Why (K)not?

"Why?"

Mr. Thumbite gave the curt response over the phone. His school chum (from over 50 years back,) having at last located him, offered to go for a coffee, beer, or lunch. "Why?" Now, voice tone or adjectives, like “belligerent”, or “inquisitive”, or “dismissive” might well alter the story, consciously, but with the denunciation clearly denoted, the two old school friends did not meet.

Consciousness has it that we not only think about our thinking, but that we do it as a continuum of habit. (Surely we are conscious some of the time?) Surely we have a meta-cognition, that ability to realize we are thinking and to redirect, address, question, and even choose in which direction to steer our thinking. Animals are less so. Dogs, cats, pets, farm animals, they all learn and show intelligent choices at times, but not as a continuum. And even then, it is averred, quite a few humans do not live in much consciousness either. We are creatures of habit, reactionary rather than responsive, and atavistic rather than progressive. It is in our nature to nurture that which we already know, to perpetuate that to which we've become inured, and to settle for that which is on the TV. Or do we creatively compose our lives? Do we perpetually consider our choices, not just from a good or bad, left or right, or even an up or down perspective, but from the kaleidoscope of compassion? (Complete compassion, here, is comprehensively integrative.)

If Fifteen Dogs are given consciousness, and their lives followed, surely it is the degree to which each of them exercises that ability that will establish a bell curve along the continuum. So too for humans. Our bell curve, in the long line of history, would show that we've not exercised our consciousness very much at all. At least, not collectively. Yet it might be argued that if the measure of mankind's' consciousness in action may be by the metre (that French word) of compassion, then it is not so much about individuals in action, but what groups have done. And certainly not everyone in the United States need be aligned with the President, nor those in Russia, nor those in China, nor those in the long history of Time's sweep by an Alexander or a Genghis Khan. We rather easily ascribe a condition, any condition, of the human condition to an entire populace, forgetting that they are measured most often by what the leading edge of that populace perforce did to 'advance' the status quo. Think of the 'great' wars. Think of the ongoing wars. How does an individual without much power at all, like you or me, affect those? How do we influence with our consciousness the awareness of others? What communication, methods, or prayers will truly affect 'everything'? We can but do what we do in small measures, one by one, each by each, in an attempt to sway the vote. Ask the 'new' South Africa. Ask a North Korean, or a refugee from Syria. How conscious may they be deemed to be? What of you and me? And what we've done, collectively, given all history, is not show much consciousness at all.

Lunchtime meetings with four separate friends over the past fortnight have much invigorated this treatise. We are of an accord. The degree of meta-cognition impacts the degree to which one lives on in states of consciousness. (And consciousness may be defined as that quality of being aware not only of one's actions, but of the very reasoning process behind the action, most of the time.) Given my friends, when a topic is raised, or a given contention expressed, the essential question of 'why?' is an immediate invitation to further exploration, directed toward a more articulate exposition, and even a reverence for the journey itself. It is never dismissive, or funny.

Yes, sometimes the question is not ‘why’, but, "Why Not?"