_____
I am against racism, sexism, evil, laziness, ignorance, stagnation, and rape.
In fact, I don't believe anyone worthy of having a conversation with is actually FOR any of those things as concepts. They are concepts drawn out of polarized thought... except the last one. I'll discuss that last one there in a moment. In the meantime, all of the rest of these concepts have been created in order to polarize a person or populous against something. It is an institutional desire to create polarization in and amongst people as there will be commonality seen or experienced then within that institution. It is not the ideal of a community however to create polarization, as all communities truly wish to welcome members that already share a common bond (usually a proximal living situation). So, for the purposes of this discussion on the polarization of thought, an institutional way of thinking could be seen as exclusive, and a communal way of thinking as inclusive.
So, how did you read that statement above? Are institutions 'bad' and communities 'good'?
Rape is the product of a polarized society. One definition of 'rape', according to the Oxford Dictionaries, is 'the wanton destruction or spoiling of a place.' Though there are other definitions of 'rape' in many different dictionaries online and in print, this is the definition that I'd like to address. The act of rape is the product of a culture, society, or institution completely polarized in thought, action, or policy.
No one supports these other concepts, except in a fictional society. Racism, sexism, and evil are not concepts people act or speak towards, but rather against. (Imagine the cheers "Go Racism!" that you've never heard in your life - and you understand that no one speaks to the premise, they simply act in ownership of it). Laziness, ignorance, and stagnation are not self-aware concepts, for obvious reasons. These are all terms, ideas, or talking points that have arisen from institutions wishing to polarize thought against something else, not them. The big question here is, why?
Am I polarizing your way of thinking by even calling out the concept of polarized thought? Am I anti-polarization now that I have said 'rape is a product of a polarized society'?
When an institution has invited you to take part in whatever they are selling (education, parties, political thinking, money, self-help, etc.), each and every one of them has sold you on the premise of what they are not. A PC is not an Apple. Michigan is not Michigan State. Democrats are not Republican. The Globe is not the RSC. You get the idea. Even by stating a positive viewpoint, these institutions have polarized their ideas against someone else. "We are here to make you succeed!" ~ "Don't put your unrealistic expectations on me. What if I don't want to succeed your way?" -or- "We want to save the rainforests!" ~ "I make my living chopping down trees. Are you oppressing me?" -or just- "Jesus saves." That one has had a few responses over the years.
Institutions are there to pull you up/down/through to their level. They do it by polarizing you against something, intentionally or no.
Have I now made the institutions aware that I am aware of what they are doing? Am I paranoid?
Rape occurs when the polarization has reached a boiling point. The old Garfield adage: "I hit him back first." It is the initial impetus of war, and fighting, and disagreements, and misunderstanding, and it is part of the human condition.
Have I just called all humans naturally rapists?
In the movie, Thank You for Smoking, a professional lobbyist named Nick Naylor, played by Aaron Eckhart, tells his kid about winning an argument, and without butchering the point too much, comes to the conclusion that to win you do not have to prove your own point right, but just that your opposition is wrong. Coming from the point of view of a professional 'litigator' - 'lawyer' - 'arguer' - 'disputician' - 'quarreler' - 'warrior', I'd say that was right on the money.
The institution, however, does not argue. It creates the argument where none existed before, and hires disput-icians to fight the battle the institution has created. Polarized thought is a product of institutional thinking, and rape is a product of polarized thought. (Tell me, you saw that one coming?)
So, how do you feel about institutions now? Have I managed to polarize you to one side or another?
A community holds you up. Welcomes you in and says, 'how can we help you?' It does not say, 'let us protect you.' It gives without asking for or expecting anything in return. So the question remains...
Am I a part of an institution or a community?
_____
In this little social experiment, I have tried to control the way you have thought (that is, if you are actually reading this). I have given you two options, institution or community, and reasoned with you that one is not the other. Portrayed one as bad, and the other I've shared platitudes about. I've made drastic assumptions here, but never given them air.
Is it possible though that you can be something else entirely devoid of institutional or communal thought?
You, the reader, may have seen through this. You're smart. And a plural thinker. You don't get trapped into thinking one way and entertain many different ideas. A member of the anti-polarized.
_____
I did it again. I made you into something you are not. You almost sounded Marxist there.
_____
It's your fault. I didn't want to call you Marxist.
_____
Ok, fascist. Woah. Get off your high horse there. I was just trying to make people aware of the fact that arguing is simply a product of our need to be right, and feel accepted, and secure. We polarize ourselves according to our insecurities.
_____
Isreal. Palestine. Go.
A wretched soul, bruised with adversity
We bid be quiet when we hear it cry,
But were we burdened with like weight of pain,
As much or more we should ourselves complain. - Comedy of Errors (II.i)
Year 2, Day 317 - Words Written: 0
No comments:
Post a Comment