What's Your Tropical Disease?

I am continually amazed by how so little, can go such a long way. Most recently, through a tale shared of an American doctorate student in Zambia. Having contracted a disease, the student found that the local medical facilities were not prepared to deal with such an illness. He was surprised to learn that the standard procedure was simply to try and make those who had been infected as comfortable as possible while they died. The student wrote home, urgently requesting that his sister mail him the best textbook she could find covering "tropical diseases." The book not only saved his life, but revolutionized that particular Zambian facility where it is often referenced, helping to save the lives of many who might otherwise be dead.

There are so many directions I could go in talking about this, that I am at a loss where to even begin. Part of me wants to focus on the raw and copious privilege experienced by the American student, but then I remind myself that former Zambian President Kenneth Kaunda (this happened while Kaunda was in office) also experienced privilege, and certainly had access to medical textbooks, and even more so than the student, had the wealth and power necessary to procure them. So why didn't he? I believe that these two types of privilege intersect.

Why did the student seek to supply the hospital with the text? Was it because he wanted to do so out of some sort of altruistic kindness? Or was it because he had fallen victim, and feared for his life? Comparatively, although great privilege can also be attributed to Kenneth Kaunda, he was no more interested in his own countries' state of medical readiness than a random foreigner. Yet, had it been Kaunda that fell prey to the disease, would he not have acted similarly, in order to preserve his own life?

As I ponder this, my thoughts wander to Durkheim. You all are probably familiar with his theory that society is like a living organism. That each individual within the community is a cell, contributing to the functionality of the greater whole. On the one hand, Durkheim used this to explain the necessity of having a division of labor. While on the other, he made a compelling argument that because we are all connected, metaphorically, groups are a lot like organs. If one is damaged or hurting, then this would eventually have a cascading effect throughout the rest of the body, or rather, society.

Still, we harbor these strange notions that we are disconnected from the rest of the world. We speak of walls and borders as if these were capable of further ensuring a disablement of that connection, when in reality we are all inseparably linked. It is because of this that I am at a loss to understand why ignorance seems to be a prevailing condition of privilege. Because if privilege is truly self-interested, then doesn't it stand to reason that somewhere, somehow, the logic of self preservation would kick in? Resulting in the powers that be taking a greater interest in the well-being of the whole?

And yet we wait, until a situation is so far gone, all we can do is react. Like children, plugging dams with nothing but their thumbs, and a quick 'phew' as brows are wiped, *one more crisis averted*. I realize there are many who would love to associate privilege and power with conspiracy theory, but as time passes, the fat that floats to the top appears to be more or less unchecked stupidity. Played like this, it's a defeatist's game, and there can be no winners.

Synchronicity Is In Fine Form This Day

Isn't it curious how one thing seems bound to lead into the next, and so on? Almost enough for me to believe that chaos is orderly. Again, perhaps it is only me, willing these paths to reveal themselves, choosing to set foot onto them from the beginning. At any rate, seemingly all that I do contains connections; overlaps. But how can this be? I am not consciously seeking to discover these linkages. When they reveal themselves I sit back, dumbfounded at the beauty and intricacy with which the unraveled had been originally woven. So too have I come to believe that there is no autonomy. No originality. We build on what has been. Adeptly molding it to suit our will, yet utterly borrowed to the last. And if not, then the process of inception is categorically simultaneous with some other, equal, who too is traveling the path. And so, I continue to ponder the question of how it could be that such isolation, such alienation can exist amongst us, when truly we are one.

A Bus With No Stops

There are times when I fail to see the value of isolationism. Or maybe more so that I lose sight of my socialization, in favor of what "feels" right, versus what strikes me as wrong. Every smile that goes unreturned, each gaze that is not held. I stand and wait for the bus; when I speak all ignore me. I board the bus, where all are silent, keeping to themselves, looking downward or out the windows. We exit the bus and all walk quietly alone towards our classes. Waiting for the class to begin, more of the same: silence. Often, I feel a sort of isolation, even among large groups of people. They are scared. Afraid to be themselves, to show any qualities that might prove to be different, extraordinary, unique. We socially condemn those who we consider "outsiders," yet we offer scant welcome by way of encouraging them to be otherwise. The perpetuation of selfishness as a philosophical tenant confuses me.

I have often said: 'In this life; it is important to make yourself happy, without hurting others.' This has been a mantra of mine since long before I even knew such a thing as Objectivism existed. And now I learn that certain scholars have come to empirically link laissez-faire capitalism, and free market economy, to objectivist theory!? If you are not familiar with these concepts, just think conservative. Laissez-faire which in French means "let happen," is centered around the belief that:

"The state has no responsibility to engage in intervention to maintain a desired wealth distribution or to create a welfare state to protect people from poverty, instead relying on charity and the market system. Laissez-faire also embodies the notion that a government should not be in the business of granting privileges." ~ (lifted from Wikipedia)

And yet, this ideology has been associated with Libertarianism as well. Such that, when one really takes the time to investigate these theories, one truth emerges: there are no sides, no teams, and any sense you might have of there being a bi-partisan system of government within the United States is purely delusional. A song and dance, a dog and pony show, no more no less. They identify themselves as being members of different teams, but both sides are playing the same game! Capitalism.

The real victim in all of this is Objectivism. It has been so twisted and distorted that one is hard pressed to understand the original meaning. This neo-objectivism would be enough to have the great John Locke turning in his grave if he were to witness what has become of his ideas. Not to mention Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who I am quite certain did not intend for Western society to erode to such a morally desolate wasteland when he created his social contract theory.

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they." Rousseau claimed that the state of nature was a primitive condition without law or morality, which human beings left for the benefits and necessity of cooperation. As society developed, division of labour and private property required the human race to adopt institutions of law. In the degenerate phase of society, man is prone to be in frequent competition with his fellow men while at the same time becoming increasingly dependent on them. This double pressure threatens both his survival and his freedom. ~ (again borrowed from Wiki)

Ok, so here we are. We have laws. Or do we? Seems to me justice serves only the almighty dollar. If you have enough juice, you exist in a state that is above the law.

Recall that when Socrates was sentenced to death for "inciting the youth," he had enough clout that the Athenian magistrates gave him one last chance. They wanted to strike a deal. If only Socrates were to leave Athens and never return, he would be allowed to live. But Socrates did not leave. He refused to do so on the basis of an awareness that were he allowed to leave, after having been condemned to death; this would send the message to the Athenian peoples that the law was not binding, and was not to be respected. In essence, that justice was an illusion.

I don't even know where I am going with any of this at this point. Just what's been on my mind today. As always, your thoughts are appreciated.