action philosophy

2/2- Act for Your Age

11:25:00 AMPaul

A favorite phrase of mine while growing up was "Think Globally, Act Locally" instructing those so inclined to make a change in the world to do so by impacting their immediate vicinities. As I continue to come to age, I realize the falsified liberal hypocrisy of the notion, though. Either the motivation behind doing so is purely selfish, to see one's own area burgeon and assume, possibly even hope, that the influential effect will grow geographically, or to promote the ideals of one's own community with disregard for the needs and goals of surrounding areas. Both avenues and flaccid anf facile, facilitating in their implementation a selfish sense of Samaritan duties fulfilled, as is the proverbial bread and butter of the wealthy, image-conscious elite. Influence can only be carried so far. To act in one's own interests and on one's own behalf is to implicitly ignore or outright deprive others the opportunity to do so. Action must be carried out directly in each expansive setting, whether concentrically growing (from village to county to city to state to world as is often dreamt of) or in sporadic, but intense linearity (as in a political campaign). Reliance solely on ideals and examples not only refuses responsibility but also employs a passive demeanor which ensures almost completely the inability to prolong any desired improvements in an isolated locale.
The only way to construct in our future a harmonious and somewhat tolerable co-existence is the establishment and enforcement of a philosophy based on Thinking Globally and Acting Globally. We live in an epoch that certainly allows for such ambitions through technology mostly, though it's technology that our personal and public philosophies have yet to catch up to. The essence of success is unity of goals and uniform execution. All locales over the entire world must make agreements to work, even subtly, towards a more suitable world. Of course, such lofty goals as complete disarmament or universal sustanence are fairly unrealistic (as a side note, I will take this opportunity to point out that the wealthy will never help, since it's their desire for money that created their wealth and is the core of each one's identity. For the purpose of this discussion, I will leave aside any particular targets), but I believe that with the correct coercion and support that countries could being to take steps that would then affect the individuals within each country and perhaps lead to an actual change in what we call human nature. So as to avoid turning this into abemusingly typical antiestablishmentarian rant, I'll refrain from specifics and allow the reader to dream of small improvements that could be implemented universally and realistically. We live in an age where it's quite possible for an individual to at least initiate a prospect.
Of course, I know that we also live in a highly divisive age wherein progress for one body means defeat for another and that any attempts at unity will be summarily attacked with suspicion and resisted with force. I'm sure there are competing accusations from readers now of globalization or fascism, but I can't say I believe in that necessarily. Of course the I do believe in such behavior as growing produce locally to sustain to the gentry of the vicinity, for example. I think the resources it requires to globally distribute food are out of proportion with the provisions divided.

A while back, I was weakly contradicted while first entertaining this notion. The effect of the argument was that it's necessary to maintain unique, localized cultures in order to promote diversity and cultural understanding. To a less philanthropic degree, it was added that without foreign customs and dress that vacations would not be as exciting. While it's more than generous to say so, this brought up a (fleetingly) interesting point to which the obvious response is that through natural phenomena, each locale can produce and maintain a unique identity. To be clear, I'll say that no one in a tropical climate would require the same clothing or have access to the same food as someone living in an arctic or near arctic one. Therefore, due to available resources, local identities are maintained to a degree. So a global thinker must accept that certain aspects of culture and life are a given, that they can be disregarded.

I offer all this with full knowledge of the following--it's also nature for humans, no matter what region, to be selfish, greedy, ignorant and stubborn. They do not require the delicacy and prescience required to enact such an ideal, and never will. I also know that all of my opinions and suggestions above have been offered more than once by those with more eloquence and intelligence at their grasp than I'll ever have. Even so, it bears importance to restate such seemingly obvious observations for the benefit of those who may not have considered them previously, especially in the face of such arrogant, unaware, self-congratulatory rhetoric that spurred this half of the discussion. Whatever the scope or aim, though, to Act and not to merely Think is the quintessence of existence.

You Might Also Like

4 Construxive Remarx

  1. what you said about the rich never willing to help... i couldn't help but to laugh as good ol al gore came to mind.

    when i first read his book 'inconvenient truth' i was deeply concerned. i am and always have been 'a man of the earth'. i spend most free time in the woods, grow as much food as i can, replant trees for each one i burn for heat etc... i try to be as environmentally conscience as possible.

    so anyway, mr gore... classic example of an asswipe making money off of telling the 'common man' what to do while he sits on his mighty throne.
    after reading his book i began to learn as much as i could about this man who had 'opened my eyes' to the danger of our fast paced throw away economy... what did i learn? he lives in a house (at the time of his book/movie) that used more heating/energy/electricity in one MONTH than my house does in one YEAR!!! he had NO solar panels, NO windmills, NO micro hydro, NO geothermal.. the guy drove a huge gas guzzling SUV, flew around the world in a PRIVATE jet... all while preaching to US to make sacrifices!!!! even his nemesis Bush's ranch is nearly off the grid!!! lmao

    so basically i agree with what you say. but i do think more locally as i have lost faith in society and civilization as a whole...i do what i can do so at least i have a clear conscience to know this damage being done is not by my hand. i am responsible for my actions. personal responsibility is a dieing quality in people of this country.

  2. Thanks! I greatly appreciate a firm, passionate standpoint on any issue (please review earlier posts) however you actually don't agree with what's said, not even basically. And that's absolutely fine. I'll condense my reaction/rephrasing as much as possible.

    First, politicians, philanthropists and philosophers just get in the way, and yes it's aggravating to watch men with power and money act as if they act in universal interests. Gore is a gigantic hypocrite with millions at his disposal, yes, but no more so than any man his social equal, Bushes included (I think imitating the behavior of the "common man" is as insulting as messianic dictation).

    I believe my political view is most closely related to Giuseppe Zangara : "No Left, No Right. You think I care?..." etc. They're all opportunists preying on people like us with pronounced worldviews, straining to convince us they share our concerns. I long abolished any belief that Liberals are any different from Conservatives, and I assume they always lie.

    So, wihtout political standpoints to fall back on, it comes down to us to directly employ these desired improvements. If one possesses the skills and awareness such as you present above, one also assumes an innate responsibility to share the skills or utilize them to a broader benefit. It isn't as simple as giving up on the world and absolving oneself from blame. By not promoting one's stance, through action, one becomes as complicit as those actively destroying what could be a peaceful and tolerable world.

    I agree; humans are obstinate and greedy but the notion of self-reliance is antiquated and counterproductive. I don't simply encourage an ecocentric ideal, because what good is preserving the planet if we continue to raze it through wide-scale violence? I specifically avoided individual views of a better world as to keep this discussion out of a political realm and within a humanitarian one. I lose patience with men often, very often, but I haven't given up.

    In fact, most of my frustration comes from encounters with those acting in total self-interest. We need to humbly relinquish the notion of Us and Them (please see the post on Conflict) and nemises before any acceptable progress can be made. Clearly, you care, but this concern needs to extend into broad action (please review the above post) for your attempts at environmental conscious to be the least bit valid or effective.

    As it stands, with everyone deeming and damning each other nemises, we'll continue pulling in separate directions until the world is drawn and quartered. (After three tries, I did a horrible job of condensing; I apologize).

  3. no i get what you are saying and do agree.. the gore remark with the bush as his nemesis was meant with more sarcasm than anything. an example of the pointless division of the 'us and them'. i agree 100% that liberal vs conservative does nothing but cause endless & pointless bickering. there is no them... only us. very true. we are all on the same damn boat and i wish people would start to understand that.

    and i enjoy reading the essays on here, i would comment more often but my net time has been greatly reduced lately. keep up the good work on the site!

  4. Wow! Thanks for the very kind words


Whattya Think?! Lettuce Snow!!

Contact Form