Learning to
act right (50)… Better not look down…
Torrey Orton
April 17, 2015
…says BB King in the song: “You
better not look down if you want to keep on flying…put the hammer down, it’s
full speed ahead”. Here’s the whole thing:
I've
been around and I've seen some things
People moving faster than the speed of sound
Faster than the speeding bullet
People living like Superman
All day and all night
And I won't say if it's wrong or if it's right
I'm pretty fast myself
But I do have some advice to pass along
Along in the chorus of this song
Better not look down, if you want to keep on flying
Put the hammer down, keep it full speed ahead
Better not look back, or you might just wind up crying
You can keep it moving, if you don't look down
People moving faster than the speed of sound
Faster than the speeding bullet
People living like Superman
All day and all night
And I won't say if it's wrong or if it's right
I'm pretty fast myself
But I do have some advice to pass along
Along in the chorus of this song
Better not look down, if you want to keep on flying
Put the hammer down, keep it full speed ahead
Better not look back, or you might just wind up crying
You can keep it moving, if you don't look down
…
… Which came to mind as I was
reflecting on my inability to give validity to those in developmental stages
different from mine, people who, unlike BB, I want to tell are wrong. Or more
saliently, I want to prevent them from doing wrong to others in the name of
their right. In many instances it doesn’t matter. My irritation passes like the
discomfort - not a lot!! - of a cool breeze on a warm night. However, when
confronted with repeatedly immovable objects like the anti-abortionists at the
Fertility Control Clinic, and the shameless fools pretending to govern us, my
irritation is never far off rage.
My model for correct behaviour in
these circumstances is Ken Wilber’s recommendation in his A Theory of Everything (Shambala,
2000) that “Everybody is right. More
specifically, everybody - including me – has some important pieces of truth,
and all those pieces need to be honoured…” The implications of this are massive
for everyone and lead me to the view that
those more advanced, educated, gifted, successful and powerful have an obligation
to honour the truths of those less well-endowed in any of those frames.
In my mind’s internal dialogue on
matters of ethics at the Fertility Control Clinic, I can formulate relatively
easily an appreciation of the position which the catholic anti-abortionist
fraternity hold. It is roughly this: all human life is infinitely valuable and
so deserves de facto whatever help we
can offer it to exist and persist. I first encountered this view in the mouth
of a long-term friend devoted to social justice 50+ years ago. He was certainly
not Catholic and scarcely religious.
At the time it held no practical
implications for me, though the mantra stuck, having acquired in the interim
some passengers/accomplices like the therapeutic notion of unconditional
positive regard and its everyday behavioural limbs like respectful
disagreement, not playing the man and such appreciative tactics. He still holds
it close to himself to this day. I have moments of doubt. The clinic prompts
them.
What makes my self-imposed
obligation a trial is that any of us, at whatever developmental stage we are
in, are circumscribed by that fact in two respects: one, that’s as far
as we’ve gotten in whatever developmental sequence we are in and so that’s as
far as we can see; and, two, we need to feel that it is the truth in a
sense sufficient to stand the winds of rejection from those we’ve left behind
and the zephyrs of enticement from those above or in the neighbouring paddock suggesting
we really haven’t gotten there yet (where they are of course in their
respective certainties). Both breezes suck out energy and, so, enflame the
defences of the self – the inward looking self-regard of the uncertain.
I could approach these anti-abortion
folks with an attempt to establish my credentials of empathy by noticing they
are in the field of preserving life which is under attack in many ways. These
attacks come most unavoidably into play at the boundaries of life – birth and
death. Hence, the armies of night and light arrayed around the entries to those
two boundary states – anti-abortionists/pro-choicers and the natural deathers /
euthanasiasts. Also at play in the fields crossing these boundaries are the
life scientists and artificial intelligencers. The effects are disruption of
boundaries, a process which once developed enough leads to degeneration of
being, as childhood abuse does so clearly, whence flow the twin streams of
suicide and homicide – both expressions of hopeless/helpless rage.
So, now to the boundary: when is an
abortion a better choice than full term delivery? When the conditions into
which birth will be made are so perilous as to ensure that the early steps in
life and many thereafter (most of childhood) will be plagued with life-destroying
potential on the best science of abuse outcomes. These conditions are both
natural (birth defects, etc.) and institutional (families, schools, churches…)
and we know enough about minimally supportive institutional conditions to know
that they fail at rates better than chance conditions (from an ethical
viewpoint – namely that no failure of intentional behaviour is good enough for
a good enough life). Who is to decide when the conditions are adequate is a
fine task from which we can exclude the agents and apologists of the various
key institutions until they can guarantee that their respective institutions
will not blight the lives of their participants. That is, in the case of child
rearing, the prospective parents, and where the parental relationship is
dubious, the prospective mothers should be able to decide. Our law now provides
this should.
There is a similar argument for
euthanasia, and against it.
The Hogpi’s trade on the life is
any level of living fallacy in their street arguments and their theoretical
ones, too. Namely that a vital embryo is a viable one and so a life - which it
ain’t until 20+ weeks - and they don’t work thru the argument that viability on
both ends of the life spectrum is massively distorted by science, whose
benefits are inequitably distributed, which they’d acknowledge if they thought
about it in this context, but don’t…
In the background lies the great
paradox: that prospective parents can with a little attention mostly prevent
unwanted children from being conceived, yet they often do not take that care. Otherwise
a major proportion of those seeking abortion would never need to present. But
then, the same adults drive while intoxicated and party when drunk and their
demises are noted with the language of world changing human drama – tragedy,
amazing, loving…. – which they certainly aren’t. All artefacts of banality?
“…What I am saying is
that when one form of being is more congruent with the realities of existence,
then it is the better form of living for those realities. And what I am saying
is that when one form of existence ceases to be functional for the realities of
existence then some other form, either higher or lower in the hierarchy, is the
better form of living….” Dr Clare W. Graves
We are in times when many realities
are in disarray and so the claim that any level of development is more
appropriate than another is hard to sustain, but the desire to feel comfortable
in my current stage is strong enough to maintain my rage. Maybe I’m just not
accepting myself.
If only I could just “not look
down”!!
No comments:
Post a Comment