The heat in the southern Appalachian Mountains causes me to occasionally think of Columbia and Panama. Except for the remarkable species of colorful insects are not as prominent here though plentiful in the forests. Smiles even in the harshness of poverty are generally reciprocal as in much of Central and South America exterior to the Darien Gap.
Like the pitched “voices” of cicadas there is no finality to the language of politics and politicians anyplace in the world. A sweeping statement but it feels accurate.
A word that one hears in the news in different places is the language of suppression – it’s not isolated to America. To suppress is to restrain, quash, crush and otherwise silence. Suppression begins in the mind that’s fearful of the reality.
I suspect the fearful mind is one that seeks to rule others and outcomes contrary to the evidence of reality. It’s based not on the public good but individual need for attention, domination and wealth and perhaps a seeded anger at one’s impoverished and violent environment. Conscience may or may not be part of the equation. Neither is ethics. What’s new under the sun? Nero, the fifth Emperor of Rome, had some thoughts about being a ruler, though much of that may have been filtered and revised, debauchery aside.
The notion that if I didn’t win at whatever, there must be a malicious intent that has a cavernous, dark history. It’s not unlike the inside of a cave one might find in the recesses of denial. Suppression is an avoidance of reality and a stubbornness of those who either always got what they wanted if only they shouted loud enough, pounded their chests or quietly manipulated the players around them or it’s the person who desires to be a beneficent ruler based on his or her own indelible experiences. I realize generalizations are too easy. The particulars are always knotty. No one fits perfectly into any given category. Nor should they. Nature itself feels ambiguous. But it isn’t. Nature doesn’t have emotions only our perceptions do.
Being existentially oriented I wondered if man is truly condemned to be totally free? To what degree does our environment and situation and our history have greater input into our behavior than our loosely called free will? Is there more external rather than internal causes for our actions?
Perhaps the situation in which we find our self leads some people towards greater evil that stretches beyond their ability to “will” their self to do the ethical thing. The impulse to do harm is greater than that of doing what is humane and ethical it seems at different times in history when government is viewed as the problem. There’s something in the authoritarian brain’s processing and their environment and how they interpreted that environment that affected their decision making.
As man continues to merge with his technologies it may be increasing complicated to determine intent, motive and will and who is master, servant or on equal footing.
And for now, living in a beach house, eating fruits, sipping a fine wine and painting on my canvases along with typing out a masterful novel seems rather remote.