26 - Coexist

There's another blog that I read, almost on a daily basis, called Break the Illusion. It's written by this young gay guy who calls himself Davey Wavey. Most of the time his posts are very "zen spiritual" (if that's a term), but then there will be entries that are very frank and blunt about sex and sexuality. In his video entries he is almost never without a smile and almost always without a shirt—and pants. (It helps that he pretty damn hot!)

In one of his more recent entries, Davey talks about coexisting with others. (Be forewarned before clicking on the link—the second half of that entry talks about his trip to Chinatown in New York City and includes a picture of carved phallic items being sold in a store there.)

Although his post is quite interesting, what intrigued me more were a number of the comments that turned into mini-discussions/arguments. Sometimes those commentators get real nasty and there are moments when I wonder why the heck they bother reading Davey's blog when all they do is insult him. I do have to give it up to the boy, though—regardless of how vehement people get, he always seems to keep that smile going. I'm not sure I could do that.

Anyway, I don't know how or why, but my mind latched onto the conundrum of coexistence with others and the whole concept has been bouncing around in my brain—even during my meditations. ("Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Oh, here comes that coexistence thought. Wave to the nice subject as it goes by kids. Breathe out. Breathe in. Breathe out. Breathe in. Looks like coexistence is passing through again. Everyone get out of the street! There it goes again. Breathe out. Breathe in....")

In the post, Davey says: "But at the end of the day, we don’t all need to be on the same page; we don’t all need to be friends. But we do need to live together. We need to coexist. And as such, I think it makes sense to have a healthy appreciate for opinions, ideas, cultures and beliefs that aren’t our own (with the exception of racism, sexism and all the other -isms that minimize others)."

Here was the first place my brain paused. Did his statement just make sense? On one hand he says that we need to appreciate other opinions and beliefs and yet he excludes "-isms that minimize others". That isn't coexisting with everyone because he's just blocked anyone who believes in an -ism.

Now, as one commentator responded: "In Iran (and other places I'm sure), they hang teenagers for being gay ... I don't need to live with these people or coexist with them. I need to see them disappear." Obviously this person doesn't believe that people of different opinions can coexist together. He seems to feel that the only way to live together is to get rid of everyone who doesn't fit in his ideals.

A responder to that comment makes a point: "If you want people to accept your views and beliefs I feel it’s critical to set the example and respect theirs, whether or not you agree with them. I think it’s a crime against humanity to kill someone for choosing to be whatever they will be but if our reaction to that is crushing their system and replacing it with our own we are no better than they are."

It was immediately argued by someone else: "I should respect the views of murderers, rapists and child molesters? If someone can’t tell good from evil, well then I just feel sorry for them. And if they can’t stand up to evil when they see it, they’re just cowards."

To which the responder adds: "I understand that some of these behaviours are harmful while others aren’t. We have laws to deal with behaviours that are harmful. But hatred towards these people isn’t helpful in the least. Without some compassion we will never understand why people act as they do and believe as they do."

The argument continued with: "...there ARE evil people out there. Rational, sane people recognize the difference between evil deeds and differences of opinion. Believing people deserve to die because they are gay is an opinion, killing them because they are gay is an evil deed. That is a line that sane, rational people do not cross." This person at least makes the distinction between beliefs and actions, which is fairly valid point.

But I think this person summed up the conundrum best: "The inherent paradox of suggesting people should allow different viewpoints to “coexist” or suggesting that all beliefs are o.k. and valid for people to have is that eventually there will be beliefs that directly oppose *that* idea. There are some belief systems and viewpoints that specifically say one should convert others to yours, or that people who don’t see the world/believe like you are bad. . ."

For a while, this puzzle has been bouncing around in my head. There are people out there who say that this world would be a better place if everyone could just learn to live together, and yet what they really mean is that the world would be a better place if everyone believes just like me. Some say that we could live in harmony if only we got rid of the "evil" people—but who gets to dictate the definition of evil? Is it truly possible for people to coexist without putting any qualifiers or conditions on each other in order to have a harmonious relationship?

Somewhere along the line, the different fragments of thought that had been swimming in my gray matter began to fall into place. I get it—but I can't seem to express what's in my head. It's like trying to explain to a van Gogh painting to a blind person or a Beethoven symphony to someone who is hearing impaired. It's more than just the colors or the notes. There's an experiential quality to them that just can't be put into words.

But it's not enough to just know. One has to live it, incorporate it into their actions—their being. The hard part is over, and yet the hard part hasn't even begun.