Two thoughts about last night’s #NNM4N broadcast; they are probably related.
THOUGHT ONE: Chris Hoffman introduced his game I called The Oracle Bowl. Chris had cut up a hardback dictionary into tiny inch-long pieces and put them into a large oval plastic jar. We then asked our call-out guest to think of a concern or question about the recent election of He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named as POTUS; Chris would then reach into the Oracle Bowl, swirl it around and pick out one square piece of a repurposed dictionary; the guest would reveal her concern or question; Chris would read the words. He was serious and I was not. I want to apologize to Chris and the OB. The first question and answer was unnervingly, wonderfully, scarily related.
Listen to Program #4 and you may understand what I mean. But, I poo poo-ed the result, and I feel – because logically it makes no sense – the OB turned away from us. The answers that followed did not resonate like the first one. I want to apologize to Chris and the OB and try again with new faith, based in a sense that life is about a bigger energy that I do not understand – but desire to engage. Amen
THOUGHT TWO: Paul Ruben is without a doubt my best friend. His way of thinking is similar to mine but not mine, and I always turn to him when I have something important to think about. He is a deeply thoughtful person and so when I ask he always responds with an idea – an approach – that I had not considered, but should. On the program last night Paul responded to the election of DT.* He talked about the connection between actions and outcomes and analyzed the trope – ‘the ends justify the means.’ He used two examples – the Trump election and how DT accomplished his “ends” and President Obama’s meeting with DT in an attempt to modify the POTUS-elect’s promises and his one-sided approach to ruling this country. Both examples included means and ends – one used moral means the other not. I am unsure of Paul’s final thesis in relation to this analysis – but it got me thinking about this trope — Means < Ends – which seems to be flawed.
“The Ends JUSTIFY the Means” is argued by someone who is thinking about moral ends; ends that are justified in a positive way – yes? But what if you do not support a certain “ends” – call it E1. The means to E1 might be moral or not – if E1 is positive – how you get there is of no concern. This seems to make no sense. Nazi Germany’s goal – universal, White, Germanic control. Nazi means were mass imprisonment and death. For a supporter, these ends are moral, and any way to get there is supportable — any means necessary. This equation is relative to which side you are on – yes? As a moral statement — one side eliminates the other–algebraically.
I propose a different approach – a non equation. There are no ENDS – only choices and doings. Human life is a series of actions that we take, that lead to other actions; outcomes –ends – that results in another world, another realm of possibilities opening up to new choices, new possibilities of human life. ENDS have no meaning – only processes – choices that are made from moment to moment.
Looked at this way – in the realm of human, social life – each step taken is important – forget the ENDS — they do not exist. Each action is a new world – basic – primary. That is who we are – what we will be. AND – the social structures – political/governmental/economic/ media – either limit or extend that process towards a democracy of voices – all of whom yearn for a moral compass. Amen
*Why did this not occur to me – DT – also stands for Delirium Tremens. “Delirium tremens (DTs) is a rapid onset of confusion …” Is the “Force” telling us something about our times. Chris, I am giving myself over to the OB —
Post election Dia-tribes
Psychology has taught us that what ever we say about another person we are actually saying about ourselves. The things we can’t or won’t admit to are projected on to others.
It would seem that a major part of the post election upheaval is a consequence of a crumbling politically correct, technotopian facade. These cultural technologies can also have antisocial consequences. Social media creates a commodification of self. This can develop into duel personality in the user. The true self and the photoshopped cyber self.
Like any religion, technology creates a deep ambivalence to the present moment. People are only “getting ready to live” in their web based future. In real reality, life is only lived in the present moment. Technology tries to replace true human interaction with a ubiquitously anonymous victimology.
We now see how the media news outlets and major corporations have turned into piratic information terrorists themselves. Leaving us with either crowd sharing mass hysteria or jubilation. Combing this with an exaggerated loss of self and netakit, on the cyber frontier, leaves us with a shaky foundation for the evolution of culture.