A "Perfect" World

The world we live in is often not one that we wish to be part of. The way we do things creates a feeling of disagreement within ourselves. Some wish to change it, but I do not wish to change it. I wish to create a world of my own imagination. A “perfect” world. It is perfect not because it is without any imperfections, but because it is mine. Its errors and flaws would be justifiable by me. I alone would be responsible for their repair. I would not grow frustrated by my fellow humans for their underperformance— my unmet expectations. And when my time came to change forms, from flesh to rot, this perfect world would go with me— leaving not a trace or a disturbed leaf behind.

To those who claim that this is egotism, I unabashedly affirm their critique: yes, it is. The so-called human “ego” seeks for itself the best. Is this tendency something to squelch? Many claim that the highest value is found in sacrifice and self-denial. They urge you not to retreat into the world of your own creation, but stay in the one you find yourself in and help those who live in it with you. It is virtuous to restrain the ego in service for others. But through the crowd, a voice pesters: why should we value others over ourselves? Here, the “greater good” is often invoked. That catch-all, pitiful fall-back, that cowardly act of throwing sand in the eye of an opponent. I don’t think I have to tell you: do not throw sand, draw your weapon and stand!

Amid the ruckus, the chaos of the marketplace, there is further push-back. The objection of dissociation. To those who claim that this is detachment, I reply that it is actually attachment. This choice is attachment to an ideal, one far better than the reality they find themselves in. It is a drive so narrow and so stubborn that on the surface it appears detached from all its surroundings. However, it is not unaware of its surroundings. In fact, it understands them deeply. It understands the origin, the story of each and every criticism-worthy flaw. It has merely chosen a different direction, a choice we must all make.

It could only be this way. After all, this world was not made with myself in mind. (An important supposition). I am no more “special” than you or anyone else. But people despise feeling insignificant. They hate not knowing. So they form lofty beliefs and wild imaginations to comfort themselves. And that’s not all bad. In fact, is that not what I am doing by creating my own world? To create an environment in which I am more comfortable. To desire to create a way of doing things that creates a feeling of agreement, of harmony, within oneself. That, it seems, is what everyone attempts to do. That, it seems, is their life’s project.

Again, I must address dialogical issues. To those who criticize this decision in the same way that one scolds a child for throwing away a toy after breaking it instead of trying to fix it, I have a response. My response is to reject that the toy is fixable by me. Further, even if it was fixable by me, I am under no obligation to fix it. You are not, either, despite the expectations of the previously unsuccessful. It is not fixable by me because my stubborn human will refuses to compromise unless there is mutually assured destruction, which there is not. My position is this: you are free, so crushingly free. Do good with it. Make good with it.

If we could only step into each other’s world, we would see its vibrance, orderliness, harmony— all those utopic things. It would taste and smell blissful and saccharine, but not overly so. However, our palates might differ: one’s utopia is another's dystopia. That’s why it is mine and mine alone. We all need a bit of tailoring. You and I cannot wear the same clothes. I have been speaking in the abstract so far, but let me be direct: I am not literally creating a world. I am saying that we all create an image of the world in our heads and in our hearts; this image has a very particular view of who we are and who others are around us. It has a very particular view of how we relate to our surroundings. It has a very particular explanation for things: why the weather changes, how life originated, and what happens after death. Some have called this a “schema.” These are the sorts of things in question. This is the world of our own creation.

I use the term “world” because of what it represents. In a world, or on a world, there are some people and not others. The climate is one way and not another. It has its own unique limitations, where another world might not. In a world, there are rules that govern action. Rules that restrict the possible outcomes. Gravity describes how a squirrel jumping from a tree lands on the ground and does not float to the sky. But the laws that govern human thought and feeling— those long sought-after laws— are far more elusive. There have forever, and will forever continue to be, those who seek to place humans under the microscope, in a computer model. But I now expose myself as one who believes these attempts will always be incomplete, if, and that is my important qualifier, they do so with the goal of better understanding humans and reducing the chasm of ignorance they feel about themselves and the world they live in. If not, if their goals are not lofty, so be it.

On a metalevel, I raise no new issues. My aim is not to raise original criticism of classic human problems. These words serve two purposes: one explicit and known, the other implicit and unknown. To express the inner? Yes. To resolve some conflict? Surely. To satisfy oneself? Without a doubt. But also to make a suggestion that addresses something collective and timeless. What might that be? The proof is in the pudding. Be brave, journeyman. Listen to the echoes that resist detection. Make a choice that you can be content with— a defensible choice— and ready yourself for opposition. For utopias are highly sought after and must be prepared to swat envious fingers, picking and peeling away the gold leaf outer shell, wanting that gooey yolk