02-28-2021
Part 1
Boundaries
I am trying to write brief articles that will hopefully educate the young and or bring salient points to the old. I do realize that busy people can’t usually read for an hour at a time, so I focus on a point, say what I say, and close. However, I have reached my favorite subject and so this one will be deeper, maybe even a three part essay.
We have all been circling around the genesis of our society’s ills since the covid epidemic struck and the riots and peaceful protests began. It is not ironic that everything happened seemingly at once, rather once the wound festered, it became inflamed and infected almost immediately.
On the most fundamental level we are suffering from a complete disrespect for boundaries. The idea of boundaries is fairly simple, yet its roots grow deep, indeed to the core of humanity. One of my favorite authors describes the entire book of Genesis from the Bible as an ironic story about boundaries. It took me two years to understand what he meant.
Genesis describes the boundaries of the land of Canaan, but it also explains the boundaries between neighbors, between enemies, between men and women, between tribes, and most importantly it describes the boundaries between God and Man, Heaven and Earth. The boundary between God and man exists even for the atheist because his faith is rooted not in a divine being but in something else. Whatever it is that he believes in matters not. Science, anti-science, political ideology; something gives him sustenance and between him and that ideal there lies a boundary. It may only be his own misery he has faith in. That is enough to create a boundary.
The existence of boundaries is not up for debate. The government can declare open borders, but there is a border, open or closed. It exists. What IS up for question is what that boundary means. Here, we have completely lost our way.
A crude explanation for the need of religion is that dogma explains boundaries to us in no uncertain terms. You can be an advocate for abortion, but you cannot say that Jesus blessed such a thing. You can believe wholeheartedly in the right for women to have control over their own bodies, but you cannot say that by killing an innocent living human being you have not crossed a boundary. So the argument is not whether the boundary exists or not, but do you respect it?
How we deal with boundaries is called “morality”. You do not need to be religious in order to adopt a code of behavior and respect for a moral view of the world. You only need to see why morality is needed. Even within packs and herds of animals there is an instinctive morality that is observed lest the pack turn on the outlaw. Mankind boasts a most sophisticated moral view whose subtitles and gray areas have been adjudicated, debated, and even led to war. The fact that we are so prone to warfare makes one wonder just how much more advanced we are compared to a pack of wolves.
Everyone is constantly in a state of either staying within their boundaries or crossing them; and in both cases they offer a rationale for doing so. In a way, life is all about keeping in your lane or not. Jordan Peterson explains this very well, but rarely uses the term. His objective is to straddle the line between chaos and comfort. I say that to embrace life, one must carefully choose what boundaries to cross and how far. So being aware of boundaries is paramount to surviving well. Otherwise, we are only fooling ourselves in an aimless wander.
Are we, as a society, completely unaware of boundaries? Or are we so conceited that we believe they do not apply to us? Boundaries are a physical fact, an emotional prerequisite, and a spiritual reality. When you abuse universal laws or natural laws, there is always repercussion.
Our founding fathers understood the reality and the need for boundaries. They were tasked to create political limits between the branches of government and also to define the boundary between government and society. They could not make their population moral. But they could and did apply a moral code to their definitions. Those things that protect the individual from the State were called “The Bill of Rights”. These rights derive from a common sense notion that man is not the creator, but the created. Whether you believe solely in evolution or solely in creation or something between the two, human kind did not create human kind. That’s the common sense. There is a boundary between us and the nature of our creation.
Therefore, the logic goes, there are certain things within the human being that make him / her sovereign; and those elements are endowed through creation to us. They are not subject to state authority. They “belong” to the individual.
Most notably, the human mind is the sole property of the individual, given him by creation. We did not create our minds or our bodies. Neither did the government. This fact should be part of “gender studies”. Dialectic reason == A+B=C says that what comes from an individual’s mind, ie what he /she thinks, is therefore also a gift of creation. It cannot be taken or abused or stifled by the government. Neither can it be attacked by another individual or group of individuals. We call this “Freedom of Speech” because what we say reflects what we think.
Freedom of speech therefore becomes freedom of the press. When we shout down or cancel someone’s speech we are seriously crossing a boundary. In the old days, say two years ago, there was always someone to stand up for this right. “Let him say his piece,” we might say to a dissenter. “Then you can have yours.” Sadly, that is not the case today. Mob mentality is taking over.
Freedom of speech has throughout most of history been forbidden. Power structures do not appreciate criticism and few people have the patience for a fool spouting nonsense. But that does not change the nature of the moral boundary anymore than advocating slavery makes it morally acceptable. In both cases a boundary is being trespassed. I can think of no prose where a more befitting word has been chosen than in “.. forgive those who trespass against us..” Trespass. The fact that this word was chosen informs you that its author was highly aware of boundaries.
So the founders drew boundaries in government and law. They established boundaries between sovereign states and the federal government also. These divisions are what constitutes the United States of America. A moral person can see that and respect it if for no other reason than pure necessity. So why do the feds usurp authority from the states and why do the states demand of the feds and why do people trespass on someone’s right to speak? Why does the Executive branch make law when the Congress is constitutionally assigned that responsibility? Why are so many boundaries being invaded and why is trespassing no longer a crime?
The answer is obvious. We no longer respect boundaries. We have become that tribal human animal before religion awoke us to the necessity of morality. The whole concept of existentialism rides on the concept of organized and lawful conduct. Some say “social contract”. Pick your terminology, say it how you like. The ends are the same. This society is fracturing at an alarming rate. Nothing can turn the tide until boundaries are once again recognized and respected. There is no moral code without them.
The time has come for all people of good heart to get back to basics and preach the absolute necessity of basic rights. We can argue over Jesus is Lord or Allah is prophet or Odin reigns in ValHalla at a later date. The most basic human rights are at stake, and we are losing them day by day, sometimes because we are unwilling to defend them. The reform must start with the individual voice.
Of course there are other more powerful forces at work also. We call them Google and Facebook and Amazon, a dozen companies seeking to strike down freedom of speech on the alter of their self righteous narcissism. They have set themselves up to be God and if there is a more dangerous thing than that I will eat my hat. Or, you could say they have set their ideology up as god and assigned themselves the obligation to enforce it (ideology). The point is: they have become all powerful and their influence is being felt every day by nearly every citizen.
Anti Trust laws were put in place for this very reason. Monopolies by their nature invade the boundaries of other businesses trying to survive. They can manipulate markets and apply irresistible pressure on groups and individuals. Their “ego” if you will, knows no bounds. In the case of big tech, they will have you repeat the rhetoric of Critical Theory else stand to be criticized, ostracized, marginalized, and canceled. They want to control your thoughts.
If this is not a radical religion I don’t know what else to call it. But it is a religion devoid of wisdom that does not acknowledge the universal fact that boundaries exist, or, it attempts to re-define those boundaries, taking your space as being their space. Move over Google, you’re crowding me! Why they wish to control your thoughts and opinions is anyone’s guess. (power maybe?) How they are doing it is by algorithms, key words, and the beginnings of artificial intelligence. What they are doing is crushing our right to hold thoughts that do not confirm to their dogma.
It’s always the zealots who cannot permit debate or dissension. This is pure narcissism, the poster child to all who would deny boundaries. Narcissism by definition does not understand boundaries. The self is the universe. There is no boundary.
If we are to open our national borders and forego immigration laws we will no longer be a country. If we no longer protect the citizenry from criminals by arresting them and prosecuting them, there will be no justice, no peace whatsoever. If we allow big tech to censor the digital world, there will be no intelligent debate nor truth seeking. Without truth seeking we have no education, no possible way forward. At that point can we really call ourselves “civilized human beings”?