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.

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.