I Dream Awake

So, taking the tragic view, the question was not “Is everything perfect?” but “How could it be better, at what cost, and according to whose definition?” Put into which form, things appeared to me to be unfolding pretty well.

village voice > news > David Mamet: Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal’ by David Mamet

via Karol @ Alarming News

Doesn’t seem tragic to me. As I see it, human nature is not a given to be good or bad. It is more uncertain and adaptable than anything else. There are core good and bad choices in any given situation, for both individuals and groups of any size. But then there is a great diversity of more specific to circumstance strategies for good or bad results relative to ever-shifting interests. How better, at what cost, and according to whom… that is the only selecting principle that I think is consistently good in that dynamic evolutionary scrum, beyond a very simple core ethics.

What ethic is this? Do not do anything to undo, corrode, or otherwise degrade or destroy the ability to do in the first place. Do not make void your own basic strengths through your actions towards others. Do not do unto… and do not salt the earth — unless, of course, you damn well mean to take the onslaught of consequences that come. If this core ethic and this optimal strategy for maximizing better outcomes are all you have, they are also all you need. They are all I need anyway.

All the rest is commentary… All the rest is detail… And so then, as detail, is the product… Q.E.D.

Now I go back to study.

Tags: Contemplation, Human Nature, Ethics, Violence, Self Interest, Politics, Theatre