Utopian Idealism from August 19, 2010

Academia is all about name dropping.  Acknowledging someone who managed to get published, who eloquently explained something.  Giving credit where credit’s due.  Though it’s quite possible for different people, in different places, from different times and backgrounds to reach many of the same conclusions given their specific realm of symbolic communication (words, numbers, hieroglyphs). 

Scripture has come to mean to me anything that has been documented as divine wisdom.  And by divine, I simply mean that it is revered as if coming from a “power” greater than any single human mind.

Through all the cycles, births, falls of civilizations, there are parts of their cultures that have been documented, that stand as examples of how to live the proper life in harmony with the rules that govern the universe.  The gods, goddesses, origins might change (only slightly in many cases)—but the lessons remain the same.

I was reading somewhere, probably in a student’s paper, that religion feeds off of common knowledge—pieces of logic and understanding that even the most daft human can grasp (whether or not he/she follows the “way” is another issue).  The argument was trying to get an anarchy along the premise that people do not need written laws to govern themselves.  But I couldn’t help but feel like the kid was giving too much credit to the human race.  Sure there are those individuals who stand out, who have left their mark within the realm of study, of schooling, of the educational system that controls the conscious paradigms.  But the average person, the average C student, the average joe or jane, is not necessarily one who has taken any scripture into account, beyond perhaps a story that somehow ultimately only tries to maintain “faith,” when it is really just a story that we assign meaning and significance to.

Theoretically, it could have been any religion that took hold like Christianity did.  And part of this is because people became easy to convince, to scare, to persuade into believing.  Which leads me to believe that we are not capable of self-rule.

I think about tribal communities.  Small communities that strive to maintain their independent way of living without interfering or infringing upon their neighbors.  How common is tribal war?  We have “representatives” that are sent out into the realm of politics to make decisions on our behalves, but they don’t know what we want.  How can they?  In tribes, if officials were elected to hold certain powers, they would be selected by the small group of people who made up that tribe.  They would be living among their peers, working, playing, living with them.  No class difference.  No problems too big to solve.

But there is population to consider in the tribal model.  Coupling leads to procreating, which leads to growth.  There would have to be rules for how many children a family could have.  But there would have to be enough blood difference for the families to continue reproduce without the threat of deformities or deficiencies. 

But what if there happened to be the right kinds of people in these small communities.  Suppose there were some people who didn’t want to have children.  Suppose there were a single mother or father here and an unplanned pregnancy there.  Suppose there were some scholars here and an artist there who did not seek to procreate, but shared their knowledge and talent with the community nonetheless.  Suppose it was really the entire village that raised each child.  Suppose marriage wasn’t necessary for two people to be together.  Suppose acts of violence were rare and severely punished.  Suppose they went back to herbal remedies and treatments based on an extensive understanding of Eastern and Western medicinal practices.  Suppose they all gathered to do yoga in the mornings.  Suppose they grew their own food.  Suppose they made their own clothes, and art, and stories, and songs, and dance, and music, and games, and rituals.  Suppose they relied on one another because they understood their connection to one another, and they acted out of kindness not because they feared how they might be judged after they died, but because they felt compassion for one another, because they were all divine incarnations set here to live, among a complex, terrifying, and beautiful world.  Wouldn’t that be nice?

But instead we all seem to be seeking some kind of independence that separates us from one another by filtering us into categories that represent the popular vote of the time.  We want to flaunt the fact that we are unique, yet we manage to look like clusters of sheep, filing into the same jobs, personalities, accessories, and tastes.

Work is absurd to me because of its relationship to the necessity/luxury issue.  Back in the day, the only way to eat was to know something about growing food.  New jobs began to develop depending upon the technologies of the time.  In a town that used horses, there had to be a metalsmith.  In a town that has automobiles, there has to be a mechanic.  And so forth.  But the necessity of production is the issue.  We need food.  We only need automobiles because of the way our civilization has advanced (and here I use the word “advanced” only to describe movement through time, from past to present—not in terms of real improvement). 

There are many aspects of our collective knowledge that have not changed.  Real wisdom is timeless, and the world has had its share of sages.  One of the only things that has really advanced (improved) over time is our scientific understanding.  It is not news that technology changes faster than our ethics can evaluate it.  It is worth noting that science takes much longer, as well, to reach the mainstream.  The concept of gravity took a long time to stick and synthesize into the general public’s understanding.  As science explores the subatomic realm, as quantum physics provides answers to the unseen, the general public is having a hard enough time passing geometry.  The problem becomes more of one when we consider that only certain people even have the benefit of a formal education, let alone a higher one.  And since our educational system is so defective, students become mostly honed to one specific set of skills and knowledge and cannot participate with a real community outside of their jobs or neighborhoods.  (This wouldn’t be an issue within a tribe). 

Who was it…Nietzche—who said that “choice is chaos.”  I think within a smaller community, it’s easier to find your niche.  To fulfill a role that fulfills a need—not a luxury, but something that fits our basic human needs.

Without being so far from a particular service, without the middleman, without shopping malls, without mail order, there wouldn’t be a need for money.  Capitalism would be no more because jobs would be done, production would be done, food would be grown, schools built, services rendered and shared by the members of that community.  It would be bartering and trading at most, but many jobs and services would be performed simply because it was a person’s (or people’s) responsibility to do so.  For the sake of the community. 

Teachers would still exist in these communities.  Doctors.  Counselers.  Cooks.  Artists.  Treasurers.  Builders.  Farmers.  There are plenty of jobs that we need.  There’s nothing wrong with a person having knowledge in more than one of these areas, but there is also nothing wrong with having people who are particular talented in these positions.  People who are chosen or voted to carry out certain work because of the traits, affinities they display.

The only time a person would leave a community would be if they did not find a niche within one, and so traveled elsewhere to see if they could find purpose and contentment.  Some communities would banish people who displayed characteristics of violence or malevolence.  Others would simply execute those people.  But criminals would be few and far between because each person’s needs would be met.  Each person would be loved and accepted and appreciated and respected, heard.  No racism.  No homophobia.  No single person in control.  No manipulation.  No corruption.

But, says the cynic, we cannot be rid of greed.  Greed is the evil that contaminates the harmony of an equal society.  How do we contain and eliminate this greed?  Is it truly a part of our humanity?  How is that possible when there are so many who do not display this tendency?  I’m baffled by greed. 

Thou shalt not want.  Period.  If only it were that simple.