Tuesday, December 6, 2011

Pre-Occupied


I happened to look at the post at the bottom of this page, but since it’s going to bounce to the next page once I post this one, I’ll direct you to it from here. Written a little over a year ago, it concerns the rabid anti-intellectualism of the right. And it’s no less true today, as witnessed by recent events.

First is the lineup of GOP presidential candidates. I’m sorry that I’ve never tuned in to any of the debates, if only to be able to see them all spilling out of the clown car, but the post-game snippets are sufficiently entertaining. The amount of stupidity on display is truly staggering; it makes an Arizonan like me think back to the fun-filled days when Ev Mecham was governor. The fact that the only one with an ounce of intelligence, John Huntsman, is barely polling well enough to be included (and won’t be in the next one) says a lot about the Republican base’s priorities. And the fact that most take pride in not believing in evolution says it all.

Second, and most confounding to me, is the hostility of teabaggers to the Occupy movement. You’d think there’d be a degree of simpatico when it comes to standing up for the 99% against the super-rich, but no. Instead, occupiers are lambasted as spoiled kids and smelly hippies. Why? Because they’re largely college students, and we all know that college students are radical, atheistic, sexually deviant, and obviously socialists because they want to redistribute wealth. Oh, and did I mention educated? Just like a year ago, the unthinking masses are cowed into believing that wealth is a proud badge of American success that should be aspired to and not penalized – never mind the fact that their very homes and jobs are at the mercy of the banks.

Some say that the reason there’s no common ground between the two camps is that the occupiers want more taxation and government regulation (of the 1%), which the teabaggers of course decry. But I propose a more nuanced distinction between occupiers and teabaggers – one that carries an explanation of why the latter disdain the former. The occupiers’ form of protest is a classic sit-in, which was popularized back in the ’60s and doubtless gives older Americans the heebie-jeebies. They must have done something to provoke those policemen who were forced to use pepper spray, which when you think of the National Guard at Kent State was going pretty easy on them. Besides, all that sitting around just proves how lazy they are. On the other hand, the t.p.ers’ preferred style seems to be the good old fashioned march – and along with providing some much-needed exercise (an alternative to the mall), what could be more patriotic, especially when you’ve got a few participants in colonial garb? Plus, when the march is over you get to go home and use your own bathroom instead of bothering local businesses (where you never know who’s used it before you).

So even though you’d think the occupiers and teabaggers had a lot in common, it’s clear that the latter are preoccupied with seeing the former as the worthless scum they’ve been for fifty years. To think that their parents wasted their hard-earned money sending them to college. That more than anything proves that you can’t trust education.

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Knees, toes, and the pursuit of that which brings you joy...


James Taylor sang that the secret of life is enjoying the passage of time. Any fool can do it, he claims, but he leaves out the “how.”

The secret of life, IMHO, is to transcend knee-jerk adherence to both biological and cultural imperatives, to recognize the ultimate purposelessness of living, and then to engage in that which brings you joy – provided “that which brings you joy” doesn’t step on anybody else’s toes.

This is a bit more nuanced than JT’s prescription. Unlike him, I shall elaborate.

All of us are governed to some extent by biological and cultural imperatives, and it is the extent to which we adhere to these, often in a knee-jerk fashion, that determines how free we are to enjoy the passage of time. I subscribe to Richard Dawkins’s hypothesis that genetic impulses motivate us to procreate, and that that is ultimately the “purpose” of living matter. When you end up with kids you didn’t plan for or necessarily want, this unavoidably drains your resources – and often your ability to find joy.

Most of us, whether we realize it or not, are also governed by the demands of cultural groups, whether extended families, clans, or ethnic groups. And most of those demands are rooted in religious beliefs and moral codes that regulate our behavior. Not that moral codes are a bad thing; but when they prescribe behavior such as women covering up their bodies or eating fish on a certain day of the week or not lifting a finger on another, one sometimes has to stand back and question. And especially when those demands involve the knee-jerk worship of a deity under threat of eternal damnation – that can pretty seriously fuck up your pursuit of joy.

This is not to say that that which brings you joy might even be raising kids or worshiping your god(s); that’s cool as long as you do it because you want to, not because you feel you have to.

Once you come to grips with the arbitrariness of what you’d always taken as sacrosanct, it’s not quite as much of a leap to recognize that living in and of itself is purposeless. Not that this is a bad thing. But if the goal of any living being is to survive in order to reproduce in order to pass along its genes; and if the goal of a human is to live according to the dictates of his group and pass along its memes; and if you recognize the folly of knee-jerk adherence to both of those; then you recognize that life isn’t what other people have made it out to be.

So what’s it for, then?

It’s hard not to argue for the virtues of hedonism in the face of futility. But we humans are unique among animals in that we have consciences. Or are at least supposed to. This curious mechanism has both genetic and cultural roots, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater. A sense of responsibility has a lot to say for itself just in terms of getting along together. It’s not a cultural mandate, it’s just common sense. And that’s where not stepping on anybody else’s toes comes in.

Does speedboating bring you joy? Stop and consider the impact of your wake on the people in the rowboat also trying to enjoy the lake. Like hunting? Just be mindful of whether an assault rifle is really necessary (and please, don’t politicize your passion; those of us who’d like to prevent random violence aren’t trying to take your toys away). Get off on video games? Be aware that you’re supporting an industry that sends a lot of mixed messages to kids. Crave seafood? Think about the impact of indiscriminate fishing on the marine ecosystem.

Sure, there’s a fly in every ointment. What happens to bring me joy is music – playing it, making it – but I want to be sure I’m not waking the neighbors.

What I’m getting at is, once you’ve taken care of your survival needs and come to an understanding of biological and cultural arbitrariness, it is engaging in that which brings you joy that makes the passage of time enjoyable. So you might as well go for it, as long as you’re not stepping on somebody else’s toes by either impinging on their privacy or making the world a less sustainable place for others.

Any fool can do it.