Walking Away From Olemas
There's a story by Ursula Leguin called "The Ones who walk away from Olemas":
http://www.miafarrow.org/omelas.html
The story outlines her thoughts based on this study by William James:
Or if the hypothesis were offered us of a world in which Messer's. Fourier's and Bellamy's and Morris's utopias should all be outdone, and millions kept permanently happy on the one simple condition that a certain lost soul on the far‑off edge of things should lead a life of lonely torture, what except a specifical and independent sort of emotion can it be which would make us immediately feel, even though an impulse arose within us to clutch at the happiness so offered, how hideous a thing would be its enjoyment when deliberately accepted as the fruit of such a bargain?
I've reread this story a couple of times lately. I read it first in high school.... and it really hit home with me. It described a Utopian society that somehow maintains it's perfection through the suffering of a neglected and abused child, who suffers on everyone's behalf. People are raised knowing about the child, and at some point they see the child, get moody for a couple days and get over this, finding the suffering worth the price of the their society. And a few walk away from Olemas knowing nothing about the world outside of it, but knowing exactly where they are going. The story could be interpreted on a dig on Christianity, or other sacrifice-based ideologies.
In light of my values when I first read the story, I wanted to rewrite the story so the child is engaged in this willingly, that she/he would be sort of a Dalai Lama of volutary suffering: chosen in some ritual in which this kid was isolated as a god, not just a kid. The super-human aspects of the child would somehow make this society ok, as the child-god would know what he/she was doing in agreeing to this arrangement. I worked on a story based on one of the people walking away from Olemas. (Which is crazy since the Olemas writing is already based on someone else's writing). The main character would be mentored by the mother of the child who's given up caring on the whole deal and thought about walking away herself. The main chatacter walks away from the society before learning about the truth of the child, and both the child and the girl leave the society in the end.
I don't think like something like that now, I was just trying to justify the moral implications of the story and essentially Christianize it. I like the ideas of voluntary simplicity and personal sacrifice, but the idea of one's torture or death leading to heavenly bliss does not seem like a fair deal... i don't find it very beautiful. Jesus may well have been deified by the later generations of his followers in much the same way that I wanted to write that story: to justify an inhumane trade at the heart of his teachings. Whether Jesus was God or just a special man was the heart of the major disagreement that brought the first religious leaders together to agree on a canon of religious texts. They voted, and majority won.
I miss the passion of having some kind of a faith, the certainty and the coincidences and the signs that don't seem to happen anymore. But there is no spiritual system that seems to fully embrace the ethics I've collected, and I'm not about to make one up or adopt one. I embraced one in the past because it introduced itself to me directly, but nowadays I'm not as sure how to interpret that introduction.
So here's what I do believe in:
Simplicity - walking gently and humbly regardless of how smart or badass one actually is (or not smart and not badass). Not being a huge comsumer of the world around me, demanding simple things out of life, and negatively affecting life around me as little as possible (that's part of the reason I don't eat meat anymore).
Service - Seeing people as people, nothing better or worse. Doing good and being genuinely (not superficially) nice to "enemies", and strangers as well as friends, and trying not to be a burden to other people.
Anonomous good deeds - good deeds are best unplanned and unadvertised. When people have nice things happen to them that has no name or strings attached, they are more apt to enjoy it without wondering if they owe anything in return, and are more likely to pay it forward since they can't pay it back. I also think that people should always do good for good's sake and have that be the motivating factor. Doing good works for credit, whether a belief that God rewards them or society will reward them... is not the right motivations.
Evolutionary, but not selfish thinking - The story of evolution has become more artistically and philosophically fulfilling to me than religious explanations, even apart from the whole truth aspects for it. There are parts where I think the stories are pretty much the same, and I like those parallels. I think society can benefit from an evolutionary mindset by allowing us to see ourselves as both one of many species, as a unique species with special obligations to not fuck up the world. Science can slowly shed light on what makes us human, but it never tells us what to do with itI don't like it when evolution is used as a justification to care about one's own reproductive fitness or personal life at the expense of other human needs or suffering.
Humanism - I think people are "improving" as a species in their own way, and I like thinking about that goal.
Pastafarianism - I have been touched by his noodly appendage.
What I don't believe in:
1. God as an Asshole - The God of most kinds of Christianity is a petty dick most of the time. If you read the old or even the new testament for what it is, even adjusting for the intended historical audience and modern interpretations... he just was. A lot of people bypass this by ignoring a lot of it, and believing in a good God anyways... but most of the time these people still believe God tortures people for eternity for becoming what the world made them or not saying the magical religious words or doing the right religious rituals. If there is a God, and I can only guess there is and never test... he's not an asshole.
2. Objective reality - I hate the "well its true for you" line, or mixing up the concepts of perception and reality. What I believe is not instantly true, and my perceptions influence how I live my life, but the world is a lot bigger than things which directly influence me. I find these statements selfish and ignorant at best, and dangerous at worst.
3. Rituals and Rules - just never got most of that stuff. I don't follow any rule unless the rule has logical, or deeply personal underpinnings.
4. Blind leaps of Faith - Nah. I'm ok with uncertainty and running theories as to the nature of the world around me. I won't make an absolute sweeping statement about their being one God with all these attributes any more than I would assume that there is nothing bigger than humanity. I don't know how conscious the universe is of itself or whether God is apart of that, but I don't like the thought of human needs and values topping out the moral and mental universal charts. We are just too damn retarded.
http://www.miafarrow.org/omelas.html
The story outlines her thoughts based on this study by William James:
Or if the hypothesis were offered us of a world in which Messer's. Fourier's and Bellamy's and Morris's utopias should all be outdone, and millions kept permanently happy on the one simple condition that a certain lost soul on the far‑off edge of things should lead a life of lonely torture, what except a specifical and independent sort of emotion can it be which would make us immediately feel, even though an impulse arose within us to clutch at the happiness so offered, how hideous a thing would be its enjoyment when deliberately accepted as the fruit of such a bargain?
I've reread this story a couple of times lately. I read it first in high school.... and it really hit home with me. It described a Utopian society that somehow maintains it's perfection through the suffering of a neglected and abused child, who suffers on everyone's behalf. People are raised knowing about the child, and at some point they see the child, get moody for a couple days and get over this, finding the suffering worth the price of the their society. And a few walk away from Olemas knowing nothing about the world outside of it, but knowing exactly where they are going. The story could be interpreted on a dig on Christianity, or other sacrifice-based ideologies.
In light of my values when I first read the story, I wanted to rewrite the story so the child is engaged in this willingly, that she/he would be sort of a Dalai Lama of volutary suffering: chosen in some ritual in which this kid was isolated as a god, not just a kid. The super-human aspects of the child would somehow make this society ok, as the child-god would know what he/she was doing in agreeing to this arrangement. I worked on a story based on one of the people walking away from Olemas. (Which is crazy since the Olemas writing is already based on someone else's writing). The main character would be mentored by the mother of the child who's given up caring on the whole deal and thought about walking away herself. The main chatacter walks away from the society before learning about the truth of the child, and both the child and the girl leave the society in the end.
I don't think like something like that now, I was just trying to justify the moral implications of the story and essentially Christianize it. I like the ideas of voluntary simplicity and personal sacrifice, but the idea of one's torture or death leading to heavenly bliss does not seem like a fair deal... i don't find it very beautiful. Jesus may well have been deified by the later generations of his followers in much the same way that I wanted to write that story: to justify an inhumane trade at the heart of his teachings. Whether Jesus was God or just a special man was the heart of the major disagreement that brought the first religious leaders together to agree on a canon of religious texts. They voted, and majority won.
I miss the passion of having some kind of a faith, the certainty and the coincidences and the signs that don't seem to happen anymore. But there is no spiritual system that seems to fully embrace the ethics I've collected, and I'm not about to make one up or adopt one. I embraced one in the past because it introduced itself to me directly, but nowadays I'm not as sure how to interpret that introduction.
So here's what I do believe in:
Simplicity - walking gently and humbly regardless of how smart or badass one actually is (or not smart and not badass). Not being a huge comsumer of the world around me, demanding simple things out of life, and negatively affecting life around me as little as possible (that's part of the reason I don't eat meat anymore).
Service - Seeing people as people, nothing better or worse. Doing good and being genuinely (not superficially) nice to "enemies", and strangers as well as friends, and trying not to be a burden to other people.
Anonomous good deeds - good deeds are best unplanned and unadvertised. When people have nice things happen to them that has no name or strings attached, they are more apt to enjoy it without wondering if they owe anything in return, and are more likely to pay it forward since they can't pay it back. I also think that people should always do good for good's sake and have that be the motivating factor. Doing good works for credit, whether a belief that God rewards them or society will reward them... is not the right motivations.
Evolutionary, but not selfish thinking - The story of evolution has become more artistically and philosophically fulfilling to me than religious explanations, even apart from the whole truth aspects for it. There are parts where I think the stories are pretty much the same, and I like those parallels. I think society can benefit from an evolutionary mindset by allowing us to see ourselves as both one of many species, as a unique species with special obligations to not fuck up the world. Science can slowly shed light on what makes us human, but it never tells us what to do with itI don't like it when evolution is used as a justification to care about one's own reproductive fitness or personal life at the expense of other human needs or suffering.
Humanism - I think people are "improving" as a species in their own way, and I like thinking about that goal.
Pastafarianism - I have been touched by his noodly appendage.
What I don't believe in:
1. God as an Asshole - The God of most kinds of Christianity is a petty dick most of the time. If you read the old or even the new testament for what it is, even adjusting for the intended historical audience and modern interpretations... he just was. A lot of people bypass this by ignoring a lot of it, and believing in a good God anyways... but most of the time these people still believe God tortures people for eternity for becoming what the world made them or not saying the magical religious words or doing the right religious rituals. If there is a God, and I can only guess there is and never test... he's not an asshole.
2. Objective reality - I hate the "well its true for you" line, or mixing up the concepts of perception and reality. What I believe is not instantly true, and my perceptions influence how I live my life, but the world is a lot bigger than things which directly influence me. I find these statements selfish and ignorant at best, and dangerous at worst.
3. Rituals and Rules - just never got most of that stuff. I don't follow any rule unless the rule has logical, or deeply personal underpinnings.
4. Blind leaps of Faith - Nah. I'm ok with uncertainty and running theories as to the nature of the world around me. I won't make an absolute sweeping statement about their being one God with all these attributes any more than I would assume that there is nothing bigger than humanity. I don't know how conscious the universe is of itself or whether God is apart of that, but I don't like the thought of human needs and values topping out the moral and mental universal charts. We are just too damn retarded.
Comments