Conversing in the street
At a protest
We had a very enlightening pow wow
As too in form me
He stated with qualm assurance
“Protest before enlightenment, protest after enlightenment”
A parity of action
Like I had never seen
To which I yack knowledged
You mean like
“Child abuse before enlightenment, child abuse after enlightenment”
And parently flailing attest
Of means
And states not worth beings
As well as dis coarse
With know end incite
This poem was inspired by a conversation I had with a fellow protester on the street. As not subject to small talk, we touched upon the nature of enlightenment. The undiscerning tautology of “[insert action] before enlightenment, [repeat same action] after enlightenment,” struck me as a perfect representation of New Age gobbledygook. Hopefully, the palpable absurdity felt in one’s soul with my succinct parody: “Child abuse before enlightenment, child abuse after enlightenment,” should be enough to dismiss such nonsense.
New Age philosophy and other forms of “immaterialism” view life as simply a spiritual process where specific ends literally don’t matter, and one meaning is as good or bad as the next meaning — and what meanings might follow from such inanity and insanity! While such a whirled view may seem an intriguing balance, or even antidote, to postmodern materialism, the reactionary amoral forces of materialism are mirrorly replaced with eerily similar nonreactionary amoral farces, conveniently well-suited to First-World privilege and god-like individualism. Such absurd amorality rejects any set of collected knowledge about good and evil, leaving society with no landmarks to navigate progress in manifesting goodness over and above evil. There is no right and wrong, only differences. And while this may lead to a certain profoundly uncommitted form of tolerance, it leaves human rights awash, and human wrongs unaccounted for. Such a perverse viewpoint is only inviting inasmuch as we trust in our own godness alone. New Age spirituality’s OCD lock on “life as process” does reflect an incomplete truth related to the redemptive nature of essentially every world religion or perennial philosophy; that is, good can emerge from evil. Fortunately, these esteemed traditions do not collapse good into evil. These age-old spiritual traditions value transformation in society and of society, not simply the fate of one soul divorced from all others — a lonely god fore better or worse. In fact, if personal transformation means nothing in particular, then such spiritual progress is limited to oxymorons, and no one else. Further, if there is no accountability to others, no legitimate demand of others on us, then even the sparsest just us is untenable and unattainable. I have long been intrigued by Buddha’s choice to remain present in this world to help others rather than blow out into nirvana, as he was do. The good news of a social gospel should not be tossed into a fiery dustbin from which nothing is retrievable — leaving only nothing as retrievable. 
While there is much wile in discerning good and evil, to reject such efforts out of hand is far more dangerous. I will gladly give a pass to my fellow protester, who may have simply been a victim of fuzzy thinking. Of course, we can meditate on such unprophetable ruminations until the cows come home. Still, it is passable to do the right thing for the wrong reason; just as doing the wrong thing for the right reason is culpable of mends to the othercide of a fence. Intentions and actions are two sides of the same flipping coin. Means and ends are inseparable as attested to by anyone subject to any given mean or any fatal end. To harmonize is the objective, not to monotonize the subjective. May we all benefit from both good intentions and right action.
