Subtlety, Intimacy, Motivation XIII

Part of what I'm wondering is how to live with full experience of subtlety, intimacy, and motivation. A big part of feeling motivated is feeling those passionate emotions which might seem the opposite of subtle. Besides that, by saying I don't believe in total pacifism, it could seem like I'm saying I don't believe in total intimacy--with everyone around me, with the whole of this world we live in, etc. While understanding how living this life passionately, subtly, and intimately may seem somewhat complicated, it seems to me that actually doing so is much simpler than understanding how it all works. Only, in doing it, one must be very consistent with one's willingness to pay attention and one's openness--and that is easier to say than to do, although it is not complicated. Perhaps, the incredible simplicity lends to the unlikelihood of carrying it out.

The puzzlement or paradox between simplicity and complexity, between difficulty and ease and naturalness, is why I focus on subtlety, intimacy, and motivation rather than focusing on what seems comfortable or easy or just "natural". Sometimes living the good life takes commitment more than complexity or sophistication, effort more than ease, planning more than an unquestioned or unthinking "naturalness" (an idea that often encourages impulsivity and superstitious/magical interpretations). It is natural for humans to think, but this leads into all kinds of complexities and possibilities; it is just as natural for us to feel completely at peace with where and who we are. That's where I return to this maleness, competition, and respect of competitors even during conflicts.

For those who are enlightened enough (or whatever) to side with Gandhi and his focus on nonviolent progressive politics, that's fine or perhaps even laudable. But for the rest of us, it does not look like there will be peace in the Middle East anytime soon, and nonviolent measures do not seem to moderate the relationship between George W. Bush's "you are either with us or against us" and Osama bin Laden's animosity towards Saudi royalty, Israel, and America. We're going to fight out some of these disagreements and differences whether or not it might theoretically (and actually) be possible to work things out differently. Fighting "fair" is also not an option because none of us agree on what international council gets to decide what is fair or unfair. So the question in my mind is whether we can fight unfairly but with some sort of honor. An equal and related question is whether it is actually possible to fight for anything one believes in without fighting with some degree of honor.

Obviously, bin Laden and Bush have not decided that their worthwhile opponents should be some plumber in Djibouti. Why not? While this example is tongue-in-cheek, the point is not. There seems to be an almost comic-book mentality in a lot of these struggles, and no one claims to really be kicking the ass of someone lacking all ability to fight back. Even Mike Tyson doesn't do that (that I know of). Since Mike Tyson can really whoop ass (being maybe the best ever in his sport, in his way), he doesn't often brag about stealing candy from babies even if he hasn't always fought honorably in the boxing ring (and even if he has stolen candy from babies). Bush doesn't brag about killing Iraqi children and neither does bin Laden. Both men, then, are honorable to some degree even if their honor doesn't obviously translate into perfect action or even clear purpose, even if some of what they allow themselves to say and some of what they consider to be honorable is enforced by the people around them. You might hate either one or both of these men, but it is hard to say they are unbelievers. They might be dangerously fanatic (over the top, off the deep end, even bats in the belfry), but neither seems apathetically unbelieving or totally Machiavellian--although, the same may not be as clear concerning Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rove. Even Mike Tyson did a decent job of handling himself while he was guided and supported by a man he could love, trust, and learn from. By the time he was surrounded by sycophantic nonentities and manipulative assholes, after his mentor had passed, he struggled under the bright lights. Wouldn't we all.