‘Behold a new Christ, behold the same old horde, Gather at the altering, New beginning, new word, And the word was death, and the word was without light, the new beatitude, good luck your on your own.’
‘Blessed are the fornicates, may we bend down to be their whores, Blessed are the rich, may we labor, deliver them more, Blessed are the envious, Bless the slothful, the wrathful, the vain, Blessed are the gluttonous, may they feast us to famine and war’ -Maynard
I’ve known three people to die from overdosing on opiates in less than a year. One of them I knew very well. The second fairly well, and the third I had not seen in years. Their decisions, unfortunately, took them places I could not follow, and their paces on this earth seemed to have already been numbered. I did try. But, as I have been taught, and as has been instilled in me by this society; I walked away when their life decisions started to possibly affect my life.
I’m sorry, I know that’s not what you want to hear. I know it’s ‘negative’.
I’m going to talk about the word negative. I’m going to write about, and attempt to express what I feel about the way we toss around that word; because it has become hauntingly obvious to me that we err greatly with this regurgitated usage.
First, I will generalize a tad. We all find ourselves in situations similar to the following: friends or family are together and a topic deemed ‘negative’ is broached. Immediately two-thirds of those present will shut down their brains to the discussion. The remaining third will enter into debate; likely intense. Because almost all the heavy topics/problems/opportunities will produce diverse, yet heated opinions, while throwing the majority of those concerned (the two-thirds) into unshakable cognitive dissonance. Those afflicted with c.g., along with those who are deemed to be on the ‘losing side’ of the ensuing debate, will undoubtedly accuse those who ‘go on and on’ as being ‘negative’. It’s an over-used and frankly at this point; insulting statement. But it is regrettably very effective.
The greatest of our problems/opportunities are not solved because it’s easier to see them as opportunities, and more profitable.
And that’s where such regurgitations flourish.
Here is the problem with this logic. If a person tries to hold a discussion of a subject deemed as taboo or negative, and they are subsequently charged as being negative, I propose wholeheartedly; it is the person who is accusing the other of negativity who is ultimately being ‘negative’.
Let’s say person A, wants to discuss privatization of prisons in the U.S., because they do not think a prison should have the same incentive to fill their beds as the holiday Inn down the street. They want to discuss this with person B because they would like to first, bring awareness to the subject, and then second, to hopefully find a like-minded ally. It’s human nature to strive as close to Eden, or whatever you want to call it, as possible. Person B then accuses person A as being ‘negative’. It’s the easiest way to end the discussion, and it makes person B feel better. However, it makes the person who took a risk and outed themselves as caring about something bigger than himself, feel guilty of some crime they have unknowingly committed. It’s entirely psychological warfare. Person B, took no risk, stood for nothing, lost an ‘opportunity’ to learn about something, and possibly build energy to right it, and indeed acted knowingly to curb the enthusiasm person A had to right something he saw as morally corrupt. Person A obviously cared about something passionately, and we are taught to care, aren’t we?
And this ‘negative’ statement is thrown at people who care about complete strangers and their plights in conversations and debates every day, and involving every topic, problem or opportunity you can possibly imagine.
I hope this might open one mind. I hope this might save one life. And I hope we can evolve past taking the easiest of paths, because our comfort is killing us in every conceivable way.