Again, Renzetti’s editorial (Globe and Mail, Dec. 8) hits the mark! The topic is choosing what hits us closest to home – a human being facing his impending death on a train track or a dead Syrian toddler? If I follow her message, it is us and not just the man on the track who faces a life and death moment in time: Do we get out from behind our walls and see that our obsession with exposing “truth” no longer lets us hide behind that truth?
Exposing the insensitivity of the New York Times, expressing our outrage at the photographer who made his own choices, do not move us to anything other than more outrage at the other. Renzetti concludes her message with a powerful challenge: “The choices these days lie not just in what we do or refuse to do, but in what we see and what we ignore”. So will we “See” that by letting ourselves believe we are separate from the man facing his death, we have become dead.
Our objectification of “Life” will be our demise – or we can be shocked awake in our selves and let an image, a moment in time, touch us so profoundly that we never again treat another as an object of our fear.
We have come to the edge of something! Clearly debt needs to be repaid, agreements honored. But I keep looking for news reporters/channels who will step out and lead the nation in conversations that are already running beneath the surface noise! Our monologues about taxes are unprogressive for reasons that go deeper than political ideology. Let’s start talking about this elephant in our nations; we cannot expect political parties to lead us where we are all afraid to go.
I’ll start the conversation: Why are we afraid of opening to a greater world view on what constitutes wealth and entitlement? Can we “See” that such a re-distribution is already happening anyway? Could the more progressive and natural/truthful conversation be: What are we on the edge of growing up in our selves and in our national psyches?
Where are you CNN, BBC, CBC?
I always enjoy reading Elizabeth Renzetti’s editorial in the Globe – you’re sure to be in for a humorous parody on our human condition! Today she writes, “While we wait for the apocalypse, let’s wander the garden of affluent neuroses”. Her point is that we are so obsessed with things we make matter, that we are missing things that do matter to where we are trying to get to as a planet…making us the designers of our own misery. Unfulfilled expectations lead to the neurotic binge we have been on…to have more, get more, etc. You get the idea.
Let me build on the argument. No one wants to look deeper into a predicament that is, as you describe, “crappy” – especially when we’ve been convinced that we will just see more crap. Let’s change the view, shift our lens: What could be trying to move “in” the raw matter of the crap – so powerfully that even the most ancient and historic of fears can no longer hold it back (rising for the Right to a free Life)…when the most polarized political battle can finally soften because people have become the new currency?
Seeing goes deeper than environmental/political/economical/social issues. It is sensing what is opening…and then finding our own particular way to be part of it. It matters. I believe it is the greatness we are, perhaps misguidedly, unwilling to give up reaching for! Believing this – that in all our neurotic aspiring we are really just reaching for our greatness – should stop the fighting and clear space for what wants to come next!
Could we acknowledge that it is not compromise that is changing our minds and expanding our world…not simply a movement toward the center that we look for in our political parties and leaders? Should the aim be, not so much to find common ground, but to dig for deeper ground?
The global culture has already shifted. We are not asking our political parties to simply see each others’ point of view, or to give up a little to achieve small success. I suggest we are asking them to completely re-invigorate the political dilemma regarding debt reduction by confronting head on what is really at the core of the arguments: Does more taxes being paid by the top 2% have to mean there is less going to job creation? Or, is the question that will move us forward more about how we ALL think about our entitlements? Does offering government support have to weaken the will of the people to pioneer their lives? Or, is it that wealth is now so disproportionately distributed that we have to face “what” in our moral and spiritual compass has become msguided at the hand of indifference?
Let us ask the question: If we were to permanently lay down our weapons of fear, and hold that clear decision, what could get freed? What if we were to fight to clear space versus only protect it? War only frees physical space; diplomacy can secure a truce. Could it be that we choose truce over more war because we are finally ready to stop objectifying life? Maybe the middle east has the eyes of the world on it, not just because of its historical strife, but because we know that, despite our fears of annihilation, herein is the crucible for what we all seek – deeper ground for peace.
Just a few days ago this powerful statement was made by Hamas. It says everything about how they see and define hell. I wonder if it could also spark a deeper insight across the globe in terms of: What is hell? An estrangement from a sense of belonging? Of being able to walk on and claim ground that offers us our promised inheritance? Notice how deep this dilemma is rooted in us, how it keeps insisting that we choose how to use the power that IS in our hands.