Consider how you would describe a great work of art, like this one.
Do you talk about the trees? The fish? The water?
The reflections? The feelings they invoke? The symbolism?
You can draw attention to one part of it, and lose sight of the whole.
Anyways, I was thinking about that because I've had a post itching at me for a while now, but when I tried thinking of what I wanted to say it was like focusing on just one part of the whole.
Or perhaps I needed to figure out what layer to focus on.
When I pull back the layers, well. It's easier to use the religious terms I grew up with, though I don't necessarily mean you have to believe to understand.
Let's go with one of the basic tenets - God is good.
He isn't cruel, he wouldn't create a world that pits us against each other, nor one where we have to be cruel to each other to survive.
And yet... that doesn't seem to be the world we live in. There are lions, and there are lambs, and the lions eat the lambs, and it would take some sort of divine intervention to make the lions lay down with the lambs without eating them.
Some people use the cold cruelty of the world to argue God doesn't exist, or any number of metaphysical arguments, but whatever. Let's not get distracted and keep it simple -
God would not create a world where we have to step on each other in order to find happiness, peace, or security.
This is generally when I like to pull out the whole allegory of the long spoons, but I think that doesn't address the real problem.
It's not that the logic doesn't make sense, it's that people don't believe it really works like that.
You could almost say they lack...
Faith.
We generally end up thinking something like 'Yeah, in an ideal world we wouldn't have to _____, but... '
But in this world, other people lie and cheat. You're just doing what you have to do.
You have to play the game.
You have to be realistic.
You have to ______.
Do note, there's an underlying fear to all of these. That doing the right thing isn't enough. That nice guys finish last. That it is impossible to get anywhere unless you compromise yourself somehow...
And thus the world gets divided into the powerless, who perhaps are wise enough to realize they don't care for such games, and thus give up on trying to have power and influence in order to live content with a smaller life...
And the power hungry, who strive for the top - and in the process make choices that generally reinforce the whole system.
This is where I like to bring up Hope for the Flowers. All that fighting generally just replaces whoever is at the top, but the system remains the same.
It's just making yourself another cog in the machine. A fancy cog, perhaps. Made out of expensive jewels and set in the nicest materials... but a cog nonetheless.
I mean, sure... it's nice to be at the top. And of course I can see the appeal of having tons of money and power and influence... but it also seems rather meaningless.
If not you, it'd be someone else. And you're not changing the system, you're just putting yourself at the top.
Same old, same old.
When I think of the forces behind that tired old pattern, it seems to me that it's mostly about fear, and control.
And scarcity... but what is scarcity if not the fear that there won't be enough?
Or perhaps it also comes from callousness. The combination of fear that there won't be enough, as well as the willingness to ignore other people's needs in order to secure your own access.
Did the callousness come first, or the fear - and the callousness is just your way of ignoring the consequences of your fearful decisions?
Hmmm. I'm focusing too much on one piece now, let me back up a bit.
I also wanted to talk about cognitive dissonance and integrity.
Integrity - not in the sense of 'honest and forthright', but in the sense of 'whole and undivided'.
In other words 'without cognitive dissonance'.
Because if God is good and we don't have to be cruel to each other to survive (and thrive)... then how do we justify what we do?
How, over and over and over again, do people keep doing things that are cruel and hurtful?
How do health insurance companies keep justifying their denial of necessary medical treatment?
How do CEO's justify hurting their employees while raising prices that hurt consumes, all to satisfy shareholders?
Are they knowing assholes - where you may despise them, but you can at least credit them for being true to their asshole selves?
Or do they have cognitive dissonance, and cover and cloak what they do with justifications and turning a blind eye? Typical human frailties, perhaps, but frustrating nonetheless. (Yes, I put most of the political forces claiming they're christian in this category. They have to be suffering some sort of cognitive dissonance to think there's any part of God's will in what they're doing. They're fighting to be king of the hill - same old, same old. There's no sense of the divinity to it.)
If God is good, and we don't have to be cruel to each other...
Then I generally think it's the latter. That if given time to listen to that quiet inner voice, to look within and hear such things...
That it's a bit like the parable of the orange - two people are fighting over who gets the orange, but when they finally communicate correctly they realize that one wants the orange for the flesh inside, and the other wants the peel in order to make orange zest.
I know it sounds hopelessly naive and idealistic, but if we really dig into what people want, if we really listen to those inner voices, if we don't decide based on our fears...
Are we really in conflict? Must we fight?
Can the lion really lay down with the lamb?
