If you can’t see the other person’s point, the discussion becomes point less.

It’s interesting to consider the moral repercussions of human innovation. On the one hand, it has drastically reduced human suffering. On the other, it has allowed overpopulation and over-consumption, and that unsustainable model has a very good chance of leading to the destruction of our planet.

Sadness captured in a song fuels joy.

I dislike the phrase “all in” when referring to someone’s commitment to something, because it’s too easily contended. The moment any measure of time, energy, or attention is spent elsewhere, a person is no longer all in. Nobody is all in. It’s an unhelpful absolute.

I don’t think that’s what people–those who are professing their commitment–mean by it. Rather, the concern I have is how that particular phrasing is so exploitable by those who doubt or criticize that person’s commitment.

I’ve been trying to figure out what DOES constitute a satisfactory level of commitment to something. What is figuratively meant by “all in”? What is an alternative way of expressing it which does not suffer from the issue of absolutes?

I like the phrases “not holding back” and “not withholding” better for descriptions of commitment. Rather than focusing on the failure to fully invest toward positively affecting the thing to which a person is committed, the attention turns to NOT deliberately limiting positive things which might happen naturally. It suggests a purity of desire. Plus it’s more Buddhist, which is all the rage.

Yet that is still an absolute. We all hold back, even if it’s just the tiniest bit, due to things like doubt, uncertainty, fear, etc. And while these are often very healthy to maintain in certain situations, they do represent a failure to commit absolutely.

Furthermore, simply being passive about something is not synonymous with commitment to it. I’m not holding back on Jill Johnson’s relationship with Jack Jones in Lexington, Kentucky. This isn’t because I’m committed to their relationship. It’s because I don’t care.

Perhaps the accurate way to identify commitment to something is neither how much someone does to positively affect it, nor how much they DON’T do to negatively affect it, but rather a comparison between the two. So rather than expecting someone to be “all” in the expectation is that the “in” exceeds the “out”–or “mostly” in.

I’ll give that a try. I’ll tell my spouse that I mostly want to be with her. I’ll tell my family that I mostly care about their well-being. I’ll tell my employer that I’m mostly willing to be here. That way, they’ll know that I’m committed.

Person A harms Person B unintentionally. Person B retaliates and harms Person A intentionally. Person B believes herself to be morally superior. Person A either believes the retaliation to be justified, or retaliates and harms Person B again, this time intentionally. Repeat.

The tragedy of humanity.

. . .

Person A harms Person B unintentionally. Person B retaliates and harms Person A intentionally. Person A forgives Person B, without blaming himself, in order to end the harm.

The civility of humanity.

. . .

Person A harms Person B unintentionally. Person B sees that it was unintentional, and does not return the harm.

The magnanimity of humanity.

. . .

Person A harms Person B intentionally. Person C murders Person A, and anyone loosely affiliated with Person A.

Nearly every “hero” movie ever.

How to become a determinist:

1. Once you’ve finished insisting that you’ve made a choice, ask yourself, “Why did I make that choice?” You don’t need to know the answer. Simply recognize that there is an answer.
2. Repeat until “you” are no longer a part of the answer.
3. Now ask yourself, “Why did they make that choice?” “They” includes anything besides yourself that you believe made a choice (other people, things in nature, or even the supernatural, like God). Again, you can’t know the answer, but you can recognize that there is an answer.
4. Repeat until “they” are no longer a part of the answer.

Now recognize that it not only wasn’t about you, but it wasn’t about them either. Enjoy the relief. Experience the compassion.

There are an infinite number of perspectives from which an object can be viewed. Every single perspective contains truth. No single perspective is the whole truth. Only the compilation of all perspectives contains the whole truth. Because those perspectives are infinite, that compilation is impossible. The truth of any object is unseeable.

People are objects. Most of the time, I can’t even see them from two perspectives. Perhaps I can open up some space for other perspectives?

I can be me.
I can make mistakes.
I can change my mind.

So can you.

Yoda tells Luke “No! Try not. DO. Or do not. There is no try.”

Some might argue that Yoda was wrong. Harsh absolutes are almost always untrue and harmful. There is a try. There is great value in trying. Maybe one of the greatest lessons humanity could stand to learn as a whole is that we can love and accept people for trying, instead of withholding until they succeed (which they rarely actually do)?

But there may be some lingering wisdom in this admonition. Perhaps I’m only thinking of “doing and succeeding” as “doing,” and writing off “doing and failing” as “trying”? However, both are doing. There is no try in this sense. And quite often we grow even more from “doing and failing” than from “doing and succeeding.”

Another interpretation of the grumbling green guy’s words might be that when we do, we should only aim for success. This seems like it might be the case given Luke’s attitude in the actual video (linked below). Planning for (or expecting) failure might be considered “trying,” but if we don’t give it a vested effort, did we do, or did we do not?

Regardless of the varied meanings we might extract from cryptic phrasing delivered in backwards grammar, I’ll still love and accept you for trying, or die trying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ4yd2W50No

Here’s my hope. This last election is not representative of humanity. It is representative of a part of humanity–a part that has been aggressively chased away through rapid enlightenment resulting from unprecedented accessibility of information.

Except that this part of humanity hasn’t gone away. Instead, it’s been backed into a corner, far too quickly, and like a scared dog it is biting out in desperation.

As my friend Elizabeth Miller put it (correct me if I’m paraphrasing incorrectly), it’s the last desperate attempt of the figurative “old, white male” to maintain power against liberal and progressive ideas that have pushed too far, too fast.

I think we’ll suffer some backlash over the next few years, but I’m hopeful that after that we’ll see even more healthy progress for humanity than ever before.

Unless he launches the nukes before then…