The Undividual

There are too few people that I’ve come into contact with throughout my life who best characterize what might be called a selfless individual. Each person, while seeking their path in life and negotiating their way through, across and around the nifty little gems of unexpectedness that happen along, often act out of self-gain. While different models in Game Theory might be used to explain seeking an advantageous outcome, surely it’s neither a crime nor a sin to try and benefit from the labours of life.

Yet we have crossed a point in society where the individual has become greater than the whole. Though this is a concept that needs to be reaffirmed and protected in relation to human rights, where it is essential that each person is treated with dignity and respect through a humanist approach.

What society needs is an undividual, who is willing to sacrifice, give of themselves to others, and always seek stability through cooperation. The undividual would hold the door open for a stranger, or have the decency to say “thank you” when one does so for them; he would let another car ahead of him with ease, and she would show her appreciation for the deed with a kind wave. All of the acts are characterized as being folksy, which is a fantastic approach to people, but it goes beyond a simple term when becomes a constant habit.  

The undividual looks beyond the self, recognizing the value and importance of the whole in every action. Marcus Aurelius, the great Roman emperor and giant of philosophy, once stated that “Every individual dispensation is one of the causes of the prosperity, success, and even survival of That which administers the universe. To break off any particle, no matter how small, from the continuous concatenation – whether of causes or of any other elements – is to injure the whole.” Phew, a tad on the wordy side, but what he was trying to argue is that each individual contributes to the whole; in his view, injuring an individual takes away from the whole. Though his specific reference of the importance of one towards the whole derives from his philosophical views on the gripping warfare he was engaged in throughout his reign, it also applies to the more peaceable forms of humanity. The idea of “injuring the whole” also exists in actions that degrade, insult, offend, slight or take from others.   

So the individual has a great deal of responsibility towards the whole as an undividual. Yet seldom do we see this in society, as the individual rarely recognizes himself in others, or herself in relation to the whole of society. Understanding that our actions influence someone’s mood, how they view strangers, and even relates to economic output and labour markets, marks a true awareness to the significance of one towards the whole. Ultimately we are all connected in humanity, and the ignorance which allows for the discarding of that common bond has allowed some of history’s greatest sorrows to manifest themselves repeatedly.

Think of others the next time you’re out-and-about, especially when you’re having a rough day. Pick-up the cost for the person behind you in the Tim Horton’s drive-thru, offer to help someone with their groceries, think of your neighbour’s lawn that needs cutting when you know they’re away for a few days, or of the little shop down the street rather than the big store without a face. The simplest deed of goodwill and care for a stranger could make someone’s day, giving you reason to smile, and ensuring that our community and society moves closer to engaging each other as equals and undividuals.

On bin Laden

First let me apologize for not having covered the Canadian Federal Election as much as I indicated I might. The reason for this was very simple, in that I was working on a campaign at the time and did not want my personal views to in any way become biased towards one party/candidate. So, now more Mark’s Spark...

Osama bin Laden was killed in the early hours of a Pakistani morning on May 2, with US Navy SEALS assaulting the compound in which he had lived for a number of years. There has in recent days been much controversy over the nature of the mission, given that there are now reports suggesting he – as well as several others within the walled mansion – was unarmed when shot.

Say what you will about bin Laden or his tactics that included the targeting of civilians, and the nature of his resentment for the West, his assassination should have instead been his capture. While Western nations as well as some Islamic ones cheered the death of the scourge who had caused havoc, destruction and an immense loss of life, there is a profound loss of principle in the bloodlust for bin Laden.

With reports stating that Osama was unarmed – and as accounts have it the last one alive in the compound – as commandos confronted him on the third floor, surely there were options to be had. But this military operation was as much an emotional release for the United States as it was an expression of justice.

That bin Laden was killed by US Navy SEALS within the confines of a small room gives us much indication of the sentiment the Obama Administration – and indeed the United States itself – wanted to extend. The two options on the table for Obama were that of an air-strike from a Predator drone, or a direct assault on the compound. While both options give you the same result (unless the latter part of “kill or capture” ever really applied), one was incredibly more personal, not to mention popular in the American public and psyche. Surely most Americans have pictured in their own minds what it would have felt like to be there, watching this man who had sown terror and fear, come to a lifeless mass right before their eyes.

The US needed this release, and Obama needed to demonstrate that he had the ruthless edge necessary to provide it in the face of staunch criticism over his handling of Afghanistan and the war on terror. In both cases, the public and the president are breathing easier having vindicated themselves of burdens they have carried for too long. But what of principles?

The United States should have done their utmost to capture rather than kill in my opinion, simply because doing so would send a clear message: that stopping isn’t an option, and neither is compromising on principles. True it can be said that at some point every society finds itself negotiating with its moral constitution, but that should not be at the instigation of thugs, rebels, freedom fighters or terrorists; it is those who would provoke an erosion of the moral compass that should be shown the true valour of it. Maintaining such a national and societal position is difficult for any country, but for a nation of people so willing to engage in violence towards themselves and others, one could hardly expect any other outcome for Mr bin Laden.