There is some force that drives you for its realisation. One would write about Utopia, about their IDEAL society, put their heart and mind into it, attach some value in it, commit their life to it -- and perhaps this is the reason why there has been great loss of lives in the great history of man. They want to change their society, universalise their utopia, and not just present possibilities. If they were just aiming for possibilities without universalising it then maybe we wouldn't have this kind of society we have right at the moment, I'm not saying that I like it the way it is however.
So. I gave it a shot. I wrote my "utopia". They said I was really emotional with it. Maybe I was. Maybe not. I don't know.
Man seemed to have reached its apex but something is lacking. Is it this dream of "utopian" society? Is it unachievable? 45 years ago it was man's dream to reach the moon and it seemed impossible. Now, utopia can exist in the World Wide Web, not to mention SIMS. Technology made almost everything possible.
My "utopia" constitutes a Self that is rational and independent; Other that supplements the Self; responsibility that is extended from within; ethics that is formulated through constant discourse and an overarching political institution that exists to materialise "abstractions."
The Self
The Self is a whole. While the Self is intrinsically different, free and independent from the Other, the Self is discursively constructed by the Other but it does not seek approval from the Other; its existence does not have to be endorsed by the Other. The Self acts according to his rationale by the virtue of free will. Mindful of the "lesser evil", the Self is in constant thought of his actions and deeds. The goal of the Self is to become the best possible person in the context of "who" and "what" he or she is and "what" is possible for him'. This means that the Self should not accept anything but the best according to his rationale and the context of what and who he or she is.
The Other
The Other recognises its the difference to the Self. While the Other complements the Self its existence is a supplement to the Self but the lack of it does not negate the Self. The Other is not the Self.
Responsibility.
Responsibility begins with responsibility to the Self. The Self can only reach out from within. Something that lacks from within cannot be extended outside the Self. The extension of the Self does not mean ceasing the wholeness of the Self. It means that part of the Self is being extended to something outside the Self. Thus responsibility is only possible if that something or someone outside the Self mirrors a part of or the Self.
Ethics.
Ethics is necessary for the survival of the self. It guides him to think and direct his life. Values can be discovered through a volitional process of reason. Discourse is ethics. To deliberately end discourse is the total cancellation of ethics. Value can only be achieved through constant discourse and thus ethics. Thus responsibility through ethics by the virtue of discourse is possible.
Now, what?
Since the Self is intrinsically free, profligate autonomy is ominous. The fact that the Self lives and acts in the company of apparently endless multitude of the Other, seen or guessed, known and unknown, whose life and actions depend on what we do and in turn influence what we do, what we can do and what we ought to do - and all in this in ways we neither understand nor are able to presage. Thus political institutions embody abstractions such as peace and justice. Political institutions exist to castigate the whip when the Self is perceived not to act according to his or her rationale. Realisation of freedom cannot happen without the creation of social and political institutions to protect the Self and the Other equally as a basic matter of justice.
Now, who dare say that this utopia is then impossible?
One is left with questions amidst his or her concept of utopia. The fact of everyday life suspends utopia. If this is the case and if humanity is imprisoned in a non-utopian present, why repress reality with utopian laws in order to arrive at some better form of human life? How should humanity formulate the position of utopia with respect to the political?
If one puts value in everything; one gets too attached to it that when he or she loses it, it is almost the same as losing one's own life, one's own self. Because everyone have their own concept of utopia, my utopia is simply impossible. I do not want to make it possible. My utopia only exists in the realm of my rationale. If everyone would like their utopia to happen it entails shaping others' utopia. And it means exhausting all possible means for the realisation of my utopia. It is but an imaginary alternative that guides me to the conduct of everyday life. If it escapes my mind and when I deem it to become reality, then it becomes intolerable. That is where I draw the line between my utopia and others'. Besides, one's present life may just be "the" utopia of another. The life I am living may just be the "utopia" of another girl in Somalia - a life wherein one can have even the basic necessities in life.
