I am officially a member of a political group titled the United States of America.
Just the title: Unites States makes me think…
And the United we stand…
All this unity is a unity of us vs. them. Not a complete unity of all there is.
For years I was waiting to feel welcomed in this country. I moved from a status of a tourist to a status of an extraordinary talent. That title did not keep me from being interrogated every time I passed passport control. Becoming a permanent resident was a huge deal, mostly in forgetting the past. Once I had the green card there was a sense of calmness that came with it, even security. At least I was not going to be thrown away. But now I am IN, I am officially an American; I can choose to say Nationality Israeli or American. Depending on where I am, and which of the two is more disliked. A Canadian passport would probably be more welcomed in some countries. Now when will I be able to walk around with my World Human passport; the passport that declares me as a human being, without any further group belonging, separation of me vs. others, A passport that contains only important info regarding the safety of the country I visit.
The Naturalization ceremony took place in a huge theater. There were hundreds of people listening to some encouraging words, allowing us to feel welcomed and connected to the club. I felt like joining the army. I am here to serve, to protect, and to give up my loyalty to any other nation. Patriotism always scared me. “It’s a good day to die for our country”, said one famous Israeli fighter. And I think it’s a great day to live. Period. Not for a country or for anyone, but just live. When time to die comes, it would be a fine day as well, but not for any country, dying for a country most likely means dying fighting against others.
Then came the moment where a name of country was announced and those from that nationality (or ex nationality) would stand up. So many countries, so many people, now I felt my stomach moving, this is the union, the connection of so many people together. “China” was called, and a huge group came to stand, small countries from Africa, Ethiopia was called, India, and again another huge group comes to stand, Israel, I stand up, I saw another young man stand, tears came to my eyes, not even sure why, but I started feeling the “united we stand”, of how I wish we were all doing this to become members of the universe, a place where all are welcomed to join as long as their intention to be good to themselves and others were sincere.
I now hold an American passport, and for the first time in my life wrote “American’ on the entry document to Mexico. Am I different, has my identity changed? Does it change who I am?
I am grateful to have freedom in this country and wish all humans to have freedom wherever they are, inner freedom as well as freedom related to their society.
11 comments:
Wow..I'm also waiting for my greencard interview in order that i can come over and make a home-base in the US. And what began as a nice 'addition' to 'options living', now seems to slowly start to feel like a contraction rather than an expansion of my possibilities. Its a funny thing with the US that so much of it swings between its yearning for, and constitutional intention of, freedom- and yet its lived experience of trying to figure out living its actual reality. 'Freedom at the expense of self or freedom at the expense of other', seems to be pendulum of internal discussion of the American. And ofcourse, despite much effort, in the end neither one is bringing any intrinsically valuable return. And, being 'born' from the intention of finding true freedom (Independence Day), the true question the American lives to tell ofcourse is in fact the greatest of all; the question of Faith. Yes, the world admire's the American spirit because of having taken on this Hercules' task in finding its internal foundation for the true experience of Being-Free. But half-awake and half-asleep to this deep motivation, it is in the both 'conscious' and 'unconscious' application to the task that the US citizen finds himself living in opposition to himself between a deep lived faith in his own power, counter-acted by his self-inflicted experience of suspicion. And suspicion is the American's struggle as he struggles with his own empowerment (in his lack of faith) and so, from a powerless position, tries to find a way to project a 'power-over', unconscious that it hereby but comes to be reflected in its own confinements.
And so, entering a culture which both proposes the possibility of great freedom, yet often acts as possibly the greatest bully, I see that we come to face the test of our personal faith and commitment to our own. Like we could say that the American's high-lived ambition yet has implicated itself to yet live its own great shadow, as implied in living high one has to overcome all its lows, so in becoming part of the story of the dance between faith and doubt the US lives, we are asked to live the story between faith and doubt deeply within ourselves. 'Stay Tuned' quails the US CNN to its international audience, as another sunset tells of another day of having lived in the world's greatest experiment of showing to the world how to live both most successfully and most unsuccessfully at the same time. Yes, all certainly is an interesting drama for the world to watch. But after all, living is what living is for and at least we can all agree that the citizen's of the US are a-live to live this great game. "Stay Tuned'! Yes, I believe that deep inside the Americans know that it is in the great courage and deep commitment to their experiment that they'll eventually be the first to achieve the seemingly in-achievable.
And I love to be part of that; <3
Wow! Your essay/article is amazing. I love it so much. We are not all the same Doron. And you, whether alien or citizen somewhere, will always be unique: you penetrate through the appearance and recognize a deeper core (something quite uncommon).
To respond more directly to your ideas I have but one thing to add. I have been thinking lately of this 'liberal' desire to belong, to be a part, to not be discriminated. This seems to be the essence of your essay to me. Usually this falls under the pretense of first belonging to some group. Yet, in this desire for one's group to be accepted, the individual is lost. What is ultimately dangerous about discriminating based on race, sex, nationality (in your case), or any of the other common ones, is that individuals are harmed. The race, sex, etc. part is merely conceptual. The only perceptual part is an individual experiencing this. I notice that around the world, it is now common for people to concern themselves more with the race, the nationality, the gender, the group, then the individual. They will die to stop people from saying racial epitaphs and to say harmful things about women, but wouldn't raise an eyebrow for the protection of each and every individual, whose character is necessarily as it is. It is commonly acceptable to say and be cruel to an individual based on his individuality more so than on the group. When will my individual, which I dare to say is really 'individual', be free from discrimination. I propose that we work on our accepting of individuals as much as we work on our accepting of different groups.
I'll leave you with a short excerpt from Schopenhauer I think you'll like:
To get through life, we shall find it expedient to have a great deal of foresight and forbearance; the former will protect us from injury and loss, and the latter from disputes and quarrels.
Whoever has to live with men and women should not absolutely condemn any individual, not even the worst, the most contemptible, or the most ridiculous, in so far as he is once produced and given by nature. On the contrary, such an individual has to be taken as something unalterable who, in consequence of an eternal and metaphysical principle, is bound to be as he is. In bad cases we should remember Goethe’s words: ‘there must be such queer birds, however.’ If we act otherwise, we commit an injustice and challenge the other man to a contest of life and death. For no one can alter his real individuality, that is, his moral character, intellectual powers, temperament, physiognomy, and so on. If we now condemn him absolutely, there is nothing for him but to treat us as a mortal enemy; for we are willing to grant him the right to exist only on condition that he becomes different from what he invariably is. To be able to live among men and women, we must, therefore, allow everyone to exist with his given individuality, whatever his may prove to be; and our only concern should be to use it in the way permitted by its nature and character. But we should not hope to change it or condemn it out of hand for what it i. This is the true meaning of the maxim ‘live and let live’; the task, however, is not so easy as it is reasonable, and fortunate is the man who is able to avoid for good and all very many individuals. To learn to put up with people, we should exercise our patience on inanimate objects that, by virtue of mechanical or other physical necessity, stubbornly resist our actions; every day there is occasion for this. Afterwards we learn to apply to people the patience gained in this way in that we accustom ourselves to think that, whenever they thwart us, they inevitably do so by virtue of a necessity which arises from their nature and is just as strict as is that with which inanimate objects operate. It is, therefore, as foolish to be indignant over their actions as to be angry with a stone that rolls on to our path. With many people our wisest thought is: ‘I shall not change them, and so I will make use of them.'
Best Wishes,
Brian
I'll leave you with a short excerpt from Schopenhauer I think you'll like:
To get through life, we shall find it expedient to have a great deal of foresight and forbearance; the former will protect us from injury and loss, and the latter from disputes and quarrels.
Whoever has to live with men and women should not absolutely condemn any individual, not even the worst, the most contemptible, or the most ridiculous, in so far as he is once produced and given by nature. On the contrary, such an individual has to be taken as something unalterable who, in consequence of an eternal and metaphysical principle, is bound to be as he is. In bad cases we should remember Goethe’s words: ‘there must be such queer birds, however.’ If we act otherwise, we commit an injustice and challenge the other man to a contest of life and death. For no one can alter his real individuality, that is, his moral character, intellectual powers, temperament, physiognomy, and so on. If we now condemn him absolutely, there is nothing for him but to treat us as a mortal enemy; for we are willing to grant him the right to exist only on condition that he becomes different from what he invariably is. To be able to live among men and women, we must, therefore, allow everyone to exist with his given individuality, whatever his may prove to be; and our only concern should be to use it in the way permitted by its nature and character. But we should not hope to change it or condemn it out of hand for what it i. This is the true meaning of the maxim ‘live and let live’; the task, however, is not so easy as it is reasonable, and fortunate is the man who is able to avoid for good and all very many individuals. To learn to put up with people, we should exercise our patience on inanimate objects that, by virtue of mechanical or other physical necessity, stubbornly resist our actions; every day there is occasion for this. Afterwards we learn to apply to people the patience gained in this way in that we accustom ourselves to think that, whenever they thwart us, they inevitably do so by virtue of a necessity which arises from their nature and is just as strict as is that with which inanimate objects operate. It is, therefore, as foolish to be indignant over their actions as to be angry with a stone that rolls on to our path. With many people our wisest thought is: ‘I shall not change them, and so I will make use of them.'
Best Wishes,
Brian
I'll leave you with a short excerpt from Schopenhauer I think you'll like:
To get through life, we shall find it expedient to have a great deal of foresight and forbearance; the former will protect us from injury and loss, and the latter from disputes and quarrels.
Whoever has to live with men and women should not absolutely condemn any individual, not even the worst, the most contemptible, or the most ridiculous, in so far as he is once produced and given by nature. On the contrary, such an individual has to be taken as something unalterable who, in consequence of an eternal and metaphysical principle, is bound to be as he is. In bad cases we should remember Goethe’s words: ‘there must be such queer birds, however.’ If we act otherwise, we commit an injustice and challenge the other man to a contest of life and death. For no one can alter his real individuality, that is, his moral character, intellectual powers, temperament, physiognomy, and so on. If we now condemn him absolutely, there is nothing for him but to treat us as a mortal enemy; for we are willing to grant him the right to exist only on condition that he becomes different from what he invariably is. To be able to live among men and women, we must, therefore, allow everyone to exist with his given individuality, whatever his may prove to be; and our only concern should be to use it in the way permitted by its nature and character. But we should not hope to change it or condemn it out of hand for what it i. This is the true meaning of the maxim ‘live and let live’; the task, however, is not so easy as it is reasonable, and fortunate is the man who is able to avoid for good and all very many individuals.
To learn to put up with people, we should exercise our patience on inanimate objects that, by virtue of mechanical or other physical necessity, stubbornly resist our actions; every day there is occasion for this. Afterwards we learn to apply to people the patience gained in this way in that we accustom ourselves to think that, whenever they thwart us, they inevitably do so by virtue of a necessity which arises from their nature and is just as strict as is that with which inanimate objects operate. It is, therefore, as foolish to be indignant over their actions as to be angry with a stone that rolls on to our path. With many people our wisest thought is: ‘I shall not change them, and so I will make use of them.'
Best Wishes,
Brian
Hi Brian,
Thanks for the reply, I want to post it up as a comment on the blog if its OK with you.
I sure do talk about no discrimination, but not necessarily about belonging. Belonging always creates separation, us.vs them. It would be fantastic if we did not need to feel that belonging. I founded world human, so that it will represent the belonging of all humans to the human species. One can argue that this group can separate us from nature or animals, but if at least one accepts this, and not having to fight within this group (gender, nation,race, land) then the next step would be to understand the oneness of it all. Most of the freedom that is taken away from humans is done by humans.
I do appreciate the patience part, the live and let live. I also know that people can change. There is a possibility to plant that seed within people and when they are ready, they will seek to grow, change or develop. It is requiered though that they would want the change the grouth, then one can reach out and help.
Not sure about 'I shall not change them, and so I will make use of them.' ? what do you think of this?
I imagine that Schopenhauer would agree that people can 'change' in the sense that you say they can. By 'planting a seed' I think you are referring to how knowledge and awareness can alter or be an affect on how someone acts. I think this is a part of at least how I interpret Schopenhauer;s 'making use of people'. Making use of people could encompass making someone aware of something, as I think you do very often in your line of work (for a lack of a better word). Ultimately, however, we are dealing at a fundamental level with something that is unalterable. Someone's character and disposition (I would say) are necessary. Someone may 'appear' and 'seem' different or act in different ways empirically, but that is because there are different stimuli as informations motivating something that is unalterable. We can never know someone's inner disposition and character, but we judge what it may be by inferring through their actions given to us empirically. What do you think about that?
Another little side note. I find it upsetting that in Germany one must be 'racially' German at birth do be a German citizen. For example, Sanne's sister's boyfriend Marcus who was born in Germany is Italian as a result of his father being born in Italy and holding an Italian passport. Marcus does not speak Italian, nevertheless he is at least at some level has a different status based on 'blood' or 'race'. What do you think?
It is true that as humans many of our judgments are through inferences, we project from our our minds onto others, influenced by what WE may see. It is hard to even say there is an empirical situation presented to us, because our minds will immediately alter it unless we have such clarity that we may be considered enlightened. It is like the Zen Koan, "If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is there to witness, did the tree fall?"
Osho would say, that even though he speaks the same words, if there are 100 listeners, there will be 100 interpretations.
Thanks Saffira,
I sure do hope you get your freedom to choose as soon a possible.
I can't wait for the day when we can all move freely through this planet, as if it were one nation.
Love, Doron
Post a Comment