Initialization

Sometimes I wonder if it’s the way our society is set up. We have not just the pundits and advertisers on all the stations; we have our social media platforms filled to the brim with moral posturing and broken communication, and no human social cues whatsoever. But to go even further back, as kids learning to write, we’re told by the teacher we’re supposed to write an essay. We want to get a good grade, so we do a good job to either get that goody-goody, or worse yet, out of fear, so we don’t get in trouble!

The centerpiece of writing an essay is having an argument, a thesis, a central belief that the rest of the flow depends solely upon being true. That means we encourage kids from an early age that they MUST have an opinion, they must have a core instinct that is decidedly a priori true. But I find many things in life are gray, ambiguous, multi-layered, two-faced. Many things take time to step back, hours or days or longer of contemplation, or a good night’s sleep. And yet, when we get angry, everything becomes polarized. Like when you fight with the people you love, the tone becomes “you ALWAYS do X, you NEVER do why,” etc.… but when are the people you love or loved ever so one-dimensional?

The point being, when I scan across all kinds of media and commentary, sometimes I think there is something wrong with language, the way we shout opinions at each other, hurling low-resolution absolutist platitudes. How many debates have you seen where someone wins? When the night ends, the problem is solved, and one panelist goes home humbly realizing he was completely wrong about everything? Heck, the etymology of debate is “de” meaning downward, and “bate” as in batter, as in to beat someone. So it’s not even an attempt at discovering the truth but more about a good ol’ fashioned beat down. What if a debate was a collaborative effort where the objective was to find consensus?

I’ve never identified as a Buddhist, but the philosophies have always fascinated me. At the beginning of every sutra, there is a line, “Thus I have heard.” It sets the tone and context of the piece. To me, it kinda says outright, this could be hearsay, it might not be. It’s kind of irrelevant; focus on the structure of the ideas themselves and their merit, and we can go from there.

So what am I getting at? I’m not sure exactly. As I set about to write more often, I will try my best to do it in the sake of exploration, as someone who is investigating with an open mind. I will try to write from the point of view that to the best of my knowledge, these things make sense and are valid, but that I never stop questioning and always consider the possibility that I might be wrong. I will fail at times; opinions and emotions will leak out; I may have to backtrack, contemplate, apologize, whatever. But that’s all we can do, our best. 

I hope I can keep this up, that good things come of it, and at least someone’s life is impacted in a positive way. So here’s to that single, most difficult first step.