When Great Trees Fall

When great trees fall,
rocks on distant hills shudder,
lions hunker down
in tall grasses,
and even elephants
lumber after safety.

When great trees fall
in forests,
small things recoil into silence,
their senses
eroded beyond fear.

When great souls die,
the air around us becomes
light, rare, sterile.
We breathe, briefly.
Our eyes, briefly,
see with
a hurtful clarity.
Our memory, suddenly sharpened,
examines,
gnaws on kind words
unsaid,
promised walks
never taken.

Great souls die and
our reality, bound to
them, takes leave of us.
Our souls,
dependent upon their
nurture,
now shrink, wizened.
Our minds, formed
and informed by their
radiance,
fall away.
We are not so much maddened
as reduced to the unutterable ignorance
of dark, cold
caves.

And when great souls die,
after a period peace blooms,
slowly and always
irregularly. Spaces fill
with a kind of
soothing electric vibration.
Our senses, restored, never
to be the same, whisper to us.
They existed. They existed.
We can be. Be and be
better. For they existed.

-Maya Angelou

Miracles

Believe in miracles. I have seen so many of them come when every other indication would say that hope was lost. Hope is never lost. If those miracles do not come soon or fully or seemingly at all, remember the Savior’s own anguished example: if the bitter cup does not pass, drink it and be strong, trusting in happier days ahead. (Like a Broken Vessel -holland October 2013)

From the movie, A Time to Kill: What is truth?

What is it in us that seeks the truth? Is it our minds or is it our hearts?

I had a great summation all worked out, full of some sharp lawyering, but I'm not going to read it. I'm here to apologize. I am young, and I am inexperienced. But you cannot hold Carl Lee Hailey responsible for my shortcomings. Do you see, in all this legal maneuvering, something has gotten lost. That something is the truth. Now, it is incumbent upon us lawyers not to just talk about the truth but to actually seek it, to find it, to live it. My teacher taught me that. Let's take Dr. Bass, for example. Now obviously, I would have never knowingly put a convicted felon on the stand. I hope you can believe that. But what is the truth? That, that he's a disgraced liar? What if I told you that the woman he was accused of raping was 17, he was 23, that she later became his wife, bore his child and is still married to the man today? Does that make his testimony more or less true? What is it in us that seeks the truth? Is it our minds, or is it our hearts?

I set out to prove a black man could receive a fair trial in the South, that we are all equal in the eyes of the law. That's not the truth 'cause the eyes of the law are humanized, yours and mine, and until we can see each other as equals, justice is never going to be even-handed. It will remain nothing more than a reflection of our own prejudices. So until that day, we have a duty under God to seek the truth - not with our eyes, and not with our minds where fear and hate turn commonality into prejudice, but with our hearts - but we don't know better

i am going to paste this on my forehead

The Great Gatsby, a wealth spring of knowledge

Just found this quote from one of my favorite books:

"...I was within and without, simultaneously enchanted and repelled by the inexhaustible variety of life."

Time to give power to a third political party

"Since then common sense has been bound and nourished by tradition, so that when traditional standards cease to make sense and no longer serve as general rules under which all or most particular instances can be subsumed, common sense unavoidably atrophies."

-Hannah Arendt

Lets’ give power to a third party. This isn’t such a crazy idea, I promise.

Neither the Republican nor the Democratic establishment represent the American peoples at present, and this division between the “Man” and citizenry is only growing, not decreasing. Just take a poll or ask your neighbor. Each party has become more subsumed in parroting their respective ideological mantra, more infatuated with the cult of personality surrounding X political figurehead of the week, than on focusing on and/or advocating a particular truism or principle, let alone represent the American people. Abraham Lincoln would be upset. Of course every nation deals with the ebbs and flows of various ideological and political cycles, however, there is a point when a remodel of the status quo wastes more time and energy than necessary. Back to the drawing board.

In thinking about what this new third party should be, we first need to acknowledge the age-old, most fundamental question that governments have posed time immemorial—what is the role of government? In order to do this, we first need to define what constitutes a political issue, and what a social issue. This is a nasty, knotted ball of yarn to undo though, living in an age where political and social issues have become fused together, and moderns don’t know what the difference is.

For example, while individuals try and make the legalization of pot or gay marriage into a politically left or right issue, the actual underlying political issue is not about the moral conflict between being a liberal pro-pot hippie and a conservative Christian anti-pot hater—these types of understandings ultimately distort what the real political conflict is about. Legalization of pot, in and of itself is a social issue. I know conservatives who advocate legalizing Marijuana and Democrats against it. No, the correct political question, for these types of situations is about deciding whether legalizing pot should be a state or federal issue. Should the central government hold the majority of the power, or do individual states assume primary responsibility? This is the political question that people need to engage with, not a social one. The national government, as one united entity, does not determine whether smoking pot, legalizing same-sex marriage, or walking outside on a rainy day is moral or not—individuals do. When you get into labeling the “enemy” in a social context, you quickly run into paradoxical conundrums. Who is who exactly? Can you believe in X and Y, but not Z if you belong to group F?  For example, there is more politically in common between the “liberal” urban homesteader and the self-sufficient “conservative” doomsday prepping man, than perhaps liberals have in common with liberals or conservatives with conservatives. Both the homesteader and the Apocalyptic, place a high value on their right to govern themselves, and live accordingly to how each one sees fit (within a limit of course—now entering Supreme Court territory).

Instead of asking the deeper political or more philosophical question though, like what is good governance, as of late, Americans fill their political lives more with the superficial minutia of social issues—yes important, but citizenry should not assign their central government the role of dictating morality about each pot, marriage, homeschooling decision. Because when we, the citizenry, make dealing with social issues the primary concern of our political realm, our candidates for office only talk and think about these social issues, rather than focus on issues of federalism--and the mechanics of government.

Because politicians appear disengaged from discussing these deeper, political, philosophical and mechanical issues, we need a third party that addresses, and delves into these questions: what is the role of government and why do we need it, combining tenets of liberalism and conservatism into one whole. Perhaps, classical liberalism anyone? I don't know.

It is not just the focus on social issues that has made the political scene increasingly vapid and frustrating per usual for the voter, but the lack of dialogue and civility observed within each respective party, and between one another as well. This makes a third party sound all the more desirable.

If our only likely and viable candidates for the 2016 Presidential Election are Democrat contender Hilary Clinton and the Republicans’ Chris Christie, with the possible Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio thrown in there, America’s future political outlook is even bleaker than I previously anticipated. These candidates make social issues paramount, and do not delve into the mechanics specifically, of what makes good governance. Should we require that candidates write their own version of the Federalist Papers, as a qualification to run? It is not necessarily that these candidates are inherently evil, arrogant, or incompetent (as I am sure many would argue), but rather that if these folks, with the addition of maybe a “Hail Mary” candidate jettisoned into the race at the last minute, are the best and the brightest representatives America has to offer...the 2016 race should take a rain check (if only). 

If people don’t start examining the root of current political discontent, looking at what the real political issues are—how much should the state be “left alone” and when should the federal government intervene, we will be looking at candidates that increasingly talk more about social issues, until the louder voice wins or the popular one triumphs—rather than dealing with age-old questions about the necessary components of good governance, diminishing true political debate and inquiry. People should ask how we should govern, not what should we govern.

The meager selection of qualified presidential candidates however, is only one symptom of the dissonance, discontent, and incivility that has manifested itself in the realm of politics. Making social issues the main issue has contributed in significant part, to the oversimplification and dumbing down of the electorate, because people do not think or ponder enough about how they should be governed. Parties are more concerned with disseminating their ideological slogan, propaganda, and rhetoric about  gay marriage-this, homeschooling-that than in applying practical solutions or employing moral methods to build a stronger country, looking at the political aspect of these issues. When parties are more concerned with rehashing various ad hominem attacks against each other (Reid vs. Boehner, Hilary vs. Obama, list personal squabble of the week.) rather than engaging in productive dialogue about what constitutes good governance, it’s time to reassess. However, this “reassessment” is not panning out to well. For example, recently, Republicans created a think tank in order to revamp their image (which is in sore need of a makeover) called, Para Bellum Labs. So, what is the problem? The GOP not only named its innovation lab after a Nazi Pistol, but in Latin, the literal meaning is “prepare for war (see Gawker for further details). Huh? I don’t understand how this approach cultivates a more engaging or productive political climate, or fosters deeper thinking beyond, “you—bad, we—good.”

But, while Republicans scramble to upgrade and improve their image, appeasing all their Tea Party, moderate and Libertarian members alike, the Democrats aren’t exactly a winning team to pick either. From Obama’s usage of executive orders to the less-then-stellar implementation of Obamacare, a lot of Democrats are finding themselves increasingly at odds with their own presidential elect. For example, Democratic congressmen are just as infuriated with Obama, as their Republican counterparts are, when Obama’s imperialism begins to undermine their congressional authority.

 Listening to enraged citizenry on the phone during the government shutdown of 2013 only furthered my general awareness, of the seething and, also, not-so-subtle anger and angst which Americans harbor towards their government right now. I mean, I don’t really know if Todd from West Virginia is serious about storming the Capitol alongside his comrades in arms, but I certainly don’t want to find out.

How about that third party anyone? Who is in charge anyway?

Myers Briggs personality test...I am an INFP

I took the Myers Briggs personality test and while I was once an INTJ, ENTJ, and ENFJ I am now an INFP. You should take the test too here: Myers Briggs Test

And INFP means....what exactly?

Introverted (I) 

Reserved, listen carefully, prefer solitary activities, more comfortable when alone than when around other people, get exhausted by social interaction

Intuitive (N) 

Introspective, rely on their imagination, absorbed in ideas, focus on what might happen

Feeling (F) 

Sensitive, follow their hearts, keep feelings close to the surface, focus on harmony and cooperation

Prospecting (P) 

Probing, prefer keeping their options open, reluctant to commit, relaxed about their work, seek freedom

INFP strengths

• Passionate and energetic. INFPs tend to be very energetic when it comes to causes they believe in and are willing to fight for. They may be quiet and even shy in public, but their passion should not be underestimated.
• Very creative. INFP personalities find it easy to interpret signs and hidden meanings – furthermore, their well-developed intuition has no difficulties connecting the dots and coming up with interesting, unusual ideas.
• Open-minded and flexible. INFPs dislike being constrained by rules and do not seek to impose them on others. They tend to be fairly liberal, open-minded individuals, as long as their principles and ideas are not being challenged.
• Idealistic. INFPs are perhaps the most idealistic of all personality types, believing that people are inherently good and everyone should do their best to fight evil and injustice in the world.
• Seek and value harmony. INFPs do not want to dominate and work hard to ensure that everyone’s opinion is valued and heard.
• Can be very dedicated and hard-working. As mentioned above, INFP personalities are both very passionate and idealistic. Not surprisingly, they can also be unbelievably dedicated to their chosen cause or an organization. It is unlikely that an INFP will give up simply because everyone else has abandoned the cause or it is getting difficult to keep going.

My favorite bit was this one though: 

INFPs may also often retreat into their “hermit” state (this personality type can easily switch between the two states), withdrawing from the world and getting lost in their deep thoughts – their partner may then need to spend quite a lot of effort to energize and “awaken” the INFP."

Hahahahaahaha. I guess I am a hermit. 

My special place: St. Paul's Cathedral

Braved the blitzkrieg. Braved the SAJ. She still stands tall. 

God always answers our prayers

It often seems like an eternity, painful, and utterly frustrating, in getting answers to our questions and in fulfilling our deepest desires. But no matter how seemingly small, or miraculous His response appears to be, the Lord ultimately always astonished us beyond out own comprehension, using both the most unexpected of ways and individuals to solve some of our most puzzling conundrums, curing our anguish.   

In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

- George Orwell 

I love Soviet Propaganda pictures. Gems they are.

Done outside of the Hollywood bubble, "The Square" is a must see Netflix original

We are not looking for a leader as much as we are looking for a conscience

What is a leader anyway?

Are they going to offer solutions from the heavens?

They won't do that.

The thing is if we are able to create this conscience within the society, we'll be able to find a good president.

We are not looking for a leader to rule us. Because everyone that went to Tahir is a leader. 

We are looking for a conscience.

-Ahmed Hassan 

Good presidents come from a moral people. Not vice versa. However, more often than not, civilians fall into the mistake of worshiping demigods of particular movements, rather then relying on the more "boring" and sturdy age-old virtues of the past, which gave individuals their moral center in the first place. People can chant slogans, but if they don't understand the meaning of them, the reasoning behind positive change eventually becomes lost. If individuals are set on changing society for the better, then communities have to place an emphasis on building a societal conscience and set of values among its members. Without a unified understanding and agreement of what makes right or wrong, old mistakes are inevitably repeated, and new inroads are never made. After all, the majority of individuals have the ability to obtain and maintain power, and then loose it just as easily, repeating "Roman Empire Cycle." However, it is a lot harder to be a consistently good and honorable person-- or people for that matter.


Check the film out on the official website: http://thesquarefilm.com/about and watch it on Netflix. 

Two-dimensional Living

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?

Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?

(T.S. Eliot)

            
While the 21^st century provides many opportunities to participate within the three-dimensional space and live a life to its fullest—with more opportunities and advantages present today than in any other era, many, instead choose to believe in and view the world through a two-dimensional lens.

Two-dimensional living though, distorts rather than sheds further light onto reality, distorting both one’s personal life and an individual’s understanding of the world at large.

And, what exactly is two-dimensional living?

For instance, we view celebrities as two-dimensional beings. We see them on TV, in movies, and on magazine covers—the 2D world. However, celebrities are three-dimensional people, not 2D images. They are not flat. They are very real— I mean just ask them if they are, after the umpteenth paparazzi attack. And I know that’s a “captain obvious” observation, but do we really think about or understand the ramifications of constantly viewing them, and many others things in the world from our respective 2D glasses? After all, two-dimensions isn’t reality, but rather a snapshot—and usually a very well-crafted one at that. We see the Vogue photo shopped images, the smiles and the wit, gracing a 2D picture, but the circumstance surrounding that person’s 3D reality is usually quite different.

A 2D perspective and subsequent living habits that accompany it have ramifications in every aspect of our life—not just within our entertainment realm. We spectate at everything, rather than participating in it. From watching TV, sports, movies, engrossing ourselves in social media (here comes the customary Twitter and Facebook shout out) we over time gradually detach ourselves from reality rather than recognizing the truth more. We don’t play soccer—we watch soccer. We don’t go to a play as often or read a book—we watch a movie. 2D realities are even more commonplace within the work environment now, individuals existing on a computer, engaging their reality and with others electronically, rather than through a face-to-face interaction.

I mean I love my Amazon Prime Justified marathons. Let’s be honest. And 2D interfaces whether they be computers, TVs, movie screens, phones (the list goes on) all have their place. However, when people start to live more in cyberspace than within real space, it’s only a matter of time before we subject our 3D life to the 2D perspective that we, ourselves, have become more accustomed too. Everything, whether a person or situation, soon become either more exaggerated or unnecessarily under-exaggerated. We become obsessed with talking-heads and their opinions, mimicking everything they say, while under-valuing our neighbors more real, and perhaps more accurate perception.  We begin to hear more statements like, (as someone is pointing at a movie screen), “She has the perfect life,” (or while listening to the headlines), “That politician is a womanizing-whore-SOB-DC bureaucrat.” When you view reality from a 2D lens it becomes even that much easier to jump to conclusions and make sweeping generalizations. We see 10% of a person or a situation.  And over time, this limited 2D viewpoint, something which once we only engaged with occasionally, becomes more and more oft, until this 2D perspective metamorphoses into our tangible day-to-day reality.  

Although we acknowledge to our peers and family members, that of course we know that “nothing is real on magazine covers” or that “Facebook is a “false reality,” do we truly internalize those messages within ourselves, or do we yet again take another Instagram of a sunny beach in CA, while really harboring angsty feelings behind our camera phone.

Our modern world is more akin to the medieval variety wherein artists communicated to the viewer using two-dimensional space, rather than though painting three-dimensional compositions. The many Madonna and Child icons you find in early Christian cathedrals attest to the more common 2D perception of the era. While these folk viewed their God in the 2D realm, the reality of God is of course incomprehensibly beyond any dimension and understanding. And while we cannot understand the complexity of God, shouldn’t we at least try to get as close to that reality as possible. For, I believe that while God is not only infinite and vast, he is also very personal and intimate and wants to help us. Don’t those sentiments echo more of a 3D vibrancy rather than a 2D abstraction? This statement isn’t an all-out-call to arms against early Christian art, however, I do believe that because most Medieval folk viewed religion through such a limited lens, they in turn created more distance between themselves and their maker, rather than less. Just as we cannot truly assess the worth of an individual through a 2D picture on a magazine cover, the secrets to godliness are also not quite as simply depicted in a 2D icon. The daily hash out of “some folks go to heaven” and “some to hell” is not what all religious sentiment entirely comprises. However, because people have become so accustomed to viewing a simple 2D reality, it increasingly becomes that much more difficult to recognize and find the real thing—the actual God, the real person.

It wasn't until the Renaissance, when the likes of Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci began sculpting, inventing, and painting 3D objects, that suddenly a richer, more vibrant universe seemed possible. This humanization of art enabled people to relate more easily to their God and surroundings, rather than feeling further alienation. Humans, at last, became a little bit more than the mere mortals whom Zeus played around with, but rather God’s children—beings worth protecting and loving. These Renaissance masterpieces possessed vast dimension, gaping-in-awe angles, and filled a space which had rarely been explored or depicted.  Perhaps, now, when greeting St. Peter at the gates of heaven you will at least be a little closer to recognizing the Patron saint in his Michelangelo-esque form, rather than confusing him with John, the cashier from the local Whole Foods.  Because you had a taste for the real thing before, you can now recognize it later--when it means more. 

Three-dimensional living not only sustains and provides a more intimate and realistic environment, but also provides a greater depth, joy and satisfaction in life that can never be found within the hollow, insubstantial, and anxiously unfulfilled 2D realm. You can stare at the picture all you want, but you will ultimately will always come away with either a flawed, or at most, a basic understanding of the individual. She has brown hair and green eyes. And while you can even read a statement she says, you will still never be able to ascertain the exact meaning or emphasis the individual really ascribes to it. The need for more person-to-person interaction, or at least living that involves more participating and less spectating is necessary for a rich life. Duh.

2D information communicates necessary information—true, but ultimately that is its ultimate and final function. I post pictures to my Facebook and write quipping phrases in emails, but that limited form of interaction with others will never replace real meaningful interaction. Whether it is by phone, or if you are lucky, in person. Letters can be infused with 3D meaning as well, but unfortunately modern lingo has suffused the previous poetry which once inhabited letters and correspondence of the past.

I mean, I guess I probably shouldn’t be talking. After all I am writing this entry on a computer, while listening to Spotify, and watching the BBC version of Sherlock Holmes. Whoops. 

thanks Mumford and Sons. you guys are real gems

Roll Away Your Stone 

I have tendency to sing out loud with the radio wherever and whenever (much to the dismay of my more socially aware friends). I was listening to this song by Mumford and Sons recently and was attempting to sing along but, found I was just mumbling some random SAJ nonsense. 

Bah. 

Anyway, I looked up the lyrics and found out what they were actually saying. Its a REAL gem.  That's all. 

Roll away your stone, I'll roll away mine

Together we can see what we will find

Don't leave me alone at this time

For I am afraid of what I will discover inside

'Cause you told me that I would find a hole

Within the fragile substance of my soul

And I have filled this void with things unreal

And all the while my character it steals

Darkness is a harsh term don't you think?

And yet it dominates the things I see

It seems that all my bridges have been burnt

But you say that's exactly how this grace thing works.

It's not the long walk home that will change this heart

But the welcome I receive with every start

Darkness is a harsh term don't you think?

And yet it dominates the things I see

Darkness is a harsh term don't you think?

And yet it dominates the things I see

Stars hide your fires

These here are my desires

And I will give them up to you this time around

And so I'll be found

With my stake stuck in this ground

Marking the territory of this newly impassioned soul

Hide your fires

These here are my desires

And I will give them up to you this time around

And so I'll be found

With my stake stuck in this ground

Marking the territory of this newly impassioned soul

But you, you've gone too far this time

You have neither reason nor rhyme

With which to take this soul that is so rightfully mine

Keeping the Divergent element alive in society and why being different is important

You might have died on the front line, member of the team, but did you really know what you fought for?

Where are the reasonable people?

These days, whether in the midst of, or as witness to the many discussions occurring online, in person, on the phone, or as seen in the daily MSNBC/Fox News/insert-other-network-here roundup, certain voices are being sidelined and silenced.

This isn’t a call to revolution just yet. Put the banners away people.

In fact, you probably wouldn't even know which particular people or group I refer to. You weren’t aware of them being discriminated and sidelined in the first place. Because while some of them do get noticed— the-march-to-the-beat-of-their-own-drummer folk—the Lawrence of Arabia’s and the Nelson Mandela’s of the world type, most of the people from this particular group will never attain worldly acclaim. It is hard to classify them, because they don’t belong under a true title, and therefore harder to address their problems—but it is necessary nonetheless, because these individuals are crucial. They are necessary for both society’s survival and continual edification.  I can’t categorize them. These folks are too different and un-box-able, and thus, will never fit. Their personalities are located too much in the the middle of the Venn diagram, rather than leaning toward one particular side. These individual are too complex.

So, just by nature of who they are, and because society usually doesn’t like to deal with individuals more akin to a cryptex from the Da Vinci Code, preferring the simplicity of a Disney Lizzy McGuire type, their breed goes unnoticed and over time sidelined. They are just too difficult to deal with. These individualists have no advocacy group or Super Pack to ensure financial security or lasting success though, which makes them all the more likely to become extinct. In fact, these folks left their ideological flags and mantras at home today, and because they did so—these people won’t be heard, or it will take a long time to notice them. They only shout when needs be. They are Divergent. They are independents.

Go home Joe Lieberman. No one wants you.

Didn’t anyone tell you? Purple is so not the color for 2014. It wasn’t for the year before either, or the year before for that for that matter…….

Who are these people then and why do we need them?

These people are a mixture of colors. These people agree with some of the social issues that their liberal-leaning friends espouse--#Bartlett4America2014. But, they also give kudos to their conservative contemporaries and colleagues as well. Sometimes the old guys really do get it right. But these “different” individuals are more of an endangered species in the 21^st century than commonplace. And, even if perhaps there are more of these diversifying thinking types, than what currently there appear to be, for most of these sorts of individuals, their lives will be separate from others. They will remain so until becoming more comfortable in expressing themselves, gaining some acceptance and security from fellow peers.

The Divergent or “different” individual understands that no one group possess the entire truth—and one entity never will. Whether these entities I refer to are of a political nature, entertainment conglomerates, businesses, or government institutions makes no difference. Conformity and ideological assimilation occurs just as easily in Hollywood, D.C., or at the local PTA meeting as anywhere else. Groupthink is a mass problem, not solely reserved for either the exclusive or the common. When individuals only stick to the “pack” or adhere to the “group” mentality though, crucial progress for humanity becomes lost, because no one (or few did) took the road less traveled by—everyone took the common thoroughfare. Whoops. Farewell Michelangelo.

The only way to discover which portions of the “group” are correct and which are diseased or misinformed, is to perform your own research on the matter. Do your own digging—and not just a garden shovel full, but a real excavation. I mean Scully and Mulder really were onto something—“The truth is out there.” Key phrase: out there. You have to move— the truth is out there, it’s not found here (as you constantly refresh your Facebook feed). It means you have to actively search for it. You have to think about it. You have to analyze it. You have to put it into action. You have to play the devil’s advocate once in a while. You have to try the truth, and then try it again. Does it work?

 Indeed, the truth is out there—but it’s going to be a looonngg journey. And at times you are going to hate yourself—wishing you really would have chosen the blue pill, rather than the red. So pack up. Head for Mordor. Find out where the aliens abducted your sister to. Save Panem. Go find Private Ryan. And for Pete’s sake when you come back tell the rest of us what it is all about. So we can learn something too, and take our own roads less traveled by, using some of the lessons you learned.

Discovering truth requires sacrifice, alienation, and aching loneliness at times though. Hence, there is a reason why the majority of the populace hunker down into their comfortable ideologically-driven Lazy Boy chair—because it’s easy. There is no going out there to find it—and in subsequently doing so you produce nothing of significant worth. You just sit here. Here is a place where quoting the party line is always easier. Bashing someone everyone already bashes is safer. Loving someone everyone already loves is so much easier than loving someone everyone hates. Why do we hate them?  

Finding the truth is harder. Try it. You could win nothing and lose everything, but the opposite might also occur. And if no one recognizes your genius, or your bravery, or your differentness in this lifetime, maybe someone will make an epic Paramount Pictures movie about it in the future, saturated with the tracks from a John Williams-type, and staring—I don’t know someone. Or maybe from all of your errors, and mistakes, someone else can pick up where you left off—and head off on their own journey. At least we are getting closer now. Closer to fulfillment, closer to happiness, closer to something that is always better than—well this—stagnation. There are no guarantees on this journey though. People might build a Lincoln-esque Memorial to you, or one day skim your name down a list of ancestors while looking at genealogical records on FamilySearch.com.  

It doesn’t matter though.

And forgive me if I sound bleak, or harsh, but everyday whether it be in the political realm, religious, entertainment arena, or even when choosing the damn color for the sofa covers—someone has to take a specific side on the issue, and per typical, you not only have to choose now you need to have your decision go along with the crowd as well. You have to pick a team. You have to fit into the mold of from-wherever-you-were-born. You have to belong to a certain party and if you don’t—well, then, you lose.

Right now, you’re brave by society’s standards if you fight alongside your brethren, in following the leader, always remembering to look ahead into the future. Technological advancement has made us faster at choosing things, and more efficient in conducting our daily business, but it has also shortened our attention span, and made us more prone to mass homogeneity. Picking a team, because everyone else you know is on that one, or not thinking about anything because it requires too much thought isn’t bravery though—it’s blind conformity. You might have died on the frontlines, member of the team, but did you really know what you fought for?

Of course, we will all agree with, and belong to various groups throughout our individual lifetimes and this is how it should be. I am not heralding a call for anarchy. Abandon your post. The world is a lie. Throw yourself off a tower. We do need organizations. Organizational entities and factions, to a certain extent, are necessary for societal cohesion. But, when organizational goals become more important than valuing individual opinion and belief, and when celebrating diversity becomes more of a trite, politically infused statement, rather than an actual truism—society has a problem.

So, go out. Solve it.