To be wanted and desired: it seems the healthiest course of development is to be hated and then loved, but no, in truth the way we approach establishing our value in the eyes of the world is very much dictated by the individual and their closely held vanity. And how vain be it to think highly of oneself? It be ascribed by others predicated open how that vanity manifests and interrupts our relationships--to put oneself on a pedestal self-justified by one's internal view, to make comparable the souls of two and vainly to forever find oneself above another--this is selfishness manifest; not by one's being do they exist, but instead through action, and yet any loss of this spectacle is tragic, for a part of humanity is lost in the dead, and lost in the one thinking themself superior.
Circumstance is certainly of crucial consideration, and yet in the end is only context for action--decisions, persistence, morality, conscientiousness--none can be entirely trumped by context.
~~~
I have been reflecting on what the greatest evil is, and if there is one seed from which all other evil grows. Perhaps a fruitless or inconsequential venture, but it remains of interest. In my view, and perhaps I have written about this before, the greatest ill is to isolate oneself from their humanity, to reject the essence of life and through it society, and all things a consequence thereof. While we may accept that as the greatest evil, it remains too the greatest tragedy, to let go of the one thing tying us to the web of beings surrounding us. Through a web, the loss of even a single connection, a single thread with all its overlapping paths intersect, we can see how this web loses some bit of stability and holes start to appear. And so what arachnid can re-spin that thread? Others are left to pick up the slack. Society copes with the consequences.
Viewing all evil through the anti-logic of a distaste for humanity, things start to make sense. Indifference in the face of suffering is the opposite of compassion, for even hate and hurtful desires have a sense of intimate passion. But to look unflinching at the face crying for peace, a part of oneself is already dead. And to view that pain opportunistically is to simplify the suffering of humanity down to a mere tool. There is something very concerning about watching a master craftsman turn whole beings into machinery, as a means to their own goals. How isolating it must be, in the end, to turn back onto one's tribalistic desires by using whole groups as a springboard off which to launch themselves, even in company of those they love; because love and hate are not exclusive, they often bundle themselves together under the sole guise of love. And through this doublethink we deceive ourselves self-justifiably.
Like a half-truth, love bundled with hate is a poison tainting the soul and dismembering our humanity slowly until the necrosis takes over and we find ourselves the root of the evil surrounding us. The final tragedy then, is reaching a state from which this moral suicide is unrecognizable; and so the cycle continues as the rot inspires more rot and the indifference fans the flames of hate, and atop it all a poisoned, ingenuine love for the self and all beings in service of it.
~~~
Apathy is staggering and the future seemingly always bleak. We are left with the question of what true majority remains, and if the swingarm of progress has yet to carry us far off into an undesirable direction. It is a discouraging feeling to realize your isolated status as an ideological minority confronted with problems bearing far-reaching implications. Evermore frightening is to face the truth that the sole judicial power is against you and your fighting to date has been for naught. Indeed this is easy to identify and internalize, but is far from the absolute truth. No greater action of expression exists than that of unwavering belief and dedication to a cause despite the world spitting in your face. Passion comes in many forms, and is entirely necessary for such fights to the death. But why then has this vigor not united us, spread a benevolent message; or rather why has the olive branch been burned time and time again? In my view, the issue lies in a culture of individuality and opposition. These reductive factors have done more to regress our part of society in human history than much else. Surely you could argue that nationalistic fervor is categorically different and has too caused great harm, but it is rooted in opposition to other nations and ethnicities, and seeks to establish self-righteous value of the individual trumping all else, standing entirely in opposition to the "other". In this sense, individuality can be united, given all actors have some personal gain.
As I have established before and will restate here: all is fair in moderation, both for individuality and collectivism. Stray too far either way and we fail to accomplish much. But I digress; failure to understand nuance is in the hands of the fool.
To connect to a previous point; individualism like evil arises from a fundamental isolation of oneself unilaterally from the masses, and an overindulgence of one's own purposes and interests. How sad this is for the individual, and how catastrophic for masses under the tyrant. An imposition of one's own interests and will over others in dictating their rights, restrictions, abilities, not in service to them is fundamentally opposite to the responsibilities for any position of power. Instead servicing one's own subjective view of the world means they are no proper ruler, but indeed a tyrant. You may say leaders need make tough decision people may not at first see the benefit of, which is certainly true in some cases. But to do so lacking any reason, evidence, and further failing to educate the public on one's own decision, to fail to advocate for the voiceless and unheard, here we see such a basic failing in one's vocation. Alas, we live in our own world and see it through a muddied lens. And how tragic to lack any questioning over one's clarity, to accept circumstance and reject improvement, how immoral to look unflinching in the eyes of the bludgeoned and bloody. I say let the feeling fester, and if no change of heart comes through, then they were already rotten to the core. A frog may not feel the water slowly boiling, but a man certainly the oozing gangrene of an infected wound. If in your arrogance you assure it will disappear, let the sepsis take you. That legacy you accepted one of dubious harm and unnecessary failure and loss.
In the context of decolonization, Fanon calls for an upheaval, and claims only through violent means is it possible, or rather such change is violent by its nature. I still find myself at odds with this claim, and yet, I have failed to concretely establish some alternative action. Moreover, I did not grow up marginalized nor fighting for my basic rights, and so for me to claim this violence unnecessary misses the mark. But one can imagine and sympathize with his fight against the oppressive French rule present in colonized nation of Martinique. Where in the early to mid-1900s oppressive colonialist rule was violent and threatened marginalized populations openly, one must wonder if the same call to violent rebellion is the best course of action today in Canada where colonialism is an everyday reality, but the oppression manifests in more subtle, covert forms. One might like to think our government open to discourse, but no system would be so logically willing to disassemble itself, and so we encounter the same issue of a deaf king not willing to uncrown itself for the sake of the people. What option then is left but some show of force?
Fanon's assertion speaks to history and human nature both, that is, past uprisings especially against colonial rule have used violence as an effective tool to dismember a system dispassionate to their suffering and relentless in their suppression of their livelihood. Such a limiting system actively chooses to ignore the trampled and do not care for them--again I ask what the sole purpose of a government and its leaders is? To protect the interests of the people--all people--not merely to line the pockets of the fortunate few sat atop saddles of gold mounted on the 99%. A government actively harming its populace, or simply failing to advocate for the entire diversity of interests present in its population is an illegitimate one. In failing to foster any dialogue nor cede to any demands, and a failure to place individual interests (that of keeping the ruling, oppressive colonizer in power) aside leaves naught but a final forceful action to come to front by the hands of the oppressed and colonized. This is passionate and visceral--but this is not the primary reason for violent rebellion--desperation is. And to leave your people to such actions the ruling class has itself to blame. There is no legitimate claim to blame the oppressed, for an acceptance of subhuman treatment has no logical reason to be accepted. A further inability to accept responsibility for reparations only furthers this point, only justifies further pushback. How else then do we advance ourselves forward? Why stand accepting of regression with overwhelming proof justifying our progressive stance, should we remain subjugated, hopeless, powerless? It all follows that people will establish their own power through the only means left to them.
There is no better vent for frustration than action.
When the decisive moment comes, all is tested.
Time dictates all.
Коментари