April 14, 2004

If no one objects, our policy will remain just the way it is, because we are generally comfortable with its immediate and local results and are likely to retain what is committed to preserving the current status quo (which has evolved to fit our image nicely). Besides, we are right.

If objection is made by someone else, our policy will remain just the way it is, because we will continue to enforce the positive immediate and local results; and we will excuse itself outside our immediate vicinity by saying we have no jurisdiction over what others do outside our immediate vicinity, even if it is based on our policy. We remain right, and continually defer any other responsibility to other groups. Most of our policy is based precisely on such deferment of personal responsibility at all times.

If strong objection is made by one or another or several external factions, our policy will remain just the way it is, reinforced by whatever overt or covert pressure we find necessary to bring to bear to support those factions which are friendly to us, and take down those who are not. But we certainly don't want those chickens coming home to roost. (In fact, we don't recognise that there should even be any roost here: we built them that roost, and our assistance could only ever be beneficial.) Our familiar self-mirroring status quo is never interrupted, and most people need never find out the details of what just occurred. (Really, most people are not all that curious anyway.) Eventually our side will win, because we are the good guys, and that means that eventually everyone but the unreasonable, irrational objectors will see that and help support us. Of course we remain always right, because our actions are always taken out of the other's best interests.

If strong objection is taken in any fashion to threaten our comfortable familiarity in our own immediate vicinity, our policy will remain just the way it is, because we do not negotiate with irrational objectors. And besides, look: we are the victims here, because we stand up for what is right.

So what can ever change? Why change? How can one possibly change -- when one is right? What possible external influence can force that change, when one is right? To consider that change is in any way necessary is irrational in that context. What is already self-considered perfect, what one already knows absolutely, does not admit of change. It cannot!

Desired personal change arises of the wish to improve oneself. Where the need for such improvement is not personally seen, any change becomes antithetical: and thus any change imposed from outside will be resented, an exterally imposed driving away from the previous self-defined Eden. And what is left, then, but a permanently isolated I, isolated from anything which could alter its memory of perfection?

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home