In order for any movie or novel to be interesting, there must be introduction of some snafu, some bad behavior, some conflict, some lack of communication that creates problems. Think a guy marries a gal he slept with because while he loves her, he’s not sure she loves him and he wants to do the right thing by her. Think the same gal is in love with the guy but believes he married her only because she got pregnant. So two people create frictions and drama in a relationship, frictions which in presence of appropriate communication would not exist.
Justification for the drama? Neither the guy nor the gal wants to be vulnerable, hurt, so there is lots of negative excitement and drama until eventually someone speaks up, lights go on, and there is acknowledgement of love on both sides. There then is ushered in the happily, or more truthfully the “whatever the two make of it” thereafter. We have then that entrenched in fiction is the well received notion that everyone behaving right all of the time cannot generate enough of interesting.
But novels and movies are not necessarily good depictions of how people behave in real life, or better still how people ought to behave in real life. Think the cop who knocks down a villain, then turns his or her back on the villain in order to untie a victim. You and I watching know a person knocked out can regain consciousness, meaning if the villain is left alive, it is best to keep an eye on him or her. But then, for drama there is a backing of the villain for creation of another twist in the story or yet another fight scene. Given novels and movies employ artistic license — sometimes incorporate irrationality, stupidity, or what is ‘unreal’ for generation of interesting, movies cannot be regarded to be exemplification of appropriate behaviors.
What then, if everyone lives rightly can societal coexistence remain interesting? Can we still have good humor, fun, interesting interactions, and appropriate doses of excitement if everyone lives right?
First, let us note that right living does not imply all women are brunettes. Regardless of right living, we still will have women that are blondes, brunettes, redheads etc. The world still will be filled with dark skinned and light skinned women, and all of the different shades in between. Women still will dress in green, red, purple, lilac, and all sorts of vibrant colors; still will wear flowery prints. We establish first and foremost then that in presence of right living, vibrant colors remain part of societal interaction and existence.
Next, it is important to note right living does not imply everyone ends up with exactly the same personality. We still will have nerds, sports types, women who are into science, men who are into liberal arts, and all the in-betweens. In presence of right living by everyone, we continue to have rich diversity of occupations, personalities, personal quirks, capacity for humor or lack thereof. In presence of all of highlighted diversity, it seems we must be capable of generating fun, interesting, and appropriate doses of excitement alongside all of the good purposes implied by right living.
Third, while two people can do what is right, they necessarily do not accomplish what is right in exactly the same fashion. Two people can tell the truth, yet impose their perspectives in terms of what they deem most important about the truth they espouse. Two people can describe the same sunset and to an absent third party appear to be describing two different events. In presence of right living by everyone then, we do not arrive at sameness. There is similarity, yet our individuality imposes natural diversity on interactions. It must be the case then that diversity inherent in our individuality possesses capacity for generation of ‘fun’, ‘interesting’, and appropriate doses of excitement.
Finally, while a group of people can get together for a good cause, and while specific good sought by each person within the group of necessity must overlap, there likely remain some uniqueness to objectives sought by each person. In presence of some differences with respect to most important objectives sought by each person in the group, right living still will be accompanied by ‘give and take’, negotiation, and respect for diversity inherent in communal pursuit of goals and objectives.
An open minded reading of writings of King Solomon in Books of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes of the Bible reveals lots of wisdom nuggets. Some cliches we bandy about in secular society today emanate from Solomon’s brilliant mind.
But by his own acknowledgement, Solomon was a man who got bored with right living, deviated into things he knew he ought to have avoided. At the end of it all having engaged with each of right living and riotous living, Solomon concluded the most important thing to realize is that while we all are endowed with power of choice, we always must remember choices have consequences. He went on to characterize his desire for riotous living to be foolish and vain. Right living he concluded was enough for a fun, interesting life filled with diversity, and appropriate doses of excitement.
What then to conclude with, but a toast to the Utopian concept of right living by everyone for arrival at purposeful, fun, interesting lives built on individuality that generates diversity and appropriate doses of excitement. After all, if we are to wish for or toast the future, we might as well wish for that which while seemingly unattainable constitutes highest ideals of our common existence. Right living coupled with fun, interesting, diverse individuality, and appropriate doses of excitement seems located right at the cusp of ideal.