The Middle Has Never Felt So Dangerous

"The middle path is the way to wisdom." - Rumi

Some days, some times, seem darker and more menacing than other days. The hate filling the atmosphere of the present moments is a bit disturbing. I keep searching through the Left and Right rhetorical fog for the wisdom and the soundness of action and decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, and good judgment. However, I only hear and see partisan soundbites and outright distortions of truth. Or omitted and edited versions of talking-point opinions by the talking heads of journalists, commentators, movement-leaders, or politicians. 

Alas, I suspect I expect too much.

I find it is now very difficult to impossible to walk the middle path, or as I have always believed, the political center. I define that political center as an outlook or specific position that involves accepting or supporting the balance of social equality with social hierarchy. Taking this position makes me oppose political changes which would result in a significant shift of society strongly to either Leftists or Right-wing zealots. Tyranny for citizens by the proposed extremes of the Left or the Right.

These are the times that John Adams wrote about where "In politics the middle way is none at all." Similarly, a German poet once wrote, “In times of extremes, the middle path is deadly.” So why do I want to walk the middle path so badly? Perhaps it helps me to be kind to everyone, to be empathetic, to look at the human condition with compassion in a nonjudgemental way.

However, that middle path has never been protected by the promotion of milquetoast policies everyone already agrees on, it’s protected by taking the time to understand and defend foundational principles such as free speech, open and transparent inquiry, and due process. Now, when forced to defend those foundational principles, we are asked (or shouted down) to shut-up and tow a radical left or right line.

When did having opposing opinions become unacceptable? I am beginning to understand now why people find caves in Idaho to live in. Or become Anarchists.

I used to believe what Rumi said but these days it seems like the German poet and John Adams understood it with what I find uncomfortable correctness.

What Are You a Slave To?

"Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave." -- Frederick Douglass

What are you slave to? Are you a slave to an ideology or a belief system? To technology? Do you end up with questions that you need to spend too much time thinking about and trying to find a base of scientific support for them? Are you a slave to a government program or entitlement? A slave to voting? Are you a slave to the opinions of others? Are you a slave to...

And the list goes on and on.

If you remain a slave to "things" you may never utilize the opportunities knowledge affords where we can gain practical skills, expertise at a task or of a subject, or better understand a concept. This is how the concept of knowledge and slavery are diametrically opposed to one another. Knowledge involves the very complex tasks of perception, reasoning and communicating information, facts or skills, either by educating others or being open to the ideas expressed by others. Importantly, the absorption of knowledge is a choice.

Slavery or being a slave to "things", on the other hand, is force. It is a no-choice. It is problematic with any concepts of freedom for individuals, and the acknowledgment of human beings being autonomous.

So whether it might be coffee, adrenaline-inducing feats, work, or killing it in the money-making department, it could be worth looking at what is the force that is driving you forward or is it a force that is enslaving you. 

And does the knowledge you are discovering along your path feel liberating, or is it dragging you down? 

Work to make yourself unfit to be a slave.

I Should Abandon the Word Should

“Should is a futile word. It's about what didn't happen. It belongs in a parallel universe. It belongs in another dimension of space.” ― Margaret Atwood, from the novel 'The Blind Assassin'

I recently came across an amazing list of “shoulds” on the Psychology Today website, and to summarize it, try reading the following in one breath: "You should be grateful to be alive, forgive, be compassionate, meditate, give back, be able to do nothing, be productive, de-clutter, take more trips, appreciate what you have, spend more time with your kids, want to spend more time with your kids, have more fun, spend less time on technology, have more sex, want to have more sex, laugh more, lose weight, exercise more, drink less, and be happier."

Whew! Not my list but I sure can relate.

But what is my point? For me, should is a word that is usually related to something that I feel I need to do but not necessarily something that I may want to do. It is actually an enemy to my healthy mental health hopes. Even though some of the things in the above list are awesome, fulfilling, and satisfying things to do, like meditation, exercise, and sex, “should” can’t be trusted. Many times with me, I use “should” in relation to how I believe I need to feel about something. It is tied to physical actions, emotional responses, and hunches while still involving taking actions, having feelings and expressing emotions. "Shoulds" try to make something out of what may be nothing.

Simple examples from me: I am sick, but I should still go to work. I should learn that skill to be a more well-rounded person. I should not feel bad about what has happened.

Expectations that our brain puts on our actions can be assholes and dictators, who try hard to tell us who we should be, what we should be, and how we should be. A great alternative to what you say and think is to replace should with could.

" I could learn a new skill."

"I could go to work even though I am sick, or I could stay home." 

"I could choose what emotion to dwell on about what happened."

It also helps when the wife reminds me that "There you go 'should-ing' yourself again" when she catches me at it. 

I am lucky to have her in my corner.

Invaluable Nature

"Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. — Thomas Hobbes describing man’s life in the state of nature

Wilderness is not only valuable in our modern world, but it is also invaluable. Now it is important to define the difference between invaluable and valuable, as it can be subtle, however in my opinion, not in this case. Try and think of it this way: valuable usually applies to things that have monetary value, while invaluable usually applies to things that can’t be valued in monetary terms.

The smell of a cedar swamp, the aroma of a field of summer grass ripening in the sun, or the sounds of a lake's shore washed by waves hold no monetary or treasure value, but speak a higher language to the human soul, the spirit. Thus, nature holds the invaluable within itself.

Until very recently, humans have not had much time to spend in the appreciation of the profound lessons that nature's primitive places offer them. In the above notable quote worth sharing here once again, Thomas Hobbes eloquently states man’s life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” thus highlighting the fact that in most ways, human life is filled with the struggle to survive against dangers that wilderness offered—disease, oppressive weather, limited resources, even wild beasts. 

Humankind, often working as rugged individuals, carved out a place in the wilderness, and I believe civilized themselves enough to have learned to understand that the remaining pockets of it needed protection. 

At least, some people have this attitude, and those people are invaluable to the human race. However, many people in charge of important things still measure only what holds monetary value.

So spend a little time with what is valuable and invaluable, and drink in what those feel like, and what you would need more of in a deep and satisfying way.

Borders, or Chalk Outlines in the Sand.

“The best way to look at countries on a map is like a chalk outline drawn by the police when someone dies… what you are seeing with the borders are just outlines of historical crimes… past warlords… empires… its nothing to be loyal to. Have loyalty to reason, to evidence, to ideals… not to lines drawn up mostly by criminals.” — Stefan Molyneux

I agree with almost zero of what Molyneux usually says--and less of what he stands for--however, somehow this quote strikes a chord with me. Even a blind pig finds an apple on occasion. 

Countries are basically these magically attached, by mostly invisible lines, defining chunks of land. They are then united by historical thefts, atrocities, and other criminal behaviors. For example, the United States of America basically stole the southwest part of the country, including California, from Spain. Spain stole it before that from the Native Americans that lived there previously, and even those people overtook it from earlier tribal nations such as the Anasazi nations.

So why is this important? In my humble opinion, it reflects the human need to define itself in all matters of existence, to establish it's tribe, determine it's social and cultural norms, to inclusively segregate. The need to isolate not only cultural and social norms from differing ones that may lie across an invisible, magically determined line is somewhat a recent problem in relation to enforcement. Migration, emigration, immigration, famine, war, and other triggering events have always moved populations of people from place to place.

It seems that the real compassionate question that is not being dealt with is how to get along as a people who share so much in similar human characteristics, yet divide themselves so sharply in cultural, social or religious concepts. The figurative wall that needs to be built would be one filled with bricks of understanding, the mortar of social exploration and designed with open communication of shared values and possibilities of positive growth.

You still might have to place some guards here and there, to ensure some circumstantial and situational incursions of "bad" elements along parts of the wall are addressed, but if you build it with no way to see and engage the humanity of others, is it worth it?