Ok, I promise this is the last blog post on love.
I found a quote that managed to articulate what was still nagging me in this love train of thought. Those moments - when I find others perfectly articulating my thoughts when I cannot - are very special and take my breath away.
"You come to love not by finding the perfect person, but by seeing an imperfect person perfectly." - Sam Keen
There is such beauty in that phrasing. I understand how people can love deeply flawed people, how even after severe heartbreak forgiveness can overtake one's heart. Love grows anew like the stubborn forest after the fire. With gripping roots intact, it sprouts news trunks, branches and leaves. I understand how abused women can stay with their men. Because love is that powerful, it can and does make people do things that would objectively be against their self-interest. It forces forgiveness upon even stubborn hearts and sews up the deep gashes of heartbreak.
I think I understand now, that she never loved me fully. She was searching for the perfect person, and it was the doubt that I was not he which drove us apart. If she had truly loved me, then she would have seen me as perfectly as I saw her despite the fact that we are both quite imperfect. I fear that most people do not understand this concept. Love does not just develop on its own accord, it is a choice, whether conscious or unconscious. I cannot exactly articulate why it is a choice or exactly what that choice is, the best I can explain is that it is a choice between selfishness and selflessness. Selfishness is to fear the opportunity cost of love, while selflessness is to embrace love. I remember making the choice, to really throw myself into it and love not just for myself, but for her. It may have bought me heartache, but it has brought me more happiness than I can express. Even in the midst of love's melancholy there is a wellspring of joy.
I daresay that I hope to never find the perfect person. I never want to be burdened with a search for them, I think it would be like passing through the fires of hell. As Bob Dylan wrote in his song "Abandoned Love": "The pot of gold is only make believe. The treasure can't be found by men who search." No, I am arrogant enough to hope to be blessed a second time with seeing an imperfect person perfectly.
Showing posts with label Self-interest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Self-interest. Show all posts
Monday, January 26, 2009
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Walk the Earth as Humans
Building upon the thinking in my previous post, motivation to profit has started to seem like the crutch on which capitalism leans. In "The Age of Revolution" Hobsbawm talks about how employers during the early stages of the transition to capitalism would complain about the "laziness" of their employees. These people would work enough to make ends meet, and then stop. They were not used to the consistent work of industry, where one needs to be on time and to stay the whole time. Workers were more used to the farm and rural mentality of working whenever, and making your own hours. The combination of lack of motivation to work extra and to stay working annoyed the employers... because it cut their efficiency and profits. And this didn't happen just in urban centers of proto-capitalist economies, it happened in colonies and the outskirts of "civilization" too. It is a stereotype in my mind that British colonial officials would always complain about the laziness of the indigenous people. Anthropology pointed out to me that our civilization stereotypes indigenous societies as lazy and unproductive too.
Once the capitalist motivation of profit took hold in people with authority and power, they sought to use other people as tools to profit, and when these people stubbornly resisted by not conforming to capitalist ideals of a worker. But, as people had become tools to profit in the eyes of business owners and employers, they justified terrible repressions. Material starvation was one tecnique that was used to get more work out of their workers. They cut wages, to force them to work longer, and used the law. When the workers fought back by forming unions, these were attacked by the methods of coercion at the disposal of the powerful. This began the protracted war over labor rights which continues to this day. Another method to motivate people was to place immense obligations on their shoulders, such as military service and debt.
But the most effective method they used was cultural re-education. The early capitalists wanted everyone to think like they did, that profit is what they should seek and self-interest is the primary motivator. After three centuries of capitalistic re-education of society and culture shifting, we can see the success of this approach. Our entire civilization is now based on money as a motivator. It is true, there has been significant resistence to this belief, which is why it is not too surprising how many people still live in poverty. Fear of making ends meet, of feeding your family and keeping a roof over their heads is an immensely powerful motivator, and it ensures that people continue to buy into the capitalism by selling their labor and conforming to the rules.
Martin Luther King said something like "Humanity has learned to swim in the sea like a fish and fly in the sky like a bird, but we still can't walk the earth like a man." I think to put it more correctly, we forgot how to walk like a person. This analogy is very astute and gets to the heart of the problem. Humans were not meant to live this way, it is physcially and mentally destructive. Placing profit over people corrupts people's souls, and is mentally oppressive to those who think that way. Walking the earth, as MLK implies, would require us to treat people as an end in themselves instead of a tool. Something that I think most lefties dont realize is that capitalism is an oppression on the affleuent and power as well as on the down-trodden and working class. Where the majority of people suffer from material poverty, the rich suffer from a spiritual poverty that I find to be much more oppressive. And by spiritual I don't mean faith in God, or religion, I mean how much fulfillment one gets out of life; how people treat each other and the ramifications that has on their minds; lack of a deeper meaning than materialism; and suffering from a severe disconnection with other people.
Spiritual poverty is generated because people are not meant to live this way. Humans are social creatures and we have certain dispositions toward each other that capitalism disrupts. Generosity, connection, reciprocacy, and the social glue that holds a society together are all hard-wired into our brains, and when capitalism disrupts them it lays a yoke upon the mind of a person. This burden is so heavy it causes us to flee to transient pleasures to dull the pain and try to escape.
In Kentucky, people took care of each other. It is true that poverty took its toll with alcoholism, drugs, alienation and mental illness. But poverty also brings people together, it connects them and can build strong social ties. Lack of material comfort does not seem too harsh if one's family and friends are there, protecting each other. The affluent world I gained a view of at Brown was much worse, in my opinion. In the words of the Union song "Bread and Roses" by Bobbie McGee, "Hearts starve as well as bodies." And I see starvation of the heart to be a common affliction among the rich.
The capitalist motivation meme seems to have taken on a life of its own. It spurrs us into spending our collective time and energy on things that are not important, into things and not into people. Last time I was flying I had a window seat, and as I looked down, I noticed that I could always see something made by people. We have built so much, and yet we don't realize that it is more important to put effort into people. This does give me hope though. If we could push ourselves to do all this, build this entire world in a couple centuries, then we could push ourselves to do anything. Human culture is surprisingly flexible and powerful, we have drifted so far from our nature, and its impact is also quite impressive.
Once the capitalist motivation of profit took hold in people with authority and power, they sought to use other people as tools to profit, and when these people stubbornly resisted by not conforming to capitalist ideals of a worker. But, as people had become tools to profit in the eyes of business owners and employers, they justified terrible repressions. Material starvation was one tecnique that was used to get more work out of their workers. They cut wages, to force them to work longer, and used the law. When the workers fought back by forming unions, these were attacked by the methods of coercion at the disposal of the powerful. This began the protracted war over labor rights which continues to this day. Another method to motivate people was to place immense obligations on their shoulders, such as military service and debt.
But the most effective method they used was cultural re-education. The early capitalists wanted everyone to think like they did, that profit is what they should seek and self-interest is the primary motivator. After three centuries of capitalistic re-education of society and culture shifting, we can see the success of this approach. Our entire civilization is now based on money as a motivator. It is true, there has been significant resistence to this belief, which is why it is not too surprising how many people still live in poverty. Fear of making ends meet, of feeding your family and keeping a roof over their heads is an immensely powerful motivator, and it ensures that people continue to buy into the capitalism by selling their labor and conforming to the rules.
Martin Luther King said something like "Humanity has learned to swim in the sea like a fish and fly in the sky like a bird, but we still can't walk the earth like a man." I think to put it more correctly, we forgot how to walk like a person. This analogy is very astute and gets to the heart of the problem. Humans were not meant to live this way, it is physcially and mentally destructive. Placing profit over people corrupts people's souls, and is mentally oppressive to those who think that way. Walking the earth, as MLK implies, would require us to treat people as an end in themselves instead of a tool. Something that I think most lefties dont realize is that capitalism is an oppression on the affleuent and power as well as on the down-trodden and working class. Where the majority of people suffer from material poverty, the rich suffer from a spiritual poverty that I find to be much more oppressive. And by spiritual I don't mean faith in God, or religion, I mean how much fulfillment one gets out of life; how people treat each other and the ramifications that has on their minds; lack of a deeper meaning than materialism; and suffering from a severe disconnection with other people.
Spiritual poverty is generated because people are not meant to live this way. Humans are social creatures and we have certain dispositions toward each other that capitalism disrupts. Generosity, connection, reciprocacy, and the social glue that holds a society together are all hard-wired into our brains, and when capitalism disrupts them it lays a yoke upon the mind of a person. This burden is so heavy it causes us to flee to transient pleasures to dull the pain and try to escape.
In Kentucky, people took care of each other. It is true that poverty took its toll with alcoholism, drugs, alienation and mental illness. But poverty also brings people together, it connects them and can build strong social ties. Lack of material comfort does not seem too harsh if one's family and friends are there, protecting each other. The affluent world I gained a view of at Brown was much worse, in my opinion. In the words of the Union song "Bread and Roses" by Bobbie McGee, "Hearts starve as well as bodies." And I see starvation of the heart to be a common affliction among the rich.
The capitalist motivation meme seems to have taken on a life of its own. It spurrs us into spending our collective time and energy on things that are not important, into things and not into people. Last time I was flying I had a window seat, and as I looked down, I noticed that I could always see something made by people. We have built so much, and yet we don't realize that it is more important to put effort into people. This does give me hope though. If we could push ourselves to do all this, build this entire world in a couple centuries, then we could push ourselves to do anything. Human culture is surprisingly flexible and powerful, we have drifted so far from our nature, and its impact is also quite impressive.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
A Glimpse of the Ocean of Hope Through the Oil Slick of Cynacism
Obama won in South Carolina!
I have spent a good amount of time (given my copious amounts of free time due to unemployment) observing the candidates and their campaigns. I have done some research, and I have to say that while Obama had my support from the start, he has only strengthened it. Edwards was also pretty awesome, but he is out of the race now.
Clinton, on the other hand, has always bothered me. It may have to do with the fact that I protested her when she visited Brown because she was to the right of Bush on the war at that time. She was saying we needed to commit more troops. But now she has changed her mind, and unlike Edwards she has not apologized for supporting the Iraq war in the past. That reeks to me of the acrid smell of an unwillingness to accept responsibility for one's actions. I have heard from friends in the Obama campaign that Clinton is using alot of nasty political tricks, like fake mailers. Clinton's campaign has seemed to be just trying to play the game and win that way. I have no respect for that, nor the use of underhanded politics. I found a webpage that outlines alot of the reasons I dislike Hillary... please refer people to this site: http://2parse.com/?p=210
Piled on top of all this, I recently read "The Left Hand of God" by Michael Lerner. He related the following account. The Clintons ran for the Presidency in 1992 on articulating a new "Politics of Meaning" (the same as the title of another one of Lerner's books). They wanted to make significant change, and had a fairly ambitious agenda. Lerner describes how he was called to the White House to advise them early in 1993. He describes how behind the scenes, they were excessively concerned about poll numbers and what they had support for. Lerner advised them to take a bold stand on issues, that if they made a good argument and appealed to people's moral compass, they would gain the support they need to make those ambitious changes. But, they chose to only do what they thought they had support to do (i.e. not much), to listen to what political consultants said, and abandon their politics of meaning. Especially with health care, Hilary chose to do what was "realistic" instead of taking a bold stand on something she knew was needed. Unfortunately, doing what is realistic is a self-fulfilling prophecy, it is like a runner deciding they will only try to run a 6 minute mile when they are actually capable of running a 4 minute mile with alittle more perseverance and courage. When I read this I understood why I could not support Hilary. She is not willing to be a leader and go against poll numbers. That is what is wrong with the Democratic Party overall, they do not have the confidence in their own beliefs to take stand based on them nor do they have the courage to do what is right even if it is thought to be unpopular. While I disagree with the Republicans on almost every issue, I do wish that the democratic politicians had their level of confidence and courage.
I am ever so thankful that the alternative to Clinton is an inspiring leader. I would hate to have another year when I am just voting for someone because the alternative is worse. I actually WANT to vote for Obama. I WANT to see him in office. He is not afraid to take a stand on issues (although still not as much as I would want), and he is smart. All the debates I have watched have shown the depth of his thinking, and his refusal to dumb it down when he presents it to the public. I feel like Clinton dumbs down her issues and does not believe the American people are smart enough to understand the nuance. Obama's policies, while not perfect, are a huge step in the right direction, and when you look at the details, they are quite different from Clinton's.
I feel that Obama could go farther than what is outlined in his current policies, especially given the way he is able to convey his message. A poorly written book is never read, even if its ideas are phenomenal. An engrossing book, however, will catch one's mind in an un-escapable lust to read it, even if it is void of good ideas. Well, Obama is that rare combination of an engrossing book with good ideas. He articulates his ideas to appeal to people's moral compass instead of their self-interest, which is far FAR more compelling than the typical Democratic party line of appealing to people's self-interest. Great leaders always as you to help others, not to help yourself. It is a far more appealing and engrossing message, and when coupled with good ideas, vision, and courage it will (and has) completely overhaul civilization as we know it.
But I would say the most inspiring thing I have read about Obama is how he treated Richardson during a debate. Richardson spaced out, and did not hear the question. Obama whispered "Katrina" to him. I found this story here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/29/14329/8255/991/445490
To me, this tells me more about who he is, and his ability to be a leader than anything. Understanding people well enough to instantly sense what is on their mind, and the will to help them if they need it is a treasured combination.
I truly believe that he is running because he thinks he has the chance to do good for people, not out of self-interest or ambition. I can count the number of politicians who seem to possess this treasured outlook, on one hand. I still do not think he will be able to do too much because of the way the government is structured (even Eisenhower couldn't end an infant military-industrial complex). However, if he can manage to employ his movement organizing powers while he is still in office, than I can catch a glimpse of the ocean of hope through the oil slick of cynicism.
I have been writing this post over a few days, and in the course of this my Grandpa has passed away. He was a kind and generous man who placed his family above all else. I am reminded of Exodus Chapter 19-ish, where it is explained that living a mean and selfish life will have ill effects lasting three or four generations in one's family, while living a generous and loving life will see rewards unto the thousandth generation. My Grandpa is a prime example of this, I can see the glow of his love reflected in my family, strengthening and helping us throughout our lives. Thank you Grandpa.
I have spent a good amount of time (given my copious amounts of free time due to unemployment) observing the candidates and their campaigns. I have done some research, and I have to say that while Obama had my support from the start, he has only strengthened it. Edwards was also pretty awesome, but he is out of the race now.
Clinton, on the other hand, has always bothered me. It may have to do with the fact that I protested her when she visited Brown because she was to the right of Bush on the war at that time. She was saying we needed to commit more troops. But now she has changed her mind, and unlike Edwards she has not apologized for supporting the Iraq war in the past. That reeks to me of the acrid smell of an unwillingness to accept responsibility for one's actions. I have heard from friends in the Obama campaign that Clinton is using alot of nasty political tricks, like fake mailers. Clinton's campaign has seemed to be just trying to play the game and win that way. I have no respect for that, nor the use of underhanded politics. I found a webpage that outlines alot of the reasons I dislike Hillary... please refer people to this site: http://2parse.com/?p=210
Piled on top of all this, I recently read "The Left Hand of God" by Michael Lerner. He related the following account. The Clintons ran for the Presidency in 1992 on articulating a new "Politics of Meaning" (the same as the title of another one of Lerner's books). They wanted to make significant change, and had a fairly ambitious agenda. Lerner describes how he was called to the White House to advise them early in 1993. He describes how behind the scenes, they were excessively concerned about poll numbers and what they had support for. Lerner advised them to take a bold stand on issues, that if they made a good argument and appealed to people's moral compass, they would gain the support they need to make those ambitious changes. But, they chose to only do what they thought they had support to do (i.e. not much), to listen to what political consultants said, and abandon their politics of meaning. Especially with health care, Hilary chose to do what was "realistic" instead of taking a bold stand on something she knew was needed. Unfortunately, doing what is realistic is a self-fulfilling prophecy, it is like a runner deciding they will only try to run a 6 minute mile when they are actually capable of running a 4 minute mile with alittle more perseverance and courage. When I read this I understood why I could not support Hilary. She is not willing to be a leader and go against poll numbers. That is what is wrong with the Democratic Party overall, they do not have the confidence in their own beliefs to take stand based on them nor do they have the courage to do what is right even if it is thought to be unpopular. While I disagree with the Republicans on almost every issue, I do wish that the democratic politicians had their level of confidence and courage.
I am ever so thankful that the alternative to Clinton is an inspiring leader. I would hate to have another year when I am just voting for someone because the alternative is worse. I actually WANT to vote for Obama. I WANT to see him in office. He is not afraid to take a stand on issues (although still not as much as I would want), and he is smart. All the debates I have watched have shown the depth of his thinking, and his refusal to dumb it down when he presents it to the public. I feel like Clinton dumbs down her issues and does not believe the American people are smart enough to understand the nuance. Obama's policies, while not perfect, are a huge step in the right direction, and when you look at the details, they are quite different from Clinton's.
I feel that Obama could go farther than what is outlined in his current policies, especially given the way he is able to convey his message. A poorly written book is never read, even if its ideas are phenomenal. An engrossing book, however, will catch one's mind in an un-escapable lust to read it, even if it is void of good ideas. Well, Obama is that rare combination of an engrossing book with good ideas. He articulates his ideas to appeal to people's moral compass instead of their self-interest, which is far FAR more compelling than the typical Democratic party line of appealing to people's self-interest. Great leaders always as you to help others, not to help yourself. It is a far more appealing and engrossing message, and when coupled with good ideas, vision, and courage it will (and has) completely overhaul civilization as we know it.
But I would say the most inspiring thing I have read about Obama is how he treated Richardson during a debate. Richardson spaced out, and did not hear the question. Obama whispered "Katrina" to him. I found this story here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/29/14329/8255/991/445490
To me, this tells me more about who he is, and his ability to be a leader than anything. Understanding people well enough to instantly sense what is on their mind, and the will to help them if they need it is a treasured combination.
I truly believe that he is running because he thinks he has the chance to do good for people, not out of self-interest or ambition. I can count the number of politicians who seem to possess this treasured outlook, on one hand. I still do not think he will be able to do too much because of the way the government is structured (even Eisenhower couldn't end an infant military-industrial complex). However, if he can manage to employ his movement organizing powers while he is still in office, than I can catch a glimpse of the ocean of hope through the oil slick of cynicism.
I have been writing this post over a few days, and in the course of this my Grandpa has passed away. He was a kind and generous man who placed his family above all else. I am reminded of Exodus Chapter 19-ish, where it is explained that living a mean and selfish life will have ill effects lasting three or four generations in one's family, while living a generous and loving life will see rewards unto the thousandth generation. My Grandpa is a prime example of this, I can see the glow of his love reflected in my family, strengthening and helping us throughout our lives. Thank you Grandpa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)