Having Bought into a Wreck — What Now?
BY TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 7 May 2018
Cognitive Challenges of Embodying Reality Otherwise
7 May 2018 – Whether in collusion with others or not, I seem to have bought shares in a total wreck of some kind. It could be a house or some means of transportation — possibly a truck, or a boat, or a train, or a plane. Some call it global civilization. Like the Cubans after their revolution, I am faced with the challenge of a rapidly decaying “automobile” for which I cannot get spare parts. This is despite the reported rate of development of technology elsewhere (beyond my reach and comprehension), and the promises with which it is associated. How am I to then to engage with the wreck, which could indeed collapse further at any moment? There is some irony that, as an “auto-mobile”, getting it to work is curiously reminiscent of what is otherwise framed as the challenge of “sustainability”.
One approach for me is simply to note the facts of this situation — to bear witness. To whom? Various parts do not work as they might be expected to work — whether frozen, ill-fitting, or poorly connected. The pipework seems mysteriously to be leaking. There are unpredictable sparks form the electrical system — suggesting that something is working to a degree, but perhaps dangerously so. One aspect of this situation is that I am variously keen on some of these parts and their preservation. I want them to work. They carry significance for me and I identify with them — and especially with the “automobile” as a whole, if only it would work. In a sense I am locked-into parts as they once worked, or might have worked, and have little time for proposals regarding alternatives — especially alternative modes of transportation. However it is a serious mess. I have taken the “automobile” apart on various occasions. I have multiple parts scattered around my garage and yard — some acquired by various means from elsewhere. I have forgotten where some might have fitted. Basically I am confronted with chaos and do not know what to do.
A second approach is for me to recognize certain patterns in the situation. I can reframe it in aesthetic terms. I can see how other “stuff” from elsewhere might be used to substitute for some parts of the “automobile” that do not work — or at least compensate for my inadequacy. I can indeed become more flexible and inventive in this process of looking for equivalents to get the “automobile” to work, or to appear to do so to my satisfaction. I can also begin to see that some of the constraints on fixing the “automobile” are due to constraints blocking my own imaginative creativity. The brokenness of the “automobile” is a kind of mirror of my own incompetence and failure to get to grips with the situation. More challenging is the sense in which I am effectively conning myself in my approach to the “automobile” . Clearly I have some responsibility — if not a fundamental one — for having tricked myself in buying into the wreck in the first place (whether or not I only have shares in the “automobile” with others who were similarly tricked into its acquisition). Then what?
A third approach is for me to articulate my understanding of my situation in relation to the “automobile” . I can be sophisticated. I can philosophize about it and about the nature of its existence, and mine in relation to it. I can analyze it in sociological terms, in systemic terms, or in terms of the possibilities of some more fruitful approach — about which I can variously speculate imaginatively. I can express my condition in nostalgic song, music, humour, drama, or turn it into a game. I can organize a party around the “automobile” , using it as a focus for fun — even turn it into a monument for regular ritual celebration. What am I trying to achieve? What do I want to “leave behind”? With whom (or what) should I be engaging far more intimately to engender that? What of my situation is meaningfully replicable? What would fixing the “automobile” do for me? Do I really want to possess and own a “automobile” ? Why? Is there some strange kind of illusion implied by this engagement with the potential of the “automobile” as a means of my transpiration. To where?
A fourth approach is of course to step back from these other approaches and to see myself and the “automobile” as part of a far larger scheme of things. What shift in perspective does this imply? Is it more realistic or less so — given the passage of time and the probable reality of events elsewhere, of which I am only partially aware, if at all? Should I be taking account of subtler dimensions of which I have only the faintest intimations — whether the supernatural or those wrapped up in the immediate reality of the moment, according to fundamental physics? Is there a case for being far more radical in my understanding of my situation (and that of the “automobile”) — did I but know how? More radically inventive perhaps — to the degree of completely reinventing myself and the world around me. And my “automobile”?
DISCLAIMER: In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Join the discussion!
We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.
Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article:
BY TRANSCEND MEMBERS: