Falling Off the Humble Wagon

When friends fall together...

Falling Off the Humble Wagon

The Pen: Let's fall off the humble wagon -

The Pen: You and I -

The Pen: Now - it's all about - me me me -

The Sword: Ah -

The Sword: But I've fallen off the humble wagon -

The Sword: So - now - it's all about - me me me -

The Pen: But - if it's all about me - where does that leave you?

The Sword: Right here! Because - it's all about me -

The Sword: So - my friend - where does that leave you?

The Pen: If it's all about me - and - it's all about you - is it all about either of us?

~ * ~

The Sword: What if - it's all about both of us?

The Pen: Do tell -

The Sword: Well - you do you - and I do me -

The Sword: What if - that's all there is to it?

~ * ~

The Pen: Let's take for instance - a limited resource - like gold -

The Pen: If I do me - I take it all -

The Pen: Where does that leave you?

The Sword: What if I do me - and - I take it all?

The Pen: In that case - where does that leave me?

The Pen: If one of us takes it all - one of us - deprives the other -

~ * ~

The Sword: What if - there's plenty to go around? Even a limited resource like gold is plentiful -

The Pen: Ah - but - if it's all about me me me - I won't share -

The Sword: Likewise - if it's all about me me me - I won't share -

~ * ~

The Sword: But - if it's all about me me me - and - it's all about you you you -

The Sword: Doesn't that make us equal? In which case - we're both entitled to equal gold?

The Pen: Alas - in my me me me universe - you are not equal to me -

The Pen: Far from it in fact -

The Pen: For you are irrelevant -

The Pen: In my me me me universe - the only interest that matters - is mine -

The Pen: Moreover - my self interest is the only interest that has voting rights -

The Sword: Indeed. In my me me me universe - you are not equal to me -

The Sword: In my me me me universe - the only interest that matters to me - is my self interest - because my interests are the only interests with controlling rights -

~ * ~

The Sword: But - if it's all about me me me - and - it's all about you you you -

The Sword: What is it all about - really?

The Sword: Obviously- it can't be all about both of us - Obviously - it's not all about one of us -

The Sword: And - who gets the gold?

The Pen: Ah - therein is the question of questions -

~ * ~

The Pen: You're right -

The Pen: It's not all about both of us - and - it's not all about one of us -

The Pen: It's about -

The Pen: - who gets the gold -

The Sword: Yes!

The Sword: Because - me doing me - and - you doing you - are not necessarily nor always - interests that intersect - much less compete -

The Sword: - except - when - me doing me - and - you doing you - are - interests that intersect and compete -

The Pen: Exactly -

The Pen: - as in the case of who gets the gold -

~ * ~

The Sword: Ah - but in my me me me universe - I take the gold - all of it -

The Pen: Ah - but in my me me me universe - I take it -

The Sword: From me?

The Pen: Of course!

The Sword: But - possession is the law -

The Pen: Only - if you defend your possession capably -

The Pen: Because - might makes right -

The Sword: Then - it's war -

~ * ~

The Pen: So it is -

The Sword: In my me me me universe - I have a divine right to the gold I take -

The Pen: In my me me me universe - I have a divine right to the gold I take -

The Pen: After all - all gold is mine - 

The Sword: Ah - all gold is mine -

The Pen: Then - it's war -

The Sword: Or - reclamation -

The Pen: You mean - theft -

The Sword: Reclamation - 

The Sword: After all - I'm taking what's mine -

~ * ~

The Pen: All gold is mine - therefore any gold you take - anywhere - is theft from me -

The Sword: All gold is mine - therefore every gold you take - everywhere - is theft from me -

The Pen: In my me me me universe - all gold will never be yours -

The Sword: In my me me me universe - all gold will always be mine -

~ * ~

The Sword: So -

The Sword: - it's all about who gets limited resources that are valuable to both of us -

The Pen: Or - it's about whose might defends possession of limited resources that are interests of both of ours -

The Sword: Because - even when I take all the gold -

The Pen: I take it all - and - I defend possession of it all -

The Sword: But - if my interests are potent enough - I pursue reclamation - despite rebuffs, setbacks, defeats -

The Sword: Moreover - if the gold is invaluable to me and my interests - I escalate to take possession of all gold that is rightfully mine -

The Pen: But - if my interests are potent enough - I escalate to defend my possession of all gold that is rightfully mine -

~ * ~

The Sword: Then - it's an arms race -

The Sword: Until - one of us defeats the other -

The Pen: And - one of us is utterly deprived of all gold -

The Sword: Hmmm - defeat is not enough -

The Sword: Because - how do I ensure that my interest - that is, preserving and protecting my possession of my gold - is secure?

The Pen: By engaging - a cold arms race -

The Pen: Or - by annihilating me -

The Pen: Or - at the very least - disempowering my interests materially -

~ * ~

The Sword: But - you are my friend!

The Pen: And you mine -

The Sword: We fell off the wagon together -

The Pen: So we did -

The Sword: How did we - start together - but end - so far apart?

~ * ~

The Pen: Self interest -

The Pen: The myth of me me me - is that - self interest harms no one -

The Pen: - because - the myth of me me me - assumes - self interest does not intersect with nor compete with - other interests -

The Sword: You mean - my interests -

The Pen: Yes -

The Pen: - moreover - the myth of me me me - assumes - that self interest is suspendable - when interests intersect and compete -

The Pen: - but - me me me universes do not suspend self interest - simply because other interests intersect and compete with self interests -

The Pen: - in fact - self interests that intersect and compete with other interests - roar to the fore - because self interests are inherently self preservative and self protective -

The Sword: Notwithstanding - the myth of me me me - also assumes - that I suspend my self interest - when my self interest intersects and competes with yours -

The Sword: - when - in fact - my self interest is as self preservative and as self protective as yours -

The Pen: Verily -

~ * ~

The Sword: Self interest is not as innocuous nor as wholesome as it's made out to be -

The Pen: No, it is not -

The Sword: What about this -

The Sword: What if - self interest ends at my nose -

The Pen: But - it doesn't -

The Sword: If we decide - that my self interest ends at my nose - and - your self interest ends at your nose -

The Sword: Then - that's where self interest ends -

The Pen: But - it doesn't -

~ * ~

The Sword: Why not?

The Pen: Because - if self interest did not extend beyond our nose - self interest would not intersect and compete with other interests -

The Sword: As in - who gets the gold -

The Pen: Exactly -

The Pen: Self interest does extend beyond our nose - to - for example - limited resources that only exist beyond our nose - 

The Sword: And - both of our self interests - preserve and protect each of our self interests - such that - neither of us relinquishes our self interests - because each of us insist that - me me me and me me me - are entitled to all the gold -

~ * ~

The Sword: What about resources that are not valuable to anyone?

The Pen: Gold is a resource that is not inherently valuable: its value is not an intrinsic attribute; its value is an extrinsic attribute.

The Pen: Insofar as a resource of no inherent value - can be extrinsically attributed with desirable value - any resource can be extrinsically attributed with desirable value -

The Pen: Like - bits of paper and bits of metal - that we designate as money -

The Sword: Upon which - that resource becomes a resource that - self interests and other interests - intersect and compete for -

The Sword: Unless - that resource is an unlimited resource -

The Pen: It stands to reason - that any resource attributed with desirable value - can also be attributed with limitations -

The Pen: - both legitimate and contrived -

The Sword: Like - money -

~ * ~

The Sword: So -

The Sword: - it's all about who takes resources that are extrinsically attributed with desirable value -

The Pen: Or - it's about whose might ensures that self interest - that is, preserving and protecting self possession of resources that are extrinsically attributed with desirable value - is secure - from other interests -

The Sword: So that's it then -

The Sword: We're dragons -

The Pen: Lonely and paranoid -

The Sword: Hording treasure -

The Pen: Forever -

The Sword: For ever -

~ * ~

More from The Pen

If all we are ever interested in -

- exists - between the back of our head to the tip of our nose -

- we'd never experience - intersecting and competing - interests.

Moreover - how many of us are only ever interested in -

- what's between the back of our head and the tip of our nose?

For all that we deem valuable -

- all that we confer with extrinsic attributes of desirable value -

- exist beyond the backs of our heads and the tips of our noses.

Thus -

- it is no surprise at all -

- that we struggle to negotiate and mediate - intersecting and competing -

- conflicts of interests.

For our society values self interests above all other interests.

Why?

Because self interests -

- permit abuses towards others -

- excuse harm towards others -

- condone satisfaction of self interests - at the expense of abuses and harm towards others -

- justify acts of war and acts of theft - as acts of defense and acts of reclamation.

The crop we reap -

- when we sow: 

- look out for your self, you're number one, first and always -

- always take care of your self, because no one else has your back -

- if you don't take care of you, every one else will take advantage of you - etc.

What we call -

- 'empowerment', 'esteem', 'validation' -

- is ultimately -

- narcissism wearing a facade of inspiration -

- whereby -

- acts of self interest are justified as acts of nobility -

- regardless of harm.

How?

Self interest nullifies others into invisibility and other interests into invalidity.

Hence -

- no more than counterfeiting is victimless -

- self interest is not harmless.

~ * ~

The Pen: Even more troubling -

The Pen: When you have gold - I feel robbed -

The Pen: Because all the gold that you have is rightfully mine - your possession of my gold is an injustice whose remedy, whose redress is also rightfully mine - and by divine might, I will repossess that which has been taken from me by every means necessary, including lethal force -

The Sword: When you have gold - your life is rightfully mine - all the opportunities my gold delivers to you, all the access my gold opens for you, all the privileges my gold bestows upon you - are all rightfully mine -

The Sword: Such that - I feel a deep hatred towards you - for your opportunities and your access and your privileges - profoundly offend my sense of righteousness and justice -

The Pen: And I feel a deep bitterness towards you - for depriving me of my gold - for appropriating all that is rightfully mine -

The Pen: What say you, my friend?

The Sword: I say, we are not so far apart, are we?

The Pen: Indeed.

~ * ~

More from The Sword

What is a Pen that rewrites history - than a Sword?

For in rewriting history, such Pens annihilate truths as certainly as Swords annihilate lives.

Verily, such Pens give lies life. Through such penmanship, lies live while truths die.

What is a Sword that determines history - than a Pen?

For in determining history, such Swords write and rewrite history as unequivocally as Pens. For do not winners tell tales that the dead cannot refute?

Verily, such Swords write histories of lies. Through such swordsmanship, the past lies while truths of the dead are invalidated until they too disintegrate into dusts of time.

In the end -

- what are Pens and Swords - that are interchangeable -

- that advance truths and lies -

- that sow peace and war -

- among one and all?

~ * ~

Hypocrisy Is the Sword of the Indignant

Despite affirming that two wrongs don't make a right -

- many of us attest that wrong is right -

~ * ~

Hypocrisy Is the Sword of the Indignant

Have we forgotten what hypocrisy is?

     We are justifying -

     - while indignantly protesting them justifying - the same.

     We are legitimizing -

     - while indignantly protesting them legitimizing - the same.

     We are defending -

     - while indignantly protesting them defending - the same.

     We are sanctifying -

     - while indignantly protesting them sanctifying - the same.

~ * ~

Such that -

- we demand justice and equality - by demanding injustice and inequality.

How?

(1) - by defining meaningful classification - as classification on the basis of labels alone, lens alone, isms alone - 

(2) - by classifying our selves and each other into categories delineated by labels alone, lens alone, isms alone - 

(3) - by validating differences between categories defined by labels alone, lens alone, isms alone - as evidence of labelism, lensism, ism -

(4) - by scaffolding processes and policies based on this evidence - that institute different treatment - by virtue of and per - categories that classify our selves and each other on the basis of labels alone, lens alone, isms alone - 

(5) - by justifying, legitimizing, defending, sanctifying - extensions of privileges, advantages, entitlements - that are not earned - that are, instead, conferred - by virtue of and per - categories that classify our selves and each other on the basis of labels alone, lens alone, isms alone - 

~ * ~

How is this - not -

- the framework by which we reduce our selves and each other -

- to labels and lens?

How is this -

- reduction of our selves and each other - to labels and lens - not -

- the definition -

- of isms?

How is this -

- institutionalization of different treatment -

- on the basis of labels and lens - not -

- the institutionalization of - separate but equal?

- the institutionalization of - segregation?

- verily -

- the institutionalization of - bias?

- the institutionalization of - ism?

How is this - not -

- that which we seek to remedy, redress, rectify?

~ * ~

When our strategies -

When our tactics -

- are the same -

- as the strategies and the tactics of that which we seek to remedy, redress, rectify -

Such strategies -

Such tactics -

- are - not just, not legitimate, not defensible, not sacrosanct - 

- simply because such strategies and such tactics are ours -

~ * ~

Homogeneity -

- is an ambition of ethnic cleansing -

Homogeneity -

- is a goal of eugenics -

Homogeneity -

- is an aim of apartheid -

Homogeneity -

- is an objective of concentration camps -

Homogeneity -

- is an aspiration of segregationists -

~ * ~

The myth of separate but equal -

- is that homogeneity is ideal -

Why?

- because homogeneity is preferable to heterogeneity -

Why?

- because homogeneity ensures equality -

Why?

- because equality is impossible with heterogeneity -

Why?

- because inequality is inevitable with heterogeneity -

Why?

- because we assume the myth of separate but equal - is true -

~ * ~

What is idealized homogeneity?

It is the assumption - that when we reduce our selves and each other - to labels, lens, isms - we see and we know - what is alike and what is different -

Then?

- when we see and we know - what is alike and what is different -

- we choose what is comfortable -

Which is?

- the familiar -

Which is?

- what is alike -

Why?

- because what is alike - is - familiar and comfortable -

And -

Because -

- we idealize - what is alike, familiar, comfortable - homogeneous -

- we idealize homogeneity -

~ * ~

The myth of idealized homogeneity is -

Because -

- homogeneity on the basis of classification and categorization - is real and meaningful -

- and - heterogeneity is unnatural and wrong -

And -

- within classes and within categories -

- we are alike - familiar and comfortable -

And -

- between classes and between categories -

- we are dissimilar - unfamiliar and uncomfortable -

And -

Because

- we - deny, minimize, ignore, invalidate -

- differences within classes and within categories -

- differences within labels, lens, isms -

Because -

- we determine that these differences - are irrelevant -

And -

Because -

- we determine that differences between classes and between categories -

- are - relevant, vital, real -

We conclude -

- that homogeneity is an ideal utopia -

- and - heterogeneity is the opposite -

Because -

- the myth of idealized homogeneity is irrefutable -

~ * ~

Therefore -

- reducing our selves and each other - to labels and lens -

- is just, legitimate, defensible, sacrosanct - 

Because -

When -

- we - reduce our selves and each other - to labels and lens -

- we - uplift, validate, advance, elevate - our selves and each other -

But -

When -

- reducing our selves and each other - to labels and lens -

- is not by us -

- and -

- doesn't uplift us - doesn't validate us - doesn't advance us - doesn't elevate us -

- then -

- it is oppression and tyranny -

~ * ~

How is this - not -

- the defense of isms?

Moreover -

How is this - not -

- an ist defense of ism-based privileges, advantages, entitlements?

- to be uplifted, validated, advanced, elevated - on the basis of labels and lens - alone?

~ * ~

When isms by our hand -

- reduce our selves to labels and lens -

- are they just?

When isms by our hand - 

- reduce each other to labels and lens -

- are they just?

What if -

- labels and lens -

- isms -

- are wrong?

What if -

- labels and lens -

- isms -

- are not true?

What if -

- the myth of separate but equal -

- the myth of idealized homogeneity -

- are not true?

What if -

- these myths -

- are based on ignorance, intolerance, hatred?

What if -

- these myths -

- are isms in plain sight?

~ * ~

No wrong - 

- by mere virtue of being - by our hands -

- is made right.

More

The illogic of this hypocrisy is so blatant -

- that it boggles my mind that it is so vehemently defended.

Yet - this illogic is so entrenched - within our society -

- from our schools to our governments to our medias -

- that it is unsurprising how little progress we've made as a people - beyond labels, lens isms.

Indeed - we are so intent on blame seeking within the hearts and minds of others -

- that we deny our perpetuation of the very illogic that mires us in -

- sexism, racism, classism, socioeconomic statusism, nationism, religionism, sexual orientationism, marital statusism, educational attainmentism - every ism by every label by every lens, ad infinitum.

Verily - this is the crop that all of us reap -

- as devout sowers of ignorance, intolerance, and hatred.

On the basis of indisputably shallow and arbitrary boxes -

- we defend our isms with staunch and zealous righteousness.

As if such boxing - is our divine right.

And - as if by virtue of such divine right -

- we are not wrong.

While simultaneously vilifying others - on the basis of our boxing of others per our labels of others per our lens of others -

- with the militant sanctimony of crusaders.

As if - it is defensible - to claim such ignorance, such intolerance, such hatred - to be just and legitimate - wholly by virtue of being ours per our labels per our lens -

- for - verily - our isms is the wrong that will right the wrong of the isms of others.

Though never in the history of all - have two wrongs ever made a right -

- our hubris is such - that we decree with unequivocal certainty - that our wrong defies this truth that has never been untrue.

- M.

~ * ~

Note

The hypocrisies illustrated herein are hardly the only hypocrisies we excuse and condone -

~ * ~

The Pen: Hypocrisy is ever the sword of the ignoble, the indignant, the graceless.

The Sword: The Truth is ever the word of the noble, the virtuous, the sublime.

The Pen: Alas, the indignant insist that hypocrisy is the truth.

The Sword: Even so, my friend, the truth is the truth. Hypocrisy masquerading as truth is hypocrisy no less for pretension otherwise.

The Pen: Indeed, my friend.

~ * ~

My Uniform Is Nudity

Does nudity... scare you?

Is that why you... forbid it?

Is that why all of us hide it and veil it and call this deliberate obscurity of our natural morphology... appropriate, respectable, pious?

But what do hiding and veiling our physical forms... have to do with appropriateness, respectability, piety?

For are not appropriateness, respectability, piety... virtues of the mind and the heart and the spirit?

Such that when we subsequently hide and veil our nudity... do we not do so with the very opposite of appropriateness, respectability, piety?

With garments that exact manifestly reprehensible tolls on our lands, our waters, our skies, our enslaved labor... for vanity and conceit... with apparel that bray our gender, our socioeconomic status, our religion, our nation... so as to set us apart from each other... with dress that hail conformity and compliance... to whatever ethos of personal expression we patently adhere... including those dogmas of sexism, racism, religionism, nationism, socioeconomic statusism, classism, sexual orientationism... that we fervently deny... yet embody in our costumes and vestments of work and play and love and worship...

Is it not a tragedy... that born naked... ever after our nudity is censured... by communities, by societies, by nations, by religions...

For what... really?

Because... physical form... offends you?

Because... natural morphology... evokes something within you?

Because... nudity... incites you?

Are bears incited by the nudity of bears?

Are fish evoked by the nudity of fish?

Are hawks offended by the nudity of hawks?

Are trees scared by the nudity of trees?

Do we forbid nudity... of other living beings?

Are our babies... just born... less appropriate, less respectable, less pious... for presenting themselves to us... naked?

But alas... from then on... we shame our selves and each other... and smother our marvelously natural forms... in illogic and departures from reason...

... until we believe the most intolerant, the most vicious, the most ist... fictions and myths and propaganda and dogma... about our selves and each other... on the basis of that most superficial superficiality... on the basis of dress...

... such that we forget...

... we are not what we wear...

... skin is skin deep...

... and that which lies beneath... within the mind, within the heart, within the soul... is what really matters.

Such that we judge, prejudge, misjudge... our selves and each other... with the myopic solipsism of the vapid and the narcissistic and the self righteous and the sanctimonious...

... instead of the integrity and the nobility of truth.

What need have we... of regulated garments, of designated apparel, of appropriate dress, of respectable costumes, of pious vestments...

... who we are is so much more than what we wear...

... what we wear is not the truth of who we are...

... nudity is the physical form of who we are and nudity is the natural morphology of who we are...

... thus nudity is not inherently nor intrinsically nor inviolably inappropriate, disrespectable, impious... despite zealous and vehement regulation and designation so...

... before the eyes of God, Allah, Jehovah, Buddha, Shiva, Gaia, Powers that Be, our selves and each other...

... the sin of nudity is not that we hide it and veil it in shame and fear... the sin of nudity is that nudity is not our uniform...

... for nudity is the uniform of all living beings on this planet and across the granverse and our shame and our fear is but our shame and our fear of that which is the truth.

More

Clothing is a convention.

We decide what it means.

Such that we decide that this and that means that and this.

Such that they decide that that and this means this and that.

Such that we and they... justify and condone... isms on the basis of dress.

Such that they and we... legitimize and sanctify... hatred on the basis of wear.

Such that they decide that what we decide... is utterly irrelevant.

Such that we decide that what they decide... is utterly irrelevant.

Because the only decisions that matter to us are ours.

Because the only decisions that matter to them are and theirs.

Such that clothing... is yet one more expression of disunity and disharmony and misunderstanding and intolerance and ignorance and prejudice and pride and hatred and violence and tyranny.

In the end:

My wear does not give you permission to hate me.

My lack of wear does not give you permission to exact violence upon me.

My costumes and vestments of work and play and love and worship... do not give you permission to tyrannize me.

My garments, apparel, dress... and lack thereof... do not give you permission to disregard what they, and lack thereof, mean to me, in favor of what they, and lack thereof, mean to you.

My nudity is not an invitation.

My nudity is my natural morphology, my physical form, my uniform.

If it repels you, if it disgusts you, if it satisfies you, if it excites you... you have decided with absolute disregard to me, that my nudity is what it means to you.

Indeed, when you and your decisions and your conventions... matter more... than me and my decisions and my conventions...

... such that your decisions and your conventions supercede mine...

... is this just?

Indeed, when you and your decisions and your conventions... adhere to malices of sexism, racism, religionism, nationism, socioeconomic statusism, classism, sexual orientationism...

... is this just?

Indeed, when us and our decisions and our conventions... bray our gender, our socioeconomic status, our religion, our nation... so as to set us apart from each other... with dress that hail conformity and compliance to blatant isms...

... is this just?

Verily... the only uniform that is just... is truth.

Thus... the only uniform that is just... is nudity.

- M

Note

I considered and reconsidered... whether or not to post this post... since it was not written as a post for tvfs, per se... so much as a cfam (commentaries from a m), which I've missed writing of late...

As such... it feels private... and unfinished... in that way of endless poetry and literature that I cannot bring myself to publish for being so inexplicably personal...

Nevertheless... in the wake of our unrelenting mire of gloams of isms of always and of late... this topic feels woefully apropos...

- M