Suppose:
Suppose every person, every five years, had to evaluate themselves as a person plus have everyone with whom they have meaningful contact, evaluate them anonymously. What could then be concluded? Back in my teaching days once a year students were given evaluation sheets to evaluate their instructors. Department Chairpersons also evaluated the instructors, Deans evaluated instructors for promotions, assignments, etc. But the whole thing got rather clouded. The teachers ranked highest by the students were not often the same as the teachers ranked highest by the Department Chairs and this differed from the teachers ranked highest by the Deans. Let's just say the correlation was not high. Furthermore, the teachers ranked highest by the students getting A's and B's would differ from those students getting C's and D's. Finally, in the same category some students would give a teacher an A and others a D or F. Thus we are left with the enigma of how people, given the same exposure to a person, differ so widely in their assessment of the person. People who admire Obama can't understand why others really dislike him. People who think the Pope is the embodiment of holiness can never understand why others think of the Pope more as a fossilized fraudulent fool. The owner of the Philadelphia Eagles thinks Terrell Owens is a contemptible person and the owner of the Dallas Cowboys thinks Terrell Owens is sans peur et sans reproche. And so it goes, intelligent people arriving at opposite conclusions about the same person even though both sides have approximately the same exposure to the person in question.
Clearly human rationality is to some degree a hoax. Like how can anyone have the audacity to even use the word clearly as it applies to human mentality? If anything is clear it is that little, if anything, is clear. By the time reality (whatever that is) passes through human minds it comes out twisted to meet the emotional, prejudicial, and perceptive needs of the person doing the thinking. We all strive to like ourselves, to justify our behaviors and thoughts, while others, having no need to particularly like us, view us more critically from their own emotional, prejudicial, and perceptive needs. Half the people who marry because they think they for sure have it right about at least themselves and one other person, find out with time they didn't have it right. If two people can't get it right after extensive deliberative evaluation of another person, how can friends, social groups, religious groups, or nations be expected to get it right about other friends, social groups, religious groups, or nations? Eenie meenie minee moe, this what each of us starts out with, and where it all will lead is less predictable than a horse race.
"I see" said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw. "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." Thus assorted people lurch through life with endless de-synchronization with other people, other ethnic groups, other religious groups, other nations, other political philosophies, etc. Aside from the clutter of mysterious and therefore odious people around us, each person wrestles with his/her own demons of purpose and priorities. And these purposes and priorities change with the different phases of life----the formational years, the productive years, and the terminational years. Throughout all of this there is faith---and part of faith is the resistance to change. Some people change a lot in life, others hardly change at all. The stronger the faith, the least likely any change. We all know, or may actually be one of those persons who would never change their political or religious affiliation under any circumstances. Faith is the cornerstone of their life. It is hard to imagine what a Bush, a Pope, a Hitler etc. could ever do that would not be defended by the faithful. Conversely, what could a Terrell Owens do that would ever be praised by his detractors? Thus, we all---in varying degrees---get trapped in our own emotional beliefs. The most depressing movie I ever watched was titled "CRASH". It was a masterpiece of portraying why people of differing natures cannot connect with any commonality upon which they can get along with each other. There may be individual instances when two people of differing natures can break through the barriers and become truly appreciative of their differences, but these isolated incidents hardly put a dent in the broader picture of tolerance to diversity. When Rodney King, not the greatest philosopher in the world, asked "Can't we all just get along?" who amongst us knew the answer as to how?
To live involves goals and priorities. In which order are we to place popularity, accumulation of wealth, doing the right thing, tranquility, excitement, acquisition of power, acquiring control over others, winning contests of various sorts, sharing wealth, sharing power, tolerating diversity, empathizing with others, avoiding others, etc? And of course selecting our priorities has little bearing on the likelihood of achieving success with any priority. There is no level playing field and most of the important factors for success are given not achieved. He/she who gets to the top of the mountain did not select their genes, their parents, their religion, their formational years neighborhood, their grade or high schools, their country, their teachers, etc. It is more like, "there but for the grace of God goes I". Ahah! Therein lies a conundrum: Are we to believe that God deliberately stacks the deck right from the beginning? And can we pray to the God of our inheritance to change things for the better with any success? Whether prayer ever works is unanswerable, but clearly prayer often does not work. We all have seen endless tragedies happen when prayers by individuals or large numbers of people have prayed for the tragedy not to happen. To explain away all this, clergy have used every contortionistic argument in existence. But in the end only those with the most unmovable faith can accept any of these arguments. The truth seems to be that 'shit happens'. For me, the evolutionary process is a God created process. The process itself is brilliant beyond human comprehension, has direction, and evolves ever upward in complexity. Nothing in the whole long history of evolution is an end in itself. Nothing known about this process of evolution can remotely shed light on the possibility of an afterlife. We are here, and like all life forms in this process, we make the best of it with whatever resources available to us from our genes and environment. It really does seem the evolutionary process created by God is a tad more sagacious than the image of God we create with our religious dogmas. Of course, the need for faith in our beliefs about life is a cornerstone of personal sanity and motivation. Killing to protect our faiths is not exactly rare, and endless killing fields fueled by religion have existed throughout human history.
Now that I have reached my terminational years, a lot of the mucking around utilizing past habits has become irrelevant. So many things, so important in earlier years, are now relegated to irrelevancy. One begins to realize there is really no need to strive to be popular---just to be fair. Period. There is no need to bother others, to try to change others, to dominate others, to best others, to put others down, to be used by others, etc. Live and let live at last becomes a reality. I mean, for what reasons would one want to compete with others over anything? If one is fortunate enough to be financially stable in their terminational years then one really does have it made in the shade. Like what sense does it make to behave like there will be no end to the tomorrows? Why would there be any logic in depending heavily on others to entertain you, to have you be an active part of their lives, to be your daily or frequent companion? Whether it is a spouse, a sibling, a son/daughter, former business associates, or long time friends----the list is going to dwindle with time and your children will be busy with their own careers and life. One either can amuse themselves or the terminational years will be a bumpy ride. People count as a blessing to have a spouse for the terminational years. True! Up to a point. One spouse will die or become a real burden to the other and the spouse left will be least prepared to function on their own having never done so. If the truth be known how many blessings of life come without a downside? Not too many.
The secret to old age may be to simplify, simplify, simplify. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and let that be your social mantra. There really is no need to keep looking over your shoulder because no one is paying any attention to you, let alone gaining on you. Only during the terminational years do you have the time to sit back and put together the pieces of life's puzzle. The puzzle will never be completed but bits and pieces of it begin to make sense and therein will lie a sense of contentment. For me reading, writing, and Mother Nature provide the kind of input to keep my mind contented and relaxed. There are plenty enough kind people to encounter on a daily basis for a social morale booster. After all, the wonderful thing about old age is that you are no threat to anyone, so a good number of people will be friendly for just that reason: 'Nice little old man'. And the less interest you show in bothering them the more friendly they will continue to be. People love to be friendly if they don't feel they might be getting into something they will regret in terms of time and money. Always ask about their lives, never mumble about yours---which would bore the death out of most anyone in the midst of their own active productive years. And of course we really do know that no one gives a damn about the 'old days', the 'old ways', and how illusionary important you felt you once were. The productive years people are busy with their own illusions of importance, although it really does appear that fewer and fewer people in their productive years can even have the luxury anymore of such illusions. To an older person like me it just seems this new generation mostly go through the motions and live to internet surf, wear headsets connected to various gadgets, amuse themselves with computer games, babble hours every day on cell phones about trivia, and pretty much create their own cyberspace world. Is that bad or good? I have no idea, it just is. I have some of these gadgets because someone convinced me I needed this or that gadget, but for the most part these gadgets sit in the drawer because I never feel the urge to learn how to use them. I don't even have a cell phone. Like I said, simplify, simplify, simplify. It doesn't take anything too complicated to bring contentment to someone like myself at my age. For example, the highlight of some days is when I go to this equestrian center near me and chat with this horse that has a reputation of being unruly and likes to bite. Most days, for 15 minutes I just chat with the horse. For a while the damn horse ignored me. A 'little birdie must have told her about me. Then with time she began to stare at me, then follow me alongside the fence when I chatted at her and finally she now likes me, not to pet her a lot, but do one of those Michelle Obama 'fist bumps' to her nose. She stays, I guess as a matter of pride, quite independent, and some days will ignore my arrival for a bit, and other days race at full gallop to the fence so fast that she about takes the fence down trying to stop. Whatever the dumb relationship is between me and that horse, it relaxes me (and her) and is part of making my life contented in old age. She will stare at me with those big soulful eyes (as if to warn me I am not exempt from being bitten) and one senses each of us to be intrigued by what the hell the other is all about. I get told often by those who work there to stay away from the horse, that she is unfriendly, but I don't read it that way at all. She likes the game: she tries to figure out what the hell I am saying and I try to figure out what the hell she is thinking. And the nice thing is that neither of us will ever know. Which I guess proves that two can know nothing about the other and still be friends.
A college professor was once defined as "someone who knows more and more about less and less". Maybe that comes close to defining human life: an experience whereby, with time, a person knows more and more about less and less until their infinitesimally small span of time in the evolutionary process is up. Say 'good night' Gracie.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
THE WORLD WE LIVE IN
The World We Live In:
"Yes We Can" chant the Obama crowd, interspersed with "Our Time Has Come" and "Not This Time". Black or not---well known or not----Obama's words resonate with a diverse population of our citizens. "We Can Be One People----red state or blue state; black, white or hispanic; blue collar or white collar; straight or gay; republican or democrat; this religion or that religion; etc". And so the pitch goes, reminding us with a steady drum beat that "Yes We Can".
I hope "We Can". But it helps if one can come to grips with the kind of world in which we live. Exactly what is this commonality which will enable us to become 'One' in order to achieve Justice and Freedom for all? We are of course, as a global entity of humans living in a 'little gleam of Time between two eternities', merely a footnote in the evolutionary process, a process that has been going on now for millions of years. Whatever God is, He is certainly the Creator of this process---a process driven by the reshuffling of DNA molecules, these bricks of life, which generate endless evolving species---and the general direction of these evolving life forms has always been progressively more refined, more 'intelligent', more sophisticated, imbued with new capabilities. It is hard to imagine what our human offspring will look like or be like a million years from now. 'Whatever will be, will be' is about the sum of it with one hitch: humans are the first species with the ability to control---to some advanced degree---their own destiny, both personal and as a species. Thus 'Yes We Can' has a ring of truth to it, but more uncertainty to it than certainty.
We live currently in a world governed by a collective state of mind that is self destructive to bringing any sort of Justice and Freedom to all. Right now there is very little We and a whole lot of Me, both as individuals and as groups/nations. Survival of the fittest has begun to lose any reasonable meaning in that human capabilities have risen to the level at which mass destruction of humans and other species can be done indiscriminately---some sort of gun rat-atat-tat or explosive 'boom' and people are mowed down like corn stalks at harvest. It is predicted that 100 million people will starve to death across the globe in the next few years. Any rational mind knows, it really does, that our earth does not have unlimited natural resources, and that consequently there is no way all the people on the globe could possibly live a quality of life that some of us now do. And yet, with the possible exception of China, there is no population policy. If any Presidential candidate has a population policy it is a well kept secret. In reality, 'sanctity of life' advocates are, in essence, against any sanctity of life that is directed at the human species as a whole. Population control, in their mind, is murder. The unnecessary deaths of millions and millions of humans on the globe by starvation, preventable diseases, and violence becomes, by their own strange definition of sanctity of life, a normal and acceptable consequence of their own conception of sanctity of life---some sort of multiply like rabbits and the hell with the consequences; I guess we can pray our way out of the consequences---so we'll just pray for the 100 million people who are about to starve to death.
It does seem that any 'Yes We Can' is up against ingrained puerile 'hot button' issues that serve as immovable obstacles to any attention to more important issues. I mean the right to possess guns (even assault guns), prayers in schools, flag burning, gay marriage, abortion, and recreational drug laws become the focus of one's mentality at the expense of more important issues affecting the quality of life and future of humanity. There can be no "Yes We Can" until our priorities, both in domestic and foreign policies, become reorganized and truly directed at freedom and justice for all. Until the commonality of justice revolves around the truly global moral principle of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" there can be no "Yes We Can". Justice and Freedom always go together. If someone wants to pray in school they have the right to do so. They do not have a right to mandate others pray in school. If someone burns a flag as a means of protest they have a right to do so providing they do not disrupt the lives of others. Two consenting adults have the right to engage in any kind of sex they so choose providing they do not do perform their sexual acts in places offensive to others. Two adults who want to marry have the right to marry the person of their choice just as others have the right to marry the person of their choice. Religious beliefs of all kinds, within the context of established laws to protect the welfare of others in society, should be exercised by churches, not governments. Who can marry who, is a proper consideration by a religious group. Governments should get out of the marriage business. I suppose, like in so many other matters, the government can tax marriages conducted by churches. Even non believers, as happens all the time, can find a church to marry them. And if they can't, if they are of age, they could marry themselves and just pay the proper fee to the government to register themselves as married in the eyes of the law. Abortion is an issue misdirected. The government has a legitimate right to have a population policy and place limitations on reproduction in order to protect the welfare of humanity as a whole. Whether abortion is ever an acceptable means to restrict population control is a religious decision and should remain so. It would seem strange that most people would ever select abortion as a means of birth control. The alternatives for birth control would be far more attractive. All drug use, recreational or otherwise, is a medical matter. All drugs have side effects. All drugs can be misused. When individuals use recreational drugs to fight feelings of hopelessness or pick up their mood, or reduce mental stress from living, it is the causes of these stresses which need correction, not jailing people for the misuse of a drug. Responsible use of drugs, medical or recreational, is the goal, and the whole business a medical issue---period.
Thus 'Yes we can' is still on the table as an option to save humanity, but is being slid by Mother Nature, and the ever increasing accumulation of wealth into the hands of a privileged few, toward the edge of the table. 'Yes we can' is an option soon to be lost. And one of the biggest obstacles in the way is the predominance of inherited religious dogma over the fundamental tenet of all religions---"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That is the commonality of all ethics and the only basis upon which "Yes We Can" can become efficacious. Forget 'God Bless America' and 'Allah Bless' whatever, and all humanity pray instead "that God give us all the strength to do right, as best we see the right,---based on the common principle of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' Then, "Yes We Can".
"Yes We Can" chant the Obama crowd, interspersed with "Our Time Has Come" and "Not This Time". Black or not---well known or not----Obama's words resonate with a diverse population of our citizens. "We Can Be One People----red state or blue state; black, white or hispanic; blue collar or white collar; straight or gay; republican or democrat; this religion or that religion; etc". And so the pitch goes, reminding us with a steady drum beat that "Yes We Can".
I hope "We Can". But it helps if one can come to grips with the kind of world in which we live. Exactly what is this commonality which will enable us to become 'One' in order to achieve Justice and Freedom for all? We are of course, as a global entity of humans living in a 'little gleam of Time between two eternities', merely a footnote in the evolutionary process, a process that has been going on now for millions of years. Whatever God is, He is certainly the Creator of this process---a process driven by the reshuffling of DNA molecules, these bricks of life, which generate endless evolving species---and the general direction of these evolving life forms has always been progressively more refined, more 'intelligent', more sophisticated, imbued with new capabilities. It is hard to imagine what our human offspring will look like or be like a million years from now. 'Whatever will be, will be' is about the sum of it with one hitch: humans are the first species with the ability to control---to some advanced degree---their own destiny, both personal and as a species. Thus 'Yes We Can' has a ring of truth to it, but more uncertainty to it than certainty.
We live currently in a world governed by a collective state of mind that is self destructive to bringing any sort of Justice and Freedom to all. Right now there is very little We and a whole lot of Me, both as individuals and as groups/nations. Survival of the fittest has begun to lose any reasonable meaning in that human capabilities have risen to the level at which mass destruction of humans and other species can be done indiscriminately---some sort of gun rat-atat-tat or explosive 'boom' and people are mowed down like corn stalks at harvest. It is predicted that 100 million people will starve to death across the globe in the next few years. Any rational mind knows, it really does, that our earth does not have unlimited natural resources, and that consequently there is no way all the people on the globe could possibly live a quality of life that some of us now do. And yet, with the possible exception of China, there is no population policy. If any Presidential candidate has a population policy it is a well kept secret. In reality, 'sanctity of life' advocates are, in essence, against any sanctity of life that is directed at the human species as a whole. Population control, in their mind, is murder. The unnecessary deaths of millions and millions of humans on the globe by starvation, preventable diseases, and violence becomes, by their own strange definition of sanctity of life, a normal and acceptable consequence of their own conception of sanctity of life---some sort of multiply like rabbits and the hell with the consequences; I guess we can pray our way out of the consequences---so we'll just pray for the 100 million people who are about to starve to death.
It does seem that any 'Yes We Can' is up against ingrained puerile 'hot button' issues that serve as immovable obstacles to any attention to more important issues. I mean the right to possess guns (even assault guns), prayers in schools, flag burning, gay marriage, abortion, and recreational drug laws become the focus of one's mentality at the expense of more important issues affecting the quality of life and future of humanity. There can be no "Yes We Can" until our priorities, both in domestic and foreign policies, become reorganized and truly directed at freedom and justice for all. Until the commonality of justice revolves around the truly global moral principle of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" there can be no "Yes We Can". Justice and Freedom always go together. If someone wants to pray in school they have the right to do so. They do not have a right to mandate others pray in school. If someone burns a flag as a means of protest they have a right to do so providing they do not disrupt the lives of others. Two consenting adults have the right to engage in any kind of sex they so choose providing they do not do perform their sexual acts in places offensive to others. Two adults who want to marry have the right to marry the person of their choice just as others have the right to marry the person of their choice. Religious beliefs of all kinds, within the context of established laws to protect the welfare of others in society, should be exercised by churches, not governments. Who can marry who, is a proper consideration by a religious group. Governments should get out of the marriage business. I suppose, like in so many other matters, the government can tax marriages conducted by churches. Even non believers, as happens all the time, can find a church to marry them. And if they can't, if they are of age, they could marry themselves and just pay the proper fee to the government to register themselves as married in the eyes of the law. Abortion is an issue misdirected. The government has a legitimate right to have a population policy and place limitations on reproduction in order to protect the welfare of humanity as a whole. Whether abortion is ever an acceptable means to restrict population control is a religious decision and should remain so. It would seem strange that most people would ever select abortion as a means of birth control. The alternatives for birth control would be far more attractive. All drug use, recreational or otherwise, is a medical matter. All drugs have side effects. All drugs can be misused. When individuals use recreational drugs to fight feelings of hopelessness or pick up their mood, or reduce mental stress from living, it is the causes of these stresses which need correction, not jailing people for the misuse of a drug. Responsible use of drugs, medical or recreational, is the goal, and the whole business a medical issue---period.
Thus 'Yes we can' is still on the table as an option to save humanity, but is being slid by Mother Nature, and the ever increasing accumulation of wealth into the hands of a privileged few, toward the edge of the table. 'Yes we can' is an option soon to be lost. And one of the biggest obstacles in the way is the predominance of inherited religious dogma over the fundamental tenet of all religions---"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That is the commonality of all ethics and the only basis upon which "Yes We Can" can become efficacious. Forget 'God Bless America' and 'Allah Bless' whatever, and all humanity pray instead "that God give us all the strength to do right, as best we see the right,---based on the common principle of 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' Then, "Yes We Can".
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
FRIENDS OF SAGACITY
Friends of Sagacity:
Recently I sort of divided friends into past friends, current friends, dead friends, pet friends, and mentor friends of our mind. These friends of the mind are those past or present historical figures whose life insights become absorbed into your own life persona. Early in life your parents, relatives, and childhood friends impact greatly on your own developing persona. This kind of gives you functional operatives in life. You manage to live, of some sort. Entertainment venues of varied sorts, including TV, radio, cell phones, computer games, music, parties, movies, games, sports, hobbies, etc. can keep the mind amused but stunted. Stunted in the sense that any real understanding which leads to contentment in life cannot be achieved by simply being amused. While most all generalizations have exceptions, it just appears to me that those whose life is wrapped up in all these amusement gadgets are anything but happy campers. They strike me as mostly agitated, emotionally fragile robotic shallow minded narrow focused geeks of some sort. They always miss the forest for the sake of the trees---artificial trees at that. It is hard to have an intelligent or stimulating conversation with these modern gadgeterers because they have no real wish to think, they want to be amused, mostly by illusionary fantasies. While they tend to be loners they are loners of a disturbing sort----strangers to reality, and lacking any depth or curiosity to the nature of human existence. They are every bit as out of it as recreational drug abusers. Of course we don't arrest them for gadget abuse or arrest those who sell them these gadgets. Like recreational drug abusers they probably need medical help, but like the drug abusers they don't get medical help. Given the times, people knee deep in all this gadgetry can make a lot of money, but it is mostly useless work, mindless busy work, as far removed from the real challenges at this point in evolutionary history as one can get. It that sense maybe they are the smart ones----swarming as a frantic mob of human mindlessness to the edge of approaching human environmental disasters, themselves cocooned in obliviousness. "What? Me worry?"
Recently I listed several current or historical figures whose examples and words to live by have impacted on my own persona and philosophy of life. It seemed, shortly after, that I ought to catalog---for sort of like my own 'Bible to live by'----their most important words or actions which have bonded to my own persona. But then this would be a mammoth task; just to type out the most important quotes from Lincoln would be an enormous task. Others may have impacted in a less voluminous, but still important way. To make the task more manageable I have decided to simply list the names and add adjectives about them which add perspective on their relevance to my own ranking of their importance to my own mental perspectives.
Lincoln: wisdom, tolerance, principled, understanding, aloof, introspective, noble-minded, perseverance, patience, firmness, bringing out the better angels of human nature in others, empathy, good humored, way with words, unreal, mysterious, appealingly ugly, simple living, reflective, appreciative of diversity, humble, focused, magnanimous of spirit, self disciplined, creative, mellow. spiritual, fair minded, aloof, knowledgeable, inscrutable.
Teddy Roosevelt: Daring, spirited, proud, lover of nature, anti-monopolistic, defender of the common man, overly patriotic.
Barry Goldwater: Honest, willing to alter opinion on matters, independent, fair, blunt.
Victoria Woodhull---openly sensuous, ahead of her times, creative, tolerant, open-minded, defender of diversity, brave, smart, sociable, brazen for noble causes, equal rights advocate, visionary.
Einstein: brilliant, peace loving, insights into religion, God, world peace.
Dalai Lama: gentle, insight into religion and purity of thoughts, tolerant, kind, understanding, patient, peace monger, non abrasive, simple living, unpretentious in behavior and dress.
James Baldwin: introspective, unique, brilliant, ugly, just, ability to project into public consciousness varied injustices, oddly personal, unbending, obsession with personal demons.
Terrell Owens: principled, loyal, self made, fair, raw determination, honest, the not-so-little engine that could, loner, raw emotion, extremely focused, brave, driven, independent, aloof, the ultimate against the odds winner, kind, emotional, controls his own destiny,
Thomas Jefferson---freedom, separation of church and state, breadth of knowledge,
Martin Luther King: non violence to solve conflict, patience, organizer of the oppressed, peace monger,
Malcolm X: brilliant, brave, brutally honest about racial matters, ability to adopt new understandings, non bending in matters of social justice.
Churchill---brilliant, brave, way with words, tenacious,
Mario Cuomo: orator, brilliant defender of the common man, composed rational outlook on political matters, honest
Andrew Carnegie---self achiever, smart, charitable, understood the responsibility to return any accumulation of large wealth back to the society from which it came.
Warren Buffett: self achiever, smart, charitable, understands the responsibility to return any accumulation of large wealth back to the society from which it came.
Peter Singer: moral purity, brilliant,
Tecumseh: defender of American Indian rights, brave, smart, determined, clear concept of what was happening to his people, organizer, a tragic hero of a destroyed ethnic group.
Barack Obama: thoughtful, orator, organizer, brings people together, brings out better angels of human nature, fair, motivator, friend and defender of the less fortunate, appreciator of diversity,
a product of varied environments, a genetic mutt, honest, a positive faith in the future, patience, calmness, self effacing humor, humility, ability to get matters settled without violence, calm, deliberative, a soothing influence on troubled waters.
Recently I sort of divided friends into past friends, current friends, dead friends, pet friends, and mentor friends of our mind. These friends of the mind are those past or present historical figures whose life insights become absorbed into your own life persona. Early in life your parents, relatives, and childhood friends impact greatly on your own developing persona. This kind of gives you functional operatives in life. You manage to live, of some sort. Entertainment venues of varied sorts, including TV, radio, cell phones, computer games, music, parties, movies, games, sports, hobbies, etc. can keep the mind amused but stunted. Stunted in the sense that any real understanding which leads to contentment in life cannot be achieved by simply being amused. While most all generalizations have exceptions, it just appears to me that those whose life is wrapped up in all these amusement gadgets are anything but happy campers. They strike me as mostly agitated, emotionally fragile robotic shallow minded narrow focused geeks of some sort. They always miss the forest for the sake of the trees---artificial trees at that. It is hard to have an intelligent or stimulating conversation with these modern gadgeterers because they have no real wish to think, they want to be amused, mostly by illusionary fantasies. While they tend to be loners they are loners of a disturbing sort----strangers to reality, and lacking any depth or curiosity to the nature of human existence. They are every bit as out of it as recreational drug abusers. Of course we don't arrest them for gadget abuse or arrest those who sell them these gadgets. Like recreational drug abusers they probably need medical help, but like the drug abusers they don't get medical help. Given the times, people knee deep in all this gadgetry can make a lot of money, but it is mostly useless work, mindless busy work, as far removed from the real challenges at this point in evolutionary history as one can get. It that sense maybe they are the smart ones----swarming as a frantic mob of human mindlessness to the edge of approaching human environmental disasters, themselves cocooned in obliviousness. "What? Me worry?"
Recently I listed several current or historical figures whose examples and words to live by have impacted on my own persona and philosophy of life. It seemed, shortly after, that I ought to catalog---for sort of like my own 'Bible to live by'----their most important words or actions which have bonded to my own persona. But then this would be a mammoth task; just to type out the most important quotes from Lincoln would be an enormous task. Others may have impacted in a less voluminous, but still important way. To make the task more manageable I have decided to simply list the names and add adjectives about them which add perspective on their relevance to my own ranking of their importance to my own mental perspectives.
Lincoln: wisdom, tolerance, principled, understanding, aloof, introspective, noble-minded, perseverance, patience, firmness, bringing out the better angels of human nature in others, empathy, good humored, way with words, unreal, mysterious, appealingly ugly, simple living, reflective, appreciative of diversity, humble, focused, magnanimous of spirit, self disciplined, creative, mellow. spiritual, fair minded, aloof, knowledgeable, inscrutable.
Teddy Roosevelt: Daring, spirited, proud, lover of nature, anti-monopolistic, defender of the common man, overly patriotic.
Barry Goldwater: Honest, willing to alter opinion on matters, independent, fair, blunt.
Victoria Woodhull---openly sensuous, ahead of her times, creative, tolerant, open-minded, defender of diversity, brave, smart, sociable, brazen for noble causes, equal rights advocate, visionary.
Einstein: brilliant, peace loving, insights into religion, God, world peace.
Dalai Lama: gentle, insight into religion and purity of thoughts, tolerant, kind, understanding, patient, peace monger, non abrasive, simple living, unpretentious in behavior and dress.
James Baldwin: introspective, unique, brilliant, ugly, just, ability to project into public consciousness varied injustices, oddly personal, unbending, obsession with personal demons.
Terrell Owens: principled, loyal, self made, fair, raw determination, honest, the not-so-little engine that could, loner, raw emotion, extremely focused, brave, driven, independent, aloof, the ultimate against the odds winner, kind, emotional, controls his own destiny,
Thomas Jefferson---freedom, separation of church and state, breadth of knowledge,
Martin Luther King: non violence to solve conflict, patience, organizer of the oppressed, peace monger,
Malcolm X: brilliant, brave, brutally honest about racial matters, ability to adopt new understandings, non bending in matters of social justice.
Churchill---brilliant, brave, way with words, tenacious,
Mario Cuomo: orator, brilliant defender of the common man, composed rational outlook on political matters, honest
Andrew Carnegie---self achiever, smart, charitable, understood the responsibility to return any accumulation of large wealth back to the society from which it came.
Warren Buffett: self achiever, smart, charitable, understands the responsibility to return any accumulation of large wealth back to the society from which it came.
Peter Singer: moral purity, brilliant,
Tecumseh: defender of American Indian rights, brave, smart, determined, clear concept of what was happening to his people, organizer, a tragic hero of a destroyed ethnic group.
Barack Obama: thoughtful, orator, organizer, brings people together, brings out better angels of human nature, fair, motivator, friend and defender of the less fortunate, appreciator of diversity,
a product of varied environments, a genetic mutt, honest, a positive faith in the future, patience, calmness, self effacing humor, humility, ability to get matters settled without violence, calm, deliberative, a soothing influence on troubled waters.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
SELF-SEEKING SELFISHNESS
Self-Seeking Selfishness:
What, really, should one make of selfishness? We all know it is a bad word, connotating some measure of disrespect for others. But like with so many words the application can get pretty muddled. If a person always thinks of themselves instead of others I guess they are selfish. If a person always thinks of their own family before others is that selfish? If one always thinks of their own religion before others is that selfish? If one always thinks of one's own race or gender first, is that selfish? If one always thinks of one's country before other countries is that selfish? Maybe that is being patriotic. Can one be good and bad at the same time?
In a competitive world if you don't think of yourself----plan and plot and run through, or over, obstacles---will you really get ahead in life? When you compete and win something, or anything over others is that being selfish? I guess you could run a race, stop a foot before the finish line and let others finish before yourself. That would certainly be unselfish, or would it just be stupid and meaningless, or just peddling an image of phony humbleness?
I suppose we are all selfish to varying degrees. How selfish we appear may have more to do with how we market our actions than any objective measurement of just how selfish we are in any particular incidents. Maybe our own status in life determines just how unselfish we can afford to be, and most likely we will leave intact those selfish actions which got us to where we are to begin with. We all know people who run over anyone in their way to get where they get and then are quite charitable, sharing some of their monetary gains with the less fortunate. Of course they may not have to run over anyone to get to point B, they might just be better at anyone with the skills it takes to get to point B. Thus selfishness gets thoroughly muddled by the realities of life, realities which, at best, we see only dimly.
Selfishness and unselfishness, in the extreme, is fairly easy to recognize. After that it is a rather obtuse concept. A person who tends to stay by him/herself a lot in order to do things exactly their own way, is that selfish? I guess it depends---in one respect they are being unselfish in that they are letting others do their own thing without any interference; on the other hand they are selfishly ensuring that they get their own way. So there you have it, such a person has covered both sides.
Democracy is another vehicle for selfishness. Those with the most talent to influence the most votes can selfishly get things to go their way. Members of any group with the most manipulative skills are essentially the ones who get to have things their own selfish way most of the time. Those with the most power and titles at a meeting get to have things their own selfish way most of the time---the old 'you can't fight city hall'. Minorities often have a rough time with democracy, often seen as self-centered selfish uncooperative misfits who ought to go the hell elsewhere if they don't like the way things are. We tend not to like minorities of any sort since they just seem to think of themselves first and carry a chip on their shoulders. I guess if they don't think of themselves first who will be thinking of them at all?
The world is full of selfish people, except you and I, and sometimes I wonder about you. One of the most clear cut examples of selfishness, held up by a huge majority of those familiar with him via the media, is Terrell Owens. There, in their eyes, is Mr. Selfishness himself. He always gets things to go his way, and if they don't all hell breaks lose. The most charitable thing his detractors can say is that, "when things are going his way he behaves himself and is charming". Myself, I see in Terrell the classic confrontation between 'fair is fair' and selfishness. Raised in strict isolation from others Terrell became either a born or taught loner. This, matched with instilled moral principles that drive an extraordinary personal energy, created a time bomb for those who would selfishly try to manipulate Terrell to their own advantage. As a genuine loner Terrell is exempt from needing outside emotional support. There is little 'if I don't do this I will meet with disapproval from others'. Told by his grandmother repeatedly that he was a 'special' person, but only in so far as he adhered to certain ethical principles,---the persona so many despise or admire was created. On top of all this is a physical presence that radiates an emotion of the moment which is nondescript but inescapable. There is little need to talk to Terrell, his face and mannerisms reflect his raw state of mind at the moment. If he smiles his whole face is a monster smile; if he is angry the glare in his eyes penetrates to the inner core of anyone to whom it is so directed; if he is sad for someone and can't help them, the tears flow unabashedly.
Are self made persons really obligated to let themselves be used by others in a manner self serving to the users? Terrell turned himself from a gangly, weak, unskilled athlete into an athlete among the best at his position with a dominating physical presence. He developed an impressive talent as a wide receiver essentially on his own, having done so on his own with his own training program, Terrell is very protective of his own little world of training. While he is willing to accept assistance and help, he rejects dictatorial interference from those he considers less knowledgeable about his position and his own body than he is. Plus he expects to be paid for his services at the same level of others performing the same service at his level of performance. This represents his relatively simplistic view of his career situation. None of this, in Terrell's mind, is negotiable. Now, is this being selfish? Personally I don't think so. In most any other profession it wouldn't even be a problem but a blessing---an employee who can perform at a high level without a lot of supervision or training is a Godsend, a virtual gold mine.
The Terrell case can be used to further examine what selfishness really is. Did Terrell get where he is by depriving others of a chance to be better than him? Did Terrell commit any crimes or create any list of victims to get to the top of his profession? If he did then he was selfish and walked over others to achieve success for himself. Is it selfish to demand 'fair is fair'? Whether what Terrell thinks is fair is really fair is quite another question entirely separate from any selfishness involved. He is either right or wrong about what is fair. Either way it has no bearing on his being selfish. The trickier question is whether Terrell is selfish in demanding the ball be thrown to him a lot. Unlike most other positions in football a wide receiver does not just react to situations that come his way during the course of the game. In fact, the fewer times the ball is thrown to a wide receiver the fewer chances a wide receiver has to build up stats. It is the stats which determine the players salary and status. So whether a player has an unselfish right to demand the ball be thrown to him more depends entirely on what happens when the ball is thrown to him compared to others. In baseball a pinch hitter who most often comes through with a hit has a logical right to demand he be sent in as a pinch hitter. If he rarely comes through with a hit and complains about not be sent in, then that is selfishness. Terrell's detractors would say that he just concentrates too much on himself in practice, in games, in his press conferences. That would be difficult to deny. But that is also the reason he is so good. His power of concentration to reach a goal is phenomenal. In his profession that ability to stay focused on personal goals is a desired quality, certainly not a quality to be defined as selfish. But, one could argue, he only cares about himself and not the team. The only thing about the team Terrell can really control is his own performance. He cannot do anyone else's job for them nor is he paid to be anyone else's nurse maid. More to the point, to the extent he spends time trying to be nursemaid to others, the lower his own level of performance, and the lower his own level of performance the less likely the team wins. It is hard to logically say that concentrating on his own job is being selfish. Last I knew, he was not hired to be any kind of coach or social companion to anyone. Professional sports, after all, is not little league.
At any rate it seems selfishness, in it's most basic sense, involves victims. If you don't share your wealth there are victims. Selfishness. If you don't share your skills so others can benefit from your talent, you are selfish. Whenever you do things in such a way that others who could benefit from your actions do not, you are selfish. Whenever we ignore the plight of others---put blinders on to the misery of others, we are selfish. Whenever we are prejudice towards others we are selfish. Whenever we plot to accomplish something by leaving another unfairly with the short end of the stick, we are selfish. Whenever we don't share things that needed to be shared in social situations we are selfish. Whenever we demand more than our share of common resources we are selfish, like the 1% of the people in this country who own 90% of the wealth in the country. Now that is selfish. When one demands the right to marry whom they choose and denies another the same right, that is selfish. Whenever one demands the right to their own religious beliefs and attempts by law to stop another from their own religious belief, that is selfish. When one demands a certain amount of public money be spent to educate their own child and is against the same amount of public money being spent to educate someone else's child, that is selfish.
Like with many words, the word selfish is too often used as some sort of vague undesirable adjective to discredit someone else. The word selfish, to have any real meaning, need be applied to specific actions. When one says Honschnivel is selfish, stupid, insincere, insensitive, etc. what do we really know about Honschnivel except that someone doesn't like him? Nothing.
Selfishness as a motivational entity is probably a crucial aspect of the evolutionary process, the proverbial survival of the fittest. Unselfishness as an ethical entity is a concept embedded in the inherent moral nature of humans. Humans alone in the animal kingdom have an inherited moral disposition. Without this moral disposition the power of humans to be destructive to other humans, other species, and the natural resources of the planet would be overpowering, and may yet be overpowering. True, humans may yet destroy a way of life so many of us have been privileged to enjoy, but like every other evolutionary catastrophe in this billions of years process, Mother Nature always wins and life goes on and upward. The only thing really at stake now, or ever has been at stake, is the current status and prevalence of species on the planet. If species continue to evolve what will humans evolve into? That is kind of mind boggling. Like with so many matters we can understand the past but not the future.
What, really, should one make of selfishness? We all know it is a bad word, connotating some measure of disrespect for others. But like with so many words the application can get pretty muddled. If a person always thinks of themselves instead of others I guess they are selfish. If a person always thinks of their own family before others is that selfish? If one always thinks of their own religion before others is that selfish? If one always thinks of one's own race or gender first, is that selfish? If one always thinks of one's country before other countries is that selfish? Maybe that is being patriotic. Can one be good and bad at the same time?
In a competitive world if you don't think of yourself----plan and plot and run through, or over, obstacles---will you really get ahead in life? When you compete and win something, or anything over others is that being selfish? I guess you could run a race, stop a foot before the finish line and let others finish before yourself. That would certainly be unselfish, or would it just be stupid and meaningless, or just peddling an image of phony humbleness?
I suppose we are all selfish to varying degrees. How selfish we appear may have more to do with how we market our actions than any objective measurement of just how selfish we are in any particular incidents. Maybe our own status in life determines just how unselfish we can afford to be, and most likely we will leave intact those selfish actions which got us to where we are to begin with. We all know people who run over anyone in their way to get where they get and then are quite charitable, sharing some of their monetary gains with the less fortunate. Of course they may not have to run over anyone to get to point B, they might just be better at anyone with the skills it takes to get to point B. Thus selfishness gets thoroughly muddled by the realities of life, realities which, at best, we see only dimly.
Selfishness and unselfishness, in the extreme, is fairly easy to recognize. After that it is a rather obtuse concept. A person who tends to stay by him/herself a lot in order to do things exactly their own way, is that selfish? I guess it depends---in one respect they are being unselfish in that they are letting others do their own thing without any interference; on the other hand they are selfishly ensuring that they get their own way. So there you have it, such a person has covered both sides.
Democracy is another vehicle for selfishness. Those with the most talent to influence the most votes can selfishly get things to go their way. Members of any group with the most manipulative skills are essentially the ones who get to have things their own selfish way most of the time. Those with the most power and titles at a meeting get to have things their own selfish way most of the time---the old 'you can't fight city hall'. Minorities often have a rough time with democracy, often seen as self-centered selfish uncooperative misfits who ought to go the hell elsewhere if they don't like the way things are. We tend not to like minorities of any sort since they just seem to think of themselves first and carry a chip on their shoulders. I guess if they don't think of themselves first who will be thinking of them at all?
The world is full of selfish people, except you and I, and sometimes I wonder about you. One of the most clear cut examples of selfishness, held up by a huge majority of those familiar with him via the media, is Terrell Owens. There, in their eyes, is Mr. Selfishness himself. He always gets things to go his way, and if they don't all hell breaks lose. The most charitable thing his detractors can say is that, "when things are going his way he behaves himself and is charming". Myself, I see in Terrell the classic confrontation between 'fair is fair' and selfishness. Raised in strict isolation from others Terrell became either a born or taught loner. This, matched with instilled moral principles that drive an extraordinary personal energy, created a time bomb for those who would selfishly try to manipulate Terrell to their own advantage. As a genuine loner Terrell is exempt from needing outside emotional support. There is little 'if I don't do this I will meet with disapproval from others'. Told by his grandmother repeatedly that he was a 'special' person, but only in so far as he adhered to certain ethical principles,---the persona so many despise or admire was created. On top of all this is a physical presence that radiates an emotion of the moment which is nondescript but inescapable. There is little need to talk to Terrell, his face and mannerisms reflect his raw state of mind at the moment. If he smiles his whole face is a monster smile; if he is angry the glare in his eyes penetrates to the inner core of anyone to whom it is so directed; if he is sad for someone and can't help them, the tears flow unabashedly.
Are self made persons really obligated to let themselves be used by others in a manner self serving to the users? Terrell turned himself from a gangly, weak, unskilled athlete into an athlete among the best at his position with a dominating physical presence. He developed an impressive talent as a wide receiver essentially on his own, having done so on his own with his own training program, Terrell is very protective of his own little world of training. While he is willing to accept assistance and help, he rejects dictatorial interference from those he considers less knowledgeable about his position and his own body than he is. Plus he expects to be paid for his services at the same level of others performing the same service at his level of performance. This represents his relatively simplistic view of his career situation. None of this, in Terrell's mind, is negotiable. Now, is this being selfish? Personally I don't think so. In most any other profession it wouldn't even be a problem but a blessing---an employee who can perform at a high level without a lot of supervision or training is a Godsend, a virtual gold mine.
The Terrell case can be used to further examine what selfishness really is. Did Terrell get where he is by depriving others of a chance to be better than him? Did Terrell commit any crimes or create any list of victims to get to the top of his profession? If he did then he was selfish and walked over others to achieve success for himself. Is it selfish to demand 'fair is fair'? Whether what Terrell thinks is fair is really fair is quite another question entirely separate from any selfishness involved. He is either right or wrong about what is fair. Either way it has no bearing on his being selfish. The trickier question is whether Terrell is selfish in demanding the ball be thrown to him a lot. Unlike most other positions in football a wide receiver does not just react to situations that come his way during the course of the game. In fact, the fewer times the ball is thrown to a wide receiver the fewer chances a wide receiver has to build up stats. It is the stats which determine the players salary and status. So whether a player has an unselfish right to demand the ball be thrown to him more depends entirely on what happens when the ball is thrown to him compared to others. In baseball a pinch hitter who most often comes through with a hit has a logical right to demand he be sent in as a pinch hitter. If he rarely comes through with a hit and complains about not be sent in, then that is selfishness. Terrell's detractors would say that he just concentrates too much on himself in practice, in games, in his press conferences. That would be difficult to deny. But that is also the reason he is so good. His power of concentration to reach a goal is phenomenal. In his profession that ability to stay focused on personal goals is a desired quality, certainly not a quality to be defined as selfish. But, one could argue, he only cares about himself and not the team. The only thing about the team Terrell can really control is his own performance. He cannot do anyone else's job for them nor is he paid to be anyone else's nurse maid. More to the point, to the extent he spends time trying to be nursemaid to others, the lower his own level of performance, and the lower his own level of performance the less likely the team wins. It is hard to logically say that concentrating on his own job is being selfish. Last I knew, he was not hired to be any kind of coach or social companion to anyone. Professional sports, after all, is not little league.
At any rate it seems selfishness, in it's most basic sense, involves victims. If you don't share your wealth there are victims. Selfishness. If you don't share your skills so others can benefit from your talent, you are selfish. Whenever you do things in such a way that others who could benefit from your actions do not, you are selfish. Whenever we ignore the plight of others---put blinders on to the misery of others, we are selfish. Whenever we are prejudice towards others we are selfish. Whenever we plot to accomplish something by leaving another unfairly with the short end of the stick, we are selfish. Whenever we don't share things that needed to be shared in social situations we are selfish. Whenever we demand more than our share of common resources we are selfish, like the 1% of the people in this country who own 90% of the wealth in the country. Now that is selfish. When one demands the right to marry whom they choose and denies another the same right, that is selfish. Whenever one demands the right to their own religious beliefs and attempts by law to stop another from their own religious belief, that is selfish. When one demands a certain amount of public money be spent to educate their own child and is against the same amount of public money being spent to educate someone else's child, that is selfish.
Like with many words, the word selfish is too often used as some sort of vague undesirable adjective to discredit someone else. The word selfish, to have any real meaning, need be applied to specific actions. When one says Honschnivel is selfish, stupid, insincere, insensitive, etc. what do we really know about Honschnivel except that someone doesn't like him? Nothing.
Selfishness as a motivational entity is probably a crucial aspect of the evolutionary process, the proverbial survival of the fittest. Unselfishness as an ethical entity is a concept embedded in the inherent moral nature of humans. Humans alone in the animal kingdom have an inherited moral disposition. Without this moral disposition the power of humans to be destructive to other humans, other species, and the natural resources of the planet would be overpowering, and may yet be overpowering. True, humans may yet destroy a way of life so many of us have been privileged to enjoy, but like every other evolutionary catastrophe in this billions of years process, Mother Nature always wins and life goes on and upward. The only thing really at stake now, or ever has been at stake, is the current status and prevalence of species on the planet. If species continue to evolve what will humans evolve into? That is kind of mind boggling. Like with so many matters we can understand the past but not the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)