Suppose:
Suppose every person, every five years, had to evaluate themselves as a person plus have everyone with whom they have meaningful contact, evaluate them anonymously. What could then be concluded? Back in my teaching days once a year students were given evaluation sheets to evaluate their instructors. Department Chairpersons also evaluated the instructors, Deans evaluated instructors for promotions, assignments, etc. But the whole thing got rather clouded. The teachers ranked highest by the students were not often the same as the teachers ranked highest by the Department Chairs and this differed from the teachers ranked highest by the Deans. Let's just say the correlation was not high. Furthermore, the teachers ranked highest by the students getting A's and B's would differ from those students getting C's and D's. Finally, in the same category some students would give a teacher an A and others a D or F. Thus we are left with the enigma of how people, given the same exposure to a person, differ so widely in their assessment of the person. People who admire Obama can't understand why others really dislike him. People who think the Pope is the embodiment of holiness can never understand why others think of the Pope more as a fossilized fraudulent fool. The owner of the Philadelphia Eagles thinks Terrell Owens is a contemptible person and the owner of the Dallas Cowboys thinks Terrell Owens is sans peur et sans reproche. And so it goes, intelligent people arriving at opposite conclusions about the same person even though both sides have approximately the same exposure to the person in question.
Clearly human rationality is to some degree a hoax. Like how can anyone have the audacity to even use the word clearly as it applies to human mentality? If anything is clear it is that little, if anything, is clear. By the time reality (whatever that is) passes through human minds it comes out twisted to meet the emotional, prejudicial, and perceptive needs of the person doing the thinking. We all strive to like ourselves, to justify our behaviors and thoughts, while others, having no need to particularly like us, view us more critically from their own emotional, prejudicial, and perceptive needs. Half the people who marry because they think they for sure have it right about at least themselves and one other person, find out with time they didn't have it right. If two people can't get it right after extensive deliberative evaluation of another person, how can friends, social groups, religious groups, or nations be expected to get it right about other friends, social groups, religious groups, or nations? Eenie meenie minee moe, this what each of us starts out with, and where it all will lead is less predictable than a horse race.
"I see" said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw. "I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." Thus assorted people lurch through life with endless de-synchronization with other people, other ethnic groups, other religious groups, other nations, other political philosophies, etc. Aside from the clutter of mysterious and therefore odious people around us, each person wrestles with his/her own demons of purpose and priorities. And these purposes and priorities change with the different phases of life----the formational years, the productive years, and the terminational years. Throughout all of this there is faith---and part of faith is the resistance to change. Some people change a lot in life, others hardly change at all. The stronger the faith, the least likely any change. We all know, or may actually be one of those persons who would never change their political or religious affiliation under any circumstances. Faith is the cornerstone of their life. It is hard to imagine what a Bush, a Pope, a Hitler etc. could ever do that would not be defended by the faithful. Conversely, what could a Terrell Owens do that would ever be praised by his detractors? Thus, we all---in varying degrees---get trapped in our own emotional beliefs. The most depressing movie I ever watched was titled "CRASH". It was a masterpiece of portraying why people of differing natures cannot connect with any commonality upon which they can get along with each other. There may be individual instances when two people of differing natures can break through the barriers and become truly appreciative of their differences, but these isolated incidents hardly put a dent in the broader picture of tolerance to diversity. When Rodney King, not the greatest philosopher in the world, asked "Can't we all just get along?" who amongst us knew the answer as to how?
To live involves goals and priorities. In which order are we to place popularity, accumulation of wealth, doing the right thing, tranquility, excitement, acquisition of power, acquiring control over others, winning contests of various sorts, sharing wealth, sharing power, tolerating diversity, empathizing with others, avoiding others, etc? And of course selecting our priorities has little bearing on the likelihood of achieving success with any priority. There is no level playing field and most of the important factors for success are given not achieved. He/she who gets to the top of the mountain did not select their genes, their parents, their religion, their formational years neighborhood, their grade or high schools, their country, their teachers, etc. It is more like, "there but for the grace of God goes I". Ahah! Therein lies a conundrum: Are we to believe that God deliberately stacks the deck right from the beginning? And can we pray to the God of our inheritance to change things for the better with any success? Whether prayer ever works is unanswerable, but clearly prayer often does not work. We all have seen endless tragedies happen when prayers by individuals or large numbers of people have prayed for the tragedy not to happen. To explain away all this, clergy have used every contortionistic argument in existence. But in the end only those with the most unmovable faith can accept any of these arguments. The truth seems to be that 'shit happens'. For me, the evolutionary process is a God created process. The process itself is brilliant beyond human comprehension, has direction, and evolves ever upward in complexity. Nothing in the whole long history of evolution is an end in itself. Nothing known about this process of evolution can remotely shed light on the possibility of an afterlife. We are here, and like all life forms in this process, we make the best of it with whatever resources available to us from our genes and environment. It really does seem the evolutionary process created by God is a tad more sagacious than the image of God we create with our religious dogmas. Of course, the need for faith in our beliefs about life is a cornerstone of personal sanity and motivation. Killing to protect our faiths is not exactly rare, and endless killing fields fueled by religion have existed throughout human history.
Now that I have reached my terminational years, a lot of the mucking around utilizing past habits has become irrelevant. So many things, so important in earlier years, are now relegated to irrelevancy. One begins to realize there is really no need to strive to be popular---just to be fair. Period. There is no need to bother others, to try to change others, to dominate others, to best others, to put others down, to be used by others, etc. Live and let live at last becomes a reality. I mean, for what reasons would one want to compete with others over anything? If one is fortunate enough to be financially stable in their terminational years then one really does have it made in the shade. Like what sense does it make to behave like there will be no end to the tomorrows? Why would there be any logic in depending heavily on others to entertain you, to have you be an active part of their lives, to be your daily or frequent companion? Whether it is a spouse, a sibling, a son/daughter, former business associates, or long time friends----the list is going to dwindle with time and your children will be busy with their own careers and life. One either can amuse themselves or the terminational years will be a bumpy ride. People count as a blessing to have a spouse for the terminational years. True! Up to a point. One spouse will die or become a real burden to the other and the spouse left will be least prepared to function on their own having never done so. If the truth be known how many blessings of life come without a downside? Not too many.
The secret to old age may be to simplify, simplify, simplify. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and let that be your social mantra. There really is no need to keep looking over your shoulder because no one is paying any attention to you, let alone gaining on you. Only during the terminational years do you have the time to sit back and put together the pieces of life's puzzle. The puzzle will never be completed but bits and pieces of it begin to make sense and therein will lie a sense of contentment. For me reading, writing, and Mother Nature provide the kind of input to keep my mind contented and relaxed. There are plenty enough kind people to encounter on a daily basis for a social morale booster. After all, the wonderful thing about old age is that you are no threat to anyone, so a good number of people will be friendly for just that reason: 'Nice little old man'. And the less interest you show in bothering them the more friendly they will continue to be. People love to be friendly if they don't feel they might be getting into something they will regret in terms of time and money. Always ask about their lives, never mumble about yours---which would bore the death out of most anyone in the midst of their own active productive years. And of course we really do know that no one gives a damn about the 'old days', the 'old ways', and how illusionary important you felt you once were. The productive years people are busy with their own illusions of importance, although it really does appear that fewer and fewer people in their productive years can even have the luxury anymore of such illusions. To an older person like me it just seems this new generation mostly go through the motions and live to internet surf, wear headsets connected to various gadgets, amuse themselves with computer games, babble hours every day on cell phones about trivia, and pretty much create their own cyberspace world. Is that bad or good? I have no idea, it just is. I have some of these gadgets because someone convinced me I needed this or that gadget, but for the most part these gadgets sit in the drawer because I never feel the urge to learn how to use them. I don't even have a cell phone. Like I said, simplify, simplify, simplify. It doesn't take anything too complicated to bring contentment to someone like myself at my age. For example, the highlight of some days is when I go to this equestrian center near me and chat with this horse that has a reputation of being unruly and likes to bite. Most days, for 15 minutes I just chat with the horse. For a while the damn horse ignored me. A 'little birdie must have told her about me. Then with time she began to stare at me, then follow me alongside the fence when I chatted at her and finally she now likes me, not to pet her a lot, but do one of those Michelle Obama 'fist bumps' to her nose. She stays, I guess as a matter of pride, quite independent, and some days will ignore my arrival for a bit, and other days race at full gallop to the fence so fast that she about takes the fence down trying to stop. Whatever the dumb relationship is between me and that horse, it relaxes me (and her) and is part of making my life contented in old age. She will stare at me with those big soulful eyes (as if to warn me I am not exempt from being bitten) and one senses each of us to be intrigued by what the hell the other is all about. I get told often by those who work there to stay away from the horse, that she is unfriendly, but I don't read it that way at all. She likes the game: she tries to figure out what the hell I am saying and I try to figure out what the hell she is thinking. And the nice thing is that neither of us will ever know. Which I guess proves that two can know nothing about the other and still be friends.
A college professor was once defined as "someone who knows more and more about less and less". Maybe that comes close to defining human life: an experience whereby, with time, a person knows more and more about less and less until their infinitesimally small span of time in the evolutionary process is up. Say 'good night' Gracie.
