Law & Justice

Putting a Limit on Madness

Often, when one contemplates about the notion of having limits, one is confronted with a certain sense of discomfort. With a deep desire for freedom, the notion of having limits for the human being, is often accompanied by the notion of being tied down and bound. The impulse then, is often to break through and extend ourselves beyond our limits, and with that reclaim our freedom in the face of the false boundaries, previously perceived.

Paradoxically though, if one looks at the way nature is organized, one finds that nature is full of
limitations, and that it is these limitations that allow the richness of life that we find on this planet of ours. Furthermore, it becomes evident that without these limitations, without having this planetary, bound cocoon, life as we know it would not exist. So while life with all its richness exists here in this limited space, out there, in limitless space, we find nothing but an exuberant amount of lifeless abundance.Philosophically, what this means to me is that abundance seems to have some dependency on having limits, and that beyond a certain threshold, lack of limits does not allow for this abundance and for life to persist.

In a practical sense, what evoked in me this whole line of thinking was actually a movie I saw yesterday about our economy, and in it, there was mention of how financial inequality has risen dramatically ever since the US unhinged itself from the gold standard in 1971. In a sense, I thought, this provides one of the most vivid examples of how lifting one limitation cascades into a reality that when it comes to financial inequality we are now finding ourselves in a very socially limiting environment, where the ultra rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer.

Before 1971 then, you can think of our economy as being grounded here on earth. And while it was limited it provided a lot of room to prosper. After 1971, and once this limitation was lifted, we found ourselves in an accelerated thrust into the outer space of possibilities, welcoming the feeling freedom and accomplishment, only to realize now, decades later, that for the most part life has actually been accelerating its own demise.

Recognizing our limitations and living and flourishing within our limitations, is one of society's greatest challenges. Because of this, throughout the ages we have made many attempts to declare limitations and have attempted to abide by them. Our history of course shows us that finding the balance in which our set limitations allow for more life to happen, is difficult. Financially, it seems we have tried two extremes. One in which we put too much limitation, and the other in which we put too few. An example of too much limitation, is communism, and an example of too little limitations is the current financial system led by wall street madness.

So while communism seems to be overbearing with restrictions, wall street madness seems to

encourage limitless greed. So much in fact, that it has now backfired in a sense that this greed has now become the spear head of human motivation, thus becoming the new god, and one that everyone seems to wants to follow. The thing is that this god (this god of greed) growing powerful, has now become the ultimate proponent of breaking away from all life supporting limitations, and is now the main force in which all things good are being destroyed.

You see, in our day and age, satisfaction has become rare, and dissatisfaction has become the common currency. The reason for this is because we have lifted limitation that were there to support us and protect us from our own madness. Admittedly, it is not an easy thing to create limits that will allow us to live in harmony with each other. If it was easy we would have done it by now. Still, what should be considered at this point, is that while having a strict limit on a person's wealth is unwise, having no limitation on a person's wealth, that is unwise too.

In our greed driven world, it is very clear, that we have no limits on how wealthy a man can be, nor do

we have any limit on how poor. In response we have become a fractured society, and while the powers at be, are busy with statistical evaluation of the situation at large, what is clear to me, is that whether the numbers improve or not, the level of pain on the street, is rising, and will continue to rise significantly in the years to come.

If you were to ask me whether I was a socialist, a capitalist, a democrat or a republican, I would answer that I am none of these. What I am is a philosopher, and one who likes to observe, and what I have observed is that lifting all limitation on how much one man can hoard and accumulate is a very bad thing, and is leading and will continue leading to the destruction of the world as we know it. Wealth needs to be limited because if wealth is not limited then neither is greed, and since greed and dissatisfaction come hand in hand, then ridiculously wealthy people also have an extreme level of dissatisfaction, and this in a sense is what propels them to destroy.

Whether something like the gold standard should be put back in place is something that I think is worthwhile to consider. However, even so, without putting a cap on the amount of wealth one can acquire, the same destruction we are currently seeing will continue to occur. If it was up to me, I would take some ridiculous figure, one that can suffice any human being for 10 life times, and I would declare that figure as a limit, where everything that goes over that, goes back to the social pile.This way while a man finds himself crossing the limitations of his own madness, his madness is also integrated back to society for the benefit of all. In this way even the most insane greed, is eventually brought back home, and is harnessed in order to support life and the whole.

What I fear is that by not doing so, what we are doing is promoting dissatisfaction. With it we allow a vicious game where a few are sacrificing the lives of many, for acquisitions that amount to nothing but a game of financial monopoly which they have grown accustomed to playing with each other. Since there are no limits then the only way the game stops in when something breaks or something dies. You see, man always attempts to break ground. Because this is the case, having no upper limits means that the only way we come to a stop, is by crashing down. What this all reminds me of is the greek mythological story of Icarus which is a symbolic representation of what happens when one does not recognize limitation, and by doing so feels that he has none. The conclusion of the story of course is that when the limitation is reached things of course come crashing down. A story worth revisiting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus)

Societal Addiction

Personal Addiction

Ironically the topic of my conversation today was first written on a chocolate wrapper in the whole foods parking lot. What I wrote was “The one who promises relief is the one supporting the addiction”, and the reason it is ironic is because for lack of paper in my car, the only thing I had left was and expression of my own addiction, an old piece of chocolate wrapper left behind.

Sometimes a seemingly simplistic idea or understanding can appear within a particular timeframe, and seed a whole new way of looking and approaching things. Such is this case.

If you have ever gotten out of addiction, or have been in the vicinity of addiction, you would know that the one thing addiction does very well is - when it comes to the addiction itself, the capacity of the addict to think clearly and logically diminishes. Logically, the addict would realize that this process is a destructive one and would use all his power and ability to kick it. However, since logic and reasoning are circumvented, contrary to all indications, the addict actually believes the promise of relief and continues participating in his or hers destructive behavior.

Once addiction sets in there are two possible outcomes. One is deterioration (giving in), the other withdrawal (getting out). If the addict is fortunate, he will find himself surrounded by a supportive community, one that is resourced enough to guide him through the process of withdrawal. Since the process of withdrawal is an excruciating process, you will hardly find an addict that will be willing to do this on his own. Usually he or she will have to be encouraged or even forced to acknowledge the inevitability of their destructive predicament.

For the addict to break through, and escape his perpetual internal prison, it is necessary that he receive help from the outside. For the most part the addict has to be presented with a firm, external force, needed to start the process of exiting his current state. However there are cases where a firm, internal motivation can suffice.

The way i describe addiction is the following:

Addiction is a process that establishing unnecessary dependency as necessary. Through prolonged intervals of distress and relief, the addict is entrained into a predetermined response, so that when faced with distress the choice of a particular relief agent becomes automatic. Sooner or later, this results in the relief agent itself becomes that which promotes the addiction. This eventually creates a paradoxical situation, in which the natural order of distress promoting the need for relief, is turned.  Now, for the addict, the mere thought of relief, is enough to kick in the feeling of distress.

Giving into addiction results in accelerated deterioration of the physical and mental structure,  Getting out of it requires being resourced enough to face the difficulty of withdrawal.

Unfortunately, by the time the addict notices his addiction, the reliance is so habituated; so deeply ingrained, that the resourcefulness so desperately needed to unhook has diminished. Through this process of distress and relief, resilience is lost and dependency becomes the norm.

It is important to note that the process of facing distress and finding relief does not necessarily point to addiction. Hunger is one such example. When hungry, I am faced with a definite form of distress. When I eat; when I satiate my hunger, I am relieved. As long as the natural order of distress and relief are maintained, hunger will not fall into the realm of addiction. If however, I find myself compulsively thinking about eating, completely independent of my physical hunger, then I have the potential of stepping into the process of establishing a dependency.

Societal Addiction 

What I described so far is addiction on a personal level. What I am more motivated to talk about actually is addiction on a social level. While addiction on a personal level might be easy to spot, addiction on a societal level is much much harder to recognize. The reason is, that while the personal addict can find himself surrounded and contrasted by others which are not, when it comes to the society this is not the case. If the majority of the participants are addicted,  the addiction becomes the norm. Who then will be there to contrast and provide firm opposition? Who will be there to reflect the growing level of distress and the accelerating levels of dependency?

What makes the societal case so unique is that unlike the personal case where the opposition/support usually comes from external sources, in society the opposition to the addiction has to come from within. This makes it a much more complex, difficult to recognize and often quiet painful. When I say, that the whole society is addicted, what I mean is that the majority of the participants in the society are actively participating in the addictive behavior. Since the majority is the norm, and we usually perceive sickness as an out-of-the-norm occurrence, what possibility is there to find a way to unhook?

With rising dependency, and the various relief agents becoming the norm, the society continuously pressures all its members to comply. The pressure piles up both on those who are eager to comply, as well as the ones trying to resist the dependency. As the levels of distress amplify, the ability to think clearly and logically is greatly diminished, and the ones who are healthy are faced with the distress of becoming further isolated. Now they, the healthy ones, find themselves faced with a difficult choice. They can either keep their opinions to themselves, speak out and take a chance at being crucified, or start to gather among themselves, to influence and invoke change.

History is full of examples describing nations caught in distress looking for relief. The higher the level of distress the more susceptible they were to following an agent, a leader, with the promise of relief. Like the personal addict, so do nations have a tendency to ignore simple evidence, and logic, and like the person, they too tend to avoid the process of withdrawal. Painfully, unlike the personal addict, the consequences of societal structural deterioration, are dire. Sadly, these include destruction, violence, and war.

Unfortunately, the way addiction takes hold is stealth like. Society, having no external resource, to guide it through the process of recognition, withdrawal, and restructure, is highly susceptible of falling into destructive norms. Therefor the only possibility it has for resourcing, is to preemptively prepare. Considering the societal addiction, an internal perpetrator, we are not only faced with a perpetrator cleverly disguising itself as the norm, but one that also like to promote itself as the solution and the a source of relief. We , the society are then faced with the question, "how do we educate ourselves to intercept?".

The first step I would say, would be to create, and adhere to, a well thought of set of guidelines, and executive safeguards, aimed at verifying the authenticity of society's own motivations, and actions. This however needs to be followed by promoting, and emphasizing an open, and ever developing set of educational protocols. This is because all safeguards, unless kept up to date, and current, will eventually faultier.

I believe the United State of America, was built on the understandings of such destructive norms, and for this reason the nation was declared as a republic, and the list of safeguards was declared as a constitution. Unfortunately, the educational structure necessary to continue supporting this process was not put in place in a way that allowed the development of these safe guards.

Faced with an acceleration level of deterioration, we can either continue following these destructive norms, or man up, and be ready to go through a process of withdrawal. The first stage, I believe is to recognize that the promise of the "American Dream", is nothing but a habitual thought of relief, one that is probably at the root of the accelerating levels of distress we are currently facing.

Needless to say - we have been breached.