through every next day. Worry about themselves. Keeping their vision narrow. Thinking that what they see is all there is.
There is a quote I heard somewhere that goes "The optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." (James Cabell)
I say they're both wrong. There is a world yet to be that is better than any of us has ever seen. One where people lead by example. You know, that old "do unto others" thing?
If you believe that a way of life is the correct one, then live that way. Show people by your example. Let them judge for themselves. Trust the truth to bear itself out. Don't try to force people to behave as you do. Don't threaten them with God's wrath. Don't try to scare them into submission. Be a shining example of your own philosophy. Map out a path and accept any who wish to travel it with you. Welcome questions and debate. Grapple with truth. Seek answers and be willing to change when there is reason to.
Because as the great Shakes' was known to say..."There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophies"
(take a minute and take a listen)
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=99557465&m=99557459
Every year I somehow someway end up hearing the "I have a dream" speech. Usually on NPR.It never gets old.
It makes you think about where we've been and where we are. He saw enough to imagine all the good that was possible and to warn of all the pitfalls along the way.
And even with all that warning, we still managed to hit most of them.
As far as we've come. We still fall so far short.
As a society we tend to look at the past from two points of view. We exalt the achievements of the past while at the same time being mystified by how far behind us they were to be faced with those problems in the first place.
He saw the path. He saw that in the struggle to achieve social and legal equality there would be the temptation to demonize all whites as "the enemy" and went out of his way to point out the white men and women that were standing with them that day. Because they recognized that we are not separate. The cause of freedom binds us all to one another.
And he warned of using violence in pursuit of that freedom.
Which reminded me of a buddhist belief that talks about how for your pursuits in this life to be pure they must come from "right thought, right speech, right action, right meditation, etc". The idea behind it being that it's not enough to want the right thing. You have to pursue it in the right way for the right reasons. When you use the wrong path to acquire that right thing then the whole thing has a fatal flaw built into it that will ultimately cause it to fall apart.
Lots of missteps we've all taken on this path. Some well intentioned and badly executed. Some badly intentioned and well executed. I get it. It's hard enough just to do the right thing, much less doing the right thing the right way.
It's like the old saying goes "If it were easy everyone would do it"
It's not easy. It's hard. Decades and Centuries hard.
Some want to build a better world. Some just want to get along. Make it through every next day. Worry about themselves. Keeping their vision narrow. Thinking that what they see is all there is.
There is a quote I heard somewhere that goes "The optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." (James Cabell)
I say they're both wrong. There is a world yet to be that is better than any of us has ever seen. One where people lead by example. You know, that old "do unto others" thing?
If you believe that a way of life is the correct one, then live that way. Show people by your example. Let them judge for themselves. Trust the truth to bear itself out. Don't try to force people to behave as you do. Don't threaten them with God's wrath. Don't try to scare them into submission. Be a shining example of your own philosophy. Map out a path and accept any who wish to travel it with you. Welcome questions and debate. Grapple with truth. Seek answers and be willing to change when there is reason to.
Because as the great Shakes' was known to say..."There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophies"
(take a minute and take a listen)
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=99557465&m=99557459
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)