Skip to main content

The Meadow

 There is a cascade of questions: how can I live a good life? What is the value of goodness? What is the essence of value? We might assess our lives as either good or bad. We might say that good is better than bad, and that we should be good because being bad is the only alternative. But surely being neither good nor bad is an option. It must be possible to observe without assessing. This is what I want. I want to leave nothing in the world.

Some will say that neutrality is simply in the bad category, and that we must want to live positive lives.  Let them say so, and let them condemn me if I live a life of non-participation. I have no interest in politics or society. I have no interest in justice or the common good. To some, saying this is the same as saying that I'm bad or that I'm at best contributing to the bad. Is appeasing critics to be my sole motivation for engaging with this evaluating system?

Perhaps I should want to make the world better. But I don't believe that "better" is very meaningful in a broad-context discussion about society.  Like "worse," "better" is a value that waxes and wanes. Almost everyone is forgotten. So few contributions will last. There is no such thing as posterity. Forward motion is never so simple as a step, and it is often only achieved in conjunction with motion in the other direction. What I see when I regard the world I inhabit is no deliberate improvement. I see people pushing each other in the mud, clamoring for an escape from each other. Their condemnations sink and vanish with their commendations. I see a world that is older than any of our concerns, even the greatest ones, and that has seen death on a scale that we, for all our righteous horror at the things we do to each other, can only discuss academically. In other words, I am happiest as part of a world that's bigger than people.

But it's difficult to separate. The Little World wants you in it. It wants your voice that it may shout you down, your ambition that it may humiliate you, and your creativity that it may abandon you. Even the best and the most beautiful, even the wisest and all they do to drag the Little World toward a future less horrible, become nothing on a long enough timeline. That timeline is all I see, and I'm baffled that others don't see it. When people cry doom for all mankind because their political candidate lost, I feel confused that they don't see how even the worst atrocities roll by like wind on the meadow. When I see the terrible ways we treat each other, I process them as part of something that keeps going even when we stop.

I want the meadow. Leave me there.  Let others judge me how they will. Their decrees are gone the minute they issue them, gone into space we can't hope to fill, dead as the Cambrian no matter how they may impact me. Good and bad, life and death, triumph and tragedy are dispassionately part of everything. And so am I for better, for worse, or for neither.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Man Is Not Great: The Evolution of Anthropocentrism

Why do humans care whether their species is special? Why are they so invested in their specialness that they're uncomfortable with the idea that they aren't? Why is it a bitter pill to swallow that humans aren't uniquely important in the universe, that they aren't the intended end of evolution, and that their wondrous and diverse subjective experiences emerge from the same physical processes observable in "lower" animals? I think that the maladaptive human tendency to insist upon their specialness in the universe is an extension of an adaptive tendency to self-advocate in their tribes. Consider fear. The predisposition to turn around when you feel like something might be behind you is likely to save you when there really is something there. Most of the time, when you can't help but turn around on the dark basement steps, there's no threat. From an evolutionary perspective, it’s better to turn unnecessarily than to do nothing in a moment of danger. That...

Threat and Opportunity

Humans see everything as either a threat or an opportunity. These are the only classifications they have. A threat could be a corporal threat, like a violent person, or it could be a threat to their attention, like a boring person or a waste of time.   You're not in control of whether something looks like a threat or an opportunity. You can certainly apply control to turn one into the other, but your first impressions of anything are unconscious. I'm a waste of time. There's nothing to be gained from socializing with me because I'm profoundly socially impaired. I have no status and no way to earn status, so I'm a threat to attention. People who choose to pay attention to me find the endeavor prohibitively expensive of their energy. Attending to me is necessarily a struggle against the Darwinian impulse to conserve energy.  We can call this a rejection response.   I've said that humans naturally have a psychological allergy to me, but that's not a good...

How to Save the World

The following isn't related to autism.  It's an edited transcript of my side of a conversation with an AI.  I'm including it here because I think it's important. It should be pretty easy to arrive at the notion that, if we want to minimize our environmental impact, we should look back at a time when we were making a minimal impact and return to that. But that is not a suggestion anyone is making, and I don't think it's a suggestion anyone is likely to make, wherever these conversations are being had.  The conversation about conservation always begins with the tacit question, "How can we continue breeding unchecked forever, and how can we continue to deplete natural resources indefinitely?"  If you start from the idea that what we are doing now must not be impacted by whatever solution we come up with, then you're not going to come up with a good solution. This issue seems complex.  I don't think it's actually complex at all, however. I thin...