WHAT IS.
If you have been following my posts on Future-Fear, you have probably noticed a pattern with regard to my discussion on time. The past cannot be replicated in the present and the present cannot be understood without dealing with the past at some level. As such, the future cannot be prepared for without coping with present as the present. This may all sound rather mundane and obvious on the surface, yet I would suggest that there are subtle nuances at play regarding how we understand and utilize the concepts of past, present, and future in dealing with "what was," coping with"what is" and facing "what next."
The nuances I am referring to is related to our capability to be objective and our proclivity in being subjective with "What is." They are subtle because we rarely stop to assess whether our thinking and our observations are objective or subjective because we feel so much about the things that are currently swirling around us.
The further one looks back into the past, the more objective one is likely to become, as the further back one looks into history, one has no personal recall of the events nor a personally vested interest in them and must rely on data that has been subsequently supplied over time. Any subjectivity regarding the past can only be accomplished through a current ideological perspective of it.
The present is more likely to be a subjective experience. Nevertheless, it can be viewed objectively if one can calmly step back and take the time to look at things for what they are ("What is") at the time without giving them an ideologically-based meaning or judging them strictly in the light of past events and experiences. This is much easier said than done.
One of the benefits of the current age is we are familiar with scientific approaches to understanding things and occurrences which are likely to be objective. The science of the present may not have all the answers, but it does have the methods and the means to make us more objective about what is happening at the time. Science, in all of its forms (physical, medical, social, economic, etc.) can identify patterns in the current and give a sense of an immediate trajectory as to where things are headed at present.
Looking ahead to the future is almost a totally subjective endeavor and depends on where one is at in life at the moment as to how one envisions it. In reality, the future is a blank page; there is nothing there to be objective about. Subsequently, we largely view the concept of the future ideologically.
A time in which one no longer exists is almost unthinkable at a younger age, but it quickly becomes increasingly thought about as one gets older As mentioned above, we deal with the future largely along ideological lines as a surrogate means to conceptualize the future "objectively." In other words, we entertain beliefs that have been handed down to us or that we acquire through speculation about what the future beyond us would be like, but there is very little to be objective about adhering to beliefs and speculation about something that has not occurred.
We do this because we, like nature, abhor a void, the blank page that the future really is. As such, we tend to talk about the future in terms of feelings - of feeling despair or hope regarding it. Both despair and hope share a common denominator, fear. We fear the blank page we face when looking toward the future. Fear gives way to despair if hope is not factored in. Without fear there is no need to despair or to hope. The irony is that these are projected feelings that only exist in the present about something that does not yet exist.
We project these feelings based on our understanding of the past as it relates to the present and in seeing how events of the past led to or are connected to the outcomes we are currently experiencing. We cannot help but think in terms of cause and effect and to conceive of an endless chain of events that will be linked to one another well into the future, and herein lies the source of our fears about the future.
WHAT NEXT?
Humans long for that which is reliable. That which appears reliable is also considered under control; primarily under my or our control. We think less about the future when things are under our control. Lose that sense of control and the future becomes an immediate concern; as expressed by the question, "What next?"
We fear things that threaten the reliability to which we have become accustomed to or we fear that some form of chaos in our lives will emerge and threaten our way of life, if not our very existence. In the first case, we tend to resist change. In the latter case, we seek it. In both cases, we become very focused on what links in the chain of continuity are being broken and what links are being forged in the immediate future. In the first case, the urge is to preserve an immediate past that seems to be disappearing or is perceived as having disappeared. In the latter case, the urge is to escape an imminent chain of events that threatens the very notion of having a future.
Our current world seems to be caught in a clash of these two perspectives as change is always upon us. Change is rarely sought on a substantive level, and most often substantive change is thrust on us by events beyond our control. In this sense, the ancients were correct that the future comes from behind and sneaks up on us.
We can readily grasp this when it comes to natural disasters. We can make limited preparations to mitigate their impact, but we never are sure what type of natural disaster will occur. The most devastating are likely to be the ones we don't see coming. As a whole, we tend to be more empathetic towards victims of natural disasters than those created by humans. I can think of all sorts of evolutionary reasons why that is, as you can also deduce, but I will leave that for a future post.
Fearing Displacement as Replacement
Human caused disasters are viewed insidiously by most. Disasters that become prolonged, such as, wars and organized terrorism against civilians results in displacement of these populations who have no choice but to leave or face the real threat of death to themselves and their loved ones. Ironically, there is a sense, at some level, that whatever caused their plight at the hand of others is somehow connected to what they, themselves, have brought about. As such, the victims of wars and human violence of all sorts are likely to be treated less empathically than victims of natural disasters for the simple reason that getting involved risks being linked into a chain of events that will change the course of our future.
Sadly, the victims of war and violence frequently end up further victimized because the change that is forced upon them is frequently viewed as a contagion that threatens the comfort of those who could help the most.
This has been played out for some time in the civil strife throughout the African continent and in the Middle East. Few nations want to get directly involved unless compelled to do so for reasons of national security or the security of one of its allies. If there is no immediate economic or military advantage to becoming involved, the victims of these war-torn, violent areas are largely left to fend for themselves and often find themselves corralled into the leper colonies of our age, the refugee camps that are on the remote outskirts of normalcy and the threadbare fringe of civilization; where facing the future is either a luxury one cannot afford or a curse one cannot bear.
This is also being played out in Central America where the atrocities of organized gang violence threatens civil and family life that has motivated thousands to flee their homelands to seek the security of more stable nations like the United States. In the United States, we have engaged a self-protectionist approach to their plight. We fear the contagion of chaos that has brought them to our borders as something that threatens our way of life and has prompted voters in the United States to elect an administration that has promised to build a wall to protect "our way of life."
The "way of life " being protected in the United States can be largely understood as a romanticized version of the dominant white, protestant culture prevalent in the United States during the early 1950's. Here the fear of a losing a lifestyle that for the most part consisted of sham displays of civility and morality has warped the present through the distorted recall and futile attempt to regain a past that no longer exists. "Make America Great Again" is an apt hashtag for the fear it expresses and a meme of the desperate who fear of losing a past lifestyle and are engaged in willful blindness as a futile means to regain it.
One wonders if and when there is a mass migration of people from areas struck by the human caused natural disasters resulting from global warming that those who have will be willing to welcome and help those who do not. At present, the emerging tribalism that is being expressed in the nationalistic trends seen in some industrialized nations indicates that nations will be reluctant to do so. The underlying angst that appears present in the reluctance to aid the displaced is the fear of being replaced; that in welcoming the displaced there will be a clash of cultures, that the displaced will not assimilate, but dominate, replacing the current status quo; replacing the reliability of "what is" with the uncertainty of "what next.
The irony in all of this fear leveled at the displaced is that it is the displaced who have been replaced. The fear that is felt regarding them is largely fomented by those who are in no real or tangible threat of being replaced, who do not see that it is the causes of displacement that pose a threat, not the displaced themselves.
Fight and Despair
As mentioned above, future-fear produces two reactions despair and hope. The primary response to immediate fear is the familiar fight or flight response, but since there is nothing immediate about one's fear of what the future holds, the response elongates from fight to despair and from flight to hope. One might be tempted to reverse this order but bear with me as I ponder how the future shapes our response to fear.
What we can't immediately fight or contend with opens us to the domain of despair and acts of desperation. The temptation is to become preemptive, to strike first before the other side sees it coming - to head off a perceived enemy, to block their way, to build a wall.
Flight and Hope
The other response to immediate fear is to flee, to avoid a fight, to save one's self for another day. In the animal world, animals instinctively know when they're overmatched and will seek a way to avoid a fight. We see this as a smart move on the part of such creatures. The human animal's response to fear is more complex. Unless the perception is that one is completely outnumbered, flight as an immediate response is seen as either being cowardly or devious.
Weaponry has increasingly enhanced the human ability to act preemptively. In recent times, the capacity of a single weapon to cause massive casualties has deluded some with feelings of invincibility and grandeur. As such, they do not see a reason to hope as they become paragons of despair.
Flight, in relation to future-fear, elongates to hope because there is nothing to flee from other than flee to the refuge of longing for better tomorrow. As such, hope serves as a stopgap to becoming preemptive. Hope is an admission that the future is a blank page; that the current trajectories do not necessarily result in given outcomes; that things can change in hopefully good ways. We see hope exercised on an international scale as diplomacy and on a personal scale as collegiality and negotiation.
Hope permits us to put our fears of the future in check so that we can address "what is" without trying to address a speculated what's next. In this sense, hope affords one the ability to be proactive in addressing the present rather than being preemptive in addressing a future that does not exist. Hope appears to allow one to seek the potential for goodness that can emerge from facing and working on the current challenges that are present.
To effectively face the future, one has only to be present with what is.
Until next time, stay faithful.
No comments:
Post a Comment