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.

"There is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9

Notions 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."

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?

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?

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.

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).

What it means to love in 5 points.

1. 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.
2. 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. 
3. 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.
4. 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. 
5. 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."

Remember: Death is coming

Gustave Dore painted this image as an illustrated companion to Edgar Allen Poe's "The Raven." In it, the character death sits, seemingly relaxed, on a full moon partially obscured with clouds, with one hand resting on an hour glass. Death's cloak covers its right hand which is assumed to be clutching its traditional reaping scythe. Death is always ready to pounce. A single raven is seen flying between the painting's observer and the moon in the painting. It also seems that death gazes outward toward the observer of the painting, as if it is very much conscious that it is the object of observation. We, the living, have its full attention. All death has to do is be patient. With full attention and with utmost patience, death waits and counts each grain of sand passing through the hourglass of our life. Who can escape its inevitable embrace?

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?