Dogmatically held beliefs of all sorts have variously
seduced humans into inhumanity for millennia.
We sit in what many would describe as a pinnacle of technological
evolution despite the evidence that we're actually, on a larger scale,
regressing into ethnocentric bigotry. We
celebrate our achievements of digital communications and virtual reality
failing to observe that, from a certain perspective, we're regressing into animistic
paganism where we pay obeisance to that which can be plugged in and has a
keypad or touch screen forgoing actual human engagement and interaction. If information cannot be found within the
first two pages of a Google search, it doesn't exist. "I tried to find him online but
couldn't," I recently heard a person state. As though the physical presence of a person -
absent a virtual persona - is somehow less a person.
In the May 2014 Vanity
Fair, Editor Graydon Carter (one of my favorite writers) took on the story
of Edward Snowden with a team of journalists.
In their story, "The Snowden Saga: A Shadowland of Secrets and
Light", they detail the interplay between the former Dell and Booz Allen
Hamilton employee, The Guardian (and
other media outlets), and the governments who insist that their opaque
intrusions are justified. On more than
one occasion, according to the reporting, Snowden and those around him, were
faced with decisions that were cast as potentially jeopardizing their lives. The cavalier nature of threatened
assassination as a means of message control, whether real or perceived in this
case, would suggest that the central organizing narrative is incapable of
standing on its own. If shown for all
its costs and benefits, apparently "the system" is incapable of
weathering accountability and scrutiny.
Somehow the "30 or 40" files that represent a catastrophic
risk to "national security" are so vital that they threaten the very
foundations of what is purported to be one of humanity's most celebrated
experiments. Spoiler alert: what they
most likely threaten is the anonymity of corporations and individuals (who are
most likely named in said files) who have become enriched at the expense of a
public who would find their complicity unpalatable (for more information on
this, read Hank Crumpton's memoirs The Art of Intelligence: Lessons from a Life in the CIA's Clandestine Service).
This week, I was fortunate to engage in dialogue with people
as varied as an NBA superstar and a senior executive at the World Bank. I marveled at how many of these amazing,
accomplished people, at one point either at the zenith of their life or at
least seeing it within reach, now sat on the bench watching a suboptimal life
play out. Far from run-of-the-mill
monotony, these people influenced millions and yet, in the moment struggled to
see how to make a difference at the same intensity that they brought to their
'game'. In each conversation the
dissonance between a world that was perceived to be possible and 'reality' was
the source of resignation and looming futility.
And in a world of clandestine carnage - where life is thoughtlessly
extinguished for opaque interests - I understand the expedient emotional
fatigue that could lurk in the minds of those who are lucky enough to discern the
madness.
But at the same time, I wonder if the reason why we're so
dismissive of life is that few of us are actually living? Seriously.
When we wake up in the morning, are we animated into relentless pursuit
of purpose or do we begrudgingly stare into another monotonous day seeking to
fulfill Maslow's pedantic isosceles aspiration?
If "making a living" or "surviving" enter into one's
consciousness, is it possible that we wouldn't recognize the former if it bit
us in the face and we're actually slowly killing our vitality in the
latter? Is the luxury of narcissistic
drama a mark of 'civilization' or is it the evidence of devolution?
Life is an analog proposition. It involves complexity that defies digital
representation. Our keystrokes and
finger-swipes across conductive silicon are less artistic than the stylus
pressed into soft clay that bore the cuneiform advocating tolerance and
reverence for the explained and unexplained.
Our social organization - from regent patronage to limited liability corporations
- has resulted in the hybridization of our species into far too many laborers
and far too few enlivened, vital manifesters.
We're missing the mutations - the wild types - that actually move from
prehensile tails alone to the fascinating utility of thumbs. And when the wild types emerge, our consensus
indoctrination tells us to warn them of their imminent extermination if they
don't fall into line. "Is it worth
dying for?", is the ominous warning.
My life is evidence of the fallacy of this question. I've been warned that challenging corporate
tax and accounting fraud, treasonous acts by elected officials, unsustainable
monetary systems, colonial tyranny and suppression, all run the risk of
jeopardizing "life". However,
I know that far from threatening my existence, they have enriched not only my
life but the lives of countless others who see the value of their own
'mutations' from the mechanized consensus.
You see, truly living cannot cost you your life and pretending that it
takes some sort of 'super-human' dispensation to 'transcend' fear and
oppression is part of the tyranny of suppression. I love being a person who is learning how to
fully live. And, when age, aggressor, or
accident punctuates my life, I'll know that "worth living" was the
only motivation I needed.
.jpg)
Dave,
ReplyDeleteTo the extent that I understand your posting, I resonate with much of what you said.
Dad