A Just Set Of Laws

What is justice? A modern philosopher, John Rawls, created a thought experiment concerning just this. How could lawmakers discern what would be the perfectly “just” set of laws for society? His experiment was thus: have the lawmakers create a set of laws knowing full well they will die upon implementing these “just” laws. Here's the rub.....they are told they will then be reincarnated with no knowledge of what position they will hold in this forthcoming society they alone have shaped.

Will they be part of the ruling class? Will they constitute the elite and hence own the means of production? Or will they perhaps be merely a “mediocre” member of the proletariat? This forces the committee to create laws which are fair for all classes, hence perfectly “just” laws. Without this “arrangement”, any potential lawmaker will tend to advocate laws which sweeten his position above that of others. Now, now! No need to judge him.....after all, this is largely unconscious. Furthermore, if you were in this position, you would almost certainly do the same as well. As would I.

Remember, much in life is a zero-sum-game and as such, somebody wins and somebody loses. How many of those in a position to make laws are going to do so predicated on that which is not advantageous to them? Few or none in my opinion.

The trouble with this thought experiment is it “forces” anybody in this position to disassociate from evolutionary group selection. Which is no doubt what most of us unconsciously gravitate toward. And why would we not? This is likely obvious to those that believe in evolution.

On the other hand, for those that do not believe in evolution as a means to explain our inherent selfishness, why might this be so? Satan? Who or what is Satan? Perhaps a metaphor for our penchant to be selfish? But what might this be? Evolutionary group selection?

How Do You Identify Yourself?

Identifying self with forms is how many in our society live their entire lives. It essentially means taking stuff from the outside to make us who we are. Examples include material objects like money, things, cars, expensive clothes, good looks, etc. The intangibles include things like popularity, accomplishments, strength, intelligence and many other things.

The problem this identity in form subjects us to is that all these things are fleeting. What happens when the essence of who you are (assuming in this case your identity is in things outside yourself) comes to an end but you still have yourself? Who is yourself at this point, with nothing to define you? The only thing that will not fade is the “I am” within you. And this is the you detached from all the stuff in the world that might currently define you.

Now there exists another type of identity with form which is especially insidious because it is unconscious to most. This is identification with ideology. Ideology is nothing but “thoughts”. What you believe and whether you are “right” or “wrong” for that matter is inconsequential to who you are. But many identify themselves with political beliefs, religious doctrine, world views and sports teams nonetheless.

Be forewarned: identification with ideology can be and often is dangerous. Imagine your identity, the essence of who you are, enshrined in your political and religious beliefs and ideas. If one disagrees with your beliefs, he is not just saying your beliefs are rubbish, he is saying you are rubbish. Them's fightin' words! It is a personal attack. And this is commonplace in our society today. People so often become their beliefs (religious, political, etc.) so much so that it leaves no room for constructive criticism not of people but of beliefs and ideas.

I like beliefs and ideas being criticized. It helps all of us grow and learn, or at least should. And maybe, just maybe, we will be better able to see other viewpoints and not be so blinded by our own “correct” viewpoints. Beliefs and ideals are fine. But they are not you!

The Perfect Radio Talk Show Host

Why do radio talk show hosts so love controversy? Ratings, my dear Watson. Most of us “prefer”, perhaps unconsciously, to hear provocative rhetoric because it causes reaction, one of the necessary precursors to distrust, resentment, hatred, argument, conflict and eventually even violence. The ego loves this!

My writings shouldn't cause reaction because they are not inspired by lust for controversy, rather they are inspired by quiet, contemplative, philosophical reflection. I think the world would in relatively short order become a much more inviting place (not perfect by any means!) if people embraced information sources stemming from quiet, contemplative, philosophical reflection as opposed to embracing sources guaranteed to anger or excite their senses thus causing rash and impulsive reaction with little or no thought.

Does not much of conflict and strife seem to stem from our tendency to react rashly and impulsively to situations? What might the world be like if people thought before they reacted? It is likely they would react much less harshly. Or perhaps not react at all? What would such a world be like? Hmmm?

The Paradox Of “Good" Guys Using War For Peace's Sake

It is often resentfully claimed that when “good” guys are "forced" to attack “bad” guys, these “bad” guys routinely resort to cruel and sadistic methods to tip the scale in their favor. They even use innocent women and children as shields! Can you believe that? Innocent women and children as shields!

Well, since they have already been labeled “bad”, why should they be dissuaded from using any strategy which might afford them an advantage over the “good” guys. What do they have to lose in the way of reputation at this point? The best they can hope for in not using women and children as shields would be for others to view them as merely “bad” instead of something much worse. In essence, this would assure their defeat but be mitigated by the fact that others will see them as only “bad”.

This does not sound particularly alluring even to me. And I have little or no proclivity to get angry or violent when confronted by people that accuse me of being bad! What does one suppose a person with this proclivity will do if he is accused of being “bad”. If I had to guess, he will become really bad!

This is perhaps the most fundamental dilemma in trying to reconcile war to morality and peace. Labeling people negatively will only further aggravate them, in turn dragging them into an even deeper state of unconsciousness thus prompting their use of more and worse defensive measures.

Using violence under the guise of upholding truth and righteousness is yet more unconsciousness fighting unconsciousness*. This cycle will only ever manifest itself as more unconsciousness.


War is like a pendulum. No matter how out of equilibrium it might be at any given time (this being analogous to lulls in violence and conflict), if left untouched for sufficiently long, it will reach equilibrium (war)!

*Am I saying "we" should NEVER go to war? Decidedly not! Herein lies the most fundamental insanity and absurdity of existence.....fighting wars while claiming (and presumably believing) they will eventually lead to peace! If "we" choose to go to war or it is chosen for us, "we" should harbor no such pretense that peace will ever avail. War is what it is. Though there does not seem to be moral justification for it largely because of the indiscriminate death and destruction it leaves behind, many times it seems "we" must declare it. Once again, this is life's most insane and cruel irony!

Doomed To Be Hated 2

Barack Obama took criticism for giving the Queen of England an Ipod as opposed to something far more extravagant as is usual for a head-of-state. Should he have given her something much nicer, perhaps fancy jewels or some other priceless artifact?

On the other hand, if Obama had given the queen of England fancy jewels or some other priceless artifact, how does one suppose these same critics would have responded?

I have previously mentioned how hatred works (see Doomed To Be Hated) and in this case, the critics will always find fault with whatever is done or not only because they have set out to find fault in some way. And as I have said before, because there is no “perfect” answer to much of anything on this godforsaken mud-ball we call Earth, there will always be fault to find with any decision.

If Obama had lavished the Queen with luxurious excesses, I guarantee you these same critics would have waisted no time in pointing out how unconscionable this was especially given the current economic conditions and all the suffering many of his citizens are experiencing.

Once somebody is hated, this person is faced with a double-edged sword with any decision or action. How can Obama ever turn one of his haters into one of his lovers?

Doomed To Be Hated

Especially as it pertains to politicians, many “decide” to hate once and for all, making it impossible for the hated to ever escape being hated. This is silly as it renders hatred frivolous, much like wholeheartedly believing something simply because it can not be falsified.

For could one not just as well wholeheartedly hate somebody simply because there can always be found "things" to hate about him? It certainly seems so.....but how?

In order to illustrate how, I'm going to present somebody who “hates” uncommonly kind people. We might suppose this person resents nice people because they highlight his meanness, something or other. What countermeasure can a nice person possibly utilize to curry favor with such a person? Might he try being mean? My bet is if this nice person shows any hostility, the mean person will hate him because he is mean. In this case, the nice person is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't! This is how hatred works!

Once one “decides” to hate somebody (oftentimes unconsciously), there can always be found reasons to continue to hate the person thereby reinforcing and perpetuating the hatred. At this point, the hated are forever doomed to be hated!

The Irrationality Of Guilt

Guilt is so oftentimes unconscious. I notice this with people that strive so much to be “selfless”, more than likely out of a sense of obligation. At some point, they “give in” and purchase something that is “obviously lavish” to them.

Why do I say it is “obviously lavish” to them? Because more often than not they feel overly compelled to “justify” said purchase. Without any sort of accusation, they begin defending it. “Well, I consulted God and He said I can buy this because I have so faithfully contributed to many worthwhile (translation: selfless) causes,” something or other.

If somebody is doing well for himself and wants to buy a $100,000 car and/or a $2 million estate, I say go for it! Why feel guilty? “Because obviously it is excessive and therefore unconscionable given the fact that there are starving children in Africa,” or so it is more or less implied.

But will there not be starving children in Africa or wherever else regardless? I can't help but think that if wealthy people walked everywhere and lived only in ramshackle dwellings, there would still be plenty of children in abject poverty.

A Divine Reflection

In a purely metaphoric sense, I think King Solomon may have “found” God by stumbling upon something seemingly unconscious and hard-wired into the human race. I think he became conscious of the fact that he wanted to want more than he ever wanted to have! This explains why he was never satisfied with all his wealth, jewels, concubines, gold, extravagances, etc.

Once again, reflect on this.....he did not want to have all this stuff, rather, he only wanted to want it all. Might this describe you?

I readily admit this applies to me with many things, especially my relentless pursuit of wisdom. Do not be alarmed or feel ashamed. It is just an unconscious compulsion of the human dysfunction a.k.a. the ego! It is, in my opinion, insanity.

Only awareness of this will ever avoid the dissatisfaction that is bound to stem from this! I believe this is why in Buddhism it is often said that true peace and contentment comes from not wanting.

True Forgiveness

What is true forgiveness? To me it is accepting ill treatment from somebody by totally and completely putting it behind and not dwelling on it, realizing the action was committed because of unconsciousness to ego. Some people who might otherwise avenge wrongs done against them reluctantly leave the judgment to God and call this forgiveness. But I reject this claim! I think forgiveness with the belief that God will eventually “settle” matters is not forgiveness. It is merely retribution by proxy.

The ideal way to look at wrongs committed against us is well expressed by Jesus during his last breaths. Speaking of those responsible for his predicament, he asks the Father to forgive them, for they know not what they are doing. He obviously realizes these people are unconscious. This is the essence of forgiveness in my opinion.

I have to ask myself if I am capable of “truly” forgiving. What is required of me to demonstrate this kind of forgiveness? It is almost as if the only way to attain such peace from wrongs done against me is to not care. Not care about what? How about protecting my ego? When we are taken advantage of, the ego is under assault so it feels entitled to defend itself by exacting revenge in some way, be it through thought or action. If one cannot advance in life without getting over wrongs committed against him and has a compulsion to harbor ill thoughts toward wrongdoers, it is a strong sign the ego is in control. Think about it. If somebody is taken advantage of, is he still not the same person? Of course. He is and only ever will be exactly the person he has always been.

So not being able to forgive is a sign that the ego is in control, and therefore, the person has staked his identity in ego, not his true self. This, as I've said before, is the fundamental “problem” with humanity. As long as the ego is in control, things will never change. There will be no lasting peace, political compromise will be impossible, there will be lack of understanding amongst one another (and no desire to understand), fighting over ideology will be rampant, the list goes on and on. And I think where this leads to is the wisdom of accepting things as they are. As long as you reject what is, there will be much conflict and struggle for peace within.

I believe the essence of what Jesus is talking about in weakness being strength and strength being weakness is the following: "the world" defines strength by identification with the ego. Jesus' view on this axiom is diametrical. True strength comes from detachment from ego. Only then can the essence of your “I am” surface.

Sleazy Politicians

Why do most politicians seem driven only for the sake of inflating their egos? My guess is that by definition anybody aspiring to be in a such a prominent position will necessarily be ego-driven, at least unconsciously. If this is the case, the politician's primary motivation will be simply to win as opposed to exercising his or her conscience.

I have pondered the ideality of all candidates being genuine as a means to “force” us into picking somebody who is genuine. But if all or at least most politicians are ego-driven and as such are primarily driven not by conscience but by the drive to win, how can we ever expect to get away from sleazy politicians?

At this point, we must realize and accept the ego as both a blessing and a curse. I appreciate the fact that there are those with big egos who aspire to govern, because alas, I, and many others I suspect, have neither the ambition nor the ego to seek such “high” places. The flip-side of this follows: these politicians, ultimately driven by ego, will be more interested in winning than in exercising their consciences thereby perpetuating this cycle of sleaziness.

We should acknowledge this reality and stop wondering why politicians tend not to act on principles.