If They Give You Lined Paper, Write Sideways (9 page)

Elaine
still has nothing to say.

Daniel
. If the present law were overturned, a woman would be imprisoned for having an abortion. Yes?

Elaine
. That's right.

Daniel
. Would her punishment be wrongful?

Elaine
. Not according to the law.

Daniel
. Ah, the law! So by changing a law, something that's right today can become something that's wrong tomorrow. Isn't that so?

Elaine
. Yes. And of course the reverse is true as well. Something that's wrong today can become
something that's right tomorrow, if the law is changed.

Daniel
. Is capital punishment right or wrong?

Elaine
. Some people think it's right, some people think it's wrong.

Daniel
. So, collectively, do these people know right from wrong?

Elaine
. Not in this instance.

Daniel
. And in the instance of abortion do people collectively know right from wrong?

Elaine
. No.

Daniel
. Is sex between persons of the same gender right or wrong?

Elaine
. Again, some people think it's right and some people think it's wrong.

Daniel
. What about assisted suicide?

Elaine
. The same. Some say it's right and some say it's wrong.

Daniel
. What about using animals in scientific research?

Elaine
. The same.

Daniel
. But these are all people who would insist that they know right from wrong, aren't they?

Elaine
. Yes, I'd think so.

Daniel
. But in fact, for some strange reason, they can't agree on what's right and what's wrong in these and many other cases.

Elaine
. They agree on it in most cases, I think. For example, they all agree that murder is wrong.

Daniel
. Murder is
defined
as wrong, Elaine. Murder is
wrongful killing
. Isn't that so?

Elaine
. Yes.

Daniel
. But not all killing is wrongful. Killing in self-defense isn't wrongful, and it isn't murder.

Elaine
. True.

Daniel
. People will also agree that theft is wrong, but again, theft is
defined
as wrong. Theft is wrongful taking. Everyone can agree that acts that are
defined
as wrongful are wrong. In other words, people know right from wrong when the law tells them which is which. But the same law is subject to change.
What's right today can be wrong tomorrow and vice versa.

Elaine
. Yes, that's true.

Daniel
. Can you understand now why those aboriginals had a hard time grasping this distinction that was so clear to the missionaries? To the missionaries it seemed completely self-evident. To the
aboriginals it seemed completely arbitrary — as it does to me.

Elaine
. This is an example of something you described in
Beyond Civilization
. I don't remember what you called it. The cultural... something or other.

Daniel
. The cultural fallacy. The belief that the ideas that come to us as the received wisdom of our culture are innate to the human mind — that they actually arise from the structure of the human mind
itself. According to this particular cultural fallacy, someone who can't tell the difference between right and wrong is either retarded or insane... This looks like a good stopping point.

Elaine
. I have a question.

Daniel
. Okay.

Elaine
. In your writings on the food race, and I think in "The New Renaissance," you talk about the fact that we're attacking the biodiversity of this planet by systematically converting the biomass of other
species into human mass.

Daniel
. Yes?

Elaine
. Isn't that something you would consider wrong?

Daniel
. You haven't quite gotten my point here. I'm not interested in sorting things out into these categories, right and wrong. In other words, my point is not that what we're doing here is
wrong
but that it's unsustainable. It's undermining the human future on this planet, and I'm not going to quibble over
whether this is to be categorized as right or wrong. I don't give a damn which it is.

Elaine
. Okay. You're right. I hadn't quite gotten your point about this. I think I see it now... While we're right here, I have another question, or maybe it's just an observation.

Daniel
. Go ahead.

Elaine
. It seems to me that the most astounding single sentence in all your work is "There is no one right way for people to live." But I have the feeling this just floats over most people's heads.

Daniel
. It does seem that way, which surprises me. It certainly hasn't aroused any great controversy that I'm aware of, though I've had a few questions about it. One reader wrote, "I think I know of one right way for people to live, and that's letting everyone live the way they want to live." How would you reply to that?

Elaine
[
after some thought
]. I don't know.

Daniel
. Think about it over lunch. You have a tendency... This question comes from a certain frame of reference. You can't just accept that frame of reference without challenge. Put yourself in this person's
mind and dig into his words. Then pull back away from it and see if it makes sense... It's like a
negotiation, and this is his first offer: "I know of one right way for people to live, and that's letting everyone live the way they want to live." If you look closely at the terms of his offer, you'll see why it has to be rejected. What he's saying is nonsense. You have to formulate a counteroffer in your own
terms, from your own frame of reference, then you'll have your reply.

Daniel
. So. What did you come up with?

Elaine
. Nothing, I'm afraid. I really don't see how to argue with what he's saying.

Daniel
[
after some thought
]. I've been thinking about your difficulties in a general way, and I hope that you won't be offended by my conclusion. It's certainly not an observation original to me that women in
our society are generally expected to get along by being acquiescent, whereas men are expected to be
assertive.

Elaine
. That's certainly true.

Daniel
. The reason you don't see how to argue with this person's proposition is that you've begun by acquiescing to it, by saying, "Yes, you seem to be making a lot of sense."

Elaine
. I guess that's true. I see his point, and I see some validity to it.

Daniel
. If we're going to make any progress here, I'm afraid you're going to have to resist the long-standing impulse to listen, nod, and acquiesce.

Elaine
. A lifetime in the schools will do that to you.

Daniel
. I understand completely, but it's time to begin fighting the impulse.

Elaine
. I know. I'll do my best.

Daniel
. In this case, what you have to do is turn the tables on this person. You understand the
expression?

Elaine
. Turn the tables? Yes, of course.

Daniel
. What are "the tables"?

Elaine
. Oh. Well. That I don't know specifically.

Daniel
. Do you play chess?

Elaine
. Yes.

Daniel
. Turning the tables is the most aggressive chess move of all. If you're playing the black pieces and you see that your opponent has developed a winning position, you turn the table around so that
you're now playing the white pieces and he's playing the black. You've usurped what appears to be his
superior position.

Elaine
. Hardly a legal move.

Daniel
. No, but it's the origin of the expression. Right now the person who has made this statement about the right way to live seems to have a superior position. His statement seems to make sense. I want
you to turn the tables on him and play his position.

Elaine
. How do I do that?

Daniel
. His proposition is: "The right way to A is to let everyone A the way they want to A." Substitute a B for his A. Any active verb.

Elaine
. Well, let's see... worship?

Daniel
. Try it and see.

Elaine
. The right way to worship is to let everyone worship the way they want to worship.

Daniel
. What do you think of it?

Elaine
. It doesn't make any sense. Letting everyone worship the way they want to worship is not a way to worship.

Daniel
. Try substituting a C.

Elaine
[
after a moment
]. The right way to dance is to let everyone dance the way they want to dance.
That doesn't make any sense, either.

Daniel
. Why not?

Elaine
. Because letting everyone dance the way they want to dance is not a way to dance.

Daniel
. So what about the original statement?

Elaine
. It tells you one thing you should do, but it doesn't tell you how to live. Letting everyone live the way they want to live is not a way to live.

Daniel
. So it can hardly be the one
right
way to live.

Elaine
. No.

Daniel
[
after some thought
]. We haven't actually done anything new here. We always have to get behind people's words to see what's going on in their minds. In this case, what was going on was just some
fuzzy thinking. Some fuzzy thinking that
sounded
good. We brought this to light by substituting
different terms for his term,
live
. We have to be ready to try anything that will help us get behind the words to the ideas that generate the words.

Elaine
. I don't seem to be much good at coming up with things to try.

Daniel
. Well, I'll tell you something. When I started getting questions, back in 1992, each one of them initially flummoxed me. It was only after answering hundreds of them that the techniques I'm showing
you became second nature to me. And even now I occasionally get one that stumps me. Not that I don't
eventually crack it, but I have to go through the same steps we've been going through here, trying this
and trying that until I see the answer.

Elaine
. I guess I can take some consolation from that.

[
They take a short break.
]

Daniel
. I'd like to get back to a subject we were discussing this morning. We were talking about tip-offs that set my alarms ringing, and I said you've got to keep an ear open for items that come to us from the
received wisdom of our culture. For example, any statement that contains the word
Nature
is suspect —
Nature in the sense of that
other
we see outside the window.

Elaine
. How so?

Daniel
. The received wisdom is that such a thing as Nature exists, that it is a veridical entity out there —
as real and substantial as the US Congress or the Roman Catholic Church — enjoying a separate
existence from our own. This is the entity people are thinking of when they say that they "love Nature"
or would like to be "close to Nature."

Elaine
. Well, there is a whole world of life out there that isn't human.

Daniel
. And have we escaped from it?

Elaine
. Escaped from it?

Daniel
. People will often blame our problems on the fact that we have separated ourselves from Nature, that whole other world of life out there. Haven't you ever encountered this sentiment?

Elaine
. Yes, I guess I have.

Daniel
. So how far away from it are we?

Elaine
. In reality, we're not far away from it at all.

Daniel
. Then what sense does it make to say that it would be nice to be "close" to it? We can't
stop
being close to it. We're as much a part of that world as crickets or alligators or oak trees.

Elaine
. You need some pretty thick blinders to miss that.

Daniel
. The distinction between "us" and "it" is a cultural construct, and a very old one. It was clearly in place among the Hebrews, who certainly understood that humans belong to an order of being that is
entirely separate from the rest of the living community. They knew that God didn't create the world for
palm trees or jellyfish, he created it for humans. He doesn't concern himself with the doings of lizards or beetles. He concerns himself with the doings of humans. He didn't promise the dinosaurs a Messiah.

Elaine
. True.

Daniel
. And he didn't send his only-begotten son to save the wildlife and the rain forests.

Elaine
. No.

Daniel
. Considering your religious upbringing, I assume you're familiar with the Great Chain of Being concept.

Elaine
. Yes.

Daniel
. What's at the top of the chain?

Elaine
. God.

Daniel
. And below God?

Elaine
. The angels.

Daniel
. And below the angels?

Elaine
. Humans.

Daniel
. And below humans?

Elaine
. Everything else.

Daniel
. The Great Chain of Being concept is a product of the Middle Ages, but it wasn't left behind during the Renaissance. Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz all wrote about it with complete seriousness. In
fact, it's never been left behind, has it? Even people who don't believe in God or angels still perceive
Man to be at the top of the chain of life on this planet. He stands apart and above all the rest — the rest being that which during the Age of Enlightenment came to be known as "Nature."