When is change a good thing? Is change ever a good thing?
You may as well ask:
“When am I a good thing? Am I ever a good thing?”
And it all depends, you see, upon your point of view.
I observe. This, above all, is what I do.
Being as this is what I do, above all, I have become very good at it.
I notice things. In fact there is very little I don’t notice. Not much point in observing, is there, if you’re going to not notice things?
Here is something I notice…
There are infinite ways of looking at anything. Infinite viewpoints. That you may not know that this is so, does not make it so. Or not so. And so, having sown mystery, I will enlarge upon this theme. But not too much, lest the mystery become so deep as to be completely unfathomable.
In not enlarging too much, I will reduce infinity to only two basic points of view. This, for the sake of clarity and ease of grasping. To conveniently put the one simple thing against the other simple thing, for the sake of simplicity. Left compared to right, shall we say?
The one sees it thus:
Itself as the center. Around which all else revolves. Itself being served by all else, at all times. All else existing so that itself may be served by all else.
Being the center, around which all else revolves, it interests itself in controlling all else so that all else is arranged in a way that suits itself, and that is to its specification.
Whereas the other one sees it thus:
Itself as an adjunct on the periphery of all else, around which itself revolves. It explores all else, in order to discover how it may fit itself into all else, so that it may survive amid all else, while not incurring the wrath of all else, by harming or hindering all else in some way.
The one wishes for all else to fit into itself.
Whereas the other wishes to fit itself into all else.
These two points of view are as opposite from each other as it is possible to get, and we consider them because they are the extremes that they are. Different. Fundamentally so. Which then, is the right view, and which the wrong?
Possibly neither is right, and neither wrong.
Whereas one is certainly more realistically attainable than the other.
One can never be the be-all-and-end-all of all else, no matter how much one might wish to be.
While one may certainly be a part of all else, even when one does not specifically wish to be.
Life is. With or without oneself, there is life.
When one dies, life itself does not die with one.
Although there are those who may as well come right out and claim that this is so.
Which doesn’t make much sense.
It makes more sense to admit that all else continues, no matter what happens to oneself, because experience shows that while many have died, across the centuries, the universe and all it contains keeps right on trucking.
So when is a viewpoint not a viewpoint?
Perhaps it is not for me to say. But if it were, I might say this:
“It is not a viewpoint to state that I exist within the universe. It is an observable fact. It is also observable to state that should I cease to live, the universe will barely notice. Therefore it must be true that my existence is not the purpose of the universe.”
And when is a viewpoint no more than a viewpoint?
I don’t really know: I don’t have such things. But if I did, I might say this:
“I have a right to anything I decide I have a right to, and all else is no more than a manifestation of my will. This is so, because I say so. And it is all about me.”
There are those who can see this, and those who can not.
Left and Right, Right and Left.
Life is about neither one, when taken as a whole.
Like binocular vision: it is the two that give the knowing of depth and reality, human-style.
One eye may be better than the other, and almost certainly better than none, but the truth lies somewhere between the two.
45 queries. 1.043 seconds
Great article. Most people seem to think their presence holds the universe together, when in fact we’re all just bricks in the wall.
It’s a certain arrogance that makes me long for older forms of unity, like culture and religion. Under those, we all saw ourselves as part of something, but it was bigger than us.
When we make an empire of our own wishes, desires, judgments and feelings, we create a projection of reality on top of reality itself. It’s not surprising that we frequently find unexpected results.
Well put, and thank you.
Strangely I am not religious, but religion is as good as it gets for most people, whether they know it, or not.
I see paradox everywhere I look:
To feed oneself, one must tend the external. In turn, the external feeds the internal. Birds of the sky, beasts of the field…
Storing up a pile of goods never did anyone any good, yet we, on the whole, still seem to think it will.
We’ve made a weird false reality out of our own social society. There’s the external world as it is, and then there’s the world of shared human desires, feelings, judgments, abstractions and deconstructions. Those aren’t reality, but we pretend it is so.
Can you elaborate more on the idea that you are not religious? Many would see many of your writings here as tending toward a religious angle.
Well. I don’t see “God” as a personality, a person, a being, or as any discrete thing. God is. That’s all one can say. And the mystery of this serves to give a useful perspective on life.
Religions mostly sell God as an all-seeing judge. Thus I am not religious.
I even subscribe to the notion of “The Gods”, in that It is They, is Everything, is Everywhere, is Always.
Humans love to explain everything / have everything explained to them. Religion explains. This crow reveres the inexplicable, and finds inexplicability to be far more awesome than the explainable.
That’s ‘awesome’ in its original usage (:>
I like to think about these kinds of dimensions. I know families and other groups that see themselves as the unit the neighborhood should work around, and I know people who don’t give their opinion much because that’s just words to them, and what’s actually happening is all that matters to them.
I think that I might be one of those self-referential types even though I know full well that when I inquire after my own opinions they lead no-where. It’s just difficult for me to join with groups in their mores and their ways. But then, after my self-centered journey collapses in on itself I turn to Reality as it smacks me in the face, and i’m better off for it.
Opinions are what people have when they know very little about their subject. Experience, and close observation, followed by contemplation, serves far better than any opinion ever did.
The only verifiable truth is the one lived-in.
Better to venture forth and find a definitive answer than hover in indecision, it seems to me. Even if going out and encountering failure seems bad, it’s at least an answer. It’s how scientists view failed experiments and how I think we should view life.
Why would you want to put yourself first over the great things in life? Thats like seeing a dog turd and a piece of gold on the ground and picking up the turd. Gold has so much more going for it. I sometimes think about what I could strip away from my life and still be content. My ‘self’ would be nothing without the most important things like health, culture, others I care for and environment I live in. A human is just another list of genes untill it interacts and grows with its environment.
I think this may be a failure related to the corruption of Christianity.
Christianity originally suggested humans, as individuals, had the potential of “everlasting life” or knowing divinity, and so each of us are infinitely important in this sense – as eternal souls. Prior and just as important to this doctrine was the inherent flaw, or original sin, of humans.
The modern world kept the “individual is infinitely important” – even elevating it to “the individual is God”, but threw out the sin part – so now we are each infinitely important plus do not need to work or humble ourselves towards perfection, being born such. It is an unusual modern doctrine that doesn’t seem to have existed prior in history.
Potential, yes. That and nothing more.
No soul lives forever, if it is sold for momentary gratification.
Your comment reminded me of this article: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/08/are-raising-generation-deluded-narcissists/
Deluded individuals are claiming for themselves the title of “God” more than ever at the same time the US is in its closest to collapse. I’m sure a future religious writer will attribute this fall to God’s will being done due to this sin against God. Interesting they also deny the existence of sin!
I can’t help but think this philosophy of the individual being God has probably happened before in the world, to some civilization that died off and got lost. If the individual is God, then all great contributions must be to “me alone” and it’s like masturbation or like “why try for anyone else,” which is impotence.
It’s January and it’s time for volunteer registration in the charitable efforts around town. Churches are starting to beef up their membership roles again. What cause do I want to be a part of and why do I care? Maybe I ought to stop thinking about myself so much.
Most modern charity is a corruption. First world problems are laziness and excess of luxury, not poverty. Subsidizing the birth of additional “poor” people who receive food stamps and go home to their government subsidized housing to watch TV instead of working is not a good thing.
Remember the parable of the Tower of Babel?