The most powerful metaphor I've ever found in this life isn't originally mine, though I've used it as such. I first came across it in one of my all-time favorite shows, The West Wing (1999-2006). The scene involves one of the more intense characters in the show, Bruno Gianelli (Played by Pirate Captain Ron Silver), an elite political operative known for running successful campaigns under the toughest electoral conditions. For instance, one in which the incumbent President failed to disclose that he had MS for the first three years of his presidency, including his initial campaign. If you've seen the show, he's kind of like the Maverick to Toby's Goose (Toby being the more repressed, tied down, version of Bruno, both so endearing in their Brooklyn charm).
At one point during President Bartlet's (played by Vietnam Vet/Best president Ever Martin Sheen) reelection campaign, Bruno believes there might be an opportunity to gain some momentum in public opinion, one of the many currencies of this republic. So, against the President's expressed wishes Bruno conducts a survey asking the public where they think the President should spend Thanksgiving. President Bartlet, giving into the temptation to read polling data, rather than keep his eyes on the big picture, finds that Bruno had asked the public's opinion of the Presidential Thanksgiving plans. So, ignoring the fact that his hand is caught in the micromanagitis cookie jar, he bellows to and/or at his secretary, (played by Lily Tomlin, the wittiest flower in all the land), "DEBBIEEEEEE!", who promptly has Bruno summoned.
On Bruno's entry into the Oval Office, the President immediately lays into him. Bruno endures the initial tirade respectfully, hands behind his back, without flinching. Then, he begins (and I'm paraphrasing),
"I have trouble talking to people who don't race sailboats."
The President, a Nobel prize winning economist, responds incredulously, "What the hell..?"
Bruno continues in unwavering confidence, "When I was young, I crewed a sailboat in a race off the East Coast. At one point during the race, I noticed a piece of kelp had gotten stuck to the hull, and when you're racing a sailboat, you don't want anything stuck to the hull. The slightest drag can make the difference between winning and losing. So, I, a rookie at the time, immediately picked up a pole and went at the kelp, trying to get it off the hull. Immediately all the guys started screaming at me to get the pole out of the water, as the pole had merely added to the drag. Instead, they taught me to place the pole in the water ahead of the kelp. Eventually, the water brings the pole back and removes the kelp from the hull. Do this over and over, and you've taken care of your problem, hopefully without creating another."
Bruno summarizes his point by responding to the most powerful man on the planet in heavy Brooklyn accent, "If you don't think I'm going to take advantage of even the slightest increase in boat speed, you're crazy; in a situation where we give up nothing... not to take that opportunity would be insane." Bruno's case was helped by the result that the Public was overwhelmingly more content with their President spending time living in the house they pay for, especially during the holidays. This, as opposed to footing the bill for additional security retrofitting anywhere and everywhere the President spends extended time domestically.
So what's the point?
Bruno's metaphor, an example of the ergodynamics of sailing, begs big questions like, "what if there were better ways of doing everything?", "What if these ways aren't at first obvious?".
Now please don't mistake my tone for that of a corporate efficiency officer, trying to ensure no one uses too much toner, and gets their TPS reports in on time. No. Hell no. Never. You go to hell with your TPS reports (movie reference).
What I'm trying to get at, what Bruno's metaphor illustrates so clearly, is that there are ways of doing things that are less likely to create further problems. There are ways of doing things that can even expedite a solution. I'm not saying there's an ergodynamical dictionary somewhere, or that we should make one. I am saying that all work, labor, effort, toil, etc. is permissible, but not all of it is beneficial, or helpful. Gandhi's testimony was both permissible and beneficial. Hitler's, not so much. Two questions I have for those that use absolute morality, authority, or any kind of assertion is, "how do you know?" and then, "who are you to say it is this way or that?". They don't, and they don't have the capacity for absolutism. Nor do I, and anytime absolutism is implemented in society, a descending vortex of intensifying violence occurs, with generational repercussions.
The benefit of knowing absolutely that absolutism is absolutely unlikely, is that the process of knowing yourself, knowing the selves of others, and that of the unique world that lives in around us can begin. Absolute categories produce shame. They limit capacity, and prevent people from looking to the horizon, with questions of what might be. Absolutism fails to allow life to emerge on its own accord.
Hitler's dictionary was unhelpful in that life did not flourish under his rubric. The American Automotive and Military industries have suffocated life through the bottom line refusal to pursue renewable energy, and failure to lead the world in beating its nuclear swords into plowshares, albeit radioactively contagious plow shares.
..........
So how do you know if something is beneficial? By evaluating the context (which includes your self), the intent, and the capacity of an individual or group of individuals in a situation. The outcome is the ultimate interpretation, in that actions speak louder than words, and actions result in consequences. In other words, we often head into a situation thinking one thing or another, and then in that situation, our less noticed, more powerful, subterranean intentions present themselves. Many times we won't notice this deeper motion apart from an external gaze, and one that devotes itself to looking at such things.
Every individual is a world unto themselves, and pairs of individuals come together and create third worlds between them of increasing complexity. As mentioned previously, there is no 'meta-context' to which we have access that could, like a zipper, line up all the individual and corporate micro-and mega- contexts of this world, and zip them up tight in a black and white coherence.
Progressive language requires a relatively peaceful existence. People need time and space to think and discuss what might be more or less helpful. Humans can't examine what they're running from. They need to be able to see one another and hear one another. Human conflict, extreme weather, and other challenging contexts constrict and suffocate the human capacity to feel and innovate. They reveal the Earth's patterns, which are also ours.
...I think.
At one point during President Bartlet's (played by Vietnam Vet/Best president Ever Martin Sheen) reelection campaign, Bruno believes there might be an opportunity to gain some momentum in public opinion, one of the many currencies of this republic. So, against the President's expressed wishes Bruno conducts a survey asking the public where they think the President should spend Thanksgiving. President Bartlet, giving into the temptation to read polling data, rather than keep his eyes on the big picture, finds that Bruno had asked the public's opinion of the Presidential Thanksgiving plans. So, ignoring the fact that his hand is caught in the micromanagitis cookie jar, he bellows to and/or at his secretary, (played by Lily Tomlin, the wittiest flower in all the land), "DEBBIEEEEEE!", who promptly has Bruno summoned.
On Bruno's entry into the Oval Office, the President immediately lays into him. Bruno endures the initial tirade respectfully, hands behind his back, without flinching. Then, he begins (and I'm paraphrasing),
"I have trouble talking to people who don't race sailboats."
The President, a Nobel prize winning economist, responds incredulously, "What the hell..?"
Bruno continues in unwavering confidence, "When I was young, I crewed a sailboat in a race off the East Coast. At one point during the race, I noticed a piece of kelp had gotten stuck to the hull, and when you're racing a sailboat, you don't want anything stuck to the hull. The slightest drag can make the difference between winning and losing. So, I, a rookie at the time, immediately picked up a pole and went at the kelp, trying to get it off the hull. Immediately all the guys started screaming at me to get the pole out of the water, as the pole had merely added to the drag. Instead, they taught me to place the pole in the water ahead of the kelp. Eventually, the water brings the pole back and removes the kelp from the hull. Do this over and over, and you've taken care of your problem, hopefully without creating another."
Bruno summarizes his point by responding to the most powerful man on the planet in heavy Brooklyn accent, "If you don't think I'm going to take advantage of even the slightest increase in boat speed, you're crazy; in a situation where we give up nothing... not to take that opportunity would be insane." Bruno's case was helped by the result that the Public was overwhelmingly more content with their President spending time living in the house they pay for, especially during the holidays. This, as opposed to footing the bill for additional security retrofitting anywhere and everywhere the President spends extended time domestically.
So what's the point?
Bruno's metaphor, an example of the ergodynamics of sailing, begs big questions like, "what if there were better ways of doing everything?", "What if these ways aren't at first obvious?".
Now please don't mistake my tone for that of a corporate efficiency officer, trying to ensure no one uses too much toner, and gets their TPS reports in on time. No. Hell no. Never. You go to hell with your TPS reports (movie reference).
What I'm trying to get at, what Bruno's metaphor illustrates so clearly, is that there are ways of doing things that are less likely to create further problems. There are ways of doing things that can even expedite a solution. I'm not saying there's an ergodynamical dictionary somewhere, or that we should make one. I am saying that all work, labor, effort, toil, etc. is permissible, but not all of it is beneficial, or helpful. Gandhi's testimony was both permissible and beneficial. Hitler's, not so much. Two questions I have for those that use absolute morality, authority, or any kind of assertion is, "how do you know?" and then, "who are you to say it is this way or that?". They don't, and they don't have the capacity for absolutism. Nor do I, and anytime absolutism is implemented in society, a descending vortex of intensifying violence occurs, with generational repercussions.
The benefit of knowing absolutely that absolutism is absolutely unlikely, is that the process of knowing yourself, knowing the selves of others, and that of the unique world that lives in around us can begin. Absolute categories produce shame. They limit capacity, and prevent people from looking to the horizon, with questions of what might be. Absolutism fails to allow life to emerge on its own accord.
Hitler's dictionary was unhelpful in that life did not flourish under his rubric. The American Automotive and Military industries have suffocated life through the bottom line refusal to pursue renewable energy, and failure to lead the world in beating its nuclear swords into plowshares, albeit radioactively contagious plow shares.
..........
So how do you know if something is beneficial? By evaluating the context (which includes your self), the intent, and the capacity of an individual or group of individuals in a situation. The outcome is the ultimate interpretation, in that actions speak louder than words, and actions result in consequences. In other words, we often head into a situation thinking one thing or another, and then in that situation, our less noticed, more powerful, subterranean intentions present themselves. Many times we won't notice this deeper motion apart from an external gaze, and one that devotes itself to looking at such things.
Every individual is a world unto themselves, and pairs of individuals come together and create third worlds between them of increasing complexity. As mentioned previously, there is no 'meta-context' to which we have access that could, like a zipper, line up all the individual and corporate micro-and mega- contexts of this world, and zip them up tight in a black and white coherence.
Progressive language requires a relatively peaceful existence. People need time and space to think and discuss what might be more or less helpful. Humans can't examine what they're running from. They need to be able to see one another and hear one another. Human conflict, extreme weather, and other challenging contexts constrict and suffocate the human capacity to feel and innovate. They reveal the Earth's patterns, which are also ours.
...I think.
Comments
Post a Comment