Stroudiztan
25-02-2005, 19:11
I woke up with a headache this morning, and decided to write it away. Figured it might be an interesting thing to think about, so here's what I did.
DETACHMENT.
I do not pretend to care about a lot of things, mostly things I don't have a direct relationship to. I am a classic middle-grounder. Abed with Apathy. In today's world of pressing issues, this is a bit off-putting. I am confronted daily with clamoring debate. Hold on, I need to get a doughnut.
Okay, yes, clamoring debate. I love debate. I love to see the passion with which two or more sides defend their position, teams of moral guerrillas keeping their respective hills of value safe from the hordes of disagreement. It is all very noble and would make a good movie. I also morbidly gravitate towards the less polite debates, the ones where barrages infused with ignorance and slander pelt the landscape like a filthy tar from the heavens. In a few cases I'll tend to agree with a side or sides, but probably won't do much about it unless there's a chance to make myself look smart and/or someone else look comically inept.
Like I said, though, almost every issue which does not come to my door personally and start beating me about the head, I dismiss with relative ease. For example, I can't be arsed to take a complete stand on abortion, consumerism, and violence in sports because I don't have a uterus, don't care what brand something has, and have never been clipped in the nose by a high stick. I will appease some issues simply because it seems like a lot over nothing. Gay Marriage, for instance, strikes me as no big deal. I think everyone ought to be treated pretty much equally, but I won't go to some pride parade because I think it's stupid and a waste of time. I simply don't care that much. I am of the opinion that the world would be a better place if no one cared that much about a lot of so-called issues. Sarah wants to stop her pregnancy? That's for her to deal with, or not deal with. Joe and Bruce want to get hitched? Fine, no one else should really give a damn, except their families and the guy who makes the cake.
ENGAGEMENT.
But what about things like war? It can't possibly be comletely ruled out that someone will want to take something from someone else. It would have been no easy feat back in the fourties to "not care" about World War II and the atrocities committed in the name of conquest. Since Viet Nam, things have been fuzzier though, haven't they? Waging war on an ideal, a system, or a style of government is walking on eggshells. So many "if they evers" and "if left uncheckeds" diving towards hypothetical situations. Some might be justified, though history doesn't allow second opinions after the fact. What happens happens, and will have happened.
Fact: American troops are stationed in Iraq. Should they have gone? Who knows? Should they leave right now? I'd be inclined to say probably not. The problem with knocking out what's holding a country together, for better or for worse, is that you're left holding up that pillar. You have to find someone else to take it from you, or keep standing there. And then what's next, after that pillar gets passed on? Another pillar in Iran or Syria? Half a world away, people are deciding what will be talked about for years to come, and studied in schools for decades beyond. Conclusions will be drawn as to cause and consequences, and in the end, guess what? People will debate it, and use it as cannon fodder when justifying/decrying the next big thing.
But where does the line between detachment and engagement get drawn? My opinion on the issue of Iraq was a half-interested "I dunno if he'd really want to bomb us, that would be pretty stupid." Maybe my opinion is a naive impression fostered by watching James Bond villains hijack large video monitors confirming their involvement and demanding a ransom. My personal (I almost typed "objective"...oops!) view of the Middle East right now is "That's pretty fucked up". I look at what they're saying about Iran and Syria, and I get another one of those "I dunno if he'd really want to bomb us" ideas, and it quickly associates with "That's pretty fucked up", and I form the opinion that invading more places would be even more fucked up. Sorry for the language, it's a candid view inside my skull.
So I do form some opinions on things which do not directly affect me. But I know there'very little I can do about it, or care to do about it for that matter, and I resign myself to taking bets in my mind on which side of the furious debates will get to say the all-important "I TOLD YOU SO!"
ANALYSIS.
The world of tomorrow is shaped by the world of today, and the world of today was etched out somewhere between long ago and yesterday. Everyone makes decisions everyday and the results of those countless decisions are visited upon whoever's around tomorrow, to deal with as they see fit. I know there are people like me, with not even a quarter of a century under their belts, who cannot even begin to grasp how the decisive actions or inactions of our forebearers have impacted what we see as reality today. We reap what we sow, yes, but we also tend to reap what was sown by others before us.
Taking a side can be noble. Taking a side can be dangerous. Foolish. Tragic. Brave. Heroic. History is made by people who take sides. I don't think I'm one of those people. So many things out there. Politics, Religion, Love, Leisure...So many different opinions. I'm agnostic. I'm pretty sure that a lot of terrible things get said about fence-sitters of any type, but I never saw my lack of 100% certainty as anything to do with a fence. More like a window. I can see what all the chosen sides are doing, but I don't necessarily want to come out and join them.
Are we, the undecided, doomed to never have our marks made in the grand scheme? Have we taken it upon ourselves to observe rather than participate? Do we truly seek objectivity? Can we ever really attain it?
CONCLUSION.
I would contend that maybe things like agnosticism, moderation and yes, even fence sitting (or window-watching) are of a a higher station than they are typically viewed. Those of us who can accept that there are many different ways to look at something, and that we could actually be wrong in our impressions. When one man says, "You are naive to think that peace can endure on its own", can you say that he is completely wrong? When another man says, "You are a fiend to believe that war will protect us", how can you be surethat he is absolutely right?
Unless you believe in augury and future sight, it must be quite difficult to be completely sure of something, unless that something is all you've known. I do not doubt that there are many who, in seeing that their point of view and path of action, are strong and brave in their ways. Do not, however, doubt the strength of the one who cannot choose. To doubt takes much from within. A desire to know, not just learn. A need to see, not just watch. A will to walk, not just move.
Any thoughts?
DETACHMENT.
I do not pretend to care about a lot of things, mostly things I don't have a direct relationship to. I am a classic middle-grounder. Abed with Apathy. In today's world of pressing issues, this is a bit off-putting. I am confronted daily with clamoring debate. Hold on, I need to get a doughnut.
Okay, yes, clamoring debate. I love debate. I love to see the passion with which two or more sides defend their position, teams of moral guerrillas keeping their respective hills of value safe from the hordes of disagreement. It is all very noble and would make a good movie. I also morbidly gravitate towards the less polite debates, the ones where barrages infused with ignorance and slander pelt the landscape like a filthy tar from the heavens. In a few cases I'll tend to agree with a side or sides, but probably won't do much about it unless there's a chance to make myself look smart and/or someone else look comically inept.
Like I said, though, almost every issue which does not come to my door personally and start beating me about the head, I dismiss with relative ease. For example, I can't be arsed to take a complete stand on abortion, consumerism, and violence in sports because I don't have a uterus, don't care what brand something has, and have never been clipped in the nose by a high stick. I will appease some issues simply because it seems like a lot over nothing. Gay Marriage, for instance, strikes me as no big deal. I think everyone ought to be treated pretty much equally, but I won't go to some pride parade because I think it's stupid and a waste of time. I simply don't care that much. I am of the opinion that the world would be a better place if no one cared that much about a lot of so-called issues. Sarah wants to stop her pregnancy? That's for her to deal with, or not deal with. Joe and Bruce want to get hitched? Fine, no one else should really give a damn, except their families and the guy who makes the cake.
ENGAGEMENT.
But what about things like war? It can't possibly be comletely ruled out that someone will want to take something from someone else. It would have been no easy feat back in the fourties to "not care" about World War II and the atrocities committed in the name of conquest. Since Viet Nam, things have been fuzzier though, haven't they? Waging war on an ideal, a system, or a style of government is walking on eggshells. So many "if they evers" and "if left uncheckeds" diving towards hypothetical situations. Some might be justified, though history doesn't allow second opinions after the fact. What happens happens, and will have happened.
Fact: American troops are stationed in Iraq. Should they have gone? Who knows? Should they leave right now? I'd be inclined to say probably not. The problem with knocking out what's holding a country together, for better or for worse, is that you're left holding up that pillar. You have to find someone else to take it from you, or keep standing there. And then what's next, after that pillar gets passed on? Another pillar in Iran or Syria? Half a world away, people are deciding what will be talked about for years to come, and studied in schools for decades beyond. Conclusions will be drawn as to cause and consequences, and in the end, guess what? People will debate it, and use it as cannon fodder when justifying/decrying the next big thing.
But where does the line between detachment and engagement get drawn? My opinion on the issue of Iraq was a half-interested "I dunno if he'd really want to bomb us, that would be pretty stupid." Maybe my opinion is a naive impression fostered by watching James Bond villains hijack large video monitors confirming their involvement and demanding a ransom. My personal (I almost typed "objective"...oops!) view of the Middle East right now is "That's pretty fucked up". I look at what they're saying about Iran and Syria, and I get another one of those "I dunno if he'd really want to bomb us" ideas, and it quickly associates with "That's pretty fucked up", and I form the opinion that invading more places would be even more fucked up. Sorry for the language, it's a candid view inside my skull.
So I do form some opinions on things which do not directly affect me. But I know there'very little I can do about it, or care to do about it for that matter, and I resign myself to taking bets in my mind on which side of the furious debates will get to say the all-important "I TOLD YOU SO!"
ANALYSIS.
The world of tomorrow is shaped by the world of today, and the world of today was etched out somewhere between long ago and yesterday. Everyone makes decisions everyday and the results of those countless decisions are visited upon whoever's around tomorrow, to deal with as they see fit. I know there are people like me, with not even a quarter of a century under their belts, who cannot even begin to grasp how the decisive actions or inactions of our forebearers have impacted what we see as reality today. We reap what we sow, yes, but we also tend to reap what was sown by others before us.
Taking a side can be noble. Taking a side can be dangerous. Foolish. Tragic. Brave. Heroic. History is made by people who take sides. I don't think I'm one of those people. So many things out there. Politics, Religion, Love, Leisure...So many different opinions. I'm agnostic. I'm pretty sure that a lot of terrible things get said about fence-sitters of any type, but I never saw my lack of 100% certainty as anything to do with a fence. More like a window. I can see what all the chosen sides are doing, but I don't necessarily want to come out and join them.
Are we, the undecided, doomed to never have our marks made in the grand scheme? Have we taken it upon ourselves to observe rather than participate? Do we truly seek objectivity? Can we ever really attain it?
CONCLUSION.
I would contend that maybe things like agnosticism, moderation and yes, even fence sitting (or window-watching) are of a a higher station than they are typically viewed. Those of us who can accept that there are many different ways to look at something, and that we could actually be wrong in our impressions. When one man says, "You are naive to think that peace can endure on its own", can you say that he is completely wrong? When another man says, "You are a fiend to believe that war will protect us", how can you be surethat he is absolutely right?
Unless you believe in augury and future sight, it must be quite difficult to be completely sure of something, unless that something is all you've known. I do not doubt that there are many who, in seeing that their point of view and path of action, are strong and brave in their ways. Do not, however, doubt the strength of the one who cannot choose. To doubt takes much from within. A desire to know, not just learn. A need to see, not just watch. A will to walk, not just move.
Any thoughts?