In 2018, I first heard Johann Hari say that the opposite of addiction is not sobriety, but connection.
As much as that specific line itself was formative for me to the point of illumination, this line also introduced me to the concept of two sides to a coin.
Said more accurately, as coins themselves were responsible for showing me their two sides, this line opened up the idea that opposites, first and foremost, do not have to be the obvious opposites and, one step further, they can even be contentious and are often most productive when they are exactly that.
And, as I’ve spent some time recently contemplating the productiveness of progress, I’ve got some thoughts to share.
If the opposite of addiction is not sobriety but disconnection, and the opposite of impatience is not patience but perfect presence, the opposite to progressiveness would not be opposition to the idea, but direct measurable action that results in progress.
Progress that progressives, in their progressive ideals, are busy idolising the idea of.
But, it’s just an idea.
A concept.
A token.
Just like money is a token for transactions, but doesn’t actually mean anything itself.
Just like how words and names are tokens for the real things that they’re naming, but aren’t the thing itself. i.e. when you call a leaf ‘leaf’, ‘leaf’ is not the leaf, but the name for it.
Progressiveness is a token for progress, but not progress itself.
I am not stating that progressiveness or, better put, being a progressive, is bad.
I would never intend to portray myself as a fool! Or, and perhaps more importantly, accidentally involve myself with them.
In fact, I’m certain that in 2025 and beyond, most progress from the scientific to the societal is able to take place because of historical progressiveness (the idea of progress).
As, factually, the idea of something must exist before the thing itself: basic consciousness into material.
Instead, I am suggesting a (somehow, and perhaps) radical opinion that progressiveness, being the other side of the coin to actual progress, is then, by definition, a distraction to, and from, progress itself.
A prerequisite to actualised progress is a deep rooted commitment, from the heart, to serve.
Interlude: on serving
Most of modern humanity is based upon self-serving, self-realised, self-driven perception. One of the only things to come out of the dark ages of Europe were the Arthurian legends which, among a few other concepts (of which my esoteric skeleton key to the Arthurian legends is, definitely, for another day), highlights the concept of serving within the quest for the Grail.
The quest for the Grail is not a myth of redemption but a myth of reconciliation. What this means is that the hero, whose name is Perceval, does not go through the usual mythical transformation where the spirit of grace (aka divine intervention) intercedes to bring about wholeness. Instead, Perceval brings about his own healing, and in doing so, he challenges thousands of years of unconscious conditioning. Literally, this myth is unlike anything that came before it.
In the quest for the Grail, the core wound of humanity is symbolised by the figure of the wounded (Fisher) King, representing the old patriarchal model of the universe; further, the King’s wound is extended in the legend to the land itself, which becomes the ‘wasteland’. The Grail itself represents the possibility of wholeness and healing. The great turning point in the myth comes when the young Perceval (“The Fool”) approaches the wounded King and asks a simple and courageous question:
“How can I serve the Grail?”
The teaching which, as I’ve said, is one of the only things to come out of a very long period in western history, is that instead of using the Grail to bring about his own wholeness, Perceval performs the greatest act of selflessness, wisdom, and generosity. The question is wise as Perceval has realised that his own healing is intimately linked to the healing of the whole. He has sidestepped the need for grace (divine intervention) and personal transformation (“The Hero”). He has realised that the opposing forces of nature (actual division and the concept of divisiveness, two sides of their own coin) can only be reconciled through asking the right question and then living the answer.
Interlude over.
An arguable (as progressiveness is, rightly, arguing against the status quo) prerequisite to being ‘a progressive’ is the self-identification with that state of being.
Thus, that state of being is one dominated by a state of mind – made obvious by that implicit self-identification.
Who is being served, then, by your idea of progress?
You, or who?
If I required progress in order for something to progress for me, that needed progressing, I’d want progress, not people identified with the mere idea of it; as if they were to be de-identified with the idea, it would disrupt their identity and hurl them into the abyss.
You, or who, is being served, then?
As I’ve suggested, the one side of the coin (the idea of progress) must, by definition, be a distraction from and to the other side (actual progress). I’ll reiterate, if I wanted progress, I’d want progress, not overwhelming distraction due to stuck-in-the-self-stimulation that serves nothing and no one bar the (lower case s) self.
I can not – and will not – speak for you, though. You do what makes you feel right.
Most already do.