The combined implications of our behaviour and conscious beliefs form our extended beliefs. Extended beliefs constitute our entire understanding of the universe. When there's a conflict between any two extended beliefs, we experience dissonance and angst. For example, when I ate meat, my behaviour implied some blend of the following extended beliefs: that the animals were not suffering, that my eating the meat wasn't causing the animals to suffer, that it didn't matter if the animals suffered, etc. However, such extended beliefs were in conflict with other extended beliefs that implied that I was causing animals to suffer unnecessarily, and that I shouldn't eat meat. Deep down my extended beliefs included the knowledge that, if I had personally and intimately known any of the animals I was eating, I would have loved them and my heart would have broken seeing them killed. My general understanding of the world implied that I was causing the murder of beings that mere circumstance had prevented me from knowing and loving. In order to continue eating meat, which I enjoyed, I was forced to suppress from consciousness the conflict among my extended beliefs. I had to board up part of my mind and forbid myself from thinking certain thoughts. My mind had to constantly fight with itself, and my refusal to face the truth prevented me from being at peace. My later choice to observe the truth required me to stop eating meat, and in doing so, I was able to more comfortably see the universe the way my extended beliefs required.
Even though I've been able to free myself from my angst-causing self-deception in regards to eating meat, I'm still not whole. I am fully aware that there are people in this world who are in desperate poverty. I am fully aware that climate change is likely going to drive millions of future humans and sentient non-human animals into extreme suffering and premature death. I am fully aware that the billionaire-class uses control over essential resources to obtain wage slaves who do their bidding. I am also am fully aware that problems are getting worse, and that if nothing is done, they will cause more and more desperation. In the same way that it's only by chance I don't intimately know and love any of the animals I used to eat, it is similarly by chance that I don't know and love any of the people whose lives are in danger. Somewhere there is an impoverished parent who would easily give everything to save their child at risk. It is only by chance that I don't love that child, but I have the means to contribute towards saving them and many others. I live a privileged lifestyle in a wealthy country. I spend my money consuming things that the parent would happily give up to save their child. I consume when I could participate in saving someone who only by chance do I not know and love. If I continue to consume, I will be forced back into blinding myself to the extended reality in my mind. I will be forced back into an unconscious conflict with myself, and I will continue to not be at complete peace.
0 Comments
There are a number of different questions one can mean when one asks which political ideology you subscribe to. One question might be: "What is the ideal form of social organization that we should aspire to?" Another might be: "What should we make happen right now (in order to eventually reach the ideal)?" Or, a third might be: "Of the real possibilities available to us right now, which is the most agreeable?"
It's easy to conceive of situations in which these three questions have very different answers, that is, when achieving the ideal is only possible through a series of less than ideal situations - perhaps even some situations which are worse at that moment than some other available situations. If a person says their goal is to have bread, we don't criticize them as being inconsistent when, in the absence of bread, they eat potatoes or make dough. In such a situation, it's clear to us that the reason the person isn't eating bread is because bread isn't available, and that making dough doesn't mean the person isn't, in the long run, actually making bread. An "anarchist", in the sense of "a person who views the ideal social organization to be state-free (or, better, coercion-free)", isn't inconsistent for supporting, say, environmental protection laws - which can only exist in the context of the state. Perhaps the anarchist in question sees the progression of society towards a stable anarchism as involving a first step of having environmental protection laws. Or perhaps the anarchist in question thinks that anarchy is an ideal that society isn't presently capable of, and that, in the interim, it would be best to protect the environment. None of these positions make that person less of an anarchist in the sense of believing anarchy to be the ideal state of affairs. |
Something is wrong with the world. Let's fix it. Archives
December 2020
Categories |