Reflections From a Murky Pond

Childhood ends, and with it normally ends many of our flights of fancy, our whimsy, and wonder at the world. So too end the lives we created for our imaginary playmates, if we had any. For the most part we grow up, put “childish things” behind us, and start the long – often dreary and tedious – process of making some accommodation with the world at large.

Indeed, if Calvin & Hobbes were to mimic reality, it was foredoomed that someday Calvin would outgrow his tigerish playmate and Hobbes would cease to exist except as occasionally dredged up memory of Calvin’s lost childhood.

The Last Calvin & Hobbes Cartoon?

There is a certain sadness that this happens at all. There is a far greater sadness in how young many children are these days when it happens.

That it happens, however, all too often because parents and teachers find the often unfocused energies and fantasies of their children to be too difficult or too inconvenient to deal with causes me far more anger than sadness – both at the proximate perpetrators and at our society, which makes their actions seemingly logical and for the children’s benefit.

~*~

NOTE: The above cartoon wasn’t actually the last Calvin & Hobbes cartoon. Bill Watterson ended the series on December 31, 1995, on a much more hopeful and upbeat note. It ended with Calvin and Hobbes hopping on a sled and going exploring.

There’s an odd but profound truth in this picture and its message. There’s nothing quite like placing the burden of decision into the hands of some outside agency to make one realize what it is that they truly desire the outcome to be.

You Suddenly Know What You Are Hoping For

Think about it. Try it out for yourself if you haven’t already done so. I’m willing to bet that you’ll find the same truth in this that I have.

It is oft-times said that the eyes are window to the soul. It seems to me that, especially in the case of the eyes of animals, that the eyes are the mirror of the onlooker’s soul.

The falcon’s eye – bright, golden and fierce – shows the falcon’s power and that the falcon lives to fly, stoop, to strike and kill. It possesses a clarity of thought uncluttered by distractions.

Man looks into the  falcon’s eye and feels a deep and abiding  respect.

~*~

The raven’s eye – dark, brooding and cunning – shows the raven’s wisdom and that the raven lives by its tenacity and cunning, knowing that all that flies, walks or swims, is naught but food.

Man looks into the raven’s eye and feels the cold grip of fear.

~*~

Man respects the falcons ferocity and his simplicity of purpose. Man fears the cunning and the complex wisdom of the raven.

This, I suppose, makes sense; it is Man’s nature to respect power if he can predict how it will be used, but to fear wisdom and cunning whose aims and means he cannot fathom.

How many times have each of heard some variation of, “that’s offensive” or “racist” or “sexist” or “misogynous” or “classist” or…? But is whatever any of us have said or written actually and objectively offensive? Can there even be an objective standard for offensiveness or any other of the mode of expression – and thought – that are deemed to be antisocial?

Who gets to decide what is offensive? The speaker or writer? The listener or reader? Society in general?

I find this to be more than slight bit of a quandary. Determining who gets to decide what is offensive expression strikes me a very perplexing and fundamental problem in any form of communication or societal interaction. It affects almost everything since whoever gets the power to decide what is or isn’t offensive in some way gets the power to shutdown arguments and whole schools of thought.

This isn’t – or shouldn’t be – deep or profound thought. It’s really quite prosaic if you think about it. It just doesn’t seem to be something that people ask themselves or each other.

If the speaker or writer is to be the final arbiter of what is offensive then we have setup a situation where one can say or write anything that they wish to and then deny the validity of anyone’s claims that it is offensive in some manner. That would seem to lead to an abusive environment. In point of fact, it has led to such abusive climates in the past as exemplified by previous decade’s failure to deal with legitimate claims of harassment of various special interest groups.

If the listener or reader is to be the final arbiter of what is offensive then we have setup a situation in which one can claim that anything that one disagrees with is offensive in some manner. That would seem to lead to an equally abusive environment and one that is tyrannical in nature. In point of fact, America is currently in that situation as exemplified by the incessant claims of racism levied against any dissent to President Obama and/or the agenda he has for America.

If society as a whole is to be the final arbiter of what is offensive then we have setup a situation in which whatever are currently the dominant groups within that society will determine what is or isn’t offensive and enforce those opinions with legislation. This invariably leads to government tyranny – the Nanny State – since the goal becomes to placate the vocal protesters, even at the expense of personal liberties. This can be seen in the forms of what sexual harassment laws have devolved into, and the Hate Speech and Hate Crimes laws.

It’s quite the debacle insofar as I am able see, and not one that I can formulate a workable solution for. Anyone else have any ideas or thought?

An open hand has long been a sign of peace and coming to someone with an open hand, whether literally or figuratively, has been a friendly gesture or attitude for equally as long.

Yet how little does this gesture mean to the person showing it or perceiving it when one has trained one’s self to the point where the open hand – indeed the person’s whole form – is a weapon itself?

Once one is trained to that level of ability and perception and awareness doesn’t one both always present the threat and analyze the level of threat presented by others?

I think this goes far beyond the clean and simple world of physical violence as well.