The word "Myth," in this case, is used as it often is. A fallacy, a wrong understanding, or a lie. I hate using it this way, but there is a myth (a story by which we live and shape our actions) that we can manipulate, influence, coerce, force, leverage, or make something happen. If you haven't figured this out by now, I have some bad news for you. This dream of control is a myth, in the falsehood sense of the word.
Think about it. Have you ever tried to get an animal that has "lost it" to do what you want it to do? Whether a dog, a donkey, or at worst, a cat, trying to force something/somebody to do something they don't want to do requires the use of excessive force: physical, emotional, psychological, or spiritual. Is this the actual desired outcome? Do we want something so strongly that there is a need to subjugate another to our will, or, is there a better way?
It is my premise, that control is an illusion. We act as if it exists and promote it as a means to our desired end. At some point their is a subjugation or a departure. Our end might be achieved, but is the cost in our initial intent? The Machiavellian Realpolitik view is that the "end justifies the means." My argument, however, is that if that is the case, then the ends are not truly achieved. There is a harsher, darker version of our original intent, no matter how "good."
Okay, enough speculation, what does this look like? War is a perfect example. We want something. Our enemy defies our wants. We, and they, have a choice. Several, in fact. A dance of choices take place, some small, some major. All in an interplay towards outcomes. Osama bin Laden and his ilk desired to shape and change our culture and systems. They could not do direct confrontation, but they tried to control from manipulation through fear: terrorism. We responded with like force. We control (actually attempt control) so as to alleviate the fear on our part. We attempt to rid ourselves of our anxieties through projecting political, military, and economic strength. We do unto others as they did unto us, or we do unto others before they can do unto us. We attempt control, so we can feel more okay.
Is there another way? Think of Gandhi's nonviolent movement in India. The choice to confront attempts at control from the British were confronted by the realization that:
- The drastic minority could not control the vast majority without the majority's consent (voluntary subjugation)
- The way to confront the violence (implicit and increasingly explicit) is not without a price. Their are desperate costs to confronting the violence of a system based on "control."
As we follow a path away from controlling to a system based on respect and appreciation. There are times and places for control. When I get in my car, a dangerous hunk of steel when I am out of control, I want and need it to respond quickly and safely. A three-year-old running into the street needs to be grabbed. A rabid dog needs to be put down. Controls are a need. But the attitude of being controlling is not.
Perhaps, our myth (a story by which we live and shape our actions) of control should be that we can only control ourselves. And, self-control is a whole different topic. We cannot remotely control any other being, and neither can they control us without our explicit or implicit consent. In future, I'll look at the implications of this on Free Will, Atonement, Community, and Ethics. But, already I've written too much for today.
Pax and Namaste, fellow pilgrims. I trust your journey will be light today.
Recent Comments