A Series of Rules, or Rulers

Society is nothing more than a collection of expectations, things that have come together to shape who we are and what we think. It would not occur to many of us to live another way, to have a different approach to living. It may seem odd to consider as anything other than the natural way of things having ones' life in two parts: "a job" and "life outside of work" . Yet things were not always this way, indeed, even the concept of money is relatively new. Life would continue if drastic changes were made, it was in the past when people lived simpler lives and it will be different in the future, in some way. Lives not filled with toiling at one thing all day, something that had no relation to one's life. Rather, in the past people were constantly connected with all aspects of their lives, and were not dependent on only one thing to sustain them, instead they were intimately familiar with everything around them. Life was filled with connections, between people and land and the world. I do, in fact, question those who think or say they would prefer to live in another time period, given how acculturated we are. Though there are still some remaining who continue historical lifestyles in parts of the world, and some vestiges of it in our own culture. I think people are beginning to figure out this separation is why they feel hollow and isolated, and how to reestablish themselves in the world. For a fun treatment on this, read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn.

Do what you want to the girl...

I know that many people say they wish that their kids' lives will be better than their own, that their children should have all the opportunities possible. They say, "I want her to have all the things I never did"...not me. I want my own life to be the best and certainly to be better than it was growing up; my kid can fend for himself, it's alright if I let him do without a few things. I should get all the treats and gifts because, really, I'm who is important in this world; I count for more since I'm older and have more to offer than a child who can't do anything on his own. Not that I want him to have a horrible life, or plan on creating drama, or trauma, for him-all I'm saying's that me and my life are what matters. Besides, it'll be good for him in the long run: it will give him more character and provide great "life experiences". In fact, allow me to explain more fully my attitude, and say that the same reasoning applies to my wife. She's on her own when it comes to what she wants; I'm not here to provide, to be her supplier of joy or support-she should be happy just to have me in her life. Yes, sir, I'm out for myself, only looking out for my needs, and not to worry about anyone else's. No one else is going to do it for me, that's for sure, and why should I do it for anyone else?

This is all farce, of course, I don't believe in this attitude, nor do I think anyone would say they do subscribe to it. On hearing it, I think most people would say it sounds completely ridiculous: that is backwards, we cherish our children and need to protect them, to provide for and enrich the lives of children; we are even willing to give our lives for them if necessary. Yet for all this lip-service a lot of people actually apply the attitude I outlined previously when it comes to their lives, and act as though it were what they truly believe. Since it is the actions that count, rather than what we claim we will do, then it is our actions which indicate who we truly are (though that is a topic for another time). So these people behave as though their selves and their own lives are more important to them than those who they "care most about" and "love", showing who and what is truly important to them. They will treat their intimates as if only their own needs and desires matter, and that others should accommodate this attitude; as though those around them should somehow serve them. I've seen it and experienced it myself, with intimate relationships in particular: no matter how much I could give, it would not be enough because I still want to be treated as a human and live my own life according to what works for me and makes me happy. Another way this attitude can play out is if the first person tries to give and do "all" for the second, making themselves the "willing servant". This is actually another form of control, as it allows the subservient person to manipulate others by pointing out their own sacrifice and how much it takes for them to do so. Thusly, the child or spouse becomes a pawn, rather than an individual, just another means to their own needs. The needs that will be filled are those that the "subservient one" feels like allowing.

So now we've explored this issue and seen behind these attitudes a little, we find we're talking basically about two sides of the same coin. We know that we cannot give all of ourselves for any other individual, it is not a rational means of obtaining our own or others' fulfillment. Moreover, it leaves only a shell of a person with no means of provoking true challenge to and reward for others. Neither should we be so careless and selfish as to wish for others to react this way. Else we risk becoming entirely self-centered and attempting to be self-sufficient all alone. We should have care for those around us and their individuality, as we expect them to do for us. Somewhere between these two extremes we can find a balance, without feeling we have to sacrifice ourselves or others to achieve happiness.

Where Have All the Heroes Gone?

People enjoy their legends, their superhuman heroes-they wish they could emulate and strive to become those people. Our history is dotted with examples and stories: Beowulf, Jesus the Christ, Buddha, Superman, Robin Hood, Mahatma Gandhi, Valentine Michael Smith, Abraham Lincoln, the Kwisatz Haderach, Mohamed, and so on. We have to ask ourselves then, where are our modern-day heroes? Who do we look up to as these people have been celebrated? Do we wish to copy Bill Gates? Are we really supposed to idolize George Bush or Tony Blair? Or do we favor the Hilton crowd, the Anna Nichole Smiths and Britney Spears of the world? Because it seems more and more that people are respected and idolized solely for being famous instead of doing something to deserve that respect. In fact, the whole notion of these people being role models is absurd because they do nothing that can be emulated. Unless that is the goal, now; if it is fashionable to instead lead a pointless life filled with trivia and never use ones' gifts to improve things. If the pinnacle of success is to have everything done for you, then it is no wonder people feel so unfulfilled all the time. What is there to strive for if when one arrives nothing is there: no meaning, just continued existence? Life is only worth living when it has a purpose, when there is a reason and a goal one is attempting. Since that is the case, what we need are idols who never stop trying and helping. Some leaders who can show us how to keep our interest in ourselves and our lives even when we've "made it". Who do we have that is leading a revolution, who is on a mission to save us all and lead us to a new dawn in our poor world? Is it really that we have too many options? Are we bombarded by people who claim to have "The Answer"? Indeed, we must ask how many are trying to help everyone rather than just themselves. That is the only way we can tell who actually has it.

CTR-Choose The Right

Something that we can comprehend is something we are equal with or superior to, I mean it is not beyond us, or our level of understanding. When we understand something it means that on some level we have to accept that we can understand it. If we cannot, or do not think we can, understanding then will elude us. I mean that we will never understand if we don't allow ourselves to, even if we have the capacity. This is such a fundamental concept it seems to be lost on most, people so often overlook it. It requires both that faith in ourselves as well as the basic ability to understand. It is actually in our nature to want to understand and be able to do so. Further it means the knowledge is accepted, something we become a part of and which becomes a part of us. Once we know something, once it is understood, we cannot be free of it and will never be the same as before we knew.

So, claiming to know the mind of God, to understand what the message or messiah (messenger) means is hubris. From the Judeo-Christian standpoint (as well as those of most other mono-theistic religions), there is no way to know these things. This is because to understand this, as we have discussed above, one would have to be on a par with The Creator. Placing oneself alongside God in this context is absurd, since the basis of the religion is the inherent unworthiness of humans. It is necessary to repent and/or make oneself worthy enough just to get into Heaven (or whatever it is called). The plan behind the Word is shrouded in mysteries we are not supposed to understand, according to most religions' acolytes. Yet somehow they have, at the same time, hit upon the solution to the mysteries while still remaining devoutly and totally observant of the religions' tenets, including the need to repent.

To live in a way that you will be accepted into your Great Reward, you cannot presume to know the mind of the Almighty. Yet one has to do just that in order to know what to do to be worthy. It is a Catch-22 that is absurd in its scope and consequence.

Living in Disneyland

The world is not black-and-white, right-and-wrong; this despite what our parents and grandparents, rabbis and priests, politicians and rulers try to tell us. The abstraction that there is “one true way”, or “one right answer”, is false. This is not just me spouting "morally relativistic" nonsense; I'm not advocating that there is no real-world way of truly "being good". I'm just admitting that everyone has opinions of what these things mean, but there is no absolute standard or empirically-evident answer beyond the most basic of things. What we all agree on is not our problem, however; rather it is those things that we don't all consider "right". The problem then being that we may never actually agree on those contested items, so it makes no sense to keep arguing and focussing on the negative side. Rather we should take those things we have in common and work together, accepting all else simply as being differences. This would allow us to progress and improve, as only working together can. As long as we are exercising our philosophical minds, however, we may as well do so to a larger extent. An example: if one were forced to do something considers abhorrent and wrong through extenuating circumstances or by events one never considered to be possible. If one commits one of these "unpardonable" acts under duress, is one really "wrong"? If there was no "correct" answer evident, is one “damned for all time"? If the choice is to allow an innocent, starving child to die of hunger, can one steal some food if there is no other way? Despite being an outstanding person in all other respects, does one act really mean one is "bad" forever? Can there be no return, no repentance, despite ones' intentions? I propose that our perceptions lend it that colour; looking upon the idea is what determines whether it is positive or negative. I propose that the real question of redemption and forgiveness is, “Can you live with it?” Oftentimes, there can be some minor or commonplace thing that is thought of as a major transgression, and a person will not feel as though they can overcome it. They will feel marked forever, this one mistake altering their entire life, even if the "window can be fixed", so to speak. Conversely, even the most blatant and fiendish acts can be outlived in a society if one finds the will to do so. When a person is psychopathic or convinced, by whatever method, of the "rightness" of some action then it loses its sting, despite the actual harm it may cause others. So, in essence, those who act boldly and regret not have found the path to their own salvation. Being unconcerned with or unaware of the consequences of ones' actions is an excellent definition of living in forgiveness-for that individual, at any rate. The awfulness of "living in sin" is the horrible way one feels about it, it is how much one is guilty and ashamed of ones' worthlessness. Without the emotional baggage, this type of life is no longer a problem. However, it should not be that we live without boundaries, heedless of consequences: that is not life but instead a video game. In the end, it is true that we find ourselves and our self-worth in our own eyes. In ones' own heart, mind, and conscience lie the answer to what kind of person one is. In the end, only you can decide what’s right for you-and how to be the best person you can. The same would be true of an Adam, just as it would for a god looking down as Creator, judging. Until he formed an opinion about what he was doing, Adam was just engaging in another activity, neither "good" nor "bad". Only that deity could decide whether the Creation was suitable or not. If we thought of ourselves as "bad" or "wrong", then we would be, and would feel accordingly. If, on the other hand, we like ourselves and are happy with what we do, everyday would be like living in an enchanted kingdom where benevolence prevailed.