One of the most profound thoughts I’ve come across in life was shared with me by a close friend of mine, an emergency room doctor, he got it from a fortune cookie – here’s the fortune: 
“The tightest chains that bind us are those that we place upon ourselves.”
Over my life, I’ve wrestled with this insight. There are a host of applications. Like the impact of a good painting, people may see it differently, all with significant impact. So I don’t offer a clairvoyant insight, just a thought after years of reflection: Often, we don’t think of what is optimum. Due to social pressures such as “real politic” we dampen what might be with an inordinate acceptence of things as they presently are. These are the chains we place on ourselves, the limited view of others.
More often than not, the most frequent response I have in an intial discussion about an International Bill of Rights is “Will the Russians, or the North Koreans agree to that.” The question misses the mark. The question is not what will be accepted now, or by that small part of humanity, but rather, what would be optimum? What is the story of rights for all to be taught to children, and adults, in Mexico, Russia, Kenya, or any other country?
If your chains are such that you are wed to a nation-state perspective, then this may be difficult, but what is optimum for humanity is not defined by any particular nationality.
These nation-state lines are fabrications, as astronauts continue to tell us who have experienced the “Overview Effect.” It’s not that these lines do not exist now that we’ve created them, of course they do, but for purposes of evolving into a international community, while keeping the cultural and historic traditions within nation-states, we need to think about what is optimum for all of us.
Eleanor Lives! asks a simple question: What would be an optimum International Bill of Rights, enforceable in the courts of all countries?
Admittedly, it’s an inquisitive question. Eleanor Lives! does not claim to have an answer to this question, but it does have a starting point, and it is facilitating a dialogue. There is a draft of an International Bill of Rights on the homepage of the Eleanor Lives! website. Please check it out, loosen your chains, and contribute your thoughts. The tightest chains, the ones that hurt the most, are when you don’t even have the daring to contribute your thoughts, critical or supportive, about rights for all people. That you just timidly leave things go as they are.
If you do have the strength to share thoughts, whatever you say, whoever you are, it is given equal consideration whether you are a human rights professor, or a restaurant worker. Recent discussions about a Bill of Rights as part of new draft Constitution for Chile show that what is most important is participation, not position.
Observing people reviewing a list of rights for 15 years, it’s clear most people think more about what others think than ponder what they really think. This is a good opportunity to think for yourself. Take it.
This process has been ongoing for 13 years and Eleanor Lives! is now working on Version 14. A new Version is published each year. Suggestions for changes of wording, or just a lamblast about what a stupid idea an International Bill of Rights is, can easily be made on the Eleanor Lives! home page. Just don’t sit silently as war expands and threats are made that satellites now are “war targets.” We’re taking our shortsighted vision into the expanse of space. Einstein is right, it’s “the good people”, not the evil ones, who have gotten us in this predicament. Recycling, in the kitchen, or in your mind, simply is not enough.
Eleanor sought wide participation from people of all backgrounds and professions. The draft document on the website is a starting point, not a finished document. Eleanor Lives! also seeks wide participation.
And when you make your suggestion, please remember that we are drafting the most beautiful document possible, and we are not concerned about whether one ruler or country will accept the document. The standard for all comments is what is best for humanity. As you make your comment, break your chains. Imagine that the rights you pick would apply in all countries and discard your nationality. Condiser that you could emerge in any country, what rights would you expect?
You are correct to have this expectation as all power for those who govern emanantes from you. When you brake your chains you can engage in one of the most powerful acts of your life: to join with others to accomplish with others that which you could never accomplish by yourself.
Pardon if this seems brash. Today, many people recoil when asked an inquisitive question. 
Socrates did not have this problem; nor did Eleanor. Somehow, an inquisitive question has become a challenge rather than an inquiry. Even worse, if a question triggers serious reflection regarding issues we hold dear, we take the easy path. We stereotype it, discard it, label it as “conservative” or “liberal” — it’s the “Blue” or the “Red” states.
The human palate of thought has many more hues. When I hear someone self identify almost immediately as “Republican” or “Democrat”, “Conservative” or “Liberal”, my first thought is “okay, I have a labeler – their chains are strong.” It’s actually a weak way to look at the world because it relies on stereotype rather than reflection. These people typically care more about expressing what they already think than learning something new, or engaging in a discussion so that they, along with the person with whom they are speaking, might both reach a higher level of understanding. Those who self label hamper their own growth, along with the growth of the society of which they are part.
Dialogue is a process that leads to growth.
Eleanor Lives! asks you to engage in dialogue without labels. The weight of the idea, not its source, is most valuable. This may seem like a slight shift, but it is defining. As we check our labels at the at the door, or at this website, like Eleanor, let’s dispense with stereotypes. Let’s challenge each other with ideas, and listen, rather than depend on the caricatures of nightly news.
With this approach, we see our similarities along with our differences, not because it is “politically correct”, but because searching for what is optimum is the only way we will achieve it – through writing, and listening, we can measure an idea, not based on stereotype, but on its weight.
On we go, with broken chains, to what is optimum.
Leave a Reply