[Mb-civic] ...

[Ian]

"Its sad - so sad.  It's a sad, sad situation.  And it's getting more and more absurd."  (Elton John, "Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word".)

The increasingly Huxleyan, Orwellian and general surreality of U.S. politics (and, in many respects, the world as a whole) is almost numbing in its continued lemming-like march to the cliff.

We often speak about the "forces" that created and/or maintain this, chief among them: "politics," and the corruption that accompanies it vis-a-vis money and power; "economics," and the control wileded by "big business" over both politics and natural resources; "education," and the fact that our educational system, although it has some merits, is largely focused on creating a carefully (if subtly) controlled consumerist workforce; "the media," vis-a-vis both its increasing partisanship - which is anathema to its purpose - and its co-opting of the airwaves, which belong to the public; and "religion," especially organized religion vis-a-vis both its own internal corruption and its unholy alliance with politics.  These might be called the "big five," though there are certainly others.

However, I am coming to believe that this argument - that our world is "going to hell in a handbasket" due mostly to politics, economics, education, media and religion - is a specious one, and that we are letting the most important factor go by with impunity.

I am speaking of the "individual."

Because, ultimately, none of these five factors (with the possible exception of education) would have any power at all if individuals refused to be controlled by them.  True, these five factors begin affecting the individual earlier and earlier in life: education is first, of course, though this need not (and in fact does not) have its "desired" effect until much later; the media is probably second, especially as TV became the de facto "babysitter"; then politics and economics, as individuals become aware of them.  (Religion has its own place, since that may be introduced even earlier than education.  In this regard, the "spiritual" health of an individual is determined by the way in which they are brought up in their family's faith, which, in turn, is determined by the understanding the parents have of whatever faith they practice.)

In my opinion, it is largely (though certainly not solely) the abrogation of responsibility by parents that is exacerbating the problem.  This, coupled with an almost complete lack of the four "lost" "analytical" processes - logic, common sense, presence of mind, and discernment - go a very long way to allowing the "big five" forces of politics, economics, education, media and religion to maintain their ever-tightening control of the individual.

So, as we rail against those forces - and plot their demise, or even their dimunition, through elections, political action and protest, and other "broad-based" methods - we need to consider that we may be fighting the wrong fight, and misplacing our time and energy.

Because we all know (though we like to couch it in optimistic and self-serving terms) that it is extremely unlikely that we, "the people," will be able to effect any change "from the top down"; i.e., that we will "defeat," or even "harm," the "big five" and their hold on almost everything.

No, if change is going to be effected, it can only occur if we devote our energies to changing individuals, through "re-education" and example.  Clearly, this is not easy, since most people are so "brainwashed" that "getting through" will be next to impossible.  And even if we can change them, this process will unquestionably take time - maybe more time than we have; i.e., we may be at the point of diminishing returns no matter how many people we are able to re-educate and change.

However, unlike the self-deluding optimism inherent in believing that we can effect change from the top, the optimism inherent in the belief that we can change an individual is one that can, and does, bear fruit - if we approach them patiently, lovingly, humbly, and without rancor or superiority.  Even if we affect only one of every ten - one of every twenty, fifty, one hundred - people we approach, that is a better percentage than railing against forces we have little or no hope of changing no matter how long we try, and would certainly be a better use of our time and energy.

I am not suggesting that political protest, elections, etc. do not have their place, or should be curtailed.  Rather, I am suggesting that they are not the best use of our time and energy here on earth if we expect - or even just want - to effect any real change.  It is only through re-educating the individual that any change - any meaningful change - will ever be made, and have a real chance of "going up the laddder" to affect the controlling forces.

Finally, I am aware that this argument is somewhat simplistic, and that I have missed other factors and considerations.  And I certainly expect comments, criticisms, etc.  However, I believe it is the "crux of the biscuit," and that the basic, underlying argument is sound, and should stand up to any reasoned criticism.

Peace.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20041103/9317df6a/attachment.htm