Bread and Sham

To Die By Sneezing (An Involuntary Suicide)

After a violent sneeze, a previously healthy 35-year-old man had severe left-side neck pain lasting ten minutes,” we read. He developed partial paralysis and sensory loss on his left side, plus other symptoms. After tests the doctors decided he had “unilateral upper cervical posterior spinal artery syndrome,” a seven-word noun phrase that’s about as close as you can get to German and still be speaking English. To put it in simpler terms, an aneurysm in the neck following the sneeze probably led to a loss of blood flow to part of the spinal cord, causing nerve problems.[1]

I’m starting to feel as though society has had a violent sneeze and, consequently, has suffered a lack of blood flow to her brain. In many ways culture has become me and I have become my culture. There is less of a tug-of-war, wherein we demand, “You’re not the boss of me.”

Questions about what it means to be one’s self or what it means to be human are inferred among major blockbusters such as I-Robot, I Am Legend, The Stepford Wives, The Truman Show, and The Matrix. We wonder what it really means to be an individual. What does it mean to be authentic verses synthetic? Can we remain an individual when the current for being what a collective society approves of is gaining so much strength?

In my observation, we as a society dictate what is acceptable for others, and they return the favor. For instance, we value beautiful people. Secondly, we look up to interesting people—those with personality, then wealth, then intelligence, etc. When someone stands out in more than one category, they are affirmed by society as such.

By itself, this pattern is not altogether wrong. It works. It has its benefits. But, what if we so highly regard similar traits so often, that inevitably we all begin to clone ourselves. Suddenly we all behave according to strict definitions about what is hip. (This is the way several non-conformists get martyred.) It’s not as though just anyone who shops at Hot Topic should be considered a non-conformist, for indeed they are conforming quite a bit. I’m referring to individuals who produce stories with other than “happily ever after” finishes. For example, I’m going to be true, regardless of where it doesn’t get me.

Such can be seen in dark comedies of dysfunctional families like “Little Miss Sunshine,” and despairing dramas such as “Gone Baby Gone,” and “No Country For Old Men.” In these stories, it’s more difficult to spot the hero because society didn’t affirm them. They didn’t take the cake. It is society’s challenge to allow someone who receives neither the “most improved” nor the “who’s who” award the chance to be heard. Imagine an exhibit where ordinary art is affirmed because it speaks well of real life as it is, rather than as it should be idealistically. We appreciate individuality in the arts, but why not in our behaviors. Why am I not allowed to be other than what society affirms anyplace outside of the arts? Our culture does not show appreciation for the non-conformity while engaged in conversation, operating a business, selling a product or a magazine ad?

This is an anthem for ordinary. It is the average and unexceptional matters of life that are crowded out when we chase the above average and exceptional. Instead of killing those parts of me that look like my surroundings, that which is most authentic about our lives is killed. Rather, what ought to be no longer receives any oxygenated blood flow—only the ordinary stuff is celebrated. If we strive to see ourselves as we truly are, then we are preparing for a tragic upset, loneliness, and regret. We will be always traveling, but never arriving. We will be always reaching, but never grasping.

For us to gain the affirmation that we crave, we have to become contortionists and morph into all sorts of odd shapes in order to fit into a mold of collective appeal.

Here’s the dilemma. Our environment is not static. We are all moving. Prosperity has given us a tickle in our nose and it has caused us one giant sneeze. It could be described as the movement of adjusting and readjusting. We, as a society, are as though asleep and stupidly shuffling and thrashing, looking for the more comfortable position than the last. It’s hard to hold onto things. We were grabbing while we were awake. We are grabbing while we are asleep. Now, I can’t tell one from the other.

The culture we composite is connected. Our world seems to be sharing one brain. We have made up our mind what we accept and what we reject. These are unmistakable ideals that shape not just what we think but also why. They are ideals so widely accepted that we cannot see any need to escape it. We embrace them and they dictate how we are to live. So rather than our lives being our own, they are shared. This collective ideal infects the aesthetic aspect of our mind. It isn’t one individual who decides for himself or herself what is good or true, it is the shared mind. It’s a collective effort. In a general sense, society as an organism is itself as though asleep and stupidly shuffling and thrashing for a new position that is more comfortable than the last.

The corporate entity is not as much deciding as it is being decided for. The individual is merely taken along for the ride. We refer to this entity as “they,” such as, “you know what they always say,” or “they raised the prices.” The better word would be “we.” “We built a new bridge,” or “we have made a new law.” No one individual could ever make decisions so definite and final that it determines a set of ideals that every other individual unanimously accepts.

I would be wrong to believe that I was deciding for myself how I would think and how I would live. Neither can it be said that someone else is deciding for me or bossing me around—as if I were not a part of society. The more true approach would be that society is I and I am society. True authenticity is martyred on the cross of collectivity. I am no longer able to ask what it is that is truly beautiful, but only what is acceptable. In the shared mind, which options are most praised? We are to set about attaining and mastering those ideals. It is not a matter of being exceptional at all, but one of being most ordinary. What does the shared mind affirm, and how can I master that?

Our celebrities and idols are truest victims of the violent sneeze. When they receive awards and affirmation by me, they articulate that they are just ordinary human beings. Truly, they are. They are the most extreme example of ordinary that exists.

The picture that we’ve arrived at then is one of an entire culture in bed together. Individuality is lost. We are deep in our shared sub consciousness, and stupidly shuffling and thrashing, looking for the more comfortable position than the last. Rather than seeking and embracing them, ideals are rejected. Too much belief in what should be only promises to deliver, but simply cannot. If I esteem what can be over what actually is, then I am not anymore being authentic. Instead, I will just settle for what is.

Two victories need to be won to prevent this body from an involuntary suicide. We must once again recognize individuality and celebrate it. Secondly, we must allow room for something sacred to rise above that which is temporary and passing away.

Firstly, individually needs to be recovered if there is to be anything sacred. Secular and sacred need not be polarized antithetically from one another. They are every bit as interdependent as the individuals who understand them. Something infinite is shared with that which is not. The things beyond the physical world are expressed within it. The word “secular” takes on a necessary role. This may be understood as a stage upon which the players are performing. “All the world is a stage,” and yet there is more than merely a physical dimension understood in the word “world.” Revelation is a perfect example of this. When someone beholds revelation, they are the place where the sacred and secular mix. If the players on the stage are to act out a story, or reveal something ordinary to an audience, there must be a plot.

Without a variety of ideals, there is no variety of individuals. There is no story worth waking up for. Without a celebration of ordinary individuals, the picture is quite violent. As we understand story, there must be a conflict of ideals, a tension and a friction of minds. When society operates upon widely accepted ideals, the only conflict that exists is physical—man verses man. It would look like a competition, each one for himself or herself, in an all-verses-all, uphill race toward the most comfortable position. This is not a complete rejection of ideals. It is a celebration of only one set of ideals. To obtain what society celebrates, I must be very good at security its ideal. This requires a deliberate and calculated assassination of any person standing between me, and the perceived ideal—namely happiness or contentment—the new status symbol for the 21^st Century.

Secondly, it is only in the sacred that something ideal can exist and also be attainable. Anything less than ideal is not generically secular simply because it is human. It is secular because it is constantly shifting, causing us to respond by thrashing and pulling, kicking and shifting. This martyrs authenticity because the individual is following societal leading, rather than something sacred. That which is ultimate cannot reside among society. It rests above it, someplace infinite. Within the sacred, the man-verses-God mystique is found—something angels long to share with us.