The dawning

The definition of dawn used by the old desert Arabs (the Bedouin) – that dawn is that moment in time when there is sufficient light to distinguish between a white and a black thread – has a romantic appeal about it. There is a vagueness which opens up many trains of thought. One determination of dawn will be different from another. There are inevitable shades of grey implicit in the definition as is the quality of the eyesight and judgement of the observer. Also implicit is a tolerance and an acceptance that there will be differences in interpretation – that the beginning of the day – the beginning of anything is never finite. This level of tolerance and acceptance of differences of opinion is needed today, particularly when the ‘blame’ game begins.

This is not to say that the Bedouin were particularly tolerant or intolerant, students of Arab history will be able to shed light on this topic – it is the human quality of the definition that appeals. We each have our own views of the world as seen through the filters of our particular circumstance; our education; our life experiences; our society and culture but above all based on the view we have of ourselves and our position in ‘our’ world.

No one, repeat, no one, ever does anything to deliberately disadvantage themselves. Any action taken by anyone will always be because of some perceived benefit or advantage. Poor judgement may be evident as when a politician tells an ‘untruth’ and is instrumental in losing an ‘unlosable’ election; it is evident when a financier engages in corrupt dealings; it is evident when someone deliberately kills another. But the fact remains that at the moment the decision was made to carry out the action, it would never have been carried out if not for some perceived advantage – to try and cover up a mistake, to make more money or to eliminate a rival.

It is always a matter of choice – to carry out the deed or not to carry out the deed.  To then deliberately seek punishment for the perpetrator is a natural reaction, but is it the best course of action? Remember that shades of grey exist and there is no absolute black or white.

Surely a new dawn in the treatment of criminals is called for – to educate them to have at least some understanding that all humanity is related - would be better? We all have our strengths and weaknesses and no one can claim to be ‘better’ than anyone else. According to our understanding of life, we all do the best we can. To ‘blame’ someone for an error of judgement is a bit harsh. Society should be ‘blamed’; you and I should be ‘blamed’ because we make up the society that gave a particular person a view of the world that happens to differ from ours.

 Educate the perpetrators so they may understand that there is a law or cause and effect. Teach them ethics. That treating others as they would like to be treated is the only viable option. That what goes around, comes around. That if you hit someone with a stick often enough they will sooner or later turn around and hit you back. This means in effect, you are hitting yourself. Not very clever!

Howling Dog

Most people will know this story – or at least some variation of it. It is a simple tale of a man who visits a friend who he finds on the back porch sitting on a chair, idling away the time by whittling on a piece of wood. He strikes up a conversation with his friend but is constantly interrupted by a dog lying next to the chair, who, every now and again whines then emits a howl. Somewhat alarmed he asks his friend if the dog shouldn’t be taken to a vet and treated for an obviously painful ailment.

The friend says, “No. He is lying on a nail but it is not hurting enough for him to get up and move. So he just lies there whining and howling.”

Now how many of us are in a situation, domestically or at work, which gives us grief in that it is emotionally draining, stressful and generally unpleasant? If this is your situation (and I believe that many people find themselves in this situation) which, to put it plainly, is not conducive to peace of mind, what are you doing about it? Are you just accepting the emotional pain without getting up and moving and just like the dog in the tale above, complaining about your situation but remaining where you are? Why? In the name of all that is wonderful, why?

In our society it is a criminal offence to physically restrain someone against their will - unless of course you are already in prison, which is a different story entirely. I am talking about voluntary situations where you made a choice which turned out to have been not very good. We all make bad decisions at times. If you made a bad choice, take a deep breath, choose again and move on with your life.

Remember, without chains, you are only held against your will if you have, (even subconsciously), given someone permission to hold you. Move on – withdraw that “permission” and live the life you choose to live. Live your life, not the life someone else want you to live.

Now choose and move on! Do something! Doing nothing isn't an option!

My freedom stops where yours begins

I wonder if you have ever thought about the true importance of the rather glib saying, “Your freedom stops where mine begins?” It is so simple yet it is actually quite profound and has equally profound implications.

It is at the same time rather vague and yet very definite. To me, this statement has relationships at the core of its meaning. By relationships I am never just referring to intimate relationships but to the broader meaning – our relationship with the world around us; how we deal with our fellow beings.

We all understand this statement and its implications and in our own way we follow it. While I am no lawyer, it seems that this statement is the basis of all laws; it is at the core of our understanding of ‘justice’ – what applies to me must of necessity also apply to you. It is at the core of our understanding of the term ‘criminal’ – someone who by their actions has, by deception or other means, wrongfully deprived me of something which belonged to me, which is rightfully mine or for which I had had a duty of care to protect (this, of course also includes the ‘worst’ crime of all, murder - depriving another of their life). It is at the core of the word ‘cruelty’ – wilfully causing pain and suffering to another being.

I cannot think of anything else because ‘justice’, ‘criminal’ and ‘cruelty’ covers just about everything. The Laws we enact are supposed to help the practitioners of the Law to draw the line at the point where my ‘freedom’ (to do what I like) stops and your ‘freedom’ (to do what you like) begins. This is not always an easy task, hence the plethora of laws, rules regulations and other constraints placed on our ‘freedom’ to live our lives as we see fit.

To understand the statement it may help to recall what Confucius had to say about justice and laws some twenty-seven centuries ago:

“If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.”

So should this standard of ‘moral excellence’ come from the top down – from those who govern us, or from the bottom up – we tell those who govern us what to do? Or should we all do the ‘right’ thing?

Interesting.