When brother got home with a sulky mood, his bruise visible. Upon hearing about it from his friends it was obvious he had caught in a fist-fight with one exception: he did not even strike, let alone start one. It was strictly one sided, with my brother on the floor pummelled mercilessly by a man twice his size.
And none of his friends dared to help.
The man is a stereotypical bully who his taken his school-yard's lack of empathy into adult-hood, implying immaturity even at his age. He is simply a "child" in his 20s who doesn't know how the world works. He has a reputation of being aggressive, with no respect towards anybody -- period -- and believes himself to be invulnerable, manly, heroic and fearless. In other words, you don't even have to say anything to him to have your teeth broken; he'll attack you even if you so much as "look funny".
Now, this is a common occurrence in everyday life. Arrogant bullies are all around, so what's so special about this one, you ask? Surely you can simply have the police handle it?
Just one thing: his uncle is a police commissioner. Sending him to jail might be as helpful as asking monkey to sit on a chair, and eventually he'll be free with vengeance on his mind. In other words, even relying on the authority to "help you" may bring retribution of a vindictive man-child upon your neck. Worst case scenario, you die (aka "murdered") and leave your family in law's corrupt turmoil.
And even this is nothing new in the Third World, India. This happens all the time.
They've always assured us that the Law exists to maintain order, to help foster peace so that the individuals can efficiently help the civilization advance (and I, of all people, want the civilization to progress and I'll do everything in my power to help create those wheels of efficiency). But a question remains: Is it even working?
Since childhood we're assured that the sinful will have a horrid life to start with, and the "good" eventually triumph (and I actually agree with that last bit), and I understand that may be to restrict the human race's destructive behaviour to help them focus on productive means and essentially aid an entire species to survive and advance, no matter what field of occupation you choose. Conformity here is an obvious thing: you cannot live without the society, nor can the society be without you. Essentially, you are the society.
However, the same system that regulates us to stop committing crimes and focus on a productive life is today being run by those who act against such regulations in the first place. They are in place of such power not in any benign need to help others; they are there to exempt themselves from such restrictions and enjoy the benefit at everyone else's expense. Often fighting with every noble ideal in you against them will label you as the criminal instead. As Vautrin (from Balzac's classic Le Pere Goriot) would say, the enemy is an honest man.
We are asked to dream big, be honest, sincere, be brilliant. Every thing we work hard to build with such visions are crushed under the feet of corruption that finds amusement in such deeds, if only to stroke their own ego. And we are forced to submit, because the authority represents power of stability, even if that power is used against the very people who help drive the civilization forwards. Vanity reigns for its own sake, plucks every flower in the field and leaving it barren for the dying bees.
Why is it then, when our courage is kindled, that we have to choose between righteousness and sheer death? Why does such an existence then encourage every good person at heart to take towards the path of corruption, kiss the boots of false kings and do as they see being done?
Often the answer to such a situation is "combine your numbers and revolt", revolt against the broken system and have it patched for a better generation. But that's in numbers. What about the simple individual at the corner who hasn't any power, one so delicate that all it takes is a fist and a false paper from broken law to crush them for good? Is it then any wonder that people remember being "good and noble" as a weakness in itself? Are we to shed any love for arts and sciences to play the game of thrones, to see who survives, in the very world that requires everyone to co-operate?
Beyond that, I don't necessarily think that being a good person is any weakness. The idea of "good character" may stem into femininity (as a human attribute, not gender-based), hence sharing similar traits, and I can understand why the people mistake the former with a weakness -- what with the misguided belief that "femininity" is "lack of strength", because the truth far from it! In fact, what other people commonly believe as "good" is nothing more than lack of sin, but "true virtue" is what makes someone great.
What makes a good individual is not abstinence from the fear it may corrupt them, but the ability to face those corruptions and still being mindful and wise. Christianity has a good selection of virtues that an ideal human being could have, and may even rate a person regarding their maturity, but I'd like to add one more: Empathy / Karuna and Emotional Intelligence.
Empathy is what makes you feel the pain and happiness of someone else, and Karuna is what makes you want to hold the door open for someone else. Empathy is cardinal to a poet for a good reason thus, because it opens doors not only to knowledge but to envision where Karuna may play its role to make things better.
Those who often don't conform to these ideas of good-will rationalize that such a trait would make people take advantage of you (even though psychologists say otherwise). Even if that's true, then I would inform that lack of empathy simply makes you unlikeable and may bring more conflicts and unhappiness into your life than you've bargained for. You bring nothing productive on the table, and hence are barely important enough to even be around.
The man who hurt my brother only did so because he was insecure from within. He knew his position can be challenged, and he is afraid of that happening at any time. He can seldom control of his own emotions, and becomes impulsive. And the endorsement he receives from his own powerful and influential family justifies his intentions for him. He is too consumed and too troubled about himself that he seeks gratification from everywhere else materialistically, and if his addictions aren't satisfied he becomes uncomfortable again. He is damaged from within, can't hope empathize, because his mere actions and beliefs have killed any prospects of mindfulness in the first place. It's a never-ending loop.
Then why, of all people, are these criminals the ones dominating societies in the first place? Well, I'm one to believe that when you lack empathy, you depend on aggression (which is an unstable use of power) and because you also lose influence, the least empathetic of them all tend to become insecure. In other words, they need something to replace their lost power. That substitute then becomes authority, the very position created by our civilizations and law to help regulate our peace and efficient progress in the first place. These plagues then clog the system, break it to their own needs.
So what can we do about all this?
I believe that we do the same as every emerging generations have done in the past: Be brave and change the world -- all it takes is a handful of individuals with hearts ablaze in revolution and minds sharp with clear objective. But before changing the world, it's still important to change yourself first, to become like those revolutionaries. After all, you're always a reflection of the society itself.
Why? Because showing off your muscles and aggression are easy. It takes real courage and wisdom to be empathetic and compassionate. Dare to make a difference, without the need of being the same as those you oppose.
And none of his friends dared to help.
The man is a stereotypical bully who his taken his school-yard's lack of empathy into adult-hood, implying immaturity even at his age. He is simply a "child" in his 20s who doesn't know how the world works. He has a reputation of being aggressive, with no respect towards anybody -- period -- and believes himself to be invulnerable, manly, heroic and fearless. In other words, you don't even have to say anything to him to have your teeth broken; he'll attack you even if you so much as "look funny".
Now, this is a common occurrence in everyday life. Arrogant bullies are all around, so what's so special about this one, you ask? Surely you can simply have the police handle it?
Just one thing: his uncle is a police commissioner. Sending him to jail might be as helpful as asking monkey to sit on a chair, and eventually he'll be free with vengeance on his mind. In other words, even relying on the authority to "help you" may bring retribution of a vindictive man-child upon your neck. Worst case scenario, you die (aka "murdered") and leave your family in law's corrupt turmoil.
And even this is nothing new in the Third World, India. This happens all the time.
They've always assured us that the Law exists to maintain order, to help foster peace so that the individuals can efficiently help the civilization advance (and I, of all people, want the civilization to progress and I'll do everything in my power to help create those wheels of efficiency). But a question remains: Is it even working?
Since childhood we're assured that the sinful will have a horrid life to start with, and the "good" eventually triumph (and I actually agree with that last bit), and I understand that may be to restrict the human race's destructive behaviour to help them focus on productive means and essentially aid an entire species to survive and advance, no matter what field of occupation you choose. Conformity here is an obvious thing: you cannot live without the society, nor can the society be without you. Essentially, you are the society.
However, the same system that regulates us to stop committing crimes and focus on a productive life is today being run by those who act against such regulations in the first place. They are in place of such power not in any benign need to help others; they are there to exempt themselves from such restrictions and enjoy the benefit at everyone else's expense. Often fighting with every noble ideal in you against them will label you as the criminal instead. As Vautrin (from Balzac's classic Le Pere Goriot) would say, the enemy is an honest man.
We are asked to dream big, be honest, sincere, be brilliant. Every thing we work hard to build with such visions are crushed under the feet of corruption that finds amusement in such deeds, if only to stroke their own ego. And we are forced to submit, because the authority represents power of stability, even if that power is used against the very people who help drive the civilization forwards. Vanity reigns for its own sake, plucks every flower in the field and leaving it barren for the dying bees.
Why is it then, when our courage is kindled, that we have to choose between righteousness and sheer death? Why does such an existence then encourage every good person at heart to take towards the path of corruption, kiss the boots of false kings and do as they see being done?
Often the answer to such a situation is "combine your numbers and revolt", revolt against the broken system and have it patched for a better generation. But that's in numbers. What about the simple individual at the corner who hasn't any power, one so delicate that all it takes is a fist and a false paper from broken law to crush them for good? Is it then any wonder that people remember being "good and noble" as a weakness in itself? Are we to shed any love for arts and sciences to play the game of thrones, to see who survives, in the very world that requires everyone to co-operate?
Beyond that, I don't necessarily think that being a good person is any weakness. The idea of "good character" may stem into femininity (as a human attribute, not gender-based), hence sharing similar traits, and I can understand why the people mistake the former with a weakness -- what with the misguided belief that "femininity" is "lack of strength", because the truth far from it! In fact, what other people commonly believe as "good" is nothing more than lack of sin, but "true virtue" is what makes someone great.
What makes a good individual is not abstinence from the fear it may corrupt them, but the ability to face those corruptions and still being mindful and wise. Christianity has a good selection of virtues that an ideal human being could have, and may even rate a person regarding their maturity, but I'd like to add one more: Empathy / Karuna and Emotional Intelligence.
Empathy is what makes you feel the pain and happiness of someone else, and Karuna is what makes you want to hold the door open for someone else. Empathy is cardinal to a poet for a good reason thus, because it opens doors not only to knowledge but to envision where Karuna may play its role to make things better.
Those who often don't conform to these ideas of good-will rationalize that such a trait would make people take advantage of you (even though psychologists say otherwise). Even if that's true, then I would inform that lack of empathy simply makes you unlikeable and may bring more conflicts and unhappiness into your life than you've bargained for. You bring nothing productive on the table, and hence are barely important enough to even be around.
The man who hurt my brother only did so because he was insecure from within. He knew his position can be challenged, and he is afraid of that happening at any time. He can seldom control of his own emotions, and becomes impulsive. And the endorsement he receives from his own powerful and influential family justifies his intentions for him. He is too consumed and too troubled about himself that he seeks gratification from everywhere else materialistically, and if his addictions aren't satisfied he becomes uncomfortable again. He is damaged from within, can't hope empathize, because his mere actions and beliefs have killed any prospects of mindfulness in the first place. It's a never-ending loop.
Then why, of all people, are these criminals the ones dominating societies in the first place? Well, I'm one to believe that when you lack empathy, you depend on aggression (which is an unstable use of power) and because you also lose influence, the least empathetic of them all tend to become insecure. In other words, they need something to replace their lost power. That substitute then becomes authority, the very position created by our civilizations and law to help regulate our peace and efficient progress in the first place. These plagues then clog the system, break it to their own needs.
So what can we do about all this?
I believe that we do the same as every emerging generations have done in the past: Be brave and change the world -- all it takes is a handful of individuals with hearts ablaze in revolution and minds sharp with clear objective. But before changing the world, it's still important to change yourself first, to become like those revolutionaries. After all, you're always a reflection of the society itself.
Why? Because showing off your muscles and aggression are easy. It takes real courage and wisdom to be empathetic and compassionate. Dare to make a difference, without the need of being the same as those you oppose.
No comments:
Post a Comment