Sports, Death, and Justice

As a sports-like wave of excitement makes its way around the American Stadium, many people are getting carried away in that wave.  There are a few deeper discussions about the meaning of Osama Bin Laden's death disrupting the flow of that wave, which is a healthy sign.  One of the radio programs I heard yesterday tackled the issue of "should we be celebrating someone's death so joyfully?"  The caller felt disgusted that people were having a party because someone was shot dead (not to mention the fact that a woman was used as a "human shield").  The host rejoined that people weren't so much celebrating Osama's death as they were a sense of justice served.

He was pointing to the fact that people have a hard-wired sense of fairness and since so many loved ones were killed on September 11th, it makes sense for people to congregate in this communally expressed feeling of justice: "He got what he deserved!"

Unfortunately, there was no examination of what it means to have justice.  While there are many studies to support the finding that people do have a sense of innate fairness (people make all kinds of irrational decisions to ensure fairness, at their own expense), an issue like this is far more complicated than the well-planned parameters of a psychological experiment.

When the twin towers came down I was living abroad and the newswire was full of information about the collapse, but there was not the same patriotic rhetoric that Americans were exposed to.  It was publicized that some groups around the world were jubilant about the 9-11 attacks.  Why were they excited by such tragic news?  Not because they were thinking about the "loved ones" that had died, but because they felt that the impenetrable giant called the United States became vulnerable.  The almighty US was targeted and successfully attacked by a small group with relatively scant resources.  There was a sense of justice that America finally had to pay the price for its indulgences and exploitation, and they were happy about it.  Sound familiar?  Even countries that publicly stood united with the US, had citizens that felt that America got what was coming.

The fact that "justice" has become uncoupled from the real human lives lost is a symptom of the breakdown in our thinking.  Is it fair that so much "collateral damage" has been incurred at the pursuit of justice?  That kind of question just mucks things up, doesn't it?  But, it is part of the circumstances. With each side--and there are many!--striving to serve justice, we end up with more and more casualties.  And the spectators, just like in sports matches, take a sense of pride when their "team" wins a match.  Americans are celebrating their collective achievement.  The other team is diminished in reputation, in spirit, and in this case, in actual numbers.  Hillary Clinton said with a lioness determination, "We will not be defeated."  And the game we play goes on and on and on.

It's "their turn" now.

And that's what some people felt.  They were scared because retribution seemed inevitable.  Police were on alert and people worried that another attack may come.  And in a game where all of the people represent the "opponent," any one of us could be the next target.  Putting our own personal lives on the line raises the stakes of this game and it becomes much less fun to play!  If my family gets blown up in this game of Justice, is that still worth it?  Do I really hate the opponent that much?  Who is he/she anyway?  Hmm......  Oh yes, it's Bin Laden.  He is The Terrorist, the true threat.  But, if he's dead, then what am I afraid of?

The threat is not in any individual person, but in this seeking of justice through killing.  And further, it's in this idea of justice.  Where did the injustice really begin? Why did some people feel glad that America got attacked?  Why do any terrorist or violent groups retaliate against the more powerful enemy? Perhaps that is the clue.....the more powerful enemy.  The reality that there is an imbalance of power may be the beginning of the injustice.  The reality that this power imbalance is used to exploit others at the powerful's gaining of more power is the point at which the seeds of "justice seeking" begin germinating, and that's exactly what those psychological experiments point out.  Again, we may be hard-wired for fairness, but it is only when the circumstance fertilizes the seeds of injustice that justice seeking begins.  This understanding makes the scope of justice so broad, complex, and dynamic that we prefer to just go on killing each other.  That's much easier than reflecting on it.

My neighbor is my compatriot today.  We are hooting and hollering in the streets.  But, when he runs over my garden patch tomorrow in his big gas-guzzling, fume-spewing truck tomorrow, I'll get him!  I'll slash his tires, key his car, and that'll show him!!!  How easily we switch sides.

To really create justice for ourselves, not just perceived immediate justice, we must create a just world.  We must look at the whole dynamic and our part in it.  Relationships as small as those we have with other individuals up to those we have with other nations must be viewed as part of a larger dynamic that generates the world we have today.  And if that's too much for you to think about, then at least center yourself in compassion.  From there, you will create healthy relationships and as a result, a healthy world will emerge.

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?

Zday 2011 Orange County Long Beach

With about 20 people in attendance at the comfortable and tranquil Avia Hotel in Long Beach, we had plenty of delicious snacks and great discussion.  Thanks go to Mico for securing the venue for us.  I was so pleased that the group felt welcome to participate and share their perspectives.

Originally, I had extracted 25 minutes (in 1 to 3 minute segments) of video from ZMF to use as discussion points.  There are so many research findings shared in the film, but while watching, one doesn't have the time to explore them in more depth.  This was the occasion for that exploration.  In fact, we only made it through 13 minutes of film in nearly three hours!

We took a few moments at the end of the evening to share what we would all do if we weren't forced into wage slavery, and it was great to hear how each person would share his/her individual talents to contribute to society. 

With a nascent movement like this, it is not difficult to find yourself feeling alone in wanting to create the change that is called for in a resource-based economy.  To discuss these topics in more detail with people who already feel compelled to create that change makes for a friendly environment of peers.

Thanks to all those who attended and helped make this event a great one!

Another Example of Profit Totalitarianism

If only we had enough "incentive" to harness renewable energy sources!  This radio program discusses technologies that have been around for some time, but the lack of incentive has stifled their use.  It's too bad that the incentive of having cleaner air and reduced global C2 emissions aren't enough.  Not in a profit model.  Ho-hum, we humans can be so dumb.

Instead of seeing the nature of the profit machine and how it obstructs innovation and adoption of technologies--across all sectors--that have the potential to improve our well-being, we put teams together to come up with clever ways of creating a profit incentive from these technologies.  Even those at the top of economic food chain still have to breathe dirty air and they cannot escape climate change.

http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2011/03/08/harnessing-elusive-energy-oceans-to-autos/

Defending Against Shame

I think it's useful to research criticisms of a Resource-Based Economy (RBE). However, I think it's important not to lose focus on the larger picture of dealing with the source of the innumerable ways that suffering is manifested in our current socio-economic system.  People focus so much on the content of particular arguments (will I have my violent video games?) that they lose sight of motive and the reasons for that motive. 


Consciously or unconsciously we refuse to see the essentiality of being passively aware because we do not really want to let go of our problems; for what would we be without them? We would rather cling to something we know, however painful, than risk the pursuit of something that may lead who knows where. With the problems, at least, we are familiar; but the thought of pursuing the maker of them, not knowing where it may lead, creates in us fear and dullness. --J.K.


The monetary-market system is so pervasive--worldwide--that we can barely tolerate questioning it.  After all, how is it possible that this system could be wrong if it is so pervasive?  We see the same kind of thinking in terms of religion.  If it's a belief-system with many followers, it is called religion.  Few followers? A cult.  The deference we pay to religion while we vilify cults makes clear the way we subjugate our thinking by perceived authority.  The subtle, perhaps unconscious, implication is that what I've believed for so long was an untruth.  How could I (so clever and wise) have been so easily mislead?  To put it bluntly, "are you calling me an idiot for having fallen into this system hook, line, and sinker?"  Ohhhh, the self-shame.


We must be aware of this tendency when talking about the merits of a RBE.  Are the questions and criticisms sincere in their interest to find out how things could function for our collective benefit in a new system, whether you call it a RBE or not?  Do we have the interest in even giving it a try or do we prefer the old system with its familiar patterns of destruction?  At what point do we get so fed up with these recurring problems that we say "enough is enough! let's try something else!"  


If we had a new society to design and I proposed a system in which 30% of the world's people would go hungry, even more would have no access to medical care, and nearly all would be abused endlessly (with little recourse) in their work, do you think that would be a system we would hastily implement? It would be torn to shreds and thrown off the table as a suggestion. Yet, that's the system we have now. It meets only some of our needs. It offers abundance for just some people, and if we are so narrow-minded that we only include them in our calculation then we can come up with millions of reasons to support it. Inequality is not a concept, it is reality.  The system we have today encourages this stratification and conflict.  It engenders competition, not cooperation.


Some may argue that human society as a whole has no meaning in a cosmic sense and that a sort of "kill or be killed" model seems to be the natural order of things. That's a nice abstract argument, and it's true. It lacks authenticity though. It lacks any compassion. We no longer live in a society of "kill or be killed" and we wouldn't really embrace that change. If we truly wanted to organize society by these principles then might would be right.  If I wanted your stuff, I could kill you to have it.  Why not use "the visible fist" to regulate our economy?  Supply and demand would be determined by how much we could conquer another to make what we needed.  The doctor would have to mend my broken arm if she didn't want me to shoot her.  Then again, she could give me some "medicine" which got rid of the threat.  Oh that's right, we had a system somewhat resembling this in history.  People learned of the benefits of cooperation in creating a society that met many people's needs simultaneously.  Now, it's time to make another jump in cooperation.  That jump could lead us to a RBE.  Two hundred years ago, slave owners would have been outraged to think of an economy that didn't operate on forced labor.  Today, such a slave economy would be considered indefensible.  And someday, wage slavery will carry the same feeling of disgust.


When I witness people vehemently attacking the Zeitgeist Movement or resource-based economy, it becomes clear to me that there is a deep sense of fear, and generally, a desensitization to the current suffering.  Instead of arguing about the understandings of the ZM, it would be more fruitful to attend to the emotional issues that are obstructing sincere inquiry.  We all fall victim to conditioning.  The shame isn't in having been conditioned, but in insisting on preserving it.