eThoughts : The Philosophical Umbrella

Part of the series It’s All Been Said Before™ (© 2006), a division of Book-In-A-Drawer Publications.™

In these perilous times, or in any time, is there one overall perspective that should be guiding humanity? Would such a perspective be the umbrella under which many a behavior and mental process would occur—the ideal-to-construct process?

Sometimes it seems like there is. For instance, seemingly running in the backdrop of most of our daily lives, perhaps the global battle for control of reality is of utmost importance—if for no other reason than it behooves a public to know the shape of things and how it got that way.

(A Really Sincere, Beta-Society Member [BSM] Disclaimer: By announcing that I know anything at all about what behooves or motivates a public, or that I can just ask what’s up, I’m not claiming the territory, I’m mulling over the shape of things—out loud if you will—and attempting to engage in the conversation simply to try and understand the “way it is” and why. If I’m wrong, hey—I’m only a Beta-Society Member. If I’m right, Alphas will be the ones that have to decide whether it is more “alpha” to assimilate the reality upgrade or to stay with the old model. In any case, they’re bound to wind up with the credit because they are the reality-implementers, while BSMs are kind of a gelatin that support Alphas doing their jobs. And I would think a motivated populace creating stable gelatin would free up Alpha energy that otherwise would be directed at trying to stay afloat. So, overall, I’m not being uppity, I’m just asking if I’ve got the basis for our implementation of reality correct? That way I’m likely to be much more supportive. And besides, supportive or not, as those with the authority to implement reality, Alphas could squash me like a bug, which could serve as a populace motivator itself.)

Starting at a very basic level and going up: Is it true that scarcity is one part of the overall perspective—there’s not enough to go around in the first place, or it’s not readily available? Whatever the case, would we be better off realizing we could be left wanting?

Is it true that getting what we want requires work, sacrifice, and loads of attention, especially since there may not be enough available?

Is it true that keeping what we’ve gained and getting more, requires even more work, sacrifice, and loads of attention?

Is it true that pulling together under a one kind of banner or another is easier than going it alone?

Is it true that there are many, many bad people out there—some in big groups—really amp-ed up to take over the construction of reality? This is kinda scary. What to do, what to do? Let’s try this: We are free people who know that following the road of freedom, while fraught with serious and life-threatening problems, provides the very highest gold standard for growth.

Now we might consider that real reality is much different than ideal reality. So, in the metamorphosis between ideal and manifestation, are we allowed to limit the freedom of others? In other words, the very nature of freedom is that it has boundaries—there is no freedom without boundaries. Now we seem to have two God-given rights: Freedom and the right to do what it takes to keep it, as long as any enforcement of our freedoms do not exceed the ratio of good to bad contributions—no number ten reactions to number two infractions?

I think I got lost though. This last God-given right—the right to a kind of benevolent enforcement—seems to need a fleet of cargo ships stuffed with definitions and guidelines. It just doesn’t seem possible to move about the flora and fauna of diverse ideas and diverse realities without getting into somebody’s freedom, and causing harm in the process. Now it seems like we’ve just been going in circles—it’s all too much to keep track of. So maybe we’ll exercise our freedom by voting and then leave it up to others to keep track of stuff.

Wait a minute, maybe we need to practice what we preach, not just vote on it. If freedom is a God-given right, and true freedom requires boundaries, perhaps we can honor our God-given rights by staying out of other people’s hair, rather than dehumanizing others for getting into our hair. We could go out of our minds trying to figure those edges out, but maybe losing our present mindset is exactly what we need. Can you imagine a world where each of us behaved with the knowledge that to protect another’s space is to protect our own? (This concept is a bit different than “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” primarily because what we want is not always what others want, whereas if we all watched out for each other’s space, we all get consideration.) Interesting, an additional benefit of such a practice is that it would likely help prevent people from becoming lunatics in the first place, as well as clearly establish who the present lunatics are—the ones who want to and/or don’t care about infringing upon others.

So, overall, realizing that to protect another’s space is to protect our own seems like a pretty nice philosophical umbrella under which to operate. Maybe with a bit more breathing room, we would lose some of our anxiety about getting, keeping, and growing.