Perception As Reality

Getting back to something I mentioned earlier, what I say doesn't matter. What is important is what you will understand from what I say-that is, what you think I am saying. The world is what you make of it; if you think that it is a scary place where everyone is out to do you harm, then you operate from that premise and it is true...for you. Every perceived slight weighs on your mind and confirms your opinion, whereas all contradictory evidence is discarded. I think that many will recognize this person, who says "I can't do anything right, everyone hates me!" Conversely, you can go through your existence with the opinion that everyone likes and respects you, so that no matter what anyone says you think of it as a compliment. However we demonstrate it, what comes from this argument is true for all: what you think of as the truth, becomes the truth. But only for you! Thinking something does not make it so for others; for instance, we can believe that some deity caused a tsunami that killed 100,000 people. However, that belief doesn't change the fact that it was a natural phenomenon caused by verifiable and observable actions and reactions. Putting aside how insulting it is to the survivors of the catastrophe who we-supposing for the moment 'we' support this "explanation"-who we would have accept that their loved ones died on the whim of some "superior" being that they may never even have heard of before. Further, that those who died somehow deserved it, because that is what we would be conveying to these people by saying some being had killed them and it has a plan that we believe in. Leaving out the fact that these people were living their lives that day much as they had unmolested for many years before this event, even disregarding all the subjective information, we cannot support this argument. This claim is no different than if someone were to come forward and claim that they had, through 'mental powers', caused the tsunami. This person can believe it, even be completely certain that they were responsible. That conviction does not mean that they are correct. Indeed, it is often the case that after some major event has happened many people will come forward with explanations. Whether it be alien forces (the God of the East Wind, those "dirty Commies", a mutant virus, etc.) or something more mundane ("Little Bobby knocked over the fence on accident."), there are numerous possibilities to blame it on, with varying degrees of plausibility. People have a basic need to understand things, we call it "curiosity", but it can be dangerous in that it leads some to seek excuses or explain these events with very unlikely things. Since there isn't an easily-understood, directly human-based agency to blame for it, these people will concoct involved and far-reaching "reasoning". It is difficult for these people to believe that there requires no external or extraordinary explanation for events, that things happen for certain, predictable reasons-whether we understand those mechanisms or not. It seems strange that a person with so much faith in one explanation has so little left to give the benefit of the doubt to any other. Yet this may be the key, that some peoples' beliefs require them to remain doubtless; as a result they cannot accept the reasoned arguments of others if they would throw the smallest doubt upon the believers' faith. It seems that this system would create many problems, however, and seriously delay and retard the progress of understanding the natural world. For each new bit of information would need to be weighed carefully against established beliefs to see if it conflicts and if it does, the new is rejected for the old. Until the microscope, it was thought that there were supernatural reasons for diseases and death. An entire world was discovered and its previously unseen inhabitants were finally linked to infections, illnesses, and decay. Before, people had believed that the afflicted had either displeased, offended, or not supplicated a deity or demon and that presence had "struck them down". How many hundreds of people had to die before belief caught up with science and allowed physicians to treat illness with something other than parlor tricks and humbuggery? Nowadays, I like to think that the great majority of people realize what actually causes a disease, a tsunami, locust swarms, and the like. Still, there are those who will continue to proclaim that their own personal god was responsible, either directly or ultimately. It is that inability and need to understand that drives people to seek solace in faith, however limited an explanation it may offer. Whatever name you choose to give it, belief is not fact, it is opinion, and cannot change the facts of what happened, except in the mind of the believing individual. To insist that we must all accept one explanation as "The Truth" without question-or even factual basis-is irrational, unfounded, and runs counter to known human behaviour.

Another unedited Rant: a message I sent to my Representatives

Whether we agree with this war or not, it has consumed too much of our valuable resources, not leastly including personnel. This is certainly not just an "election issue"-no matter how tired we became of it being pounded on by the candidates last Fall. Our nation cannot continue to bully its way through this complex issue, or just throw money (that we don't have, by the way) at it. Since this really is about the money, I'd like to take a moment to mention how truly absurd our military budget is-which is around 6 times larger than those of the next 5 largest military spenders combined, I believe? Yet we haven't enough money to continue to fund necessary programs for our own citizens. A nation is a collection of individuals working toward the betterment of all-not just a few elitists who think they deserve it. We regular citizens are the nation, the ones the government is meant to serve, and the ones who are meant to decide what our government does. I don't feel I need to remind you of these facts, I am confident in your perspective and motivation, yet maybe some of your colleagues have lost sight of this. The money funneled to the war is not going to the children in need in our own cities, or the women who are in danger every day, or those who just need a little help; our money is being spent to put more of our fellow citizens in danger-unprepared, unprotected, and needlessly into battle with an enemy our nation created. I say that we did this because I have had time enough (and the wherewithal) to read some of our country's real history. It is a fact that we have bases, both declared and secret, around the globe which were established to protect interests determined, also in secret, by our leaders for our 'benefit'. We are receiving the benefits of those decisions now: the attacks and killing in retaliation for our uninvited occupation of numerous other countries, our destructive interference in other governments' workings, our contributions to terrorists and terrorism, our spying and harrassing of individuals, our refusal to admit involvement and collusion or to be held accountable, etc. We should never have started spreading, and certainly should not continue to spread, this empire of hypocrisy. It can be no surprise to us that these people, who have suffered from our actions-or at least with the apparent approval of disregard-would wish the least form of redress: vengence. We have time, I hope, to offer these people an alternative to destructive recompence, but we cannot do this by continuing to trespass and meddle, to establish oppressive bases, and support tyrannical regimes. After all, it is our example they are following. We have shown them for too long how to terrorize, it is past time that we show them how to live peacefully and coexist.

Choices

Let us assume-as some believe-that choices are wrong, not only to decide one way or another, but simply to have. To even be able to choose between "homo-" or "hetero-" sexuality, between using or not using drugs, between this or that religion, all these "choices" are inherently, intrinsically, and irrevocably wrong-according to some people. If we do not have the choice, however, how can we know? How can we know that we are doing the "right thing" if we are not allowed to make a decision, if we can do only one thing in any situation? Even outside how boring it would be to have only one option to follow, how can we be educated or informed people living our own personal lives if we are not given the opportunity to make "mistakes"? Everyone has to come to their own conclusion about who they want to be and what they wish to do; that is freedom, and I don't find too many people arguing against it these days...which may be an indication of another problem, but we can discuss that later. Can we truly even make an 'incorrect' choice? Every time we make a decision, we are choosing from all the information we have at the moment, our "best guess". This is because we cannot wait our entire lives to study every aspect of a situation, to analyze each bit of information, indeed, to collect all available information every time we make a decision. We will make 'mistakes', but they are not evil, they are what teaches us directly what we should avoid, as well as why, an important aspect I will return to momentarily. When we make a 'mistake' and are hurt (physically or emotionally) we are operating from a fallible-but correct-standpoint, in that we are choosing correctly for us, at that time. The worst thing to come out of not having a chance to choose is that one never learns those lessons that lead to success; without the failed romantic relationship(s) in high school, one is left without a guide or goal to lead one to the proper love in life. Many times without failure, we don't know where to hunt for success. Thomas Edison made over a thousand attempts at the light bulb before he succeeded, each time learning another thing not to do! Most people will experiment with something in their life-and come to the conclusion on their own that it is not best for them, not because someone else tells them, but because there are negative consequences. What a person is arguing for when they say we should not have the option to make our own decision on whatever issue, is that we should not have the information, the opportunity, and the experience of learning what it actually means. Humans are very much keyed to learning through mistakes, by experimentation-indeed many respected (often revered) historical figures are remembered by sayings which indicate that they knew people need to make, and are better for making, mistakes-often by modelling that behaviour. Whether something turns out the way we want or expect it to is irrelevant, having and making that choice is the key. Otherwise, we are simply automatons running a program; not only is this a dismal and joyless prospect, but it makes no sense given our abilities, both cognitive (the ability to learn and analyze) and physical ( movement and the senses which allow us to examine our surroundings).