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.

The Anatomy of a Failed Relationship

Is it just “having one’s needs met”, or is there more to Love and being in an intimate relationship? If you just care about having someone to have sex with or who will clean, does that mean it will work and is a relationship that should last? What about those who have a set of requirements, or guidelines, if you prefer? Does someone fitting your "ideal" really mean everlasting joy? Is it just “a cute ass, nice hair, good in bed, a great cook, well read, and financially stable"? Is that really the recipe for Love? I don’t think so; I think so many people are unhappy precisely because they think a monogamous relationship with a person that fills out the requisites for a personal ad should be bliss. Furthermore, I think that so many of these couples end up splitting because they are not really compatible, they literally cannot be. They don’t know how to have a truly adult relationship, one that is based on commonalities as well as differences, one that accounts for reality and "human nature". How can they, when society at large doesn't know? When people are still excluded and persecuted instead of being understood and accepted? How can any of us know how to have healthy relationships, when our parents didn't know-or even prepare us by admitting their ignorance to us? If we don't know ourselves, what we want and need, then there is no use to have others in our life. People change, lives shift focus, people grow and outgrow, and expecting to “stay together forever” may not be entirely realistic or honest. I say this because so many seem to forget that they are not (or should not be) the same person they were at 18, or at 30, years old. In the intervening time, things adjust to the world; experience shapes who we become and what we want. Expecting that two people will keep the same level of interest and desire for each other through even the modern "ideal" of marriage is naive.

The very basis of "marriage" is stagnation, the idea being that each puts their life in the hands of the other "for better or worse." This is not freedom, but rather mutual reassurance. It is a bargain that each will stick with the other so neither need to worry about being alone. There is no room for growth, for acceptance of an ever-evolving "other-half", so there can be no real "together". Half of marriages in the U.S. end in two people unhappy with each other and not able to be together. Even more are the uncounted number of intimate, committed relationships that take place outside of that section of the populace which chooses (or is allowed) to marry. These 'renegade' relationships face equal turbulence and more break-ups, yet are not counted because of their "non-sanctioned" or accepted "temporary" status. They remain outside of statistics and study of marriage, I think, because the numbers and findings would be so much larger and it would be uncomfortable to admit what it might mean.

The Difference Between “Artist” and “Entertainer”

I am not trying to compare these two types, or to detract from what either of them does, or say that someone is "just" an entertainer, even though many times someone may say as much. That one is not as "intellectual", or on as "high a plane" as the other; it isn't that artists are better, or entertainers are "sell-outs" who have no morals left. An artist does what she does because she has to, it is for herself, her own joy/enrichment that she makes her art; many have expressed that they are driven to do what they do, something compels them to, irregardless of whether it is lucrative or not-I imagine this is where the "starving artist" stereotype comes from. It all stems from a complex of urges that we all share: the basic drives to connect, express, understand, and be understood. In the artist, however, it is amplified in some way and brought to the center-the spotlight, if you will-so that it is a more integral part of the character of the person. It may consume the individual, leaving little room for anything else, which most people may think I mean. Yet this also applies to the person with a consuming hobby, and it is this person who toils in obscurity and without reward that I think of. Those who, even after a long day's work will be "out in the work-shed" grinding away at some project. On the other hand, an entertainer does what he does because he wants to bring happiness or joy to other people, and feels better for having made you feel better. A strong empathy is needed, and an ability to connect, this is the basis for entertainment. Although some buffoons seem only to want to be celebrated for entertaining people, the true value of being entertained can be appreciated by anyone, and I'm sure goes back nearly as far as artistry. It is the hallmark of a society which has overcome the basic subsistence problem and thus has time for recreation that art and entertainment exist. One (or both) may seem more peripheral, unnecessary, or nonessential, but life encompasses all types, and self-expression is only one avenue; we can certainly also value that which is done for the enjoyment of others. It is in some way two sides of the same coin, one directed inward and one directed outward. Artistry is self-expression for the sake of yourself, and Entertainment is self-expression for the sake of others.

A Generation of Serial Killers

The idea that we are all of our society-that we belong to or are part of a larger group-our "community", keeps us rooted, connected, so we cannot separate from that group. This is a good thing to keep in mind, especially when we begin to think of “others”. When we create that distance from ourselves, “they” become less important. If “they” no longer have the same impact for us, if “they” are just blocking us from our goals, then we can disregard "them"-in fact “they” cease to be human and simply become obstacles to overcome. From there, it is a short leap to "them" being wholly unimportant and without value to us, so who cares if we kill a few of "them"? For most people it takes a lot of conditioning and pressure to produce the divide between an "us/loyalty" and a "them/hatred". The reversal of that kind of thinking is also a lengthy and difficult process, one that is being fought over around the world. Whereas with a "psychopath" this is simply the way things are, that the only us is "me" and everyone else doesn't matter because there is no caring connection. The connection between us at that point is reduced to only what I need/want and what others can provide, and because no one cares to give them to me these things have to be taken . To distance/remove ourselves from our community, by not maintaining the communication needed-we stop thinking in terms of "us", and shift to thinking it's “me against them”. There is no wonder as to why this creates conflict, how violence stems from this thinking; we have deliberately contorted the situation to produce these effects. Instead we should understand that connection is important for all of us, to be connected to others, to feel as though we belong and others care about us and our needs. In return it is important to care about others' needs and wants. None of us can do it alone, we are not that way, it is essential to our psyche that we have contact and friends to care about and for us. We all need each other, without all the others there is no me. Finally, in truth, there is no "them", it is a basic misunderstanding to think of people that way. There is just "us", all of us here together, that is just the way it is, and it is for the best.

Public Education v Private Profit

The purpose of universal public education is to allow all citizens (indeed, all humans if it were truly "universal") the methods and ability-not the opportunity-the ability to obtain and understand information. The idea being that these fully-educated, informed people can then agree on some Truth, which in turn drives the society further along the road of civilization. To begin, there has to be a basis for the consumption of information, a common pool of knowledge to work from. If the underpinnings of this information are not presented then the information has no value, no substance. If you don't know why 2 - 3 = -1, then you won't understand the charge of electrons and you'll have no hope of knowing how important phospholipids are. Further, if we don't all know the same information, it would be as though we did not speak the same language. Which, in effect, really happens: we are at odds-with one talking about this thing, while the other may be saying something completely different-all because we "understand" the subject differently. I use quotation marks around this word because it is outside of simple point-of-view, where we interpret the information in our own way. I refer to actually disagreeing on what the facts are, to each having access to different and/or incomplete information, whereby we can hardly be said to know or understand what we are talking about. Language is something to be discussed at a later time, but some of the same concepts do apply here. Thirdly, and this is vital: not to limit what can be known, but to allow the free-flow of conversation and ideas between individuals. Concurrently, I have to say that as with language and words, in knowing there are no such thing as "bad" facts. There should be no cap or constraint on what we learn or are exposed to, even. There should be neither censorship nor secrecy where public knowledge is concerned. The keeping of information from the populace by its government is wrong, this is self-evident as every time the knowledge is released however-many years later, it would have resulted in a better outcome had the full story been known. If people would have been informed about certain decisions made by the U.S. government with regard to the "Cuban Missile Crisis" and Bay of Pigs fiasco, for example. While ignorance is certainly comfortable for some, it is never blissful, and what you do not know can certainly hurt, and even kill you. Next, we are not allowed to learn or know, it is a necessity that we get information, indeed it is a right, just the same as Life and Liberty. Knowledge is part of the "Pursuit of Happiness" (or "Property", as Hobbes would have it), for how can one be happy unless the concept is understood or one can truly understand how to go about being happy? Again, that means we have to get access to all available knowledge; we need the tools, those concepts, to learn about every subject so we can understand our world and ourselves to the fullest. While it is sad that people no longer appreciate knowledge for its own sake as they once did, this attitude is actually a side effect to information being so readily available. This does not, however, change the nature of information, whereas its treatment by governments, corporations, and institutions does alter the makeup of information. If it is ignored by individuals, knowledge is still there, like a book just waiting to be opened; if these agencies want to ignore it, however, they can delete, change the appearance of, or limit access to data. This means that even if the population cries out for it, we may not get the facts, instead we are allowed only limited glimpses, if any at all. This is justified by different means: calling them state or trade secrets, or military or tactical intelligence, labeling the data as dangerous and potentially harmful, claiming it is "of no interest" or beyond the "lay-persons'" understanding, distraction or misdirection, and any number of others. Instead interest in (certain kinds of) knowledge is drummed up by advertising and packaging it in some guise that is appealing within the system of capitalism. So we are told that knowledge is, in essence, a safeguard against being fooled or taken advantage of. Incidentally, this is just another indication of how important it really is, to say that it can keep you safer, don't you think? Information becomes a tool, a shield, a theft deterrent, an investment in self-protection. In closing, I would say knowledge is perverted when it becomes a commodity, it is made to look like another petty thing to be bought and sold. It never is however; rather, information is something to be shared not hoarded, free and not constrained, open to all and any but never kept for one alone. And why is this? Why am I writing all of this, telling you that it is important? Why have I devoted so much space herein to the subject? Because this is for the betterment of the entire society, and indeed, the world. As each individual is improved, all of us-as a whole species, more than the sum of its parts-are better off. This is the function of educating our children, of creating a "school system": to encourage that expansion of knowledge and not force people to endure retracing and reiterating fallacies that are already known, but to create a populace which can build upon what is known and factual, and then dive into the unknown.