Practical Application of the Golden Rule
The Golden Rule is probably the most basic, the most inherent ethical premise, the most universal code of ethics. All the other religious dogma is mostly verbiage. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an ethical guideline everyone can understand---a kind of moral attitude dependent on human ability to reason; this ability acquired via God's created evolutionary process. BUT, the application of this Rule is less clear. Pure religious dogma often goes to the extreme: "Go, sell what you have, and give it to the poor" or "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. " The trouble with such extremes is that they are conveniently ignored by just about all the sectarian believers of these faiths. LIke how many Christians are going to take any of this serious? Of course once the picking and choosing of dogma starts where does it end? Clearly it ends at different points for different members of that particular faith. At this point you essentially have no hard fast ethical guidelines and each member sort of establishes his/her own level of compliance to moral standards. Thou shalt not steal EXCEPT........Thou shalt not________ EXCEPT and so it goes until all ethics becomes relative. What is left is sometimes contradictory, confusing, vague sectarian dogma which is followed, unless inconvenient at the moment, by religious rituals, glittering cathedrals, hymns, prayers, social events, and an inherited religion as a ticket to some kind of heaven.
It just seems, in the last analysis, that for one to accept the above as the basis for ethical behavior is to perceive God as some sort of Insecure biased tormentor deeply involved in human individual behavior. The very idea that God 'might' do good IF we pray for him to do so just seems like we have the cart before the horse. The idea that I could seriously ask God to help me for this or that problem and that he would do so while the less fortunate are left living lives of quiet desperation strikes me as just absurd. I suspect some refugee in Darfur needs divine intervention before I do with any of my problems. I just doubt God is waiting around to be guided via prayer as to who to help when. We just try to make ourselves too important, God too dependent on our own actions, and not only imagine humans as a favored species, but that our own relationship with God is 'tight'. Of course there is no real evidence for any of this and everyone actually seems impacted by God's laws of nature in the same way.
To make our silliness complete most humans tend to thank God for our blessings, THEN adopt an attitude of our having EARNED any successes, dismissing the less fortunate as having made poor choices, or being too lazy; if they want to live like us they can do it the old fashioned way----EARN IT----just like WE DID. Of course IF we are sincere in thanking God for our successes, then WE didn't EARN IT. For some reason God saw fit to help us and not someone else? REALLY? Did we do something to earn our blessings? Did we choose our parents carefully? Did we select our place of birth with care? Did we choose the quality of schools within which we were educated with proper deliberation? Did we play any role in our inherent physical or mental abilities or disabilities? Did we use the proper diligence in selecting our inherited religion? When we find ourselves at the right place at the right time for something good to happen did we plan it all out? When we inherit money is this earned income? Of course not, inherited money is a gift. Whatever you spend the gifted money on you did not earn. That is something which the person who gave it to you earned, unless of course this is just trickle down genetic drivel.
At any rate, ethics requires choices. All the time. The Golden Rule is not genetically based. It doesn't say do unto those who are biological family as you would do unto yourself. Humans invented that notion to the extent it now even has a title called 'family values'. This is just another guise to avoid the Golden Rule. Clearly parents have an obligation to raise their children properly to the best of their ability. I don't really know of any religion or any logical train of thought which claims this is a life long obligation. At some point, minus legitimate mental or physical handicaps, offspring are expected to assume their own responsibilities as adults in their productive years.
At any rate, for years I have grappled with how to implement the Golden Rule in a practical, consistent fashion. It starts, in my mind, with responsible reproduction, then responsible parenthood, and then how to handle financial success. My thoughts here have been measurably influenced by Peter Singer, Andrew Carnegie, Warren Buffet, and Bill Gates. I guess many people commit a certain percentage of their wealth to go toward helping out the less fortunate. But this mostly turns out to be rather stingy. If a church member tithes 10% of their income, that is considered generous. HOWEVER, both the amount and the efficiency of this is suspect. Churches are not exactly known for any efficient way to get help to those most in need. Anyone familiar with any Church Budget knows what a small percentage of the money in a church budget ever gets into the hands of the less fortunate. There are salaries, maintenance expenses, travel expenses, and the list goes on and on. So if I give 10% and the church then gives 10% of it DIRECTLY to those in need, I have only given 1% of my wealth to those in need. Not too impressive. The rest of it went to support a massive church overhead.
The next choice is when to give how much. If you give all your money away you might find yourself in need down the road, and by not giving some of your money away right away it allows the money to accumulate and grow, so that when you die there is a good amount of money you can give to those most in need. The logic for giving your money to those most in need is quite simple. If one is FORTUNATE enough to amass some wealth from society, then it follows that this money extracted from society for your own use be returned, at least in good part, to the society from whence it came. The choice is simple: it either gets directed to those with the greatest needs or it is genetically hoarded. Hoarding wealth by genetic families is one of the reasons so many people have so little in the world. Carnegie believed if you don't give it back, sooner or later, then you will go to hell. At the very least, hell or no hell, you haven't done the right thing. The Golden Rule dictates you direct your good fortune to those less fortunate than yourself. If you were in their shoes you would be ever so receptive and grateful.
At any rate, in my mind, I have settled on the following: I try to live a reasonably simple life. As a rule of thumb it goes this way. Whatever I really need I just buy. If I spend money on something not really needed then I must contribute the same amount of money to the less fortunate. That way, in my mind, I have indicated others count as much as myself. For example, if I need a car to get me from point to point I can buy a decent car for $20,000. If I want a $35,000 car then I am obligated to give $15,000 to the less fortunate. Moderation in most things is a good thing. If I decide to take a trip and spend $5000 on the trip then I am obligated to give $5000 to the less fortunate. One of the bonuses you get by this sort of mentality is contentment. You are clearly sharing with those most in need, and yet clearly enjoying things in life you want to enjoy. Then in your will you leave the remaining to the less fortunate. If everyone lived this way the number of less fortunate in the world would be almost nonexistent. The playing field in life is not level. We all know that. Chance plays a big role in evolution. That is the way God's process works. Fairness, to exist in any human society, depends on social justice. And social justice depends on the Golden Rule.
Now, the next problem is what charities do you give your money to in your will? I was shocked when Warren Buffet decided to leave almost all his fortune to the Bill Gates Charity. But his reasoning is interesting. Buffet feels it is very difficult to have your donated money be effective. And the object is to effectively help as many of the less fortunate as possible. So you need find a charity which targets the population you want, and can effectively help those most in need. Buffet is one who expects to get the biggest bang for his buck, not donate to some inefficient charity where most of the money disappears with nonproductive costs. Bill Gates targets the least fortunate world wide. This seems more noble than any restricted patriotic or religious constraints to the help.
Bill Gates has set up charitable enterprises which are capable of tackling all aspects of the needs of the less fortunate. That is, you simultaneously help those most in need with health access, education, job training, etc. all at the same time. I once set up a charity to help those young people from the worst urban communities achieve career goals. It failed because my little charity was not big enough in scope, and the money, let's say for career purposes, ended up being spent to get the person dental care, stuff like that. It is pretty hard to sit and watch some young person lose their teeth because you want them to spend their money on something else. If you try to help these people with the greatest needs you quickly realize just how steep and varied are the hurdles they face. The idiots who go around and talk about all these "useless bums with no drive, no get up and go, stupid mother fuckers who need to be taught a lesson or two about life so they will then shape up"---well they are not just idiots, they are selfish cruel idiots . Whenever I hear people talk like this I always have the urge to see them put in the place of those most in need. If they faced the same hurdles, in the same environment, with the same upbringing, with the same inherent limitations---the likelihood of their doing any better is miniscule.
If one wants to become content one needs face up to how fortunate one is themself, then assume the responsibility to view the least fortunate as deserving as oneself when it comes to spending your good fortune. When you have reasonable good fortune and you share that good fortune with the less fortunate, then and only then, can real contentment with your life begin to become a reality. Anyone who has spent any time amongst those for whom money, power, or titles is never enough knows very well how discontented they are most of the time. Fuss, fuss, fuss, fuss, fuss all the time. And when they aren't fussing they are looking over their shoulder, and when they aren't looking over their shoulder they are plotting how to outsmart others, or position themselves, etc. Of course we all do that to varying degrees in our productive years but there comes a time when enough is enough and it is time then to begin to repay the society from which you gained this monetary success.
What is happening across the globe right now, in numbers which are astounding, is not only an abomination, but a very real threat to human society as we now know it, and to the very existence of thousands upon thousands of species across the globe. None of us, individually, can stop the insanity of our collective behavior, but each of us can, via the Golden Rule, make life on this planet better for some of those most in need. The Golden Rule dictates we do this, both with our politics and our bank book. The immediate reward is contentment, a satisfaction that right creates justice, and in that faith we do our duty as we understand it. Any future past our temporal existence is beyond human grasp. For any kind of Heaven there can only be hope. But for now, contentment of any meaningful sort comes from following the Golden Rule. Let's face it, contentment is no small reward.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Monday, February 22, 2010
Why Am I Listening?
Why Am I Listening?
I happened to be online when the Tiger Woods 'apology' speech was given and I tuned in. I kept asking myself, "Why am I listening to this? Like what business is it of mine?" There is no logical reason why I should pass judgment on other people's private relationships. For me to do so would be the ultimate soap opera mentality.
When God's created evolutionary process evolved past reflexive reproductive activity based solely on hormonal secretions, and left humans with sex drives as diverse and complicated ongoing sagas, sex became more comedic and the ethics extremely personal. If Tiger Woods owes the public an explanation regarding his sex life or his married life, then so does everyone else. When Tiger Woods, reading from his scripted professionally crafted apology, says it is all about him he is dead wrong. It's about all of us, about relationships. about love, about children, about matters driven as much by emotions as reason. I am tired of reading about the sexual trysts of famous people whether it be Thomas Jefferson, FDR, Martin Luther King, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Clinton, Edwards, athletes, priests, etc.
Sexual drives vary immensely, sexual orientations vary, the type of sexual acts vary, and the reasons for marrying are all over the place. Would Mrs. Woods have married Tiger if he had been a caddy instead of a golf star? Does it matter?
If two people can find a way to co-exist, raise their children properly, and practice responsible reproduction, then for what reason does any one else have to get involved and pass judgments? How much of anyone else's more controlled sexual encounters is as much lack of opportunity as anything else? Why in hell would we expect someone who is satisfied with sex once a month be given a halo for restrained sexual activity? Why in hell would we expect to control or judge which adults have sex with each other and the kind of sex acts involved? If there is a right way to enjoy sex just who is it that decides this? Why would anyone with an ounce of respect for diversity of human nature want to dictate the proper grounds for marriage, who should be able to marry who, what kind of commitments or tolerance they make with each other regarding sexual flings, etc. A person like Jacqueline Kennedy didn't care as long as Jack kept his flings out of sight, a person like Mrs. Edwards cares a lot. Every couple needs to set the ground rules for their relationship, and when the commitment is strained by breaches, it is their problem, and their problem alone. Relationships are difficult, are often hard to sustain, and only the two involved in the relationship can determine if and how it can be sustained. Why do the rest of us feel a need to be judge and jury with detailed depictions of all transgressions? After watching that pathetic public scripted apology from Tiger Woods I felt like I needed to apologize for listening to it. One way or another I guess most of us are some form of Peeping Toms. Shame on us. It occurs to me that I now know more about the sex life of Tiger Woods than I do about the sex lives of people I know on a more personal basis. I have some catching up to do---maybe I'll invite them over and others who know them can demand an accounting.
I happened to be online when the Tiger Woods 'apology' speech was given and I tuned in. I kept asking myself, "Why am I listening to this? Like what business is it of mine?" There is no logical reason why I should pass judgment on other people's private relationships. For me to do so would be the ultimate soap opera mentality.
When God's created evolutionary process evolved past reflexive reproductive activity based solely on hormonal secretions, and left humans with sex drives as diverse and complicated ongoing sagas, sex became more comedic and the ethics extremely personal. If Tiger Woods owes the public an explanation regarding his sex life or his married life, then so does everyone else. When Tiger Woods, reading from his scripted professionally crafted apology, says it is all about him he is dead wrong. It's about all of us, about relationships. about love, about children, about matters driven as much by emotions as reason. I am tired of reading about the sexual trysts of famous people whether it be Thomas Jefferson, FDR, Martin Luther King, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Clinton, Edwards, athletes, priests, etc.
Sexual drives vary immensely, sexual orientations vary, the type of sexual acts vary, and the reasons for marrying are all over the place. Would Mrs. Woods have married Tiger if he had been a caddy instead of a golf star? Does it matter?
If two people can find a way to co-exist, raise their children properly, and practice responsible reproduction, then for what reason does any one else have to get involved and pass judgments? How much of anyone else's more controlled sexual encounters is as much lack of opportunity as anything else? Why in hell would we expect someone who is satisfied with sex once a month be given a halo for restrained sexual activity? Why in hell would we expect to control or judge which adults have sex with each other and the kind of sex acts involved? If there is a right way to enjoy sex just who is it that decides this? Why would anyone with an ounce of respect for diversity of human nature want to dictate the proper grounds for marriage, who should be able to marry who, what kind of commitments or tolerance they make with each other regarding sexual flings, etc. A person like Jacqueline Kennedy didn't care as long as Jack kept his flings out of sight, a person like Mrs. Edwards cares a lot. Every couple needs to set the ground rules for their relationship, and when the commitment is strained by breaches, it is their problem, and their problem alone. Relationships are difficult, are often hard to sustain, and only the two involved in the relationship can determine if and how it can be sustained. Why do the rest of us feel a need to be judge and jury with detailed depictions of all transgressions? After watching that pathetic public scripted apology from Tiger Woods I felt like I needed to apologize for listening to it. One way or another I guess most of us are some form of Peeping Toms. Shame on us. It occurs to me that I now know more about the sex life of Tiger Woods than I do about the sex lives of people I know on a more personal basis. I have some catching up to do---maybe I'll invite them over and others who know them can demand an accounting.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Basis For Understanding
The Basis For Understanding
I am convinced that in one's terminational years contentment is a product of a contemplative mode of life. The following represent some of the most basic underpinnings for intelligent contemplation.
1. There is more to reality than what we receive from our senses. Yet everything begins in our senses. In takes years of wisdom and experiences to properly interpret this sensory input. Developed knowledge goes beyond observation.
2. Understanding is limited when religious authority is regarded as all powerful. Where religion dominates progress is difficult.
3. Passion clouds reality
4. Character is destiny.
5. Understanding involves knowing what something is for.
6. Precision of understanding is limited by our power of reasoning.
7. The tastes of the mob are generally grounded in considerations of pleasure and utility.
8. When desire overcomes reasoning this leads to suffering and unhappiness.
9. For God to hold anyone accountable He cannot know everything that is going to happen.
10. If our natures are different than so must be our duties.
11. Human inherent morality is grounded on the reasoned dictum called the Golden Rule.
12. Every age has it's witches---those whose conduct or perspective is so unorthodox as to be a threat to the wisdom of current culture.
13. Nature bats last
14. The engine of evolution is change.
15. Ultimately everything is reduced to molecular activity
16. Understanding the science of light does not give us beauty. Therein lies the disconnect between science and human perceptions.
17. Regarding intelligence, per se, there is little about human intelligence which differs significantly from sufficiently powerful computational devices.
18. Resignation, when properly assigned to inevitability and reason, is an essential component of contentment.
19. To achieve contentment, the seeking of pleasure should never reach the degree where it's deprivation produces pain, and the avoidance of potential pain should never reach the degree where the potential for pleasure is thwarted.
20. Contentment, in the absence of enlarging the possibilities in the lives of those living lives of quiet desperation, cannot be achieved. If all that matters is yourself and immediate family, friends---then contentment will be elusive.
21. Reality is not stationary as change is the operative mode of evolution.
22. Moral precepts can be shown to be valid and binding through a process of rational analysis.
23. Social and economic inequalities should be addressed in such a manner as to benefit
the least advantaged before they improve the conditions of the more advantaged.
24. Nature is a gift from God to all living forms on our earth. While we may not know the Gift Giver personally, the existence of a gift proves the existence of the Gift Giver.
25. "You can't go back home to your family---
to a young man's dream of fame and glory
to the country cottage away from strife and conflict
to the Father you have lost
to the old forms and systems of things which seemed
everlasting but are changing all the time." Thomas Wolfe
26. "I have learned to look at Nature, not as in the hour of thoughtless youth; but hearing oftentimes the still, sad music of humanity" William Wordsworth
27. To want no more than we need is to be moral in the purest sense; for it leaves something for others. The less we want more than we need the more contented we become, like a heaven on earth.
28. If we learn not to fear death, then we have no reason to fear enemies; the worst they can do is kill you. No need to fear friends, the worst they can do is betray you; beware the indifferent, those whose indifference allows wars, injustice, poverty, etc. to exist on a wide scale level. They really don't care, creating a culture of permissiveness for massive human misery.
I am convinced that in one's terminational years contentment is a product of a contemplative mode of life. The following represent some of the most basic underpinnings for intelligent contemplation.
1. There is more to reality than what we receive from our senses. Yet everything begins in our senses. In takes years of wisdom and experiences to properly interpret this sensory input. Developed knowledge goes beyond observation.
2. Understanding is limited when religious authority is regarded as all powerful. Where religion dominates progress is difficult.
3. Passion clouds reality
4. Character is destiny.
5. Understanding involves knowing what something is for.
6. Precision of understanding is limited by our power of reasoning.
7. The tastes of the mob are generally grounded in considerations of pleasure and utility.
8. When desire overcomes reasoning this leads to suffering and unhappiness.
9. For God to hold anyone accountable He cannot know everything that is going to happen.
10. If our natures are different than so must be our duties.
11. Human inherent morality is grounded on the reasoned dictum called the Golden Rule.
12. Every age has it's witches---those whose conduct or perspective is so unorthodox as to be a threat to the wisdom of current culture.
13. Nature bats last
14. The engine of evolution is change.
15. Ultimately everything is reduced to molecular activity
16. Understanding the science of light does not give us beauty. Therein lies the disconnect between science and human perceptions.
17. Regarding intelligence, per se, there is little about human intelligence which differs significantly from sufficiently powerful computational devices.
18. Resignation, when properly assigned to inevitability and reason, is an essential component of contentment.
19. To achieve contentment, the seeking of pleasure should never reach the degree where it's deprivation produces pain, and the avoidance of potential pain should never reach the degree where the potential for pleasure is thwarted.
20. Contentment, in the absence of enlarging the possibilities in the lives of those living lives of quiet desperation, cannot be achieved. If all that matters is yourself and immediate family, friends---then contentment will be elusive.
21. Reality is not stationary as change is the operative mode of evolution.
22. Moral precepts can be shown to be valid and binding through a process of rational analysis.
23. Social and economic inequalities should be addressed in such a manner as to benefit
the least advantaged before they improve the conditions of the more advantaged.
24. Nature is a gift from God to all living forms on our earth. While we may not know the Gift Giver personally, the existence of a gift proves the existence of the Gift Giver.
25. "You can't go back home to your family---
to a young man's dream of fame and glory
to the country cottage away from strife and conflict
to the Father you have lost
to the old forms and systems of things which seemed
everlasting but are changing all the time." Thomas Wolfe
26. "I have learned to look at Nature, not as in the hour of thoughtless youth; but hearing oftentimes the still, sad music of humanity" William Wordsworth
27. To want no more than we need is to be moral in the purest sense; for it leaves something for others. The less we want more than we need the more contented we become, like a heaven on earth.
28. If we learn not to fear death, then we have no reason to fear enemies; the worst they can do is kill you. No need to fear friends, the worst they can do is betray you; beware the indifferent, those whose indifference allows wars, injustice, poverty, etc. to exist on a wide scale level. They really don't care, creating a culture of permissiveness for massive human misery.
Monday, February 8, 2010
MOTHER NATURE
Mother Nature
I am often queried as to why I spend so many hours of so many days out meandering around in nature-like settings. To adequately explain this is Herculean, even for one who writes as much as I. My most treasured nature setting is a Redwood forest. Closer to home it is the Arboretum, the forest preserves, and Cantigny. They become my home away from home. Or maybe my Condo is my home away from nature. Either way nature is important to my mental state, to my level of contentment, to my sense of meaning about life in general.
Until the rise of monotheism nature was the primary religious experience. Nature is God's creation and God's gift to all forms of life. We know God exists because of this gift. If we receive a gift from an anonymous source we may not know personally the gift giver, but we know the gift giver exists. And so we know God exists. In earlier times this 'gift' (nature) from God was the target of our religious fervor, our rituals, our sense of sanctity. Nature was the wonderment of life. Over time humans, one group after the next, began to invent the essence of God Himself. We (most) decided man was made after the image of God; we decided humans were created specially outside the process of evolution; we decided God thought like us; we decided God, if we behaved a certain way---or at least belonged to the right inherited religion---that God would personally aid us in our lives IF we prayed to him and performed the right religious rituals; we decided God would reward certain inherited religious dogma with life after death; we decided that whenever we waged war on others God was on our side, with every nation creating it's own 'manifest destiny'; we decided that man had dominion over all other forms of life, etc. All of these created perceptions were convenient to egocentric needs, and none of these perceptions were based on HUMAN REASON---the ability of humans to reason another gift from God's created evolutionary process.
With all these human inventions about God, Nature became less and less the focal point of religious fervor or sacredness. Nature instead became a gift from our Maker to do with whatever we liked. Nature was for our use, it's resources were unlimited, and all other species important only so far as they had a direct use to humans. There may have been millions of other species, all evolved over millions of years of evolution, but Humans were God's favorite. In truth, all of these 'inventions' about God and nature were nothing more than egocentric creations by humans to justify their own personal greed, power, and pleasures of the moment.
To a large extent humans have succeeded in separating human interests and well being from nature. Nature, to most people has become nothing more than an occasional trip amusement. Shuffling along in human herds, from point to point, at a pace determined by jammed packed schedules, a visit to nature is no different than a visit to the Auto Show or the Icecapades, or a movie. And, as shows, sport events, and movies became more fine tuned to human emotional states, nature became passe, kind of boring, and most certainly taken for granted. Muir Woods becomes a quick bus ride and a quick hour walk to see some big trees. After five minutes you get the idea and now what's next? Nature, except for a dedicated minority, has become mostly irrelevant and unimportant to most people's lives. I will alter Carl Jung in the following: "Man feels himself isolated in the cosmos. He is no longer involved in nature and has lost his emotional attachment to nature, which hitherto had symbolic meaning for him. Nature no longer 'speaks' to him nor can he feel any meaningful relationship to his evolutionary counterparts." Most humans no longer feel a part of nature but Masters of nature. Whatever abuse and misuse of Nature is convenient for human needs at the time is inevitably justified by those who genuinely feel human needs always come first.
Some people go to church, some dedicate their lives to the accumulation of more and more "Things" or "Power" or "Titles", and many combine all of this, never seeing any conflict between them. One COULD NOT BE a Christian today without ignoring the behavior and mentality of those who claim they are Christians. If Christ returned today, He would have the same task as His first time amongst us---to go after the corruptness, in deed and dogma, of those claiming the power in often ostentatious glittering cathedrals. Christianity has been so bastardized as to be but a faint recollection of it's original entity. More and more people realize that whatever organized religious sects may or may not be, they offer little to those trying to find real meaning to their lives. I never feel more out of touch with reality than when in a church service. Everything is so artificial, so scripted, so disingenuous, so robotic, so mindless, so useless. Granted it makes a lot of people feel better, but I no longer care since they then proceed to do whatever they feel like doing with the rest of their lives---OTHERS and NATURE be damned. After all they have gone through all the inherited religious rituals and, in their mind, are entitled then for a place in Heaven. Maybe, maybe not. I bet not.
When Nature, God's gift to all living species, becomes the center of your search for meaning and the object of your reverence, only then do you genuinely identify in an emotional way with OTHERS and all aspects of NATURE, including all other species. Before this evolved sense of monotheism took hold, evolving in most parts of the planet at the same time with prophets creating separate monotheistic religious sects, all animals and objects of nature were treated with reverence. Wanton killing or mistreatment of animals was unheard of, considered blasphemy of some sort. Killing animals for sport was nonexistent, jamming them into stalls and force feeding them was unheard of (there were fields and shepherds, or hunting for food), and to the best of their understanding at the time, all objects in nature were protected in a sanctimonious fashion, less God or the Gods be displeased. Today the vast majority of humans no longer show any real concern for any aspect of nature except what unlimited use can be made of the treasures still remaining.
Of course there still are a small percentage of humans who are as dedicated as ever to viewing nature as sacred and accept human responsibility to protect nature as any gift from the Creator of the Universe should be protected. To appreciate Nature is to accept our own selves as merely part of a community of species, dependent on each other for the laws of nature to function properly. To appreciate Nature is to understand the planet's resources are not unlimited. To appreciate Nature is to unequivocally accept responsible human reproduction as absolutely essential for the entire community of species on the planet to maintain an equilibrium amongst the diverse parts and species which make up Nature. To appreciate Nature is to understand that humans cannot wantonly destroy nature by overrunning the earth like locusts, devouring everything in sight. To continue to do this is to implode a civilized lifestyle generated by human ingenuity. To appreciate Nature is to understand Nature bats last. ALWAYS. Life on this planet has gone through 6 mass extinctions of species. Today is the 7th and by far the BIGGEST EVER. On the average, in past ages, 3 or 4 species would become extinct in a decade. Now there are 80/day, some 30,000/YR---and almost all of it due to human activities. To commune with nature and feel oneself a part of the evolutionary community is to see the forest for the sake of the trees, to see priorities of life in a different perspective, to gain a genuine appreciation of diversity, to develop an empathy with the less fortunate and those species with simpler capabilities. To appreciate diversity is to acquire the kind of empathy with other species that we already have developed with our pets. This developed empathy, both with other humans, other species, and the inanimate resources of nature generates the bleak, but accurate understanding that humans cannot keep overpopulating this planet without destroying our own welfare, the welfare of other species, and the natural resources on our planet. To appreciate Nature is to fear it may already be too late. The rapidly approaching climate changes indicated by the current weather extremes, the species depletion, the shrinking supply of natural resources, the global rise of terrorism by those caught in the vicious consequences of human overpopulation, the genocidal wars as differing groups vie for access to increasingly scarce land, water, food, homes----all of these bode impending global chaos. It is only out in nature one can even begin to understand the real tragedy taking place, to sense the brilliance of Nature's complexity and diversity. At first one feels like one is witnessing Nature's last stand, but logic dictates Nature will win this battle against any species which abuses Nature, just like Nature has won all such past battles; that IT IS HUMAN LIFE, as us affluent now know it, which is teetering on the edge of disaster. The least protected humans, the least fortunate of humans on our planet are already beginning to pay a horrible price for human arrogance, greed, and self serving lust for power and amassment of more and more wealth in the hands of a smaller and smaller percentage of human population. We are no longer much concerned with being our brother's keeper or the Golden Rule let alone any protector of other species or natural resources on our planet. We instead live in an age of information overload, of harried living, of short term goals, of self serving family circled wagons hoarding whatever THINGS and advantages that can be muscled through by special interest or power holding groups, all fueled by inane patriotism/sectarian religious fervor.
But putting aside all the negative futuristic impact of current social/political/religious mores, spending time in nature, for me, invariably improves my mood, my energy, and definitely my level of contentedness in general. Some people feel better after some form of meditation, or some with running, or some with a workout etc. I always am in a better mood and a more relaxed mood after my nature walks and even my meanderings around the city lake front for a day. For me, and this sounds silly maybe, but feeling part of nature, which is to feel part of the evolutionary process, is the most meaningful part of living. Maybe it is a process of going back to one's roots in some vague indescribable way. After all, life is a continuum and has been since the first one celled organisms. Life itself is, so far, everlasting. Eggs and sperms are alive and every living thing which is formed comes from already living cells. The DNA which makes up our genes has been around since the earliest times, billions of years ago. The essence of who any of us really are has little to do with the known function of cells which generate our essence. "I", in any meaningful sense of the word "I", did not exist until quite some time after birth. And the essence of any "I" changes throughout life. "I" am not the same person as when "I" was younger. And CERTAINLY some person in a vegetative state or with dementia is not the same "I" they were prior to these conditions.
The Golden Rule has an attached obligatory corollary in order for it to be ethical in an evolutionary sense. That is, something is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the entire biotic community. Something is wrong when it fails to do this. To appreciate nature one has to sense the intimate connection between people, animals, plants, landscapes, and inanimate objects in nature. People, to be content at work, need to feel they are a part of the entire work community. Feeling isolated in a work environment is to be an unhappy employee. Feeling isolated in earth's evolutionary process is to be an unhappy camper in the quest for the meaning of life. Nature, if nothing else, is teeming with life and offers opportunities for enjoyment and its innate beauty moves human souls. Nature is the fundamental reference point for who we are and where we fit into the evolutionary process. The real enchantment of nature is the opportunity for communion with nature to connect ourselves to our place in the world and to see such a place's connection to a larger meaningful cosmos with a long and rich history. We are all Earth's children and Nature is our common Mother. A developed sense of oneness with nature is not attained via the usual rational way of understanding, it is more like when a pet may not understand what you are saying, but they sense the essence of your drift. And so too can we understand, not the language of nature, but the essence of the evolutionary process. The whole of earth is like a Superorganism, a gigantic whole entity, and all the comprising parts, both living and non living, are of little significance IN THEMSELVES. It would be like arguing which of our different kind of white blood cells are the best or most important. By themselves individual types of white blood cells are nothing, and are only something when they function in harmony with other diverse body cells. And thus we too, as individual humans, are really nothing APART FROM OUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS. Yet we spend much of our life trying to pretend otherwise. We even invent concepts of a God which enable us to suffer the illusion of our own importance, our own special connection to the Universe's Creator.
When out in nature one understands he/she is not here alone nor for ourselves alone. We are but an integral part, albeit a miniscule one, of the evolutionary process. It is the ultimate team concept, no 'preferred' creations, no Creator delving out special perks for special tribes based on inherited dogmas. We may seek dominion, both personally for ourselves and collectively---over other species and natural resources, but this is a foolish delusion. In the end, death levels all. No one can gain genuine contentment chasing illusions. You gain contentment through reason, through acceptance of Nature's nature, through reasoned out ethics (the Golden Rule), and a commitment that right makes might, and in that faith, to do our duty as best we understand our duty." It is in this context, when people interact, each with their own unique essence, that genuine cooperation, respect, and contentment can be achieved despite all the irrational conflicts swirling all around.
All living things come from the same DNA building blocks much like the old erector sets created differing structures from the same building blocks. Our living energy is never totally separate from the energy present inside all evolutionary living beings. WE ARE ALL 'FAMILY' and are best contented when we feel part of this larger family, just as we can feel part of a biological family---only achieving such a connection with the larger evolutionary family can provide a much greater sensual connection, simply because it brings us closer to the reality of the evolutionary process, of which we are a part. In earlier times every tree, every spring, every stream, every hill had it's own reverence, it own special sanctity. When humans became more arrogant about their own sense of importance, in the total scheme of things, we began more and more to reject such 'demonic heresy', and our invented religious sects made it possible to exploit nature with a mode of indifference to interdependency of the evolutionary parts. Man now became, in the eyes of most men, dominant and special favorites of the Creator---at least special for those in the right inherited religious sect. Now man's singular goal was to develop a special relationship with a deity or a son of a deity, or a human designated intermediary to a deity and in so doing gain entrance to a heaven after death. This naturally made it easier to abuse the earth, to discount the importance of other species, because the focus became personal salvation, not here on earth, but at another time and place. Beliefs, by definition are not provable by logic or facts or they wouldn't be beliefs. BUT, beliefs can be wrong and differing beliefs have different levels of supporting evidence. To me, any objective analysis of what is known about the evolutionary process does not support the religious beliefs referred to above. It may be comforting and self serving to simply use religion to believe you are going to a heaven, yet this kind of mindless belief brings with it a lot of painful mental suffering when all the injustices in life pile up on the good, as well as the bad, characters in life----while the strongest religious beliefs in the world provide no relief from the spinning wheel of evolutionary fate, as determined by the laws of evolution. There is no evidence of apparent Divine interference with His own created laws of evolution. Terrell Owens may genuinely believe God personally gave him certain blessings and talents, but that hardly makes it so.
We now live in what seems to be the apex of growth, power, and profit for humans. Nowhere in God's created evolutionary process is there any evidence that any species can survive such self serving tendencies. In past earlier times these tendencies were not thought out ideologies---with humans it is. But this is a minor point. Nature doesn't consider the logic behind the behavior, only the behavior. The laws of evolution deal with restoring homeostatic balance between the differing species and natural inanimate objects. No collective human mental self serving attitudes can override God's created evolutionary laws. When considering the whole forest instead of individual trees, such attitudes are preposterous. We just are no where's near as smart as we, or our leaders, may think we are. The Pope can pray for peace on earth every single Christmas Eve but will have as much impact on the reality of Peace as if he prayed for war every single Christmas Eve. We need to quit all this bullshit.
When one becomes attuned to Nature one realizes land and creatures are more important than for humans to amass huge amounts of wealth, power, and proclaim the right to practice irresponsible reproduction. Being attuned to nature as a means for contentment is not a way of life per se. No one would mistake my involvement in nature with Daniel Boone or rugged mountaineers or those who make a living off the land. There is a ruggedness there of which I am not particularly capable. Nature is more something I go to in order to understand my place in the whole evolutionary process, to gain some sort of meaning to life, to develop respect for diversity amongst differing species and amongst differing human beings. Only in nature have I ever come close to seeing the big picture, to seeing the forest for the sake of the trees, to capture a bit of the history of life--- which gives me depth of connection to this whole process of life which has been going on so long. The DNA molecules within me have been around a very long time. I, of course have not, and will not be much longer. Do these ancient molecules have any meaningful way to contribute to my essence as a person? Maybe they do and maybe they don't, but when in nature I just feel supersensitive in my thoughts and feelings. That I invariably come away from nature with a better mood and more contentment comes from something which nature adds to my essence. Of course I am not brilliant enough to explain exactly how this transformation occurs, I can only summarize the results. We all know that listening to certain songs from the past, certain movie scenes, certain situations in life can actually recreate emotions of a past time. You can then, in a more limited way, re-experience an excitement, a missed love, a relished accomplishment, all in absentia. There are molecules within your body with the capability of initiating such emotional connections to a past. Perhaps, in some sort of faint similar way nature is able to activate connections from a distant past, a past in which the DNA molecules from more ancient times activate within us a connection to that distant past----not with vivid scenes but in a sublime emotional way. There are people who sometimes seriously claim, in certain situations, that they have been in a certain place before. Perhaps some of their DNA was. It is always necessary to remember that life is a continuum, all individuals of every species originated from already existing living cells. It is humans who tend to insist life begins at conception and ends at some technical definition of death. In reality the "I" (your real essence) begins sometime after birth and changes throughout life. There is no beginning or ending of life, just the beginning and ending of the 'essence' of a particular advanced form of life. I suppose maybe the original amoeba, absent any mutations over time, could still exist after a trillion trillion cell divisions. What is more certain is that the essence of "I" and the essence of "YOU" will not exist more than a miniscule measurable period of time. I no longer find that threatening. None of us are built for the long run, nor need any longer time to play our role in the evolutionary process. We are what we are, we do what we do, TIME STAYS, WE GO. Could there be an afterlife? This sort of answer is far beyond human reasoning power. Blind faith can generate a strong belief in an afterlife, and if this helps anyone's emotional state, so be it. Of course strong belief in anything does not make it so. Or not so.
The Redwood Forests are special to me because some of them have been alive since the time of Christ. To be around anything alive that long is sobering and impressive. There is no human ever who can remotely stay alive so long. Redwood longevity, their size, their solitary peacefulness speaks volumes. Humans have a tendency to think our own creations, admirable as they might be and are, can justify whole scale destruction of other species and natural resources. Humans have a tendency to think human devised religious dogmas are superior to ethics derived from humans' greatest gift from God's created process of evolution----the ability to reason. There is nothing wrong with the Golden Rule, a reasoned out universal ethics innate to all humans not suffering from mental disease or mental limitations. Perhaps the trouble is that the Golden Rule is too hard to practice, and so we invent religious dogmas which enable millions to do as they please to a greater or lesser degree and still get rewarded with an afterlife in some sort of wonderful heaven. Nature doesn't communicate much at all about the future to us, and we are left with the past and the present. This is a blessing. How could we ever be contented if the future was known? Now is the only time you own, the cards in your own hand the only ones to be played, the ethics of others your only social protection, and the challenge is to develop the serenity to "accept the things we cannot change; the courage to change those things we can change; and the wisdom to know the difference" as we keep the faith that "right makes might, and in that faith, we to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." It is Mother Nature, at least in my case, from which that understanding cometh, generating contentment in the process.
I am often queried as to why I spend so many hours of so many days out meandering around in nature-like settings. To adequately explain this is Herculean, even for one who writes as much as I. My most treasured nature setting is a Redwood forest. Closer to home it is the Arboretum, the forest preserves, and Cantigny. They become my home away from home. Or maybe my Condo is my home away from nature. Either way nature is important to my mental state, to my level of contentment, to my sense of meaning about life in general.
Until the rise of monotheism nature was the primary religious experience. Nature is God's creation and God's gift to all forms of life. We know God exists because of this gift. If we receive a gift from an anonymous source we may not know personally the gift giver, but we know the gift giver exists. And so we know God exists. In earlier times this 'gift' (nature) from God was the target of our religious fervor, our rituals, our sense of sanctity. Nature was the wonderment of life. Over time humans, one group after the next, began to invent the essence of God Himself. We (most) decided man was made after the image of God; we decided humans were created specially outside the process of evolution; we decided God thought like us; we decided God, if we behaved a certain way---or at least belonged to the right inherited religion---that God would personally aid us in our lives IF we prayed to him and performed the right religious rituals; we decided God would reward certain inherited religious dogma with life after death; we decided that whenever we waged war on others God was on our side, with every nation creating it's own 'manifest destiny'; we decided that man had dominion over all other forms of life, etc. All of these created perceptions were convenient to egocentric needs, and none of these perceptions were based on HUMAN REASON---the ability of humans to reason another gift from God's created evolutionary process.
With all these human inventions about God, Nature became less and less the focal point of religious fervor or sacredness. Nature instead became a gift from our Maker to do with whatever we liked. Nature was for our use, it's resources were unlimited, and all other species important only so far as they had a direct use to humans. There may have been millions of other species, all evolved over millions of years of evolution, but Humans were God's favorite. In truth, all of these 'inventions' about God and nature were nothing more than egocentric creations by humans to justify their own personal greed, power, and pleasures of the moment.
To a large extent humans have succeeded in separating human interests and well being from nature. Nature, to most people has become nothing more than an occasional trip amusement. Shuffling along in human herds, from point to point, at a pace determined by jammed packed schedules, a visit to nature is no different than a visit to the Auto Show or the Icecapades, or a movie. And, as shows, sport events, and movies became more fine tuned to human emotional states, nature became passe, kind of boring, and most certainly taken for granted. Muir Woods becomes a quick bus ride and a quick hour walk to see some big trees. After five minutes you get the idea and now what's next? Nature, except for a dedicated minority, has become mostly irrelevant and unimportant to most people's lives. I will alter Carl Jung in the following: "Man feels himself isolated in the cosmos. He is no longer involved in nature and has lost his emotional attachment to nature, which hitherto had symbolic meaning for him. Nature no longer 'speaks' to him nor can he feel any meaningful relationship to his evolutionary counterparts." Most humans no longer feel a part of nature but Masters of nature. Whatever abuse and misuse of Nature is convenient for human needs at the time is inevitably justified by those who genuinely feel human needs always come first.
Some people go to church, some dedicate their lives to the accumulation of more and more "Things" or "Power" or "Titles", and many combine all of this, never seeing any conflict between them. One COULD NOT BE a Christian today without ignoring the behavior and mentality of those who claim they are Christians. If Christ returned today, He would have the same task as His first time amongst us---to go after the corruptness, in deed and dogma, of those claiming the power in often ostentatious glittering cathedrals. Christianity has been so bastardized as to be but a faint recollection of it's original entity. More and more people realize that whatever organized religious sects may or may not be, they offer little to those trying to find real meaning to their lives. I never feel more out of touch with reality than when in a church service. Everything is so artificial, so scripted, so disingenuous, so robotic, so mindless, so useless. Granted it makes a lot of people feel better, but I no longer care since they then proceed to do whatever they feel like doing with the rest of their lives---OTHERS and NATURE be damned. After all they have gone through all the inherited religious rituals and, in their mind, are entitled then for a place in Heaven. Maybe, maybe not. I bet not.
When Nature, God's gift to all living species, becomes the center of your search for meaning and the object of your reverence, only then do you genuinely identify in an emotional way with OTHERS and all aspects of NATURE, including all other species. Before this evolved sense of monotheism took hold, evolving in most parts of the planet at the same time with prophets creating separate monotheistic religious sects, all animals and objects of nature were treated with reverence. Wanton killing or mistreatment of animals was unheard of, considered blasphemy of some sort. Killing animals for sport was nonexistent, jamming them into stalls and force feeding them was unheard of (there were fields and shepherds, or hunting for food), and to the best of their understanding at the time, all objects in nature were protected in a sanctimonious fashion, less God or the Gods be displeased. Today the vast majority of humans no longer show any real concern for any aspect of nature except what unlimited use can be made of the treasures still remaining.
Of course there still are a small percentage of humans who are as dedicated as ever to viewing nature as sacred and accept human responsibility to protect nature as any gift from the Creator of the Universe should be protected. To appreciate Nature is to accept our own selves as merely part of a community of species, dependent on each other for the laws of nature to function properly. To appreciate Nature is to understand the planet's resources are not unlimited. To appreciate Nature is to unequivocally accept responsible human reproduction as absolutely essential for the entire community of species on the planet to maintain an equilibrium amongst the diverse parts and species which make up Nature. To appreciate Nature is to understand that humans cannot wantonly destroy nature by overrunning the earth like locusts, devouring everything in sight. To continue to do this is to implode a civilized lifestyle generated by human ingenuity. To appreciate Nature is to understand Nature bats last. ALWAYS. Life on this planet has gone through 6 mass extinctions of species. Today is the 7th and by far the BIGGEST EVER. On the average, in past ages, 3 or 4 species would become extinct in a decade. Now there are 80/day, some 30,000/YR---and almost all of it due to human activities. To commune with nature and feel oneself a part of the evolutionary community is to see the forest for the sake of the trees, to see priorities of life in a different perspective, to gain a genuine appreciation of diversity, to develop an empathy with the less fortunate and those species with simpler capabilities. To appreciate diversity is to acquire the kind of empathy with other species that we already have developed with our pets. This developed empathy, both with other humans, other species, and the inanimate resources of nature generates the bleak, but accurate understanding that humans cannot keep overpopulating this planet without destroying our own welfare, the welfare of other species, and the natural resources on our planet. To appreciate Nature is to fear it may already be too late. The rapidly approaching climate changes indicated by the current weather extremes, the species depletion, the shrinking supply of natural resources, the global rise of terrorism by those caught in the vicious consequences of human overpopulation, the genocidal wars as differing groups vie for access to increasingly scarce land, water, food, homes----all of these bode impending global chaos. It is only out in nature one can even begin to understand the real tragedy taking place, to sense the brilliance of Nature's complexity and diversity. At first one feels like one is witnessing Nature's last stand, but logic dictates Nature will win this battle against any species which abuses Nature, just like Nature has won all such past battles; that IT IS HUMAN LIFE, as us affluent now know it, which is teetering on the edge of disaster. The least protected humans, the least fortunate of humans on our planet are already beginning to pay a horrible price for human arrogance, greed, and self serving lust for power and amassment of more and more wealth in the hands of a smaller and smaller percentage of human population. We are no longer much concerned with being our brother's keeper or the Golden Rule let alone any protector of other species or natural resources on our planet. We instead live in an age of information overload, of harried living, of short term goals, of self serving family circled wagons hoarding whatever THINGS and advantages that can be muscled through by special interest or power holding groups, all fueled by inane patriotism/sectarian religious fervor.
But putting aside all the negative futuristic impact of current social/political/religious mores, spending time in nature, for me, invariably improves my mood, my energy, and definitely my level of contentedness in general. Some people feel better after some form of meditation, or some with running, or some with a workout etc. I always am in a better mood and a more relaxed mood after my nature walks and even my meanderings around the city lake front for a day. For me, and this sounds silly maybe, but feeling part of nature, which is to feel part of the evolutionary process, is the most meaningful part of living. Maybe it is a process of going back to one's roots in some vague indescribable way. After all, life is a continuum and has been since the first one celled organisms. Life itself is, so far, everlasting. Eggs and sperms are alive and every living thing which is formed comes from already living cells. The DNA which makes up our genes has been around since the earliest times, billions of years ago. The essence of who any of us really are has little to do with the known function of cells which generate our essence. "I", in any meaningful sense of the word "I", did not exist until quite some time after birth. And the essence of any "I" changes throughout life. "I" am not the same person as when "I" was younger. And CERTAINLY some person in a vegetative state or with dementia is not the same "I" they were prior to these conditions.
The Golden Rule has an attached obligatory corollary in order for it to be ethical in an evolutionary sense. That is, something is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the entire biotic community. Something is wrong when it fails to do this. To appreciate nature one has to sense the intimate connection between people, animals, plants, landscapes, and inanimate objects in nature. People, to be content at work, need to feel they are a part of the entire work community. Feeling isolated in a work environment is to be an unhappy employee. Feeling isolated in earth's evolutionary process is to be an unhappy camper in the quest for the meaning of life. Nature, if nothing else, is teeming with life and offers opportunities for enjoyment and its innate beauty moves human souls. Nature is the fundamental reference point for who we are and where we fit into the evolutionary process. The real enchantment of nature is the opportunity for communion with nature to connect ourselves to our place in the world and to see such a place's connection to a larger meaningful cosmos with a long and rich history. We are all Earth's children and Nature is our common Mother. A developed sense of oneness with nature is not attained via the usual rational way of understanding, it is more like when a pet may not understand what you are saying, but they sense the essence of your drift. And so too can we understand, not the language of nature, but the essence of the evolutionary process. The whole of earth is like a Superorganism, a gigantic whole entity, and all the comprising parts, both living and non living, are of little significance IN THEMSELVES. It would be like arguing which of our different kind of white blood cells are the best or most important. By themselves individual types of white blood cells are nothing, and are only something when they function in harmony with other diverse body cells. And thus we too, as individual humans, are really nothing APART FROM OUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS. Yet we spend much of our life trying to pretend otherwise. We even invent concepts of a God which enable us to suffer the illusion of our own importance, our own special connection to the Universe's Creator.
When out in nature one understands he/she is not here alone nor for ourselves alone. We are but an integral part, albeit a miniscule one, of the evolutionary process. It is the ultimate team concept, no 'preferred' creations, no Creator delving out special perks for special tribes based on inherited dogmas. We may seek dominion, both personally for ourselves and collectively---over other species and natural resources, but this is a foolish delusion. In the end, death levels all. No one can gain genuine contentment chasing illusions. You gain contentment through reason, through acceptance of Nature's nature, through reasoned out ethics (the Golden Rule), and a commitment that right makes might, and in that faith, to do our duty as best we understand our duty." It is in this context, when people interact, each with their own unique essence, that genuine cooperation, respect, and contentment can be achieved despite all the irrational conflicts swirling all around.
All living things come from the same DNA building blocks much like the old erector sets created differing structures from the same building blocks. Our living energy is never totally separate from the energy present inside all evolutionary living beings. WE ARE ALL 'FAMILY' and are best contented when we feel part of this larger family, just as we can feel part of a biological family---only achieving such a connection with the larger evolutionary family can provide a much greater sensual connection, simply because it brings us closer to the reality of the evolutionary process, of which we are a part. In earlier times every tree, every spring, every stream, every hill had it's own reverence, it own special sanctity. When humans became more arrogant about their own sense of importance, in the total scheme of things, we began more and more to reject such 'demonic heresy', and our invented religious sects made it possible to exploit nature with a mode of indifference to interdependency of the evolutionary parts. Man now became, in the eyes of most men, dominant and special favorites of the Creator---at least special for those in the right inherited religious sect. Now man's singular goal was to develop a special relationship with a deity or a son of a deity, or a human designated intermediary to a deity and in so doing gain entrance to a heaven after death. This naturally made it easier to abuse the earth, to discount the importance of other species, because the focus became personal salvation, not here on earth, but at another time and place. Beliefs, by definition are not provable by logic or facts or they wouldn't be beliefs. BUT, beliefs can be wrong and differing beliefs have different levels of supporting evidence. To me, any objective analysis of what is known about the evolutionary process does not support the religious beliefs referred to above. It may be comforting and self serving to simply use religion to believe you are going to a heaven, yet this kind of mindless belief brings with it a lot of painful mental suffering when all the injustices in life pile up on the good, as well as the bad, characters in life----while the strongest religious beliefs in the world provide no relief from the spinning wheel of evolutionary fate, as determined by the laws of evolution. There is no evidence of apparent Divine interference with His own created laws of evolution. Terrell Owens may genuinely believe God personally gave him certain blessings and talents, but that hardly makes it so.
We now live in what seems to be the apex of growth, power, and profit for humans. Nowhere in God's created evolutionary process is there any evidence that any species can survive such self serving tendencies. In past earlier times these tendencies were not thought out ideologies---with humans it is. But this is a minor point. Nature doesn't consider the logic behind the behavior, only the behavior. The laws of evolution deal with restoring homeostatic balance between the differing species and natural inanimate objects. No collective human mental self serving attitudes can override God's created evolutionary laws. When considering the whole forest instead of individual trees, such attitudes are preposterous. We just are no where's near as smart as we, or our leaders, may think we are. The Pope can pray for peace on earth every single Christmas Eve but will have as much impact on the reality of Peace as if he prayed for war every single Christmas Eve. We need to quit all this bullshit.
When one becomes attuned to Nature one realizes land and creatures are more important than for humans to amass huge amounts of wealth, power, and proclaim the right to practice irresponsible reproduction. Being attuned to nature as a means for contentment is not a way of life per se. No one would mistake my involvement in nature with Daniel Boone or rugged mountaineers or those who make a living off the land. There is a ruggedness there of which I am not particularly capable. Nature is more something I go to in order to understand my place in the whole evolutionary process, to gain some sort of meaning to life, to develop respect for diversity amongst differing species and amongst differing human beings. Only in nature have I ever come close to seeing the big picture, to seeing the forest for the sake of the trees, to capture a bit of the history of life--- which gives me depth of connection to this whole process of life which has been going on so long. The DNA molecules within me have been around a very long time. I, of course have not, and will not be much longer. Do these ancient molecules have any meaningful way to contribute to my essence as a person? Maybe they do and maybe they don't, but when in nature I just feel supersensitive in my thoughts and feelings. That I invariably come away from nature with a better mood and more contentment comes from something which nature adds to my essence. Of course I am not brilliant enough to explain exactly how this transformation occurs, I can only summarize the results. We all know that listening to certain songs from the past, certain movie scenes, certain situations in life can actually recreate emotions of a past time. You can then, in a more limited way, re-experience an excitement, a missed love, a relished accomplishment, all in absentia. There are molecules within your body with the capability of initiating such emotional connections to a past. Perhaps, in some sort of faint similar way nature is able to activate connections from a distant past, a past in which the DNA molecules from more ancient times activate within us a connection to that distant past----not with vivid scenes but in a sublime emotional way. There are people who sometimes seriously claim, in certain situations, that they have been in a certain place before. Perhaps some of their DNA was. It is always necessary to remember that life is a continuum, all individuals of every species originated from already existing living cells. It is humans who tend to insist life begins at conception and ends at some technical definition of death. In reality the "I" (your real essence) begins sometime after birth and changes throughout life. There is no beginning or ending of life, just the beginning and ending of the 'essence' of a particular advanced form of life. I suppose maybe the original amoeba, absent any mutations over time, could still exist after a trillion trillion cell divisions. What is more certain is that the essence of "I" and the essence of "YOU" will not exist more than a miniscule measurable period of time. I no longer find that threatening. None of us are built for the long run, nor need any longer time to play our role in the evolutionary process. We are what we are, we do what we do, TIME STAYS, WE GO. Could there be an afterlife? This sort of answer is far beyond human reasoning power. Blind faith can generate a strong belief in an afterlife, and if this helps anyone's emotional state, so be it. Of course strong belief in anything does not make it so. Or not so.
The Redwood Forests are special to me because some of them have been alive since the time of Christ. To be around anything alive that long is sobering and impressive. There is no human ever who can remotely stay alive so long. Redwood longevity, their size, their solitary peacefulness speaks volumes. Humans have a tendency to think our own creations, admirable as they might be and are, can justify whole scale destruction of other species and natural resources. Humans have a tendency to think human devised religious dogmas are superior to ethics derived from humans' greatest gift from God's created process of evolution----the ability to reason. There is nothing wrong with the Golden Rule, a reasoned out universal ethics innate to all humans not suffering from mental disease or mental limitations. Perhaps the trouble is that the Golden Rule is too hard to practice, and so we invent religious dogmas which enable millions to do as they please to a greater or lesser degree and still get rewarded with an afterlife in some sort of wonderful heaven. Nature doesn't communicate much at all about the future to us, and we are left with the past and the present. This is a blessing. How could we ever be contented if the future was known? Now is the only time you own, the cards in your own hand the only ones to be played, the ethics of others your only social protection, and the challenge is to develop the serenity to "accept the things we cannot change; the courage to change those things we can change; and the wisdom to know the difference" as we keep the faith that "right makes might, and in that faith, we to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." It is Mother Nature, at least in my case, from which that understanding cometh, generating contentment in the process.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Singlehood
Singlehood
It is a mistake to think many generalizations can be made about singlehood vs marriage. Each case is unique and often not the personal choice we think. Each person starts with a certain level of physical attractiveness and a unique personality. In a free society you don't really choose your mate. It starts with your level of attractiveness. Every high school student knows who the choice physical specimens are in the class. If you are not one of them then a certain pool of candidates to be your mate is off limits. That is just the way it is. The further down the totem pole you are on physical attractiveness the least desirable are your choices. Then comes personality attributes. This is more difficult than physical attractiveness because it takes a relationship to judge that, not just observation from a distance as in physical attractiveness. Then add to that the age at which all this takes place and you have the well known adolescent awkwardness at any relationship at all. For most people, not exactly magnets of attraction for either their attractiveness or personality, this whole process is a mixture of agony and fun. Then add sex and now the ultimate complexity to the whole affair has been added.
When we are surprised half of marriages don't last we are being naive. It is more amazing that half the marriages last and frankly, probably half of those that last are more marriages of conveniences than any strong bond of love---no matter how you define love. You know what you have, dread the prospect of starting the mating game over again, fear what is left, worry about your relationship with your kids in a separation, are unsure you have enough romanticism left to succeed getting a new mate, and the financial consequences are scary. SO, the marriage stays intact, in some fashion, of some sort, with varying degrees of independence within the marriage and limited levels of romance or maybe no romance at all.
I suspect that ideally most everyone wants to be married, if for no other reason than to avoid being lonely and fit more easily into the social structure of society. Today social pressure is less, in part due to less real social interaction, gays are less pressured to conform to social pressures, more people balk at the financial costs of supporting a family, and electronic gadgets become more and more a 'mate' by default---the ones we spend the most time with, the ones which most easily adjust to our mood of the moment, the ones that never judge us, and the ones which leave us free to be ourselves. In fact a high percentage of couples today met on the internet. This probably is more effective than the old days of bar hopping or church socials. Let's face it, the old days of 'Youth Fellowship' was more the old fashioned 'dating game' than any religious experience.
Today, there are as many single person households in the U.S. as there are married couples with children. I like to tease my married friends that after the next election instead of a marriage deduction there is going to be a marriage tax. A little haha. Single people and married people really don't mix all that well with a few exceptions. It is just the nature of the two beasts. Most all the social ceremonies and celebrations of various sorts are about married life. A single person could go through their whole life and never have any social celebration that is directed at them. There are engagement parties, marriage celebrations, baby showers, anniversaries, graduations, surprise birthday parties, etc. For just one marriage these celebrations are endless. And all are a good thing, keep some zest in the marriage. But for a single person to support all this requires an absolute endless life of gift buying, celebration attendances, endless travel expenses, and card sending. I have known many a single person to spend their entire social life in support of these married life celebrations. After decades of this maybe these good hearted single persons need some sort of celebration to celebrate their support of all these celebrations.
Thus, by default, a single person has to kind of decide just how much time and money and energy they are going to spend in social celebrations of the lives of others. Some single people thrive on it, others try to keep it reasonable, others like myself sort of just opt to stay away from it. I guess I kind of feel each person needs a life of their own, which includes supporting others, and it just boils down to who these others to support are going to be. If you are married you know where this support begins---with your own family. If you are single it starts with your own personality, your own interests, and your own occupational situation. The support for others, at least in my case, becomes directed at those others who are an integral part of my life. These others become, in effect, the family of a single person. For example, a single teacher who comes in contact daily with the same young people over a period of time, is far closer to them than distant nephews and nieces and cousins etc. There is an old saying that "God's gives us our relatives, thank God we can choose our friends." Since I was young it seems many family units have become incestually stunted. Adolescence used to be a period when the young sort of rebelled against parental domination and once graduated from high school, unless going to college and living at home during vacation periods, it was considered embarrassing to still be living at home with parents. Today, for various reasons, plenty of young people continue to live with their parents seemingly ad infinitum. Worse, parents and child become 'best friends', some sort of incestuous social enclave. The apron strings are never broken. Marriage becomes less likely and God help the mate who finds himself/herself an appendage to this primary bonding to a parent. I don't know if it is bad but it certainly sets such a family apart from interacting with others outside family. Some sort of family values taken to the extreme. It certainly changes the nature of society.
But this treatise is about being single, a subject of which I should be an expert but am not. To be married or to be single does not bestow any expertise on any marriage or any singlehood except that of your own. Therein lies the problem. If one understands their own marriage or singlehood, for example, it becomes easy to judge other marriages or other singlehoods on the basis of your own. We then become intolerant of marriages or singlehoods which differ from our own. If marriage, religion, sex, and dying are not personal, nothing is personal. Unless someone's behavior in any of these areas directly impacts on the welfare of others, I don't reckon anyone, or any group, should deem it their prerogative to control the behavior of others in any of these areas. It takes a certain selfish arrogance to judge others in areas of life so personal. My judgement in these areas is simple: whatever works for others is ok with me. There are more and more people single today in this country than ever before. It does seem odd, with the internet making it easier and easier for people with similar likes and dislikes to meet, that the number of those living together as a couple is going down. Just seems odd. Maybe the ease in which you can find others to relate to on the internet defeats monogamous relationships, and increases the likelihood of divorce. Chat rooms may be more mischievous than thought. Sex, pornography, and nudity were secretive and difficult to gain ready access when I was young. Good Heavens, today you could find the most absurd sexual practices all over the internet,---it is a gigantic business, and can be up in your face just a mouse click away. For the average person, not built like the performers on the internet or no longer young, going from the internet into the bed room becomes an image shock, not to mention the type of sexual activity involved. In the end, whether in the age of my youth or the age of now, sex ends up a big perplexing adieu about nothing EXCEPT---for those too addicted or turned on, it is NO LITTLE THING. It destroys many a marital relationship and many people most critical of the disloyalty involved are often less guilty only by virtue of less temptation. Only those with the same opportunities as Tiger Woods can really be judge and jury, just as bravery on any battlefield can be judged only by those who have ever been on a battlefield. When two people have a relationship, logic dictates that only those two answer to that relationship. The rest of us ought not be be involved.
I started this musing with the idea I would have a lot to say about being single. But now I realize I really don't. My own singlehood has little, if any, bearing on other singlehoods both in reason for it, or any aspects of it. What is, is; what works, works; what anyone's marriage or non marriage status means in the total scheme of life on this planet is certainly an immeasurably small anything---not even a blip on the evolutionary scheme. In terms of feeling important life is really deflating. What we do have, and that is about the extent of it, is the chance to achieve a degree of contentment, a degree of relative success given the cards dealt, and a hope that maybe there is some sort of existence after death. Without this hope, for all that we do, or envision in our future, we would be deprived of the pleasures available to us. It often seems that life is a process of learning more and more until you understand more and more about less and less.
"A million million spermatozoa
And among that billion minus one.
Might have chanced to be,
Shakespeare, another Newton, a new Donne,
But the one was Me." Aldous Huxley
It is a mistake to think many generalizations can be made about singlehood vs marriage. Each case is unique and often not the personal choice we think. Each person starts with a certain level of physical attractiveness and a unique personality. In a free society you don't really choose your mate. It starts with your level of attractiveness. Every high school student knows who the choice physical specimens are in the class. If you are not one of them then a certain pool of candidates to be your mate is off limits. That is just the way it is. The further down the totem pole you are on physical attractiveness the least desirable are your choices. Then comes personality attributes. This is more difficult than physical attractiveness because it takes a relationship to judge that, not just observation from a distance as in physical attractiveness. Then add to that the age at which all this takes place and you have the well known adolescent awkwardness at any relationship at all. For most people, not exactly magnets of attraction for either their attractiveness or personality, this whole process is a mixture of agony and fun. Then add sex and now the ultimate complexity to the whole affair has been added.
When we are surprised half of marriages don't last we are being naive. It is more amazing that half the marriages last and frankly, probably half of those that last are more marriages of conveniences than any strong bond of love---no matter how you define love. You know what you have, dread the prospect of starting the mating game over again, fear what is left, worry about your relationship with your kids in a separation, are unsure you have enough romanticism left to succeed getting a new mate, and the financial consequences are scary. SO, the marriage stays intact, in some fashion, of some sort, with varying degrees of independence within the marriage and limited levels of romance or maybe no romance at all.
I suspect that ideally most everyone wants to be married, if for no other reason than to avoid being lonely and fit more easily into the social structure of society. Today social pressure is less, in part due to less real social interaction, gays are less pressured to conform to social pressures, more people balk at the financial costs of supporting a family, and electronic gadgets become more and more a 'mate' by default---the ones we spend the most time with, the ones which most easily adjust to our mood of the moment, the ones that never judge us, and the ones which leave us free to be ourselves. In fact a high percentage of couples today met on the internet. This probably is more effective than the old days of bar hopping or church socials. Let's face it, the old days of 'Youth Fellowship' was more the old fashioned 'dating game' than any religious experience.
Today, there are as many single person households in the U.S. as there are married couples with children. I like to tease my married friends that after the next election instead of a marriage deduction there is going to be a marriage tax. A little haha. Single people and married people really don't mix all that well with a few exceptions. It is just the nature of the two beasts. Most all the social ceremonies and celebrations of various sorts are about married life. A single person could go through their whole life and never have any social celebration that is directed at them. There are engagement parties, marriage celebrations, baby showers, anniversaries, graduations, surprise birthday parties, etc. For just one marriage these celebrations are endless. And all are a good thing, keep some zest in the marriage. But for a single person to support all this requires an absolute endless life of gift buying, celebration attendances, endless travel expenses, and card sending. I have known many a single person to spend their entire social life in support of these married life celebrations. After decades of this maybe these good hearted single persons need some sort of celebration to celebrate their support of all these celebrations.
Thus, by default, a single person has to kind of decide just how much time and money and energy they are going to spend in social celebrations of the lives of others. Some single people thrive on it, others try to keep it reasonable, others like myself sort of just opt to stay away from it. I guess I kind of feel each person needs a life of their own, which includes supporting others, and it just boils down to who these others to support are going to be. If you are married you know where this support begins---with your own family. If you are single it starts with your own personality, your own interests, and your own occupational situation. The support for others, at least in my case, becomes directed at those others who are an integral part of my life. These others become, in effect, the family of a single person. For example, a single teacher who comes in contact daily with the same young people over a period of time, is far closer to them than distant nephews and nieces and cousins etc. There is an old saying that "God's gives us our relatives, thank God we can choose our friends." Since I was young it seems many family units have become incestually stunted. Adolescence used to be a period when the young sort of rebelled against parental domination and once graduated from high school, unless going to college and living at home during vacation periods, it was considered embarrassing to still be living at home with parents. Today, for various reasons, plenty of young people continue to live with their parents seemingly ad infinitum. Worse, parents and child become 'best friends', some sort of incestuous social enclave. The apron strings are never broken. Marriage becomes less likely and God help the mate who finds himself/herself an appendage to this primary bonding to a parent. I don't know if it is bad but it certainly sets such a family apart from interacting with others outside family. Some sort of family values taken to the extreme. It certainly changes the nature of society.
But this treatise is about being single, a subject of which I should be an expert but am not. To be married or to be single does not bestow any expertise on any marriage or any singlehood except that of your own. Therein lies the problem. If one understands their own marriage or singlehood, for example, it becomes easy to judge other marriages or other singlehoods on the basis of your own. We then become intolerant of marriages or singlehoods which differ from our own. If marriage, religion, sex, and dying are not personal, nothing is personal. Unless someone's behavior in any of these areas directly impacts on the welfare of others, I don't reckon anyone, or any group, should deem it their prerogative to control the behavior of others in any of these areas. It takes a certain selfish arrogance to judge others in areas of life so personal. My judgement in these areas is simple: whatever works for others is ok with me. There are more and more people single today in this country than ever before. It does seem odd, with the internet making it easier and easier for people with similar likes and dislikes to meet, that the number of those living together as a couple is going down. Just seems odd. Maybe the ease in which you can find others to relate to on the internet defeats monogamous relationships, and increases the likelihood of divorce. Chat rooms may be more mischievous than thought. Sex, pornography, and nudity were secretive and difficult to gain ready access when I was young. Good Heavens, today you could find the most absurd sexual practices all over the internet,---it is a gigantic business, and can be up in your face just a mouse click away. For the average person, not built like the performers on the internet or no longer young, going from the internet into the bed room becomes an image shock, not to mention the type of sexual activity involved. In the end, whether in the age of my youth or the age of now, sex ends up a big perplexing adieu about nothing EXCEPT---for those too addicted or turned on, it is NO LITTLE THING. It destroys many a marital relationship and many people most critical of the disloyalty involved are often less guilty only by virtue of less temptation. Only those with the same opportunities as Tiger Woods can really be judge and jury, just as bravery on any battlefield can be judged only by those who have ever been on a battlefield. When two people have a relationship, logic dictates that only those two answer to that relationship. The rest of us ought not be be involved.
I started this musing with the idea I would have a lot to say about being single. But now I realize I really don't. My own singlehood has little, if any, bearing on other singlehoods both in reason for it, or any aspects of it. What is, is; what works, works; what anyone's marriage or non marriage status means in the total scheme of life on this planet is certainly an immeasurably small anything---not even a blip on the evolutionary scheme. In terms of feeling important life is really deflating. What we do have, and that is about the extent of it, is the chance to achieve a degree of contentment, a degree of relative success given the cards dealt, and a hope that maybe there is some sort of existence after death. Without this hope, for all that we do, or envision in our future, we would be deprived of the pleasures available to us. It often seems that life is a process of learning more and more until you understand more and more about less and less.
"A million million spermatozoa
And among that billion minus one.
Might have chanced to be,
Shakespeare, another Newton, a new Donne,
But the one was Me." Aldous Huxley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)