Watch That Turn By The Back Door
2006-06-15, 16:16

Tonight, on a Very Special episode of DeGrassi:

One of the lovable teens is in trouble, and is contemplating doing something terrible, maybe even ending his life. A dark blue, crow-like bird with hawkish eyes comes to his friends and tells them the situation in its peculiar bird language. Hoping to save the boy before it's too late, guest star Angelina Jolie follows the informing bird by attempting to become a bird herself; her effort fails, and she is reduced to flying by using two pillows under her arms, flapping awkwardly and bumping into the walls as they try to make their way outside the house.

The above is a stylized telling of the only snippet I can remember of a dream (I at first tyoped 'dram' here - seems more appropriate, considering the content) I was having before I woke up this morning. I woke to a hearty 'WTF?' at that one.

I've been having a tough couple of days - though it's getting a little better as this one wears on - grappling with the Big Questions: the nature of death and the concept of Not Being; if/when/how to prepare myself and my family for the seemingly impending Romesque demise of this country; my unhappiness with myself for not having anything remotely resembling a career, and why I even care; my continued lack of any meaningful creative outlet (no offense, journal) and what, if anything, I can do about it; how best to support my stepkids while they endure a summer half spent in a house of psychosis (not ours, if you're wondering - as am I, not that I think about it). There's more (there's always more), but that's all I can dredge up right now without thinking and worrying myself into another waking coma.

I've been having this train of thought today - bear with me (or not - I can't stop you from closing your browser or whatnot, after all) - about the nature of individuality vs. society. I've always thought (and I'm sure I'm far from the first - indeed, give this a perusal, if you're in a thinking way) that social structure resembled the concept of a multicellular organism, in that it is divided into functioning, inter-relying parts, and full of specialization. Obviously, a society is much more complex in design and function than your average multicellular creature, but many correlations can be made between the two. (If you don't think a social structure can emulate biological function, get yourself an ant farm.)Each society, each nation-state, is a functioning being, surviving on its surroundings and in competition in one form or another with surrounding beings.

In this comparison, on can presume that some cells in the organism are more important to the functioning of the whole than others; loss of a 'brain' area - say, a branch or division of a government - would be more of an overall loss than perhaps a single muscle structure or even a whole of an appendage. But, as these cells are sentient thinkers, the conscious results of a loss of one kind or another may differ greatly in a society than in a multicellular being. Many aspects of society can me correlated in even the individual human: muscles=workforce; brain=government/library/education; red and white blood cells, hemoglobin, etc.=police/fire/rescue/medical; water=blood; money=nutrients/energy; sewer=lymph system; I could go for more, but I don't want to spend all day on this. This is a journal entry, after all, not a doctoral thesis.

Anyway, each type of cell, as above, has its role to play in the great organism of society. But what of the artist, the poet, the entertainer, the philosopher, or even those, like me, who stand up once and a while and try to make sense of the whole organism, into a part of which they were born? One could place the artists and philosophers into the roles of id and superego, if the mind were as well emulated in society. But the standers by, the stop-and-watchers - where do they belong? Are they a metaphorical cyst or cancer, to be cut away when they grow to noticeable proportions? Or are they free radicals, offering the potential to actuate a genetic change that will help the whole in some way adapt to a changing future? Perhaps they have in them a little of both.

The thing is, when an individual is of free thought, how unjust their attachment to the whole must seem, a cog in a great machine over which they have no say or no real control, and on which they were raised to rely heavily for survival. It seems that the concept of freethinking individual and the concept of society are virtually incompatible; if the world were full of freethinkers, nothing would ever get done. But then, if there were none, there would be no real opportunity for fundamental, radical evolutionary change. How does one balance that out? Is it even possible? Is it merely a choice of sedentary existence as a faceless part of the whole, or radical detachment in the name of change (they're called 'radicals' for a reason, I suppose)?

I certainly have no answer to that. I doubt anyone does. Thus, it is one of the Big Questions. Oh, to have just one of them answered, that would be really nice. Dear Universe; Please deliver unto me an answer to one of the Big Questions, maybe for my birthday? Thanks. Very sincerely, James.

-- End Transmission --