Hunting The Muse

My Position On The War

Here's my best attempt at my position on the war. Warning, deep waters. Give yourself some room to read.

I believe in Joe Average. I still believe in a basic goodness of human nature. I believe that on average, if someone is given the opportunity to do a good thing that doesn't cost them anything, they'll want to do it. I believe that most people want to move towards understanding and towards healing and want to feel like they are helping to make the world a better place.

I also believe there are a lot of forces that get in the way of that. Some of those forces are inside ourselves. We'll avoid doing good out of fear or indignance. We have judgements against "negative" emotions which can then lead to us avoiding conflict. We are also receptive to external forces that ridicule our emotions, reinforcing our doubts, and shut us down from taking action. And because modern life and human nature can be inherently at odds sometimes, the demands of modern life can make our human nature feel tiring and overwhelming, which leads us to rely upon structure and systems as replacements for human emotion and conscious intent.

I've written before about structure and systems replacing intent. This is a complicated subject because it isn't wise to be against the practice. When we find ourselves going through a redundant emotional process, it is common for us to want to represent it in a system. This can be through creating a moral code for oneself, or designing a system of laws for a population. The process involves agreeing that a structure or system approximates an emotional intent strongly enough to then be able to rely on that structure, rather than having to go through the emotional process every single time. Writing this essay is an example of me trying to create structure from my own views about the war.

However, my views are that these structures - moral codes, laws, positions - are only valid if the essence of the emotional processes are still present. As soon as the essence disappears, the structure is invalid.

This is a problem because structures can remain standing when their original intent no longer applies. We sometimes rely on structures that are devoid of their original intent.

There are those that believe the answer to this is to destroy all structure. I believe this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I believe that structures (laws, moral codes, positions) should continually be in a process of review to see if they still reflect their original intent. This does not happen with our laws, government, or policies. And, due to contagiousness and convention, I believe that too many people do not go through this process with themselves.

I believe that Joe Average, while being of good intent, is also overwhelmed due to the inherent contradiction of human nature and modern life. I believe that due to being overwhelmed, Joe Average relies too much on structure to replace emotional processing. I believe that in many, many cases, these structures are invalid due to being divorced from the original intent that brought these structures into being. I believe that in other cases, these structures are perverted due to Joe Average judging against "negative" emotions. This basically means that while I do not believe that Joe Average is consciousless, I believe that Joe Average may very well be leading a life that is mostly consciousless. I believe that as a result, a lot of action is taken that comes from consciouslessness.

This is why it is impossible to responsibly judge the merits of this war, because I believe the premises upon which I'd even judge the war are based on these false structures. No matter what position I try and stake out on just the war itself, I feel as if I'm accepting a premise that, at its root, is offensive to me.

It's easy for me to react to the surface - Bush's doublespeak. Drilling down from there gets complicated, however. And negotiating the path is where people start to cave in. Here's one example:

Question: Are you in favor of Saddam Hussein remaining in power and doing all these unspeakable things?

Answer: Duh, of course not, I think he should stop, and if he can't stop voluntarily, I think he shouldn't be in a position to do it.

Question: Well, he's shown that he won't stop, and we're removing him. How could you not be in favor of that?

When drilling down from the surface ("war bad!"), this interplay is a real stumper. Because on a word level, it's a good point. But when I put myself in the position of saying that I support the U.S. removing Hussein because I believe Hussein needs to not be in power, I feel like I am coaching myself into that point of view, and it just doesn't feel like the truth.

This is where we feel overwhelmed by the emotional processing these questions require, and this is where we seek to rely on structures rather than challenge things further. Here I would be relying on something that sounds logical, sounds like a good point, and I would cave in, ignore my feeling, and agree that that's right, that it makes sense.

But this is also where I would be duped. Because if you think about, adopting that point of view means I have accepted an implication:

You're either in favor of invading Iraq, or you're in favor of Saddam Hussein remaining in power.

It's especially tricky because this is rarely said out loud as often as it is implied. It's a premise that we are bullied into accepting. Well, I don't have to accept it.

I'm not in favor of invading Iraq, and I'm not in favor of Saddam Hussein remaining in power.

Who says they can't both be true? They both are, end of story. But I read the articles and see the messages. The forces right now bully me into accepting that that's inconsistent, that the two statements can't be reconciled. And they do this by challenging me to prove myself: How can you be in favor of neither? PROVE to me that this makes sense.

Again it's danger of caving in due to feeling overwhelmed. But again, it's bullying. The correct answer is, Prove to me that it doesn't.

I believe that, through this pattern or through others, most people that support this war only support it from being overwhelmed by messages and bullying forces, and replace their own true beliefs with false structures.

We're losing because we are being bullied by forces that know how to pressure us into accepting their premises without us realizing it. We then get set against each other, quibbling about the various levels of denial we are in, while the forces are free to move ahead with their plans. These forces are more upsetting to me than Saddam Hussein being in power, because I believe these are the same forces that allow a man like Saddam Hussein to attain power, to wield power, and to remain in power.

As dissatisfaction and anguish and pain increase through this war, I am seeing a marked increase in people struggling with their relationship with their emotions. I see people comment about rage and how they equate it with violence. I hear people talk about how emotional displays are getting in the way of us figuring out how to deal with this war problem. I see other people express concern about how war could escalate due to dangerous emotions and feelings getting away from people. I believe this increased struggling is extraordinarily relevant. It's the other war, the war between us insisting on our emotional beliefs, and the forces that demand us to abandon them.

I personally think the root conflict between the U.S. and the Middle East is reflected in these emotional struggles, and until we develop a healthier relationship with our own emotions - which may very well be incompatible with "modern life" - we are not going to get very far in learning how to coexist with the Middle East (assuming coexistence is even the goal of those in power), and we are not going to be able to effectively challenge those who overwhelm us into accepting their premises.

To summarize, while this war is extraordinarily important and upsetting, it is also sort of irrelevant because I believe it won't ultimately help. The forces that overwhelm us to accepting the premises for war still exist. The forces that allow a man like Saddam to attain and retain power still exist. There is not yet enough critical-mass tolerance for emotion to recognize and point out the tricks that are played on us, much less keep them from happening. If we can reconcile emotional liberty with modern life, then we have a chance for healing, but if we can't, then even if we win the war, we'll still be losing.

Update: Taking Action

Posted by Curt at March 25, 2003 12:14 AM