Not everyone should

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Yes, I am often categorical in determining what a person should and should not do in his daily life practice, which is why very often I hear the phrase in my address: “Artyom, you must understand, NOT EVERYTHING should be like you”. Of course, this phrase is a variation of the false generalization of my words, because the people who pronounce it mean only one aspect of being with which they do not agree, and the phrase is composed in such a way as to deny other aspects. Let's deal with this circumstance in more detail: who owes what to whom and in what capacity? I warn you right away: despite the fact that I will talk more about myself here, the described problem applies to absolutely all those people who, by their example, try to teach others something. The article was written primarily for them - for those who are trying to show something, but who are not understood in everything. Secondly, for those who, in the phrase "not everyone should", are looking for an excuse for their total slovenliness. Third, for those who really "shouldn't." Go.

The root of the contradiction

Many, very many people like to justify their stupidity when trying to teach them something with the following phrase: "You do not criticize, do not condemn, but show by your own example how it should be, because a personal example is the best teacher." Well, I was scratching my turnips, scratching, trying to demonstrate the things that I taught. For example, I switched to the concept of "Zero Waste" and began to throw out no more than a kilogram of garbage per month (with the appearance of my second son, there was more, but the situation is gradually stabilizing). And what do you think? Did this example teach anything to those who demanded it from me? Do you think, having seen my example, they immediately repeated the result?

SHISH there! Now these people say: "Artyom, well, not everyone should do as you do!" Well, of course, not everything, only then it was not necessary to say that you needed an example from me. Just put it bluntly: “my consumer comfort is personally more important to me than caring for the nature in which I live. Show how you can continue to live as before, not to steam up the way you do it, but at the same time so that the garbage does not magically appear by itself. If you show me, I will listen to you, but if you do not show it, your efforts are worthless, you are clumsy. " Next, something like this is tied up, in which I start:

- Wait, don't fuss. Try to be quiet for a while and listen … do you hear?

- No, but what do you need to hear? - the interlocutor answers.

- Well, listen, maybe you hear something unusual, something that you haven't heard for a long time, if you've ever heard it at all … It's very, very quiet, but it's always around you.

- I don’t know, I’ve never heard anything like that.

- Well, try to strain, I understand that you have no experience of hearing such a voice, because it is quieter than the quietest rustle of leaves under a barely perceptible wind.

- What voices, I'm not sick! In my opinion, it is you who are sick.

- I'm talking about the voice of conscience, actually … and which of us is sick is a debatable question.

You devour a sandwich from the store and throw away the film in which it was wrapped, MORE IMPORTANT than the consequences that accompany this act. Putting tomatoes in a plastic bag is more important for your satiety than the fate of that bag in the long run. And it is "inconvenient" to carry a reusable bag to the market. I know that I am sick, but you yourself are sure of your mental health?

So, the root of the contradiction is double self-centrism … A person puts his values above the desire to know the General Purpose, as a result of which he falls into contradictions like the one I wrote. He demands the impossible so that, if it is impossible to demonstrate this, one could calmly say: “you see, this is impossible”, but if you nevertheless dodge and show this “impossible”, he will answer: “this is not possible for everyone, and not everyone should … . This is just one variant of the contradiction.

I will repeat it briefly: a person DOESN'T WANT to move in advance along the path of development, but instead of admitting it explicitly, he comes up with excuses as if he thinks that this will save him from feedback. At the same time, KNOWING that this will NOT save him. This is how the phrase “not everyone should” appears in his vocabulary. With this phrase, he replaces the previous phrase, which did not work, "you first show it with an example." Further, in the case when a person realizes that his excuses do not work, he includes the following common excuse: "I am just slowly changing, very slowly, step by step." I translate into Russian: "I am a proud bird, until you kick me with all the foolishness, I will not fly."

In other words, there are three main phases with which a person covers up his slovenliness.

1 First, show by example;

2 Not everyone should do as you do;

3 I agree with you, but I'm just changing very, very slowly.

The literal translation of these phrases into Russian was given above: "My consumer comfort is more important to me, so get away from me." Approximately this phrase is usually pronounced as fourth clause of excuses when the first three arguments have been completely smashed.

Of course, the Zero Waste example is just an illustration. Similar situations, exactly when a person reached the fourth point of excuses, I met on the following topics: running for health, giving up alcohol or smoking, daily regimen, moving from city to village or vice versa, conscientious preparation for the session, refusal to rent an apartment in rent, from the use of loans and deposits (take or give with interest), refusal of sex without the purpose of conception, developing the habit of studying the composition of food, cleaning after your dogs on the street, and other topics related to replacing degradation-parasitic needs and any other forms of slovenliness into something more expedient.

Manifestation in practice

The most common example for me of the manifestation of the described stupidity is as follows. Here we have a man who saw the efforts of others to improve the world, but he himself does not want to act in this way. There may be several reasons: laziness, sloppiness, unwillingness to give up harmful but pleasant things, malicious intent, contradictions with one's life mission, unpreparedness or unpreparedness for action, lack of knowledge or skills, lack of time and energy due to exhausting work, etc. Among the reasons can be both quite adequate and frankly delusional. According to my observations, there are several times more delusional ones. To be honest: I have not seen 100% adequate reasons, not what other people have, but even myself. But I still think that such can take place. Instead of them, there are conditionally adequate reasons, that is, those that are adequate in the prevailing conditions, but, in fact, they are the same delusional, it is just “here and now” that it is impossible to do the right thing because of the previously committed (not only our own) mistakes.

I have been working with people for quite a long time and I know very well that "to each his own." That is, "everyone has their own life." In other words, there are those who help the world in one way, and there are those who help others. Someone does not sort garbage, but makes a breakthrough in science, and someone smokes, but at the same time regularly cleans out garbage from parks and generally leads a whole environmental movement in their city, someone grabs a plastic disposable bag with every purchase in a store, but at the same time weaned thousands of people to drink and smoke. In other words, after my proposal to include this or that improvement in my life, a response phrase suggests itself: "not everyone should do the way you do."

AND RIGHT! Quite right, for me, for example, it is difficult to imagine a separate collection of garbage in Anadyr, where the cost of transporting it to the nearest processing plant will be many times higher than the cost of the products from which this garbage came out (a kilogram of apples for a thousand and a half is still cheaper than a bag from these apples to send back to their homeland). It’s even hard for me to imagine that somewhere in Moscow people had the opportunity to go to separate waste collection actions once a month, everyone there is so busy with incredibly important things that pushing in traffic jams with bags of paper, iron and plastic is somehow no longer in the topic will be, once it is simple. And those who live not far from the places where such actions are held are also not obliged to wash the sour cream jars and sort them, because “it’s not a king’s business to wash the garbage.” Maybe these people are the only ones on whom the state is now supported, they have no time to suffer from any garbage. You need to go to work, knock on the keys, put your signatures on pieces of paper, then return home. Of course, these people have a level of return for society many times higher than the level of consumption, and therefore they have already redeemed their guilt for minor shortcomings. Take a bank clerk: he gives out money at interest, helps people fulfill their dreams, for example, making families happy owners of "mortgages forever." The benefits of such a worker are so monstrous that he can litter and shit as much as his heart desires. Everything will be forgiven.

Okay, my banter is still inaccessible to some readers … Although I was not joking about Anadyr. Well, in general, think for yourself: indeed, if a person is already at the maximum of his abilities to benefit society, can he add something else to his activities? This is how the phrase “everyone is useful in his business”, or “I should not take on ALL useful things in this world”, or “not everyone should do as you do”.

But it's not that. The reader understands that there is a serious grain of truth in these phrases, and I agree with him. But the fact is that from the phrase "everyone is useful in his own business" any slob will certainly find an excuse of the following character: "I am not obliged to do this or that, because I am useful in another matter." At the same time, such a person can easily and quickly substantiate the benefits of this “other thing”. So he will justify that he himself will believe it. For example, “I work as a director at a tobacco factory, and only thanks to me I managed to achieve the quality and low cost of our products, it is we who provide modern leisure for a real successful person and only we managed to make such good filters for cigarettes that it became almost safe to smoke them”. Well, how can you argue? I'm sure the overwhelming majority of my readers have no higher level of justification for the importance of their work than in the example of the director of a tobacco factory. But who can admit this, even to himself?

Likewise, from the phrase: "Not everyone should do like you" any sloven will make a completely different phrase: "I am not obliged to look for at least some opportunity to live according to my conscience, I want to remain a consumer and a parasite." Do you understand?

I will repeat the meaning of this example again. You show the person a personal example of how you deal with a problem and try to make the world a better place. He SEES that he, too, is required to at least SEARCH for such options for life in which the level of creation will exceed the level of consumption. But for this you need to turn on your pot and scratch your turnips for a long time. A person cannot do either one or the other, because this is not included in his system of values and internal motivation. Then he clings to your personal example and says: "not everyone should be like you." That is, let's say: "not everyone should share the trash", "not everyone should give up beer on Saturdays." Thus, a person crosses out not only the issue of sorting garbage or rejecting alcoholism, but also ANY other options for constructive behavior. Do you understand now? Denying ONE SPECIAL CASE of correct behavior that you showed him, he automatically thinks that NOTHING AT ALL needs to be done. And with this seemingly correct phrase - "not everyone should be like you" - he justifies ALL of his shortcomings, be it at least fifty, at least a hundred - EVERYTHING TO ONE. Although in fact he is not obliged to do exactly as I do, he was obliged to think about eliminating other shortcomings. That is, I don’t care about separate garbage, you don’t have to sort it, but it would be quite possible to stop throwing cigarette butts on the neighbor's balcony. But the logic of sloppiness is as follows: "Artyom, not everyone should separate the garbage, so I WILL throw cigarette butts on my neighbor's balcony." Do you understand?

Moving on. I have already mentioned above that there may be conditionally adequate reasons why a person cannot get rid of this or that degradative or parasitic element in his daily life. For example, he cannot give up alcohol, smoking, littering landfills with condoms, eating tasty, harmful things; medicines, disposable medical items, postal parcels, water supply and plumbing items, building elements, etc. But, damn it, NOT chicken eggs in plastic wrapped with stretch film, NOT beer croutons in polypropylene, and even more so NOT bread in a plastic bag. So, back to the person who cannot refuse something wrong for a conditionally adequate reason. He can quite rightly say: “Not everyone should do as you do,” if I showed him how I personally refused it. Everything is correct here. But what's the problem then?

The problem is that a certain person, who was watching our conversation from the outside, seized on this saving thought that “not everyone should” and with its help immediately justified ALL his sins. You ask him: “Why didn't you tear off the scotch tape from the mail box, because you could hand over the box for recycling!”. In his eyes, it is clearly written: "This is not a king's business, to tear off the scotch tape from the box," he replies aloud: "You yourself say that not everyone should follow the separate collection of garbage."

FUCK! Well, since I said, yes, this, of course, must be immediately accepted and agreed.

What if I say that not everyone should smoke? Will you quit right there?

But seriously, yes, not everyone should, and I myself don't always do that either. However, here you need to clearly distinguish two points: is the reason for your refusal to take the correct action adequate to the current situation or not adequate? Does your motivation to do this lie in the degradation-parasitic sphere, or do you have a reasonable justification for your behavior?

This is where we come to the answer to the most important question.

And how to understand who owes whom, how much and in what capacity?

Here is an indignant consumer who, in front of me, bought eggs in plastic packaging after a series of extremely unfortunate excuses "but you said that not everyone should …" ", Finally asks the correct question:" How then to determine what I should do and what shouldn't really be?"

Well, when the right question is asked, you can start answering. Sit back …

Even more convenient. Better even to lie down…. Turn off all unnecessary sounds: TV, phone, music that you probably play in the background.

Do you hear?..

No, no, don't be in a hurry to answer. Listen a little more. Turn up the volume of this silence of yours …

Do you hear now?

Is there something ringing in your ears? No, you try to listen, there, somewhere on the border of your perception, a quiet trembling and at times disappearing voice screams something, straining, but it still reaches you barely touching the eardrum.

Do you hear now? Meet, this is your conscience.

If you are a believer, then you can consider that this is the voice of God, transmitted through the conscience. If you are not a believer, then you can (for now) consider this the voice of your mind, which, processing a huge amount of information through the subconscious, gives you some conclusions regarding a particular problematic situation for you, including answering the question of choice.

This voice will unmistakably prompt YOU PERSONALLY the answer to a simple question: "What should I do in this particular situation?"

Let's say you received information that it's not good to shit in nature with the waste of your consumer life, that there are SIMPLE ways to reduce these emissions by 90%, and if you work hard, even more. What can you do? You can say: “not everyone should be like you, Artyom,” but you can turn off extraneous sounds (very convenient before going to bed), lie down and listen.“Yeah, this information came to me … damn it, it's so inconvenient, now I know that it's not good to shit, I need to pretend that I didn’t know this, because the information might not have come to me … so, no, it’s wrong, I’m deceiving myself, after all, I know, which means I can no longer live as before … it means now I am faced with a choice: either my comfort is more important to me than people dying because of me in Africa, raking our household appliances taken there from civilized countries than dying in fish, birds, other animals than the inhabitants of the third world countries who live on our garbage, or it is more important for me to become closer to humanity in spite of my personal comfort, and even if others continue to shit further, and even if my drop in the sea does not solve anything, I it is important to remain a person myself, and then, when I get used to this new image, make every effort to help other people make the same effort on myself, and let one of them try to tell me that he should not be like me, then I will answer him: you should not, you are right, only you decide whether to listen to your conscience or drown it with a stream of inarticulate exculpatory nonsense, take part in a total pigsty or get out of it, only YOU decide whether you are a person or an animal creature, and only you decide how the world around you will treat you."

Later, if you continue to listen to your conscience, the stream of your thoughts will calm down and the demonic component (the last lines of the previous paragraph) will gradually change to a more constructive position: “I am so sorry that … I’ll stop doing this, and even though I cannot learn how to sort the garbage here now, I will still come up with a way to cover the harm I have done with something useful, atone for my mistakes and bring into this world many times more than I took from it, and then I’ll learn to communicating with others, convince them to also move on to creative activity, and if they say that not everyone should do this, then I will answer that yes, not everyone should do EXACTLY the way I do, but EVERYONE SHOULD also learn to listen to the voice of conscience and to live under her tough dictatorship, and already CONSCIENCE, not me, will tell you what to do and in what capacity …"

In other words, in order not to confuse the voice of conscience with some purely personal motives, you should be quite sincere in your aspirations. The voice of conscience cannot call for any destruction, it is full of love, forgiveness and understanding that people are imperfect and you, like everyone else, have the right to make mistakes and to correct them. In this sense, all people are equal; only the depth of Allowing, to which each person is allowed to descend, can be different when making mistakes.

Summary

Let us briefly repeat the content of the article, which may seem not clear enough behind numerous banter and seemingly "left" examples.

Sometimes people justify their degradation or deliberate sabotage by the position "not everyone should do the way you do." They see in my (or your) example a certain constructive position, they see that it does not suit them personally, and with the phrase "not everyone should …" deny NOT ONLY this (your) position, but ANY OTHER that they could choose for themselves yourself. They do not want to do anything AT ALL except to preserve personal comfort and continue to consume, which exceeds creation. Thus, the phrase “not everyone should do as you do” is used by them instead of what is more appropriate for them: “I don’t have to give more to this world than I receive, because receiving is more important to me personally, but I don’t care about the rest”.

Thus, a logical mistake occurs: my example of correct behavior does not suit a person, and he generalizes this example to all other possible options for correct behavior and believes that since my example does not suit him, then any other hypothetical options for bringing benefits will not work. At the same time, a person is unlikely to be able, it is true, to substantiate the correctness of his current way of life, although he will try and even believe himself.

The main reason for the mistake: I-centrism, expressed here in the form of a tendency to put one's own interests above General Purpose. The primitive (simplest) analogue of self-centered behavior in nature is a cancerous tumor in a living body. The primitive analogue of Expediency is all the other cells, each of which is in its place, including the one that was born to be able to die in the fight against foreign bodies and bring benefit with its corpse at the right time in the right place.

I always tell people that not everyone should do as I do, meaning that you cannot exactly copy my life strategy, but I rarely say the second part of the phrase. For this reason, people see in my words an opportunity to justify their position and protect their comfort. The second part of the phrase reads like this:

"… but you must follow the voice of conscience"

In other words, it makes absolutely no difference to me, and I will even support you in your choice if this choice is fully justified by your conscience, although at the same time I will make a lot of efforts to clarify possible errors in your interpretation of your conscience, if I see it in your justification insufficient argumentation in favor of the chosen position.

But if the food in a plastic bag was bought by you against your conscience due to the fact that personal comfort (in this case, animal pleasure) won over common sense, then …

… I will not blame you, because I myself am the same person. But just know that the feedback from your management decisions ALWAYS comes. Whether you like it or not, in one way or another you will have to work out EVERYTHING that was done contrary to conscience. The depth of feedbacks may turn out to be quite large, and you will not always be able to discern the causes of some troubles, blaming everything on chance or "black bars", but if there is a simple way to completely avoid these troubles altogether, then why then deliberately attract them?

Some people manage to prolong their stupidity when, through cunning manipulations, they shift their negative feedback to others, for example, to their friends, who in some cases cannot refuse help in raking up a heap of shit made by such people. Nevertheless, the reaction of the Universe to such a form of parasitism will still be fair, and the more you try to delay it, the more concentrated it will be on the rest of your life.

Remember how it is described in the work "The Brothers Karamazov"? When a criminal is taken to execution, it seems to him that the trip will still be long, there will be another street behind this street, and then only a turn to the square … there is still so much time!

But "later" sooner or later comes with one very unpleasant side effect for such people: ALL the pleasure received from their stupidity is erased, completely and without a trace. And there remains only the feeling that you have been unfairly and too harshly condemned. But the world is fair, although you can consider it my dogma if it makes it easier for you.