Hi MeDroogies,
While I stayed home this Friday evening to catch up on some things that got put off due to a long Labor Day weekend away from home, and to get to bed early, I find myself up even later than if I had been out on the town dancing the night away. ( I was called out in the wee hours to assist some friends who were in distress with their automobile and a misunderstanding involving a few of Syracuse's finest. For this special occasion, I was gloriously attired in a raincoat thrown over a nightgown, and pink bunny slippers)
>>I agree with some of the
conclusions. It still is evading the point.<<<
If you will recall the post of mine you are alluding to here, you will see that I really posed questions for us, not conclusions, nor evasions.
I think this is a good moment in our history for all of us to pose questions to ourselves, and not so much to President Clinton, a time to consider our own motives and values, not just his, a time to consider how it is that we come to react in whatever ways something like this scandal causes us to react.
In discovering something that we find objectionable about our president, how is it that we can pursue it, capture it, and finance its public display in ways that describe vengeance more than justice, ridicule and contempt more than honor and understanding, excitement and extremism more than compassion and objectivity?
We wish to set right that which we deem to be wrong, and perhaps the methods we choose to perform this task lend little distinction between the wrong and what it is that brings it to task. Always we should ask ourselves, and investigate ourselves, about our motives and choice of methods.
An ancient wisdom, stated by Lao Tsu, is that
Knowing others is wisdom;
Knowing the self is enlightenment.
Mastering others requires force;
Mastering the self needs strength.
Knowing ignorance is strength.
Ignoring knowledge is sickness.
A similar observation comes from someone with whom I am sure you must be familiar, Herbert Spencer:
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
Crowd psychology- crowd mentality- has played a strong role in this matter of how the large public looks at President Clinton as he appears in the context of the scandal.
Also, from the very beginning of the investigation of President Clinton there is evidence of another crowd mentality, not so much a public mentality as a particular psychology and mentality that was pervasive throughout the growing numbers of the body that was forming and growing, expanding and becoming more powerful and authoritative- the crowd that would literally go after President Clinton.
Coincidentally, Dr Alexander Elder, author of Trading For A Living, offers some frank insights about crowd behaviour. Although aimed at the market, it applies elsewhere too, including, I think, the subject of the scandal:
"An individual is thought to have a free will, and thus his behaviour may be hard to predict. Group behaviour is more primitive and easier to follow. When you analyze markets (or scandals...:-) you analyze group behaviour....Groups suck us in and cloud our judgement...People become primitive and action-oriented when they join crowds. Crowds feel simple but strong emotions such as terror, elation, alarm, and joy....You need to pay attention to several signs that indicate when you start turning into a sweaty crowd member instead of an intelligent trader... The problem for most analysts is that they get caught in the mentality of the groups they analyze."
>>Hypocrisy isn't an illness, nor is it a character flaw. However, an
overactive libido IS an illness (though not a crime).<<
Hypocrisy is the practice of falseness. It is not a potential, rather an actuality. Because its value is in its intent and power to deceive and manipulate,I would call this a character flaw.
An over-active libido: we should hope that this energy which is about instinctual biological drives is active, else we might suffer from an illness called depression, but when is it over-active as opposed to just plain active.
Much fine art, business success, political accomplishment may in part be a product of the sublimation and focusing of an abundance of this energy.
Other times a large amount of this energy might lead to a different kind of focus and dedication, maybe promiscuity, a compulsion to urgency and frequency, and if this is not understood and disciplined in some psychologically non-harmful way, it can seriously interfere with and seriously complicate ones life... ones efficiency, productivity, relationships, self image, emotional stability, serenity...and since it does not enhance individual health and wholeness, in fact threatens and discourages it, it would be easy to refer to this as a sickness.
Hypocrisy, destructive libido expression- anything that separates us from ourselves and from each other, anything that divides and isolates, I would call a sickness. Actually, I personally see the separation as the sickness.
If I were to chronically feel ill at ease, obsessed and compelled regarding sex, isolated, angered or defensive, vindictive, resentful or constantly prepared for attack, I would want someone without bias or ulterior motive, someone with compassion, to confront me with this state of personal affairs, someone who could assist me in looking within my own consciousness, and not someone else's, with the goal of transforming all that sickness into health.
To come to this point, most individuals need to hit a bottom. I also think this is true for a society.
Regards,
Charliss
|
