There are so many things in this world that move the soul. Some are moved by a restful sunset, others by a new adventure in life. No matter the vehicle we are all wired with the capacity and the desire to be moved. The point and purpose of this book is to pose the simple yet evasive question, “why?” Why are we created to move and be moved. You can look at the lives of countless others, movers if you will, and you are left scratching your head and asking what moved them to act. Whether you look back into the annals of history to some of the great movers like Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther or to the wicked acts of those whose movements gathered many followers and caused the suffering of many there was something dynamic, something desirable and attractive to the followers of these men and women.
It seems timely to pen these words as we as a whole are at the pinnacle of a new day. In the United States we are witnessing changes that have never been seen in our history. On the world stage the experience is much the same. There is a world recession, Governments are looking for answers for something greater than they have seen within their own ranks. As a whole we are waiting to be moved. In January I sat with a few friends glued to our television watching history be made as the revolt of one young man inspired a revolt in Egypt that toppled an entire Government. I was in a flat in Kuwait watching such great passion as Mubarak renounced his leadership. Horns were blowing in the streets and there were many celebratory demonstrations as the people of Egypt stood unified after years of oppression. There was excitement and yet in the back of all of our minds a subtle fear. We had seen rebellions developing in neighboring countries and there was talk that Saudi, Bahrain, and even Iran may be on the brink of similar protests. What a terrifyingly exciting moment. We, Americans, outsiders, had been invited to be in the midst of movement, change, growth and sadly at many points even destruction. Rumors flew for weeks of civil unrest throughout the region, there were protests eventually in Bahrain and much blood was shed. People were crying for freedom, literally. Many of my dear Egyptian friends were constantly watching the news, checking emails, and writing blogs. They were in every sense of the word intertwined with their brothers and sisters in The Square with arms raised and hearts broken as their homeland was shifting to new unknown territory. One of my closest friends shared with me that tear gas canisters had been shot through the windows of his Mother’s home. The canisters were passed their expiration dates and the gas was much more potent than it should have been. The effects were almost fatal. We sat many nights and talked about what he would do when he returned to his home. There was always a settled determination in his voice and he would share of his plans to return home and rebuild. He was moved by something greater than the revolution, something terribly central to his heart was alive and ready to fight for his home. Suffering moves us, often in ways that words fall flat to describe.
Months later I was attending a church the founder and lead pastor of the church had passed away the night before the service. He was a very strong leader, with a charismatic personality that moved those with whom he led in fellowship. The service was a bitter sweet mixture of sadness at the loss of this shepherd and sweetness as they reflected over the person who had now gone on to the eternal life that he had hoped for and had led others to understand more deeply.
It is so often the case that in the midst of suffering that we ask the desperate why questions. Why me? Why now? Why did this happen? We cringe at the idea that there may be more in the moment than pain alone. We all have these basic fears, in my opinion they stem from the fear of being alone, abandoned. The why questions come, as a sort of security blanket for those in the midst of their anguish. I say this as a man who has experienced suffering, a therapist that has led other through their suffering, but more deeply as an individual who is terrified of being alone. We develop billion dollar space programs to search for life on other worlds and we ask both in conversations and headlines, “are we alone?” We want to know but if anyone has watched the movie interpretations of these potential discoveries they are terrifying. We want to know we are not alone but we are terrified to think that if we are not that we are indeed vulnerable. This is true not only in the extraterrestrial sense of the word but in the relational sense as well. When you look at any of the major psychological disorders at their base they isolate the individual. Depression, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Paranoia and the list goes on. At our roots we are terrified of being alone and yet terrified of being known. We are desperate to be moved but are aware that there are always consequences, both good and bad in being moved. You and I are created to be moved, we are created to move and in nautical terms from tip to stern we are shaking in our boots to find ourselves anywhere on the spectrum.
This is an idea that in it’s basic form will be familiar. We will put flesh on the bones of this age old story and it is my hope that as you read you will be moved. I will pose one challenge for you that will span from cover to cover of this book, and that is simply, to embrace this great capacity to be moved. As you embrace it know that it has been placed in you for a clear and noble purpose. Simply put it is to be known in all of the simplicity and complexity of your being and to carry that knowledge to the world around you. Know and be known.
As always I would love your feedback and suggestions!
-JRS
As knowledge is regulated and closely monitored, particularly in this part of the world, it is radicalized to a hopeless and irremediable extent to serve the purpose of political hegemony, and to kill, absolutely eradicate the mere thought of egalitarianism.
ReplyDeleteKnowledge is constructed so empirical truths can guide societies to freedom and justice, and this has long been true as one traces successful social movements in history. But what is knowledge today? And how did it effectively serve our societies? (many lines under the word "effectively").
It seems today that the more we know, the more vulnerable we become. We risk so much only because a small amount of knowledge has been revealed to us.
This begs the question, how safe is knowledge in the twenty first century? And how can it serve a harmless purpose so the seed of change can produce a historical tree of resourceful democracy?
Wow! Beautifully said! First of all, knowledge is so so powerful. Copernicus who literally transformed astronomy published his findings posthumously. The same goes for Hume and the birth of skepticism/empiricism. New ideas, new perspectives have always been regarded as dangerous by the powers that be. Sometimes they are but sometimes they are exponentially beneficially and necessary to the growth of cultures and societies. We as people generally fear what we don't understand. The reality is that we don't necessarily understand as much as we assume to. This is either a catalyst for growth or a deterrent. To complicate things even further some members of a society may see it as the prior while another portion sees it as the latter. To answer your question on the safety of knowledge, it is as safe today as it was in the beginning which isn't necessarily that safe. The outcome of knowledge's use comes with time. The reality is that the truth always seems to rise to the surface. Socialism, the failed experiment that it was, relied on the idea that distribution would be fair and honest. In reality it was not very honest nor was it fair. The rich grew richer and the poor grew poorer. Capitalism struggles in the same way. While the government holds a different position in free enterprise you see the same conditions set in. The have's have more and the have not's continue to have not. Democracy, whether presented as a true democracy or a republic form has a better system of balance but still has it's flaws. No representative can ultimately nor adequately speak for all of the people. Governments worldwide tend to fall towards some type of utilitarianism in whatever form it comes. The heart of most people is to have leadership that they can ultimately trust to pursue the greater good as they see it. I think that this is why government and religion have tended to be paired throughout history. You have in government, a limited picture of a religious system where the masses submit to a greater power and trust that their needs will be met. Unfortunately as the story of history tells us there are no perfect people and we all have our limits. I know that I have taken the long way around answering your questions...lol I think that the reality is that you have asked a truly rich question and I could spend days writing about this topic. Let me try to sum it up like this. Ultimately we want to be protected and cared for. This I believe comes back to our system of faith. I think somewhere along the way we put that expectation on government and in some instances the government places that expectation on itself. Ultimately, our hope are for infinite leadership, wisdom and mercy. This reminds me of the Leviathan, an absolute authority with a philosopher king at the helm. Basically we want to see God as our leader and people will always fall short of those expectations.
DeleteA big response is coming your way, Sir. I will try to find the time to compose when I am not tending to the household's needs.
ReplyDeleteI get high from intellectual debates! It is quite literally my shot of heroin.
A big response is coming your way, so take heed.
Now that the children are asleep, I can light my pipe of thought and revel in my own addictive passion for intellectual indulgence.
ReplyDeleteYou are very right about the division of knowledge into two categories; one that is productive, and one that is equally repressive.
Karl Marx strongly believed in moving the working class to eradicate ideologies that have long marginalized and alienated them. He believed that the type of power that was being used to coerce the public produces nothing but false consciousness, as the ideologies of the bourgeois society exercise political and economic control on the working class. He says, "Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology and their corresponding forms of consciousness, thus no longer retain the semblance of independence."
To Marx, this type of authoritarian system of thought regulates knowledge to produce power. He calls for revolutionary reform to replace old modes of production by a new classless system that distributes equally and, supposedly, ensures everybody's happiness and satisfaction. As you mentioned, the result was more devastating as the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
Marx tried to divert knowledge for a revolutionary end, but how effective or successful was his revolution? Yes, knowledge was revealed to the public and produced just the kind of consciousness he expected, but this modification was by no means operative, nor persuasive. As such, we wonder whether or not knowledge yields power when we know that the very knowledge that has been "given" to us was controlled to repress us.
we know for a fact now that the more we know, the better we can decide on an effective course of action, but let us take a look at the theory and practice of knowledge and power today.
In theory, knowledge, understood as a system of truths, is regulated by state institutions, such as the media and the university. Power is practiced by the state, thus it is reflected in what WE UNDERSTAND TODAY as independent and serviceable knowledge. In his work "Truth and Power", Michel Foucault describes this kind of truth as such: "Truth is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces and which extend it. A 'regime' of truth."
In practice, knowledge, also understood as truth, serves the public and is readily used to free people from what William Blake describes as the "mind forg'd manacles" that the state is trying to suppress us with. As such, Marx was right, consciousness DOES lead us to revolt; hence the Arab Spring.
I ask: If knowledge really does free us from coercive power, then why was Edward Snowden exiled, and why are people still being arrested for revealing knowledge? I apologize if I brought up a sensitive matter, but I think it applies perfectly to our argument here. I understand that there exists a gray area where the difference between right and wrong is more blurred than we think, but, objectively speaking, people like Snowden do what they do because it is what they personally perceive as "right". Who is to say if the knowledge that has been revealed to us is not the kind of knowledge that we NEED to know? Did his revelations not put him in danger? Then, how can we say that knowledge today is safe? From the looks of it, it is not even close to safe.
Our governments will forever prevent us from exercising any amount of freedom with knowledge.
You know, Joseph Stalin said "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We have not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"
Do you think that his words apply today?
I am going to put this in to two separate replies as the site is limiting me to 4,096 characters..lol
DeleteMy friend, I think you are spot on. My previous point in saying that knowledge is as safe now as it ever was before, was merely to say that it was never safe. I believe that withing social systems their exists a spectrum that spans generations. We exist within what Hegel called, der Geist seiner Zeit. Later it was coined simply as the Zeitgeist. It was the spirit or mindset of the age. While we look at the Snowden's of today many respond in fear to the deep implications that this knowledge could bring. This is the short term reaction. The zeitgeist of our day is build heavily on reaction to terrorism and prevention of catastrophes. Ironically the US Government has used this fear both for and against the people. During the 2004 and 2008 elections the terror alert in the States was raised and there was much talk of potential threats, thus pushing the agenda to elect a candidate that would provide a sense of safety to the people. In the case of the 2004 election it was built on continuing the policies of the Bush era and thus played heavily into the politics of the conservatives.
It goes without saying that all knowledge is potential for many ideaologies. Sometimes, I believe, the fight is not so much over the knowledge, rather over the perspective. A great example is the current state of the Media in the US. You have a faction of conservatives who consistently push an agenda claiming that the majority of media leans to the liberal side. Hence, the creation of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh. The, "fair and balanced" news was really just the application of knowledge with a different perspective.
Ok.. Apparently it will be a three part answer...
DeleteIn reference to Stalin, there is an old story it goes as follows:
Everything was wonderful in Russia.
Everyone agreed and that’s all there was to know. That is until one typically skeptical American journalist dared to ask an unprepared question; an honest and informed question.
“Mister Premier,” the journalist said “How long do you think you can keep up this charade?” To which there was no reply. Stalin just continued spreading grain. The journalist asked again, “What makes you think you can starve and torture and kill your people and they won’t rise up against you?”
The local media stood dumbstruck with fear and his aides in a panic attempted to shuffle off the question and the journalist. Stalin motioned for them to stop and for the cameras to be put away. He then reached down and picked up one of the chickens and held it tight under his arm so it could not move.
Stalin then continued in reply to the journalist’s question as calm and as confident as before. He said, “We have more grain because we have nationalized farming and so we can sell the grain for capital in order to build factories to produce the things the people need.” As he spoke he began to rip the feathers off the chickens back in great handfuls.
He continued, “The people have need of many things that we are now giving them.” The poor bird squawked and screeched in agony. Stalin’s grasp tightened. His iron grip held the bird firm as he calmly turned to the journalist and spoke. “It is a testament to the ability of man in this modern age that through the state we have overcome the individual weaknesses of greed and selfishness that have kept us from solving our problems.”
The journalist could hardly speak. He stared in horror as Stalin savaged the chicken. The bird nearly limp, convulsed slightly as Stalin placed it back on the ground. It staggered clumsily away, unlikely to have been able to process what was just done to it. A feeling of disgust covered over by fear was palpable upon the barnyard. Stalin reached into his pocket for a handful of grain and continued on as before tofeed the chickens who flocked around him.
DeleteThe journalist stammer, “What… Why…?”
Stalin continued in response, “We are solving these problems.” Seemingly oblivious to the journalist’squestions. He was remarkably unaffected by his own actions or the journalist’s response to it. He said, “In Russia, as it should be in all the world, from each according to his abilities and too each according to his need.”
Stalin, identifying the wounded chicken he had just damaged creeping back toward the edge of the flock to peck at the bits of grain remaining on the ground, reached again into his jacket pocket and pulled out afresh handful of grain. He knelt down a bit and held out his hand toward the injured animal. The bird looked for a moment, cocked its head to the slide a bit, and then timidly step toward Stalin. In a moment, It was eating the food right out of the hand that minutes before had torn the feathers right off it’s back.
Stalin dropped the remaining grain on the ground stood and turned toward the journalist. Did that answer your question, he said.
The journalist hesitated, locked in a momentary state of emotional and mental chaos. He responded, “Yes sir, thank you.” as the full impact of the situation became clear in his mind.
I wish I could give you the primary source on this. I remember the story from an old Ethics of Philosophy class in undergrad.. Knowledge, by all means is power. The slant or spin of that knowledge is even more powerful as it can protect, injure, prosper, or devistate a people.”
I think that the world is entering into a new mindset. It is shifting away from the drive and ambitions of our predecessors. The fight now is where will it go. Who will set the standard for the coming Zeitgeist. The Right? The Left? The Powerful? The Wealthy? The Average Citizen? All are fighting intensely to be heard and followed. I agree knowledge is unsafe, for it will determine the ruling parties of tomorrow.
I appreciate your input. This is most definitely a great conversation. I am looking forward to your reply!
Please allow me to ask provocative questions:
ReplyDeleteDo you think that it is sometimes best if man remains ignorant of the political (and economic) reality of his country?
When is ignorance considered bliss?
Can we live a more peaceful life if we just didn't know?
Thank you for this engaging conversation, Sir, and thank you for your time.
ReplyDeleteI must say that Stalin's story is quite shocking! I was reading with my jaw almost dropping to the ground, but then we live in an age where shock and trauma became an everyday norm. I deeply sympathize with the bird, however, and I pray that its karma will make Stalin turn in his grave (sorry!)
You know, Sir, you raise interesting questions: What is our Zeitgeist today? Do you not believe that the West has grown stronger in fighting terrorism after the death of Bin Laden? Is the West beyond the fear of terrorism today?
I was thinking about this matter a few days ago as I was discussing the topic of the deaths of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden with a friend. There is, undoubtedly, a persistent fear of terror attacks around the world, but I believe that this fear is shifting away from the West and toward the Middle East. As we follow the news, we hear and read about roadside bombs that target Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and Afghanistan's own people. Quite recently, the same bomb targeted a polio health team in Pakistan, killing twelve people and injuring many others.
This debate between you and me is very interesting indeed because we talk about the same subjects from two very different perspectives. You are an American, and I am a Kuwaiti. You probably see that the West is still in high alert, and that it is still prone to the same attacks as the ones orchestrated by Bin Laden. On the other hand, I see that these threats and attacks are now shifted toward the Middle East as terrorists are focusing on the aforementioned countries. I do not want to speak on your behalf, Sir, so please correct me if I am wrong!
The story of Edward Snowden and the revelation of classified information, in my opinion, does not pose the same level of threat as it would have ten or fifteen years ago. You see, there are more important matters engaging terrorists today, such as establishing a fundamental Islamic nation in the Arab world as Syria and Iraq are falling apart and losing their sovereignty.
In the light of this shift, the spirit of our age is no longer the spirit of our age. Do you see what I mean?
When the term "Zeitgeist" was coined, it was from a purely Western perspective, and when we talk about fear of terrorism today becoming the "Zeitgeist" we are talking about an obstinate fear that existed back when Osama Bin Laden was still alive, and when George W. Bush was still president. Today, different parts of the world have their own Zeitgeist.
I think I diverted, so I will drive back on track now:
The relationship between knowledge and power is seen from different perspectives, and you are very right when you said that the perspective is more important than knowldge today. I am confident that in all parts of the world, knowledge is needed to provide people with strength and the power to change. More particularly, what happened in the Middle East was a series of revelations and awakenings. Knowledge was spread through social media, and we have our own versions of Edward Snowdens, namely those who defect and expose corruption.
Personally, I believe that the Arab Spring is based on everything that is right because people displayed desperate needs, but it failed miserably. Governments failed their people and terrorism found a way to infiltrate, Now tell me, are the revolutions not doomed to failure just like Marx's revolutions?
Arabs woke up to the principles of the French Revolution, Sir, but what resulted from the struggle for power today was far more catastrophic.
To answer your question about "who will set the standard for the coming Zeitgeist", please allow me to elaborate on my view on the matter.
ReplyDeleteIf our governments considered the adoption of Hegelian philosophy, then we would not be in this mess to begin with. I see outdated blemishes in Hegel's philosophy, such as the application of the teleological approach in determining the course of history, and I also see that his perception of the constitution of the free state is a little too idealistic for our time. Nevertheless, his thought would produce wonders if the state works with the people on establishing the spirit of our free nation in order to attain the freedom we are all seeking.
We are, however, stifled because the all-too-powerful are busy fighting over who gets the bigger piece of the cake, and so there has never been "the spirit of the nation". Yet, going back to the idea of the Zeitgeist, I stated previously that to each part of the world its own spirit, but there is also today the contagious spirit of freedom that is causing a domino effect around the world.
The leaders of today's Zeitgeist are the people, and the Zeitgeist is the spirit of revolution.
I would like to share a quote on "Zeitgeist" from Hegel's Phenomenology of Mind that I came across today:
ReplyDelete"It is surely not difficult to see that our time is a birth and transition to a new period. The Spirit has broken with what was hitherto the world of its existence and imagination and is about to submerge all this in the past; it is at work giving itself a new form... Frivolty as well as the boredom that open up in the establishment and the indeterminate apprehension of something unknown are harbingers of a forthcoming age. This gradual crumbling... is interrupted by the break if day, that like lightning, all at once reveals the edifice of the new world."