The Tenets of Cosmolosophy Continued:

The Immorality of the Hard Sell.

There is a document whose message has survived over the years precisely because it was
expressed in the manner that it tried to convey. It became something of a Hippie cliché during the
sixties unfortunately, but it has always been a statement of guiding principles for me. This document
starts with the following lines:

Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons. Speak your truth quietly and
clearly; and listen to others, even to the dull and the ignorant, they too have their story. Avoid loud and
aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.

This is of course is the Desiderata (by Max Ehrmann. It should be noted that there has
been some controversy on who wrote it. The Wikipedia reference indicates Mr. Ehrmann
and the Rev. Frederick Kates, as denoted by the Yale Book of Quotations, but this link from
Fleur-de-lis Designs has a more detailed history.)

It is interesting to consider that the word desiderata is Latin for “desired things.” It is
even more interesting when you consider that Mr. Ehrmann also wrote a book entitled “The
Desiderata of Happiness,” which was a collection of philosophical poems (and highly
recomended.) It is interesting for me to ponder when I consider it within the context of our
current social household (from the Etymology of the word economy). Desired things, and
the desired things of happiness indeed. If you read some of Mr. Ehrmann's poems you come
to see that he too was looking to ask deeper questions of how to understand these things
within an overly rational (which is to say overly objectified and abstracted) society. What,
you might ask, does this have to do with the “Hard Sell,” and whether it's immoral or not?
Let us consider it.

It is human to desire things of course. We want to be heard to know that we matter. We

thus want to express ourselves in varied ways (imagining, building and maintaining all sorts
of material and immaterial constructs). We want useful tools with which to make and
preserve our expressions. We want reasonably comfortable and secure surroundings with
which to center our growth and extension of connection (via family, friends, neighbors and
expressive collaborators). And we want the material sufficiency to allow for leisure,
recreation and contemplation. This is all human and healthy, but in a social household that is
the poster child for abstraction, what we are meant to desire must necessarily be manipulated
at the very least, and most probably corrupted in the long run. How can it be otherwise when
each of us toils within our own bit of isolated labor in the great matrix of manufacture;
where not only is what is manufactured decided by others, but that what is to be desired is
manufactured as well. And for all of this to work (all puns intended) there has to be the hard
sell.

In considering this we need to put aside for the moment the fundamental absurdity of a
people who have allowed themselves to become so disconnected, not only from each other,
but from that which sustains them. This is inherent in a specialized, commercial-commodity
form of economy. I will be exploring this more when I take on the tenet concerning
connection. For now, however, I want to discuss what I see as the horrible effects that a
world of the hard sell engenders.

Even though most of us might, in a general sense, have a visceral connection to what
the hard sell is (we know it when we see and hear it), I still think the first question we must
ask is: What separates the discourse of ordinary exchange (the regular give and take
dialogue) that might surround the barter or trade of anything material or immaterial? And in
this, of course, we can include the notion of selling someone on an idea or belief, as well as a
physical item. Towards that end I think we can declare at least 3 parameters in which
extremes, omissions, or specific qualities, will make our distinction. So let us start.

Let's call the first parameter “Reciprocity”. In this I would encapsulate the notion of
how much actual give and take is possible. I think we can all agree that, in the hard sell, it is
mostly a case of a one sided exchange. We are only shown or told what the seller wants us
to see or hear; and all without much possibility of issuing answerable questions in return.

Let's call the next parameter “Full Disclosure.” This is where we ask the related
questions of not only what the seller really wants to gain from what is being sold, but is
what is touted as being the value or usefulness to us truly intrinsic to the thing (does it
actually do or provide what is promised)? In the hard sell, because of both the first, and the
following parameters, these questions become tricky indeed. One might even ask, would the
hard sell be necessary at all if those who avoided full disclosure weren't around?

And finally, let's call the last parameter the “Lay of the Lever.” One might also call this
the “Background of the Button,” but whatever metaphor of instrumentality one chooses one
is talking about the means by which we are pushed or played upon to get us to accept the
thing being offered. This is where the formulation of the persuasive message is guided by
varying degrees of application to things that are important to us. Hardly a problem in
ordinary persuasive discussion, certainly, but when the seller has the “hard” motivation all
propriety goes out the window (and truly nothing is sacred). For in this parameter lies the
subtle and not so subtle use of every aspect of our baser psychology; our deepest passions,
fears, prejudices, and fantasies. The hard sell neither cares for which, or to what extreme,
any of these basic aspects of our nature are taken advantage of; for there is only one bottom
line for the hard sell, only one measure that really matters, and that is to close the deal.

I think there is also a certain desperation behind the hard sell. I hesitate to call it an
actual parameter, but I think it an important aspect of it. Certainly understandable within the
context of a specialized, commercial-commodity form of economy. With an ever increasing
number of livelihoods dependent upon the creation of consumables, and with ever improving
technique allowing fewer producers to produce even more, how could there not be a
desperation to get the consumables consumed. A process that becomes consuming in and of
itself. “Competitive Consumption” is what I call it. That it is insanity is certainly (at least at
some level; especially concerning the inherent limits of any planet keeping an intricate web
of organic processing going) obvious to all of us. That it creates more than one moral
dilemma perhaps not so obvious.

What we are talking about, in my opinion, when we consider the notion of the hard sell, is nothing
less than violence done to the human condition in general, and the individual soul and spirit in
particular. For in the world of the hard sell very little can be sincere or genuine when the motives of
most must be suspect. Electrified facade, glowing terms, and resonant imagery become the norms
(along with the amplification of everything in the lower brain). Very little is communicated to actually
inform precisely because that would encourage thought and questions; when what is really desired of
your desire is more akin to impulse and reflex. That cynicism and apathy result should be of no great
surprise to anyone (and sadly, isn't very surprising any more). How can Loving Structure be
encouraged in such a toxic atmosphere? How can we even hope to continue creating shared vision (the
essence of cooperation and in finding common ground) when we atomize to isolated interest groups
(commercial, social, or political) all working their own sales pitch? All with a bill of goods that hides
both motive and actual value. And everybody getting more and more desperate to make their sale.

I hasten to add that I am not so naïve as to think that the temptation to resort to the hard sell can
ever be ultimately removed from human behavior. Any more than greed or envy might be completely
removed. Heaven help us though if we can't come to see the hot house we've created for these kinds of
emotions and behaviors to grow in.

I started this with the first few lines of the Desiderata. I would ask the reader to harken back to it
and consider this: Do we really want to continue down the path we're on, or do we want to create a
social household where “Speak(ing) your truth quietly and clearly...” is all anyone would ever want to
do? And where, as well, the notion of really listening to others would be automatic, even if you
perceived them to be “...dull and the ignorant...” for you would grant them the same respect and
sincerity that you would expect them to grant you? If we could apply the immense creativity of this
nation we could figure out a Loving Structure to provide the green house where connection and
cooperation could flourish. This is another example of making something and believing it. We first
need to make it in our heads however. Make it there and then believe in it. We can then engage each
other in real give and take dialogue, hammering out a common ground for a shared vision. And make
no mistake. Americans with a shared vision are a true force of nature. It is a choice as to whether that
force will be used for good or ill. What I find truly depressing, though, is trying to decide which is
worse: An America that can no longer forge a shared vision, or an America that creates one that ends up
causing no end of grief and mayhem. With the way we're going, and the way the rest of the world will
probably follow, would there be much difference in the two outcomes?