A lot of people become enraged -- at learning that the world keeps getting better -- despite all their efforts to make it worse. And why should they want it to become worse? Surely it is a sickness to have this desire -- yet a few do -- in the mistaken impression that if the rest of the world gets dragged down, it might elevate their own status in the world, or that a world in distress, needs them more. In any case, it is not seeing themselves as part of the world -- but as opposed to the world and apart from it. It takes deliberate conditioning to see the world in that way -- because there is nothing natural about it; in fact, it has to be the most unnatural way of seeing one's relationship to the rest of the world -- alienated and isolated, in perpetual struggle against everything and everyone else in the world, for surely, life has evolved because of everything/everyone else in this world. Life would not be possible otherwise.
It's hopeless to argue that point with anyone disposed to seeing things that way. Despite modern medicine, despite all the institutions of public safety and well-being, despite all the technologies of amusement and sustenance, they will insist that "nobody ever gave them nothing" -- not even the welfare check they were born entitled to. One hopes that such people conveniently segregate themselves in some isolated outback -- but occasionally, they don't and instead hope to subjugate the productive majority -- in thinking that, we must be stupid if we're nice to them, as they can only conceive of the magnanimity of another as being yet proof of their own superiority -- and their own just desserts. Of course we're speaking of the pathological personalities.
As a general rule, the most civilized and refined cannot hope to contend with the most ruthless and barbaric -- which doesn't mean that all is lost. The slightly more civilized and refined of the ruthless and barbaric, can easily overcome the most ruthless and barbaric -- because they operate in virtually the same range of ruthlessness and barbarity while having the added qualities of civility and refinement. In this same way, the most intelligent is not effective at communicating with the most imbecilic -- but a slightly more intelligent imbecile, can effectively reach the least mentally capable. The effective range of most communications is ten percent of the population -- but that ten percent will be an overlapping range of ten percents, and not an identical, mutually exclusive set. That is the wisdom of the interdependence of any population -- how everyone can be communicated with but not necessarily by the same person as effectively. With some, there is no communication overlap and most attempts to do so will result in frustration, disappointment and anger. One is better off finding the one who is effective in making that communication, if any -- or letting it happen by default to the will of the greater collective consciousness, of which nobody is exclusively in charge -- or knows precisely, exactly what is going on but which works its way out in some mysterious fashion. That is the value of diversity in populations -- when understood properly. Just to cultivate diversity so nobody can understand one another is a misunderstanding and misapplication of its value. There are differences; we don't have to manufacture differences -- just for argument's sake. That is not productive. There is no weakness in people seeing things agreeably -- no loss of self, dignity, worth. It is okay not to argue over everything; life can still be fun, triumphant, exciting, meaningful -- without the arguments, the ruthless struggle for supremacy and dominance.
One wonders where these people get the notion that it is contention and competition that produces anything of value in society. Of course work only gets done when there is cooperation and coordination -- and not when all energies are consumed in determining who is the boss. However, in a few dysfunctional subcultures, that is the only effort being made. Eventually, the other participants become annoyed and no longer show up. Why waste the time? .In any event, no wealth can be built up for fear that once it is evident, it can be attacked, taken from one. The very notion of "private property" may often be attacked -- which legitimizes the taking or destruction of that property by others. "All private property is theft," they may rationalize, justifying their own theft. How do you deal with people like that? You locate the person who is just slightly more honest, slightly more honorable. They're operating on nearly the same level -- but not exactly. One has a greater sense of justice and fairness.
So can anyone solve all the world's problems? -- but in greater probability, somebody can, not necessarily the same person for all problems. Only in a democracy though, does the possibility of the right person coming to the forefront in solving a particular problem exist. In a rigidly fixed social hierarchy, the same people, whether qualified or not, make all the decisions, solve all the problems -- whether they actually "solve" them or not. Many problems are the result of bad solutions taken to their logical conclusions. Some "solutions" create bigger problems infinitely -- until one day, someone might ask, "Does the way we think it has to be done -- really have to be done?" -- or have we just convinced ourselves of that by immediately dismissing all other possibilities? There are in fact schools of thought that believe the whole purpose of human societies is to infinitely create more work -- as an end in itself, losing the meaning of work as a means to accomplish/fulfill certain tasks, attain certain specific objectives. And in this way, "work" becomes meaningless, an endless, pointless drudgery that they continue at because they don't want to lose all their benefits and seniority -- and begin life all over in a new way (as though that was the worst thing that could happen). Just the thought of that possibility may cause them to find fresh vitality in the old rationalizations -- and keep them going for another while longer, hoping to defer change to the afterlife and/or the next generation. And so these "traditions" get passed down from one generation to the next, with everyone acquiescing that it's always been done this way (even if nobody knows a good reason why).
But because of the aforementioned wisdom of diversity, a few will ask, "Why?" They will certainly not be everybody or a majority -- which may be the first powerful argument discouraging such an attitude. The status quo may at this point even hastily suggest that such a notion be put to a vote -- quickly circumventing the momentum for alternatives by tapping the natural resistance to real change by the larger body of uninformed participants that are vulnerable to the manipulations and deceptions of those protecting vested interests in the present course of things. That is not surprising; what is remarkable is the vehemence and conviction of those who have no advantage in the present system -- to instinctively defend the status quo viciously and ruthlessly, in the hope that in doing so, whatever advantages they covet under the present system, will accrue to them by this show of loyalty. In this way, many fields are sustained by the 99% of those who have no rewards or are marginally rewarded in the thinking that one day, they could be in the 1% of superstars that exploit the other 99%.
Yet these struggles, these competitions, these arguments consume so much of contemporary civilization that many ask what life would be like without these drains on societal manpower. Is the stress necessary or even desirable? Is it the best motivator? And for much of human history, that is what impelled us -- these needs, deficiencies, inadequacies, and lately, institutionalized senses of inferiority, that is, negative conditioning. Is it possible, one asks, to inspire people with positive incentives? Actually, if we examine human achievement throughout the ages, we would note that the really great breakthroughs are in these positive steps and ways -- never with compulsion, coercion, manipulation, deception, force and threats. So why does it make sense in our day to day living? The problem is boredom -- because of the great efficiencies now possible, which results in an appalling lack of meaning for those who can only be motivated by fear, punishment and dire necessities. These are not the motivations of the great inventors and innovators, those who provide for more than the present urgencies. The great innovators provide for surpluses beyond the present needs -- providing the reservoirs of supply beyond only the present needs not so all further motivation and effort ceases -- but to allow society to move beyond to higher levels of achievement, and not merely repeating the same old pattern of subsistence economies as though that were the be-all and end-all of human existence for time immemorial. That is the lack of meaning in existence -- causing some to clutch desperately to every hope for that meaning.
And so we have built up this entire industry promising to deliver this meaning, this fulfillment -- with the next purchase, the next cause, the next ideology, the next thrill. Lacking the resources to obtain them all, many grow increasingly disenchanted, disappointed, disaffected even while possessing more than a generation before would have even imagined possible. Outwardly and ostensibly, such people would seem to have everything they could ever require to live utterly happy lives of contentment and satisfaction -- yet it seems for many, the more they have, the more discontented, unsatisfied and unfulfilled they become. They want evermore -- and obtaining that, require evermore, oftentimes without even enjoying their newly gotten gains. Because the purpose, in their minds, is not the having but the getting; not the being but the doing.
Now in areas where millions of others don't have enough to eat sufficiently for a day, don't have the conditions that make life without torment possible for a single moment in a day, one can maybe understand these powerful needs that drive behaviors and every thought. Far too often however, we see/hear those who never have to give much thought to these matters expressing this discontent, dissatisfaction, disaffection -- with everything, as though it was their entitlement to have everything everybody else has in the world. No, not simply have what another person has -- but to have what everybody in the world collectively has -- and if not, they are "deprived," life and society has been cruelly unfair to him/her. For these, surely, the world is -- what we make of it. And to these, one says, with all that you have, if you have nothing else and better to do with your time, at least don't complain about how terrible the world is -- but rather, put a little positive energy into this world. If not you, than who do you expect it from? Of course, they always believe that everybody else has more than they do -- even if it is just one thing they don't have, which of course, is quite plausible in comparing oneself with any other.
It is this constant comparing that is the source of this dissatisfaction, discontent, disillusionment, disaffection with the world. Comparing one thing to another will always create the superior and the inferior -- but anything taken by itself, studied by itself, accepted for itself -- is whole and complete in and of itself. And that is the key to happiness in this world -- for anyone above a marginal subsistence in this world, for anyone with the time and energy to read these words. No, you are not "underprivileged" if somebody else in the world may be making more money than you do, is more famous than you, seems more confident and happy than you do, has all the things one thinks is necessary to be confident and happy in life. Confidence and happiness is simply accepting what is -- as it is. Yet that is what we never bother with, never do first.
In societies with the kind of abundance so characteristic of these tremendously productive capacities usually beginning with a wealth of natural resources, real need is seldom the issue. Far more likely is it that a problematical life is due to faulty priorities, bad selections, bad choices -- from among the bewildering diversity of choices. However, one still has to choose well -- and that is mostly a matter of perception and not the facts of one's existence. In managing those choices, on the same amount of money, one will live at the cutting edge of the 21st century, while another, will seem to be reviving the Stone Age within the limits of the most futuristic communities of contemporary civilization. Undoubtedly the consequences are very real, but what is frequently overlooked is that given all the possibilities of good and bad choices, some have a proclivity for consistently bad decision-making. Given even the most advanced tools and advantages, they will reduce it to rubble and destruction, time and time again.
On the other hand, there are certain types of individuals that no matter how handicapped and impoverished they may be, will actually create a viable life no matter how great the obstacles may seem to everyone else. Comparing one to the other is usually not helpful but instead produces more frustration, humiliation and resentment for the less fortunate. But one can learn a lesson from those who have this knack for making something out of nothing -- given exactly the same tools to work with, which is, the total resources created by humanity, up to this point. The great wealth is usually not personal wealth but the wealth available to everyone -- that which must exist for everyone, in order for it to be available to anyone. In these times, that is information -- and what we do with it.
Take, for an example, the Internet. Some will use it to develop a tremendous presence in the emerging world -- while others will ensure that they remain nobodies, embarrassed to be known, therefore limiting their ability to know. Information is a two-way street; one can get information only to the extent that one gives information. Without this exchange, the Internet is limited. One can not have a bank or brokerage account if one insists on remaining anonymous. One has to establish his identity to have an account. That's the obvious example. Less obvious are the many who express their opinions as "anonymous" posters. While it may provide them with the anonymity they desire to attack others with impunity, it ensures that they never become known for any good works/thoughts they have -- as a matter of record. And so they never develop a presence in the vast collective consciousness that is the World Wide Web -- ensuring that they will be unknown, anonymous, nobodies -- in the emerging global society. Meanwhile, another will have his complete archives completely credited to him -- on the world's ultimate publication! It's what one does, with what everybody has available to them. Some will build great wealth of resources; others will be no more than modern Vandals. They will add no value; they are entirely consumed with the destruction of anything of value. At their best, they will always detract from value. What they are doing with the Internet, is what they would do with any great resource; they waste it, abuse it, finally they lose it. They'd do the same with a public rest room or a drinking fountain; they'd destroy it.
Obviously, with such people, it would not matter how much you gave them, how much of an advantage you gave them -- if they were disposed in such counterproductive ways. And it would be wise instead to give as little as possible -- realizing that what was destroyed could be appreciated properly and better used by other less fortunate people. So why waste the resources, time and again? If one endlessly provides them for those bent on destruction, it is robbing others of these same resources -- those who would make what little one gave to them go a long way, perhaps even providing the foundation for gains beyond one's intent. And these people made productive, might even increase the amount of resources available to waste. Even in a world of plenty, we still have to allocate resources effectively, productively, discriminately -- for everybody's sake., as though the world depended upon it -- wise decision-making.
But in a world that allows no discriminations, one can't make better choices. To discriminate is not the same as being prejudiced. The discriminating person is actually the opposite of the prejudiced mind -- a mind that cannot make valid discriminations. That is why it is prejudiced; it already has its mind made up no matter what the facts are. The discriminating mind determines what is relevant, significant and valid; it does not pride itself on its prejudice -- it cannot tolerate prejudice. But it takes discrimination to see this difference. Without it, one is just a prejudiced mind following whatever it thinks is the fashion of the times, and so thinks that what is irrelevant is significant and valid -- until somebody tells him how he ought to think otherwise; and of course, he'll think that he came upon that manner of thinking on his own, after giving it weighty consideration, having consulted with his bible and the proper authorities. These "authorities" are likely to advise one to be prejudiced against having a discriminating mind -- a mind that can make discriminations, can see what is valid and not. They want to be your leaders; they will do your thinking for you. Just hand over your power. They will try to convince you that you are powerless without them. Of course you realize, it is they who are powerless without you. You have to make that discrimination, that distinction.
When information is the greatest resource and not the limitation, the world is a very different place than it has been historically. Some people think they own the turf -- or would like to. The peculiarity of information is that it is not a turf, not a tangible that can be fought over and possessed. It is the sharing of information that gives it its power -- and so the rules of the new game have to be learned, and even created, by everybody. Nobody owns the turf. The rules are defined by the creative -- those who create the metaphors by which we see/hear what was subconscious before. The creative power is unlimited -- but not everybody has it equally. The remarkable quality of the truly creative is that they are always creative. They do not repeat a pattern, do the same thing again. And that's why they can't be contended with; they never play the same game but are always metamorphosing a new one. That is the 21st century personality -- the truly creative person. That is what all these creative tools have made possible -- and now inevitable. This kind of creative beings require freedom -- and so by necessity evolve an environment that enables and empowers it. Societies almost never evolve into less free environments -- or they perish. The movement is always towards greater freedom -- which requires greater responsibility and accountability -- not less. The irresponsible are not free though they may have an illusion that they are. Those who are responsible to and for the world, are those who truly create the world. The irresponsible have very little significance and lasting impact -- precisely because they regard and define their own insignificance, do not take themselves seriously, worthily. And what is life if not a self-fulfilling prophecy?
People who will never amount to anything, will tell you so -- in every word, deed and thought. It is a self-evident, self-defining truth. Anybody who is somebody, had to first believe that that was so -- not relying on others to make him so. He had to value his own creation before manifesting it so that anybody else could. If he thought it was not worthwhile, he would not bring it into being for another to witness, enjoy; it would have died before its birth. Which is to say that one has to value his creation before he can manifest it. Not valuing it, why would he create it? The truly creative person doesn't do it because somebody else desires it more; no, the creator himself must be the greatest, first patron on his own art. Otherwise, the other person would create it -- because he would value it even more. Value is humankind's motivator. Men create value; if they don't, then life is a meaningless repetition only of that which has gone on before. Nothing new could come into being -- but obviously, they do.
Those who would keep us shackled to the past, always use the past as a benchmark for what is real and valid. By that measure, anything new has to be invalid -- rather than quite possibly, a larger, more encompassing perspective of reality. So the smaller hopes in this way to impose its limits on the larger, the greater -- as the limits to what is known and knowable. That is the prejudiced mind. It only wants to know what it already knows; its mind is made up -- for all eternity, and thereafter. The discriminating mind knows that what one knows is not all that can be known -- is not the limits of the universe. He also recognizes that it is not necessary to know all -- or to pretend to know all. He needs to know the requirements for dealing with the problems and issues of his immediate environment and circumstances -- while confident in knowing that others everywhere else will do the same. He is not the benevolent despot pronouncing his wisdom and opinions on every problem in the world because he's read all the newspapers and seen all the news broadcasts in never leaving the comfort of his living room. The other does not suspect that there might be a difference between reality and what others tell him is going on -- as though they really knew.
Only in that way, can one have absolute confidence that one knows exactly what happened -- because somebody else told him so. To such a person, reality that he himself actually experiences, truth that he discovers for himself, by himself has no validity -- because he is a nobody. If he were somebody, he'd have his own television show and have unlimited money, power and status over everybody else, and all the perks of everybody else -- collectively. That is what he thinks the world really is -- because the television and newspapers tell him so. Life is a giant prime time quiz show at which time one proves he is smarter/fitter than any other human being -- worthy of all the spoils. That is what he has been conditioned all his life to believe is life -- in the media-ted world he lives in, never touching reality, having an authentic, unpremeditated/programmed moment. What he knows, is everything he's been taught -- by the proper, designated, certified, credentialed authorities -- those obviously "objective" or certainly they'd be rich and successful implementing what they "know."
Instead, the "rightness" of their views is proved by the poverty they live in and hope to bring upon everyone else. In their "Utopia," everyone would be equally poor -- as their cure for the sins of the world brought about by wealth. Those injustices would cease, they reason, if everyone were equally poor and powerless, able to be overruled by anyone who could mobilize and manipulate mass opinion. And so it has come to pass that less importance is placed upon the discovery and the methodologies of determining facts -- when it is so easy and expedient to simply mold public opinion. Why bother with the facts? -- when if we repeat a fallacy often enough, it takes on the gravity of having been fact -- and nobody can trace the moment when a rumor/conjecture came to be regarded as a fact. That puts the rumor-monger on the same level as the meticulous scientist -- surely the triumph of a non-discriminating culture, the witch doctor over modern medicine, fear and prejudice over reason. Maybe it is not so easy to recognize because the old fears and prejudices have metamorphosed into the new fears and prejudices -- but they are fears and prejudices nevertheless. When revealed in this light, they might argue that these are the good fears and prejudices rather than the bad fears and prejudices -- as though that was significant.
This blurring of the significant from the insignificant is precisely the challenge in the age of information primacy. What is credible -- and only sounds so? I think anyone who has ever told a lie realizes that it never ends with one; soon, other lies have to be created to support that one. It would have been far simpler to have told the truth, no matter how unpleasant, from the very beginning. The one deception corrupts one's entire world, distorts his whole reality -- until eventually the effort of maintaining that which is not true becomes such a burden that it consumes all one's energies, time and thoughts. It's not worth the effort -- to maintain a false reality -- when reality itself requires no such extraordinary efforts. It simply is what it is, and will remain so whether one agrees with it or not, approves of it or not, wants it to be or not.
The problem is that because of the primacy of information, fierce battles have arisen to control the flow of information and therefore the thinking -- without alarming the public of these threats, dangers, perils. Some people are entirely immune from these manipulations and influence. Most though, are not even aware of this conditioning -- by which they cannot notice anything unusual. It could be that their entire educational experience has never been anything but believing in what they have been told -- and being rewarded by how thoroughly they assimilate those teachings. In no case do they actually have to make a significant difference in a real world application. The curriculum consists entirely of persuading others that one's arguments are "right" and "superior" to any others by sheer rhetoric. It is entirely possible to construct seemingly "scientific" studies to confirm and prove whatever it is one wants to -- if nobody else seriously wants to challenge those claims. That is, nobody is even interested in considering whether the claim is true or false -- because the implications are moot. It would simply be a waste of time. Nowhere is this practice more prevalent than in the common newspaper.
In another time, the newspaper might have been the only way to get information on a regular, reliable basis. Now it is the last stand of the "professional journalists" -- the middlemen of information. They must have seen the handwriting on the wall for at least a hundred years -- and have been in denial since. When few were literate and could write, the scribe had a very powerful status as well as function in society. When literacy is nearly universal, the rules have definitely changed. The editor/publisher no longer can presume to speak for all. Far more knowledgeable and articulate voices are to be found outside of the news bureau than in them -- and they have not embraced that challenge and change. Instead, they decided to fight the turf war -- in which they were badly undermanned and underarmed. Lesson number one in taking over the world is to recruit the talent on your side -- rather than keeping it outside, not letting them in the door, threatening the seniority/status/primacy of the present staff. Nobody can remain competitive in that way. The technology companies have a metaphor for maintaining their competitive edge in the new economy -- "you have to eat your own babies." That seemingly brutal statement affirms that there is no reverence for the old, the young, the infirm. If you don't improve, somebody else will. It's the same for political parties -- and all institutions that were at one time successful. You can't go back to the same old formula that worked once -- in another time and circumstances. History does not repeat itself -- but moves relentlessly forward, leaving those behind who will not keep up, hoping for a return to what once was.
Community institutions want to maintain the status quo of themselves in their heydays. In the Olympic Games of a hundred years ago, the casual athlete having the interest and putting in the time stood a chance of winning the event he fancied. Today, unless one is built/designed/born for that particular event, he stands almost no chance of being relevant in the final outcome. Likewise in the information game, the old skills and training are not enough to maintain a competitive edge when virtually the whole population is recruited for participation. It's like building a sand castle at the water's edge and then thinking one can protect it from the ocean's waves with constant vigilance. It should have been obvious what they could have done. Instead of entrenching professional journalists, they should have become the organs by which the people spoke for themselves. That's where they lost the game to an infinitely bigger player -- the Internet, that includes them and all their brethren and whomever else is out there. Obviously, the successful are those who play the biggest game -- on the broadest scale -- that they can imagine, and manifest. It subsumes all the smaller games, the smaller perspectives, the smaller visions of life and the world -- without an argument, without a battle, without a struggle. It is a world that has never been before -- and we are all pioneers in discovering it. The world is --
