“Hope for humanity”. Interesting phrase but what does that even really mean? Why is ‘hope’ predicated on the premise that the ‘masses’ have to be awakened or that some global ‘enlightenment’ be reached? Exactly how many people do we need that are considered ‘aware’ to say, “Yes, so there is hope after all!”? During the cold war it was
one person, in the right place at the right time, that made a difference, although he wasn’t explicitly trying to. Is one person enough? Or, does it need to be 200 à la Gurdjieff?
Or is hope for humanity the hope that all are going to find love and happiness and everything other good thing under the sun? That’s what everyone wants right? Let’s say they do. Then the question in my mind is what makes those things so valued? Furthermore, if we don’t have hope (or a ‘hope for’) does that make life meaningless? I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive however.
I think there’s a finer point to be made – what is it that we want to change and against what are we judging our ‘power to change’ things, or its effectiveness? Many of those things that can be changed can only affect what’s in your immediate vicinity (and perhaps to a lesser degree that which is communicated on the internet). And maybe that’s enough, or all that’s really needed.
So yes, we’re not supposed to fix THE world but I think we are supposed to fix OUR world (by that I mean what's in our immediate reach, our environment, daily interactions) to the degree that we can. Or if nothing’s ‘broken’ then improve it! That’s where we are NOT powerless to change things. The way I see it, to take the view that we need to fix anything on such a large scale is approaching the same thing the leftists want - to enact “utopia”. Isn’t that really hubris? In other words, we most definitely will make things worse, no matter how much one thinks one knows. Is our version of “utopia”, whatever it may be, really such a good thing? Or is it another STS trap, where it really all boils down to ‘determining the needs of another’? Now, it doesn’t mean we don’t do anything either – part of what gives meaning to life is “
putting order to the chaos which manifests while having one foot in chaos with the other foot in order” (to paraphrase Peterson). In fact, I think that’s very much what ‘riding the wave’ is about. So in a sense there is some element of
the world mixed in with
our world which I think leads one to believe it’s the world that needs ‘saving’ but that’s not necessarily the case.
Which comes back to: dark and light and blah blah. I think that’s the answer to the first question – what makes ‘the good’ a valued thing? In addition, how do we place a correct valuation on things so that something better can be worked towards? By seeing what the worst is and what the best is. Not just seeing but also the experience of it. Considering how shite things are globally the bar is set pretty low. Even then, still considerable challenge when you factor in scale. Raising a low bar on a large scale is probably harder than raising a high one on a small scale. So where is the bar in our immediate surroundings? The fact that most all of us can access the net, are literate, shower, drink, talk to each on the phone etc, etc, is noteworthy and should be given its due.
Of course, we pay the price. There seems to be a link with these chaotic times in terms of how much more knowledge is available and the mediums through which they can be transmitted – it’s almost as if these chaotic energies give rise to some very deep and profound discoveries that we have really just begun to discover and actualize in ways that we have yet to fully understand its implications. Knowledge input on a continual basis – it’s not just for protection!
Caitlin talks about averting catastrophe, through changing ourselves. Gurdjieff said the same thing when he told us our life has been a lie and people need to ‘wake up’ because ‘a bunch of unconscious machines inevitably leads to destruction’ (paraphrasing). So is a group of (200) people acting in a conscious way enough to spare humanity the fate of pending catastrophe? Or maybe it isn’t meant to –
at all. Perhaps all that can be done is to seed the potential for a different world to manifest at some junction of space/time. The work done exists in a field of potential from which others can take upon to continue.
Considering what is known about information theory – one could say that we’re encoding these potentialities into it. It could also be said that one is reducing the amount of entropy (or noise) that is present in the system. It might help to think of as being ‘error-correcting code’. It really is “
Debugging the universe” and taken as a whole, it is very important work! As harsh as this might sound, it might actually be the case that 'hope for humanity' is irrelavant. We might not have the pleasure of seeing the results in a direct way but putting it out there by living and being an example of a positive expression of what society could be like adds to this into the system. And to me that’s not insane. In fact it’s the most rational thing we can do. Are we freaks? Maybe. But first we need to ask – what’s normal anyway?
Like Scottie, I used to be pretty optimistic, and then found myself swing full circle and adopt ‘the-way-of-the-pessimist’. So where’s the middle? A balance is good and nowadays instead of being too one or the other, I try to find that sweet spot... for a lack of a better term I like to call it ‘realistic acceptance’. You’ll see what I mean by acceptance at the end.
I say realistic because it has to contain both optimism and pessimism in its evaluation. For example, I was optimistic about Putin winning the election – it was based in the fact that he had a lot of support from the people. Yes, it’s possible that something could have happened that would have prevented that but taking in all available information, it was a safe bet and I like to hedge my bets. It’s also realistic to be pessimistic about Trump doing anything that will really change American politics. Simply put: hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
As the saying goes, ‘the ugly truth’ has inherent in it tones of pessimism. If what we are after is the truth naturally it stands to be perceived as pessimism. However it doesn’t mean that one
is a pessimist. To be that way includes the element of anticipation. The same thing applies to being an optimist. A situation is prejudged and potentialities narrowed. A self-imposed limitation in a universe where the future is open; right down to the last second. That’s insanity.
Understandably one can look at the direness of the situation, throw their hands in the air and say ‘the hell with it’ and get all depressed. I admit I still get like that at times but there’s a different flavor to it. It’s not so much a physiological thing (as in ego-based depression) as it is a deep compassion mixed with sadness born out of understanding that the
ignorance and suffering of humanity will always be so. If not humanity or this planet then somewhere else in the universe where perhaps even more ‘evil’ and destructive things are happening. We really have no idea of what’s out there. We can barely understand ourselves let alone each other. Nevermind the rest of creation! That fact that we even got this far is a miracle in itself - and am eternally grateful for. How's that for
pessimism realism?
What is even more frustrating, in a sense, is that even wanting to take that away is to remove one of the most valuable tools that 3D life has to offer in terms of learning lessons. It’s not fair from my point of view but what the hell do I know? I have no idea what every soul on this planet came here to do, to learn, to experience. Who am I to determine that for them? What if ‘fixing’ things is really to do a disservice to those who came for that experience – no matter how hard it is? Am I really acting in good conscience to wish for everything to be perfect for everyone? Ok maybe not even perfect but even just less ‘shitty’? There’s no way to really quantify that or even qualify it and have no idea of where to begin.
However there’s something that I think is even more important to understand... something that Val Brown said in his
interview that struck a chord with me:
So yes, knowing what you know now, learning to see the world as it is – is depressing. But if you really think about it, it’s also liberating. There’s a certain freedom in knowing what’s likely coming. Ok, we’re not in Nazi concentration camps but in a sense spiritually we are. So it’s really acceptance that we’re after – accepting that suffering is part of creation, if not here and now, then elsewhere and later. At some point everything gets its due. Life wasn’t mean to be a walk in the park and if you think it is, then you haven’t learned a thing.
OSIT
And remember folks,
the show ain’t over till the fat lady sings!
