A New Take On Heaven

Heaven: "doing over" life with one caveat.....we are all of us reincarnated as our current day antagonists. At which point we finally understand and see validity in many of our conflicting actions and viewpoints. As a result, the dilemmas, contradictions, insanities and absurdities inherent in any and all views are completely apparent to everybody! In which case the only winning move for peace's sake is not to fight and argue and be in conflict at all. What is this purported "peace" of heaven we all seem to seek?

Perhaps this: imagine a bully and his "victim". Whereas the "victim" would be reincarnated as a bully knowing what it is like to be bullied, he will thus abstain from bullying. The bully, on the other hand, will be reincarnated as a "victim". With bullies no more, however, how will he ever understand what agony his bullying caused in the previous life? Well, he need not know what it's like being a "victim" of a bully to dissuade him from being one because he is one no longer! In this sense, the "victim" reincarnated as a bully understands (because he experienced this as a "victim" in his previous life) the adage "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". As a result, he abstains from bullying. On the other hand, the bully reincarnated as a "victim" does not understand (this is why he was a bully in his previous life) the adage "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". But he doesn't need to understand because he is a bully no more! See how the "conflict" evaporates with the changing of roles?

"Victims" of evil dictators and other heartless and cruel sorts, reincarnated as evil dictators and other heartless and cruel sorts, will obviously understand (because of their previous experience with being victimized) the vileness of this lifestyle and thus abstain from it in heaven. On the other hand, the former evil dictators and other heartless and cruel sorts, reincarnated as mere "victims" of evil dictators and other heartless and cruel sorts, need not understand what it is like to be victimized because they are vicious and cruel no more! See how the "conflict" evaporates with the changing of roles?

Capitalists and socialists switch roles and are finally able to see that their previous view(s) actually did have blemishes just like their antagonists' view(s), this realization curiously absent in their former lives. As a result, there is much more understanding and less argument and conflict because the dilemmas, contradictions, insanities and absurdities inherent in any and all views are completely apparent to everybody! Once again, see how the "conflict" evaporates with the changing of roles?

I hereby offer a nice corollary to the concept of grace and mercy. Whereas most of us instinctively live by the creed "vengeance is sweet", those reincarnated as evil oppressors and other heartless and cruel sorts avoid exacting vengeance because they know what it's like being one of its "victims". THIS IS GRACE AND MERCY, without which heaven will simply repeat this life's iniquities! There will only ever be peace where there is grace and mercy. However, far be it from me to even say peace should be humanity's ultimate endeavor.....my own suspicion is that we NEED argument and conflict and perhaps above all vengeance. It's that pesky ego!

On Athletes.....

A professional athlete is a professional athlete. He or she should not be taken to be anything more than this. An athlete with good character is coincidental to what he or she is. I think it commendable to see athletes with the utmost in character grace a given sport, but that is not why I, or anybody else for that matter, should watch them.

I watch them strictly because they are good at throwing or hitting a ball, they can run like the dickens, they can shoot a puck at lightning speed, they exude almost inhuman hand/eye control, etc. They should not be viewed to see good character. Please, for the love of God, stop complaining about athletes' tacky behavior! Understand what they are and consider it mere happenstance if they possess good character! If you want a good role model for your impressionable children, seek elsewhere!* Find the “Mr. Rogers” of your neighborhood and have your young ones hang out with him! Of course I know you won't do this because he can't throw or catch a ball as well as the top athletes and as a result is pretty lame. 

So at this point it becomes clear you are not prioritizing your child's character development, you are prioritizing his or her development of athletic skills. And there is nothing wrong with this.

Many will likely be angry with this view. It will be claimed that there are plenty of athletes with exceptional character. It needs to be pointed out that I never claimed there were not! But like I said, this is coincidental to why they are watched! If an athlete was not good at throwing or catching a ball or whatever else, would he still be watched? Of course not! He is watched only because he is a good athlete! His exceptional character is but a fringe benefit to his amazing athletic prowess!

If society claims it follows an athlete because of his first class character, would society still follow him if he was the same person minus his athletic ability? If society says it would not follow him, at this point it is clear athletic ability is the only reason said athlete is watched. Of course if he had no athletic talent he certainly would not be playing a professional sport and as such would not be in any position to be watched!

If society says it would follow him even if he was not an athlete, then this suggests spectator sports to be obsolete. For if first class character was society's only requirement for watching people, there would be no need to assemble in stadiums to watch athletes! We could much more easily and cheaply canvass our neighborhoods and hunt down people with first class character to “watch”.

Of course this is absurd! My point is it is athleticism not character that attracts us! If one claims he follows the athletes with the utmost in character, this does not mean he prioritizes good character, rather he simply prioritizes athletes that happen to have the most character. Referencing other writings of mine regarding ideals, I feel compelled to point out that prioritizing athletes with the most character should not be taken to mean prioritizing character. If it was, one should be compelled to watch anybody with utmost character! I suspect we would find most of the first class characters out there to be overly dull and boring! So why would we watch them?

Is my view negative? I don't think so at all. If one stakes his hope in athletes being first class characters, he will be let down frequently. This will inevitably lead to resentment, disappointment and complaining, in large part due to the ego asserting its self-righteous superiority. I see this as negative. Watching athletes for their abilities, and nothing more, I can turn the other cheek when they engage in tacky behavior. I see this as positive.


*Now it could be supposed that an athlete's contract requires certain behavior. In all likelihood though, this would simply require the athlete to abstain from "poor" behavior. Firstly, this would only serve to discourage poor behavior as opposed to requiring good behavior. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, anything designed to "manipulate" an athlete not to behave "improperly" would seem to undermine any notion of "good" character.

Once again, if it is good character you seek, please, steer clear of athletes!

The High Cost Of Belief

There was a time not long ago when the Catholic Church held Jewish children ransom until the parents agreed to have them converted to the Catholic faith. But most of the Jewish parents allowed no such thing! Of course the "evil" of extorting the parents to begin with need not even be mentioned, but something else should. Had the Jewish parents simply acquiesced to the demands of the Church, their children would have been promptly returned after said religious "conversion" rites were performed.

I know the idea of the Jewish parents conceding to the demands of the Catholic Church angers many because it "holds hostage" their cherished Jewish beliefs. And rightfully so, they should have been allowed to "believe" whatever they so chose, free of intimidation. Then I'm afraid SO SHOULD HAVE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!

The Catholic Church's intimidation tactics in this case were, to me, beyond reproach simply because this "blackmailing" tactic was a seemingly genuine, non-malicious part of its doctrine, or so the Church believed.

Herein lies the dilemma: if one sympathizes with those that choose to "believe" in Judaism or anything else for that matter, he should likewise sympathize with the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Which in this case compelled it to hold the children ransom for their own sake: TO SAVE THEM FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION! Or so the Church believed.

This example perfectly illustrates how contradictory beliefs create conflict which would otherwise be absent. Eliminate either (or perhaps ideally both) of 2 contradictory views and there is no conflict!

A most important consideration needs to be addressed. Since most people "respect" some but not all beliefs, what does this really say about belief itself? That the goodness or badness of any given belief has NOTHING to do with the belief itself. IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE BEHAVIOR IT ENGENDERS. This is why most people feel compelled to "respect" a kind and generous person's Islamic or Christian beliefs but NOT the beliefs of an Islamic terrorist or Christian abortion clinic bomber!

Furthermore, if it is belief that is respected, what of the uncommonly kind and generous types that essentially believe nothing? Are they to be unrespected? I think not. Reason being, it is ultimately and only one's behavior that earns respect. Respecting belief is superficial. It is nothing but a distraction from respecting the only thing that matters: behavior.

How About Illegalizing Indoctrination?

Where does much of society's conflict and strife seem to originate? Perhaps indoctrination explains much of it, most notably among its naive "little ones". For children will pretty much believe anything they are told to believe (sadly, many of us will too). If they are told in the crib that certain races or cultures are inherently evil or inferior or that others with divergent beliefs or cultural practices are wrong or weird, they will have little gumption not to believe it.

Much of this indoctrination will sow ill feelings in the years to come, creating conflict which would otherwise be absent. Should "we"* forcefully prevent the kind of indoctrination that leads to terrorism, this being perhaps the worst of its many ill faces? Certainly it can then be argued that this would be an affront to the basic freedom of allowing a person to "believe whatever he wants to believe". However, the ill consequence of "protecting" this freedom is that it seems to create or at least magnify wars and other such conflicts thus providing the ultimate trigger to kill and maim.

What is the imperative? To provide the freedom of allowing a person to "believe whatever he wants" knowing full well its negative consequences or simply banning the kind of indoctrination that creates such violent division in the first place?

*"We" is highlighted to differentiate its many faces. Ask "we" in Iran or North Korea or Afghanistan or Iraq or Papua New Guinea or Scandinavia or France or wherever else and "we" will have many divergent goals and ideals. So the relevant question might be, "whose indoctrination should be censored?" It seems wars and violence are predicated not necessarily on clear right/wrong dichotomies but on the simple principle that peoples' opposing views and preferences create contradictions and hence conflict when "forced" to live side by side. At this point, "creating" enemies out of "others" (herein enters the purported right/wrong dichotomy into the conflict, thus giving the "good" guy moral justification for it) is obligatory when it becomes apparent that any attempt to "intertwine" these contradictions is destined to fail.** And so ensues tension which manifests itself as at best simple conflict and disagreement, at worst war. Much like the AIDS virus being viewed as "bad" from our perspective, it is only "bad" because the both of us cannot peacefully coexist. But ask yourself this: in the grand scheme of things, do you really think there is anything particularly "bad" about the AIDS virus in itself? Decidedly not! It is just trying to make its way about the world like the rest of us! But it causes US harm so we think it fair to label IT "bad" and believe this to be an objective judgment. But of course it is anything but objective! Once again, as per my hypothetical idea of censoring certain types of indoctrination, which types then? Perhaps those with uncontested control of the world should make this decision for everybody else, as has always been the case. But these days, I don't know? Who might this be?

**This is a rather silly argument to illustrate my point. I ask you to think more deeply than seeing this only as an argument between 2 young boys fighting over a most trivial matter. As such, project the following parable onto almost any argument and I believe there is relevance: I have never met anybody that believes colors to be intrinsically "good" or "bad". Imagine 2 brothers are going to share a Nintendo DS for Christmas. Peter likes blue but Sam likes red. Each is so compelled to get the device in his chosen color that it becomes an obsession. As a result, they become so identified with their chosen colors that they actually convince themselves their favorite colors are "good" in turn making other colors antithetical to "good" and hence "bad". If you're not with me you're against me! It's that vexatious war mindset so commonly used to justify conflict in the first place***. Since the other brother wants a "bad" color, he is "bad" and thus an enemy. Once again, the purported right/wrong dichotomy creeps into the conflict because it provides moral justification. With this then, the "good" guy is justified to fight because he is "right". And which one IS the "good" guy? Why that's simply a matter of perspective.

***This "if you're not with me you're against me" dichotomy preys on human instinct with reckless abandon. Since we are social animals, we have a need (or perhaps just an irresistible instinct) to be part of clearly defined groups to give us a sense of social identity. What does this compel us to do? Choose sides. In which case people "join" either the "with" or "against" group and conflict is thus born! Note that without this "choosing of sides", there would exist no with/against dichotomy and hence conflict would be avoided altogether! It is also important to note that most of us are compelled to choose one or the other because it "seems" as if those are the only two options. Politicians, talk show hosts and war mongers, notably, love to delude us (and themselves of course) into believing there is only "with" and "against" because they are always looking to recruit people for their "sacred" cause(s). Of course if you choose "against" them, they are morally justified in criticizing you! However, this with/against dichotomy is usually untenable. Almost always "with" and "against" are simply opposite ends of a spectrum. In which case there exist many subtle combinations of "with" and "against" along this spectrum. Upon recognizing this "truth" in a given conflict, I myself choose the "middle", in effect doing my part to "strip" the conflict of its "identity". This is what politicians, talk show hosts and war mongers, among others, live for: to recruit people for their cause(s) in order to give the conflict(s) "identity".

The Duality Of Relativism/Absolutism

There is a blinding paradox inherent in the relative/absolute dichotomy. I do not believe everything is absolute. Nor do I believe everything is relative. I think most people would agree with me thus far.

However, the implication of both statements being true is problematic. If things are neither entirely absolute nor entirely relative, then it must be the case that some things are absolute and some things are relative.

But this just begs the question of what things must necessarily be absolute and what things must necessarily be relative? Well, it can only depend on whom you ask which ultimately renders everything relative. But one of my initial assumptions contradicts this conclusion!

Furthermore, upon closer inspection of this circular nonsense, an obfuscatory corollary crops up. If everything is relative, then it would seem everything can simultaneously be absolute. Why must this be so? Well, if something is relative, could it not be represented by any value, even an absolute one? This paradox puzzles me.

Is the set of all sets that are not members of itself a member of itself, or is it not, and if it is not, is it? It seems absolutism and relativity must be either both true or both false. Or perhaps they are both true and both false? But those statements are nonsensical at best or at least appear so. HUH?

The Paradox Of War

I've never understood the idea of following rules during war as if this was some “Godly” virtue to uphold. After all, the general goal of war is to annihilate the “bad” guys or force their surrender.

When the “good” guys criticize the “bad” guys for not adhering to said rules of war, I can't help but be puzzled. War does not seem inherently moral and therefore I am very suspicious of any claim or insinuation of right(eous)ness within the context of war.

So why would anybody attempt to find right(eous)ness within the context of war? To assert the ego's superiority in right(eous)ness thus providing moral justification for it. But obeying rules makes it very difficult to win when the “bad” guys do not, so it seems as if “dirty” tactics must be employed in order to remain at all competitive.

Many will protest this because it necessarily involves unfair and cruel strategies. This implies there exists some righteous manner in which to approach war. But I do not believe there is. Refer to the beginning of this discussion and notice the circularity of this argument.

And herein lies the dilemma. I am not saying “we” should never go to war. I simply reject the idea of proclaiming or at least implying right(eous)ness within the context of war and recommend doing whatever need be to win if winning is the ultimate goal. Suffice it to say, I don't think any entity would willingly engage in war if victory was not its ultimate goal.

Now I will ask this of myself. If I was in a situation where I had to fight in a war, would I use “dirty” tactics such as using a child as a shield to tip the scale in my favor? I believe strongly I would not. But why would I not as per my prior argument? Because it is not in my nature to do such a thing. My reason for refraining from such “dirty” tactics is not because I am consciously or unconsciously trying to figure out a “righteous” manner in which to partake in the war, rather it is just not in my nature to do such a thing.

Furthermore, if I had to fight in a war, my ultimate goal would not be to win. Rather, my ultimate goal in a war or in life generally is to just "be myself”. That is why I would not likely use “dirty” tactics. And that is also why I would not be a devoted soldier ready and willing to unquestionably follow orders. Albert Speer and other Nazi officers were strongly condemned for using this excuse!

Concerning war, the paradox is thus: wars are only ever fought over conflicting moral imperatives but the mere act of war is so immoral it becomes complete madness to try to “force” moral imperatives immorally!* War is an evolutionary mindset built upon a contradiction. It is the pinnacle of insanity!

*Perhaps it would elicit less disagreement and anger by suggesting that when uncalled for (this itself seemingly dubious in many instances), war is neither "moral" nor "immoral" as opposed to suggesting it as altogether "immoral". The point of restating war thusly is to make clear that those "forced" into an uncalled for war are NOT "immoral" (necessarily, at least), rather they are neither "moral" nor "immoral". Notice this still precludes any entity from ever claiming right(eous)ness within the context of war because it can only be right(eous) when it is moral. Since morality is precluded within the context of war, it can never be said that the action of war is right(eous). It can at best be neither "moral" nor "immoral", at worst, altogether "immoral"**.

**It seems so unfair to deny an otherwise "moral" entity from being so within the context of an uncalled for war. And of course, it is. Much like the entire class "suffering" for the adolescent antics of a few "immoral" classmates, so too do "innocent" bystanders "suffer" when dragged into conflicts they did not ask to partake in. Lest you forget, LIFE ISN'T FAIR!

The Value Of Understanding One Another

Two people with contradictory conclusions can be more alike than two people with identical conclusions.

For instance, let's talk about what to do with illegal immigrants already in this country. Jim and Sally both emphatically believe these people should be able to stay in this country. They conclude the same thing so they will probably be thought of as having similar ideologies, right?

Well, what if Jim is a "greedy" contractor who views illegal immigrants as nothing more than cheap labor with little gumption to revolt against oppressive work standards thus resulting in more profit and less hassle for himself? And what if Sally is genuinely sympathetic to the immigrants' plight and as such believes they should be allowed to stay? The two share no common ideology in this case. They only share a conclusion.

On the other hand, let's say Sally is talking to Bob and they are at odds over what to do with illegal immigrants. Sally believes they should be allowed to stay but Bob thinks otherwise. They must share different ideologies, right?

Well, what if each is motivated by sympathy to peoples' plight but assume Bob is thinking more that the sheer number of illegal immigrants in this country will “cannibalize” social services for the “legal” immigrants and citizens already here? In other words, they are both motivated by sympathy and mercy for people but are at odds over how to engender the desired good for society.

My underlying point is that it seems so often there is much argument concerning conflicting conclusions whereas I think these conflicting conclusions do not necessarily suggest difference in ideology or moral sentiments. But because this is thought to be the case, conflict ensues regarding whose conclusion is right.

And so fosters a lack of understanding which ultimately causes disharmony and precludes “us” from getting along. A primary focus of my viewpoint is that I care less what somebody believes and more why somebody believes.

A Reflection On Perfection

Descartes came to the conclusion that because he had a clear and distinct idea of perfection, it was thus self-evident that such an idea could not possibly have originated from self. For how could any idea of perfection have originated from one who is imperfect, he thought? Therefore, he assumed his idea of perfection could only have been “planted” by God.

This thinking begs for a consensus as to what perfection is. Is it necessarily an objective, one-size-fits-all answer? Not likely. Perfection seems to me a totality of many peoples' oftentimes opposing perspectives.

For Goldilocks was happy with porridge neither too hot nor too cold. Neither was she happy with a bed too soft nor too hard. But this was only Goldilocks' idea of perfection. Obviously the mother and father bear had different ideas as to what perfection entailed. Likewise, my idea of perfection will not necessarily correspond to Descartes'. Or yours for that matter.

Perhaps they are all "perfectly right", though replete with contradictions? If this is the case, does not perfection seem to lose its meaning?

On the other hand, is there one out there arrogant enough to claim his idea of "perfection" is the one, true face of it? Surely so, as there are MANY out there that claim this. But how are we to account for the fact that many of these claims conflict with one another?

To restate, must perfection be an absolute, one-size-fits-all idea? If it is, whose idea represents its "true" face? If it is not, nobody will be happy with perfection because it would in this case be a “mixture” of everybody's oftentimes conflicting ideas of it.

Perhaps one who has a seemingly imperfect picture of perfection might just have the “correct” picture of it. Oh the irony!

A "Godly" Moral Paradox

Many of the devoutly religious seem apt to believe that being 100% certain they are right is somehow a virtue God respects above all else. I believe St. Paul, among others, encouraged this “Godly” stance. However, a “moral” contradiction arises.

If one is absolutely certain he is worshiping the one and only true God, where is the humility? Which stance might God honor more? Being absolutely certain or humbly conceding the fact that as much as one might really believe or at least really want to believe he is right, he could just as easily be wrong?

However unconscious it may be, I think many are reluctant to adopt this less than certain stance because they fear they would be “letting God down”. But without humility, what does this type of thinking systematically foster? Self-righteous superiority. This need not be blatant and obnoxious. I remember a “strong” Christian girl (please forgive me but this notion plasters on my mind a girl bench-pressing 350 lbs.) at a party causally and without any doubt asserting how others of different faiths were “buying into a lie”.

It seemed so innocuous, as she was a very amiable girl whose only “problem” was that she was absolutely certain she was right. Nothing overly harmful about said comment. But ultimately it projected self-righteous superiority. Once again, where is the humility?

Firmly Planted In Mid-Air

Many will say my open-mindedness leaves me with no absolute moral foundation in which to approach life. Noted theologian and writer Ravi Zacharias cleverly expresses this by saying that those who lack an absolute moral foundation have their feet firmly planted in mid-air. This brilliant cliché is more or less true but is this necessarily a bad place to be?

Without this absolute moral foundation, it is thought, one is forever precluded from knowing the fine line between what is right and what is wrong. This will then systematically lead to what is commonly perceived as perverse and wicked behavior. It can lead to this type of behavior but it can also lead to a very open and understanding person who feels no need to judge and criticize others who do or believe seemingly peculiar things.

Additionally, many require an absolute foundation only because they need to “know” they are right in order to feel fulfilled. This is a form of control motivated by nothing more than ego. I don't need to be in control of “truth”. I can just be who I am without such control.

Perhaps some are suspicious of their own intentions and as such need a firm foundation in “truth” lest their real self might come out and wreak havoc on themselves and worse, others. Furthermore, I presume many have been indoctrinated with the belief that one must have a worldview based on absolutes to have any semblance of peace and fulfillment. This then commonly becomes self-fulfilled prophesy.

Alas, there is a crippling flaw with any sort of "absolute" moral foundation: contradictions inevitably ensue. This is not the fault of the person per se, rather it is the fault of this system of thinking. It doesn't work. Different absolutes are clearly in opposition to one another but are believed wholeheartedly nonetheless. Doublethink as George Orwell so wisely termed this.

In addition, many absolutes are arbitrarily embraced on a preferential basis. At this point, absolutes are merely relatively absolute. Which means they are not absolute. Are they relative? Certainly not, for if they are relative, they could simultaneously be absolute.

I have reflected extensively on the absolute/relative dichotomy and have comfortably concluded it to be an irreconcilable paradox*. On the other hand, not establishing an absolute foundation does not create these contradictions but is of course replete with its own set of problems. Everything pertaining to the morality and well being of societies is a trade-off and therefore nothing can ever be absolute.


*Please see a couple of my writings on a more thorough examination of this paradox:

The Duality Of Relativism/Absolutism

http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/08/duality-of-relativismabsolutism.html

The Shortcoming Of Absolutes
http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/07/shortcoming-of-absolutes.html