The Flip Medley

Kym,

My time in New York City was marked with lots of small experiences that posed questions that challenged me. Specifically, I have been struggling with how to begin codifying (out of the chaos of my life) my ways of thinking in terms of structure, morality, and character. This is not because I’m planning to chuck it all and become Amish (quite the opposite) or because I plan to lead a life of celibacy (ha!) or because I plant to become a Supreme Court Justice (as if!) — it’s actually because I have reached a point where I am questioning the status quo (though I am going through a mild form of Starbuck’s withdrawal).

In the midst of all of this introspection, I found our conversation about your “Damascus experience” (near religious conversion) which has changed you from being an entertainer to an activist fascinating on many levels… mostly because you were very honest about whether your brother (and other people) might not be able to see you and your efforts as anything more than the actions of a hip contrarian.

Keep in mind that I also rub shoulders with folks who are your polar opposites: the hardcore “W” supporters. Some of these folks are good friends, and respected friends of mine. So I found myself asking the question — if this is all a truly “either-or” scenario, someone is right, and someone is wrong. It also means that, in the absence of absolute certainty (as is the case in any topic that is debatable), there will always be room to question the “accepted wisdom”.

The first casualty in my world-view was a specific concept of absolutes. I’ve had a consistent way of thinking of moral issues and it goes something like this: there are a lot of things in life that can be labeled in clearcut terms — “good”, “right”, “evil”, “wrong” — but at the same time, there is a wide swath that can be cut by any critical thinker in such absolutes such that we can see room for “gray areas”. The existence of so much “gray” does not deny the existence of the extremes. In computer graphics, I know there are thousands of shades of gray that the human eye can perceive, but we still have “black” and “white” in the spectrum. Similarly, when it comes to life, I think that it is reasonable to believe that absolutes can coexist amidst the openness and inclusiveness of the ambiguous.

The most interesting insight I’ve found (which may be obvious to others) is that there is a role for everyone to play, and I found an article today that led to me reading an article by James Bond Stocksdale (more on him later). In this article, he quotes the philosopher Epictetus:

Remember, you are an actor in a drama of such sort as the Author chooses-if short, then in a short one; if long, then in a long one. If it be his pleasure that you should enact a poor man, or a cripple, or a ruler, see that you act it well. For this is your business-to act well the given part, but to choose it belongs to Another. …Every one of us, slave or free, has come into this world with innate conceptions as to good and bad, noble and shameful, becoming and unbecoming, happiness and unhappiness, fitting and inappropriate. …If you regard yourself as a man and as a part of some whole, it is fitting for you now to be sick and now to make a voyage and run risks, and not to be in want, and on occasion to die before your time. Why, then, are you vexed? Would you have someone else be sick of a fever now, someone else go on a voyage, someone else die? For it is impossible in such a body as ours, that is, in this universe that envelopes us, among these fellow creatures of ours, that such things should not happen, some to one man, some to another.

…and in reading this, I felt like I had found something that might offer you a foundation as you transmogrify (as Calvin and Hobbes would say) into a new and different flavor (no longer just caramel) of human being.

Also, after years of what I’d call “Jesus-speak” where the term “Body of Christ” always seemed to be an exclusionary, abstract concept, I’m beginning to see that the more complete view may be as of a “Body of Humanity”. I see a specific need for each person to fulfill a greater role… even if it is at odds with others. This may seem to cast a large, gray shadow over everything, but it is not without absolutes, and it is the role of the person of conscience to proclaim the existence of “right” and “wrong”, of “good” and “evil” so as to help a friend go down the right path, or to keep a business honest when it comes to “fair trade” with coffee farmers, or to make a nation think twice before trading freedom for security.

This is not to say the activist is the only person with an important role: We need lawyers. We need politicans. We need doves and hawks. We need CEOs and hippies. We need Moslems, Christians, Jews, and Atheists. We need people from all walks of life to do something no politician seems willing to ask them to do — we need people to shut the hell up and listen to “the others”.

I have sat in a mosque after the 9-11 attacks with Christians, Jews, and Moslems, and I have felt a tenderness and a fellowship with people, regardless of their faith that seems far too distant in our polarized culture. Cutting the vegetables in the “Food Not Bombs” kitchen quieted me down a bit because I felt a similar sense of communion there. I’ve listened to people and taken on the role of the observer more and more lately, and I’ve found that, regardless of their bank balances or views on abortion — people are, for the most part, looking for ways to help heal this “body of humanity” and to do good by their fellow man. I believe we will never have a Utopia, because our diversity means that periodically, we will fuck it all up. But from amidst the rubble, we learn from our lessons and we rebuild. If I could prescribe a remedy for the nation, it would be as simple as saying:

“Go eat dinner and just sit, talk, and just *be* in the presence of someone you disagree with.”

…and in doing so, by simply being who we are (activist or not), we share our knowledge and experience and we build better *people*, who in turn cannot fail to make for a better society. In that sense, I see the differences of opinion between people not as a situation where we must determine who is right or wrong, and assign blame — but as a necessary process by which we evolve our society and build a better world.

I’m done ranting for now.