The Human Solution

There's a question of who's to blame that misses the human solution.

The Human Solution

I. For example:

Religion is broken.

Which is to say, the bodies that govern the institution of religion are rife with errors, from sexual abuse of 'the least' and invisible to financial abuse by 'the most' and visible. Because duh. Because flawed human beings are everywhere and no bodies that govern the institution of religion are immune from the so-called 'charms' of the influential and wrong.

But to say 'religion is broken' is not the same as saying: good is broken.

In other words, sweeping evidence of a broken institution of rules governing the followers of deity is not a judgment as to the realness of deity.

*

But there are those who would you believe this is undoubtedly what 'religion is broken' says aloud. And such those would you further believe 'deity is not dead' is a rallying cry worth mobilizing for.

To be an army of sanctimonious 'righteousness'.

Because it should be plainly obvious that the solution to 'religion is broken' isn't amassing a mob of axes-to-grind-ers and bones-to-pick-ers who deliver apologias as if apologists are what believers are.

*

This solution is the human solution. 

*

II. For example:

Media is broken.

Which is to say, insofar as commercial financing and liability protections conscribe the institution of news reporting, survivability looms like a proverbial elephant, from newswires to media publishers. Because duh. Because an enlightened audience is not the bottom line; measurable profitability is.

But to say 'media is broken' is not the same as saying: honesty is broken.

In other words, an excess of casual entertainment masquerading as factual revelations is not a conclusion as to the trustlessness of communication.

*

But there are those who would you believe the in-the-know know what 'media is broken' unquestionably means. And such those would you further believe 'alternative facts' are worth catechizing.

As if imagined 'realities' and contrived 'information' are not fabulations but bona fides.

Because it should be plainly obvious that the solution to 'media is broken' isn't unleashing engines of brutish counterfeit rage in defense of ceaseless minutes hate. 

*

This solution is the human solution.

*

III.  To wit:

The human solution is neither compelled nor controlled,

by external will or power.

*

The human solution is instead, the exercise of free will

not bent towards goodness,

with nothing and no one to blame but the freedom to manifest intention sans ever mind.

*

So what is responsible for, say, mistreatment on the basis of label or faith? As in the hollowing of health care according to faith or label never mind need or moral principle otherwise avowed? Or rather, who's to blame for the freedom to manifest intention is broken?

The answer is the free whose will not bent towards goodness is a will to be human. Or rather, the human solution.

Addendum

IV. For example:

Arms bearing is broken.

Which is to say, when arms bearing becomes a license in perpetuum to murder en masse, arms bearing is broken. Because duh. Because the well-being and welfare of human beings within a nation's borders isn't a matter of upholding a domestic war so much as upholding a domestic peace.

But to say 'arms bearing is broken' is not the same as saying: guns kill or people kill.

Because so long as willful insecurities and fears drive the stockpiling of sickeningly abundant and foolproof tools of human slaughter, such nation's people will be locked unwittingly within games of Russian roulette, played at incalculable loss. 

*

These are but a few examples selected for their illustrative value within a constraint of brevity that are by no means exhaustive in sum or in part.

Because duh.

With that being said, being human is not inevitable and the human solution is not surprising.

Being something more than human, that, is surprising.

In the beginning, I believed in what was not inevitable and I believed in what was surprising. In the end, I still believe. What do you still believe?

M

A Consecration of Fools

Yes, let's.

Celebrate.

Fools.

A Consecration of Fools

Whether a book or a cave, a matrix or an illusion, is the truth you know to be true,

what we do thereafter, is cause for hope and cause for despair.

()

: Cause for Hope

What we do, can be good.

We can progress knowledge; we can advance intelligence; we can support responsible stewardship from governance to conservation; we can grow capacity; we can acknowledge challenges and answer obstacles with action; we can plan for possibilities, both constructive and harmful, both intentional and unintended, with clarity towards effecting good outcomes.

What we can do, can be decent.

()

: Cause for Despair

What we can do, can be self-serving.

For neither a book nor a cave, neither a matrix nor an illusion, neither prevents us from doing what we do thereafter, nor impedes us from doing so in service to self-interest without limit. Because no truth you know to be true, obstructs us from exercising self-rule without scruple. For our free-will is neither a guarantee nor a certainty, that what we will, will good.

What we do, can be wrong.

 

()

What we do thereafter, therefore, is

because a book and a cave, a matrix and an illusion, promises

a consecration of fools,

celebrate.

Postface

Speaking of what we do thereafter, is cause for hope and cause for despair.

Yes, let's.

Immortalize.

Fools.

M

On Mirages

The failsafe of human is human.

That is to say, the failsafe of human failing is human not failing.

So the question before us is not whether or not a failsafe is or is not human; the question before us is whether or not human not failing exists.

On Mirages

Everyone is asking questions.

On its face, this is good.

Because on its face, asking questions is good.

But when questions are mirages... then what.

What?

When (i) people ask questions that are mirages (ii) because material differences between believed fictions and uncomfortable realities are trivial (iii) because a mirage of the truth is equivalent to the truth (iv) then what.

*

That "then what" is what we're living.

Now.

*

Let's state clearly: not only are fictions and realities not at all equal, they're not at all the same.

Thought experiments that ask us to compare them, as if we are deciding whether to consume one ambrosia apple or an other, rely on a kind of assumed equivalence like so: choosing between such apple and a broomcorn broom is really a choice between two ambrosia apples. 

Such ask inevitably arrives at one welcome conclusion: what is palatable is what is fair; as if every effort to validate what people believe never mind what is real, isn't human failing.

*

What's wrong with sympathetic conclusions?

On its face, nothing.

Because on its face, never minding what is real is neither here nor there.

But when what people believe... becomes how people act... becomes wrongdoers wrongdoing... then what.

What?

When (i) people scorn what is honest (ii) because self-evident differences between loyalty and what's right are immaterial (iii) because fidelity without obedience is sacrilege that is not suffered without retaliation and reprisal (iv) then what.

*

That "then what" is what we're living.

Now.

*

Does it matter what aspirers to monetized engagement say? What paid mouthpieces in generous employ say? What pretenders serving an objective to destabilize and splinter discourse say? What campaigners for one for power for life say?

Yet we opine speech thus exercised, trustworthy, as if our expressions of speech are incorruptible, pshaw. Case in point: the exploitation of "to be fair" to validate what people know never mind what they don't.

Because a single fact isn't the whole truth.

Yet we opine narratives thus circulated and tractional are not only what credibly matters but all that definitively matters; as if conviction without integrity isn't human failing.

*

Notwithstanding the role of good faith; or rather, the role of its absence.

Which begs putting a fine point on it and asking: what does good faith have to do with expressions of speech or conclusions or questions or mirages?

*

On its face, nothing.

Because on its face, people are decent and good.

But when what people want... becomes what people believe is rightfully theirs... becomes echoing and inciting and praising what is wrongful... then what.

What?

When (i) "good people from a good place" means self-rulers governed by self-serving self-interest (ii) because impartiality rubber-stamps assumed equivalence (iii) because opinions and facts are fungible and transactional (iv) then what.

*

Then:

expressions of speech that are opinions are compared to facts, because grave differences between facts and opinions are beside the point because being nonpartisan means assuming equivalence;

broad conclusions decided from single kernels of truth are compared to uncomfortable realities, because consequential differences between what's real and what's informed by lies of omission are beside the point because to be unbiased means to assume equivalence;

questions that are smoke and mirror fictions are compared to rational publications, because utile differences between bona fides and pretenses are beside the point because being fair-minded means assuming equivalence;

until:

assumed equivalence means ambrosia apples and broomcorn brooms are of course equal because ambrosia apples and broomcorn brooms are of course the same.

What? Why?

Because good faith means, from questions to conclusions to expressions of speech, the mirage of "good people from a good place" is the played promise of human not failing never mind any harm.

*

In the end:

when neutrality sacrifices the whole uncomfortable unwelcome truth for assumed equivalence,

neutrality is transparent human failing.

To wit:

what are we preserving to the the last breath when what is not equal and what is not the same are compared like two ambrosia apples?

Not a failsafe;

a mirage.