I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks "Imagine" is truly the world's stupidest song. "Imagine no possessions", I wonder if you can, John, distributing your wishful claptrap to adoring millions on the back of the ambition of Edison, Westinghouse, Marconi, Sarnoff and a thousand others for... possessions.

People seem to enjoy bashing that song. Stuart Buck went off on it a few months ago.

I like the song, not because I find the lyrics particularly compelling, but like almost everything John Lennon write, it's melodious.

I don't dislike the song. You're right that it's extremely melodious. I just don't like a lot of the people that like the song and consider it super-insightful and philosophical.

ok, you've torqued my mind on this one and I'm days late but what the ... . so, what does peace look like? Or maybe I've totally missed the point, but this is where my mind went. I'm one of those people who likes the song because it's melodious but also because it does speak to me in philosophical ways I find soothing and maybe don't work for everyone but do you really not like me because of that? There are other reasons you could feel this way but this is hardly one of them, methinks. I really wish we were just chatting over a cup of coffee 'cause I do not mean this as a challenge in any way. I am genuinely very curious what people's visions are for a world without all of the things they/we don't like.

Jo,

One of the things that I should probably mention more often is my tendency to work in archetypes. The way that some urban liberals paint suburbanites with a broad brush is a good analogy. They don't dislike each and every suburbanite, but they dislike the imagery that suburbia pops into their mind.

I don't dislike you for finding the notions within the song soothing. Honestly, put in that context it's not entirely where I'm getting at. I have an aesthetic appreciation for differing philosophies that I don't find intellectually palatable in the real world. But knowing the difference between the two is important. (As is, for that matter, the difference between groups and their archetypes, a difference that I internally note but rarely acknowledge). The context in which I view the song with a bit of disdain is the context in which some people seem to hold it as a coherent political (or religious) philosophy that is truly applicable to the real world.

The song is melodious and soothing and pleasent to ears and mind, but it is quite simplistic (as things melodious and soothing and pleasant generally are.) and not particularly, in my mind, profound. I tend to view those skeptically that seem to regard it as such. Maybe no such people exist and are a creation of my personal biases. Who knows, really? But they dovetail with my perceptions of some people sufficiently that they are real enough to me.

(cont'd)

So what does peace look like to me? I'm not sure. But while nations and religions are sometimes sufficient to cause war, I have difficulty viewing them as a source. Or to the extent that they are a source, it is as broad and unavoidable as being flawed human beings. True that without these things there may be no wars, but there really is no 'without these things'.

Nor, to be perfectly honest, should there be in my view. I believe that institutions are necessary to organize society and conglomerate similar trains of thought or faith. As long as different people believe differently, these organizations are bound to exist. As long as they exist, they will collide. What that does not mean, however, is that they are to take up arms with one another. Americans and Canadians think differently and yet do not go to war against one another. Most Catholics and Protestants don't, either. It is not the existence of these groups (by which I mean nations and religions, not those specifically mentioned above) that cause conflict, but the inability to live with those that think and believe differently. Not just live among them, but tolerate their living separately. And the inability of some to have their views regarded and acted upon.

I'm afraid that I can't go too much further without getting in to political specifics, which would likely distract the conversation. But divisions and groups are necessary and even healthy. While diversity is good, so is finding people whose views are at least sufficiently palatable to you that you don't need to fight about it. Don't get me wrong, somewhere in there basic human rights must be given for there to be true peace (there are things that I think both you and I, whatever our political or philosophical differences, could not truly tolerate even if it did not affect me greatly), but I do think that we should not be too careful about affirming too strongly what is and is not a 'right' lest the peace be broken unnecessarily. But I'm getting sidetracked.

My perfect little peaceful world allows allows for both an Athens and a Sparta, a San Francisco and a Tulsa, a Vermont and a Utah. While the specific divisions are almost certainly arbitrary, the ideals are pretty eternal, in my view. To achieve Lennon's vision of a world without country or religion means one of two things to me: (1) Likeminded people do not congregate, so they spend most of their time rehashing the same disagreements with non-likeminded people and ideas are never expounded upon. Ideas can't progress if you must keep defending the first step. (2) Different ideas and beliefs do not exist. I could be wrong, but this is where I feel that Lennon is going, presumably because we've found all the answers. Given humankind's inconsistent nature, I don't believe that there is only one set of answers and much more than nations and religions its the belief that there are a last set of answers that is the cause of much war.

I know that I'm focusing pretty hardily on only part of the song, but it's the part of the song that I have the strongest reaction to. The part about possessions and whatnot depends largely on your point of view. I may not agree with a world without possessions is desirable, but I absolutely understand why someone might have that belief and there are times I find myself railing against materialism even as I reap its benefits. But what really gets to me about the song is that it states that the belief in nothing (no heaven, no hell, no nationality, no god) is better than the belief in something, and Lennon's point (at least what I consider to be his point) that if we could just get rid of these things we'd all be better off because only then will we find the answers.

Oh my, there's way too much to say to be put in this tiny little comments box ;)

Now I wasn't trying to be as literal as you might have read me. You don't know me so I know you couldn't not like me. And if you knew me, i'm sure you'd like me so I wasn't worried about that literally.

And this part got clearer after my posting -- when I read the comments, I pictured the best peace we could hope for would be one with one group of people running around all liking the song and another group running around making fun of them. And I thought that was hilarious.

Sure, I could imagine no possessions. But not the way people are today! ha! Yeah, I agree with you. And I wasn’t really going with his words too literally. I was going more with the feeling I get when I hear the song. The thing about having no heaven or hell, that’s fine with me. Nothing to live or die for, that’s kinda weird because I sure know I would need to have something to live for. Not sure I want to even get to a point where I have to figure out what I’ll die for but maybe that’s weird too. But I didn’t take his lyrics to intend such bland minds. I took it as people having different values that are more in line with us actually living for another 100 years or even more maybe. But maybe that’s just me taking too many liberties with his words! :O

I can imagine many different worlds where things would go differently and better. I can imagine even worse ones but we'll ignore those for now. I see why we're not anywhere near these visions, at least enough to satisfy me these days -- I don't wonder why like I did years ago. But I do believe some people can lead this morphing -- yes, I do think we're always morphing -- and some can follow and others will be dragged. The question in my mind is how many can lead together to some vision that has a future, how many will get it and agree with it and follow, and will there be a tolerably low number who will need dragged?

Surely you’ve had a time in your life where you’ve had to solve something very important, big, huge, overwhelming. And you just couldn't figure it out. Days, weeks, maybe months or even years go by and you just can't do it. Then something happens. Something changes. Maybe it's something external to you. Maybe it's something about the way you think or your priorities. And you notice the problem completely changes and is not a problem anymore. I can see that happening on a grand human scale. Tomorrow we could wake up and wonder what all the fuss was about. Well, ok, maybe not tomorrow exactly.

Anyway, I’m thinking hundredth monkey, critical mass – I believe it’s possible for enough of us to develop a sustainable philosophy so we don’t self destruct. Really, if everyone who is a member of a religion today just gave more weight to “Do unto others”, particularly some OA, officialus administratus, I think that could send us over the top and we’d still have a whole wide range of philosophies held amongst us.

I have the perfect metaphor in mind. It involves a bunch of poindexters at a political rally talking about what poindexters they are and how they're not going to let that stop them from succeeding, scholastic sports like high school football, and the French. It all fits together in my mind, but I'll be darned if I can get it untangled in a more presentable format.

But suffice it to say that I've found your thoughts very interesting. There isn't much more I can say that doesn't involve my odd little metaphor or something I haven't said earlier. If you want to check in with me in a week or two, I might have some thoughts that are both newer and even coherent!

What? You didn't get the memo? They're waiting for us to figure this out and report back!

There I go, letting people down again...