I had a dream the other day. A homeless man on the street asked me for spare change. I told him I had nothing.
He scoffed, which panged me with guilt, and said. ‘Really? You have NOTHING?’
In my napsack I have a beige drawstring bag (not a dream) the size of my palm that’s full of quarters. I try to keep this on me whenever I’m travelling through the city, either in a pocket of my coat in the winter, or in my back-pocket in warmer weather. It’s not for parking meters, or gumballs – it’s money for the homeless. If I see someone asking for spare change, I give them a few quarters. For two reasons
Firstly, because I find it easier just to give a monetary gesture instead of pretending someone doesn’t exist.
Secondly, I give as expression of thanks towards my own life condition. Internal voices lampooning and mocking my efforts – that I’m being taken advantage of, that this paultry sum will make no lasting change. All this ‘evidence’, evaporates when I remember I’ve never had to beg. For anything. I have never been homeless.
This is tied with Logic. And Sacrifice.
It would be crass of me to suggest that a couple of quarters would count as a sacrifice –it wouldn’t, but I believe in sacrifice anyway. Not gift exchange, but genuinely going without and asking for nothing in return. Now here is where things get sticky, because there is no logical reason to care for one another after a certain sphere of influence. I.E., you are only taking care of others to the extent that you are getting taken care of – race, culture, city state, your religion, upholding the systems of civilization that allow for paved roads and anesthetics. This is altruism-though-logic. The sly, game-theory based mutual preservation modality put fourth by Dawkins. Not sacrifice. But then, according to this empirically backed, binder-of-peer-reviewed-essays-you-can-hold-in-your-hand worldview, sacrifice doesn’t exist.
It doesn’t, just not in the world of mind. Within the domain of hierarchical, sequential, scientific, and separate – it is empiricaly true that one does not actually ‘sacrifice’ anything, that we are fooling ourselves.
Sacrifice is not logical, does not exist according to logic. The Heart is not like the mind (I can hear you, reasoning through the logic-mind: ‘what does he mean by Heart?…certainly not the organic heart…bundle of neurons in the brain…neurotransmitters…machinery…’) the Heart will always bend to the mind because thought, communciation such as it is – these in-sequence symbols you are reading one at a time, is within the valence of the mind. We are already playing the language game, and sacrifice cannot exist there – half of life has no name.
The heart to the mind is folly.
The mind to the heart is death.
If sacrifice is talked about, it’s fame. If sacrifice is followed by expecation it’s exchange. If you sacrifice to feel good it’s drugs. If you sacrifice to escape hellfire, it’s comission. To S A C R I F I C E destroys mind. Logic mind. Because it’s useless. Necessary.
“The greatest labor is labor without purpose. The greatest love is love without object.” In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna said that one is entitled only to ones labor, not to the fruit of it. Is this bleak? I don’t think so.
To the mind, love is a chemical. Everything is repeatable. And you are not a part of your world. It has its place, but that place is servant, not master.
“Logic makes a terrific servant but a terrible master.” – Einstein.