the other day i suggested it is of use to ask: who should i be?
a hard question. if you can answer it well you get cooler, you live with a lighter sense of being.
the more of us who are who we should be, the less there is to fight about, the less tension and stress there is. and since stress always gives off heat, you being who you should be cools off the world.
or so i think.
the obvious corollary is: who should we be?
“freedom,” the much-vaunted sandbox for all of us to be who we should be is not enough. there must also be “the common good.”
answering who should we be? demands considered discourse, acceptance of facts, and reasonable behavior, a way to talk about and with each other that allows “we” to grow in how it resonates.
going from “we,” as invoked by the king to “We The People” grew the resonance of those two letters.
and expanding “we” into people who were more than just property owners, more than just men, more than just white, more than just heterosexuals carried us closer to more than just inclusion, it carried us closer to the true meaning of justice too, justice being little more than a synonym for “we.”
but everywhere you look, the conditions meant to help us be who we should be strain or wane.
it is unbearably frustrating to see the whole world, as we can it now, moving, even running away from, the obvious.
we eat too much meat. we fly too often.
we fight for stupid, stupid men or to buy their products.
we are driven by despair and anger and fear, the entrenchments multiplying even as they deepen
we should be better.
we should be doing things that cool things off.
we should do whatever you think will help the grandchildren of my enemies live in the global village with my grandchildren.
we should be thinking of “we” as a gateway, or even a tightrope, but never a club.
and we should forward in hope that if some of us strive after decency and dignity, even before compassion, certainly before identity, we will not be alone.