Jon: What did Richard say about shit like this? Something to the effect of accepting an unacceptable world as it is…
Hi Jon,
When you surmise what Richard said, it would be advisable and beneficial for your fellow readers to actually check “what did Richard say about” with what he actually said. Richard never said “something to the effect of accepting an unacceptable world as it is…”
Here is what Richard suggested to those interested in doing something about the human condition for themselves (and every body’s benefit), by themselves –
Richard: I did everything I could to be as happy and harmless (as free of sorrow and malice) for as much as is humanly possible. This was achieved by first putting everything on a does-not-really-matter-in-the-long-run basis. That is, I would prefer people, things and events to be a particular way, but, if it did not turn out like that, it did not really matter for it was only a preference. I chose to no longer give other people – or the weather even – the power to have me annoyed, irritated, irked, or even peeved[1], if this was possible.
[1] See Richard, Selected Correspondence, Aggression, 13 Jan 2013)
Then, as it was patently obvious in those experiences of pristine purity how this very moment of being alive is the only moment of ever actually being alive, I began to treat each moment again as precious. After all, it is not as if we have an unlimited amount of moments and – unlike a bank account which can be replenished – our supply of such moments is our most valuable (albeit dwindling) asset. In practical terms this meant being aware of how each precious moment was being experienced; if feeling good (felicity and innocuity) was the prevailing experience then this attentiveness ensured enjoyment and appreciation, of the sheer fact of being alive, each moment again; if feeling bad (unhappy and harmful) was the prevailing experience then whatever had displaced feeling good became readily apparent, upon such attention, with so much at stake. (Out-from-Control Reports, Richard)
Here is another description –
James: … My question is: Can I accept the unacceptable? (…)
Richard: Given that people are as-they-are and that the world is as-it-is there are more than a few things which are ‘unacceptable’ (child abuse, rape, murder, torture and so on). What worked for me twenty-odd years ago, as a preliminary step, was to rephrase the question so that it makes sense (rather than vainly apply any of those unliveable ‘unconditional acceptance’ type injunctions):
• Can I emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable?
This way intelligence need not be compromised … intelligence will no longer be crippled. (Richard, List B, James2, 18 Aug 2001).
I snipped the bulk of your post, being a conglomerate of hearsay, rumours, guesses and political opinions from the popular press, which you conclude with –
Jon: But it is what it is. When it comes to politics and nationalism, I guess there are no standards. To accept an unacceptable fact is our goal. [Emphasis added]. (link)
How have you determined that all this you presented is “fact”? Have you researched what you presented here to be established facts (something that happened the way it is told), or is it just a regurgitation of what someone else said, what you read in the popular press, or seen in the TV news? Have you gone to the sources and searched for reliable references, checked cross-references from the other side of politics, so that you can confidently say that these are facts. Or did you merely repeat what already confirms you pre-formed opinion and political and moral persuasion (as in “I picked my side after the Iraq invasion”)?
If so, the intelligence is already compromised by picking beliefs, taking factoids and hearsay as facts and representing it with your own moral stance of opinion. And all these factoids and rumours of doom and gloom you are trying to emotionally accept even though they are already of dubitable repute.
-
Jon: From where we stand, it’s most important to cultivate a sense of needing to do something to fix the situation. I said to accept what is unacceptable. But that’s not fully it. It’s to help fix the madness and the callousness. To fully adopt a program of self-immolation and/or virtual freedom and naiveté to help those close to us and even the whole world. (link)
Ok, now you are being more specific.
When you say “it’s most important to cultivate a sense of needing to do something to fix the situation” are you talking about a feeling, or a bunch of feelings? Or are you perceiving a lack of feelings that you ‘should’ have because you say “important to cultivate …”? Also, since you started the sentence with “from where we stand”, are you perhaps trying to have a collective solution for what you feel to be the problem?
To clarify, as the only person you can change is yourself, and this is all you need to do. Hence the question will be ‘what is most important from where I stand …’
Remember, Richard said, in the long conversation he had with you about peasant mentality –
Richard: Astonishingly, I find that social change is unnecessary; I can live freely in the community as-it-is. (Richard’s Journal, Article 20)
Hence, before you rush into action “to fix the situation”, wouldn’t it be sensible to determine what exactly it is from where the need/ the feeling arises “to fix the situation”? I am asking so specifically because the answer to this question will guide and crystalize your intent, and what specifically you have in mind/at heart when you say “to fully adopt a program of self-immolation”.
Cheers Vineeto