Division in a Small Town
“Is forcing people to give you money a morally permissible action?”
The question was relayed through a microphone at the head of the auditorium in a concise, unaffected tone and repeated twice by the moderator of Grenfell’s ‘Candidates Forum’ on the 10th of November, 2016. A giant of a question which punched the room of 80 or so, initially speechless residents. In seconds the rumbling commenced and escalated, each occupant turning to the next for some sort of clarification. One exclaimed, with more than a note of desperation:
“That isn’t even a fair question!”
This resident’s heal was jack-hammering through the floor, eyes locked on the front of the room, in disbelief that the moderator had read the question at all – let alone with such tonal perfection. A number in the room knew that this topical deviation was initiated by one of two people who were seated in the back row: one dressed in all black, on the verge of an anxiety attack, and the other standing calmly beside him, recording this with a cell phone camera.
Grenfell is a small rural community in southern Saskatchewan of approximately 1100 residents, the two aforementioned contrarians contributing to that number since 2008. The forum was hosted at the Town Hall as an opportunity for Grenfell’s residents to question the prospective Town Council representatives and the two Mayoral candidates. Each was permitted to submit two written questions, which were stacked in a basket and read one-by-one by an impartial moderator. This particular question was directed solely toward the competing mayoral candidates.
The question wasn’t exactly out of the blue. Several months before, compiled and released was an analysis of the Town’s annual financial statements, from 2013 to 2015, and this analysis illustrated how the Town could theoretically function without the practice of property taxation. Through Facebook and an editorial submitted to the local newspaper, this document, titled “Voluntary Grenfell”, circulated about to a minor degree. They were aware of it; it’s likely that the two candidates who were publicly confronted on the evening of November 10th had vaguely anticipated this challenge.
In watching the recording, still the author is enveloped by the immense anxiety that was provoked that day. The reader is invited to follow the exploration of its cause through the mid-section of this piece and receive the rest of the story in closing.
Suffering & Belief
I cannot change what I do not understand and I will not change what I have not identified as a problem.
If the individual’s suffering cannot be examined or if its existence cannot be acknowledged, the fact of suffering in the world cannot be understood. All that is considered “evil” cannot be mended until a revolution occurs within the individual.
When I think about my past, look in the mirror, or think back on my day and consider my interactions, do I suffer? This suffering is the state of fear: guilt, envy, depression - whichever dis-ease.
If the answer is yes, I do suffer, then what is the cause of it?
Belief causes division and conflict, this can be seen between nations, political parties, races, and religions – and these groups are made up of individuals. So in one way or another, the belief of individuals has resulted in horrific global conflict.
Can it be said that belief is the cause of all suffering, down to and including my low self-esteem, my guilt for the past, and my nervousness about the future? Does the dropping of an atomic bomb and the throwing of a punch in a pub share the same root?-belief?
To answer the question we must dissect belief and examine its working parts: What is belief and why do I have it?
I have a collection of concepts that I've accumulated since early childhood. Some of them I inherited from loved ones or authority figures, some I have discovered on my own, and a few seem to exist as a default of human consciousness.
When I see the stove burner glowing orange, my concept is that it's hot. I don’t know where that concept came from and I’ve never bothered to examine it; it’s a useful concept that prevents injury and enables food preparation. In this case, my concept of an orange burner is exactly in line with the actuality of an orange burner: it’s hot. If my concept was not in line with reality, perhaps that the stove was cool when glowing orange, then this mutual exclusivity between my concept and reality would result in suffering: I would burn myself.
When there is a division between concept and reality, we suffer.
Suffering is life’s way of correcting one’s thinking. If my opinion is that the orange burner is cold, a burn will cause me to adapt my thinking to reality. My perspective will change in less than a second, with no effort or contemplation – it simply is not cold, it's hot!
Is it possible to react to all internal suffering with this same instinctive rigor?
What would cause me not to pull my hand away and not adjust my opinion?
“Everybody knows that orange stove-tops are cool; I learnt this fact in elementary school. This understanding helps me sleep at night.”
So I maintain my belief while my hand turns black and crisp; I am hurting myself because I hold fast in dedication to systems of belief that forcefully transpose inaccurate concepts onto the reality of everyday existence. I can see the suffering and I experience it but I refuse to examine the concepts that dictate my thinking and determine my behavior.
If it is possible to take a careful inventory of my concepts, I ought to be able to end my suffering; immediately removing my hand from the burner. If I refuse to look at my belief I will continue to burn.
If conflict is observed anywhere in life, this indicates division between concept and actuality. If suffering is perpetuated and preserved anywhere in life, this indicates belief. A war against belief is necessary if war against each other is to cease. War against belief occurs within the individual; the revolution must occur within, the destruction must occur within.
“You may not agree with where all of your tax dollars go... This is why we have a democracy.”
Both candidates offered their thoughts, carefully maneuvering around the question itself, and each were met with a rousing applause that implied an instantaneous unification of a crowd that was, only minutes before, decidedly divided over the question of whether Grenfell requires new sidewalks.
Nothing came of it. One of the candidates was elected and that question has been forgotten. Nevertheless, it is held by the author as a profoundly troubling experience:
Witnessed that evening was the traumatic collision of concept and actuality, initiated on mass by the articulation of a yes or no question. The observed outrage was the pain of encountering a hot stove-top for the first time, touching it, and not removing one’s hand –
Belief: “This is why we have a democracy.”
This experience epitomized and highlighted the division, conflict, and violence that exists within, beneath the surface of daily pleasantries and hockey games.
Is it possible to do away with belief?
Thanks for reading.
https://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/09/22/voluntary-grenfell/voluntary-grenfell.pdf