So this is the beginning of a blog. We'll see how long it lasts. It's at least going to start with a bang because, today, I have a lot to say.
Keep in mind that not all of this is going to apply to you. I'm a Christian and so a great portion of the things I'm going to want to talk (write) about here relate to that. Feel free to read it and comment on it, but don't be offended or surprised.
I just read The Poisonwood Bible by Barbara Kingsolver (and would definitely recommend it) and have started thinking about the way our two cultures (that is, the one of the Congo and America's) clash. It's a war of complicity vs. simplicity and, at first, the simplicity seemed inherently better to me. It seems that 'progress' only means growing further and further away from simplicity. I was claiming baggage at the airport today and realized, astonished, that there was nothing stopping me from taking someone else's stuff, or from someone else taking mine. How had this been overlooked? Where is the system of correct-baggage-reaching-correct-owner? A loose end. A loophole. A gamble. In this world (the 'civilized' one), we don't trust anyone. We create increasingly complex systems to safeguard some ideal or principle or process and never leave anything to unravel on its own. Somebody has always already thought of it, and if they haven't, then you better hurry up and tell someone so something can be done because sitting on it could mean the wrong sort of person will think of it next! In the world of the Congo, and others (as depicted by The Poisonwood Bible and also, by Chinua Achebe, Things Fall Apart), there are loose systems kept to voice opinions and to initiate action, but as for keeping everyone in line or being sure law-breakers can't break the laws in the first place or ensuring the underdog can be heard, there is nothing. It is trusted that the people -- according to what? love? ethics? tradition? -- will account for everyone, and will do things fairly and in the mind of the public because that is what's to be done. If someone is doing something badly, that someone is thrown out. (And we thought to teach them democracy.) It really is that simple. There is no such thing as majority rules. If majority rules, then the minority is unhappy. So they debate until they agree. These people don't want to bother with national elections or parties or capitalism. Why should they? Why meddle in such a corrupt system when the one closer to home can be kept pure? Because that is truly what it is: a system without corruption.
I am increasingly led to the belief that the best person to have power is the person who doesn't ask for it. (Doesn't want it? Doesn't look for it?) I don't see that virtue in any of the election candidates, or people currently in power. And so my conclusion: they are all bad. None of them is doing or will do a particularly good job in office. I can't trust any of their intentions, ever. And so I'll pick the one that will defend my ideals, whatever his (her) reasons for doing that.
Writing sometimes seems to take a life of its own. So treasured at conception, leaving the author's hand feverishly, from an often unsettled mind to seep into a page. But when it reaches the readers' eyes, it is as if it has changed the writer him(her)self: it comes across so matter-of-factly, so innocently, so benignly and as if it doesn't have its own purpose or took no effort. But then the reader soaks it in and it is intent once again -- wreaking its havoc or conquering its domain or providing enlightenment (mostly, I like to believe, the latter). Sometimes subtly but always surely.
Or maybe not. Maybe it is only an aide.
In a nutshell: I'm finding that the most monumental realizations, and the most difficult to come by, are uncluttered and simple. Ignorance may be bliss, but enlightenment is glorious.
Out of a nutshell: It is easy to think that God is complex. In His own way, He is, and quite so. What I mean to say is that the truths of God, and understanding them and Him, are in and of themselves not complex. (God Himself is above our semantically-bound ideas of simple and complicated, I like to think.) It might take a lot of thinking -- and very difficult and advanced thinking, at that -- to reach our understandings of God, well beyond what any Sunday school teacher asks of us, but once we reach these understandings, they are quite simple, quite apparent and uncluttered. They are remarkable, impactive realizations. They are life-changing, really. But once we've cleared away all of the clutter of human thinking -- sinful distractions, cultural biases, personal limits, implications, et cetera -- the knowledge itself comes easily and stays with us, unless we allow everything else to bury it again.
In a nutshell: There's more to being a Christian than following all the rules. God asks 100% from us, intellectually.
Out of the nutshell: Maybe another time.
We can be equally trapped in complicity or simplicity. Which is good? Which do we choose? Are we happier where we are born?
God's truths, when found, are quite simple. Do I think this means that simple is good and complicated is evil? No. Simple and complicated are polar in the same way that wet and dry are: wet is certainly sinful when it is a murdered drowning victim's last sensation, but quite the very opposite when it is a sweet lover's kiss, a manioc field in drought, a prisoner-of-war's first taste of freedom. I think that these truths are simple frankly because God wants us to understand Him. He truly reaches 99.9% of the way; all He asks is that we put everything into that last little stretch.
Music of today:
Find Me Tonight, by Everyday Sunday
When I Go Down, by Relient K
Deathbed, by Relient K
Hallelujah, by Rufus Wainwright
Swing Life Away, by Rise Against
Fred Jones, Part 2, by Ben Folds Five
Currently reading:
Catch-22, Joseph Heller
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The observation about societal simplicity makes a lot of sense the way you put it, but I can't help feeling somewhat comforted by the rigid structure of America, because (and maybe this is just a propaganda-constructed illusion) it feels somewhat safer (we must ignore, for the sake of my argument, most of the Bush administration's actions, since most of them are unconstitutional and based on a desire to be more of an all-powerful, king-like figure instead of our democratic ideals). I watched a show on an African tribe once where they believe in dangerous demon-type things (I forget their names) that can inhabit people. Once a person is accused of being/having one, they are killed. No fair trial, no representation, nothing. In that case, the majority decrees that they must die and the very small minority has no recourse. In America, there is a system bigger than ourselves that can act as a barrier between us to prevent/punish vigilante justice and other things.
Now I realize that America doesn't always work this way because, as you pointed out, complicity opens up spaces for corruption - though I believe simplicity does as well. Remember the revered Kurtz from HoD, with the skulls on spikes in his front yard? Sometimes when you allow the majority to choose without any set of guidelines, you end up with an entire country supporting Hitler. I'm not saying it's not possible for a 35-year-old American born citizen to turn out to be a lunatic, just that our media/election process (I think) would make it a little more difficult.
Anyway, I realize America doesn't always offer the protection its complicated society is supposed to, and that's due to human corruption instead of an inherently flawed system (though it can be argued that human corruption is the system's inherent flaw), but I prefer the goal/ideal of it to your simplicity. Because I do think the simplicity you described is an ideal. There is a reason Africa is a third-world country. Social simplicity to the point of near-anarchy is scary to me. There have to be some sort of rules and some obligation/force to back them up even when the majority doesn't agree with them - the way they keep much-hated killers very safe during their trial to prevent an angry public from killing them. No matter what we collectively decide or want to do, the government still upholds the rights of the individual.
Also a good observation about those who never asked for power do better with it. European royalty does a good job demonstrating that.
I did agree 100% with your observations about God.
I think the success of the simplistic societies (and what I'm really impressed by) lies in the localization. Each society fails to go beyond the boundaries of a village of, maybe, a few hundred people. (Not that I'm any expert.)
I think that the reason Africa is a continent of third-world countries is that Europeans invaded, imposed their complicated ideas of government or formed their own boundaries, and disrupted the system of simplistic, corruption-free civilization.
I am too tired to go into depth but will later happily if you'd like.
Your comment made me realize I said Africa was a third-world country. Heh. Mistake noted. Apologies.
Maybe the economic and political issues that we define as third-world are results of European messing around - but I was saying the "simple society" flaws are customs dangerous to the individuals; and those are too cultural to be blamed on Western influence.
I won't deny the 'simple society' flaws, but how much more dangerous can they be to the people than the corruption we see in our society? Especially since the corruption, by nature, leaves behind any care for doing the right thing.
Post a Comment