The Ugly Side Of Caring

Could it be construed as meaningless to not care? I think so. But what if only by not caring can one be at peace, at least in some situations? This then seems to suggest peace itself can be meaningless. Which further suggests that if you care as an ideal, you will be precluded from upholding peace as an ideal.*

This seems to make sense looking around the world. It is only by caring so deeply that people routinely become slaves to madness. For instance, overly convicted people willing to commit unspeakable horrors only because they care so much about upholding their absolute view of truth. Peace in this case must fall by the wayside because it is in the way of their ultimate aim: to further their view of truth.

Many will say that without “caring” the world would systematically degenerate into a cold, cruel place only because there was no caring in the world. But alas, the world is already a cold, cruel place only because people care so much. There is both good and bad in caring and not caring. Lest we forget, everything is a trade-off!


An example of this "caring/peace" conflict follows:

Many might readily admit they are more inclined to care as an ideal thereby consigning peace to a subordinate position in cases where the 2 conflict. But at this point, what basis does anybody have to claim the things he cares about are the very things everybody else must or at least should care about? What happens when somebody else cares as an ideal but has different cares? Conflict will ensue, be it through thought or action. 

There will be judgment, fighting, arguing, name calling, feelings of arrogant self-righteousness, gnashing of teeth, etc. It need not be an “in-your-face” assault. A more subtle, seemingly peaceful response to this “conflict of cares” is passive aggressiveness. Pretending not to be bothered but being immensely so internally. Claiming to respect one's opinions but “secretly” thinking this person's opinions to be “dead wrong”, perhaps even evil. This has a very insidious effect on the state of things when all such feelings are taken into account. 

In contrast, if one's ultimate aim is peace, in situations where it requires not caring, conflict is thereby avoided. But alas, human beings have a seemingly unconscious, insatiable appetite for conflict masked only by their belief that they are upholding truth and righteousness, the most sacred of all virtues! It is only through conflict that the ego becomes fully empowered.

It seems those that embrace peace as an ideal appear weak because it limits or even “castrates” their ego as it were. Or perhaps those that do not embrace peace as an ideal simply overpower those that do making peace appear inherently impotent. Does this make it inferior?

I think of how Jesus might respond to this, with a question no doubt. Are you more interested in winning the argument or the person? Sometimes winning the person requires us to put aside our “cares”. Why do so few people seem to heed this wisdom? One word: EGO! 



*It is important to point out why I used the imperative will as opposed to might. Remember, an ideal is only so if always followed. Why is this? Without it being imperative, who is to say when it must or must not be followed? In this case, I am reasoning that there are at least some instances where not caring is the only path to peace. Therefore, one can not care as an ideal without contradicting peace as an ideal. So caring and peace must be mutually exclusive, at least sometimes. You can aim for one or the other but you can not uphold both ideals. So it is not the case that one might be precluded from upholding peace but rather one will be precluded from doing so if caring is embraced as an ideal. The converse is of course true as well. One will be precluded from caring as an ideal if peace is embraced as an ideal.

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?

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!

The Insanity And Absurdity Of Life

How do we determine the "right" course of action with "something" that more often than not seems neither "right" nor "wrong" but merely "liked" or "disliked"?

Since the "something" is not likely good or bad in itself, it needs to be "made" good or bad to provide the necessary moral justification for argument and conflict.

On the other hand, I understand that acknowledging the lack of goodness or badness in the "something" itself is not constructive because then HOW THE HELL DO WE DETERMINE WHAT THE "SOMETHING" SHOULD BE IF IT IS ULTIMATELY ARBITRARY?

Hence, in order to choose the "right" arbitrary decision, an ideological war must be waged. This is where politicians, talk show hosts and war mongers, notably, come into the fray. They (attempt to) recruit people to their arbitrarily chosen "something" by deluding others into believing there is either their "right something" or somebody else's "wrong something". People thus choose sides and war is waged.

Remember, people actually believe the "something" is over "right" and "wrong", not over mere preferences. But in the end, the chips "fall as they will" and the winner of this arbitrary decision "decides" what is "right".

Think of wars and conflict that result from argument and disagreement over mere preferences (of course it is by definition always believed to be over right and wrong). For if societies at large became aware that they were killing or fighting each other over mere preferences, they would likely cease fighting because of the lack of moral justification. But then how else would we determine what the "something" should be without waging wars or other forms of conflict?

The insanity and absurdity is thus: WE SIMPLY MUST CONVEY FALLACIOUS RIGHT/WRONG DICHOTOMIES TO EVERY "SOMETHING" IN ORDER TO MAKE DECISIONS, OTHERWISE NONE COULD BE MADE!

What Is The Greater Good For Society?

By honoring the brave men and women who fought and died for "our" country, might we simply be perpetuating resentment and conflict? By not honoring these brave men and women, might we curtail the sowing of resentment and conflict and as a result progress toward world peace? What if history stopped being taught?

Aside from the "immorality" of not honoring "our" brave forebears, what other detrimental consequence might result? Perhaps ignorance of history? But does not much of history seem very subjectively written (especially by winners of wars)? Might we be wise to question whether being taught history actually does make us less ignorant if much of it is overly subjective anyway?

Imagine Palestinian and Israeli kids no longer being taught (perhaps indoctrinated with might be more precise) their vile history. Might they become amiable to one another? Is this more or less a societal priority than honoring "our" brave forebears which seems to, among other things, perpetuate resentment and conflict?

What is the greater good for society?

The Correlation Between Disbelief And Dislike

Do you agree with much or even any of my writings? If yes, so be it. If no, why? Do you (want to) disbelieve them because you dislike them* or do you (want to) dislike them because you disbelieve them**?

On the other hand, might disbelief and dislike be interchangeable? Perhaps disbelieving something is but a proxy for disliking it? In this sense, much of our argument and conflict could be over mere preferences, not over right and wrong.

It is very reasonable to ask the inverse as well.....do you (want to) believe "x" because you like "x" or do you (want to) like "x" because you believe "x"?

In this case, from what do we derive our moral justification for fighting and arguing over mere preferences?

Notice this makes no attempt to discern what is actually true. Rather, it is merely an attempt to explain why one might choose to believe or disbelieve something.

*If you disbelieve them because you dislike them, this categorically denies what might be true simply because it is disliked. This is a decidedly subjective verdict, devoid of objectivity. Which brings us to a very critical crossroads.....do you seek to believe what your intellectual honesty can afford or what you want?

**If your disbelief in them inclines you to dislike them, this will inevitably lead to argument and conflict because disliking "x" has a way of making "x" wrong or bad. At which point the purported right/wrong dichotomy is fabricated to provide the moral justification for argument and conflict.

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".

Personal God?

Personal to whom? To me? To you? To them? I do not believe any type of existent God could be personal. At least insofar as how we individually and, dare I say, selfishly define personal. And why would we not? Or rather how could we not? What is personal if it does not revolve around self? Ideas of a personal God then seem to naturally mimic our individual preferences and whims.

But this will often conflict with a collective concept of what is preferable and desirable for society as a whole which is the only type of view I could ever imagine a hypothetical God espousing. Otherwise, whose side might He be on when there is disagreement?

Do you not see how arbitrary any answer to this is? In light of this dilemma, is it now quite apparent God's view must revolve around a collective perspective?

So in essence, I am saying that our individual concepts as to what makes God personal are by definition very selfish! If God acquiesces to my personal preferences, how then could He be personal to somebody else with competing preferences?

In the quintessential competition that is war, for example, somebody wins and somebody loses. How could God be personal to both? Therefore, there seems to be a dilemma with the idea of a personal God.

The Collective Struggle Of Existence 2

I want to discuss my idea of accepting what is. “Shirley you can't mean accepting everything just as it is,” Mr. Smith asks quizzically?

Firstly, I will respectfully ask him not to call me Shirley ever again! Secondly, what if I were to tell him that is exactly what I mean?

“Well that just sounds like a meaningless waste of a life, devoid of satisfying your wants and desires and hence accomplishing little or nothing,” Mr. Smith sadly reflects. Perhaps.

But the fact that few if any practice this philosophy of accepting everything exactly as it is inevitably leads to conflict. Why? Because the world we live in is finite and as such, there will be many losers for all the winners out there! This collective struggle explains why the world is exactly as it is.

My point in advocating a philosophy based on accepting everything exactly as it is is to expose what systematically stems from a philosophy that does not. Conflict and struggle over power, money, resources, ideology, jobs, mates, etc.

Many will point out that obviously we should accept some things as they are but not everything. The problem with this is that there is no consensus as to what exactly should be accepted and what should not. This being the case, there will be conflict and struggle regardless because many of the things some think should be accepted, others think should not which in turn creates conflict and struggle.

My point is not to say one should or should not accept this or that. My point is that the inevitable result of people trying to change what is to what they think should be is conflict and struggle! I see this as neither good nor bad in itself. It just is.

However, the ramifications of this conflict and struggle will inevitably manifest itself in very ugly ways. Fighting, arguing, blaming, violence, vengeance, war, envy, resentment, espionage, treason, etc. This must be accepted with a philosophy predicated on changing what is to what each individual thinks should be.

This is why the world is exactly as it is! How could it be any other way?

The Collective Struggle Of Existence

It of course goes without saying that even if there was 1 society built upon 1 arbitrary yet coherent ideology, there would still be a collective struggle due to there being a finite supply of resources (mates, jobs, precious jewels and metals, fancy cars, oil, fame, etc.) It seems we were just “made” to be in a constant state of competitive conflict.

If there were an infinite supply of things, we would all presumably have everything we want. But would this make us (feel) happy and fulfilled? Probably not, as our happiness seems unconsciously built upon being above others because of the way we were “made” to be in a constant state of competitive conflict (this to me is a very justified evolutionary trait which is not so justified in today's overly prosperous societies where life-sustaining needs are met many times over). Hence our compulsion to “outdo” others or at least want to.

Apparently, if there were an infinite supply of everything, there would be no way for the ego to survive! On the other hand, if this had been the case, might we surmise the ego would never have existed in the first place? In any case, this is essentially what I envision heaven as, albeit figuratively. A place where Satan (ego) is completely vanquished.*

My opinion is Jesus was talking about this very thing (eradicating ego) but apparently it went largely unnoticed! For heaven to most people is implied to be a realm where NOBODY is suffering. We could conceivably do this today (to a much greater extent at least) but we are burdened by our own SELFISHNESS/EGO. Hence the belief that God will transform us after we die at which point we will FINALLY be able/forced to embrace an attitude that addresses suffering (like sharing resources when so many of us are overflowing with them).

But is this not the essence of SOCIALISM? Why then do we so vilify (especially the "conservative" religious among us) the idea of socialism as if it were some intrinsic evil? Why do people not acknowledge this CONTRADICTION?

Many will retort that socialism would leave little incentive to work causing the wholesale collapse of society leaving ALL OF US to suffer. HUH? How about being motivated to work JUST FOR GOD! Why then do we "need" excessive compensation above and beyond our basic needs? TO BE ABOVE OTHERS! Which is just what I would expect if evolution has shaped us over time to attempt or at least want to rise above others!

Once again, what about being motivated to work as hard as you can simply and only for God? Why then should it matter whether 95% of your income is taken and given to those that don't have it (including for the sake of argument people that don't have wealth simply because, God bless'em, they are stupid and lazy)? Because you are not motivated to do so for God, rather you are motivated to do so for YOURSELF (which of course includes collectives YOU identify with and support)! Please do not be ashamed.....this is how we are wired!

In the end, might the idea of heaven simply have originated to mitigate feelings of guilt due to all the cruelty and "unfairness" inherent in life?


*Would this be good or bad? Perhaps it would be both good and bad.....for it seems war would become a thing of the past (good). But then so would competitive sports become a thing of the past (bad).