Hopes and Dreams

However you want to look at it, the strange thing about hopes and dreams is that they are all either true or false, there can be no in-between. These are concepts we are dealing with; intangibles that have no existence outside of our own minds, so they are very real to us, and yet separate from reality. We can be incorrect or overly optimistic about the outcome of a situation; we can hope to have a positive result from events that appear impossibly negative. Many times this is the only thing that will get us through tough experiences: the hope that it will be okay, or somehow better. Sometimes our hopes end up being disappointed and our dreams are crushed, but whether or not we are correct about the results it cannot be wrong to have these ideas in the first place. The positive effects of these self-deceptions (let us be clear that they are lies: we believe in them without actual proof of their existence) depend solely on how they make us feel and what they accomplish for us. So focus on that, don’t concern yourself with what it really means to have been wrong about whatever you thought.

Acceptance

We often think of everyone we meet and interact with as being very similar to ourselves. We will most readily assign motivations to others that come from us, from our own understanding of the world. When these assumptions clash with the reality of the other person, we may become distressed and angry. Acceptance is the cushion designed to lessen this blow, softening the shock of misinterpretation that we experience. One must certainly be able to understand and accept others in order to interact on a daily basis with the rest of humanity. This allows us to maintain relations in the face of disagreements. It is all too easy to jump to conclusions without really knowing who the other person is or their motivations. It is vital to let others be as they are and do as they will, and be able to expect that in return. This is a concept that is obviously important, and has actually gotten a lot of attention in regards to dealing with others, but is of vital importance within ourselves as well. We cannot do less for ourselves in this instance. For ourselves, we need to understand our own motivations and decisions and then be able to accept them, even if they run contrary to how we think of ourselves. It should not matter as much to us if we become disappointed in ourselves through errors. The best we can hope for is to understand the mistake and prevent a repetition in the future. The biggest acceptance one can make is of the Truth, no matter what that Truth is, and with all things these efforts begin within ourselves.

We Are All Ugly Girls

Just like an ugly girl who grows up feeling worthless and unlovable, we are treated as though we are desirable only for those tasks we can perform in service to others and are ourselves without inherent value. We are the same as that girl, we all have talents that we can use but we are forced into using those few abilities and performing specific tasks which serve, not ourselves, but those who want to preserve their stature and power over us. These people know what works for them and focus solely on that, on funneling all our energy into those areas whether we want to or even notice. That is the heart of their game: doing these things to us without our realizing it, having us buy in to their social order so completely we don’t even know we are selling ourselves. We are all prostitutes in some way or another, our only hope is to recognize how and then overcome those limitations. The girl can save up to pay for some procedure like breast implants, and be loved for her appearance in some small way which makes her feel that she has overcome the greatest obstacle to her being accepted, when in reality she has simply fed into it further by allowing her emotional well-being to depend on what others have told her she should be valued for. It isn't her fault that the people around her are telling her that she can hope only to become physically desirable in some way to compensate for her "ugliness" or-even worse-intelligence! How many girls have been told to devote time to learning how to attract a mate (meaning: "some guy who may not respect, love, or even know you, but who will nonetheless provide for you and your children") instead of being encouraged to cultivate her brains and be able to provide for and love herself? Self reliance and independence are the enemies of those users, who depend on our inability to function without them.

To Grok

The Webster’s dictionary defines this as: “[coined in a sci-fi novel by Robert A. Heinlein (1961)] [Slang] to understand thoroughly because of having empathy (with).” Unlike the dictionary, I am not claiming to have the absolute or final definition of any word; here I will simply attempt to convey what this one means to me. To begin with, it is not some flighty, “Oh, I get what you’re saying.”, but a deep, visceral comprehension. A school of philosophy holds that one must live the philosophy. They say just as a menu is not a meal, life is not thinking about it, but doing. So to grok something is to become that object in a sense-to eliminate as much as possible the barriers between one’s ‘self’ and the ‘other’. When you can truly live inside anothers being, no matter how foreign that other is, you have ‘grokked’ it. This may be difficult for many to handle because it applies to all things, from an ant to a serial killer. Before you object, what I am saying is that only by understanding murderers can we stop them or, ideally, prevent them from starting. Just because we understand, or in this case grok, something’s function or meaning does not mean that we leave it on its own to suffer or spread suffering. If you truly want to understand something or someone, then you have to let go of all those ‘filters’ that stand in the way. We need to accept whatever the thing is can only be itself, not what we want it to be. Finally, one needs to grasp the entirety of the being. It is easy to love something in one context, but then find out something else that changes that feeling. To be drawn to and appreciate the power and elegance of a lioness is not the same as facing a hungry one unprotected. Essentially, one needs to immerse ones’ self within a complete knowledge of the thing. I believe that once this understanding has occurred, then one will Love that thing. I use the capital ‘L’ here to differentiate from the everyday use of the word because it has more than the pedestrian meaning. The feeling is more pronounced because of its context. This is, in part, because everything Loves itself; it has to or it would be self-destructive/suicidal. So when we grok a thing, we Love it as if we were Loving ourselves, rather than how we would love something separate from our self. Also, if you Love something, then you must grok that thing; it gets difficult to determine which comes first, actually. True, deep understanding inevitably leads to Love. Conversely, to hate something is to reject it and fear it. Just remember, no one said it would be easy.

Guns and Freedom

In the U.S., there is a guarantee of the “Right to bear arms” meaning that people are free to own handguns, rifles, etc. Supposedly this means that they are able to, and will, fight back against anyone who tries to take their freedoms. This argument goes all the way back to the founding of the country, when they declared that they were no longer subject to another nation’s rule. To ensure their independence they allowed that persons would have redress and ability to counteract any tyranny imposed on them. The government would be composed of citizens who could speak out against the governing body instead of being ruled by it, would have access to legal counsel if accused of a crime instead of being held without cause, and would have arms to defend against the attack of outside forces. The firearm became protection against not just robbers or bears, but a symbol of security from domination and taking a stand against oppression. The problem with symbols is that their time passes and sometimes people don’t realize it. How much use is a gun against a corporation who comes into your community and destroys it not by killing or burning, but by taking away the economic underpinnings? A corporation that you and your neighbors support, by the way, when you buy the goods made by that entity or its subsidiary! What good will rifles do against the decision of management to ‘downsize’ your division? Would you march into the corporate offices and demand that you have your job back or you’ll kill them all? Today’s problems are not the same as those we faced as a people 150, or even 50, years ago. Today a person’s best and greatest weapon is the mind (which it always has been, even though it may not be recognized as such). If our brains are empty, we can’t know our enemy; if we are ignorant to the facts, we cannot make effective decisions. Worst of all, feeling helpless, or dependent upon someone else, we may point our weapons at the wrong target. This naïveté can only lead to abuse, the situation is ripe for a new kind of control to be put in place. As long as this new form of tyranny doesn’t place any limit on our owning firearms, it will be accepted by those who consider guns sacred. I am not suggesting here that we do away with them, just that we recognize their uses and limitations. Not every problem can or should be answered with gunfire.

Get Out of Your Own Way

People make life harder than it has to be. This is aside from all the difficulties that we inherently face such as social and economic background, intelligence, and geographic locale. Outside all the things we have no control over, not recognizing those things that one does to sabotage ones’ self in things large and small is a separate problem. Of course the first step in solving a problem is recognizing that it exists, so we need to know that we are doing this. For myself, I know that a couple of my biggest problems are procrastinating and lack of planning. Spontaneity is great, but some events do need to be organized prior to their actual occurrence. Having said that, even I know that it isn’t all there is to it; now I have to learn how to overcome these things, which I have done all my life and seem natural to me. How difficult is it for people that choose to not recognize those habits that get in their way? Some people are martyrs, others controlling, some perfectionists, and on and on. These habits, all the little behaviours that we learned along the way to deal with things in our life, some work and others do not. Too many have accepted what has developed, what has been pushed on them. A lot of people are trying to make excuses, to leave themselves blameless for the harm they do to themselves and others. We need to recognize that none of us is perfect and we can all realize what we are doing wrong and change it to our betterment and the improvement of the world around us. We need to do that for ourselves and those we care about; understand that your life can be so much better because of this. If you aren’t examining yourself and what you do, then you are just being manipulated, either by your “self” (all that makes you a unique individual-most of which you acquired from others) and anyone that knows you. Do we really have anything better to be doing with our lives than living them? It isn’t easy to find these things out and change them, to take away the seemingly automatic ‘triggers’ that determine how you react in a situation. Of course not, but after all, what worth doing is easy?

Relationships

It is difficult to come to an agreement on this subject, even though it is one that we all deal with at some time in our lives. The greatest problem is that so many people are mixed up about so much in their life that something as fundamental and powerful as being loved and loving others is beyond them-and this goes double for those struggling to simply survive. On the hierarchy of needs, food beats love every time. By this I mean a person has to be very secure in order to really love another, and being worried about where one’s next meal is or what another person thinks is not a very secure foundation. Even after settling one's life by meeting those basic needs, one still has to gain experience with the subject. By this, I mean that thinking about something and actually doing it are very different experiences. People often fantasize about relationships, but those are idealized to minimize effort for maximum rewards-as all fantasies are; real relationships are not like that, they are all work. Further, to do something well always takes practice, yet we are told that we will simply get this "right" the first time! Supposedly the first time we fall in love, we will have found the person with whom we spend the rest of our lives. Also, evidently, making friends and getting along with fellow students, coworkers, etc., is natural, because we aren’t taught how to make those connections either. After this fantasy we finally come to the reality of it: when we have relationships, we fumble and fail-as we should. The best way to learn something is still to do it. Inevitably we get hurt, we make those mistakes with our relationships. Friends come and go, family is estranged, marriages end; all these things are symptoms of our deficiency. Still we improve over time, each failure teaches us something we need to know. If people truly wanted to avoid these hurts, then we would actually teach the inexperienced what they need to know. There is an old adage, “No [person] is an island.” the problem being that everyone is an island in that we have no natural emotional connection to others. We need to form attachments, even between family, between parents and offspring. This is meant in two different ways: first we “need” to do it because it is important for our well being, and secondly because it isn’t automatic, it does require effort. Finally, what sort of relationships are we forming? Are they strong, healthy ones or are they made from desperation, just to meet our need for companionship? It can be very difficult to tell, unless we examine how it makes us feel. Are you lost without your mate? Does your world revolve around the status of your relationship? Do you feel like you don’t deserve the relationship? Do you sacrifice yourself to maintain the relationship? If you answered, “yes” to any of these questions, you may want to seriously look at what you want out of your life and the relationship you are in. Always remember, you cannot Love another until you Love yourself.

Dis-connection

Going back to an earlier topic, why is it that we are encouraged to specialize in particular areas, and to be completely ignorant of others? Should we not be able to do things for ourselves; are we so limited that we can only grasp a small portion of what makes up our world? Isn’t being alive all about making connections, about having relationships with others? Doesn’t it seem ridiculous to hear about a doctor who can’t do laundry, a mechanic who doesn’t know to cook, or a Chemistry teacher who can’t answer simple questions about History-to carry it further, what about not having friends that are different? Who decided that we should not know people who don’t have as much money, or have backgrounds removed from our own? Aside from a question of the quality of our education, this is about the focus of our knowledge, or the restrictive nature of focus. Having a specialty is great, especially one that grows out of a true passion, it allows for the immersion into a subject that few people choose to explore. This seems increasingly important as there grow to be more and more people; for example, if only .001% of the population enjoys swimming, how crowded are swimming spots if there are 60 million of us, and how about when there are 6 billion? As the sheer number of people competing for the same resources grows, the same percentage of the population cannot get that same experience as they jostle amoungst all the new people who share that interest. In response, there need to be new experiences that open up so that we don’t get the intense pressure to compete more fiercely within those old practices. Otherwise we will end up fighting each other over whose turn it is to fly their kite at the beach while timing people as they stroll down the road in the woods. There may be a drive or need to funnel enjoyment into activities or narrow categories because of population pressure, but this should not lead to the exclusion of all other pursuits. It should never be necessary to limit ourselves so severely just so that we still have fun. We should always be having fun, in everything we do there should be some enjoyment. After all, if we aren’t having fun, what is the use in living?

Failure

There are at least two ways to overcome a fear of failure: do nothing or fail. Many only make it to the first, where they keep things from other people. Hiding their emotions, motivations, and dreams so that others cannot access them, attack them, criticize them, ridicule them. That is what most of us resort to, it is cowardly and does not lead to reaching our goals. Too often we are beaten down, trampled on, and laughed at by others whose own insecurity demands that no one else be allowed to flourish. So we stop trying, we give up and do nothing, and by not attempting we are never faced with failing at anything. To these people, others success is not a guidepost or motivator, but acts as a reminder of their own failure. We should not allow these people to determine how we live our lives, certainly we should not become one of them. The alternative is to grow, to develop more maturity and wisdom. So now is the time to move on: set a goal, announce it, and then do not meet it. Then it is a failure, it is out of the way, and you can deal with it, are forced to deal with it. There is no one way to overcome that disappointment, there is no way to study for it or avoid the feeling of 'failure'. It will always be there to haunt you if you let it, but that failure, or feeling of failure, isn't the end. It is simply a part of life, and will have to be accepted as such. Everyone fails, but most do not learn from their failures and then take the next step, to go back and succeed. If we truly want success, then nothing will stand in our way; we will find a way, it just takes more determination than most people seem to have these days.

Disclaimer

I felt that I should warn those who are reading this that I don't owe any special allegience to Heidigger, Machiavelli, Neitzche, Einstein, Sun Tzu, Descartes, or Socrates, so don't expect to see a lot of their ideas represented here. I basically publish my own personal take on the world here, and may misrepresent some things when I discuss the thoughts of others. This is because I don't know everything, so I should further mention that if you came here for all the answers, the secret is that you have to find them for yourself. I thought that it might be a good time to put this up here just in case anyone needed a reminder.

Go Get Your Own Cause

Even I don’t want to improve the world for the noblest and most righteous of motives; I have very selfish interests in mind. In the end, even my very real desire to make it better for every person, it is at heart a self-serving one. Though my stated goal is to improve the world for all, when I make those changes for everyone else, I am also improving it for myself; and that is not incidental nor a side effect, it is the desired effect whether I admit it or not. Since I would only wish to change those things that I consider needing changing, and I am limited to my own set of standards, there is a very simple, self-based being and intellect choosing the goals I strive for. Even if the things that I better are somehow in the general populations’ best interests, I only undertake to change them out of the desire to alleviate some concern of my own. Not everyone will agree with them, and many may want very different improvements or concerns to be dealt with, but that’s their own predicament, isn’t it?

Ice Cream and Evil

I posted earlier on the subject of choice, concentrating on the issue that some people have with allowing others to make choices. I want to discuss now another aspect of choosing, which is how to make a choice; especially gaining information in order to choose. For example, in order to decide what kind of ice cream you enjoy or wish to have, what do you base your choice on? There are many factors to consider, but if you come across a new flavor, and you haven’t experienced those ingredients before, how can you know if you’ll like it? I hope that many of you have just answered, "Try it!" Not only is it an appetizing method of choosing and gaining more information for making that decision, it is an experience: something more you have gone through to give yourself another in a (hopefully) long series of instructive moments in life. Each attempt, even the failed or unpalatable, is at least more information to make further decisions from. We often need all the help and detailed information that we can acquire, so making those mistakes and learning from them leads towards what we do desire: success. Whether we want to find the most delicious dessert or a job to spend one’s life doing, this method works equally well. So, if mistakes are beneficial and necessary, why do people spend so much time avoiding them? It is because we are trained to do so, we are constantly told as we mature, to “Get it right!” and “Not screw up!” In addition to being kept from opportunities and experiencing things, we are kept from learning those important lessons, as well as the benefit of learning about ourselves and our world. After all, the only way to know evil is to encounter it, the only way to know right is to do it. If children are kept sheltered from danger and not told about real threats to them, how are they ever to understand what to avoid? How can they truly know? The fairy tales they hear disguise the dangers they will face and only teach them to listen to and obey their elders. What happens when they grow up and the elders are not around is they are lost and still need someone else to direct them. It is important for our children to learn these lessons for themselves so they can be better prepared to avoid future problems and know what they actually want.

What Is Wrong With...?

It may be a bumper sticker, but it still holds true what it says, “None of us is free if one of us is jailed.” The idea being, of course, that if we don't all get there together none of us can truly get there. This statement may seem ridiculous on its face, but it bears some thought. After all, what is wrong with some or even one person “getting there” and why if one person does would we all need to? Competition, and its adjunct capitalism, is based upon the concept that every situation results in either ‘win’ or ‘loss’. The idea being that if only one can ‘win’ then all will want to be that one and strive for it, but only that one individual will succeed and gain the reward; all others will ‘lose’, resulting in feelings of defeat and envy, discouragement-any number of things which supposedly motivate them to try all the harder next time. These people are not actually ‘losers’, they are capable and deserve their own reward, and are just as worthy of a tangible prize for their considerable efforts. This is part of the problem: no one should have to put forth such energy in an endeavor to receive nothing in return. Competition always results in a substantial misuse and/or waste of effort and energy. Further, competing means that every participant loses. The very act of competing against one’s fellow employees or applicants, classmates, family and friends, etc., creates tension and strife. It is undesirable and unnecessary since the same outcome can be achieved with different means, which preserves everyone’s self-worth and contributes to the harmony and performance of the whole group. Finally, every ‘win’ is only temporary; so even the happy ‘winner’ will be unhappy later when they ‘lose’ too. When the only way to succeed is to ‘win’-whether in a sport, relationship, or job-we miss the point.
The point of performing a job is to do the best one can, not just to out-perform another person; in recreation the idea is to play a game the best one can, not just better than a particular opponent. In a relationship this attitude could mean that one is out to ‘win’ arguments, always be “right”, or in charge, and/or make the decisions. Competing or inciting competition means that you are driving people to fight against each other which cannot be beneficial. The only real ‘winner’ is the person who reaps the rewards of the efforts of all the participants, which more and more is none of the competitors, but someone who already has power. Basically the artificial creation of inequalities is unnecessary and deprives every person involved of integrity, compassion, and unity. The idea of interdependence is key in many philosophies, and in practice allows for all people to ‘win’. When we recognize the necessity of everyone and their contributions and stop fighting against each other, then we will be able to achieve more and “get there” more happily.

What We Need Now Is a Leader

The cult of the single individual, who is responsible for all success, is a farce. Focussing on one person makes the group effort less prominent, instead all the team's efforts are attributed to that individual. This allows or forces us to disregard the others involved, even when there is no way a single person is actually able to do these things. The ramifications of this thinking can be seen if one looks at the aggrandizement of C.E.O.'s across the United States through the 1990's, and the results speak for themselves. While the criminal actions of those involved in schemes like Enron are specific to those executive officers, they would not be possible if a greater amount of attention were paid to the structure as a whole. Political movements, riots, companies, religions, and families are not single-person institutions, it always requires a team, a group, a community, all these examples and more require a multitude of people to function. What the denial of groups means is that we cannot recognize the power that they have, the true power of numbers of people coming together for a common goal. We remain distracted by the illusion of power that one person out front, the "leader", seems to command. By concentrating our attention on one person, we are dis-empowered; because we no longer recognize the power we have in a group, we only see that we have no power as an individual. Instead of recognizing all of the people who prop-up that figure, we focus on the figure, rather than noticing the efforts of the team, some individual is chosen to receive the reward of all their combined efforts. The result is a shift in the balance of power, from the many to the few or the one. Instead of the politicians being representatives of the people, those who elect and direct the politicians now leave the governance entirely to the ones they elected and are left out. These officials do not have the right or "mandate" to 'lead' us, we are the ones who lead, who determine the course of our lives and our country. Just as Abraham Lincoln stated in his address, "...a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." The government is simply an apparatus to carry out our decisions, not some paternal organization gathered to make the best judgments for us. Certain groups are realizing their power, they are acting in a concerted manner, addressing issues that they care about. Are the rest of us just going to lay back and watch in bewilderment the actions of these people? That is exactly what will happen if we are waiting for a person to come along and give us some direction.

Control and Power

Having no time to think about what is happening or why leaves one without the ability to recognize when things are out-of-kilter. Everything seems to be as it should, yet one has no way to judge since the entire basis of understanding the world that one uses is skewed-there is no other frame of reference. Being immersed in a situation can make it impossible to really understand the situation itself. There are many examples of flawed thinking being accepted, my favorite being the "flat-earth" theory that most people and cultures ascribed to until the 'Middle Ages', whereas we now know (believe) the Earth is spherical. Some tribes believed that a person with an image of another (such as a photograph or doll) allowed the image-holder to exert their will over the person in the image; if one grew up in that culture, one would think that is true. All these beliefs limit what a person can accomplish, after all it is impossible to sail around the world if it is shaped like a platter rather than a globe. Similarly, there can be no rebellion against the person who has power over you, whatever manner you were raised to believe it is exerted through: by having your image, maybe that children must obey their parents in all things, or that one must do whatever is necessary to win. Yet, just like the world we live on being a sphere and not a disk, the fact remains that the individual retains control even when they think someone else is in control of them. Whatever the method, it is used to hold one back from realizing that fundamental truth: that each individual has the power over themselves, no one else. Even in the most rigorously controlled environment we know of, and here I speak of the military, where every action is directed by a 'superior' and it is understood that 'subordinates' are compelled to follow 'orders'. Simultaneously the 'subordinate' is responsible for determining the validity and/or moral correctness of those orders and is expected to disregard any that are improper. The power of those who control is exercised through the simple, regular folks that do as they are told, the people who delude themselves with "I'm just doing my job", and those who are so busy "making a living" that they have no time for a real life. It is a subtle form of control that insinuates itself into one's thinking. The goal of the system is that one not be given the ability to understand one's subservience...to be kept in ignorance of the very fact of one's enslavement. These controllers know that if we no longer follow nor allow ourselves to be their pawns, their control will cease and they will no longer have their power. We suffer to support them, not the other way around; the overbearing parent who constantly reminds the child that (s)he has, "sacrificed so much so that you can have everything!", the worker who is paid nearly nothing for laboring and tolerates the abuse of a boss who berates him/her, "you better be grateful, if you don't there are ten others who will take your place!", and the regular citizen who is dying from pollution yet is told, "we can't make the polluters stop or clean up their mess, they have so many other responsibilities." Which is the greater inconvenience: one less unique individual (a father/mother/son/daughter/sister/brother/etc., a person with real positive impact on others' lives) or one less business entity (which cannot produce its wares without killing actual people)? Even I can recognize the contributions of corporations, but I still don't think their existence entitles them to destroy the lives of others-they aren't even alive. Realize that the company doesn't provide and care for the workers' family, the worker does. Without the corporation, the worker does survive, but without the workers, the corporation is no more. Who has the real power here? You should know the answer here: the complaining parents' child, the slave-driving company's worker, the suffering citizen, and the lowest-ranking member of the military-because they all do. Buying into it and excusing it "because it can't change, it has to be this way" is inexcusable; denying ones' own power to serve those who cause your suffering isn't noble or righteous, it is stupid and ridiculous. This is not to blame individuals nor-especially not-true victims, what I discuss here only applies in everyday life, not that one special situation where an individuals' power is taken away by force, such as a rape or tornado. Even then the person is not powerless, even if they cannot stop the events from happening-generally they still retain their mental powers. Being able to think is the greatest power one has and it is the most constant. Which brings me back to my original point, which is: having that mental capacity subverted from the beginning to allow control by others can be the most insidious form of manipulation. Any situation or series of events which is designed to keep one from thinking about what goes on is suspect and should be regarded warily. Not that you'll necessarily be able to tell when that is.

Signs of Intelligent Life

What is it that defines intelligence, and I defy you to answer, "...being smart." The answer I will use here is that intelligence is simply the ability to think: to learn, reason, and theorize; it is not satisfactory in an academic or scientific manner, but serves the purpose we need it to here. The problem with the question is that once answered, it only leads to another question: what is intelligence for? Once we do know what intelligence is, we need to understand what it means for us. We do not have only enough brainpower to move our bodies and react to situations, that is to say we do not operate simply from instinct, although we definitely have predetermined responses or reflexes, both physically and psychically. The ability to think leads to the development of many technologies, certainly, but what else does it offer a species? It must serve a purpose aside from allowing one to solve problems and make tools. Isn’t the surplus simply wasted if that is its only function? Is intelligence something outside that, something intended for different uses which is wasted on those pursuits? Just as we don’t have hands solely to carry things, cogitation is not simply to imagine weapons. Each of these tools serves multiple purposes. The purpose of hands is not only to strangle and strike, but also to caress and hold gently. The ability to think demands the use of that ability, we can’t avoid it. So, when we use this ‘intelligence’, what should our goal be? Since we have it, and it can be used for so many things, what are the areas we should be investigating and focusing on? It seems that each new level of understanding leads to further questions, just as most pursuits in life may have no ultimate answer. Yet, if we aren’t to just blunder through life reacting and living as chance should have it, what does this ability allow us to do? Humanity’s prodigious ability to think is one of very few things we have going for us. Comprehending and understanding ourselves and our environment are the keys to our survival individually and collectively. We are not meant to live as salmon do, nor as bees; not that we are more or better than they, just that we have abilities they do not. Finally, an answer! However, one which only opens up another line of inquiry: which solution will allow us to survive? Once we recognize its purpose in our existence, we still need to agree upon implementing a response to our problems. For that we all need to agree upon the information we’ll use to formulate our answer, which is a topic for another time.

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).

Legal Fiction

No law ever freed anyone, only enslaved them. There is no way to pass legislation allowing people to do things-they already have all their abilities, their "natural rights" as they have been called. All a law can do is tell people what they are not allowed to do. That's why in the Constitution of the U.S. it says, "Congress shall make no law..." at the beginning of the enumeration of rights; that's why, "those rights not numbered herein are reserved to the individual citizens." Every time a law is passed, it adds to the list one more thing that people are not allowed to do. The argument is that new laws cover ground not foreseen by those who originally composed the laws, that times have changed and they are needed to protect us against new problems. However, passing a law to prevent something every time an abuse is perceived leads to abuse. Take "speeding", for example: no doubt a two-ton object hurtling out of control through a heavily populated area is dangerous, but does it require a law to say it shouldn't happen? No, nor will that law stop it from occurring-only proper training and a conscientious operator can avoid it. So, one may ask, what makes more sense than a law? Well, the answer is just what I said before: the only thing that can actually stop a collision or prevent a vehicle going out of control is the operator. The person "behind the wheel" is solely and totally responsible for what happens, so our best hope of preventing all these deaths and maimings each year is to ensure those operators are well-trained, conscientious, and as fully-prepared as possible. No law can do that, only adequate training and caring (or, if that word scares you, you can say 'aware') individuals can. We especially don't need a law that allows municipalities to collect unapproved, extra 'taxes' through catching "speeding motorists" and fining them for 'breaking a law'. No matter how adamantly the government denies this charge, that is what these "fines" are. Any time one pays a fine, it provides operating expenses for that governing body, which is exactly what taxes are for. We should not be subjected to taxes in disguise, just as taxing us twice on the same thing has historically been a provocation to action. If a government requires more money to accomplish those things we need it to do, then let it come out and state that. Hiding behind the ridiculous argument that these "fines" are a deterrent, and are only meant to stop these "dangerous individuals" is an insult. They do not accomplish this stated goal, people who drive in an unsafe manner do so because they have a basic disregard for others and themselves and making them pay a little money will not change their minds about it. We need to recognize these fallacies for what they are and act to stop them from starting and/or spreading, to realize our rights, understand what really protects us, get together with others who feel similarly, and move to protect ourselves from further oppression and end those practices that currently hold us down.

The Other Guy

What about the 'other guy'? For example, if we all decide as a group to do some great thing, but everyone worries about this unknown 'other guy', then chances are that nothing will be done; people are petrified by this concept. It isn't even this 'other guy' doing anything, all it takes is the idea of someone not following the plan and it will all fall apart. Yet people will proclaim their belief in the basic goodness of people-that, "given the chance, yes, of course, people will do the 'right thing'." Sure, which is why in the same breath they will say, "well, i would, but what about the ten percent who aren't with us?" What happens is that we become the 'other guy' by worrying about it when we don't follow through because we worry that someone else won't follow through. What kind of sense does that make? To live in fear, not because of what someone has done, but of what they might do. With no demonstrable cause, we let our own interpretation of someones potential actions dictate what we will do.

Unedited Rant: the message I sent to my Representatives through MoveOn.org

I've been paying attention to both sides of this argument and can only say that this is obviously just a ploy to eliminate yet another part of the security net we have in this country for people that need assistance. The true purpose of being a "united" nation is that we care for one another- especially in tough times-and this administration is intent on destroying our ability to do that, as previous ones have as well. Further, it is not just the ability to shelter our weak, weary, poor, huddled masses, but taking away the will to do so by making it into an oppositional race to see who will survive: "us, or them". We cannot claim to be a civilized, higher-order society if we fail to provide for the basic needs of those in the society. No one is perfect, and no one can do it all, or all alone; this is the basis for clinging together, the origin of culture and social interaction. We have an obligation to do these things, and that obligation is all the more imperative when we are really caring for our own welfare. All "social programs" do this, in one way or another, either directly or indirectly, and Social Security one of the few that is direct. We are paying for our "own" retirement already, we don't need to have a 'personal fund' to do it, my money pays for those who raised my fellow co-contributors, and we are raising the workers of tomorrow who will 'pay' for us. Money is not important, only people are important, the system works as it sits now. Please engage these ridiculous allegations now before people begin to believe the rhetoric, and help stop yet another mistake in the making by this administration! Thank you for your time.

A Dreaming Man...

It is essential for people to believe that dreams can come true...not in the childish, innocent sense of meeting ones' True Love or making the cheer-leading squad (although there is nothing wrong with that sort, either). Look at Dr. M. L. King, Jr.-the first thing that comes to mind is probably that excellent speech he made about-what was it, ice cream, right? No, he spoke of a very noble and passionate aspiration-how many of you are reciting it to yourself right now? How well known is this one simple and important dream? Yet people don't talk about having dreams in their lives! Isn't that something wrong with us, rather than something admirable? Since what time is it better to not have a dream, hope, some desire to see fulfilled? Never, that time should not ever exist! Things can be as we want them to be, they can be as they should be. Better, better for all of us, but we are the ones that need to make that happen, not anyone else, and certainly not by sitting on our asses, either! The ideals we hold are more than just meaningless fantasy, the restrictions and rules we place around ourselves are the meaningless things. While the truth can be complicated, not always-sometimes it is a simple, elegant thing staring us in the kisser. Sometimes it seems difficult because of our own problems and shortcomings, sometimes it is because others make it tough for us. Don't let others decide what you will do or think, don't let them win!

Belief In a Better Way :)

The pervasive belief that things cannot be as we envision or desire them to be-that these ideals are just fantasies-is a meaningless restriction. The truth is that it can be simple, plain, easily-understood, and not just the messy, complicated, intricate thing we've been lead to believe. Things can be better, we should not lose our idealism, our 'innocence', if you prefer. We can be realists (and even be happy) and still work for, and desire, better lives. There is no rule that says we cannot enjoy what we have and still want a better world. Isn't it better to want something, to work and be motivated by this dream, whatever it is? Even if we die not seeing it done-but to know that we did something, even if it is something that maybe only we know or think is important? Even if it means being ridiculed, shunned, labelled (since we all are, anyway)? To have a purpose in life, something that gives meaning to our lives, that we decide is important, because otherwise we live for something outside of ourselves, that we do not truly believe in. We cannot continue to allow others to direct and motivate our lives, this direction and thrust must come from within ourselves. Others are not always around to direct us, nor interested in what is best for us. Others do not necessarily make the best choices for us, and do not feel bad for those poor decisions because, after all, it isn't their life! Why trust others to make decisions that we are capable of making for ourselves? How do they know better than we do what is best for us? If they are better informed, than why? We should all have that information, all of us should be able to make the most informed and best choices for ourselves. These are the questions we should be asking, "why is it I don't know what is best for myself?" The greatest disparity is created when some are more capable than others, not just when they have more, but when they are more. Just like, "if you give a man a fish and it feeds him for a day, but teach him to fish and he is fed for a lifetime.", not teaching him to fish is another option; and keeping him dependent upon the fish you provide can be much more appetizing since it creates a 'master and servant' situation. The destruction of hope or faith is malevolent and far more disruptive than physical debilitation. By this I don't mean a religious 'faith'-there is an amount of faith in trusting that tomorrow will come, and it is just as important and valid to many people as believing in a deity. I mean the capacity for belief in something not necessarily certain; such as that the future doesn't need to be the same as, or worse than, the past. Isn't it part of being alive to want things to be better today than they were yesterday? If not, why keep getting out of bed? Why do anything, if we can never improve our lives in any way? That is the reason this method of control, of abuse, is so insidious and malicious-it robs one not of the ability, but the desire, to do, to live.