| Government | Living in Place | Monkeywrenching | Musings | Reality | War & Peace | Wilderness |
REALITY |
August 13, 2003 I've been getting up early lately, riding my bike through the pre-dawn fog down to the KUSP studio near the beach, where I host NPR's Morning Edition, substituting for Genial Johnny who's on vacation in Las Vegas, of all places. Fire lookout towers being in short supply these days, it serves as my remote aerie from which to view society from a comfortable perspective, in the quiet of a coastal California dawn, with the fog horn bleating sharply in the distance (what ever happened to the old reverberant rhuuuuuuuuuu-unh?). I watch the morning light creep through obscuring vapors, observe the eucalyptus gradually gaining ghostly form, their long leafy branches serving as convenient and secure perches for families of dark cormorants to discuss among themselves the coming morning flights. This is supposed to be a "non-commercial' radio station, meaning that we don't sell advertising to keep the station going, nor are we beholden to the pleasure of advertisers to cover our operating expenses. Even so, every ten minutes or so, I read "grant announcements," typed on 3 X 5 cards, explaining, "This program is made possible by a generous grant from..." and, "for information, call..." They may not be advertisements, as such, but the station does agree to air so many of these "spots" in exchange for the grantors' unspecified generous contributions. Sounds something like a duck to me. It's not a matter of greed, really. We love doing radio and we're happy that someone will pay us to do the things we love. We get what we want and they get at least some of what they want: a good trade. "Public" radio goes on and the business of doing business slips a bit more to the capitalist side of the ledger. The cormorants, meanwhile, raise their families of cormorant babies in piles of twigs perched precariously on largely bare branches, peeping and pining for food from their busy parents. Theirs is a different kind of greed, a demand for the essential sustenance vomited forth from their parents' long hooked bills in a basic relationship older than time. In due course, the dependent fledglings will take wing to find their own mates, raise their own broods of hungry children and scour the nearby lagoons for suitable baby food. Hmmm, analogies abound, stretching credulity perhaps, begging comparisons between broadcasters and birds, funders and flyers. Each has a part to play in the foggy moments of first light, insuring the continuance of free communication and feathery communion. There is a basic difference, however, a difference that clarifies the relationship between Homo sapiens and the non-human world. The apologists for human excess always claim that man is part of nature and therefore whatever man (and woman) does is natural and must be accepted as part of the natural processes of this Earth. This ignores the fact that man is the only animal capable of self-reflection, self-knowledge and the ability to foresee the outcome of our own actions, however dimly. Humans can decide for themselves whether or not to destroy habitat for non-human species, all the while understanding the consequences of any decision to continue in destructive practices. The cormorant, on the other, uh, wing, can only do what cormorants have done for millions of years: dry their wings in the dim morning sun, raise their babies high in the branches of trees bordering the coastal lagoons where they spear fish in the brackish waters, and perch convivially in mute contemplative rows on bare branches etched against a perfect sky. They know nothing of time, progress, tomorrow or yesterday. They can't worry that they are taking too many fish from nearby waters, nor discuss the effects of bird poop on the e-coli content if its effluent. The cormorants are innocent, pure, sublimely fortunate. It remains for us, headphones clamped on ears, microphone held captive in its proffering hand, gazing upon the primordial scene through single-paned, mullioned windows of human manufacture, to do our job of contemplation, introspection and ponderous prognostication. Those of us with access to the communication media: to books, magazines and newspapers, to radio public, pirated and for-profit; yes, and even unto TeeVee, the great bastion of United States greed and propaganda, have a responsibility to spread the word of the task assigned to us by millennia of evolution, and to infuse in our fellow navel gazers a sense of responsibility for our great calling. Michael A. Lewis Leona Gulch Pacific Plate August 1, 2003 There is a Taoist concept expressed as wu wei, meaning of itself. The central tenet of Taoism is the active form of wu wei, or self-arising, sometimes translated less accurately as "not doing" or "not striving." As an apple tree does not have to think about producing apples, the apples arise of themselves from the very nature of their "appleness." Humans do not tell their faces how to grow and change, the nature of the human face arises of itself, with no conscious intervention. We could say that humans "face" in much the same way that the apple tree "apples." (Thanks to Alan Watts for this concept) It is also true that relationships among humans arise from the circumstances within human societies. In a society in which economic production is organized under a centralized authoritarian hierarchy, relationships among humans in all circumstances are also so organized. The principle organizing structure of the society comes from the central authority rather than from within the individual. The humans are told how to "face" rather than "facing" as a self-arising part of being human. Some people see centralized authoritarian hierarchy as unnecessarily limiting human "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," of those who are not in control of the hierarchy. Our present situation is a perfect example: the United States government is proposing to kill thousands of people in another country in order to force them to "face" in a particular way, on demand, rather than the way they normally do. This government demands that everyone should "face" in the same way it does, regardless of how we would "face" through self-arising behavior. The emphasis is on control and authority rather than life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The question posed then is "How do we change our society so as to maximize "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" for all members. The question, posed this way, is another example of centralized, hierarchical authoritarian thinking. It is not up to us to change society to achieve our predetermined outcome. Rather, we should ask, "How can we remove centralized, authoritarian hierarchy from our lives and allow a new society to arise of itself?" One approach is non-cooperation. If we turn our backs on the central hierarchy, conduct our economic and political lives in our local neighborhoods, communities and bioregions and withdraw our support from the central authority, we will build a world in which the society of human interrelationships can arise of itself. If we think less in terms of opposition, denial, destruction and elimination, and think rather of nurture, support, mutual aid, and addition, we will foster these human activities and allow the others to wither from lack of energy. Another way of thinking of this is living in place. If we concentrate first on living our own lives in harmony with the natural cycles of the place we inhabit, and conduct our relationships with others in our neighborhoods, communities and bioregions with this same emphasis and understanding, our society will arise from these interrelationships of itself. We need not strive toward "democracy," "anarchy," "socialism" or any other mental construct of human behavior as an overriding template of what our society should look like. Such a predetermined outcome will only produce a centrally guided society. Alternatively, we can learn to let go, let live, be one with the place and the people. We can coevolve with all living things in our bioregion, celebrating the joy of living, living the joy of celebration. This seems idealistic, utopian, in a world dominated by central authority. How can we hope to escape from the centralized system when everything in our lives is dependant on and controlled by the system? Do we start a commune, withdraw to a cabin in the wilderness, move to another country? "Freedom begins between the ears." Ed Abbey "Be the change you want to see in the world." Mahandis K. Gandhi "If you want the world to be a better place, you must do it, every day." Meatball Fulton Lobo Place East Mesa |