I was checking out my video of the day and the videos of the day over at Devour, something my brother suggested to me as a neat resource for inspiration, informational and interesting short videos. I really appreciated the video today on the analysis of the NASA space walk film and a logical and somewhat snarky refutation of the skeptics who would push for an alternate and highly suspect version of history. This is the nature of history - always ready to be questioned and brought into doubt. For this reason we turn to the witnesses of each event and hold fast to their testimonys. We can neither reject nor refute events in history without bringing to the center of any argument the witnesses. Our whole construct of law and history revolve around the imperical evidences we gather from the witnesses.
Without those evidences we are like this young man. Blind on a board flying over concrete surfaces and probing with our hands to see if we can trust the next precipice. We can learn to fall gracefully but can see no further than our own memories. Like this young man, one must be ever vigilant in protecting themselves and very brave in stepping out into the dark unknown.
But there is an alternative to being bound that is trust. To trust the collective witness now more and more available for perusal thanks to writing, books, libraries, film, video and the internet. We are ever growing into a society that does not need to believe the written word or the spoken testimony but who are able to do a search and have evidence presented within seconds. And although one would think this makes us a more trusting society and a more honest group, it has not. In fact I would argue that we are ever more skeptical of truth, reality and the testimony of first hand witnesses.
There is a point when evidence grows beyond the point of presenting credibility to the point of exasperating the hearer and building doubt in ones mind. When my friend tells me he's sorry he couldn't make it to my party but he had to work I might believe him or I might choose to doubt. If he gives me one or two examples of projects he was doing I might begin to be more inclined to believe his story. If he gives me four or five stories about why he was late I might begin to think he is overdoing his story and if he tells me one more thing after that to corroborate his story I might think he feels guilty and is covering a lie.
This is not so important when my friend is trying not to hurt my feelings about missing my party but when someone does this in a marriage, to their children, in religion, in politics and regularly experiences such trust shattering experiences they build up for themselves an arsenal of emotional padding. And soon although they set out blindly into the world they no longer have real contact with the world. Their joy is diminished, their fear is diminished, their hope is diminished, there love is extinguished; they're a flame covered over with a vacuous shield of doubt.
It is for this reason that Abraham while holding the soul of poor Lazarus told the rich man who overlooked him that there is a limit to how much evidence an almighty God should show to mankind before it becomes a desperate plea and a seemingly deceptive proving of oneself. For reference you can check this link from Luke 16. While the main message of the passage is speaking to those who would overlook the needs of those surrounding them distracted by their wealth, the underlying truth about persuasion is represented well in the final statement of the chapter by Abraham - essentially, if one does not believe the lesser testimonies than the greater testimony will be discarded as incredible as well.
Taking a step back to the main subject of allocating our wealth to those in need I would like to consider the I think that is the reason the third video that caught my eye on today's video list was this one about the world's poorest president. The president of Uruguay could be considered eccentric, but for many he is the image of healthy contentment. While not having wealth to flaunt his lifestyle shows a responsible ethic for consumption. The character piece states that Jose Mujica', president of Uruguay donates 90% ($12,000) of his annual income to charities. I assume the BBC is a fairly credible source and that they double check their facts before publishing, so I'm going to trust their statement and say that this man is doing something few world leaders have ever done, he is using his position as a platform for his example rather than using his position to exemplify his platform.
Most world leaders will boast all the positions they've held as a reason why they would be trust worthy leaders. For this reason most campaign trails spend a lot of time focusing on the experiences of the candidates. While some attention is given to the character and practices of candidates. Ultimately, whether you're running for office or not, you will have to give account one day for the myopic blindness you've had that has hindered you from seeing the poor in your neighborhoods and sitting outside your doors. Wake up, open your eyes, notice the need and feel something rather than being callous let your emotions move you long enough to make an irrational donation to the cause of the poor. If that's not enough, do some deep thinking about where you'll be 120 years from now, and rationally figure out what to do with your excess.
Either way, you're just a blind skate boarder looking for more padding or a trustworthy guide to lead you through this skate park of a life.
-Until A Later Time
