The Shortcoming Of Absolutes

Each thought must carry with it only one of many perspectives. As such, a single perspective by its very nature implies limitation. Which means any given perspective and its associated thoughts can not be absolutely true. 

For example, one might suggest the absolute truth of the sun "rising and setting" every day. But this statement is not absolutely true. Surely an observer on a planet three million star systems away would not agree, let alone an observer merely three star systems away. It is relatively true based on the perspective of one who happens to reside on an arbitrarily named planet known as “Earth” in an arbitrarily named galaxy known as “The Milky Way”. Certainly our truth of the sun "rising and setting" every day is not false, but then neither is it absolutely true. Any other interplanetary observers might experience a daily "rising and setting" of a nearby star but certainly not our star.

I thoughtfully quoted "rising and setting" to make a most important distinction. This expression is merely metaphoric as the sun neither rises nor sets in a literal and hence absolute manner. It is but an illusion created by the Earth's rotation.

Yet another distinction to point out is that technically even this metaphoric "rising and setting" every day is problematic. What about observers on the Earth’s poles during the height of their summer and winter months? Their sun either "stays" risen or "stays" set, this of course being the same sun all of us more tropical types observe. At this point, even the absolute truth of the metaphor is lost.

Another critical distinction to make is that there is nothing absolutely true or real about a day. It is just a relative construct. Presumably, no other planet rotates around itself in the same amount of time. Additionally, the earth's rotational speed is slowing down which means the amount of time it takes to rotate around itself is NOT absolute! It's actually increasing every day! Imperceptibly, to us at least.

In summary, our perception of the sun "rising and setting" every day (this itself a metaphor which cannot hold absolutely true even for Earth's inhabitants) is certainly not false but then neither is it absolutely true. Such is the case with most claims of “absolute” truth.

I will admit, it seems absurd to see things as absolute. Then again, it seems equally absurd to see things as relative. There seems to be an irreconcilable paradox with the absolute/relative dichotomy*.

Many will be annoyed by my "nitpicking" of details. Most overlook or discount them out of the mistaken belief that they are frivolous. However, they are absolutely (a self-professed contradiction, but only for effect) pertinent to any reasonable argument. Any conclusion based on the false notion that variables are necessarily absolute misleads people into believing they can account for all truth with their individual perspectives.

I will end with one of my favorite Kurtisms: do not overlook the profound wisdom of scrutinizing trivial things as this becomes a stepping stone to critically evaluating far bigger things.


*see link that follows for clarification

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

Are Most Convictions Actually True Or Merely Practically So?

For the sake of argument, suppose the ultimate reason many people wholeheartedly believe their perspective on any given matter (not by any means limited to religious/political convictions) is absolutely true and right is because in the context of a social and civil society there is intrinsic benefit in measuring values and especially behavior with 1 standard, however arbitrary it may be. We could say this unconsciously encourages people to persuade others that they are in possession of "the absolute truth".

The proximate reason people wholeheartedly believe their perspective constitutes the unadulterated truth is that they believe it is actually true. So the belief that it is actually true solely as a means to get everybody to “join” the group as a means to adopt the same values such that behavior can be “fairly” evaluated can be said to be practically true. Practically true to the extent that adhering to this 1 absolute standard for conduct and behavior can be beneficial for society regardless of whether it is actually true.

Many will claim this idea is a total mockery of “God's truth”. But my response to those that think it egregious to suggest this is to question their own motivations. If they are particularly angry at the idea of belief being merely practically true and not actually true, could it be that they are (more than likely unconsciously) motivated solely by their belief that they will actually be rewarded by God for being good and/or avoid punishment for not being bad? If this is the case, then their motivations can surely be questioned.

On the other hand, those that do not react bitterly to this supposition probably “get it”. It does not matter whether beliefs are actually true. What matters is that they are merely practically true as a means to improve cooperation and promote positive social interaction within society.

The challenge is getting EVERYBODY behind 1 ultimately arbitrary standard!

What's Your Favorite Color?

There is a story based on ancient Greek thought concerning a professor who teaches a young boy law without charging tuition. It is only stipulated that fees be collected upon the boy's first successful case. However, after countless hours of being taught law, the boy decides to become a musician instead, much to the chagrin of his professor.

Wanting to collect fees from the boy, the professor figures he can sue the boy and win whether the court rules in his favor or not. His reasoning is thus: if he wins, the court rules the boy must pay tuition fees but even if he loses, the boy wins his first case, which, as per the agreement, would entitle the boy to pay up. The boy, who represents himself in the matter, sees things in a slightly different light. If he loses, obviously nothing is owed the professor because he fails to win his first case. But even if he wins his first case, the court rules in his favor meaning he owes nothing to the professor. So who is right?

Both are right. Each argument is logically sound. This paradox has puzzled many a philosopher for centuries without resolution. It is impossible to resolve this with any sort of “absolute” solution. Ultimately, whichever “right” answer is chosen is as subjective as one's favorite color. Neither answer is the moral imperative. This is how I see much of reality. I think this paradox illustrates why accepting alternative viewpoints is so beneficial for society. We need to stop claiming there is necessarily a good/bad or right/wrong dichotomy to everything just as a means to feel more right(eous). I used to discredit the idea that what is right for one is not necessarily right for another as liberal nonsense but in light of the aforementioned argument I now deem this mantra valid.

An example of this argument might concern God and fairness. What is fairness concerning financial matters? Many “conservative” people believe God's fairness concerning financial prosperity is based on the idea that one should reap what he sows. People that are smart and productive will thrive whereas those that are not will struggle. Where then is the grace (as in a man should not reap what he sows)?

On the other hand, the more “liberal” types tend to believe God's fairness concerning prosperity is based on the idea that one should not reap what he sows. Prosperity should in this case be distributed more evenly than will naturally occur thus necessitating higher income redistribution. Take wealth from productive people and give it to those, God bless 'em, that just don't want to produce or are very poor at it. There is of course grace here but where is the personal responsibility (as in a man should reap what he sows)?

Before progressing further, I want to say it is my belief that both of these viewpoints are valid or invalid if you like. In other words, neither is a moral imperative in itself. They are different ways of dealing with the fact that reality as we experience it is a trade-off.

Many staunch conservatives will claim liberals use income redistribution as a means to buy votes. And this certainly is true. But can not the liberal perspective claim the same thing concerning conservative dogma? “If you vote for me, I will create income tax sanctuaries for your hard earned dollars!” It is the same method of “buying” votes that liberals use so effectively.

It is so hard for one side to see the other as being in any way valid because each so badly wants to be “absolutely” right. The challenge in dealing with this conservative/liberal dichotomy is that we ultimately must reach a compromise because there is little chance either extreme would or could ever happen.

And herein lies the dilemma. What is the “proper” level of moderation concerning, for instance, taxes and income redistribution? It's just like picking a favorite color! We will be arguing about this for the rest of time to no avail! How about trading democracy for a dictatorship?

Though many will likely cringe at the thought of a dictatorship, who do people think rules Heaven? The Supreme (perhaps benevolent) Dictator a.k.a. GOD. So what could possibly be wrong with a dictatorship? Maybe democracy isn't the optimal form of government after all? So what's your favorite color?

The Internet: A Blessing Or A Curse?

Personalized internet filters are a great way to provide only the content each individual prefers. This seems very convenient and fairly innocuous concerning somebody's favorite types of movies and music. But what about tailoring an individual's news sources (most of which today is merely opinion and rhetoric) only to those that are preferred? What is bound to stem from this?

People become so identified with their chosen perspectives which only further reinforces the polarity of today's society. How then are we ever to settle life's most pressing issues?

In this regard, though we may exercise our freedom by listening only to those "news" sources that appeal to us, what does this systematically lead to? Enslavement to very narrow-minded perspectives. In this case, our freedom to listen to preferred news sources becomes a paradox in itself: ironically it leads to enslavement.

An interesting corollary to this is that one's perception of reality seems to become more “real” than reality itself, in turn exacerbating the already existing polarity causing more resentment, more hatred, more suspicion and other such destructive thoughts.

A Perplexing Matter

If four cars come to a four-way stop simultaneously*, which one has right-of-way? This perfectly illustrates why a single perspective can not provide “absolute” truth. Each driver will look to his right and claim that that particular car has right-of-way. Trouble is, all 4 are to the right of somebody. It seems all of them have right-of-way. Or perhaps none of them? HUH?

*Strictly speaking, the idea of simultaneity is problematic. There is actually only 1 perspective from which the cars arrive simultaneously due to the finite speed of light. The order of each car's arrival thus depends on any given observer's position relative to each of the four stop signs. In this case, it is impossible for all 4 drivers to agree on the order of arrival, this of course precluding all of them from agreeing on a simultaneous arrival. This muddies things up further! Let's see how.....

If one were to imagine a traffic cop stationed in the middle of this intersection and it appears to him that all 4 cars arrive simultaneously, how will this appear to each car's driver? It will appear to be and actually will be erroneous. Reason being, since each car's driver is closest to his respective stop sign, he actually does get to the intersection before the others because their light, and hence their actual arrival events, are slightly delayed due to light's finite speed.

If one were to analogize a bit, a nice corollary can be made to the way we view conflict. Whereas each person instinctively views a given conflict from his perspective, could it be that each perspective might be right even though there is contradiction as is illustrated in the "stop-sign stalemate"? In this way the "traffic cop", who determines the simultaneous arrival of all 4 cars, can objectively declare a stalemate in determining who has right-of-way.

Extrapolate this onto many arguments and I believe this same principle holds true. Whereas each side of a conflict passionately believes its argument is right, maybe they are both right as might be viewed by an unbiased judge (perhaps it requires a bit of naive dreaming to even imagine there being a genuinely unbiased judge)? In which case we have a stalemate. What might be the best course of action then?

To realize that quite possibly NOBODY has THE RIGHT ANSWER! But we cannot seem to accept this wisdom. For we are far too identified with pride and ego to acquiesce. As such, we must fight all the while claiming God and/or principle is on our side! But as I've just pointed out, maybe there is no "rightful" winner. Maybe it is in actuality nothing but a stalemate?

And here I leave you with the perfect pretext for almost all conflict and argument: the purported right/wrong dichotomy. It simply must be conjured up.....to provide moral justification for it.

See link below for further discussion on the right/wrong dichotomy:

How About Illegalizing Indoctrination
http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/12/illegalizing-indoctrination.html

What Is An Ideal?

If an ideal truly is, it should not matter whether it has even the slightest effect on the state of things as the meaning is in the ideal itself. Only if evaluating an ideal from the perspective of practicality would it really matter whether upholding said ideal has a noticeable effect. However, at this point, the ideal itself would be rendered completely meaningless.

From a practical perspective, if doing “X” won't have any effect, if doing "X" won't change anybody or anything, then it would be meaningless! But if you really believe in the ideal as ideal itself, upholding it has complete meaning in itself regardless of its effects or lack thereof.

For instance, many say voting for a candidate that has no chance of winning is wasting a vote and therefore should not be done. But if your ideal is to vote your conscience, the fact that your vote will be “wasted” is of no consequence and is therefore not meaningless.

Rather, the meaning is in voting your conscience. Please see link below for more on the topic of ideals:

http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-makes-gods-ideals-ideal.html

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!

Who Of Us Makes Mistakes?

It is often said the man who makes no mistakes is the man who does nothing. Why would this be so?

Because just about everything any of us does is fraught with "mistakes" from somebody's point of view. The reason this is the case is that reality is or certainly seems to be predicated on a duality of opposites. Meaning something considered good is only good if there is something bad to oppose it, and vice versa.

But depending on the point of view espoused, good and bad can simultaneously be bad and good. Hence, no matter what action is taken, it is a "mistake" to somebody. Abstaining from action seems to produce no mistakes because of this "point of view" dilemma, hence the implication that the inactive man makes no mistakes.

But of course from a certain point of view it can be said that inaction itself is an action meaning even inactive types are prone to making "mistakes" as well.

So what is the best course of action then? Do 1) X,2) its opposite or 3) "nothing"? Why that is left to the discretion of the individual.

Whichever way, one's inevitable fate is that of making a mistake, or many I suppose. But of course the opposite seems true as well.....

Hope A Bit Off The Beaten Track

What is hope to me? To see life for what it seems to be and through this attaining peace and happiness through a perspective that comes to terms with this.

Hope to me is not deluding myself with some warm, fuzzy account of life very unlikely to be true merely because it sounds warm and fuzzy. Acknowledging that bad outcomes could only have been worse (this itself usually unconsciously implied), is a decidedly warm, fuzzy account of life.

For if one sees things as they truly are, is it not patently clear things could easily have been better as well? As such, my quest for knowledge and truth does not discriminate against ideas thought to be sad and hopeless or seemingly “inferior” in other ways.

For instance, many see Friedrich Nietzsche's ideas as not worth following only because he led such a seemingly tragic life. But maybe he stumbled upon some real truths and it is only because of this that he became so depressed?

As I seek truth, I refuse to suppress or deny ideas solely because I do not like them.....that would be incredibly irrational and discriminatory. Perhaps rationality is depressing?

Might this be why irrational thinking (a seeming oxymoron?) seems to be the order of the day?

What's The Use Of Trivial Knowledge Or Any For That Matter?

Trivial knowledge seems, well, trivial. The issue I have with trivial knowledge is that there is little or no practicality to the knowledge itself. For instance, the fact that Venus is the only planet in our solar system that rotates clock-wise with respect to its axis is useless trivia to me unless, that is, one knows why it does so?

Another example, to know the author of a particular book but know nothing of the book itself.....meaningless I say! On the other hand, one could legitimately question why it is any more practical to know why Venus rotates clock-wise or what an author's book is all about? Perhaps trivial knowledge could be more practical than the more detailed sort?

It seems to depend on how practicality is defined. If practicality is defined as that which aids one's living, for instance, then perhaps trivial knowledge can actually be practical if one earns a generous living by being a repository of what I deem "useless knowledge". In this case, what I previously implied as being "useful knowledge" could easily be seen as having no practicality if it fails to provide something practical like "income". But I would then argue that the practical benefit of what I deem "useful knowledge" could easily be predicated on the notion that knowledge is practical in itself. In which case it would seem that knowing Venus rotates clock-wise but not WHY would be practical in itself just the same. As would knowing the author of a book but nothing of its premise.

So much for my argument that trivial knowledge is meaningless. I seem to have defeated my own proposition! In the end, one need not earn income off his knowledge in order for it to be practical because knowledge can be practical in and of itself.

On the other hand, if one fails to find practicality in knowledge itself, then perhaps he can find practicality in knowledge as a means to help him earn a living? This obfuscates any absolute claim as to what is or is not useful knowledge. It depends on one's point of view!

What If All Of Society's Leeches Got Jobs?

What might happen to our capitalistic society if, as its most vociferous followers steadfastly desire, all the “low-lifes” and other dregs of society were to get their acts together by focusing on education and vocation as opposed to idleness and mischief? It would create a more competitive landscape placing downward pressure on wages and pay, all things being equal. So the trade-off might induce lower welfare outlays but this in turn would create decreasing wages and pay. So there might be little effect on net pay.

For instance, if one earns $80/hour and is taxed for $25 of it, his take home pay is $55/hour. However, if the “low-lifes” and other dregs involved themselves in the civilized affairs of society (i.e. got jobs), perhaps taxes could decrease by $10 (due to decreased welfare outlays) but the downward pressure put on wages and pay due to the “low-lifes” and other dregs getting involved in the economy would likely drag the hourly wage to $70/hour. In which case, the net effect on take home pay is $0. Taxes are lower but so is gross pay.

Perhaps psychologically people feel they are being “cheated” less if their take home pay is closer to their gross pay? Apart from this, however, there is no quantitative difference. $70/hour is $70/hour. This is overly simplistic to be sure, but the point of my argument is that a balanced and well functioning society seems to necessitate 3 distinct classes being present, this being a high, middle and low one. We should never hope for anything but this.

To many this seems unfortunate and depressing. But I did not author the nature of reality. I am but one of its messengers! To summarize, all 3 classes complement the functionality of the whole. One must remember that when attempting to “perfect” something as complicated as a society comprised of millions and billions of citizens, there will be innumerable unwanted and unforeseen consequences. This is why from a very reflective perspective, I think it wise to accept many things just as they are.

This comes across very pessimistic to many, understandably, but not heeding this principle simply gives the “advocates of change” something to feel self-righteous and superior about of which in actuality there is no superior method of dealing with complex issues like this because they are all of them fraught with difficult and oftentimes painful trade-offs! This will not be at all obvious to those that identify with one and only one perspective.

However, it becomes readily apparent when one looks beyond his single perspective. Remember, truth is not a product of one perspective. It is an amalgam of oftentimes opposing perspectives!

The Pot Calling The Kettle Black

Many on the conservative “right” exasperatingly claim how the liberal “left” controls the media and by doing so instill nothing but fear in their constituents concerning what the “other” side is doing to destroy society.

But are not the pundits on the “right” claiming Barack Obama will create a fascist, totalitarian society instilling fear in their constituents just the same? It seems the pot is calling the kettle black.

This kind of double standard is inevitable when minds become completely ensnared in political ideology based on absolute beliefs. When it is believed a single perspective can effectively address every difficult issue we face as a society, it is impossible not to succumb to this kind of hypocrisy!

A Humbling Realization

Many resentfully claim Barack Obama is heavily supported by blacks primarily, perhaps only, because he is black. So what? How is this any different a manner in which we all tend to make decisions regarding political candidates or anything for that matter?

Many commonly base decisions primarily or only on somebody's physical attractiveness, religious persuasion, support for/against gun control, support for/against the right to abortion, support for high/low taxes/entitlements (presumably driven only by how these issues affect themselves/their group(s), etc.

One could surmise all these reasons for basing decisions as patently superficial, or not. It depends on the perspective utilized. Ultimately, we all base decisions primarily on how it benefits us or the group(s) we most identify with. This is simply evolutionary group selection at play.

This Works, That Doesn't

It is often claimed by politicians, especially during campaigning, that they will do away with programs and policies that “do not work”. What does this mean? How is the determination made as to a program's or policy's efficacy? This once again is totally subjective based on different peoples' perspectives and above all else opinions.

Many will say being overly “generous” with entitlements for the poor does not work. But if one is poor and lazy, how does this not work for him? Typically we as a society evaluate a program's or policy's viability based on utilitarianism. A given program might serve its constituents exceptionally well, but if the costs of this program are too high for the number of people it benefits, it likely will be construed as something that “does not work”. 

But this type of thinking is merely arbitrary because it is not always followed. Oftentimes, we will pay anything to get back prisoners-of-war or kidnap victims, for example. But this is not utilitarianism, rather it is emotions that account for this type of response.

So how do we determine whether to base difficult decisions on utilitarian principles or emotional responses? How can this line be drawn but arbitrarily? Requiring buildings to have handicap access is likely driven by emotions as the cost of implementing these standards almost certainly outweighs the utilitarian benefits.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not against basing decisions on emotional foundations. Neither am I against basing decisions on utilitarian principles. I am simply pointing out that there is no imperative as to what should be done in any given situation. It is but subjective based purely on competing opinions no doubt shaped and motivated by how these issues affect us as individuals and as groups we represent. This seems selfish. And it is! It is nothing but evolutionary group selection. This is nothing to feel guilty about. It just is!

A Heavenly Realm

Heaven.....a literal place thought to exist beyond and transcendent to this realm. Why must it be literal? Perhaps because many feel compelled to envision an ideal society the likes of which will probably never be experienced here. But still, why must it be literal?

If one were to envision this “Great Beyond” as merely metaphoric, might this actually encourage him to “build” heaven here? Or at least try? In this case, why wait for it?

Heaven, in the mind of many, seems to be a place of homogeneity where everybody is worshiping the same God, the same ideals, the same politics, the same this, the same that. This seems very arrogant and boring, in my opinion. I see God as being the totality of every religion, every philosophy, every political viewpoint, every perspective, etc.

Why is it that many think heaven to be a place where everybody bows down to their religion, their philosophy, their politics, their perspective, etc? Probably because it caters to their INDIVIDUAL perspectives*.....this is nothing but EGO.

Might this nicely explain why many seem apt to believe that heaven will be experienced only in the “Great Beyond”, i.e., after we die? In this way, it is never incumbent upon them to exude humility and understanding and admit that they might not have the “absolute” truth of everything or anything for that matter. This humility would likely lead to tolerance of different ideas and create a less hostile world thus potentially leaving the coveted “Great Beyond” within sight. Behold, heaven!




*see link below for corollary

http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/07/shortcoming-of-absolutes.html

The Ultimate Scapegoat?

In my opinion, the idea of Satan is contrived to explain the many problems of the world beyond our control and, more importantly, to diffuse blame for humanity's problem. What problem? I suggest the fundamental “problem” with humanity is EGO. Each of us has one and it is just something we have to accept and, dare I say, appreciate. It is a “gift” we have as a result of our self-awareness.

When one is conscious, it is apparent the ego is nothing more than the animal instinct within each of us hell-bent on competing, dominating, feeling superior, prettier, wealthier, better, smarter, wiser, more right(eous), etc. And this is fine. After all, this drive enables us to travel along the “frontier of progress” like no other animal ever has. At least here on Earth! But as such, we are aware beings capable of seeing the havoc this type of egoistic behavior commonly leaves in its wake. Just look around the world and see the corruption and disharmony throughout.

The ego needs to see things as absolute in order to feel right at the expense of others who are wrong and it unconsciously wants enemies because it helps the ego feel good or at least better about itself. For example, wars are only ever fought because each side believes it has the truth or moral imperative. “God and His principles are on our side!” it is often declared. But if there is an absolute way to look at God and His principles, why do we not all reach the same conclusion(s) about God and His principles? If He is there but fails to make it perfectly clear who is right, why would I or should I feel compelled to believe He is good? Each competing side believes God and principles are with it and, as such, I find it difficult to demonize the “incorrect” side if it honestly believes it is right.

Furthermore, depending on the perspective embraced, there is no absolute method to evaluate who is right and who is wrong anyway. Therefore, it doesn't matter to me whether one side is correct and the other incorrect, whatever that might mean. As long as each side believes it's correct, I can not label one righteous and the other evil. When one is conscious, this is readily apparent.

The way I see it, one can only do evil if he consciously recognizes it as such. If an unconscious person does something evil, the worst I can say about him is that he is unconscious. The problem I have with labeling him “evil” or in any other negative way is that it will only serve to aggravate him thereby creating more conflict and disharmony. The problem is not that he is evil per se, it is that he is unconscious. Evil is simply a manifestation of unconsciousness.

The idea of Satan is among other things simply a by-product of competing egos unconsciously proclaiming their righteousness by demonizing others simply because they disagree.

The Search For God

In my view, the search for God is becoming more aware of our individual as well as our collective identity as human beings.

If self identity is one's life pursuit, there is less need, perhaps no need, to seek identity through things outside self. Things such as impressing others with accomplishments, self-righteous acts, flaunting wealth, physical appearance, ideology and beliefs, etc. What more likely than not happens when we pursue identity through these “superficialities”? We strive so tenaciously to accumulate these “superficialities” thereby making it paramount to subvert our decency and sensitivity toward others if it gets in the way of these pursuits, which eventually it always does. This we might call “sin”.

In addition, when seeking awareness of humanity's identity, it is obvious that we are all different genetically and culturally. Imagine the human body as humanity. Each cell is an individual human being. Would not a cell in the liver have a totally different perspective on things (morally, perhaps?) than a cell in the brain? Yet the cell in the liver is absolutely convinced that it has the “right” perspective on things. If the cell in the brain adopted the liver cell's perspective on things, would it be able to do its job properly? Of course not, because it is a brain cell, not a liver cell.

Some organisms engage in altruism whereas others engage in infanticide but ultimately whether we view these behaviors as good or bad is irrelevant. What is relevant is that these distinct behaviors seem to have facilitated the survival and prosperity of each.

A Matter Of Perspective

I have a passion for putting things in perspective. Take an orange, say about 4 inches in diameter. Pretend it is our sun with a diameter of 1 million miles (864,000 is more exact but will be avoided for simplicity's sake). Earth would be a small pellet (just shy of 1 millimeter in diameter) approximately 35 feet from our orange. Pluto, arguably the most remote planet, would be a tiny speck (barely one-tenth of a millimeter across) about a quarter mile or 1,389 feet away from our orange. The closest star to our orange is, brace yourself, another orange over 1,700 miles away! It is the Alpha Centauri star system, in reality about 4 light-years distant (186,000 miles per second for 4 years) or slightly more than 23 trillion miles, similar in magnitude to our country's debt!

Brace yourself again. This “density” of oranges spaced almost 2,000 miles apart is actually quite high for the universe as a whole. Most of intergalactic space is far more desolate.

The next thing I'm going to tell you is probably far more incredible than either of the aforementioned tidbits but is hard to grasp in any meaningful way, as if anything associated with interstellar space is. Assuming the Milky Way's 100,000 light-year diameter to contain about 100 billion stars (though today's estimates are generally much higher, on the order of perhaps 1 trillion stars), if one were to imagine clumping them together such that their ends were touching each other, every last one of them would fit in our solar system!

Of course this could never happen because all the stars would collapse into one super-ginormous black hole if they came into such close proximity! But aside from this annoying detail, if it is assumed the Milky Way's 100 billion stars are on average about 1 million miles in diameter (slightly more than the sun) and our solar system is a sphere with a 3.6 billion mile radius (this being Pluto's average orbital radius), they would in fact fit with much room to spare.

The volume of space in our solar system alone is so utterly breathtaking it could cause cardiac arrest on the impressionable. With a radius of 3.6 billion miles, there are an incredible 195 octillion cubic miles of space in our miniscule little solar system! The supposed 100 billion stars (stacked end to end like cubes in the shape of a sphere) take up a mere 100 octillion cubic miles, about half the solar system's volume!

We can also measure the volume of all the combined stars as if their contents were dumped like liquid into the sphere that is our solar system. In this way, there would be far more room left over than stacking all the stars like boxes (remember, when you stack balls, there is much room “waisted” between the balls). The necessary volume for this configuration of stars would only be about 52 octillion cubic miles, or about a quarter of the volume of our solar system.

What the hell is an octillion anyway? It's a thousand trillion trillion! Or a billion billion billion! Or how about a thousand million million million MILLION? Pluto's orbit maxes out somewhere around 3.6 billion miles from the sun but there have been other observed objects farther out still considered part of our solar system. This additional space could potentially allow for the purported 1 trillion stars in our galaxy if the radius of our solar system was bumped up to slightly more than 6 billion miles yielding approximately 1 nonillion or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cubic miles of real estate!

I know you think this must be wrong as I myself did when I initially pondered this idea. But suffice it to say, I have done the calculations and surprisingly it actually is the case!