Guerrilla Warfare on the Potomac (circa 1992)

Ever since you beautifully articulated a part of Guru Nanak’s teachings to me over the phone (last year, we spoke of guerrilla warfare on the banks of the Potomac River), I have been preoccupied with what you told me: in one sense, your stance seems horrendously Gandhi-like (pardon the linkage) in the negation of the self (i.e., if you do away with desire, you do away with misery). In another sense, those thoughts pose a possible pseudo-epiphany. Be patient, I will explain. But, please, whatever you do, do not throw a book in my face.

My confusion or apprehension to acceptance of your philosophical dialect stems possibly from Rand’s influence. As you are aware, Rand regarded an individual’s happiness as the paramount realization of justice and beauty. However, Rand pits Government against the individual; Government is the greatest roadblock to an individual’s happiness due to its capacity to tax its own citizenry, thereby depriving individuals of their right to enjoy the fruits of their own labor. The plausibility of this conclusion may be questionable and, henceforth, unduly questioned and, hopefully, put to rest.

In the Dialectic, Descarte concluded: “I think, therefore, I am.” However, this philosophic self-discourse may be a futile strategy to arrive at truth, justice, and logic, nes pa’? I already know that I exist, understand? I am more concerned with existing beautifully and living a good life (not just ‘the good life’). But, I do think that Descarte had an interesting methodology.

Without Descarte, there may never have been colonialism and the subsequent globalization of human interaction, because he aligned the pursuit of science and technology with the existence of Golf (I mean GOD, oops). Anyhow, if we concern ourselves with our senses as tools for measuring and experiencing the material world and treat them as gifts (from DOG spelled backwards) rather than taking our senses for granted, we can proceed from here, yes?

Because we interact with one another, create things, actualize tasks and projects, and, ultimately, use our senses spontaneously (like memory and sight – if you open your eyes, you see, etc.), then we must owe our “individuality” to something outside ourselves and simultaneously to what comes from within our own souls. But, because we are separate entities (you and I), we are individuals in the most basic sense of that word. Don’t you think, in some sense, then, our achievements (anything considered worthwhile by anyone) flow from our individuality because, ultimately, ambition or desire “pumps” our desire and ability to achieve?

Without desire, achievement has no value. So, how can one say: “if you rid desire, one becomes closer to obtaining happiness but happiness shouldn’t be a goal?” For clarity’s sake, I didn’t say that happiness is the only goal. Then, ultimately, the question becomes: “Is existence, by the virtue of being human, sacred in itself?” THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING: YES!!!

Yours,

HippoParamus

P.S. Don’t let them fool you; a FLAT TAX is inherently progressive: simple, fair, and just. The more money one makes, the more one pays. Fact: the American middle class – and not the corporations and fat cats that we continuously bail out - is footing 80-90% of all gross federal tax receipts. Get mad. Get very mad!