Cherry Picking from Ideologies

 Why do I study Stoicism?

As a wandering cherry picker, ...

I browse.

I sample.

I keep the pits of cherries I find worthwhile.

I leave the rest behind.

I take the good seeds back and plant them in my mind's garden.

I journey forward; sharing cherries with others whom hunger;
encouraging them to decide for themselves which are good.
--
The ideas and attitudes of Stoicism, for me, are an orchard I discovered in my journey.

I don't find all of it agreeable.

Some of it seems toxic.

Some of it hasn't aged well.

But some of it is both delicious and serves me quite well.

For me, it's the same as all other ideological fields and orchards.

I even kept a few cherries from Bibles, Qurans, secular-Satanism, Leftist Humanism, Conservativism, Libertarianism, etc etc..

With the Abrahamic trees,
I was extra careful.

There, I found many layers of old bones around the base.
Trees aged with rings of old blood;
a record of ages
whence their fruits turned entire villages violently mad.

After the age of the Secular Enlightenment,
an interesting cross-pollination
gradually resulted in new hybrids of the Abrahamic trees.

Among the first of these, as a new tree that bore new fruits
which inspired those whom ate from it
to rise up and lead the movement in America
to free the slaves.

If they'd been over-ambitious, ..

if they'd over-modified that tree to be as safe as possible, ...
they'd have ended up with a tree so SECULAR ...
that their tribe would have lost all influence with the other Christian tribes.

Religious people
only give weight
to people who they recognize as part of their ingroup.

If there had been no sweet sweet smell of Jesus-Juice on the breath of the Quakers,
the Quakers would have been ignored (or worse).

They might have even been surrounded and slaughtered like the Anabaptist tribe; for straying too far/too fast
from tradition.

That particular Quaker-Tree had been modernized ENOUGH with secular values
to spark such a long-overdue spurt of CHANGE and GROWTH.

But if they'd accidentally matured their ideological-tree too much,
they'd have lost their standing and influence with their related Christian tribes.

As atheists, they would have lost all power within the context of the culture in which they lived.

As a result,
 it would have taken many more years for someone ELSE's tree to naturally evolve enough;

-enough
to bear the FRUITS needed
to convert some fresh batch of humans into sociological catalysts
for the abolition of formal slavery.

In that case, slavery would have taken even longer to abolish.

This is one of the ways that CONSERVATIVES
(defined, in part, by their ~fear of change~)
are actually correct.

If change and growth happens too much faster in one PART of a society compared to the rest, ... bad things happen.

We must grow together, instead of apart.
For that, the fastest growing/changing members of society
must be careful not to outpace the rest.

Slow down ENOUGH
that we can actually lead.

No one can lead by example, educate, and inspire others ...
if they get so far ahead that they (as a leader) can no longer be
seen, 
heard,
or (worse yet) trusted.

Rapid divergence separates;
it doesn't unify.

***
~Seek Balance~
in all things.
***

Some of those more modern (genetically modified) trees
now bare fruits worth sampling.

They can be both sweet and tart;
potentially beneficial;  
but also potentially life-wrecking,
if we aren't very careful.

Are those samplings worth the risk for humanity?

I think that's the wrong question to ask;
because billions will keep taking those risks, no matter what. 

Individually, it's a good question.
But the answer depends on individual physiology, individual circumstance, 
and results of past consumption.

For some people, they were lucky to escape with their lives;
now left to wonder
if they'll ever fully recover.

Whatever we decide,
special care should be taken, where children are concerned;
given the risks.

The extra-vulnerable
should never be test-subjects.

Besides that being unethical,...

That which seems fine for us ... may have a different effect on a child.
And because their mind is still forming, any damage done could be permanent.

Just like with hunting certain mushrooms in the wilds,
it takes a trained eye to know what's safe "enough" in moderation.

Some of these modern Abrahamic trees bear fruit that can be safe enough;
even carrying some beneficial properties.

But much like the Puffer Fish,
a trained hand must first identify and remove the poison sack which still lays at the core of even the safest versions.

Stoicism isn't as dangerous.
But caution should still be advised.

Warning labels are never included;
because Nature doesn't work that way.
This is why we aught to carefully study each new source and the effects we see it having on others.

Neither the mildly drunk
nor the stark raving mad
ever seem to know their cognitions have been so altered.
So I never ask them "is this good for me?".

The Maddest of Hatters
may ask you to tea.
But the worst of them will insist.

Don't let them.

   

D