How to define surreal humanism? I'll admit, as an ideology, if that is what it actually is, I've not thought it out too much yet. That is decidedly appropriate. So that is why I am writing here then, to pull at threads, and try and discover some furthering idea of what this is, and why, it satisfies me so much.
I think of last night. I felt a great frustration toward a neighbor, whose aesthetic and nosiness, do not mesh particularly well with my own. The question is regarding yards, and their cut/uncut state, and what plan types constitute an appropriate yard (nothing but grass versus everything except grass). I feel my frustration is reasonable, yet fleeting, such that this morning the whole thing seems thoroughly absurd, as it absolutely is. Neighboring. Yards. Plants. Those moments are so important and yet, like the feeling fleeting.
What does this have to do with anything then?
I think it is something about the nature of wanting (so desperately wanting) the best for my fellow humans and yet, almost always brushing up against how absurd, frustrating, annoying they can be (and I can be . . . absolutely). Humanism asks us value that best that humanity can be. To seek and promote the actualization of others. To pursue universal dignity and well being and potential. And yet, inevitably, it will constantly be faced with humanity being an antithesis. A conundrum. An opposition to the very things that humanism seeks. This then, at least in part, is surreal. Holding simultaneous yet seemingly opposing thoughts about the people we meet . . . while always trying, seeking, desiring to come back to the humanist state.
That seems like it is part of it. A start at least. I fully expect that there will be more.