there is a fine line between... wanting to share a belief, and pushing it on others, i think. and when you have this undeniably strong feeling that your idea may be the correct one, the line just becomes that much finer.
this is a very difficult thing for me to monitor, i think, but i'm aware of my troubles. for example, i love, absolutely LOVE, to talk about religion. it's something i identify with very strongly (well, the spiritual aspects of it, at least), and is an incredibly important part of my life. i have my ideas, and for a while, many of them were... sort of exclusive. ... in clearer words, i guess i could say that they strongly held onto ideas of "right" vs "wrong." while this is no longer the case, even when it was, i have always tried to be very delicate with the topic, simply because i don't want to offend. generally, i love to talk about it, because i love to hear what other people have to say on the subject. this is amplified now (with my now, greater-encompassing acceptance of other religions as viable... paths?), simply because it's so much fun to try and integrate them, or think about possible integrations, into my current beliefs.
whoa, example is trying to run away with the show. back on topic. the fine line.
this is troubling me now, because... well, what if you cross the line? i mean, it would be so easy to do so... and then, look, you're suddenly the president of the USA. because that's all it is. i mean, yeah, i hate him, but i can identify with his position, from an abstract point of view: he's just doing what he thinks is right. ... i suppose if we really wanted to get into the philosophical aspects of this, we'd see that it's flawed anyway, because he really is pushing his beliefs around, presenting them in a manner that a) makes it seem like they are the best way, and more poignantly, b) making all other viewpoints be seen as "bad." ... but again, i digress.
take this site, for example. or most specifically, my previous rant. at the end, i give a lot of you people hell for not being vegetarians. now, this was not my intention, rather me... stating what i did as a fact: that i find it crazy that some of you know what you know (for example brandon, whom i can single out because i hate.), yet you would still eat meat. ... now, said party, please don't get defensive, hear me out.
it's not that i'm condemning your decisions, guys, of course decisions are our own to make. i think it's paramount for you to realize that i do respect your decisions. i mean, living with brandon just about every month since i've been a vegetarian, i never really, un-facetiously, confronted him about eating meat, even though i knew he had the same amount of knowledge i did. about how really, it's just better for the planet to abstain. ... and now, i hear that he might be. or that he's drifting in that direction. and it's such an interesting dilemma for me, because i want to be like, 'dude, that's so awesome.' ... yet i don't. because i'm striving so hard to be... impartial? it's like if i were to take the stance now, that "dude, that's so awesome" stance, wouldn't i be stating that the whole time, i was like, "dude, he needs to be a vegetarian"? ... do you see the contradiction? well, ok, the contradiction lies in the fact that i AM like, "dude, that's so awesome." ... i just can't say it. (which i guess is all negated now by the fact that he will probably be the first one to read this. but anyway.)
this whole issue, however, seems to just be a satellite of the larger issue at hand: beliefs, and sharing them.
i may not have a concrete idea of a "better" planet (and even if i'm formulating one is debatable at best), but say, under ideal conditions, i did have one. from this, two problems arise.
a) who's to say it's better?
b) even if it were better, who's to say that others should follow it?
and herein lies the dilemma, i suppose. as for the first, this really leads into a metaphysical arguement about value and quality. and honestly, i am too ill-equipped to get into that. i can't tell you who should say it's better. nor can i fashion a clear arguement about what would be a universal "better," without giving any sort of specifics such as, "everything is fair," or "people getting their happiness without infringing upon others" or "everyone having access to all the knowledge."
but the worst part is that second bit. say you have this better system. say (in a purely hypothetical sense), in response to my recent question (the fifth), i could fashion some sort of near-perfect world; or at least some world much improved than the current standard. then... what if there are deviants? ... now, deviants aren't always bad, for i'd definitely consider myself to be a deviant of the current system. ... but what if there are deviants that, in their deviant behavior, infringe upon the well-being of others? ... uf, that's a head-full, isn't it? i mean, i try to liken it to the current presidency, and when i see similarities, my brain goes, "uh-oh... trouble." ... and there is a similarity there! the US administration views these nations they're bringing "freedom" (emphasis on the " ") to, as deviants, yes? how does one... "enlighten" the deviants, without bombing weddings, and declaring war on a country for oil? (yes, this is rhetorical, he's a moron.) ... but seriously, what happens when we start viewing those of us who ARE environmentally and socially aware as the "norm," and those who cling to the current system as the deviants? how do you bring deviants, true, 'harming-others'-type deviants into the fold? what do you do?
the only solace i find in all this, i guess, is just the old analogy of the dirty glass of water. ... you can warn people, and condemn people, and yell at people for drinking from the mucky, gross water, all you want. ... you can tell them they are foolish, you can say they're only hurting themselves, you can tell them they're gonna get sick... but until you show them the clean glass of water, that's all they know to drink from. ... and in our society, there isn't anyone in the public eye, showing that glass.
this is what the fight boils down to. it's not terribly difficult to rail on the system. to rage agaist the machine. and yeah, those that do, God, props to them. to stop within the inevitable flow, turn and face it in all its cultural power, and give it the most defiant, 'fuck you, culture' finger you can muster. i have so much respect for those that can really think for themselves, see past the ads, the culture, the tv the mass-mind rape (c'mon, i have to quote rage against the machine here...).
but really, this is only the first part. you have to go farther. you have to... offer the solution. no, you have to find the solution, then, make it presentable. ... but this is the trick, isn't it? the difficulty scale just skyrockets the farther and farther you get into activism, into social protest. because the farther you get, the more enemies you acquire. the more "trouble" you are viewed as, in the system, the more the system silently, methodically, works to bring you down.
BUT!!! only for so long. once you have the solution, once you find a better way, and once you find a way to communicate it to the people, it's it. once you show the clean glass, that's it. end. finish. we can enter a new age. ... the end of "epidemics of obesity" when people are DYING from hunger. the end of cultural genocide. the end of subversive governments bent on power. the end of contently ignorant mass populations.
the trick lies in finding the answer, and making it palatable to a large enough portion of the concerned population, because that's where the revolution lies.
the answer is out there.
<home>