Games, Movies, Sports — The Legos of Consciousness
First I took on John Lennon. Love is not the answer but acceptance could be.
Now MLK Jr. and that tricky moral arc of the universe. The concept has been traced to the abolitionist minister Theodore Parker.
MLK: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
His use of the quote is best understood by considering his source material. “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” is King’s clever paraphrasing of a portion of a sermon delivered in 1853 by the abolitionist minister Theodore Parker. Born in Lexington, Massachusetts, in 1810, Parker studied at Harvard Divinity School and eventually became an influential transcendentalist and minister in the Unitarian church. In that sermon, Parker said: “I do not pretend to understand the moral universe. The arc is a long one. My eye reaches but little ways. I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by experience of sight. I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice.”
As I tweeted, we have lived through hundreds of years in human history when there was intellectual darkness and little "morality" as we think of it today anywhere in sight or practice. In fact, faith was seen as the opposite of reason and helped explain and justify the cruel treatment of each other. It wasn't until the 18th century and the rise of transcendentalism that modern concepts of 'all humans' and 'justice for all' took hold in our collective consciousness.So the idea of hoping for that arc to get on with its bending toward justice to expressly straighten out the cruelties of our times is misguided to me. I'm not convinced all humans are created with a built-in sense of justice.
And the way I understand that is to view life as an analog to cinema and sports, rather than the other way around. Life imitates art. We incarnate with various roles, the good people and the bad people, in simplistic and inaccurate terms. For such a long time, we relied on a clear understanding of these roles and put systems in place (laws, religion, shared assumptions, pretend objectivities) to maintain those boundaries.
But those boundaries are crumbling. So we could use a new framework. One possible concept is that these roles are not as clearly defined as those of the pitcher on the mound and the murderer in the movie. Asking the actor to not play that role is illogical — the script falls apart without the villain.
So instead of only appealing to a shared sense of justice — which I believe the majority still possess — we might also want to entertain other strategies. Going to an actor who's getting paid a lot to play the villain and presenting them with facts is utterly useless. Because they already signed up for a role! But if we, in our roles, want to stop a murdering rampage, we have other tools we can use, besides reason.I do not have all the answers, I barely have any. But I see this framework as one that makes more sense. And as such, it allows me to feel less victimized and vulnerable. Because this is the script and I too chose to incarnate here and now. If we humans want to continue, we will figure it out. Just as we have so many times in the past. I can choose to be a detached observer and marvel at the drama of it all and pay attention to the parts of the script that are directly impacting me now. Or, I can pay attention to as many parts as I want — that is also the freedom I have as a sentient being.
My point in sharing this concept is two-fold: one, so that we create new strategies to deal with seemingly irrational intransigence and two, so we feel less at the effect of the unpredictability. Because with these two factors becoming well-established, the old mindsets will not equip us to deal with NOW. The past four years have shown us that relying on norms and niceties is not enough.
(This is an old piece I never published but still seems relevant today in 2026.)