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!

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.

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 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.

The Ultimate Scapegoat?

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

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

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

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

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

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