..out of the dark

In a way, it is not so strange to be defensive about your own impact in the world. Since inside, we suspect that we do not have the power as individuals to change it. The planet will turn another round, people will get on with their business, and things will happen. Tomorrow, the sun will rise, and after rain, there will be sun.

Nevertheless, the will to change the world is something that may be as fundamental a human need as air, or biscuits, or licorice. And the question becomes how. How do you change the world, and in what respect is it possible to facilitate change. How can we make the world better for our children, in the way we presume that our forebears at least tried for us. Now, the discussion did not, as one might expect, immediately turn to the subject of how one can oneself contribute to that change. Far from it. That is not how one forms a legacy, it appears.

I was struck by this, and wondered how the reasoning went. Was the idea, perhaps, that we must shape our beliefs around the inevitability of history, and simply find our place in it? And so accept the existence as meaningful? In a slightly unenthusiastic reading of Hegel? Or was it an appeal to a spiritual journey, where one might find the struggles in life worthwhile as one finds balance in one's own existence, and thus meaning?

It appeared not to be so simple.

Instead, I was introduced to the following argument: in order to construct a legacy, the true meaning of existence must be realised in the following layers. At the individual level, what you can contribute to the world at large is bupkis. To presume differently is a delusion. Except, if you can convince enough people to mobilize under your leadership, or with your sense of justice, values, ideas, or otherwise appealing thoughts. Through this, the individual contribution gains meaning, and common acceptance, and therefore must achieve some modicum of importance. In the world, therefore, there are those who lead, and those who follow. And through their leadership, and the faithful following, individual acts gain importance in the greater scheme of things.

In a way, I haven't heard anything more ridiculously abhorrent than this in all my life. Not only are individual acts meaningless without a larger context inserted by authority, in this less than covert wish for a militaristic messianic manifestation in the real world, and are nothing but an attempt to remove responsibility and glorify one's own complacency. But any act is similarly neither good or bad without this larger context. Even if, as one might expect, such an act might be perfectly defensible and proper in the circumstances.

To what extent, I wonder, are these views truly translated into action? Is there such a need for realisation of great things in our societies that when given the chance to ride it, we are truly wired to subdue our individuality and accept the need for the great and glorious regime that will lead us to the future?

As I said, I do thoroughly enjoy self- indulgent melodrama. But to be perfectly honest, this kind of mind- boogling capitulation depressed even me.