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 Delusion Of Impartiality

I don't get it.....all this concern and fear that potential judges might base their rulings on politics? Might? Of course they will rule based on politics! That is the whole point! Why would one suppose die-hard conservatives and bleeding-heart liberals find it so important that one of their own is chosen to judge? Presumably so these judges will make decisions that cater to their preferred political positions. Trouble is, it is guaranteed to piss off “the others”!

In my opinion, potential judges should ideally be apolitical. Could this ever happen? Is it even possible for anybody to rule impartially without politics getting in the way? Probably not. As the eminent Canadian physician-philosopher Sir William Osler told the Yale University graduating class in 1913, “every man has a philosophy of life in thought, word, or in deed, worked out in himself unconsciously.

The following analogy quite clearly exposes the absurdity of believing court rulings can ever be free of political preferences. Take a conservative judge and a liberal one. To digress slightly, the fact that these labels are acknowledged to begin with demonstrates the utter futility of trying to approach judgments apart from political preferences. In any case, suppose the conservative believes criminals should be judged to the full extent of the law. On the other hand, suppose the liberal believes criminals should be extended grace. Further suppose our “Book of Law” is the Holy Bible. Can each justify a ruling based on his preferred political position?

Certainly, because the Bible endorses both judgment and grace. Our Constitution is no different in this respect. This “gray” area is the cause of all argument and conflict. By advocating different perspectives, we can reach contradictory but equally valid conclusions. Which is “right”? Both or neither if you like. It is difficult if not impossible to avoid making decisions based on political inclinations! Especially from judges that outright claim specific affiliations.

In the same way, the U.S. Constitution supposedly calls for doing "whatever need be" to protect its citizens but then it also prohibits the torturing of enemy combatants. Do these guidelines seem contradictory at least in some cases*? Yes! Therefore, no matter whether we do this or that, it will justifiably be viewed as subverting the Constitution from one perspective or another! When difficult decisions like this are faced, YOU ARE DAMNED IF YOU DO AND DAMNED IF YOU DON'T!

*Because of the relativity of just about everything, one can easily craft definitions of things in such ways as to neutralize or at least mitigate these contradictions. For instance, those who wish to get information from enemy combatants in any way conceivable will thus define torture as something apart from what THEY do. Alternatively, those who want to coddle dangerous enemy combatants will thus argue that withholding the use of torture will not place any greater a danger on its citizens than will torturing them.

Therefore, there is no RIGHT answer. Or if you prefer, perhaps we could say there is no WRONG answer!

Who Among Us Causes Wrecks?

Some will say it's the slower of us, others the faster. But in the end, it is essentially neither. How can this be so if wrecks happen with such reckless abandon?

Because it is neither fastness nor slowness in itself that causes wrecks* but the duality of two starkly different and hence contradictory behaviors!

It seems much like politics and religion. Whereas many identify with one belief or style, the remaining must be made wrong or bad because these contradictory beliefs or styles do not lend themselves to cooperation.

*Though once they happen, it is likely fastness or slowness will greatly affect the severity of the wrecks

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!

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

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.