Royalty Mirrored

Yet another blog/article about the British Royal Wedding....but with a different perspective.

It seems that people are starkly divided: they either hate the ostentatious reckless spending or they are adoring the luxuriousness of it all.  Some people have asked, "how can they be so insensitive to proudly display their excesses in a world suffering from constant deprivation?"  To be honest, I am sympathetic to this sentiment, but I am concerned about suffering whether there is a show of indulgence or not.  There really is no need for this kind of deprivation.  There will always be natural phenomenon that threaten our survival, but most of what threatens people these days is human-created, and that means we can fix them.

So, in light of the fact that these problems can be fixed, but are not, and the fact that many people are supposedly captivated by this Royal Wedding (although I'm suspicious of how interested people are because no one around me seems to give a damn), what could account for that interest?  Is it truly a simple dichotomy of either you are interested because the suffering of others has no meaning to you or you are not interested because you care about others?

I think the issue is more complex than that.  A lot of people feel the world is full of suffering and they just don't want to be exposed to it more than they are because they feel powerless to do something to rectify it.  For example, if their friend were in danger or hungry, they would run to assist, but when the problem is structural, they see no way of alleviating that problem.  They are sympathetic to the suffering of people around the world, but they cannot find a means of fixing that problem so they want to turn their attention to events that are celebratory.

It got me thinking, why do people care about anyone's luxurious life.  Why does the general public care at all about the lives of the rich and famous when they do not share in it?  In fact, why is there not offense taken at these few living it up on their backs and apparently enjoying every minute of it?

Perhaps the answer lies in the concept of the "mirror neurons."  In the same way that a sense of sympathy and despair is invoked while seeing videos of children starving to death, perhaps there is a similar (although opposite) reaction when watching those who are pampered from abundance.  There is an intellectual understanding that their lives are different, but for a moment, there is mirroring of the feeling of being lavishly cared for.  Since the poor will most likely never directly experience those riches, they experience them vicariously, and that's really the best they can afford.  

Note to Peter Joseph

Peter,

I’m sorry you were hurt and I hope you take the time to recover emotionally.  Also, I know you are constantly pulled in many directions and your exhaustion is apparent.  I urge you to take the time you need: for rest, recreation, and socializing in ease.  You need to laugh again, spend some time in nature, and just live peacefully for awhile.

The Zeitgeist Movement is a resource for people to be disabused of prevailing indoctrination.  It is not about imposing a point of view, instead it’s about letting nature flourish.  The ZM debates a lot about “human nature” and works to provide evidence that we’re not all nasty, exploitative, and competitive by nature.  The main theme is that if we release ourselves from the artificially created (and dehumanizing) economic system, which sets person against person, we will allow our natural inclinations of collaboration and trust to come forward.  The result will be a better society for all of us. 

The harder part for us, is our tendency to think small.  We think of our individual selves, and possibly an extension of that, our families.  Education—and I’m not talking about just the formal kind—help us move beyond those limitations of perspective.  Education can take many forms, from films to one-on-one talks.  The VP believes that a film is the best way to go.  In its purported goal of using science to make decisions, has the VP found this to be a scientifically substantiated “best use” of resources?  To show a society that is free of money in which humans contribute in ways they care about and have talents for is a great vision to present to the public.  And it’s been done before in a "dressed up" fiction.  That work is well-known under the name of Star Trek. 

I understand the other goal of wanting to express one’s creative vision.  This is important, and I believe it is why you, Peter, made your films using funds you could generate.  It has been helpful and meaningful.  Now, if you had 50 billion at your disposal, would you use it for another film (your creative expression) or for something more influential in scope?  If that project was something you didn’t have the talent to direct/organize, would you give the resources to that other effort, knowing that it will help humanity on a larger scale than your presumed project?

I believe the answer is yes, and I’m glad to infer this on your behalf.  The VP has decided otherwise.  The VP has been useful in suggesting technical solutions and challenging entrenched thinking.  For this, it has been and will be appreciated. It's always a great idea to be disabused, since we all undergo so many years of abuse.  The VP wants to represent their organization in a particular way and be the center of their creative projects.  I understand this desire, although I think it lacks a sense of the larger perspective.  Perhaps that will always be a recurring limitation of our minds, and that’s exactly why we need each other to inform us (in an environment of trust) when our perspectives are embolized. Thanks for contributing to that effort!

Charity

I read a comment recently that basically said we can't force people to be charitable to the "less-fortunate." In other words, charity must come from the kindness in their hearts.  This comment was made in the context of workers being stripped of benefits, but it really applies to the idea of social welfare as a whole.  The thinking goes something like this, "I worked hard and earned all my wealth, so if I want to share it, I can, but if I don't, no one will force me.  Forcing me is dictatorship!"


The rich have a peculiar atmosphere of their own. However cultured, unobtrusive, ancient and polished, the rich have an impenetrable and assured aloofness, that inviolable certainty and hardness that is difficult to break down. They are not the possessors of wealth, but are possessed by wealth, which is worse than death. Their conceit is philanthropy; they think they are trustees of their wealth; they have charities, create endowments; they are the makers, the builders, the givers. They build churches, temples, but their god is the god of their gold. With so much poverty and degradation, one must have a very thick skin to be rich. --J.Krishnamurti


This thinking reminded me of the quote above.  If you treat me ruthlessly as "your" worker for years on end, but then you give a dollar a day to a starving child in Africa, have you then acquired--yes, I mean acquired--the label of charitable?  If charity were truly in your heart, would you have brought about a system in which your worker was exploited to begin with?  Wouldn't you have made a society in which charity didn't get selectively applied to those of your choosing?  You, the god, have "chosen ones" to bestow your charity on.  But, you are always at a safe distance, forever being careful not to truly jeopardize your own lot in life.  This is not charity, it is self-aggrandizement.  Having acquired so much in monetary power, you turn to other acquisitive challenges: fame, respectability, admiration (social power).


The other problem has to do with depth of perception.  You realize that workers work for you because they need money.  It's not out of responsibility to help you, which is why you feel justified in not helping them.  The reality is that these workers take low wages because that is the best that they can get considering their circumstances.  They take jobs with few vacation days, long hours, and barely enough pay because that is their best option.  Isn't that a form of social welfare for you?  You get access to an abundant supply of cheap labor.  The economic system supports this social welfare program for you. So, the problem isn't with social welfare, it's just the fact that you want to be the only recipient of it.  Why should you have this benefit?  Why do you get to pay workers less than what is needed to live comfortably?  Because they have no real choice?


It is true that someone can quit and work at another low wage job, but how is that helpful?  If money is needed to "earn a living," then how free are we really?  So, even though you don't want to be forced to share your resources/wealth, you don't mind forcing others to be deprived of it.  


If you were truly charitable, there would be no reason to force people to share their wealth because deprivation would have been solved already.  You would not be complicit in a system that treats people as commodities.  You didn't pay your mom $4 for a gallon of breast milk when you were an infant nor did you force her to provide it.  She did so, naturally.  In the same vein, why don't you make sure that I have access to what nourishes me so that I become a healthy, happy, and balanced contributor to society?  Is it because you just don't really care?