Hand The Book Across Time

by

There are tales I’ve heard about Chinese scholars hiding their books in the walls of their home. Barring a fire, and even then, their writings would be be preserved. As I look at our troubled world here in the 21st century, I can understand that mindset. I die, the book lives on.

There’s something about humans saving knowledge.

We transmit stories by tales and song and riddles. We handed off culture in a marathon race among minds before we could write. What words and stories that are in your brain have passed on in some permutation since our ancestors hunted with stone-tipped spears?

How many archaeological digs find caches of wisdom? Scrolls in pots, carefully preserved bamboo strips, lovingly hidden paper, passionately engraved stone. Untold millions of people leaving behind their knowledge.

Then there are the transcriptionists and later the press. People copying book after book after book, at first by hand, then by block and plate, and today by computer and printer. There are people who’s lives are just the transmission or keeping of documents.

Think of the humorous findings by translators and relic-hunters, things preserved because people just keep records. How the internet laughs at terrible copper merchant Ea-Nasir. How we laugh in agreement at young Japanese Emperor Uda lovingly writing about his cat. Humans just keep records, and those so often outlive us – and today we shake our head at that merchant or pet our cat and feel connected to the ruler of a country long dead.

When evil threatens, we hide and preserve and transmit and print. For all that is lost to history, to time, to paper that frays and ink that fades, we have saved so much. We have opposed tyrants and we have avoided censorship, often at the cost of lives. We will die – or kill – to save information.

There is something so human in preserving the word. Something that is transcendent of the individual. To be human is to be information, to be transmission. The you that you are now, the me that I am now, are just momentary permutations of something much larger.

When I look at the world and all its suffering and problems, then back to all these singers and writers and printers, I think I understand. We’ve all been handing things off down the line since we could first think and communicate. Even as we find new ways to burn our planet and destroy each other, that urge lives on.

We hide the book in the walls, we sing the song, for that will build or save the future despite the present.

–Xenofact

Tyrants for Freedom

by

I often talk about conspiracy theories and the like when I write about spiritual issues since conspiracy theories and spirituality tend to intersect – what is often called Conspirituality. Also there’s plenty of spiritually grifty conspiracy peddlers and those people and what they sell fascinate me. They infuriate me too, but in a kind of fascinating way.

One thing that fascinates me is how Conspiracy Theorists seem to want to build the very world they claim they warn against.

I’ll watch Conspiracy Theorists predict violent uprisings and secret attacks. The solution is usually “more guns and also maybe shoot non-white people” which quickly sounds like they are the very thing they hate. Usually this goes unnoticed as we’re used to it or focus on other weird stuff they say.

I’ve also watched how Conspiracy Theorists quickly become bang alongside police states. Oh they may not feel threatened as it’s their police (or milita, or army) but it’s absolutely the same thing they fear others are doing to them. Funny how the jackboot ends up on the other foot.

But this is all the standard violent crap humanity has plagued itself with for years. The revolution’s evolution ends in devolution and destruction too often.

However one thing that really stood out to me the last few years is watching Conspiracy Theorists who were afraid of secret billionaires and tyrants . . . go and seek out tyrants. I’m sure you can guess who they usually chose to worship, but it’s weird when you look at the breadth of history, especially in the 20th century and onward.

It’s unsettling to see people who scream about freedom lick the boots of some hack businessman or creepy politician or weird media figure. People acting so worshipful towards a transparent grifter that you suddenly really understand things like Jonestown. There are people bang alongside freedom so much they want to follow a dictator to get their freedom.

Read that again. They want to follow a dictator to get their freedom and they don’t immediately die of embarrassment.

Lately, I’ve come to realize the difference between a Conspiracy Theorists and a person who believes in conspiracy is in part “do they want a dictator?”

Conspiracy Theorists, addicted to conspiracy theories, besotted by clear personal issues, often a bit gifty at heart, seem to easily fall into wanting a dictator. The Conspiracy Theorists have issues of power and control that the Theory helps address. If power and control are your issues and integrity of belief aren’t as important, a dictator is an easy solution.

But people who just believe there are conspiracies? Accurate or not they’ll seek solutions and try to build them. They might not be the best solutions or rational one, but as the solution matters there’s hope. They see a threat and want to correct it, so there’s some potential dialogue and growth It may not always end well, but there’s an attempt to fix things.

Of course I can see these two being interchangeable. I have dark suspicions some famous Conspiracy Theory figures started off with concerns that at least involved practical solutions, but then went more and more off the edge. Or they found they could make money in the Conspiracy Theory space.

So beware people espousing conspiracies, yes. But check for a desire for tyranny and you may save yourself a lot of time, words, sanity, and maybe just safety. Those who easily want tyrants aren’t trying to solve anything for anyone else.

-Xenofact

The Flaws of Virtue

by

The Flaws of Virtue

“Great Virtue Seems Flawed” is a quote from the Tao Te Ching Chapter 41. Lately I’ve been thinking about that between a mix of readings and watching today’s supposedly virtuous people. The former makes me think, the later makes me outraged THEN I think. I suppose it all goes to the same place – people with deep morals and principles, grounded ones, are NOT going to look perfect to people.

Because looking perfect is a great way to not actually focus on important issues and your own personal integrity.

Think of how much of “morality” we’re taught is just posturing. Say the right thing. Smile at the right time. Invoke some religious platitudes. I mean how many times do you see someone held up as a moral paragon who violates everything their religion and principles supposedly stand for?

In a media age it’s even worse. I’m often stunned – me, who’s had plenty of time to become cynical – how often supposed moralists are clearly not following what they say. They are lying to people’s faces, posing, posturing.

A person who has deep values, who has connected values, doesn’t place performative actions on a pedestal. They’re not here to sell you themselves, they’re not here to grift you. They have certain principles and act on them. Often that will conflict with the performative morality of others.

This also means that people who are interested in what is right and what values run deep is going to clash with the times. By definition someone who is contemplating what’s important is going to be at odds with flaws in society at the time. They will make waves, they will not be what we expect – and a smart society has “space” for wave makers (which lets you find out who has good ideas and who is just a jackass).

Finally, some ideas of what proper, moral behavior is really fall away when people take a look at deep issues and principles. Deep morality will seem flawed as people realize some things they were taught are, at best, useless, and worse harmful. Look at the history of people protesting injustice against people for skin color, sexual preference – at their time, they looked very flawed, but in retrospect we see their virtue (even if some want to deny it).

So yes, great virtue does seem flawed. It comes from a deeper source, from contemplation, from trying to get the big picture. We should always expect some moral friction in the world because we’re always re-evaluating things.

I would note, as a warning, that there is “being flawed” and “being performatively transgressive.” A person who’s deep morals come first and just happen to appear as flawed is one thing. Someone going around breaking things and putting on a show is clearly not coming from a deeper place.

And ironically, the performative faux moralist is probably performing “acceptable rebellion” so they’re conforming anyway . . .

-Xenofact