There are a multitude of reasons why relationships fail. It would be a long and arduous task to examine each particular reason for each particular person. Therefore, this particular blog entry will revolve around one particular reason why relationships fail: failure to practice in the manner that encourages success. Either consciously practicing for success was abandoned from the beginning or it has been done incorrectly for such a long time that the habit of failing has taken its place time and time again. However, practice itself has a situational context that must be explored if we are to understand its importance.
Practice has a beginning and its repetition becomes a habit. Habits can be "good" or "bad;" they can be functional or they can hinder; they can serve to build up or they can be used to tear apart. Before habits take root, it is important to plan them with as much conscious effort as possible. Relationships will perform in the manner that they were practiced. Practicing well helps relationships go well; practicing poorly will lessen the chance for harmony.
Self Knowledge
Before we can even talk about the purpose that another human being will serve in your life, how well do you know yourself? Have you explored how your family has shaped your world-view? Have you explored how your social culture influences what you consider to be important? You'd be surprised at how blind most people enter relationships without being able to answer basic questions about their family of origin. Ladies, if you had an abusive father, you might seek out men who are abusive in a similar manner. Men, if you had a neglectful mother, perhaps the women in your life are also neglectful? Perhaps you yourself have adopted a value system similar to your parents? Perhaps you are physically abusive with your wife because you witnessed your mother's boyfriends being physically abusive with your mother.
All of these topics are worth your exploration time before getting involved with another person.
Communication
What function does being in a relationship serve? Do you know why you're with your partner? Does your partner know why you're with them? Do you know why your partner is with you? The reason why communication is important is because each person has the innate need to believe that their existence is treasured and valued. And communication is how a person knows that their existence is valued. When a person believes that their existence is not treasured and valued, depression usually sets in. Now while personal perception of one's self-worth plays a large part in their belief of being a valued human being, communication from other people influences self-worth.
Lack of communication or in the inability to communicate makes being in a relationship extremely difficult. Even animals communicate to one another through hoots, grunts, or growls. Some animals communicate non-verbally through chest pounding, dragging large branches, or with colorful feathers. Humans, with our sophisticated frontal cortex, communicate both verbally and non-verbally. We can put emotions and thoughts into words, but we must practice putting thoughts and emotions into words. Journal writing or keeping a diary is a great way of practicing putting thoughts into words!
To be a better human being
People enter relationships with different, and even sometimes contradictory, goals. The purpose of practicing self-knowledge and practicing communication is to enhance the clarity of perception. All of this is for the sake of becoming a better human being, even in the absence of your partner. If each individual relied on others for motivation to become a better human being, then it almost seems that the particular individual lacks the self-directedness to strive toward a goal bigger than themselves.
Why relationships fail
In order to be the best person for your partner, several steps are needed to be taken up before your partner's eventual arrival. Getting to know yourself and practicing the articulation of thoughts and emotions for the purpose of becoming a better person (even without the motivation a partner) are what is needed. One reason why relationships fail is because people lack the drive to explore themselves before allowing another person into their personal world. Other people seem to serve as a "distraction" from personal exploration and understanding; scars left from neglectful mothers and or hurtful fathers distort and influence how others are perceived. Perhaps other people are being used in order to hide from the responsibility of processing the hurt from the past?
Life is its own reward.
What are some other things people can do to ensure that their relationships are successful? How are some other ways that relationships fail?
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Life is its own reward
The older I get, the more evident certain truths become to me. One particular truth has been repeating itself over and over lately: life is its own reward. What this means is that a person's life will reflect their choices, their attitudes, their acceptances and their rebellions. The "reward" of life is life itself. If you don't believe me, visit the nearest cemetery and ask the tombstones what the reward of life is.
Life as it exists in the present is the incarnate embodiment of present attitude, present choice, present experiences, and present interpretation. While it might be tempting to think of one's present existence as simply the culmination of prior experiences, the understanding of such a reverse-looking explanation occurs in the present. In other words, interpretation of the past always occurs in the present. And depending upon present context -- emotional, intellectual, spiritual, situational -- details from the past move in and out of focal awareness. For this reason, it is easier for us to recall memories that reflect our present situation. A person who is depressed right now, for example, will interpret their history differently than when they are filled with joy and excitement.
Life is its own reward
Each person is ultimately responsible for the state of affairs in their own life. While some might be tempted to remove themselves from personal responsibility through blaming their parents, their childhood, their environment, their failed relationships, their friends, their religious leaders, their social status, their economic status, their abusive boyfriend, and so forth ad nauseum, the choice to abdicate themselves from personal responsibility is still a personal choice. Stated another manner: choosing not to choose is still a choice. While we cannot control the facticities of existence, such as our DNA structure, the physiology of our brains, the color of our hair or eyes, we can choose the manner that such facticities are interpreted.
We cannot choose the cards that have been dealt to us -- however, we can choose our reaction to those cards. "Life is its own reward" means that a life will reflect the choices made during the course of that life, whether for bliss or woe, for good or bad, for pain or pleasure. Life follows choice.
I write this to not remove hope but to give it; for life up until this point has been filled with sorrow, depression, sadness, anger, or anxiety. And up until now, these darknesses of the human condition have taken hostage one's innate openness to possibility. Said in another manner, pain and suffering constrict an individual's openness to being to the point where existence itself becomes an expression of pain and suffering. And here too, life is its own reward, for rather than choosing to fight the choice to "give in" to this darkness has been made. Plants cannot grow in dark closets.
Yet at the same time, the difference between following all that has come before and exploring what is to come rests in a different perspective. We can say something like, "My life up until this point has been filled with pain and suffering, and the life I live now in the present is like scar tissue around my heart preventing me from feeling. There is no hope because the course of my life has been set, and I have been predestined to fail." Life is its own reward. We can also say something like, "Despite my past, I choose to have a different future -- a future of my own making. I am not the simple result of added events from the past; the "me" in the here-and-now is the "me" in the future."
It goes something like this. Imagine the ideal version of yourself. This ideal self is the person that you wish to become -- and it is the person who you are not ... yet. This future version of yourself can be achieved only through successive approximations in the present, but the goal is the guide. You are who you envision yourself to be, and in here, life is its own reward. That which you treasure will be reflected in the life you live.
Life as it exists in the present is the incarnate embodiment of present attitude, present choice, present experiences, and present interpretation. While it might be tempting to think of one's present existence as simply the culmination of prior experiences, the understanding of such a reverse-looking explanation occurs in the present. In other words, interpretation of the past always occurs in the present. And depending upon present context -- emotional, intellectual, spiritual, situational -- details from the past move in and out of focal awareness. For this reason, it is easier for us to recall memories that reflect our present situation. A person who is depressed right now, for example, will interpret their history differently than when they are filled with joy and excitement.
Life is its own reward
Each person is ultimately responsible for the state of affairs in their own life. While some might be tempted to remove themselves from personal responsibility through blaming their parents, their childhood, their environment, their failed relationships, their friends, their religious leaders, their social status, their economic status, their abusive boyfriend, and so forth ad nauseum, the choice to abdicate themselves from personal responsibility is still a personal choice. Stated another manner: choosing not to choose is still a choice. While we cannot control the facticities of existence, such as our DNA structure, the physiology of our brains, the color of our hair or eyes, we can choose the manner that such facticities are interpreted.
We cannot choose the cards that have been dealt to us -- however, we can choose our reaction to those cards. "Life is its own reward" means that a life will reflect the choices made during the course of that life, whether for bliss or woe, for good or bad, for pain or pleasure. Life follows choice.
I write this to not remove hope but to give it; for life up until this point has been filled with sorrow, depression, sadness, anger, or anxiety. And up until now, these darknesses of the human condition have taken hostage one's innate openness to possibility. Said in another manner, pain and suffering constrict an individual's openness to being to the point where existence itself becomes an expression of pain and suffering. And here too, life is its own reward, for rather than choosing to fight the choice to "give in" to this darkness has been made. Plants cannot grow in dark closets.
Yet at the same time, the difference between following all that has come before and exploring what is to come rests in a different perspective. We can say something like, "My life up until this point has been filled with pain and suffering, and the life I live now in the present is like scar tissue around my heart preventing me from feeling. There is no hope because the course of my life has been set, and I have been predestined to fail." Life is its own reward. We can also say something like, "Despite my past, I choose to have a different future -- a future of my own making. I am not the simple result of added events from the past; the "me" in the here-and-now is the "me" in the future."
It goes something like this. Imagine the ideal version of yourself. This ideal self is the person that you wish to become -- and it is the person who you are not ... yet. This future version of yourself can be achieved only through successive approximations in the present, but the goal is the guide. You are who you envision yourself to be, and in here, life is its own reward. That which you treasure will be reflected in the life you live.
Man is not the sum of what he has already, but rather the sum of what he does not yet have, of what he could have.
Jean-Paul Sartre
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Wolf in sheep's clothing
Recent events and wandering thoughts have led me to, once again, use this blog as the proverbial "ship" navigating through my stream of consciousness. Today's topic of interest deals with a subject matter near and dear to my heart: women. In particular, I desire to spend a little time calling attention to a particular kind of female who embodies a particular kind of personality. Here I'm speaking of females who portray themselves to their male peers as "the cool girl."
The "Cool Girl" thinks of herself as "one of the guys." She prides herself on her ability to blend in with the likes and the ruckus of her male friends. She is quite knowledgeable about sports, cars, and understanding male behavior. She likes to drink beer and feels more comfortable being the only female who hangs out with a group of her male buddies than with her female peers. She is, in short, a wolf in sheep's clothing because at the end of the day, the cool girl's motives are disguised and she masks her real intentions for hanging around a group of men. While she might be a "friend" to some men, she picks and chooses whom to elevate to "more than friends."
Preface
Before beginning this little exposition of mine, allow me to preface my words. The subject matter dealt herein does not and will not apply universally to all females. Therefore, there's really no point in leaving comments attempting to discredit my material on the basis that you (or others) consider yourself to be an exemption to what's being talked about. In other words, your belief about yourself does not necessarily mean that others are also exempted. If the shoe fits, wear it. If the shoe offends, then move along. The internet's a big place.
Identifying The Cool Girl
Cool girls, despite their belief in their personal uniqueness, seem to share common characteristics among one another. It should also be mentioned that "cool girls," upon meeting each other, seem to know about each other's hidden va-genda. (Did you see what I did there? I created a new word from "vagina" and "agenda." Kudos, Richard Jeni.)
The "Cool Girl" thinks of herself as "one of the guys." She prides herself on her ability to blend in with the likes and the ruckus of her male friends. She is quite knowledgeable about sports, cars, and understanding male behavior. She likes to drink beer and feels more comfortable being the only female who hangs out with a group of her male buddies than with her female peers. She is, in short, a wolf in sheep's clothing because at the end of the day, the cool girl's motives are disguised and she masks her real intentions for hanging around a group of men. While she might be a "friend" to some men, she picks and chooses whom to elevate to "more than friends."
Preface
Before beginning this little exposition of mine, allow me to preface my words. The subject matter dealt herein does not and will not apply universally to all females. Therefore, there's really no point in leaving comments attempting to discredit my material on the basis that you (or others) consider yourself to be an exemption to what's being talked about. In other words, your belief about yourself does not necessarily mean that others are also exempted. If the shoe fits, wear it. If the shoe offends, then move along. The internet's a big place.
Identifying The Cool Girl
Cool girls, despite their belief in their personal uniqueness, seem to share common characteristics among one another. It should also be mentioned that "cool girls," upon meeting each other, seem to know about each other's hidden va-genda. (Did you see what I did there? I created a new word from "vagina" and "agenda." Kudos, Richard Jeni.)
- These girls will have a disproportionate number of female to male friends. In fact, they'll almost always have more male friends than female friends. They'll explain this obvious incongruity by saying that they don't like how most other girls are full of drama and are back-stabbing. They'll also say things like, "I've always had more guy friends than girl friends." Oh, and don't forget the classic one liner, "I just get along better with men than with women." [TRANSLATION: I found the perfect way to stand out from the competition.]
- These girls will take on and act out male sports interests. She'll like football, baseball, hockey, or whatever sport that her male "friends" are interested in. She'll even remember statistics, player names, and game rules. She'll even have a favorite team. She'll make it a point to perhaps attend a sporting event and partake in the happenings. But one thing she will not do is attend this sporting event with other women. In fact, when's the last time you've heard of a group of girls gathering at some other girl's house in order to watch sports? Exactly. Now, by contrast, when's the last time you've heard of a group of girls gathering a some guy "friend's" house to watch sports? See my point? [TRANSLATION: All she's doing is plotting future conversational pieces with common interests.]
- These girls will make fun of other girls and will refer to their competition as a stereotype. Because cool girls tend to amplify the differences between themselves and other women (their competition), they'll almost always take the male friend's side when the male friend talks stereo-typically about women. And here's where the cool girl does her learning. While she will claim that she learned a lot from her older brother, she's been learning a lot just listening to what dudes talk about among themselves. She's drinking beer, watching sports, watching male behavior, and she's listening to the nuance details of conversations -- keeping track of slips of the tongue and inferences.
- Finally, the cool girl always has a plan "B." It is inevitable that a male friend will take an interest in her. If the "wrong" male friend takes an interest in her, she will excuse herself and remind him that they are just friends. But, if her intended target takes an interest in her, then it is easy enough to pass from casual friends to intimate friends. She will always have an alibi prior to her social engagements. All her seduction plans will be well thought out beforehand to account for variance in male behavior. Make no mistake, fellas. You are being watched. You are being judged.
What are you experiences with "Cool Girls" ?
Saturday, October 1, 2011
In love with the idea of love
Once upon a time, during my early teenage youth, my heart and mind darkened with chaos and confusion. Like most people my age at that time, I was discovering aspects of myself that I never knew when I was a child. I remember feeling a profound sense of loneliness and social rejection from the opposite sex. There wasn't a "traumatic moment" that I could cite as evidence; this was something I came to understand through intuition. I saw others in relationships, holding hands in the hallways at school, sneaking a kiss here and there, and glowing with the knowledge that their partner was going to be with them in between classes and at lunch. I saw that and it awakened something deep within myself; I wanted that too.
I know it sounds trivial, but such were my experiences. I wanted to meet some girl in between classes and sit with her and her crew at lunch time. I wanted to hold hands with her in public -- unashamed, and I bet sneaking in a kiss here and there with her would be interesting! It sure looked like other people enjoyed doing that! But such was not in the cards for me during that time in my life. Perhaps I wasn't tall enough or muscular enough. Maybe the fact I wore glasses meant I was a nerd. Maybe I didn't have any confidence in myself and went unnoticed to most females. Loneliness grew into bitterness over time, and my search for companionship was met with frustration, envy, and greed.
I frequently remember hearing the word "love" being tossed about. I overheard a few girls talking about how they loved how 'Jeremy' walked and how he dressed. He was funny and cool and, apparently, could do no wrong. Jeremy was "fine," and the currency of his sexuality was accepted in most places it seemed. This insight into young females taught me that boys are just as much on their minds as they are on our minds. I wondered if girls thought about me and talked about me similar to how I heard them giggle and carry on about Jeremy. The short answer was no. Girls would approach Jeremy and would begin a conversation with him. He had to nothing other than exist to get their attention. I, on the other hand, was reliable when they needed a pencil or an extra sheet of paper. Or perhaps they needed to copy my homework before class. Good 'ol reliable me always did his school work. And this made me useful to them. Being useful does not translate to any degree of sexiness.
No one ever sat down with me and discussed how my emotions would begin to evolve. No one ever discussed the meaning of love with me. And no one told me about how love might be abused or the about darkness that sometimes accompanies love.
It was up to me to figure out what 'love' was.
Other than hearing this word associated with Jeremy (and his body), I had no real idea as to what 'love' was. While flipping through the radio, I found that one of the local radio stations played love songs from radio host Delilah, and I figured that if I listened to the content of love songs, I would get an idea about what love was.
In retrospect, this was a mistake.
Love songs tend to be about longing, yearning, and seeking to find a missing piece to one's emotional puzzle. I remember thinking while reading Rollo May's Love and Will in college that the book would have been most useful to my younger self. Don't get me wrong: love songs have their place, but without life experience and without the guiding hand of a concerned adult, love songs add to the confusion of youthful searching and understanding. Some of the things I've learned about love since the time of chaos and confusion in my youth have been discussed in previous blog post, "What it means to love in 5 points."
But there is no turning back the hands of time. The frustration and loneliness that I felt all those years ago helped to shape to the man I was to become. What I could not experience through interaction, I dissected and researched. Love did not find expression through a kiss or through holding hands or through attending dances -- love was something to understand. Feelings of loneliness were something to be understood.
In my search, I wrote poetry and short stories. Writing forced me to put into words the feelings swarming inside me. Writing forced me to articulate my thoughts. I still have many of my writings from 8th-12th grade. I'll share with you something I wrote many, many years ago. (I wrote it as a poem originally, but I'll write it out as a paragraph.)
Love toys with our hearts, plays with our heads, distorts reality, and soothes our beds. A game of chess played since long ago, move and counter move, depending upon other's show. A game of guess, for each sees love different. Where one weeps, one will never lament. Love rises on pedestals, perfect in hopes, our dreams, yet, human perfection? Never what it seems. Disguised as friendship, it creeps into our lives, candle lit dinner, roses, candy. Promises and lies. Her eyes, her lips, her hair, her smile, her laugh, her scent tell to "seize the moment," but she gives no hint. Does her mystery, her uncharted body, fascinate you? If you only knew... Her curves! His tone! Finally! Together alone! Witness "friends" test what their bodies can do! Then see "new love" turn from red to blue. Surely, love must be more, but, no one will believe -- The lonely heart wishes for what the broken heart knows.
I know it sounds trivial, but such were my experiences. I wanted to meet some girl in between classes and sit with her and her crew at lunch time. I wanted to hold hands with her in public -- unashamed, and I bet sneaking in a kiss here and there with her would be interesting! It sure looked like other people enjoyed doing that! But such was not in the cards for me during that time in my life. Perhaps I wasn't tall enough or muscular enough. Maybe the fact I wore glasses meant I was a nerd. Maybe I didn't have any confidence in myself and went unnoticed to most females. Loneliness grew into bitterness over time, and my search for companionship was met with frustration, envy, and greed.
I frequently remember hearing the word "love" being tossed about. I overheard a few girls talking about how they loved how 'Jeremy' walked and how he dressed. He was funny and cool and, apparently, could do no wrong. Jeremy was "fine," and the currency of his sexuality was accepted in most places it seemed. This insight into young females taught me that boys are just as much on their minds as they are on our minds. I wondered if girls thought about me and talked about me similar to how I heard them giggle and carry on about Jeremy. The short answer was no. Girls would approach Jeremy and would begin a conversation with him. He had to nothing other than exist to get their attention. I, on the other hand, was reliable when they needed a pencil or an extra sheet of paper. Or perhaps they needed to copy my homework before class. Good 'ol reliable me always did his school work. And this made me useful to them. Being useful does not translate to any degree of sexiness.
No one ever sat down with me and discussed how my emotions would begin to evolve. No one ever discussed the meaning of love with me. And no one told me about how love might be abused or the about darkness that sometimes accompanies love.
It was up to me to figure out what 'love' was.
Other than hearing this word associated with Jeremy (and his body), I had no real idea as to what 'love' was. While flipping through the radio, I found that one of the local radio stations played love songs from radio host Delilah, and I figured that if I listened to the content of love songs, I would get an idea about what love was.
In retrospect, this was a mistake.
Love songs tend to be about longing, yearning, and seeking to find a missing piece to one's emotional puzzle. I remember thinking while reading Rollo May's Love and Will in college that the book would have been most useful to my younger self. Don't get me wrong: love songs have their place, but without life experience and without the guiding hand of a concerned adult, love songs add to the confusion of youthful searching and understanding. Some of the things I've learned about love since the time of chaos and confusion in my youth have been discussed in previous blog post, "What it means to love in 5 points."
But there is no turning back the hands of time. The frustration and loneliness that I felt all those years ago helped to shape to the man I was to become. What I could not experience through interaction, I dissected and researched. Love did not find expression through a kiss or through holding hands or through attending dances -- love was something to understand. Feelings of loneliness were something to be understood.
In my search, I wrote poetry and short stories. Writing forced me to put into words the feelings swarming inside me. Writing forced me to articulate my thoughts. I still have many of my writings from 8th-12th grade. I'll share with you something I wrote many, many years ago. (I wrote it as a poem originally, but I'll write it out as a paragraph.)
Love toys with our hearts, plays with our heads, distorts reality, and soothes our beds. A game of chess played since long ago, move and counter move, depending upon other's show. A game of guess, for each sees love different. Where one weeps, one will never lament. Love rises on pedestals, perfect in hopes, our dreams, yet, human perfection? Never what it seems. Disguised as friendship, it creeps into our lives, candle lit dinner, roses, candy. Promises and lies. Her eyes, her lips, her hair, her smile, her laugh, her scent tell to "seize the moment," but she gives no hint. Does her mystery, her uncharted body, fascinate you? If you only knew... Her curves! His tone! Finally! Together alone! Witness "friends" test what their bodies can do! Then see "new love" turn from red to blue. Surely, love must be more, but, no one will believe -- The lonely heart wishes for what the broken heart knows.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Cogito Ergo Sum
Rene Descrates coined the phrase "Cogito Ergo Sum" - "I think therefore I am" - as a rebellious proclamation of what was real amid a world that might be false. In Descarte's world, everything perceivable or thinkable might be the result of the lies and the deceptions from the Evil Genius. All extended things -- things in physical reality -- and all things in the mind, such as ideas, can have their reality doubted. All that a person knows or has experienced might be an elaborate illusion. However, if all in the world can be doubted, the one truth is that there is the one who is doing the doubting. In other words, the individual in his or her thoughts doing the doubting cannot itself be doubted. "I think therefore I am" is what is real.
Nietzsche suggested that "the senses lie," meaning that the reality that we know first must filter through our five senses. Our senses translate the "world outside," and the reality we know is the reality that has passed through our senses ... not the reality as it exists in-itself. All reality is interpreted reality. We know that the electromagnetic spectrum extends beyond the visible light spectrum, yet if all we knew came from our senses alone, then microwaves, x-rays, and gamma rays (also part of the electromagnetic spectrum) would not exist. Our senses are limitations placed upon what is knowable. The senses lie in that they limit the common person's perception of reality.
Is there such a thing as individuality?
The reactive response to this question will most likely be a resounding "yes!" However, pause for a moment to consider what it means to be an individual. First, an "individual's" conception is brought about by the act of two people. The "individual" then receives nourishment and protection from his or her mother. Next the individual is born into a social world filled with parents, grandparents, cousins, aunts, and uncles. There is a culture that the individual will inherit -- that of his or her parents, and this culture will have its totems and taboos -- socially acceptable and socially inappropriate methods to conduct personal behavior and negotiate and govern present and future social interactions.
The "individual" will then enter the education system of his or her host culture and will learn to read in the language of the dominant culture. Ideas will be passed along to this individual -- ideas that the individual did not invent. Clothing, music, art, and poetry all serve as "personal" avenues of expression -- but the individual did not invent any of these avenues ... other people did. Despite this, the individual will find their personal expression through the artistic devices belonging to other people. The individual will achieve intellectual freedom on the shoulders of those who pioneered the articulation of thought.
Everything the "individual" has was made available by other people.
While individuals have the potential to contribute back to the social framework, ... for the most part, I see individuals who have nothing more than a parasitic relationship with their social framework. Nietzsche called this the "herd." Heidegger called this the "they." Live is lived, proximally and for the most part, in inauthenticity.
"Tell me what to think about my love life, self-help book."
"Teach me about God, religion."
"Help me with my depression, therapist."
"Cure my loneliness, random person that'll sleep with."
"Give my life meaning, world."
Nietzsche suggested that "the senses lie," meaning that the reality that we know first must filter through our five senses. Our senses translate the "world outside," and the reality we know is the reality that has passed through our senses ... not the reality as it exists in-itself. All reality is interpreted reality. We know that the electromagnetic spectrum extends beyond the visible light spectrum, yet if all we knew came from our senses alone, then microwaves, x-rays, and gamma rays (also part of the electromagnetic spectrum) would not exist. Our senses are limitations placed upon what is knowable. The senses lie in that they limit the common person's perception of reality.
Is there such a thing as individuality?
The reactive response to this question will most likely be a resounding "yes!" However, pause for a moment to consider what it means to be an individual. First, an "individual's" conception is brought about by the act of two people. The "individual" then receives nourishment and protection from his or her mother. Next the individual is born into a social world filled with parents, grandparents, cousins, aunts, and uncles. There is a culture that the individual will inherit -- that of his or her parents, and this culture will have its totems and taboos -- socially acceptable and socially inappropriate methods to conduct personal behavior and negotiate and govern present and future social interactions.
The "individual" will then enter the education system of his or her host culture and will learn to read in the language of the dominant culture. Ideas will be passed along to this individual -- ideas that the individual did not invent. Clothing, music, art, and poetry all serve as "personal" avenues of expression -- but the individual did not invent any of these avenues ... other people did. Despite this, the individual will find their personal expression through the artistic devices belonging to other people. The individual will achieve intellectual freedom on the shoulders of those who pioneered the articulation of thought.
Everything the "individual" has was made available by other people.
"There is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9Notions of love, freedom, and choice ... views on how one ought to live and how one ought to die, ... all that we know of the world ... our "personal" ideas bear the mark of the larger social context from which they came. There seems to be no such thing as a social-less individual.
While individuals have the potential to contribute back to the social framework, ... for the most part, I see individuals who have nothing more than a parasitic relationship with their social framework. Nietzsche called this the "herd." Heidegger called this the "they." Live is lived, proximally and for the most part, in inauthenticity.
"Tell me what to think about my love life, self-help book."
"Teach me about God, religion."
"Help me with my depression, therapist."
"Cure my loneliness, random person that'll sleep with."
"Give my life meaning, world."
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Reflections on a Bar - Part I
Being and becoming social is woven into the fabric of what it means to be human. We were all first brought into existence as a direct consequence of a social interaction, and as a fetus, each of us obtained nourishment as part of the symbiosis within the womb. At birth, we find ourselves surrounded by other people -- doctors and nurses. And if we're lucky enough, we'll go home with our mothers and fathers. From this point forward, we at once influence and are influence by our social environment, including the culture inherited from our parents and the dominant culture of the society at large. At the moment of our death, there are certain methods and rituals that are carried out by the living when it comes to the handling and processing of our bodies. In other words, from the moment of our conception to the moment of our death, we as individuals cannot escape "otherness." In fact, it is difficult to think of an individual without referencing "other people" against which to compare "individuality" in the first place. Said in another manner, individuals always-already embody some aspect of socialness.
Being at a bar is an awkward experience for me. Always is.
There are several reasons for this. Chief among the reasons is how one's world of "prior socialness" is ignored -- actively so. This appears to be a necessary prerequisite for being at a bar in the first place. In order for people to think of one another as a piece of meat and/or as a source of physical or economic pleasure -- in a process of dehumanization -- they purposely have to ignore the nexus of relationships that the "other" brings with them. (While some at this point might attempt to proclaim that sexual conquest is not at the root of all bar-visiting intentions, I daresay that the person who says this must be in a committed relationship. Or, perhaps they are at the end of a previous relationship.) The man who appears is someone's son, relative, and co-worker. He has his own world of involvements that might include higher education, drug rehabilitation, charitable service work, military experience, or fire fighter training. We cannot "guess" the precise variables in his life, but rest assured, a world of involvements already exists for him.
Similarly, the woman who appears is someone's daughter. Perhaps she's even a mother herself. We cannot be certain. Maybe she comes from a background filled with various frustrations. Or perhaps her upbringing was nice and peaceful and emphasized courtesy and education. Maybe she is an avid reader of J.R.R Tolkien or C.S. Lewis. Maybe she's filled with secrets? No one knows the origin of all her motivations, but rest assured that she brings with her a network of social interactions. This constellation of relationships of hers existed even before the first person laid eyes upon her this evening.
The actual encounter of the "other," however, is different.
No longer does the woman possess a constellation of social interactions; no longer is she a mother, or a daughter. No longer does her world of intentions and dreams matter. She is the incarnation of Eros, lust, and love. She begs for attention with her short skirt. She runs her fingers through her hair -- primping herself -- for ultimate presentation. She laughs loudly and hugs all that approach her. Indeed, she's doing all in her power to flee from the pangs of loneliness -- however, all that men see is easy prey.
Similarly, he begins his chest thumping exercise. He postures and carries himself as if he's all powerful. He acts like an alpha male and shows off his muscles, tattoos, and piercings. This man who is someone's son, someone's father, someone's co-worker is now the ultimate hunter and predator. Selecting him as a mating partner would bring about the healthiest and strongest children. Like the quarterback of a football team, this man is a leader who commands the loyalty and strength of his friends. He dresses flashy to catch your attention. He speaks louder than everyone else to show social dominance.
All of this masquerading seems too fake.
When this man, this woman, enter into my field of perception, I *know* they bring with them a nexus of social relationships. I know that there are several motivations at work for them being here in the first place. I understand their desire for others to be attracted to them. But all of this posturing and false advertising seems to place additional blockades between themselves and other people -- all hindering the process of authenticity and the discovery of the "other."
Many relationships begin just like this.
Many relationships end like this.
If we cannot get in touch with ourselves and articulate the movements of our hearts, souls, and minds, then how can we expect to find repose in this world? Perhaps the problem is me and my preconceptions. I believe that learning about one's self is of utmost importance -- and what meaningful lessons can be drawn from such inauthentic encounters with other people, save the necessity to avoid them and the experience of guilt that happens after them?
Being at a bar is an awkward experience for me. Always is.
There are several reasons for this. Chief among the reasons is how one's world of "prior socialness" is ignored -- actively so. This appears to be a necessary prerequisite for being at a bar in the first place. In order for people to think of one another as a piece of meat and/or as a source of physical or economic pleasure -- in a process of dehumanization -- they purposely have to ignore the nexus of relationships that the "other" brings with them. (While some at this point might attempt to proclaim that sexual conquest is not at the root of all bar-visiting intentions, I daresay that the person who says this must be in a committed relationship. Or, perhaps they are at the end of a previous relationship.) The man who appears is someone's son, relative, and co-worker. He has his own world of involvements that might include higher education, drug rehabilitation, charitable service work, military experience, or fire fighter training. We cannot "guess" the precise variables in his life, but rest assured, a world of involvements already exists for him.
Similarly, the woman who appears is someone's daughter. Perhaps she's even a mother herself. We cannot be certain. Maybe she comes from a background filled with various frustrations. Or perhaps her upbringing was nice and peaceful and emphasized courtesy and education. Maybe she is an avid reader of J.R.R Tolkien or C.S. Lewis. Maybe she's filled with secrets? No one knows the origin of all her motivations, but rest assured that she brings with her a network of social interactions. This constellation of relationships of hers existed even before the first person laid eyes upon her this evening.
The actual encounter of the "other," however, is different.
No longer does the woman possess a constellation of social interactions; no longer is she a mother, or a daughter. No longer does her world of intentions and dreams matter. She is the incarnation of Eros, lust, and love. She begs for attention with her short skirt. She runs her fingers through her hair -- primping herself -- for ultimate presentation. She laughs loudly and hugs all that approach her. Indeed, she's doing all in her power to flee from the pangs of loneliness -- however, all that men see is easy prey.
Similarly, he begins his chest thumping exercise. He postures and carries himself as if he's all powerful. He acts like an alpha male and shows off his muscles, tattoos, and piercings. This man who is someone's son, someone's father, someone's co-worker is now the ultimate hunter and predator. Selecting him as a mating partner would bring about the healthiest and strongest children. Like the quarterback of a football team, this man is a leader who commands the loyalty and strength of his friends. He dresses flashy to catch your attention. He speaks louder than everyone else to show social dominance.
All of this masquerading seems too fake.
When this man, this woman, enter into my field of perception, I *know* they bring with them a nexus of social relationships. I know that there are several motivations at work for them being here in the first place. I understand their desire for others to be attracted to them. But all of this posturing and false advertising seems to place additional blockades between themselves and other people -- all hindering the process of authenticity and the discovery of the "other."
Many relationships begin just like this.
Many relationships end like this.
If we cannot get in touch with ourselves and articulate the movements of our hearts, souls, and minds, then how can we expect to find repose in this world? Perhaps the problem is me and my preconceptions. I believe that learning about one's self is of utmost importance -- and what meaningful lessons can be drawn from such inauthentic encounters with other people, save the necessity to avoid them and the experience of guilt that happens after them?
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Modern Christianity is about convenience
Perhaps where the atheist (and any other person of reason) is most correct in their criticism of Christianity resides in how Christianity is less about conviction and the seeking of Truth and more about finding a home to feel welcomed. It's about convenience. Christianity is not about personal development, contemplating truth, wisdom, and revelation; it is about feeling good about yourself, getting compliments and praises from those around you, and participating in community events and in church services. Most churches do not encourage personal critical thinking skills (especially against the establishment of Christianity itself); most churches, rather, encourage cognitive and behavioral conformity to the idiosyncratic teachings of their pastor or minister. Perhaps the greatest criticism laid at the feet of Christianity is inferences drawn from the evidence offered from Christian people.
Person 'A' says, "God has shown me a great Truth, and He has put on my heart the desire to fulfill His word. I must begin my own church and teach people according to the inspiration that God Himself has given to me through prayer and through the personal relationship that I have with Him. What I do henceforth is to live God's Truth as He has revealed it to me. I shall dedicate all the days of my life in service to He who died for me and my sins."
Person 'B' says the precise same thing as person 'A.' With just as much personal conviction, with just as much reference to Biblical passages, with just as much weight on their heart to accomplish God's will, person 'B' sets forth to proclaim God's Truth.
Now imagine that the teachings of person 'A' conflict with and contradict the teachings of person 'B.' -- How can this be? Did not God inspire them both? Was not God the provider of inspiration? You hear it all the time from people who claim to be doing God's work. God, apparently, wants you to help fund your church's youth ministry to India or to South America. God is putting it on your heart to purify his Church; God wants YOU to revitalize His church. After years of reading the Bible, we can conclude that polygamy is okay -- no wait, after years of reading the Bible, we must conclude that polygamy is forbidden. Well, our church believes that the Eucharist is the real embodiment of Jesus Christ through the bread and the wine -- the bread becomes his flesh, and the wine becomes his blood. No, this is incorrect. Nothing really happens during the Eucharistic celebration -- it is nothing more than a ceremony to recall historical events; no hocus pocus happens.
Well, our church believes that children should be baptized. Oh. Well, our church teaches that children need to reach the age of reason before they are allowed to be baptized. Our minister wants us to attend church twice a week: on Sundays and on Wednesdays. Well, our church says that once a week is good enough. Our church teaches about the existence of purgatory 2 Maccabees 12:46. What? We don't have Bibles with that book in it. Our Bibles are real and yours are "of man."
---
Do you see? I don't care who's right and who's wrong. People have been killing one another for centuries in order to determine which school of religious thought best encompasses God's will. Everyone who disagrees with one another also claims that their point of view is best, the most correct, and is what God really teaches while at the same time, condemning those who have different points of view. How arrogant of Christians.
You're not worshiping "God."
You're worshiping "Yourself" as "God."
Hey, that's a nice golden cow you have there. Did "God" tell you to make that too?
Person 'A' says, "God has shown me a great Truth, and He has put on my heart the desire to fulfill His word. I must begin my own church and teach people according to the inspiration that God Himself has given to me through prayer and through the personal relationship that I have with Him. What I do henceforth is to live God's Truth as He has revealed it to me. I shall dedicate all the days of my life in service to He who died for me and my sins."
Person 'B' says the precise same thing as person 'A.' With just as much personal conviction, with just as much reference to Biblical passages, with just as much weight on their heart to accomplish God's will, person 'B' sets forth to proclaim God's Truth.
Now imagine that the teachings of person 'A' conflict with and contradict the teachings of person 'B.' -- How can this be? Did not God inspire them both? Was not God the provider of inspiration? You hear it all the time from people who claim to be doing God's work. God, apparently, wants you to help fund your church's youth ministry to India or to South America. God is putting it on your heart to purify his Church; God wants YOU to revitalize His church. After years of reading the Bible, we can conclude that polygamy is okay -- no wait, after years of reading the Bible, we must conclude that polygamy is forbidden. Well, our church believes that the Eucharist is the real embodiment of Jesus Christ through the bread and the wine -- the bread becomes his flesh, and the wine becomes his blood. No, this is incorrect. Nothing really happens during the Eucharistic celebration -- it is nothing more than a ceremony to recall historical events; no hocus pocus happens.
Well, our church believes that children should be baptized. Oh. Well, our church teaches that children need to reach the age of reason before they are allowed to be baptized. Our minister wants us to attend church twice a week: on Sundays and on Wednesdays. Well, our church says that once a week is good enough. Our church teaches about the existence of purgatory 2 Maccabees 12:46. What? We don't have Bibles with that book in it. Our Bibles are real and yours are "of man."
---
Do you see? I don't care who's right and who's wrong. People have been killing one another for centuries in order to determine which school of religious thought best encompasses God's will. Everyone who disagrees with one another also claims that their point of view is best, the most correct, and is what God really teaches while at the same time, condemning those who have different points of view. How arrogant of Christians.
You're not worshiping "God."
You're worshiping "Yourself" as "God."
Hey, that's a nice golden cow you have there. Did "God" tell you to make that too?
Evolution Theory in 9-11-2001 Attacks
On September 11, 2001, religious extremist executed a coordinate attack on the United States using commercial aircraft. There has already been much documented about events leading up to the attacks and the events that followed the attacks. Many people died and were injured on this day, and ten years later, the emotional scars of the survivors continue to testify to the pain and suffering despite the passage of time.
Darwin's theory of evolution is about natural selection and survival of the fittest; individuals with the strongest genes and the most resources will stand a better chance of finding a mate in order to pass their genes on to the next generation. Those encompassing the least desirable traits will not breed. Abnormal traits of evolution that appear on the scene either serve as an advantage or as a disadvantage, and both make one stand apart from their peers. This "standing out" either makes mating with them either more attractive or less attractive. The abnormal trait, e.g., the opposable thumb, sharper claws or a stronger shell, gets passed to the next generation when it appears to add a survival advantage. Abnormal traits stop "dead" when it seems to add distinct survival disadvantage.
Our present generation is standing on the shoulders of those who have come before us; we are the best that evolution has to offer up until this point in time. Today's human being is the best human being produced from nature through the process of natural selection. The reason that you are reading this blog is because your parents mated and created you; the reason they mated was not only because of their "love" for each other but also because each of them perceived the other as being an "advantageous" mate (in terms of offering more wealth, better health and power, and better care for future potential children) when compared to the competition. In other words, you are the product of your parent's best mating choice, and there were lots of factors that went into that choice. Events such as these have happened like this for millions of years, and have guided the course of the development of modern humans.
Each generation is supposed to be evolving beyond that other previous generation, even if this evolution is microscopic. We're all supposed to be getting "better" one natural selection at a time, one generation at a time. But is this really the case?
And now, let's return back to Sept. 11, 2001 and factor in the events from September 11, 2001 into the grand scheme of natural selection. Those responsible for the attacks represented the best that evolution had to offer at that particular point in time. No -- I'm not talking about moral choices at the moment. I'm talking about pure physical realities that have developed throughout evolution to produce modern humans. The terrorists were "modern" human in the sense that they were the result of millions of years of evolution from their ancestors.
However, given the events of Sept. 11, 2001, we must weigh that personal religious fanaticism and personal ideation have the potential to influence the broader scope of physiological evolution. Those responsible for the attacks traded the possibility of casting their genes into the next generation for ensuring that others were removed from this world, and their victims would cease to be able to create additional future offspring. Personal choice influenced both personal evolution and the evolution of other people. Millions of years of evolutionary processes halted because of extremism.
Despite evolution being responsible for better fine tuning our "collective" survival as as species on planet Earth, we have the ability, individually, to toss millions of years of evolution away in the blink of an eye -- all for the sake of personal religious belief. As a species, we have not evolved beyond the the confinements of our original evolutionary processes. We still kill one another. We still rape one another. We still steal from one another. And it can be argued that we do not "love" one another. We have not evolved beyond evolution it would seem -- or rather, evolution up until this point in time has led to the possibility that personal conviction can alter the evolutionary course of hundreds, if not thousands, of other people.
When people are murdered or when people choose to sacrifice themselves for cognitive or religious ideation, they erase all the effort that their ancestors endured to ensure their posterity.
Darwin's theory of evolution is about natural selection and survival of the fittest; individuals with the strongest genes and the most resources will stand a better chance of finding a mate in order to pass their genes on to the next generation. Those encompassing the least desirable traits will not breed. Abnormal traits of evolution that appear on the scene either serve as an advantage or as a disadvantage, and both make one stand apart from their peers. This "standing out" either makes mating with them either more attractive or less attractive. The abnormal trait, e.g., the opposable thumb, sharper claws or a stronger shell, gets passed to the next generation when it appears to add a survival advantage. Abnormal traits stop "dead" when it seems to add distinct survival disadvantage.
Our present generation is standing on the shoulders of those who have come before us; we are the best that evolution has to offer up until this point in time. Today's human being is the best human being produced from nature through the process of natural selection. The reason that you are reading this blog is because your parents mated and created you; the reason they mated was not only because of their "love" for each other but also because each of them perceived the other as being an "advantageous" mate (in terms of offering more wealth, better health and power, and better care for future potential children) when compared to the competition. In other words, you are the product of your parent's best mating choice, and there were lots of factors that went into that choice. Events such as these have happened like this for millions of years, and have guided the course of the development of modern humans.
Each generation is supposed to be evolving beyond that other previous generation, even if this evolution is microscopic. We're all supposed to be getting "better" one natural selection at a time, one generation at a time. But is this really the case?
And now, let's return back to Sept. 11, 2001 and factor in the events from September 11, 2001 into the grand scheme of natural selection. Those responsible for the attacks represented the best that evolution had to offer at that particular point in time. No -- I'm not talking about moral choices at the moment. I'm talking about pure physical realities that have developed throughout evolution to produce modern humans. The terrorists were "modern" human in the sense that they were the result of millions of years of evolution from their ancestors.
However, given the events of Sept. 11, 2001, we must weigh that personal religious fanaticism and personal ideation have the potential to influence the broader scope of physiological evolution. Those responsible for the attacks traded the possibility of casting their genes into the next generation for ensuring that others were removed from this world, and their victims would cease to be able to create additional future offspring. Personal choice influenced both personal evolution and the evolution of other people. Millions of years of evolutionary processes halted because of extremism.
Despite evolution being responsible for better fine tuning our "collective" survival as as species on planet Earth, we have the ability, individually, to toss millions of years of evolution away in the blink of an eye -- all for the sake of personal religious belief. As a species, we have not evolved beyond the the confinements of our original evolutionary processes. We still kill one another. We still rape one another. We still steal from one another. And it can be argued that we do not "love" one another. We have not evolved beyond evolution it would seem -- or rather, evolution up until this point in time has led to the possibility that personal conviction can alter the evolutionary course of hundreds, if not thousands, of other people.
When people are murdered or when people choose to sacrifice themselves for cognitive or religious ideation, they erase all the effort that their ancestors endured to ensure their posterity.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Atheism is self-deism
An atheist does not believe in God.
It is my opinion that everyone believes in a God of one sort or other; in the case of the atheist, the God they believe in is themselves. Atheism has a long laundry list of "reasons" why believing in God makes no sense whatsoever, and the appeal is made at one time or other to the lack of "proof" for God's existence (which makes me scratch my head and tilt my head like a puppy does when it hears a strange noise). You see, proof is a function of the ideological framework which interprets the proof in the first place. If I wanted to prove that 2 + 2 = 4, then the framework for evaluating this particular assertion would be mathematics. If I wanted to prove that dinosaurs existed, I would be appealing to paleontology's established framework. And if I wanted proof of God's existence, I would refer to religion. But "religion," from the atheistic perspective (and from some religious perspectives) signifies more the folly of less intelligent human beings than it does prove God's existence. Actually, "proving" God's existence in scientific terms is a flawed enterprise from the very beginning since "God" belongs to the domain of "faith." In most cases, the atheist wants proof of God's existence in scientific terms.
One popular remark I've heard from friends and from the popular culture at large is that God is something that can't be seen, and therefore does not exist. In other words, this is the whole "I'll believe it when I see it" school of thought (which is flawed). The human eye perceives (rather poorly, I might add) the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. We know that there is more to the electromagnetic spectrum than visible light such as X-RAYs, gamma rays, microwaves, and ultra violet radiation. Our sun, which is a giant thermonuclear explosion in space that collapses on itself due to its huge mass, emits all kinds of invisible radiation which cannot be seen (directly) through the human eye. We infer that something "unseen" exists because of its effect on the surround space (which is how scientists postulate the presence of black holes). When we put a bag of popcorn in the microwave and begin to cook it, we cannot see the microwaves directly; but because the popcorn begins cooking, we can infer that microwaves exist because of their effect on the bag of popcorn. Using similar logic, we can infer that God exists because of all the wars and human squabbling that has been done in his name throughout history!
Hahaha. I jest, I jest. But seriously, though. I consider myself to be a person of faith, but I totally understand how some refuse to believe in God for whatever their personal reason is. For some people, atheism is a living rebellion to the value system of hurtful parents. For others, atheism is like the Socratic gadfly for those who believe every word coming from any person claiming that "God has put something" on their heart. Look, I know that religion has been used to achieve personal agendas from the beginning of time (if I wanted to convince people that it is "God's Will" that I philander with others, then I'd write a "Book" and say the inspiration for it came to me in a vision too!) ; and I know that some people use religion as an excuse to refute scientific evidence (and these people piss me off too). From my point of view, evolution and science are all part of God's plan. Did you read that? I said that evolution is part of God's plan.
In any case, religion (whether that religion is that of a God found in a church or a God found inside one's self) is a personal choice and a personal relationship, and it should be kept that way -- personal. Yeah, I know. I'm writing a blog for the whole world to read and I'm not following my own advice on keeping personal things personal. But you know what? I'm not a militant when it comes to getting others to believe in God. I'm not a Bible thumper or a Bible thrower. I have my personal way of looking at things, and I'll share my insights with others when the moment is right. It's not for me to judge the sexuality or the personal choices of another human being -- I'm not God, I don't claim to be, and I don't want to be. In Matt 5:45, it is written that God lets the rain fall on EVERYONE, and the sun shines on EVERYONE (though I must admit, I don't understand why).
It is my opinion that everyone believes in a God of one sort or other; in the case of the atheist, the God they believe in is themselves. Atheism has a long laundry list of "reasons" why believing in God makes no sense whatsoever, and the appeal is made at one time or other to the lack of "proof" for God's existence (which makes me scratch my head and tilt my head like a puppy does when it hears a strange noise). You see, proof is a function of the ideological framework which interprets the proof in the first place. If I wanted to prove that 2 + 2 = 4, then the framework for evaluating this particular assertion would be mathematics. If I wanted to prove that dinosaurs existed, I would be appealing to paleontology's established framework. And if I wanted proof of God's existence, I would refer to religion. But "religion," from the atheistic perspective (and from some religious perspectives) signifies more the folly of less intelligent human beings than it does prove God's existence. Actually, "proving" God's existence in scientific terms is a flawed enterprise from the very beginning since "God" belongs to the domain of "faith." In most cases, the atheist wants proof of God's existence in scientific terms.
One popular remark I've heard from friends and from the popular culture at large is that God is something that can't be seen, and therefore does not exist. In other words, this is the whole "I'll believe it when I see it" school of thought (which is flawed). The human eye perceives (rather poorly, I might add) the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. We know that there is more to the electromagnetic spectrum than visible light such as X-RAYs, gamma rays, microwaves, and ultra violet radiation. Our sun, which is a giant thermonuclear explosion in space that collapses on itself due to its huge mass, emits all kinds of invisible radiation which cannot be seen (directly) through the human eye. We infer that something "unseen" exists because of its effect on the surround space (which is how scientists postulate the presence of black holes). When we put a bag of popcorn in the microwave and begin to cook it, we cannot see the microwaves directly; but because the popcorn begins cooking, we can infer that microwaves exist because of their effect on the bag of popcorn. Using similar logic, we can infer that God exists because of all the wars and human squabbling that has been done in his name throughout history!
Hahaha. I jest, I jest. But seriously, though. I consider myself to be a person of faith, but I totally understand how some refuse to believe in God for whatever their personal reason is. For some people, atheism is a living rebellion to the value system of hurtful parents. For others, atheism is like the Socratic gadfly for those who believe every word coming from any person claiming that "God has put something" on their heart. Look, I know that religion has been used to achieve personal agendas from the beginning of time (if I wanted to convince people that it is "God's Will" that I philander with others, then I'd write a "Book" and say the inspiration for it came to me in a vision too!) ; and I know that some people use religion as an excuse to refute scientific evidence (and these people piss me off too). From my point of view, evolution and science are all part of God's plan. Did you read that? I said that evolution is part of God's plan.
In any case, religion (whether that religion is that of a God found in a church or a God found inside one's self) is a personal choice and a personal relationship, and it should be kept that way -- personal. Yeah, I know. I'm writing a blog for the whole world to read and I'm not following my own advice on keeping personal things personal. But you know what? I'm not a militant when it comes to getting others to believe in God. I'm not a Bible thumper or a Bible thrower. I have my personal way of looking at things, and I'll share my insights with others when the moment is right. It's not for me to judge the sexuality or the personal choices of another human being -- I'm not God, I don't claim to be, and I don't want to be. In Matt 5:45, it is written that God lets the rain fall on EVERYONE, and the sun shines on EVERYONE (though I must admit, I don't understand why).
Saturday, September 3, 2011
What it means to love in 5 points.
- Love is relational. This means that at least two individuals are necessary in order for love to exist; when an individual is both the object and the subject of love, then the love is deficient and is called narcissism. When "the other" receives all of the attention at the expense of self-care, then the love is deficient and is called dependency. However, when love is reciprocal and each partner has the best interests of the other in mind, and love flows from one toward the other in harmonious symbiosis, then love thrives. Love is not in love with itself but rather finds is expression with another.
- Love is an art. This means that love penetrates and permeates all aspects of one's life; love is not relative to a situation but rather finds expression in all situations because it is always-already embodied within the person in those situations. An example of this is how we imagine a potential partner interacting with us similar to how they interact with strangers. A potential partner who angrily curses the waiter or waitress for a wrong food order while in the same breath expressing intimate romantic interest sparks a contradiction of character. Similarly, if a potential partner can treat strangers with a cold cruelty, then it must be asked much a stretch it would be for that coldness to be directed toward the lover.
- Love is patient. A loving heart recognizes that each person is on a journey and that encounters with others happen at different points during their journey. People encountered one another during the course of each individual's journey; each encounters the other in a constant state of change and development. Sometimes, one person or the other is happy. Other times, people are mad. And there are times that people are sad. In addition, emotional and intellectual developmental differences evolve over time, and the person encountered during one segment of time might be be different at another segment. Human beings are not static things; we are always in the process of "becoming," or stated in another manner, "our being is our becoming." Love takes into account the constant movements of the human heart while traversing across life and shows patience for the developmental processes of the heart.
- Love is kind. A loving person acts with generosity and acts for the greater good of both self and other, even when neither really "deserve" love. Every person has their enemies, it seems. The loving person also loves their enemies. Every person has been wronged by someone else at some point in time or other; the loving person forgives those who have caused them wrong. Love is unconditional in the sense that love is given to all without first pondering worthiness.
- Love is quiet. Stated in another manner, "love is its own reward." Real love happens not for the sake of social recognition; real love has no monetary benefit. Love is given and love is received because love itself it the goal of love, and all those involved with it gain personal benefit from participation. Love needs no other motivation than its own expression and its own fulfillment.
I invite my readers to leave comments about what they believe to be the most universal aspects of love.
Objectivity is standardized subjectivity.
Perspective. Is there such a thing as a perspective-less perspective? Is there such a thing as a Truth that exists beyond the realm of human understanding? The short answer is "no," and even if there were realities beyond human interpretation, by definition, such realities would be beyond the domain of human comprehension and therefore could not be articulated through human thought, human speech, or through any other means of human communication. In other words, reality exists as a function of human perspective -- of each person's own unique perspective on the world. No person can rightly claim to see the "Truth Beyond Truth" -- to have God's perspective on life, the universe, and everything else.
God's word is mediated through human interaction; God's word has been translated into the human tongue; God's story has been told by human beings and passed down through generations before being written down. The Truths of religion have come into focus through human teachers, through human reflection, and through human thought. It is not as if God visits each person and bestows insight to them individually. I wish this were the case! If God did visit each person individually and taught each person the same material in such a manner that each person would walk away with similar understandings, then there would be no contradictions among those claiming to do God's will! But this is not the world we find ourselves in. Each person and indeed each religious branch of Christianity seems to contradict the teachings found in other branches and sects of Christianity. Is it God who plants the seeds of division among His flock?
Back to the point at hand; so often, in so many speeches and teachings about "God" people reference the Bible. People LOVE referencing the Bible when finding evidence for just about any position imaginable. But missing from the equation is the act of interpretation! Human beings -- sinful and "fallen" human beings -- are the ones who interpret the teachings found in the Bible. And at times it seems that two people can read the same passage and walk away with different and even contradictory meanings. Therefore, quoting the Bible and relying on the Bible to justify a particular point of view seems to suggest that such behavior is more of an indicator of the one doing the quoting rather than on the "Truth" of the particular quoted material.
The lesson here is that our subjectivity influences our perception of the Truths found in Biblical teachings. There is no such thing as a pure objective reality, and the person who claims that there is a pure objective reality must know such a concept as a function of their subjective perspective on the objective reality. Unless someone can demonstrate to me (in my subjective reality) from their subjective reality the proof of an objective reality that exists beyond both of our subjective points of view, then I must assert that "Bible Thumping" or rather "Bible throwing" is more about bending God's word to meet the demands of a particular situation rather than to illuminate a "Truth Beyond Truth."
God's word is mediated through human interaction; God's word has been translated into the human tongue; God's story has been told by human beings and passed down through generations before being written down. The Truths of religion have come into focus through human teachers, through human reflection, and through human thought. It is not as if God visits each person and bestows insight to them individually. I wish this were the case! If God did visit each person individually and taught each person the same material in such a manner that each person would walk away with similar understandings, then there would be no contradictions among those claiming to do God's will! But this is not the world we find ourselves in. Each person and indeed each religious branch of Christianity seems to contradict the teachings found in other branches and sects of Christianity. Is it God who plants the seeds of division among His flock?
Back to the point at hand; so often, in so many speeches and teachings about "God" people reference the Bible. People LOVE referencing the Bible when finding evidence for just about any position imaginable. But missing from the equation is the act of interpretation! Human beings -- sinful and "fallen" human beings -- are the ones who interpret the teachings found in the Bible. And at times it seems that two people can read the same passage and walk away with different and even contradictory meanings. Therefore, quoting the Bible and relying on the Bible to justify a particular point of view seems to suggest that such behavior is more of an indicator of the one doing the quoting rather than on the "Truth" of the particular quoted material.
The lesson here is that our subjectivity influences our perception of the Truths found in Biblical teachings. There is no such thing as a pure objective reality, and the person who claims that there is a pure objective reality must know such a concept as a function of their subjective perspective on the objective reality. Unless someone can demonstrate to me (in my subjective reality) from their subjective reality the proof of an objective reality that exists beyond both of our subjective points of view, then I must assert that "Bible Thumping" or rather "Bible throwing" is more about bending God's word to meet the demands of a particular situation rather than to illuminate a "Truth Beyond Truth."
Remember: Death is coming
I began this blog entry with this particular reference for various reasons. One reason is that I'm a huge Gustave Dore art fan, and I very much recommend that you spend time with his works of art. His art stirs something inside me. The second reason I began this blog entry with a reference to Death is that an awareness of one's own personal mortality is necessary but not sufficient for authenticity. This means that while a theoretical cognitive awareness is the first step toward becoming a "real" person, it is not enough to remain cognitively aware alone. One must feel the personal horror, the utter fear and trembling, that accompanies and eclipses such a distilled cognitive awareness of death; it is indeed necessary to feel the limits of mortality, to feel in an active manner that life will cease to exist. One must come to terms that despite the hustle in bustle in their life, no one will remember the slightest detail of it in the generations to come. We too are destined to be forgotten similar to how those in the past are forgotten to us in the present.
Once one's life has been imbued with death's touch, one can begin living authentically. One now understands the limits to their mortality and the preciousness found in the simplest of things, like the act of breathing. And while it is indeed impossible and impractical to maintain this constant feeling of impending doom, the experience of hopelessness and powerlessness from it leaves one all the richer and more wise than before. Life is seen anew after death's touch.
What about those who do not know this touch of death? These people are easy to spot; most energy in their life is dedicated toward fleeing from the experience death's touch; they sedate death with religious promises of immortality or with life's distractions through sexual stimulation or through chemicals that alter consciousness (drugs, alcohol, medication). While it can be argued that the people drowning in hedonism want to enjoy all the pleasures that life has to offer, most of them lack insight into their own hearts -- they act, but they do not necessarily know why; they sleep with many sexual partners for pleasure, distraction or temporary comfort; they pray at places of religious worship without concentrating on making themselves a more worthy temple; they fill the bars, dance clubs, drug houses; they solicit prostitutes; they speak without considering the consequence of their words. All that matters to these people is "this moment," and it is difficult for them to think about "the future." Ask them to think about death, and they'll give you cognitive and rational explanations -- you'll know that they've never felt the personal horror of their own annihilation.
And what of those who do not know where to begin their search for authenticity? What words can be offered to them? Aristotle began his Metaphysics with the phrase, "All men by nature desire to know." With this notion in mind, I would suggest that the "desire" for authenticity is how one begins their journey toward authenticity. However, it has been suggested that some people are incapable of this particular kind of openness. Both the article Is Philosophy For Everyone? the article Do all Men by Nature Desire to Know? seem to express the notion that, for various reasons, most people not capable of this way of being in the world.
What do you think? Are some people incapable of feeling this "death's touch" I mentioned in this blog post? Are most destined, as Nietzsche observes, to belong to the herd -- to the majority who refuses to consider the deeper things in life?
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Is Christianity Anti-Christian?
Christians agree that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is God made flesh. Indeed, to be considered a Christian, one must follow the teachings of Christ. But while this Truth appears to be self evident, it is also the ultimate problem. And this problem permeates the world around us.
The origin of this problem is that the teachings of Christ are mediated through humans and through human systems of information processing, which are all flawed and contaminated with sin from the start. In other words, that which is sinful claims to be able to process that which has no sin. And with this as the premise, we begin our exploration.
Take a man or a woman who believes that God has put a message upon their heart; with utmost conviction, that particular man or woman begins the process of fulfilling heaven's message. Be it to actualize a life in the service of the Church, or to organize a community around a set of truths of principles, something burns deep in the breast of the one whom God calls. And the feeling to satisfy this unseen motivation cannot be stopped or detoured. The spirit moves and brings with it the flesh.
Take yet another man or woman who has heard the beckoning of the Father (John 6:44). With a spirit set a fire from the mouth of God, that man or woman pursues and chases the the One who has sent the message. With utter conviction, they act in a manner they know will honor the Father who sees them in the privacy of their heart (Matt 6:6).
Now that I have your attention, let us talk about division (Matt 3:24). If there is but one God who sets the hearts of humanity on fire with the Holy Ghost -- if there is but one God who touches the hearts of these whom He beckons in the first place -- there should be no contradiction among those who hear His one voice. Notice that I used the word "contradiction" which means:
One Church claims that God motivated them to act in such-and-such manner and to adopt so-and-so teachings, while another Church acts, believes, and teaches in the opposite for the same reasons. It boils down to this: if God has been identified as the primary motivator, and if there is no contradiction to be found in God (1 John 1:5), how can there be contradiction among the hearts that people have claimed that God has touched? Is God to blame for Christianity's contradiction or are we humans to blame for it? It is easy to see that the structure of some versions of Christianity are built upon a selfish foundation -- a fundamentally un-Christian foundation.
And it is certain that a testament to this division is that each Church will justify their creation with being commanded from God. Each split, each division of Christianity occurs because the one doing the splitting believes that he or she is acting according to what God has placed upon their heart. Here, then, God is no more than a reflection in the mirror in our minds -- and perpetual contradiction is proof.
The origin of this problem is that the teachings of Christ are mediated through humans and through human systems of information processing, which are all flawed and contaminated with sin from the start. In other words, that which is sinful claims to be able to process that which has no sin. And with this as the premise, we begin our exploration.
Take a man or a woman who believes that God has put a message upon their heart; with utmost conviction, that particular man or woman begins the process of fulfilling heaven's message. Be it to actualize a life in the service of the Church, or to organize a community around a set of truths of principles, something burns deep in the breast of the one whom God calls. And the feeling to satisfy this unseen motivation cannot be stopped or detoured. The spirit moves and brings with it the flesh.
Take yet another man or woman who has heard the beckoning of the Father (John 6:44). With a spirit set a fire from the mouth of God, that man or woman pursues and chases the the One who has sent the message. With utter conviction, they act in a manner they know will honor the Father who sees them in the privacy of their heart (Matt 6:6).
Now that I have your attention, let us talk about division (Matt 3:24). If there is but one God who sets the hearts of humanity on fire with the Holy Ghost -- if there is but one God who touches the hearts of these whom He beckons in the first place -- there should be no contradiction among those who hear His one voice. Notice that I used the word "contradiction" which means:
con·tra·dic·tion [kon-truh-dik-shuhn]While there are differences in interpretation of God's influence, there should be no contradiction between essential and fundamental meanings and teachings. Rather, at most, each interpretation should bring attention to a particular nuance of the larger Truth expressed by the one God through many human tongues. But we know from experience that this is not the case at all.
- the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition
- assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
- a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
- direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
- a contradictory act, fact, etc.
One Church claims that God motivated them to act in such-and-such manner and to adopt so-and-so teachings, while another Church acts, believes, and teaches in the opposite for the same reasons. It boils down to this: if God has been identified as the primary motivator, and if there is no contradiction to be found in God (1 John 1:5), how can there be contradiction among the hearts that people have claimed that God has touched? Is God to blame for Christianity's contradiction or are we humans to blame for it? It is easy to see that the structure of some versions of Christianity are built upon a selfish foundation -- a fundamentally un-Christian foundation.
And it is certain that a testament to this division is that each Church will justify their creation with being commanded from God. Each split, each division of Christianity occurs because the one doing the splitting believes that he or she is acting according to what God has placed upon their heart. Here, then, God is no more than a reflection in the mirror in our minds -- and perpetual contradiction is proof.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Your Codependency is Annoying
I understand the importance of communication.
But "constant communication" with a significant other points to deeper insecurities that are, well, annoying. Let me illuminate:
Nothing smacks of codependency more than being attached to the cellphone, speaking with your partner about whatever-the-latest-drama-or-catastrophe is. And it is an utter "hell-in-a-hand-basket ... the-world-is-ending-amid-horror-and-terror" catastrophe, isn't it? What needed to be said must be said here and now with either a call or through a text message ... preferably both, just in case one or the other was accidentally missed.
But we both know that there are no real "accidents" with cell phones, right? Isn't "accident" just another name for "excuse?" Everyone knows that your number would be recorded as a missed call. The reason why he or she isn't returning your call with the same sense of urgency is because they're ignoring you. Yeah, you're being ignored because he's talking to another woman, or she's hooking up with another man. That's right. That must be it. The sacred and mature "love" and "trust" that forms the foundation of your relationship is being contaminated with the drippy sweat from another person. And it's happening right now -- it has to be. They're not thinking about you, right? And it's not too far of a step to assume that they're thinking about someone else. You'd better send a text message ... just in case. And while you're at it, send 2 more, ... hell, send a dozen until they call you back. Do whatever it takes to force them to think about you!
And when they actually call back, it signals the beginning of the next ritual: the apologetic explanation. They must explain the reason, the ever so important and dire reason, why they didn't answer the first time you called or texted. The reason seems to be the same -- they were doing something else -- something more important and more significant than you -- and couldn't get to the phone in time. "Yeah right," you think. "How does that excuse you from not checking your call history?" Thoughts such as, "You were with another woman, weren't you? You were hoeing around with someone else, huh?" fill your mind. And now you're mad. You love them so much, and look at how you're repaid. They don't really love you, do they? They mustn't because they prove it, time and time again, by how they ignore listening to that "hell-in-a-hand-basket ... the-world-is-ending-amid-horror-and-terror" catastrophe of yours.
That kind of drama seems to happen every five minutes, doesn't it?
That kind of drama keeps happening every time you two are apart, right?
I know you don't care how people see your relationship from the outside. What do other people know? It's your relationship and other people have no business in it. Who cares what they think. And that's true. No one else has any business in your relationship. But your codependency advertises the short comings of your relationship to other people; it's like watching a plague spread. It's like seeing a bright neon sign 20 miles away in the dark desert. Everyone knows what it is.
Somehow you think and believe you must monitor and check up on your significant other through the guise of care and concern. You're not fooling everyone. Statistically speaking, there's not even a snowball's chance in hell that so much drama has spontaneously developed from the time your partner left your physical presence. Seriously, do you keep track of how much time passes BEFORE you initiate that first call of the day ... each day ... every day ... any time you're physically apart from one another?
I'm sorry.
Did I offend you?
I wouldn't know such a thing existed if it weren't for me seeing it and hearing it each time I ventured out in public.
But "constant communication" with a significant other points to deeper insecurities that are, well, annoying. Let me illuminate:
Nothing smacks of codependency more than being attached to the cellphone, speaking with your partner about whatever-the-latest-drama-or-catastrophe is. And it is an utter "hell-in-a-hand-basket ... the-world-is-ending-amid-horror-and-terror" catastrophe, isn't it? What needed to be said must be said here and now with either a call or through a text message ... preferably both, just in case one or the other was accidentally missed.
But we both know that there are no real "accidents" with cell phones, right? Isn't "accident" just another name for "excuse?" Everyone knows that your number would be recorded as a missed call. The reason why he or she isn't returning your call with the same sense of urgency is because they're ignoring you. Yeah, you're being ignored because he's talking to another woman, or she's hooking up with another man. That's right. That must be it. The sacred and mature "love" and "trust" that forms the foundation of your relationship is being contaminated with the drippy sweat from another person. And it's happening right now -- it has to be. They're not thinking about you, right? And it's not too far of a step to assume that they're thinking about someone else. You'd better send a text message ... just in case. And while you're at it, send 2 more, ... hell, send a dozen until they call you back. Do whatever it takes to force them to think about you!
And when they actually call back, it signals the beginning of the next ritual: the apologetic explanation. They must explain the reason, the ever so important and dire reason, why they didn't answer the first time you called or texted. The reason seems to be the same -- they were doing something else -- something more important and more significant than you -- and couldn't get to the phone in time. "Yeah right," you think. "How does that excuse you from not checking your call history?" Thoughts such as, "You were with another woman, weren't you? You were hoeing around with someone else, huh?" fill your mind. And now you're mad. You love them so much, and look at how you're repaid. They don't really love you, do they? They mustn't because they prove it, time and time again, by how they ignore listening to that "hell-in-a-hand-basket ... the-world-is-ending-amid-horror-and-terror" catastrophe of yours.
That kind of drama seems to happen every five minutes, doesn't it?
That kind of drama keeps happening every time you two are apart, right?
I know you don't care how people see your relationship from the outside. What do other people know? It's your relationship and other people have no business in it. Who cares what they think. And that's true. No one else has any business in your relationship. But your codependency advertises the short comings of your relationship to other people; it's like watching a plague spread. It's like seeing a bright neon sign 20 miles away in the dark desert. Everyone knows what it is.
Somehow you think and believe you must monitor and check up on your significant other through the guise of care and concern. You're not fooling everyone. Statistically speaking, there's not even a snowball's chance in hell that so much drama has spontaneously developed from the time your partner left your physical presence. Seriously, do you keep track of how much time passes BEFORE you initiate that first call of the day ... each day ... every day ... any time you're physically apart from one another?
I'm sorry.
Did I offend you?
I wouldn't know such a thing existed if it weren't for me seeing it and hearing it each time I ventured out in public.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
We thank God with Golden Cows: the frailty of the human heart
Both the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) in the New Testament and the Book of Exodus in the Old Testament provide direct teaching about the human heart. The Book of Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament can also be said to teach about the human condition, however, because this particular book holds such a special place in the landscape of my interior world, I will dedicate more to it in later entries.
What Luke 16:19-31 and the Book of Exodus hold in common is that direct demonstration of the supernatural cannot change the human heart from its imperfect and fallen intention. While priests, ministers, and pastors frequently draw lessons about life after death from this passage in Luke, and while it can be said that Exodus establishes and communicates God's favor upon the Hebrews, few have concluded that each Biblical segment teaches how humanity's heart has the potential reject all things and truths, even when delivered from supernatural hands.
The story of Exodus is the story of how Moses led the Hebrew people from slavery in ancient Egypt. In this Old Testament account, Moses used supernatural phenomena to convince Pharaoh to free the Hebrews. But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and did not relent his position even in the face of plagues until the last one had passed (Exodus 7-11).
Plagues of the Old Testament
What Luke 16:19-31 and the Book of Exodus hold in common is that direct demonstration of the supernatural cannot change the human heart from its imperfect and fallen intention. While priests, ministers, and pastors frequently draw lessons about life after death from this passage in Luke, and while it can be said that Exodus establishes and communicates God's favor upon the Hebrews, few have concluded that each Biblical segment teaches how humanity's heart has the potential reject all things and truths, even when delivered from supernatural hands.
Luke 16:19-31[19] "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. [20] At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores [21] and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. [22] "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. [23] In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. [24] So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' [25] "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. [26] And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' [27] "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, [28] for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' [29] "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' [30] " 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' [31] "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "Imagine someone you knew has died and has been dead for several days. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that this person was deceased. Now imagine their deceased body reanimates in order to deliver a warning message to you after a few days. Aside from the initial shock and terror from such an event, doubt and discredit will fill your mind shortly thereafter. "This can't be real -- I must be imagining things!" No matter how profound their message, no matter how convincing their message, it is destined to be dismissed. Such conclusions can be drawn about the person or the people who were impervious to hearing Truth in the first place; doubt, discredit, and dismissal is not fertile soil for the seed of Truth to grow. In this parable, Jesus taught that those who cannot or who will not hear the Truth in the word of God expressed through the Bible or expressed through the Prophets (Luke 16:29) will also not hear the expression of this Truth even if it comes from the mouth of someone who was known to be deceased (Luke 16:31). A supernatural phenomenon does not help those who are unwilling or unable to hear Truth in the first place. For those who are willing to hear it, a supernatural phenomenon is not necessary in the first place.
The story of Exodus is the story of how Moses led the Hebrew people from slavery in ancient Egypt. In this Old Testament account, Moses used supernatural phenomena to convince Pharaoh to free the Hebrews. But Pharaoh's heart was hardened, and did not relent his position even in the face of plagues until the last one had passed (Exodus 7-11).
Plagues of the Old Testament
- The Plague of Blood
- The Plague of Frogs
- The Plague of Gnats
- The Plague of Flies
- The Plague on Livestock
- The Plague of Boils
- The Plague of Hail
- The Plague of Locusts
- The Plague of Darkness
- The Plague on the Firstborn
While we know that these supernatural events had little to no effect on Pharaoh's heart, we also know that the Hebrews witnessed these events too. The Hebrews saw how God moved against Egypt. The Hebrews also witnessed the miracle of the pillar that stood between them and Pharaoh's pursuing army. In addition, the Hebrews participated in the Crossing of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:1-29). In other words, the Hebrews themselves both witnessed and were involved in God's miracles that set them free. There could be no doubt in anyone's mind that something supernatural was happening.
And how did the Hebrews thank their God? Exodus 32:4. Even in the face of miracles, humanity's fail heart moves against God. How much farther shall we fall having not seen the grandeur of these miracles and supernatural events? Sometimes, even knowing Truth and being a part of that Truth cannot save us from ourselves.
You are a function of how I perceive you to be
Everyone believes that they are right and justified in what they do. And this is no surprise. What person would live their life believing that all their choices are wrong? Who would perpetually second-guess themselves to the point of immobility? There comes a time when action must be taken, when the lesser of two evils must be chosen -- and we make this choice based upon what we consider to have the most profitable result. For who makes a deliberate choice knowing and hoping that the outcome will prove the most negative, unless of course, a negative outcome was the initial desired result? The one who lives their life believing that all their choices are wrong, the one who second-guesses themselves to the point of immobility are doing so because it aligns with some other larger goal. One thing seems to be certain: the choices we make reflect the desires we have, whether for bliss or woe.
Therefore, as we perceive our fellow human beings, the behavior we see signifies a context -- their context. And it must be mentioned that the perceptions of the observer also filter through the lens of their own preconceptions as well; there is no such thing as a perception-less perceiver. The behavior of the perceived occurs as the embodiment of their intention and purpose, while the observer's framework of interpretation, too, is the embodiment of intention and purpose. Such is the harmony between perceiver and perceived, each full with a world of intention and purpose.
Can we draw clear and divisive lines between the intentions and perceptions of the observer and the intentions and perceptions of the perceived? How much of what we see is function of our own perceptions, biases, and pre-conceptions? How much of what we know of other people stems from the self-fulling prophecy of our own experiences and person-hood? We cannot know the depths of our own mind, heart, and soul because the instruments of perception are not perfect themselves; we stand less of a chance knowing what moves in the depths of another person's heart. Yet at the same time, that which we perceive reflect choices and desires; how we perceive it also reflects choices and desires.
Consider misunderstanding: how often are we misunderstood? How often do we misunderstand? Words leave the mouth of the talker and are heard by the ears of the listener -- if biases and preconceptions did not exist, then there would be no further complications because the words would be understood in the same manner in which they were spoken. There would be no need to filter intentions or ask for clarification because listening and understanding would exist as a 1:1 ratio. But this is not the case. The moment words leave the mouth of the speaker, or in this case, the moment that words are written on the computer screen, and the words become fodder for others, the potential for misunderstanding is born in the self-same moment. In other words, I write or I speak and you interpret.
This is the chasm between people that will always prevent people from truly understanding one another. There might be moments where the intention of the speaker and the intention of the listener align closer together, however, to be perfectly aligned with one another is a fantasy. This fantasy of "oneness" perhaps has roots in the harmony experienced between fetus and mother while developing in the womb. At the moment of birth, at the moment of separation, such "oneness" is never to be experienced again, except perhaps by the religious who commune with God who they believe is in all places, even within their own hearts and minds.
Therefore, as we perceive our fellow human beings, the behavior we see signifies a context -- their context. And it must be mentioned that the perceptions of the observer also filter through the lens of their own preconceptions as well; there is no such thing as a perception-less perceiver. The behavior of the perceived occurs as the embodiment of their intention and purpose, while the observer's framework of interpretation, too, is the embodiment of intention and purpose. Such is the harmony between perceiver and perceived, each full with a world of intention and purpose.
Can we draw clear and divisive lines between the intentions and perceptions of the observer and the intentions and perceptions of the perceived? How much of what we see is function of our own perceptions, biases, and pre-conceptions? How much of what we know of other people stems from the self-fulling prophecy of our own experiences and person-hood? We cannot know the depths of our own mind, heart, and soul because the instruments of perception are not perfect themselves; we stand less of a chance knowing what moves in the depths of another person's heart. Yet at the same time, that which we perceive reflect choices and desires; how we perceive it also reflects choices and desires.
Consider misunderstanding: how often are we misunderstood? How often do we misunderstand? Words leave the mouth of the talker and are heard by the ears of the listener -- if biases and preconceptions did not exist, then there would be no further complications because the words would be understood in the same manner in which they were spoken. There would be no need to filter intentions or ask for clarification because listening and understanding would exist as a 1:1 ratio. But this is not the case. The moment words leave the mouth of the speaker, or in this case, the moment that words are written on the computer screen, and the words become fodder for others, the potential for misunderstanding is born in the self-same moment. In other words, I write or I speak and you interpret.
This is the chasm between people that will always prevent people from truly understanding one another. There might be moments where the intention of the speaker and the intention of the listener align closer together, however, to be perfectly aligned with one another is a fantasy. This fantasy of "oneness" perhaps has roots in the harmony experienced between fetus and mother while developing in the womb. At the moment of birth, at the moment of separation, such "oneness" is never to be experienced again, except perhaps by the religious who commune with God who they believe is in all places, even within their own hearts and minds.
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Blogging beyond the curtain: revealing authorship to friends
From time to time, it helps me to pause and do a quick assessment of my thoughts, feelings, and behavior. I like to analyze the foundational basis or the grounding framework from where my personal thoughts and feelings come, although "introspection" has been discredited regarding its scientific merits -- for how can one discover something new from within whilst using the same mental tools borne from and that are a reflection of one's limited perspective in the first place? To put this another way: the skills of my insight are both a product of and are a reflection of my mental present processes; how can I use them to discover "new" ground within myself, since such interpretations occur through the lens of the present self?
At first, I was not going to share the existence of this personal blog of mine with my family, friends, and acquaintances. The reason is that I want to avoid being judged, or worse yet, misunderstood. A quick recount of my historical interactions on Twitter and Facebook will reveal that I will eventually explore "socially unacceptable" topics, such as sexual taboos, religious taboos, intellectual taboos. Eventually, I will also write about "dark" topics, such as suicide, depression, anger and fear. I will write critically and sharply about love, men, women, passion, self-deception, and general sexuality. I will also explore philosophical topics and religious topics, and I will at times be silly. I also tend to take elements from modern culture and place a spin on them. An example of this is a recent post I made on Google+, "G'morning, all. Today's advice: beware of emotional dementors in real life. Not sure what a dementor is or does? Consult Harry Potter. :)"
The point of the matter is that there is always a chance that I will write negatively about things that you, the reader, hold most dear. My perception of the wold has, in part, been influenced through my interactions with others. Such experiences and interactions, and my personal thoughts arising therefrom, will populate this blog. What this means is that while I will be writing while having a specific person or a specific situation in mind, I will write in such a manner that the larger lessons arising from these interactions will surface. In other words, while personal interaction serves as the initial fuel for the commentary, the specific interaction is not the end.
If you think I'm writing about you, allow me to offer a couple of suggestions: (a.) keep quiet; no one else knows that I'm talking about you specifically until you pipe up in the comments and blow your own cover, (b.) I really wasn't talking about you, but it would appear that you have some paranoia and/or narcissism occurring -- remember that issues pertaining to the human condition can and do apply to more than one person simultaneously, (c.) treat the commentary as a learning experience overall, whether or not you "think" I was talking about you.
Since I shared the existence of this blog with family and friends, then it follows that people will assume that when I write, I must be writing about family and friends -- and while this may or may not be true, the fact of the matter is that I'm articulating the movement of my consciousness. Such movements are not limited to family and friends -- so please do not assume anything, even though I know you will in any case. And because I know that family and friends will be reading, acting as the Freudian super-ego it would seem, the content that follows will have to be structured in such a manner as to not arouse paranoia and narcissism in the first place.
This leave me, the author, in a pickle: I want to write about topics in a way that I feel that I'm not betraying myself or my intent, while at the same time, I know that I need to write in such a way that I'm sensitive to people's feelings. Regardless, I know there will be misunderstandings -- there always are misunderstandings, and hurt feelings come from these misunderstandings, and then awkward explanations are needed to soothe the hurt feelings, and everyone feels miserable for a while. Then time passes, and the situation happens again and again.
The issue of being socially acceptable while personally expressive brings up issues of its own: why is it that we must punish others with knowledge of the personal guilt they caused, why is it that we must take every opportunity to quell inklings of personal expression when we don't agree, and why must we make it known to both God and man alike that certain individuals hurt our feelings?
At first, I was not going to share the existence of this personal blog of mine with my family, friends, and acquaintances. The reason is that I want to avoid being judged, or worse yet, misunderstood. A quick recount of my historical interactions on Twitter and Facebook will reveal that I will eventually explore "socially unacceptable" topics, such as sexual taboos, religious taboos, intellectual taboos. Eventually, I will also write about "dark" topics, such as suicide, depression, anger and fear. I will write critically and sharply about love, men, women, passion, self-deception, and general sexuality. I will also explore philosophical topics and religious topics, and I will at times be silly. I also tend to take elements from modern culture and place a spin on them. An example of this is a recent post I made on Google+, "G'morning, all. Today's advice: beware of emotional dementors in real life. Not sure what a dementor is or does? Consult Harry Potter. :)"
The point of the matter is that there is always a chance that I will write negatively about things that you, the reader, hold most dear. My perception of the wold has, in part, been influenced through my interactions with others. Such experiences and interactions, and my personal thoughts arising therefrom, will populate this blog. What this means is that while I will be writing while having a specific person or a specific situation in mind, I will write in such a manner that the larger lessons arising from these interactions will surface. In other words, while personal interaction serves as the initial fuel for the commentary, the specific interaction is not the end.
If you think I'm writing about you, allow me to offer a couple of suggestions: (a.) keep quiet; no one else knows that I'm talking about you specifically until you pipe up in the comments and blow your own cover, (b.) I really wasn't talking about you, but it would appear that you have some paranoia and/or narcissism occurring -- remember that issues pertaining to the human condition can and do apply to more than one person simultaneously, (c.) treat the commentary as a learning experience overall, whether or not you "think" I was talking about you.
Since I shared the existence of this blog with family and friends, then it follows that people will assume that when I write, I must be writing about family and friends -- and while this may or may not be true, the fact of the matter is that I'm articulating the movement of my consciousness. Such movements are not limited to family and friends -- so please do not assume anything, even though I know you will in any case. And because I know that family and friends will be reading, acting as the Freudian super-ego it would seem, the content that follows will have to be structured in such a manner as to not arouse paranoia and narcissism in the first place.
This leave me, the author, in a pickle: I want to write about topics in a way that I feel that I'm not betraying myself or my intent, while at the same time, I know that I need to write in such a way that I'm sensitive to people's feelings. Regardless, I know there will be misunderstandings -- there always are misunderstandings, and hurt feelings come from these misunderstandings, and then awkward explanations are needed to soothe the hurt feelings, and everyone feels miserable for a while. Then time passes, and the situation happens again and again.
The issue of being socially acceptable while personally expressive brings up issues of its own: why is it that we must punish others with knowledge of the personal guilt they caused, why is it that we must take every opportunity to quell inklings of personal expression when we don't agree, and why must we make it known to both God and man alike that certain individuals hurt our feelings?
Friday, August 26, 2011
Observations in a Strange Land
I dare not compare myself and the articulation of my thoughts to Walker Percy. His insights belong to books while mine belong to blogs. However, Mr. Percy and I share two things in common: (a.) both of us are human, and (b.) both of us will die. Actually, we share three things in common: (c.) both of us are acutely aware of death's inevitability.
While thinking of what I wanted to do with this blog, the name of his book sprung into my mind. Perhaps I wanted to imitate his approach to the narrative; perhaps I lack originality. What makes my existence unique is that it is utterly mine, and mine alone. No other can know the world as I know it from my experiences through the unique configuration of my own neurons, synapses, and brain chemistry soup.
What this means, in less words, is that I have a unique perspective on life, the universe and everything. Notice that I did not say that my perspective is the correct perspective. Nor do I imply that my perspective should be the only one. Rather, I'm observing that my perspective is just that -- mine. And I own my opinions, thoughts, criticisms, insights, and shortcomings.
Where two or more are gathered, there too is disagreement in their midst. This play on Matt 18:20 means that I understand that at the moment I reveal my opinions, my thoughts, my insights, my criticisms, and my perspectives to the world, or rather, to just one other person, the potential for disagreement is born. Some of the things I will write in the blog will ruffle feathers -- your feathers -- to be sure. This serves a twofold purpose: (a.) I communicate what I feel or think and (b.) my words get you to feel or think too. And where I fail to get you to think in a constructive manner, I at least succeed in communicating snips from my interior life.
So there it is. Be offended. Be pensive. Make my knowledge your own, or reject it outright. Both you and I share two things in common now: (a.) we are both human, and (b.) we are both going to die one day. But before that day comes, let us live and profit from one another's company, shall we?
While thinking of what I wanted to do with this blog, the name of his book sprung into my mind. Perhaps I wanted to imitate his approach to the narrative; perhaps I lack originality. What makes my existence unique is that it is utterly mine, and mine alone. No other can know the world as I know it from my experiences through the unique configuration of my own neurons, synapses, and brain chemistry soup.
What this means, in less words, is that I have a unique perspective on life, the universe and everything. Notice that I did not say that my perspective is the correct perspective. Nor do I imply that my perspective should be the only one. Rather, I'm observing that my perspective is just that -- mine. And I own my opinions, thoughts, criticisms, insights, and shortcomings.
Where two or more are gathered, there too is disagreement in their midst. This play on Matt 18:20 means that I understand that at the moment I reveal my opinions, my thoughts, my insights, my criticisms, and my perspectives to the world, or rather, to just one other person, the potential for disagreement is born. Some of the things I will write in the blog will ruffle feathers -- your feathers -- to be sure. This serves a twofold purpose: (a.) I communicate what I feel or think and (b.) my words get you to feel or think too. And where I fail to get you to think in a constructive manner, I at least succeed in communicating snips from my interior life.
So there it is. Be offended. Be pensive. Make my knowledge your own, or reject it outright. Both you and I share two things in common now: (a.) we are both human, and (b.) we are both going to die one day. But before that day comes, let us live and profit from one another's company, shall we?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
