[11604] in APO-L
Re: New Topic!
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joseph M. Fisher)
Tue Feb 28 21:26:57 1995
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 21:24:55 -0400
Reply-To: "Joseph M. Fisher" <jfisher@liberty.uc.wlu.edu>
From: "Joseph M. Fisher" <jfisher@liberty.uc.wlu.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L%PURCCVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
(To summarize the original post, Sean recounted a theory under which
society may be broken down into "members," "volunteers," "conscientious
citizens," and "active citizens.")
1. Yes, this looks pretty valid. However, I wonder about the category of
"active citizen." (see musings below)
2. I think that I would be called a "conscientious citizen." In my
opinion, I have a pretty good idea of the root causes of social
problems.
3. My chapter in general is composed of volunteers, though there are some
conscientious citizens.
4. Same thing with APO.
5. IMHO, the fraternity as a whole doesn't really challenge us to move
any further than "volunteer." Volunteerism treats the effects, not the
causes. There's nothing wrong with that...nearly all health care does
the same thing...but it's important to realize that our projects,
though they are of course helpful, don't really solve the problem.
Donating money or even building a house don't really get at the causes
of poverty and homelessness.
6. I'm not sure that APO really can do much to move us toward
conscientious citizenship. We have to choose on our own to think about
what the ultimate causes of social problems are. As an organization, APO
can't make us think-- just encourage us.
I do have a question about all of this. Exactly what does it take to be
an "active citizen?" Maybe I am being too reductionist, but it seems
to me that almost any service we do now, or can do, is of the band-aid
variety. Granted, the US government is inept, but it's the most powerful
organization in the world. If anybody can solve a problem, it should be
able to. And no matter how many billion dollars Congress pours into
social problems, nothing happens! Neither money nor power are going to
help at all.
So I can't see how one can be an active citizen, "taking concrete steps
toward a long-term solution," short of being Jesus, Mohammed, Siddhartha
Gautama (Buddha), or a slightly less incredible person such as Gandhi.
Even Mother Teresa is only fighting the effects of poverty...the
community is evidently a priority for her, but as to actually solving
the problem, no amount of charity is going to do it.
The difficulty is that social ills are ingrained in the society.
Avarice (which leads to poverty), xenophobia, and so on are essentially
cultural flaws, psychological characteristics of the society.
Individuals may reject these flaws on their own. But the only way to
eradicate them completely from the society is to initiate some kind of
massive upheaval. More specifically, "spiritual" upheaval. Note that
three of the four "active citizens" that I listed started new religions
(and the fourth essentially transformed Hinduism). "Spiritual" doesn't
necessarily connote religion...although it usually does. Maybe a
revolution of VALUES is a more universal term.
The science-fiction author and all-around brilliant man, Issac Asimov,
played around with the idea of what it would take to change a society.
Asimov felt that people have precious little chance of disturbing the
social inertia on their own. But in his _Foundation_ series and the
related Robot novels, he developed the idea of Robots, who *were* able to
have an effect (partly because they didn't die), and who lived by a code
that is vastly different in spirit from our laws:
0. A robot shall not do anything to jeopardize humanity.
1. A robot shall not do anything to jeopardize a human, except where in
conflict with law 0.
2. (Intermediate law which I forget. Same form as above, less inclusive.)
3. A robot shall not do anything to jeopardize itself, except where in
conflict with laws 0, 1, and 2.
* Sci-fi fans may note that Frank Herbert did much the same thing with
Paul Atreides in _Dune_. Actually the analogy may be better, but I am
not as familiar with Herbert.
IMHO, this is interesting, to say the least...my point is, the values of
human society as a whole are in major need of a dramatic overhaul. APO has
Frank Horton's standard of manhood to present to the world, but I don't
think that just providing an example is enough. People aren't going to
take on what they perceive to be a burden, unless they believe that it
benefits them. So in order to bring such a change of values, we need
somehow to *sell* it to the world.
@-}- @-}- @-}- @-}- @-}- @-}- @-}- @-}- @-}- @-}- @-}- @-}- @-}- @-}- @-}-
Cyrano de Bergerac jfisher@liberty.uc.wlu.edu
Hopeful Writer and Hopeless Romantic Washington and Lee University
-{-@ -{-@ -{-@ -{-@ -{-@ -{-@ -{-@ -{-@ -{-@ -{-@ -{-@ -{-@ -{-@ -{-@ -{-@
Some say the world will end in fire, / Some in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire / I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice, / I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice / Is also great
And would suffice. -- ROBERT FROST
