I suspended my Facebook account a couple of months back ...I forget what Facebook calls that. I suspended it because of an event that took place face-to-face, in real time, not online....but it made me wonder what tracks I had left online that people were looking at. The people who had no connection to me on Facebook, but knew me in real life because they lived nearby, who I did not think about.
It seems to be a common theme that we all want people to know certain things. We want ALL people to know certain things, we think, until we find out that someone on the list of "ALL" was definitely not the person we wanted to know about the thing we just told everyone about. My elders always cautioned me about things a person is not supposed to say, particularly things that a person is not supposed to say in public...and of course the legacy of what happens when it is handed to the public. One should not give the kind of power to total strangers of having proof that you said or did something - anything. As my father used to say -
"No good deed goes unpunished."
The other side of me wants to be some kind of martyr; or mirror. Perhaps both. I see a lot of people bragging about "Free Speech" (C)(TM) - - - as if we all have the right given from On High that there must never be any restraint, nor filter, nor limit on what we say. We all have also heard that one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater; for although you certainly can pronounce that word "FIRE!" with great volume so that everyone in the theater could hear you, if six people were subsequently killed in the stampede, then the one you yelled "FIRE" has to take responsibility that he caused the stampede.
So yes, we can say whatever we want to say. However, we have to "own" it.
In this day, with communication around the world at the speed of light, we certainly can say the words heard 'round the world at any time, if the World thinks our words are worth spreading. We don't have any control over why they want to share our words; maybe they find them salacious and want to spread sexual innuendo and give people the impression you're doing something unacceptable when they aren't watching. Perhaps they all want to riot and burn the world to it's core, and they are just waiting for the One who they think gave the "Onward soldiers!" command, and they'll take your words as that call to arms. If so, you have to own it; you caused the stampede, you started the war, because words have consequences, and that is why there is invaluable power in free speech.
What worries me is that our country still uses "freedom" and "united" in the same sentence. I don't think they've parsed out the logical union and intersection of those two words. If we're all free to go off on our own vector and pursue our individual happiness without any concern for anyone but ourselves, there probably won't be much unity to talk about if 330 million people all set out on each their own path. Some might cross, a few might align, but ultimately we are all unique. Not each foot of the guy behind the first one will be precisely in the same place. Some people will change their mind.
Perhaps some heard the call, and said, "HEY! EVERYBODY FOLLOW THIS GUY!"" and the mob sets off in one direction with that guy as leader until some in the horde see This Guy's first move and are no longer certain he's the guy they want to follow. That happens; and then the mob got motivated and left the comfort of the couch, took eight steps down the street, and now it's raining and they don't like where this is going. Now what? Now the mob must re-evaluate the leader, the goal, the path, the methods, or some combination thereof, to decide whether to change course, turn back, soldier on, or disperse. All of this happens in real time, every individual has free will, and yet the mob still has the power of coercion and punishment for anyone who might lack the proper commitment and loyalty in the eyes of the Horde.
None of this is news; I'm not printing anything never considered before. Societies form, proceed together, and fall in cycles and locations all over the world, throughout the history that has been recorded. The cycle seems to misfire when some try to say "this path has been tried before and it was not the right path"; then the debate is to change the path because it is wrong; or maybe - maybe it was the right path, but focus must be paid on how the steps are taken along that path, and if they are performed with a few differences, the path will lead to the right place on the next attempt.
Right now I'm watching us argue about why we're not all doing the same thing, because of course a house divided cannot stand; at the same time, some of the same people are arguing only a lunatic or a person intent on failure would go down that path, we must change to a different one. Hence our quandry - who gets to decide, and what should be the consequence for not following the path.
How do we demand fealty to the leadership at the same time we hold most sacred the right of the individual to follow a path unique to their own pursuit of happiness.
Here sits the country with half of them screaming "CIVIL WAR IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW US!" and who say "WE ARE NOT FOLLOWING ANYBODY!" A segment of the population has declared only their way is the correct way, but they say their way protects the freedom to each go their own way - and nobody gets the joke.
I phrased it this way -
"If we are all supposed to look, walk, talk, eat, love, pray the same, what would we ever need freedom for? Any good dictatorship can achieve absolute unity. If we are all allowed to go our own way, and our country is to be lauded because we protect and respect the right of the individual to follow a path unique to his own desires, we ought not to act as if there has been a failure if 330 million people all wind up in a unique and different place, with very little unity left among them."
We can't all be the embodiment of unity at the same time we all pursue a happiness unique to the individual.
This may have some importance to our situation. (apologies to Richard Feynman, requesat en pace)
It seems to be a common theme that we all want people to know certain things. We want ALL people to know certain things, we think, until we find out that someone on the list of "ALL" was definitely not the person we wanted to know about the thing we just told everyone about. My elders always cautioned me about things a person is not supposed to say, particularly things that a person is not supposed to say in public...and of course the legacy of what happens when it is handed to the public. One should not give the kind of power to total strangers of having proof that you said or did something - anything. As my father used to say -
"No good deed goes unpunished."
The other side of me wants to be some kind of martyr; or mirror. Perhaps both. I see a lot of people bragging about "Free Speech" (C)(TM) - - - as if we all have the right given from On High that there must never be any restraint, nor filter, nor limit on what we say. We all have also heard that one cannot yell fire in a crowded theater; for although you certainly can pronounce that word "FIRE!" with great volume so that everyone in the theater could hear you, if six people were subsequently killed in the stampede, then the one you yelled "FIRE" has to take responsibility that he caused the stampede.
So yes, we can say whatever we want to say. However, we have to "own" it.
In this day, with communication around the world at the speed of light, we certainly can say the words heard 'round the world at any time, if the World thinks our words are worth spreading. We don't have any control over why they want to share our words; maybe they find them salacious and want to spread sexual innuendo and give people the impression you're doing something unacceptable when they aren't watching. Perhaps they all want to riot and burn the world to it's core, and they are just waiting for the One who they think gave the "Onward soldiers!" command, and they'll take your words as that call to arms. If so, you have to own it; you caused the stampede, you started the war, because words have consequences, and that is why there is invaluable power in free speech.
What worries me is that our country still uses "freedom" and "united" in the same sentence. I don't think they've parsed out the logical union and intersection of those two words. If we're all free to go off on our own vector and pursue our individual happiness without any concern for anyone but ourselves, there probably won't be much unity to talk about if 330 million people all set out on each their own path. Some might cross, a few might align, but ultimately we are all unique. Not each foot of the guy behind the first one will be precisely in the same place. Some people will change their mind.
Perhaps some heard the call, and said, "HEY! EVERYBODY FOLLOW THIS GUY!"" and the mob sets off in one direction with that guy as leader until some in the horde see This Guy's first move and are no longer certain he's the guy they want to follow. That happens; and then the mob got motivated and left the comfort of the couch, took eight steps down the street, and now it's raining and they don't like where this is going. Now what? Now the mob must re-evaluate the leader, the goal, the path, the methods, or some combination thereof, to decide whether to change course, turn back, soldier on, or disperse. All of this happens in real time, every individual has free will, and yet the mob still has the power of coercion and punishment for anyone who might lack the proper commitment and loyalty in the eyes of the Horde.
None of this is news; I'm not printing anything never considered before. Societies form, proceed together, and fall in cycles and locations all over the world, throughout the history that has been recorded. The cycle seems to misfire when some try to say "this path has been tried before and it was not the right path"; then the debate is to change the path because it is wrong; or maybe - maybe it was the right path, but focus must be paid on how the steps are taken along that path, and if they are performed with a few differences, the path will lead to the right place on the next attempt.
Right now I'm watching us argue about why we're not all doing the same thing, because of course a house divided cannot stand; at the same time, some of the same people are arguing only a lunatic or a person intent on failure would go down that path, we must change to a different one. Hence our quandry - who gets to decide, and what should be the consequence for not following the path.
How do we demand fealty to the leadership at the same time we hold most sacred the right of the individual to follow a path unique to their own pursuit of happiness.
Here sits the country with half of them screaming "CIVIL WAR IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW US!" and who say "WE ARE NOT FOLLOWING ANYBODY!" A segment of the population has declared only their way is the correct way, but they say their way protects the freedom to each go their own way - and nobody gets the joke.
I phrased it this way -
"If we are all supposed to look, walk, talk, eat, love, pray the same, what would we ever need freedom for? Any good dictatorship can achieve absolute unity. If we are all allowed to go our own way, and our country is to be lauded because we protect and respect the right of the individual to follow a path unique to his own desires, we ought not to act as if there has been a failure if 330 million people all wind up in a unique and different place, with very little unity left among them."
We can't all be the embodiment of unity at the same time we all pursue a happiness unique to the individual.
This may have some importance to our situation. (apologies to Richard Feynman, requesat en pace)
Comments
Post a Comment