Games Without Frontiers

One of the most frustrating double-edged swords we have is that of borders - they protect and suffocate all at once. Societal issues which we face as a result will remain entrenched whilst the usual ritual ego of combative rather than cooperative nature is allowed to continue unabated (which can be traced back to our failure to account for the lack of proper ethics and hypocrisy with education, again), and I think it’s high time we looked at those lines in the sand with a lot of truth, en route to their dissolution – a path we should be embracing instead of resisting. Please don't say it's impossible. From our systems to our very selves, we can choose at any time to change our minds and circumstances if we really care to. 

I suspect that dropping borders and relegating notions of countries to matters of mere orientation would send shockwaves of horror through many political parties and corridors of power irrespective of creed were it seriously tabled. One might only imagine the smear throughout our current mainstream media outlets if such a thing were so brazenly proposed. However, as with the truth of emotive judgment so often pointing more to the mind of the attacker than their victim, the stark reality is that such reactions are likely more a telling sign of our manipulative habits and tantrums, the true problems we have earned through social neglect and abuse. It would mean a lot of work for which we are probably quite unprepared - a reordering of how we function, a change in practices of cooperation on multiple levels, what we actually choose to do, shifts in our habits of coexistence, all manner of strife which up to now has mostly been held at bay by obfuscating political presumptions of control. To my mind the burden of guilt in much of this rests upon those, who with the upper hand, choose to wield that political power with a sense of impunity, all the time faced down by the perennial anger and frustrations of those being abused, to say nothing of the compound effect of language difficulties and cultural misunderstandings - you'd think we'd make it easier on ourselves. This is why I tend to believe in a revolution in education principles and practices, and more pertinently our structures of social media as a broader means of exposing and defusing such tensions, even if the latter is caught up in those same selfish and manipulative motivations. Life will not be so pleasant as those threads are dealt with, and yet to ignore them will perpetuate our pain and anxiety. With proper right minded use we can communicate and learn about one another underneath all the noise, and I believe this is happening. We are beginning to see the truth of our shared root problems; fears for family and friends, stability, peace and matters of daily survival. It’s easy to say that these (and the latter in particular) are more of a third world problem - in the grand scheme of things theirs are more urgent, but remove first world privileges for more than a couple of days you'll realise that our problems are really more shared than admitted.

Social media is dizzyingly busy with news and events, which even if not clear in motivation can no longer be as easily hidden or skewed by the mainstream channels as before the advent of the internet. For every act which is an insult to right-mindedness there is someone in the middle of it ready to set the record straight. These little acts should not be taken for granted, nor their momentum squandered. We all have a common responsibility to be mindful against ego, which both in the benign and not so benign members of society is really our common enemy. This is why it's always been important to me to hold sympathy and compassion as much for those who are painted as the political enemy as those who are painted as political friend. In truth there is no such differentiation in context, only perspectives in mutual survival. I take this stance not because of that most insulting and unnecessary of concepts - political correctness (an ironically divisive myth, again concocted by manipulative ego), but because it's an ethical and calming position to take. Lashing out at someone already hurting serves neither side. We would be so much better served if we dropped pretence. To look at the polarising, oversimplified and outright misleading headlines shouted out by the mainstream media you'd think it were a bloody playground argument, rallying for people to take sides. It's lazy to attribute the failings or unfettered, blatant abuse of a single leader (or group of leaders) upon an entire nation. These seem to be the buttons the mainstream like to press, but it really doesn't hold much water if you have friends in those nations. These days I'd argue that the capacity to make and maintain friendships, and explore common ground comes very much into play when trying to decipher truth from exaggeration or lie. At the end of the day it's about building trust. If those with power are determined to try and play games then I say it's up to us all to usurp their efforts and find our own way. That may be the most peaceful beginning we can make - to embrace a way of acting which renders the troublemakers inert and irrelevant - until they come around to the realisation that they stand to gain more from cooperation than conflict.

The Code of Human Principles

So much of what we do is made unnecessarily complicated. Why is that? Staring into this inane circus of political and social noise which persists before our eyes and minds, I decided that it was time to dust off the Code of Human Principles once more.

I challenged myself (some time ago now) to try and create a comprehensive set of core principles, to be used as an everyday mantra for the individual, and as something which could be applied to help clarify the right-mindedness of a much broader and impactful proposal of matters legislative, judicial and/or political. In action it should act as a pre-emptive net upon the former, filtering the essential truth of an idea before it becomes the concern of the latter. If you sense an aspect or scenario which cannot be sufficiently informed by these principles, or if these principles are still too cloudy then please do open the debate!

I. It is the right of every individual in society to live a life of peace and self-determination, where such actions do not contravene the responsibilities of Article II.

II. It is the civic duty of every member of society to reason and act with compassion, empathy and tolerance towards oneself, other citizens and living entities (natural and artificial), and to exercise a prime duty of care to the natural environment.

III. It is the responsibility of the system of community to afford reasonable opportunity and resources for every citizen, to enable and support their natural talents, such that the individual will know a means to maintaining their personal mental and physical happiness and wellbeing, and in so doing allow that value to extend to the benefit of other citizens, with an overall beneficial impact upon the extended community.

IV. It is the right of every citizen to hold (or not) to religious and/or spiritual beliefs in accordance with Article I, free from interference from fellow citizens. It is incumbent upon the practitioner to take personal responsibility for those beliefs and any actions so arising, in accordance with Articles I and II, respecting the rights of others as a priority of civility and peace for the extended community.

V. As we live, so too should the fundamental choice of the individual to die be respected, where it is clear that euthanasia is being mindfully chosen by the subject. In cases where the subject is incapacitated and the option is being administered, such a decision and action should derive from no other place other than right-mindedness and compassion, sanctioned under normal circumstances by the consent and unequivocal agreement of no less than a minimum five qualified and relevant individuals.

Possibilities With Responsibility

So here’s an interesting poser.. It was only a morsel of clickbait, yet as with many they often act as a springboard to philosophical thoughts. Today’s was “Should there be a United States of Europe?”. I would say a very hesitant "possibly", but there's a lot to resolve before you get close to being either deserving or qualified.

There’s a meme which floats around the web (and within Buddhism as a truism) which speaks to the idea that a flower is best appreciated as it is, for what it is, and not picked. On an interpersonal level this implies the virtue of sharing in our relationships with a right-minded intent, allowing people in our lives the dignity to be who they are. If you are entering a loving relationship you should do so with the intention of sharing life with the person they really are rather than harbouring designs of change or control, irrespective of any perceived justification. So too I tend to think that such notions should equally inform us on best foot forwards when addressing geopolitical matters and a United States of Europe (or any other locale for that matter). Such an evolution could at present be considered as pointless as redecorating the house whilst it burns, simply because in the current climate something valuable is being distorted.

Looking from our own position in the UK and issues relating this idea with the Brexit movement in mind I have to say that I see a lot of cowardice, dishonour and manipulation from those pushing it, with little value in that which was actually spoken. The actual front presented has been more vocal about what it isn't rather than what it is. Brexit isn’t about taking the country back, except in the minds of the fools scrambling to protect their pots of gold by way of sickening alliances which I predict are yet to be properly forged, and a return to the bad old days of a good hard flogging for a poor day’s pay. I can only presume that those who voted for it suffered a wave of amnesia when marking that X. I suppose the only reason I bring up the whole sorry mess of Brexit at all is because it is relevant to the heart of the matter with the EU itself, which is still immature, and going through growing pains to find its proper direction. This is nevertheless something it will achieve better together than apart, and as we see the threads of Brexit unravel in a manner not dissimilar to those same threads dissolving around Donald Dumpf's presidency, it's relatively easy to see, free of emotion, bound by logic and an awareness of the characters involved, that pulling the UK out of the EU reflects not the actions of a fresh, brave ideology but rather that of an escapee marriage partner with ulterior motives.

So where does this leave the notion of a United States of Europe? This is where those Buddhist principles come into play again. One of the ways in which life manifests turmoil is when people are confronted with change. Fear of change is a fabulously repeatable ignition point for our species, driven as we are by our base emotions. When change happens to us it's often unintentional from our own perspective, unfolding as a random event, surprise and/or inflammation from consequences. As lamentable as it is people need to come to terms with the fact that you can plan for a thousand outcomes and that unforeseen event will probably still happen, hence the practical demonstration that there is no real control - only the next choice. Fans of Star Trek may recall Picard telling Data that in action it’s possible to commit no errors and still fail, the result simply being life. The trick is to mature and adapt your mind into accepting this unfairness, which we curse so much, as naturally as you might accept that water feels wet, and act accordingly in a right-minded fashion in spite of the emotions which arise. In this respect our education does us few favours, which is partly why the focus of my debates so often drift towards it. It’s the most helpful and potentially unifying tool we have, but it's also little surprise that in its current abused form it tends to enable rather than dilute divisions, which is why I tend to tear strips off it. Education should be much more concerned than it is with teaching children and adults alike to truly understand, and help themselves and one another. Whilst knowledge in the conventional sense is an important part of the overall process it's all for nothing if it becomes reduced to a productivity instruction book, which for the majority of scenarios is pretty much where we are. I would say that compassion, reasoning and confidence are more important, since without such capacity an informed or half-informed mind becomes as much a liability as a force for good. Assuming we wish to improve out lot with minimal culture shock (and I can only speak to ours) I would hazard a guess that one possible way forwards would be to encourage a shift in responsibility and influence - empower people via a devolution of power to smaller, more manageable, cooperative and interconnected communities, supported by the logistical services which the corporations have learned and built upon. Such monoliths need to evolve with a better sensibility and not be allowed to simply desecrate those same communities in a vain effort to have it all. Using the strengths of their know-how would simply be the best way for them to continue. That is a digression for another blog though and merely illustrative for the moment. This is about the EU, which was at least to my own limited understanding broadly about rebuilding the aftermath of WWII, with a goodwill which should be nurtured and not squandered. On the broader stage the EU would probably be best served by adopting an inquisitive and malleable mindset, and seeing the value in its self as a stepping stone to finding and amplifying commonalities and responses to issues arising, even well beyond its boundaries, for such concerns are global and not restricted to any one continent. Current political ideals and efforts help little since their base aspirations are extremely narrow and selfish, wrapped up in faux diplomacy which virtually all countries still employ to feed their own interests in as diplomatically expedient a way as possible. If we truly want to better ourselves we need to look more honestly and surgically at where band aids of equity (not equality) can be brought to bear - helping one another as required with a practical sharing in the things which we each have in abundance or need in times of scarcity. Such a virtuous approach and right-minded ambition would promote a foundation of cultural respect, something I would seek to defend for that is where a lot our most valuable and potent qualities as a species are to be found - strength in diversity of thinking, approach and experience. The world, much less the EU itself, can ill afford anything less these days.