OMSISCIENT 'WE': DAY 189

  When we learn better, we will know better. Then, knowing better, we can do better. But what will we do in the meantime? That is what I would allude to as the omniscient “We”. “We” may be neither all knowing nor all seeing but it presumes an all-inclusive, universal consensus as to who we are and who we are not. I hate it when people use “We” indiscriminately. Just who is included in this “We”? There was a time when I stopped using the word, “we” altogether. I might have said, “Those of us . . .” followed by a qualifier: “who believe in love at first sight. . .” Without naming names or limiting the scope of possibility, I have singled out a subgroup of humans (not the omniscient we) by something shared in particular. If my little hangup seems benign or trivial then so be it, but I hate it (strong word) when conversation/discussion gets lost in a maze of vague generalities. It is quite possible, even unavoidable at times to think there is consensus when in fact there is no way to know. We, you and I, we can agree that, “doing the right thing.” is a good thing. But the “Right Thing” here depends on a predetermined, moral construct. Like software on the computer, morals are downloaded over time and subject to necessary updates. That part of computer function goes on without the operator’s permission. Humans do not get to chose what makes right or wrong either. At some point the subconscious informs the conscious, what is right and what is wrong. Still, the conscious human would rather choose than be informed so it dances with its new partner until a feeling of compatibility is achieved.
I don’t like the omniscient “We”. I associate with a group of people who like to dig in philosophical holes, discuss and debate every alternative. When the going heats up and you have trouble getting a word in, it is easy to shortcut the process with vague generalities. I’ve never been in a hurry to conclude a discussion. It is after all about the journey; at least for me. So when I start hearing the omniscient “We”, rather than interrupt their focus with my distraction I disengage, cat nap, get a new cup of coffee. “What can ‘we’ do? Why don’t ‘we’? ‘We’ have never. . .” on and on. If it is about the ancient Greeks I can frame that in my mind, the Japanese in WW2, I can frame that as well. Sometimes I just need to let it go, understand that my perspective isn’t necessary. Call it smoke on the water. It is a little more civil than pee in the wind. I can speak for me and that’s about as far as my ego needs be fed.