Word Games:
Meaning and understanding---that is really what human life boils down to. We really want to comprehend the meaning of all we see and do throughout our life. Of course all this objective search for meaning and understanding involves our emotions, and emotions are at best loosely connected to, and often contradictory to, understanding. Finally, understanding involves language and language often fails us. We use words like love, terrorist, holocaust, genocide, God, 'life begins', friendship/marriage, justice and freedom but these words mean different things at different times, in different situations, and to different people. Justice, as commonly meant, simply doesn't exist throughout the entire span of species. If we want to seek understanding then history, philosophy and science are the only clues. Religious faith, by definition, is not understanding. History can reveal patterns, philosophy can address rhetorical questions, and science can explain cause and effect. Science reveals that life on this planet has been around for billions of years, not that these kind of numbers can be realistically comprehended. Science keeps increasing our knowledge of the evolutionary process but tells us nothing about the nature of the Creator of this process. While logic dictates God must exist, there is nothing inherent in human nature to remotely enable us to understand anything about God. So every society from the beginning of time invents God---creates an image of God---and the image of God is often amazingly ludicrous. No matter the society, God is always pictured as human-like in thought, only more powerful and all knowing. We pray to God because we assume, or at least hope, that God is either responsible for all that happens or can change our lives for the better. And of course God is most worshipped in the hope there is an afterlife and God will choose the faithful to get to this wonderful afterlife. The science of evolution doesn't, at least so far, give us any clues about an afterlife. If the concept of an afterlife is kind of an abstract absurdity, so is life itself. Yet we know, in every kind of practical way, that life does exist and that each of us is part of life on this planet. Thus if life exists despite any human ability to really understand it's existence, then so might an afterlife exist.
I like to wander around a lot, observing, contemplating, and trying to understand the many and varied pictures of life which abounds around me and around the world. It really is the most intriguing and inexpensive hobby one can have. It kind of brings an appreciation of life, an appreciation of varied species, among varied human groups and societies, and it yields a sobering reflection of mixed emotions including hope, despair, injustice, sadness, happiness, sorrow, and oh just about any other human emotion.
In the big picture, clearly the human species is overrunning the planet. Every trip into Chicago brings me face to face with a mass of humanity that is overwhelming. Just the number of people who board and get off a commuter train is mind boggling. While each one has a unique story to tell, most just live lives of relatively quiet desperation and die leaving essentially no trace they ever existed. Go back one or two generations and what do you mostly have---endless generations of forgotten nothingburgers. Sometimes I ask myself if I really wouldn't like to know who my great, great grandfather was. But what would this knowledge really mean? Mostly just a name, a profession, and how many children. If I went into the Chicago Telephone directory at random, called them up and found out their address, what they did for a living, and how many children they had, what meaning to me would any of that have. None. That I guess is why I don't do that nor research my ancestry. It would be useless trivia.
A major part of the problem is language. Take the hot button issue of abortion. We have those really good people who believe life begins at conception. Then we have those really good people who don't see it that way at all. From any science standpoint of course life doesn't begin at conception. In fact life is a continuum and that little scientific fact is the basis of evolution. The egg and sperm are both quite alive and the resulting egg is still quite alive and a 'vegetative' form of human life is also quite alive. The building blocks of life, the DNA molecules, have been around for billions of years, always getting reshuffled by reproductive methods or mutations, and generating new 'forms' of life all the time. At any rate, human life does not begin at conception---and yet that point alone doesn't justify or invalidate abortion. In the broadest sense part of the evolutionary process includes infertility, premature deaths, abortions (induced or otherwise), random combination of gametes, and infinitely long odds as to which particular members of any particular species, will ever mate anyway. I suppose one could believe God determines which sperm will combine with which egg, who will marry or mate with who, etc. but that seems a stretch. After all why create the process of evolution if one has to manipulate the laws of nature at every turn. Logically, if one believes God does manipulate the laws of nature in the evolutionary process, then Creationism makes sense. That also makes God directly responsible for all the injustices and tragedies that occur to people. It would be difficult for me to lay all this injustice and misery on God. From a broad perspective the evolutionary process is remarkable and progressive. Anything that is remarkable and progressive is good. The truth seems to be that this overall goodness triumphs over individual destinies. For progress and the greater good, many suffer.
Human beings seem to be unique in the evolutionary process in that our species has the ability to impact on our own destiny, both individually and collectively. But make no mistake about it---the laws of nature---God's laws----will triumph when human endeavors and behavior become overly destructive to the evolutionary process. Mother Nature bats last---welcome to the world situation today. To the extent our human species is not in tune with the forces of nature, misery and destruction will increasingly prevail. This has always been the case throughout history and there is no logical reason to think any American 'manifest destiny' is going to prevail over the laws of nature. Manifest destiny and God answering prayers is probably a ludicrous human illusion. It just seems strange that Almighty God awaits on our prayers to bring about justice, or relieve individual or group suffering. It seems Americans should give more thought to evolutionary destiny than any American 'manifest destiny' or peculiar sectarian religious dogma. For the most part, outside of psychopaths, everyone everywhere basically understands right and wrong. To what extent anyone consistently does right or wrong is another matter. In the most caustic sense, organized secularized religion becomes the protective blanket which will shield us from punishment for the sins we do all the time for varied selfish reasons. The feeling always exists that God is going to ultimately protect those registered with His preferred religious tribe, a preferred religious tribe that for the most part is inherited. Of all the ways God might send us religious signals, signals via inheritance seems, on the face of it, rather insulting to the mental state of God. Let's face it, for God to meet our personal needs He must be bent like a pretzel for a fit.
Love is another one of those words which is so personal as to be mostly undefinable. I guess one could paraphrase the Supreme Court Justice who said: "I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it." I doubt any of us can precisely define love, but of course "we know it when we feel it". But once something exists based on feelings, all objectivity is lost. In theory those who are in love marry, but even if this were substantially true, then love doesn't often last, and for some couples in love others deny them the right to marry. And of course people marry not just for love but for power, for convenience, for social acceptance, for financial security, and probably for other reasons too. Whatever love is, it is kind of personal. Then too, love is certainly not by any means a question of finding love and acting on it. No one can achieve any love bird status without reciprocation. Thus love, like sex, becomes a highly individualized pursuit that may or may not be achieved, and if achieved, have little relevance at all to others outside this individual personal love bird status. I wouldn't want to hazard any guess as to what percentage of marriages are sustained by 'love'. Love is nothing like going to the grocery store and picking out what appeals to you. Love is more like an auction in which no sale is consummated until both parties are in agreement. That is, it is more like a slave market in which no sale is completed until both the slave and master agree to the arrangement. Naturally, in most instances, by the time any agreement is reached neither party has agreed to be slave or master, all depending on the society, the personality of the two involved etc. And still, when all is said and done marriage becomes a great leap into the dark. The reality is, with precious few exceptions, the ugly don't pursue the beautiful, the dumb the brilliant, the rich the poor, etc. Everyone tries to figure out at what position on this complicated ladder they fit, and pursue love accordingly. Since love as a feeling has little direction, it is unpredictable in duration, and comes with no guarantee of anything. There are few more absurd rituals than for a clergy of some sort to make comments, at some kind of alter, to the effect, "What God has bound together let no man put asunder". Come on now, if God were really putting a marriage together, all marriages would last. For important things like marriage and war and sex and patriotism we always claim our actions in these areas to be with the blessings of God. If so, God must be the ultimate schizophrenic or there are competing Gods or there are more horses asses in this world than there are horses. Your pick.
I personally prefer to keep things simple. If two people of any kind, anywhere, of age, think they are in love it is fine with me. I mean exactly why shouldn't it be fine? What does it have to do with me anyway? Same with sex. Don't bother me with a litany of which sexual practices are acceptable in God's eyes. Frankly I can't logically explain why any of it might be precisely pleasurable outside of a desire to reproduce. If two people want to engage in some kind contorted sex hanging from a chandelier it is ok with me. If some adult wants to spend time looking at pornography of some sort, whether it is a foot fetish, a breast fetish, a huge penis fetish, a lesbian fetish, etc. why am I to care? I really can't say much of my life has been spent fending off fetishites of any sort. Frankly, it appears the handsome and beautiful amongst us are the ones fending off sexual advances. The rest of us should be so lucky. Nor do I see any evidence, to speak of, that attributes anyone's sexual inclinations to someone jumping out from behind a bush tempting us with their feet, or any other body part, or showing us pictures of some sort of peculiar sexual acts. If a person can find consensual sexual satisfaction with another adult, then why would I find it my 'duty' to find fault with it? Of course public display of it is another matter. If something doesn't appeal to me I don't like it pushed in my face. Naturally, if the wife of some guy I don't like asks me if I would like to see her beat him during sex, I might make an exception and say 'ok'.
In short, I hate issues that are personal being dictated by anyone, any group, any culture, any government, any religious sect. And quite clearly, people who fall into that mind set are rarely happy campers, always flailing away at perceived demons in the personal lives of others. Whenever I see these kind of people flailing away, mumbling, screaming, marching, shouting incendiary slogans, mass praying, etc. I always try to promise myself never to feel that way about diversity. Live and let live in matters that are personal and don't concern others allows me to be more accepting and cheerful in life. I suppose let everyone go to hell in their own way. I prefer to say let everyone get to Heaven with their own personal lifestyle, personality, and talents, as best they can.
Terrorist is another word tough to define. If any self explanatory definition is arrived at, the result is humanity all over the globe is surrounded by terrorists of this or that ilk. I guess a terrorist is someone who kills innocent people to achieve political, religious, or economic goals. And of course in every major religion you don't kill people to achieve these kind of goals. Sure. Of course. Dream on. We all know that when you add religion to the mix---any religion outside of Buddhists and Quakers----the level of killing rises exponentially. The person who presses the button to launch a smart missile of some sort which kills innocent people, among others, is really little different than the ragamuffin who straps a homemade bomb to him or herself and blows up others, including him or herself. To one side the other is a terrorist, to the other side the other is also a terrorist. So the word becomes little more than an emotional name attached to those on the other side. And is it only the one who presses the button or the one who straps on the bomb who is a terrorist or are all all those who support the particular agent of terrorism terrorists? And do you have to kill someone to be a terrorist? What about those who support policies which generate massive unemployment or access to health care, are these people terrorists of some sort? The victims might think so.
Freedom is another tricky word. Can there be freedom without justice and responsibility? Is freedom simply majority rule? Is freedom a consequence of democracy? Is a young kid wallowing in a ghetto free to become rich or educated or any of a lot of other things? Is freedom the right to do anything in your personal life if it doesn't impact on the lives of others? Doesn't freedom depend on your environmental culture, form of government, your economic status, sometimes your racial or religious or sexual orientation status? What does freedom really mean to most 15 yr olds in any of our War on Drugs ravished rural or urban ghettoes? What does freedom mean to the millions of Iraqis who have fled their country? Or to the millions still left alive who remain there? Any notion that freedom follows democracy is illusionary. Democracy may be, in certain situations, a way to foster freedom. The 100 million people projected to starve to death in the near future across the globe, are they free? Many people have so much 'freedom' that absolutely no one gives a damn what they do short of they being bothered by them. Freedom has a plethora of definitions and freedom to many means nothing left to lose. I personally feel free but I wonder what percent of Americans would say they feel free? Many, I am sure, would say they feel trapped and oppressed in some fashion or other. And many of us who are free are free by living off the backs of the oppressed, in one form or another.
Then there is the word holocaust. My dictionary defines holocaust as "any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life". Certainly the mass slaughter of Jews by Hitler to the tune of 2 million Jews is a horrific and despicable holocaust. But what are we to call the destruction of 2.1 million Vietnamese during the Vietnamese War? Or the destruction of 200,000 Iraqis by Hussein, or the slaughter and/or homelessness of nearly 2 million Iraqis by the current Iraq War? Or the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Rwandans or Sudanese, or the predicted 100 million who will starve to death in the near future? Are not all of these mass slaughters or reckless destruction of life? It may hurt to admit it, but we live right now in the greatest period of holocausts in history, and our own country is knee deep in this mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life. How many Americans, to this day, will admit the Vietnam War was some sort of holocaust carried out by Americans? Of course we thought we were doing the right thing, we were saving the world from communism etc., but I suppose Hitler 'thought' he was doing the right thing, the Hutu's 'thought' they were doing the right thing, the Taliban 'think' they are doing the right thing, Bush 'thought' (if one can use the term loosely) he was doing the right thing by invading Iraq----and yet the word holocaust is simply defined as "any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life". The coming death by starvation of 100 million people across the globe is, by any sane definition, a reckless destruction of life. What kind of mentality 'accepts' the death of 100 million people by starvation and instead launches an emotional crusade against birth control and abortion? Are we really commanded by God to populate the earth to the extent that increasing numbers of these living 'sanctities of life' are destined to die by starvation----or worse, live lives of poverty and fear in hell holes of futile quiet desperation? Is it rational to cling stubbornly, in Bushite fashion, to the notion that the natural resources of this planet are endlessly sufficient to support ever increasing human population levels, and that God cares little about human driven extinctions of other species?
And of course the most hopeless definition is that of the word God. Einstein may have come the closest and been the most honest when he said "I see a pattern, but my imagination cannot picture the maker of that pattern. I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?" But nevertheless, humans from the beginning of our arrival on this planet have invented God and the resulting hundreds of religious sects, all insisting that God has communicated with their sect, and conveyed to their sect, through their leaders, an array of rituals, ceremonies, and commandments peculiar to their particular religious sect. All of this is well and good, and harmless enough, except when God is on your side, and every other side too, the slaughter begins, and has never ended throughout human history. For me personally, I can't accept this scenario of some sort of partisan, sadistic God whose method of communication is so limited and so dependent on inherited religious beliefs. I think most every person everywhere has the inherent capacity to understand right and wrong. To what extent any of us choose to do right instead of wrong is another matter. The Universal Golden Rule is my religion. That of course doesn't shed any light on whether I follow my religion anymore than any one else follows theirs.
I guess the meaning of life and understanding life is tied up hopelessly with the limitations of human language. To solve this, from now on, I mean what I mean, not what I say. I know you believe you understand what you think I say, but am not sure you realize that what you heard may not be what I meant.
