transactions might be entirely unconscious and involuntary, done only because they “feel right,” unknown except for a vague, deep-down sense of something occurring (and, perhaps, that that thing is horribly wrong). Yet those transactions are no less there, and their consequences no less evident.
This innocence, too, can contribute much to our collective atmosphere of confusion. How strange must it be, that these transactions occur without one’s knowledge yet still produce effects, seeming to mysteriously arise from nowhere? When such transactions feel good (such as agreeing with someone in order to have an ally), there might not be much question or concern for those feelings’ origins; but, when the transaction doesn’t feel so good (such as being mentally dominated or abused, or having pictures taken in a moment of disgrace), those negative, sourceless consequences can add great insult to injury, perhaps to terrifying ends. And, how might such a confused, unaware person react to such a negative transaction? The answer, I believe, lies all around us, in prisons and hospitals and morgues, for these places harbor the tangible symptoms of our intangible transactions. We see here the ingredients of all manner of social ills: bias, double standards, predatory laws; crimes big and small, violent disputes; illogical and self-destructive behavior—or, most commonly, just flat-out unhappiness.
To be sure, hidden transactions distort and confuse. And, when distorted and confused, we will act distorted and confused.
By participating in these invisible psychological transactions, we begin a ripple effect, as it were, as to send out waves of unreality and distortion into the emotional waters of the world, each of which affects the total state of things in at least some small way. In this manner, everything is connected and what goes around comes around, so that our there-but-not transactions can and will come back to haunt us, right down to the smallest of them. In this light, the world is what we’ve made it, and we are all responsible, in whatever tiny way, either directly or indirectly. Remember this fact the next time you complain, for that complaint can, in some way or another, probably be redirected back to its source.
In the end, our hidden transactions are just one part of a greater condition: a global disposition toward unreality and make-believe, achieved by way of agreement and distorted perception. All too often, this whole mess comes together to form the “Official Story,” which is, really, nothing but a jumble of veiled transactions, misdirection, maneuvering, and all manner of trickery, to conceal the reality of ourselves and our actions. Once the wheels are sent spinning in this direction, we may then uphold the accepted, agreed-upon version of events, as to truly believe what we desire to believe, usually while denying that any such subterfuge is taking place. Typically, this model carries over directly to the individual and their personal life, so that we craft our own, personal fictions of things—our own Official Story, achieved by the same mental sleight-of-hand of perceptual confusion and illusions. Likewise, both the individual and greater society will often defend that Official Story, however indefensible or outright destructive it might be—sometimes out of self-interest, but, often as not, out of sincere belief, because deeply confused people often don’t know they’re deeply confused.
So, what’s to be done about this state of tangled webs and transactional craziness?
Well, that question assumes that something should be done. After all, if one wants to live this way, they have every right to do so, as with The Samaritan buying approval from The Beggar. Really, it comes down to a matter of worldviews and ideals: if one’s ideal in life is to pursue psycho-emotional transactions and other gratifications, despite the potential consequences, then that’s their choice, and I don’t condemn such an ideal or impose my own, however much this essay might lean in the opposite direction. Though, if one’s ideal is to think and live sensibly—in actual reality, as to avoid that tangled web woven by Official Stories and personal fictions—then I can suggest a solution: transparency.
Transparency is bigger than generally thought, not just limited to clean windows or good accounting. Rather than being a temporary state, to be used situationally or resorted to under threat of punishment, transparency is a way of life. And, really, true transparency is only achieved when it is indeed practiced as a lifestyle, so that one’s whole being is transparent, not just their taxes or their business dealings. Transparency is a distinct orientation, an axis of self, so that one’s complete life operates on reality and what is, rather than unreality and what appears to be (or what is desired or demanded to be). The transparent citizen acts on principle rather than consequence; does the right thing for the right reasons, even when difficult or inconvenient; admits their mistakes and learns from them; is accountable and unceasingly honest. And, as far as transactions are concerned, if a transparent person is going to transact, they can choose to acknowledge the transaction, rather than evading it by way of social gestures and misdirecting word-games. Real transparency encompasses the total person, as to be reflected in their innermost thoughts and perceptions as much as their outward actions, as to remain in touch with actual reality. In this way, transparency is as much a weapon as a condition, for it arms one against the pitfalls posed by unreality and self-deception in their many forms.
As it were, the transparent person says what they mean and means what they say. Practice that old Seussian wisdom in daily life, and no transactional make-believe will befall you.
Of course, a transparent lifestyle is not without its weaknesses. Many people will exploit transparency, sometimes viciously, whether for social, political, economical, or emotional gain. This is due to today’s dog-eat-dog culture and its paradigm of scarcity and survival, where the very idea of transparency is regarded as backward and counterintuitive (or mistaken for rudeness or stupidity). Though, that doesn’t invalidate transparency as a policy, or even lessen its effectiveness, so long as it’s practiced with awareness and discretion, in the vein of “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” Remember this: being transparent does not mean being submissive, permissive, or passive, as to be needlessly vulnerable. One need not say more than is necessary, or give more than is required, or allow more than is rightful. In this give-take world of ours, transparency must be tempered with wisdom.
I’ll conclude this essay with a bit of scripture, which, as I interpret it, sums up the diametric conflict between transparency and unreality. Matthew 5:37: “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” I would expand on that only to say that, rather than simple “evil,” the consequences of letting your “yea” mean “nea” can be a condition of mental entropy, where one loses touch with the reality of themselves, their relationships, and their actions.
Of that deadly condition, hidden social transactions are only one small symptom.
XIX. TEN THOUSAND VOICES SAYING NOTHING
There’s no question: we are indeed living in the Information Age, with our combined knowledge reaching levels unprecedented, and available largely at one’s fingertips. However, what amount of that information is good?
Not nearly as much as we might like to think, I suspect.
Though I’m not the first to question our exponentially increasing information, the problem remains poorly understood in the public sphere. This is, I believe, because the information’s flaws are complex, and made more so by the sheer breadth of the problem. Rather than the usual suspects of human error or simple laziness, the flaws’ true origins are psychological. Specifically, I assert that a poorly developed faculty of logic, possessed by a significant portion of today’s population, plays a central role in undermining the fidelity of our information. Due to structuring our thoughts and actions on such fallible logic, many of us have fallen victim to a shortsighted mentality, which has, naturally, carried over into our collective knowledge. Thus, our information explosion has been tainted, not so much by visible, high-level flaws, but subtle, underlying ones, those posed by reasoning on questionable premises and untested assumptions.
As
it were, our new library of information may be exceedingly large, but it is fundamentally flawed, having the proverbial feet of clay.
The way I see it, we have here a case of developmental imbalance. While our skills in information-gathering and communications have reached new heights, those of sound logic and critical, realistic thinking have been comparatively neglected, resulting in a dangerous lopsidedness in our reasoning—our mental reach exceeding our grasp, you could say. Because the average person is unwilling or unable to reach a sound, logical conclusion (or, alternately, to withhold conclusion when there’s insufficient information), the quality of our expansive knowledge has duly suffered, thus forging those clay feet which weaken it so. Likewise, there exists a similar imbalance in regards to self-interest, which has not abated in proportion to our informational wizardry. When it comes to evaluating our facts and conclusions, various forms of self-interest frequently win out over impartiality, thus tilting the scales even further toward inaccuracy and distortion. Factoring in our culture of selfishness and exclusion, we see further taints introduced into our