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.

Should The People Decide?

Concerning an issue like gay marriage, should it be determined by a public referendum? If so, should a public referendum in favor of slavery be valid just the same (as I'm sure society would have at some point in the past favored)? If not, why should a public referendum against or even in favor of gay marriage be any more valid just because a majority of its citizens desire it? Just the same, what would a public referendum in Nazi Germany have yielded? Perhaps solidarity with Nazi propaganda?

Majority opinion on a given issue does not necessarily make it right or good, nor does it necessarily make it wrong or bad. How then are we to know what "progress" really is? It seems neither majority opinion nor supposedly benevolent politicians offer any clear answers to this. Perhaps we should seek God to shed light on such matters? If so, the question now becomes, whose God?

Even if majority opinion suggests we follow "God X" (of course as per my fundamental argument even this is dubious), there is still no consensus as to how we are to view "God X" anyway. Does "God X" want a society built upon self-reliance (strive for a more capitalistic approach) or does He prefer a society built upon reliance on Himself and by extrapolation others (strive for a more socialistic approach)? Does He want society to be conformed or tolerant? Does He want a society that places judgment on our failures and scandals or grace, mercy and forgiveness? Does He want a society that embraces ecological balance even at the expense of humanity or does He prefer a society that places utmost importance and care on humanity?

Of course the obvious response to these questions would be to say that God's "truth" lies somewhere in the "middle" of all these dichotomies. But this obfuscates the problem just the same because there is no consensus as to what the "middle" actually entails. Ultimately, people harbor conflicting views of the same God!

Who then can we necessarily trust? Not the masses, surely. Neither can we trust allegedly benevolent politicians. Nor apparently even GOD!* How about trusting ourselves as individuals? I must confess that this scares the living daylights out of me! Trust myself? In any case, how shall we address our intense disagreements? 



*I can't help but think peoples' supposed "trust in God" is simply a proxy for trusting themselves. In other words, it is a projection of EGO onto "all-knowing and infallible God". This in turn elevates peoples' mere opinions to stratospheric "holier than thou" heights because after all, they come not from self but from GOD. So in essence, we seem to arrive back at the idea of trusting ourselves as individuals. But once again, how shall we address our intense disagreements?

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!

A Few Kurtisms To Chew On.....

I don't understand why people use bathroom deodorizers! All it does is makes it smell like someone took a shit in a rosebush!

Paranoia is a steady-state that persists independent of proof. The ego thrives on it!

Would those predisposed to boredom deem a longer lifespan good?

There is a legitimate way to shirk duties! Just say you will do it tomorrow! Because tomorrow is always tomorrow, paradoxically it is never tomorrow!

Do not overlook the profound wisdom in scrutinizing trivial things as this becomes a stepping stone to evaluating far bigger things!

There is at least a piece in each one of us in those we judge. As such, I recommend we think twice before doing so!

Do not be so quick to judge those that have had affairs. If all the judges out there did not have it in them to go on and do just the same, there would be far fewer affairs!

Be careful to distinguish forgiveness from consequences. Being forgiven does not mean consequences magically disappear!

It can be humbling and perhaps a bit traumatizing when it becomes evident that much of what you never questioned is actually insane!

I think the best answer for making the world a better place is to focus less around doing and more around becoming aware! Do not worry about doing as this will systematically follow awareness.

Absurdity Of The Ego!

Why would a girl or guy think others might be impressed because she or he can drink a lot? In the case of a woman bragging about her ability to drink guys “under the table”, this does not impress me. It leads me to believe, among other things, she would be a relatively expensive date (and likely cheap in other ways)! I don't mean to come across stingy, just practical. No, I prefer a woman with low tolerance. And likewise, what would a guy's reason be for boasting about his ability to imbibe with reckless abandon? That he will be the first of his peers to contract cirrhosis?

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!

If Only Everybody Believed The Same Thing, Things Would Be Fine!

"Well," it will likely be retorted, "I don't think things would be fine if everybody was a militant Muslim!" But if everybody was a militant Muslim, would anybody be a militant Muslim? It seems a militant Muslim would have nobody to be militant toward and hence no reason to be militant at all. Which just begs the question, how could a militant mindset originate without a purported enemy?

It takes an opposing view, not necessarily any more right or wrong or good or bad than another, to foment conflict in the first place! So once again, if only everybody believed the same thing, things would be fine.

I must confess, however, I'm not quite that naive. After all, I'm pretty certain if we did not have religion or politics or alma maters or whatever else to fight over, we would "find" as-yet-unknown things to fight over. After all, we must fight. It's that pesky ego!

Why Might We Seek God?

I believe the reason a person seeks God at some point in his life is grounded in a desire to get “outside” self and become connected to something bigger than his/her small insignificant self. I speak of those who seek God to distinguish them from those which had it “chosen” for them at birth or childhood.

By seeking something bigger than oneself, this usually signifies a desire to distance oneself from ego. But what seems to happen quite often is the ego unconsciously reasserts itself within the context of this new found relationship with God. It is very common for many to become so imprisoned by dogma that being who they are is less important than being “correct”. I will expound on this idea with something I personally experienced during which time I was a Christian with a very typical set of beliefs.

Homosexuality and abortion are 2 of the most egregious forms of sin in the eyes of many believers. So because of this, I felt compelled to see these things as “absolutely wrong” though deep down I sympathized with each. Most homosexual people I had come across were very respectful and thus my “I am” had no reason to be critical of them or their behavior. However, my dogma, which was essentially a manifestation of my ego, told me otherwise. This conflict was only overcome when I “broke free” of the dogma which imprisoned me.

In the same vein, abortion is a very explosive and complicated topic. It is unpleasant to think about but I don't think this in itself qualifies me to deem it absolutely and utterly wrong. There are situations where abortion seems to be the “least terrible” choice.

The application of just a small amount of reason suggested to me that there are situations involving abortion, or any controversial issue for that matter, that have no good answers. Asking what an absolutely perfect God would do in such situations is irrelevant because oftentimes there is no perfect answer let alone any mediocre answers.

However, if one substitutes God with “ego” it becomes quite apparent what the perfect answer is. Whatever your ego tells you!

The Mirage Of Moral Perfection

It seems to me an even trade-off concerning many peoples' desire to create a more moral society. As the system utilized to evaluate morality gets more stringent, it progressively exposes more of our individual and collective “flaws” so much so that it does little or nothing to change peoples' relative perceptions about morality. 

Figuratively speaking, suppose society “progressed” to a point where the word "fuck" was never, ever uttered again all because of the valiant efforts of the Banishment of Foul Language Society (BFLS). It seems we might be getting somewhere in creating a more moral society, eh?

But now as per my argument, the fact that "fuck" is never heard anymore is of no consequence in evaluating our “goodness”. What is today a fairly benign word, crap, becomes the new "fuck". Ideals change.

Remember, what should be never is because there is always another what should be lurking behind whatever is thought should be.

It seems the ego does not want to relinquish its feeling of moral superiority and does so by declaring things should always be something they are not and never will be!

Winning Isn't Everything

Why is it so important which team wins? Why not just accept and embrace whichever team wins? Why can't we all be happy for the winning team? In fact, why limit our happiness for the winning team? Why not be happy with the winning team? Why show partiality? Presumably, each team is just as deserving as the next and, therefore, whichever team wins is the rightful winner. In this way, what is, it seems, is exactly what should be.

Now I am not against winning. I like winning like everybody else, but if I do not, it is of little or no consequence as I still have my identity in myself as opposed to having my identity in being a winner or loser.

I think the insidious effect of this identity in winning or losing (think politics among other things) is it unconsciously encourages the ego to create enemies where they are not. It's that evolutionary mindset hardwired into each of us that tells others you're either with me or against me!

Sadly however, once an "alleged" enemy has been created, it is too late. The "alleged" becomes an enemy by definition. The ego then valiantly “stands its ground” through arguing, fighting, hating, resenting and/or harboring distrust which only serves to perpetuate this friend/foe dichotomy leading to much disharmony and destruction.

From God Or From Self?

It seems backing one's agenda with God is essentially masking ego, or at least attempting to do so. For what is the difference in saying my opinions and convictions dictate my behavior and beliefs versus God's opinions and convictions doing so?

Many will of course say the difference is obviously that one set of opinions and convictions stems from self whereas the other set of opinions and convictions stems from God. But then why are all opinions and convictions from God not in agreement?* Presumably because they are not from God. They are from self!

In this way, it could be said that God's opinions and convictions only ever stem from any given person's ideas of what God's opinions and convictions should be. Which of course will be whatever the ego sees fit!


*Perhaps God DOES allow us to be mistaken? However, does it not seem those that acknowledge this seldom concede they themselves could be mistaken? How then are we to know who of us is mistaken and who is not?

A Reflection On Personal Identity

You can not “try” to be yourself. You can only “be” yourself. Similarly, you can not express individuality by “trying” to distinguish yourself. This is simply following the convention of being different only for the sake of being different.

In other words, you can not find yourself by being different. You can only find yourself by being.

Many people follow a convention only to satisfy the ego's lust for identity in things outside of self. This is simply the ego seeking a false sense of self through “trying” to be different.

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).

Statistics: A Perverted Art?

In my own statistical test of other statistical tests, I have concluded there is a 95% probability that any given conclusion is 800% more likely to be complete bullshit.....though there is only a 20% chance of that when it is cloudy outside! Then again, if my test is typical of most then it is bullshit anyway meaning the other tests might very well be valid.

I'm being facetious to illustrate how statistics are so commonly perverted as a means to explain anything or everything. Do you want to presuppose legalizing guns helps or hinders society? Or how about "proving" global warming is predominantly caused by man (or woman)? Perhaps you want to conclude the opposite? Just selectively choose your data and variables and I'm sure you can “prove” either.

I believe one of the dangers inherent in most of these statistical tests is that it unconsciously encourages many to identify with and support only conclusions already believed or at least wanted to be believed. In this way, it inflates their egos by giving them something to feel “right” about.

“This statistical conclusion performed by The Institute of Environmental Fascists (IEF) confirms my suspicion about us being the primary cause of global warming, therefore it must be true”, says the man. “Oh really, this test performed by Fossilized Carbon Collectors' Institute (FCCI) suggests otherwise,” says another man. One can see the inherent bias of these silly examples and though they are a bit exaggerated, I think the point is made. 

People want to believe things in order to feel superior and righteous about their preferred causes. Perhaps their belief in the “truth” also gives them a sense of control they would otherwise be without.

Let's also suggest the potential for a self-fulfilled prophesy to transpire only because it is foretold by a given conclusion. As an example, I can't help but think how many hypochondriacs have been created only as a result of having an allergy test which “dictates” that a given person should react to a certain substance. Might a reaction come about purely or at least partially in response to the belief that it should or would?

With diseases, social problems, mental problems, environmental problems, blah, blah, blah. The issue I have with statistical tests is not the tests themselves, but rather the underlying assumptions and variables used to reach the conclusion(s) which are almost always chosen only to validate something already believed or wanted to be believed, thereby creating meaningless circular arguments.

Infinite Or Absolute?

Does not the idea of a God based on absolutes restrict Him? How can this be so if He is infinite?

If it is supposed God wears a blue cape, this being analogous to an absolute, then He can not simultaneously don a red one. But if He is infinite, must He by definition wear the red cape along with every other color cape simultaneously?

People tend to harbor restrictive views concerning God arbitrarily. It is often implicitly stated that God can only do or think in a certain manner prescribed by me according to my interpretation of scripture or what feels good to me. But then, just as easily, it is declared that God is so beyond comprehension that one can never know how He might view another situation.

On the one hand, saying God is absolute on a given matter restricts Him thus rendering Him something less than infinite. On the other hand, saying God is vastly bigger than one can ever imagine leaves ideas about Him wide open.

This means many commonly thought absolutes can be less restrictive and, hence, something less than absolute. What is the most likely culprit behind those that are "absolutely" certain? Ego of course.

Ego: Friend Or Foe?

Far be it from me to imply ego as intrinsically bad. It is not. However, with the exception of natural disasters and human “mistakes”, bad or “evil” only ever stems from ego.

On the other hand, perhaps we might say many of the greatest feats of humanity are only ever achieved because of ego. In this case, all or much of good stems from ego as well.

It would thus seem ego is neither good nor bad in itself. Rather, it just is. The problem, if you will, is distinguishing “good ego” from “bad ego”. But this discrimination is prohibitively difficult because it requires an absolute definition as to what is good and bad.

Certainly there would be consensus as to a serial killer's acts being “bad ego”. But what about a military leader who is confident and brash through which he achieves victory for his people? He has given them hope and prosperity for the future but has annihilated another country and its people by doing so. Is this “good ego”? I suppose it is if one is on his side.

What about a scientist who finds a cure for a deadly disease only by “cheating” here and there? What about vigilante justice of the JACK BAUER type? GO JACK! What about an athlete that inspires a whole society only because of his mind-boggling feats but is later found out to have doped to achieve all of this? What if a doped up athlete inspires a whole society only because of his ill-gotten abilities but is not found out? Are any of these examples “good ego”?

I suppose it might depend on whether one believes the ends justify the means or perhaps the means justify the ends. But once again, these guidelines themselves are wholly dependent on what is considered good and bad anyway.

In summary, ego will achieve ends considered both good and bad. Likewise, ego will operate under means considered both good and bad. But ego seems neither good nor bad in itself because it only ever has one master: itself. In other words, ego does not exist to better or worsen society. It simply exists to better itself.

The Matrix

Imagine, as many do, that there exists a God with an agenda of some sort. Might this be construed as a form of coercion and manipulation? If not, why should it be anymore construed as coercion and manipulation if everything was created to serve an earthly ruling order? What is the difference?

Many will claim the difference is that a world controlled by God is divinely inspired whereas a world controlled by human beings “wanting” to coerce and manipulate, unconsciously even, would not be divinely inspired. Hence the reason this would seem evil.

But even in the case of God, there is no consensus as to what is or should be the world's “divine” path to follow, obfuscating that which might be considered divine.

Does God aspire to create a conformed or tolerant society? Does He prioritize human beings or ecological balance? Does He embrace self-reliance or dependence on Himself and perhaps others? Does He advocate capitalism or socialism? There is no consensus on Who God is or at least Who He should be. Therefore, it is hard to imagine how a being thought to be divine could actually be so.

Many argue passionately how God “sees” things yet often find little common ground with one another. Who, if anybody, might be right? There is no way to know. If it is the ego which makes our convictions absolute and “divine”, then everybody can be right in spite of opposing views!

Once again, it is easy to see the immutable principle behind this: much in life is a zero-sum game. In any given situation or policy, it is likely somebody will win and somebody will lose. Many things are the way I like. Many other things are not. In the end, I find peace and joy accepting both the things I like and the things I don't.

The Root Of All Evil

Accepting what is will not necessarily preclude things from getting better anyway. It just means our primary focus is not on changing what is to what should be. An analogy to this is how evolution seems to promote “changes for the better” unconsciously or involuntarily.

I strongly believe because our hyper-driven society is so fixated on achieving goals in themselves that the ultimate moral imperative is lost. What is, or at least should be (I am well aware of my implicit denial of what is) the ultimate moral imperative? To make the world a more pleasant experience for everybody and everything.

If one's primary focus is achieving in itself, decency and sensitivity toward others will often be subverted because it gets in the way of an ultimate goal. I believe if everybody became aware of the destructive nature of their ego, the world would systematically become a much more inviting place!

Evil stems from neither religion nor lack of religion. It stems from unconsciousness to ego! Many non-believers and believers alike have big egos and will therefore sow disharmony and destruction just the same. Conversely, many believers and non-believers alike do not have big egos and will therefore sow harmony and peace just the same.

To the overly prideful atheist or overzealous religious hawk, neither belief nor lack of belief in God systematically leads to evil. Each leads to evil only insofar as how one uses ideology, or lack thereof, to inflate himself above others. For though good will be sown in the world only because of belief, bad will also be sown in the world only because of belief. Conversely, for though bad will be sown in the world only because of disbelief, good will also be sown in the world only because of disbelief.

A Double-Edged Sword!

Is the President's ultimate responsibility to protect and defend his citizens from attack or to defend the Constitution of the United States?

For the naïve that assume the 2 are necessarily interchangeable, might there be situations where they are mutually exclusive to one another? If protecting and defending citizens requires the torturing of captives to gather intel, the Constitution must be subverted. On the other hand, faithfully upholding the Constitution of the United States by not torturing prisoners to extract necessary information will likely lead to the extermination of many of its citizens.

How do we approach this dilemma? There is no good answer for the idealist looking for the absolutely “right” answer! What would God do? That is impossible to answer. However, if we substitute God with ego, it is easy to see what the absolutely “right” answer is. Whatever any one person's ego says is the absolutely “right” answer. But the problem is there will never be a consensus among competing egos!

Whatever decision is made will be altogether loved, hated and viewed indifferently.