"Living apart and at peace with myself, I came to realize more vividly the meaning of the doctrine of acceptance. To refrain from giving advice, to refrain from meddling in the affairs of others, to refrain, even though the motives be the highest, from tampering with another's way of life - so simple, yet so difficult for an active spirit."
- Henry Miller, American writer (1891-1980)
So here'e the thing, Henry. By living your life without caring about the lives of others, you live alone. You live a selfish and egocentric existence. You become a taker rather than a giver.
I'm not certain why someone thought it wise to immortalize this quote, unless it was to justify his or her own selfish motives.
There is no question as to the validity of Miller's claim. The easiest way to not offend anyone, to not have anyone attack you, to "live in peaceful existence" is to allow everyone to be the way they want to be.
But what if that way is self destructive? Should we allow someone to take illegal drugs that will damage their brain, cause them and their loved ones much personal grief, shorten their life and cause a series of breakins or robberies to pay for the drugs?
Should we allow people to join severe religious cults that will in effect imprison them and brainwash their minds? And not interfere with the systematic destruction of some people by others?
Would it have been acceptable to Miller that Hitler's Nazis committed genocide on a massive scale, or that it happened in Rwanda, Bosnia or other places since his death? That would involve leaving Hitler and his ilk to live their lives their own way. Hands-off for Miller.
If you were systematically harming yourself and thereby causing severe psychological and financial harm to your family and loved ones, would you insist on your right to destroy your life slowly and harm the only people who care about you?
Henry Miller may have been an outstanding playright, but he was not a well-loved man. He gave up on trying to help people. Most people who met him in his later years found him annoying.
Perhaps he rarely experienced meeting people who really wanted and needed his help.
As Andrew Carnegie said, "There is no use whatever trying to help people who do not help themselves. You cannot push anyone up a ladder unless he be willing to climb himself."
But some people genuinely want to help themselves. Some can't do it alone and some don't know how to do it. Miller would have missed those people.
Bill Allin
Turning It Around: Causes and Cures for Today's Epidemic Social Problems, striving to show how to recognize those with their green lights on.
Learn more at http://billallin.com
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 27
Your point about a self involved existence is well taken. Perhaps, that is what Henry intended. I don't know.
As for YOU, Mr. Bill, don't you think that it's a bit unfair to be impugning the character of a dead man? If YOU ever create anything worth mentioning in the same breath as "Death of a Salesman" or "The Crucible" you MIGHT be worth listening to--but I won't be holding my breath.
GRRRRRRR!
How can I be any plainer that "Don't acknowledge!"
The stalker, according to Freudian psychology, has unresolved sexual issues involvng his father. It's a love-hate relationship, but he secretly has sexual fantasies involving his father.
He is transferring these fantasies and his father-hate to me.
Is that clear enough? These are issues that no one should promote by recognizing them or acknowledging his problem and his efforts to get my attention.
He is a sexual predator and potential murderer waiting to happen. Even he will not be conscious of his problems, or he will be in denial if he is.
He is better left alone.
There must be come benefit or gain for the person you approach about helping with their problem. The 12-year-old won't care about disease or dying because she won't have much experience with them or she might even want to go that way to escape the problems or her life.
What else might she care about? You could do what you do so well, put your advice into a story. (Jesus did parables, for example, because the Israelites loved stories with lessons--like Aesop's Fables. Fables, myths and parables are all stories with lessons embedded into them.) Tell the story of what your husband is going through with his emphysema and what you are going through as an innocent bystander-helper.
Most people in that state (the girl's) don't give much thought about hurting themselves (they believe they are invincible) but will give second thoughts to the situation if they understand that others will suffer terribly when she gets sick or dies. Most don't want to hurt others.
For support, put her in touch with me and I will explain what I went through with the death from lung cancer of my father (a lifetime smoker) and (perhaps more importantly) the death six years earlier of my mother who only inhaled second hand smoke. Both suffered for many months on the edge of death--plenty long enough to think about how they might have done things differently in their lives. My mother-in-law died of emphesema too, so I am close to this topic.
Simple advice of "stop smoking" won't work for a child any more than it did for your husband.
Advice must be administered like any form of advertising, with a "hook." That means that the listener or reader must perceive a clear benefit to accepting and implementing the advice.
Maybe there is nothing wrong with your advice, but only with your approach to offering it. With the best of intentions and motivations, you might have failed because you didn't understand that an advice giver is a sales person.
The listener doesn't fail you by not taking your advice. It's the obligation of the advice-giver to convey the message in the most effective manner.
As you are Canadian, pay attention to TV spots on now sponsored by MADD and other organizations (including the province of Manitoba and Volkswagen). They WILL get your attention and the attention of teens.
HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA, HA!
"...I will explain what I went through with the death from lung cancer of my father (a lifetime smoker) and (PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANTLY) the death six years earlier of my mother..."
HMMM, Bill. It looks like you might have some Freudian issues of your own there.
I must say that it's a measure of success when the naysayers and crapshooters give careful attention to every article I write. They don't do that with people who aren't successful with what they publish. It's maybe the only way they can be noticed without being arrested. So far.
What is important is that I live my life the way I believe I should, strivng to meet and surpass the standards I have set for myself.
Frankly, I consider the whole concept of "success" a load of crap. Who cares? Few strive for success in any way accept acquiring more money than they know how to spend. Be who you want to be and be proud of it would be as close as I could come.
I even spelled the word playwright wrong.
Nothing else from the article changes as a result of my error. Miller was an odd dude, a renegade who was praised by some a vilified by others for his radical view about the hypocrisy in the US on various topics, most notably on sex.