Distilled Harmony changes slowly. I first began to explore the idea of an existential “theory of everything” back at the turn of the millennium - as 2000 turned into 2001. It was those reflections that resulted in Distilled Harmony - which I guess can be best defined as a “philosophy to live by.” More sophisticated monikers lead to unnecessary semantic quibbling. Anyhow, at that point in time Distilled Harmony rested on three prioritized tenets.
First, the foundational tenet, Foster Harmony, an affirmation of the seemingly universal notion that we, as individuals, nations, and societies should treat others as we would desire to be treated.
The second tenet, Enable Beauty, advocates for making art - beautiful art, in all its guises, seemingly another universal aspiration for human society. The important issue here is the notion of beautiful art. Guernica is generally accepted as great art, but isn’t really beautiful except within a specific philosophical context. Distilled Harmony is anchored in a different, kinder, more gentle perspective and philosophy regarding art. Think Hudson River School, think Ansel Adams, think Vermeer. Art that calms, lowers the blood pressure. Art therapy might encourage an individual to represent negative experiences and emotions, but that is not the task of Enable Beauty.
Oppose Harm, defined in a variety of ways, depending upon the specific harm one is confronting, personal, political, social, environmental, etc., rounded out the three initial tenets of Distilled Harmony. And so it remained for a decade or so.
However, eventually I came to feel that utilizing these three tenets in seeking the best path to a harmonious existence implied, perhaps mandated, an additional tenet, a fourth tenet fitting most naturally between Enabling Beauty and Opposing Harm. And so Distill Complexity took its place in Distilled Harmony, mandating that we subject any existential assertion to a “tear it down to the studs” consideration and see if it can stand up to a thorough examination of its assertions.
After lengthy reflection of how life is evolving around us, I think it might be time to add a fifth tenet to Distilled Harmony: Question Certainty. That may seem to be a simple restatement of Distill Complexity, but there is an important difference. We seem to be poised in the midst of a debate - at the ballot box, in the global marketplace, and on the battlefield - between two fundamentally different ways of viewing the world: democracy and autocracy.
China is perhaps the most currently successful autocratic regime - certainly from a marketplace perspective. Obviously there are some significant social and political “push backs” from pieces of this incredibly diverse nation - but currently “The Party” seems to be maintaining control. Putin would like to claim parity with Beijing, currently by pushing autocracy into the democratic Ukraine. His success is anything but certain, and paradoxically his “Me too!” war seems to have strengthened the democratic resolve of his Western opponents in the EU and beyond.
I am inclined to add Question Certainty because of the political assumptions shared by the two dominant autocratic philosophies in today’s world, which are essentially “trust me based.” Whether Chairman Mao or Marx/Lenin, the political “truth” of an autocracy rests on the unquestionable certainty of the proclamations of a current, or historic, “great leader.” Democracy has, or certainly should have, trouble with that type of assertion. I know I do.
Back in the 1950s Disney aired a TV show starring Fess Parker as Davy Crockett. Davy’s mantra was “Be sure you are right, then go ahead!” At first blush they seem words to live by, and may have influenced a significant number of the program’s youthful audience. However, upon further reflection they underly some of humanities greatest tragedies. The problematic phrase is “Be sure you are right.” And how, we should ask, can we ever be sure we are right? It is quite easy to believe we are right, but certainty regarding the rectitude of would be political leaders - particularly in a democracy - often leads to potentially irreparable damage.
Both sides in our own civil war were undoubtedly certain of the rectitude of their positions. The result was the deadliest war in American history leaving between 600,000 and 700,000 combined Americans dead. And John Wilkes Booth was no doubt certain killing Lincoln would right some existential wrong. Would that we had left such political certainties in our past. We have not. Yesterday we were driving through a piece of rural Indiana en route between Michigan and Illinois. It is, of course, election season and yard signs were blooming across the landscape. Being from out of state, I knew none of the names, nor their stance on any issues. But apparently to one homeowner, such ignorance wasn’t important. A hand-painted board, next to the candidate’s professionally manufactured yard sign, proclaimed: “Trump Endorsed!”
Certainty rules. No thought necessary. If my email inbox is any indication, the same is true for “blue state” candidates. Apparently all that is necessary to secure my “desperately needed” contribution to their campaign is to “agree” that the Supreme Court is terribly biased. No thought necessary. Click here regardless of candidate or position being contested. Stay true blue. Send contributions. Certainty rules.
But of course it doesn’t. As we craft our unique and personal relationship to life another’s certainty can never substitute for our own thoughtful consideration of potential beliefs and behaviors. So we need to slide the chairs a little closer together, and make room at the Distilled Harmony table for a new tenet - Question Certainty.
No comments:
Post a Comment