In a post on LP I wrote:
Prehumanity is split between pragmatists and dreamers. Humanity will be made up of pragmatic dreamers.
That always bothered me. It is time to explain further. It is much like my first books, while I was still wading through all of the paradigms on nonsense that we developed that brainwashed us into believing we were no better than animals. The best I could do, at the time, was note the insight or interconnection in shorthand (so to speak) and hope to get back to it, if it turned out be to be important. The insights were just coming way too fast and thick.
Now, finally, the words are coming thick and fast. And, I still don' trust them completely. It is so different from virtually everything of import written or spoken before, because it is attempting to convey the truth. It is not fiction. It is not even some vague wave in the direction of honesty or some minor reference to minor fact that is straightforward (like math, for instance. yes, 2+2=4). Not if I get it right. It is all about clarity.
Well, this one is of particular importance because it may really help show the way forward and the prehuman problem, as well.
I have always tended to side, in a very general and vague way, with the dreamers. No surprise, I hope. I would never say I sided with the liberals, though.
I have tried to pin this one down for a long, long, long time but it was always extremely difficult because of the divide between the two in which everyone is told to pick a side and no one even wants to consider that both sides are full of it.
My problem was that I found the actual implementation of the pragmatists to turn and burn my stomach. Some of what they sense makes sense. It's just that they have always taken such a brutal, animalistic approach to it all. If you disagree with something, stamp it out.
Don't get me wrong, as I began to see with clarity, the liberals began to drive me nuts, as well. "Anything goes" is just as insane as entrenching oneself in the past.
As long as we remain prehuman, both are required. It was the only way for an otherwise stupoured race to move forward. Tolerate new ideas until they get out of hand. Then, pull them back into line, even if you have to mow them down. Yeah, my stomach is turning as I write this out. I can't stand with either side but it was how we had to move forward. For example, my favorite dreamers were the Flower Power generation, as I've said so often. They said 'free love' and all the got was free sex and didn't improve things to any real extent. So, to speak figuratively, the prehuman dreamers paused and said, "wait, that's not right, either."
The real crux that the split personality of prehumanity never faces has little to do with the problems that the two sides really attempt to confront. The two sides are completely caught up in the minutiae of the superficial, superfluous surface issues that are the results of a mad sentient race not facing up to that which drives them mad.
It is just like the arguments about sex that the two sides attempt to weaponize to push the other side over the edge without ever even confronting the issue that counts. The lack of Loving Coitus.
In all cases, we are never confronting the fact that without Loving Coitus, it all falls apart. Organizations fall apart because they are not populated by Humans. Sex becomes a bone of contention because Loving Coitus is avoided.
The truth is (and I also mention this in the early books) both sides have a point. I may have stated it best in Millennium. I knew it all along but the pragmatists just drove me crazy. But, let me stress, both sides have a point. The pragmatic dreamer is required. The Human will be looking for solutions for the Human race and not just the prehuman's mad selfish concerns in the absence of a loving perspective.
That is getting close to the heart of the issue. The pragmatists are willing to be brutal when everything is going off the rails as, in some ways, it is now. The dreamers want everything to be love and roses and all we need to do is think nice thoughts. They ignore the costs and the thorn in our side completely (I'm not talking about cost in the form of money, though the way money is hoarded is part of the problem, as well as the toys we manufacture that we consider important and seldom are [maybe weapons are the best example). Woohoo! Anything goes!
I am a pragmatic dreamer. So, (I am not trying to toot my own horn here), I may be considered the first real Human. Or, the first Human that kept its sanity at the cost of a lifetime. I want it all. I want dreams that work. I am a pragmatic dreamer looking for clarity amidst the clamour and the din of the prehuman.
Some of the points that each side believes makes sense - for an animal without its wits about it. The best the animal can do is pick a side and let the whole of prehumanity deal with the fallout. No one admits that their side does not have all the answers. They just take a stand and watch the fallout. The conservatives, are always willing to be brutal to get their way. Always. The 'anything goes' crowd want to love all and la dee da. Humanity will be able to see the dream and the pragmatic way to get there because they are no longer lying to themselves and are seeking clarity, not just building on lie after lie with no end in sight. Another way to say it is that they will have an additional 90% of their brains available because they are not lying to themselves endlessly and spending a great deal of their time contending with the lies. Maybe that is the best explanation of what I tried to explain in End of Dystopia.
It will be composed of the efforts of the individual Humans. Not 'leaders'. I feel pretty certain that the idea of leaders will be viewed as a foolish attempt of prehumans to mimic what they don't understand before our Humanity is fulfilled.
I remember reading some prose by Ralph Waldo Emerson, whom I admire a whole lot, that made it clear he was a conservative. This shocked me no end. To paraphrase what he was saying, it was something like: Until someone finds a better way, conservatism is best. That's why I'm here.
Well, I may not be doing any better at explaining this than before, so I will try again.
The liberals say the dream is real. The conservatives say that there are pragmatic reasons for bullets in the blue sky. As far as I have ever been concerned, both sides are loose cannons.
Until we become Human, the split personality of the prehuman will persist. The practical are willing to be brutal on the race to 'save humanity' and the dreamers are willing to throw out all rules to 'save humanity'. Nuts.
Hmmm, can I explain this better? Both sides have a point.
Liberals essentially are urging us that we can be more. They just don't know what that means. They can sense what they do not understand (much like the Flower Power generation).
The conservatives are saying, while that may or may not be true, we still have to survive.
Both sides' arguments get blown out of proportion because the prehuman has not been able to admit what is really wrong. So, all of the arguments never get to the point that matters. It is avoided like the plague (though there are certain segments of the conservatives today just hoping for a plague).
We avoid the real point because men don't want to admit that, as a gender, so far, they have failed at love. The idea has become so fixed that men cannot love, that the two genders continue to battle it out without any mention of love or coitus, and little mention of genders, other that the battle of the sexes.
Once we get to the point of clarity, the arguments will evaporate. The two genders will no longer be in conflict. Pragmatic dreamers. A sentient race is tune with itself.
Mmmm, I like that. I know the vague distinction that I am making that the female gender represents the liberals and the male gender represents the conservatives, in a general sense, will be difficult to accept or comprehend. I'm just guessing that it will be easier to accept than the crucial aspect of Loving Coitus.