An unintended result of opening up one side of my room so much is that it becomes so much more evident that I am living in an concrete box. I've got it dressed up real pretty with a bunch of posters and pictures and maps, but it's still a box made out of the same kind of blocks one would expect to find in a prison, another place, incidentally, whose purpose is to supposedly mold people's behavior and train them to do what they need to do. It's the same kind of thing that goes on here. We just have a better euphemism for this prison than "house of corrections." We call it "education," making it sound like the people in these institutions are being empowered, when in reality it is just another tool for social control.
expand to read the full post
I am, of course, painting a bleaker picture than what the reality experienced is. Obviously, I am not kept in this concrete box by any physical force, only social pressures. I have the keys. Everyone has the keys. And they have us trained so well that no one wants to let themselves out. Well I do, and I'm going to. I may be using exaggeration for effect, but I'm not exaggerating too much.
My uncle made a comment a few days ago (one of the rare ones where he doesn't try to convey his unique sense of humor through texual form and end up infuriating me) that started me thinking about this topic on a broader scale, or "me" in general. He said,
"It seems that you like and dislike abstracts, and both sets of abstracts tend to be fixated on extremes; extreme idealism about how to fix the 'problem' and extreme cynicism about the source of the 'problem'."
First off, even though this blog is deceptively titled "tom campbell," it does not, in fact, sum up the entirety of my being. His analysis of "me" is absolutely correct if it is applied only to the words that I put here. This blog is obviously completely in the realm of abstractions, and yes, I do allow myself to be both extremely idealistic and cynical when writing in this blog. I almost take it as more of a compliment that he recognizes my ability to be very idealistic and very cynical at the same time. I take pride in being so seemingly contradictory. Both of those words have a lot of baggage, so it's hard to tell what precise definitions are being implied by their use in any particular case, except, to some extent, by context. Idealism could refer to the philosophy of Plato's Forms (something I despise) or simply being optimistic and striving for a goal. Cynicism can refer, again, to a philosophy - this one being that the only good is to be found in virtue resulting in the incessant pointing out of instances in which everyone else is not as virtuous as they should be (something, again, that I despise. I really hope people don't think that that is what I try to do with this blog), or simply as a negative view of the current state of affairs. I would assume that my uncle is using the second (generalized) definition in the case of both words. If I am correct to assume that, is there something bad about having a goal to strive for? (I'm still working out how that is different from the myth of progress. I know it is, but it's still muddled for me.) And is criticizing and trying to make others aware of what one sees as bad not a worthy practice? (of course it is, or else my uncle wouldn't do it himself with his comments either.)
My uncle puts in quotes the word problem, so as to suggest that there isn't actually any problem with the way things are currently going. That is the premise under which he operates - there is no problem. He's right, of course. Our system in America is perfect. It is utopian. But Utopia only works if the people living in it are also perfect. And that will never be the case. People are not perfect. They are not necessarily even good. Or bad. People just are. So when imperfect people are expected to perform perfectly in a perfect system and fail, there's a problem. Sorry, there just is.
That is the premise I start with - there is something very very wrong with our culture today. My uncle commented at one point that he profoundly disagrees with my conclusions and the logic by which I reach those conclusions. I would like my uncle to point out the logical fallacies in my arguments, because I don't think it's my conclusions he disagrees with but the premises I start out with, and premises can't be argued over - one either accepts them or she doesn't. Hence the "agreeing to disagree," as my personal philosophy certainly allows for, what with there being no one right way and all.
I would also contest the idea that I am idealistic, actually. I'm not saying that I'm not striving for some pretty lofty goals, because I definitely am. It is certainly extremely idealistic from my uncle's perspective, but from my perspective, it is actually extremely realistic and practical for me to pursue these goals to "fix the 'problem.'" This civilization will collapse. It is bound to happen eventually. But I think there is sufficient evidence to show that this collapse I refer to will happen sooner rather than later. With this in mind, becoming as independent from the system and as self-sufficient as possible is a supremely practical and pressing goal in the pursuit of a happy and successful future. I will admit to being blatantly and unapologetically selfish right now. But my take on being selfish involves opening myself up to community in which I am completely non-individualistic but rather find security in interdependence with other people. Humans are social beings and would not have been evolutionarily fit if they did not cooperate and collaborate with each other. But genes only care about proliferating themselves, not cooperating lovingly and peacefully with other genes in the hippie camp. The cooperation serves an underlying self-interested purpose of increasing chances of survival. So if it feels like I am separating myself and going off to build a life in which I am concerned with my survival alone, that is partially true, from my genes' perspective. It's only partially true because 1) as I've described, it is in the best interest of my genes to help others in my tribe to survive as well, and 2) my genes, as much as I'm sure they would like to, don't run the show. Their phenotype (or "me") does that. And that phenotype does have motives outside of proliferating genes (e.g. not wanting to contribute to the continued overpopulation of the planet by one, very dangerous species). I would like to aid other people in making their own jumps off of this sinking ship. But to promptly switch metaphors on you, it is as in the case of an emergency on an airplane when the oxygen mask drops - you put on your own mask before helping others with theirs. I need to take care of myself before I am able to think to take care of other people.
So am I extreme in my "idealism" and cynicism? Only to the extent that I am also able to say that my uncle is in extreme denial about what he passes off as a fabricated problem. (Again, it comes down to premises).
As I said, though, this blog does not = me. This blog happens to be where all of this heavy shit ends up. I am able to put my thoughts here (my abstractions) and can be free of them to some extent the rest of the time. While I may appear to be overwhelmingly cynical about our culture here, that does not preclude me from being a relatively happy guy elsewhere. As far as I can self-diagnose, I am not suffering from depression, although that particular bit may be skewed by the fact that I am doped up on entertainment and other distractions most of the time still. My distractions may be of higher quality (surfing the internet instead of surfing the channels on a television, listening to ani difranco and radiohead instead of pop music on the radio), but they are distractions nonetheless, screening me from facing to a full extent the reality of living in this culture of isolation and control. This blog will either completely cease to exist or radically shift in content once I successfully plant myself firmly in the reality of the present moment because at that point, all of these abstractions will become unimportant as I start to experience what they are meant to represent.
The biggest and most important abstraction to me is community. For me, the search for community is synonymous with the search for love and acceptance. As far as I can tell, this is a universal human desire, and 19 years in this culture is plenty to understand that I am not going to fulfill that desire entirely from within such a culture. I do not want to lead a life of quiet desparation. First I am going to be loud about my despair. Then I'm going to find hope.
Edit [4/8/06 2:13pm]: Jason Godesky happened to be writing about the ethics of collapse at roughly the same time I was (since this post actually only began at 6:35pm and was publised around 4am). It answers similar, if broader, critiques about essentially the same kind of things I'm talking about here, and does so eloquently as always.
Brilliant.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I might say in response is that in this culture, depression is so common that in order for someone to "be depressed" in this culture they have to be EXTREMELY depressed, to the point of suicide. I would argue and have argued in the past that all of the distractions of modern life are forms of "temporary suicide", and that we commit millions of little suicides a day -- but because these are sanctioned escapes, we do not look at them as such. Also, I don't think depression and happiness are mutually exclusive; I still consider myself a happy person, though I am depressed because I am in an environment where my happiness cannot manifest itself. Maybe instead of depressed here I should use "restricted" or "inhibited" -- /oppressed/ that is -- but in my experience oppression and depression often go hand in hand.
Devin