In between essays I like to write a paragraph or two to let off some steam… say all the things I’d like to but can only hint at in the still pre-transrational, recycled-intellectual world. These paragraphs are some of those, and in them, I’d like to introduce the futurists.
There are two kinds of positivity in society. The first one is false, yet common, and the second one is real, yet rare. Most of us display a mixture of the two.
- Firstly, we can be positive by saying things like: “society is perfect”; “what a wonderful civilisation we live in!”; “just be good and normal, Johnny, and everything will be fine”; “I wish all these deviants would just grow up and be normal”; “how can we reign in human nature so that society can continue to function?”; etc.
- The second type of positivity may at first seem pessimistic depending on your taste. Followers of this school might be heard mentioning: “what can I do to make the world better”; “this is all so sad”; “the human being has innate goodness but society restricts it”; etc.
While the first one might say “it’s all bloody Bush’s fault, look at the maniac”, the second one might say “yes, but it’s my fault and your fault too”.
The first one is false because it is based on a negative view of the human being and the future we might create if allowed to express ourselves individually in a free and just society. In this mode we encourage each other to push away responsibility for improvement and just “survive”. “Positivity” in this mode only reinforces the negative aspects of our world. The second one is real positivity because it is optimistic about the human being and the world we can create. Holders of this philosophy are touched by the negativity in the big without and react with strength within. To such people, the future is open, flexible, and their responsibility for it is accepted.
Society is not perfect
The futurists depart from the overwhelming ranks of conservatives (including the unconsciously conservative who “don’t know what to do” so don’t do anything) to accept responsibility for social change. They look at education and demand respect for the individual’s soul. They look at suicide and blame the whole world. The look at war but see only destiny born of the collective ignorance of the whole world, not one or two awry ‘states’. The look at ethnicities and races and see only embodied divinity, fooled into joining this or that team.
They dream of worlds that we could create and worlds that we should not create, and spend all their time talking about the first type, a world which expressed what they believe is our nature: peace; cooperation; united in spirit; and fun. Well, the good ones do, and they are mostly pretty good.
Best of all, they do all this within the ‘intellectual’ standards of the day. With rational arguments they present their “transrational” ideas, bringing to the world’s attention the necessity of focussing on the individual as the most blessed and important being in the universe, born to make and remake our world in its own image.
Just a few thoughts, incoherent as they may be.