Thoughts at my kitchen sink

Written by Michael Dunn

“A culture that does not grasp the vital interplay between morality and power, which mistakes management techniques for wisdom, and fails to understand that the measure of a civilisation is its compassion, not its speed or ability to consume, condemns itself to death” – Chris Hedges

On morality and power:

mo•ral•i•ty mə-răl′ĭ-tē, mô-

►

• n.

The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

• n.

A system or collection of ideas of right and wrong conduct.

• n.

Virtuous conduct.

I am reminded of the wisdom of the late Jim Rohn who said: “The major value in life is not what you get. The major value in life is what you become.” 

I thought about that at our kitchen sink. When a person or an organisation gains power, does it change things? Of course it does. And then what happens? The person or organisation usually becomes something different to its previous public identity and image. It is no accident that someone already worked out that ‘power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ History (and current affairs) is loaded with proof.

So, ‘becoming’ is of more value/more desirable than ‘getting’. Mr Rohn also said:

“To attract attractive people, you must be attractive. To attract powerful people, you must be powerful. To attract committed people, you must be committed. Instead of going to work on them, you go to work on yourself. If you become, you can attract.”

(Note – ‘you can’ is not the same as ‘you shall’. There is a difference.) The value is in Being, in Becoming, not in Getting. Or, as several other observers put it: “For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?”

I wonder how often people reflect on this when they fall from the greasy pole of corporate or political power? Chances are that after their fall, then they become – bitter? And peace in their soul often remains elusive – even if there is a golden handshake.

On Power

“The state is essentially an apparatus of compulsion and coercion. The characteristic feature of is to compel people through its application of threat or force to behave otherwise than they would like to behave.” – Ludwig von Mises.

Truncated: “….. forced to be otherwise than they would like to be.”

“All the civilizations we know have been created and directed by small intellectual aristocracies, never by people in the mass. The power of crowds is only to destroy.” – Gustave Le Bon

He also wrote: “The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error.”

According to Le Bon, it is the creation and direction by the few which is always the spark which lights the flame which leads to change. For example, the Christian faith began with just a handful of believers who set out to share their experiences with whoever would listen, and just look at what happened next. 

If the principle of ‘each-one-find-one’ is the true basis for change, what does that say about mass media, which is a novelty of recent times? William Shakespeare’s observation that ‘what the greater do, the lesser will prattle on’ (Twelfth Night) explains the power of the press and mass media in general with its constant reporting of what ‘such-and-such important person said’.

Yet much of this contradicts our own ego. How often have I/how often have you claimed to make up my own mind about reported events? But when we assert ourselves this way it is only partly true because each of us is influenced separately by our different experiences, upbringing, education, training, and interests in general. Sometimes described as ‘conditioning’. It’s a provocative thought, isn’t it? It seems to make each of us unique. If we are unique, why is another defining label needed?

As always, when we are provoked it is common that we either attack/fight back or hide ourselves in distractions. We seem to be programmed to do so. We rarely sit down and discuss face-to-face with people we know, like and trust and evaluate the message when it is easier to evaluate the messenger.

Then comes misunderstanding, too. Robert McCloskey said: “I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant.” (This is attributed in various forms to others also.)

Quite a long time ago a writer with conviction wrote: “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” Except, too many of us failed the transition; we morphed with gaps. We continue to love our toys; we so often refuse to take responsibility for our actions; we require others to solve our problems. We state our ‘wants’ but they rarely include ‘I want to be happy, content and free’. Rarely do we want those conditions for others; we are too selfish. And we are proud of our ignorance.

The saddest, most alarming thing is that apart from good people and good things here and there, there is too much evidence that we aren’t becoming any better. And so, we condemn ourselves.