Let's Just Cut The Crap.....

Incentives, incentives, INCENTIVES! Will you please give me more incentives to do the very things I claim to value so highly? If this is how we think as a society, then we value nothing but reward and recognition.

This is a tacit admission that we do not value the very things we claim to value. Rather, we value predominantly, perhaps only, reward and recognition. Not that this is wrong or bad, nor particularly right or good either. Apparently it just is what it is.

With this in mind then, can we cut the crap about claiming to value things in themselves and realize that what we are ultimately after is reward and recognition? Examples follow:

- We need to offer children incentives for working hard in school!
- We need incentives to compel people to better care for themselves!
- We need tax write-offs for charitable donations (to our selfishly selected causes)!
- We need God (or at least belief in Him/Her/It) in order to compel us to be compassionate and merciful
- We need belief in reward and punishment rendered by God to compel us to seek virtue and avoid depravity
- We need others' approval to validate our beliefs and actions

Counterpoint: we shouldn't NEED any of these things if we value, or at least claim to value the underlying values themselves!

My own suspicion is we do not value the values, rather we value only what benefits can be had (if this isn't selfish, what is?) through the practice of said values.

In the end, if society takes an honest account of what it actually values, I'm afraid INCENTIVES are a necessity. For if there were no incentives to do the things we claim to value so highly, I can only imagine the result: a totally self-absorbed society devoid of feeling or sympathy for anything outside of selfishly chosen causes.

What's doubly alarming is that oftentimes the practicing of our selfishly chosen causes is ultimately at the mercy of incentives! Which implies we value very little other than reward and recognition via incentives.

For atheists, this comes as no surprise and is logically concluded. For theists, on the other hand, an account must be made of our ultimately selfish behavior.

Are Most Convictions Actually True Or Merely Practically So?

For the sake of argument, suppose the ultimate reason many people wholeheartedly believe their perspective on any given matter (not by any means limited to religious/political convictions) is absolutely true and right is because in the context of a social and civil society there is intrinsic benefit in measuring values and especially behavior with 1 standard, however arbitrary it may be. We could say this unconsciously encourages people to persuade others that they are in possession of "the absolute truth".

The proximate reason people wholeheartedly believe their perspective constitutes the unadulterated truth is that they believe it is actually true. So the belief that it is actually true solely as a means to get everybody to “join” the group as a means to adopt the same values such that behavior can be “fairly” evaluated can be said to be practically true. Practically true to the extent that adhering to this 1 absolute standard for conduct and behavior can be beneficial for society regardless of whether it is actually true.

Many will claim this idea is a total mockery of “God's truth”. But my response to those that think it egregious to suggest this is to question their own motivations. If they are particularly angry at the idea of belief being merely practically true and not actually true, could it be that they are (more than likely unconsciously) motivated solely by their belief that they will actually be rewarded by God for being good and/or avoid punishment for not being bad? If this is the case, then their motivations can surely be questioned.

On the other hand, those that do not react bitterly to this supposition probably “get it”. It does not matter whether beliefs are actually true. What matters is that they are merely practically true as a means to improve cooperation and promote positive social interaction within society.

The challenge is getting EVERYBODY behind 1 ultimately arbitrary standard!

A Societal Problem?

Why do athletes dope? To be the best of the best which is ultimately what spectators seem to want. To substantiate my italicizing of seem, many will readily complain about athletes' tacky behavior, but this does not seem to deter them from attending sporting events. We can say it seems to be a rather symbiotic relationship.

The only reason I believe doping is wrong is because it is declared such. But this no-doping law is itself merely arbitrary, as are most laws. Might we question why doping is banned? Is it because of safety concerns? But there are so many other legal and unsafe practices that athletes routinely engage in so I hardly think this to be a rational reason to ban steroids. Is it because it is deemed unfair to those that do not cheat? Well, I guess this is true, but alas, life is not fair anyway. It is just as unfair for the 4 foot tall “shrimp” who only ever aspired to play in the NBA, but unfortunately uncooperative genes prevented his dream from being realized.

Perhaps one might argue that there is a qualitative difference between natural and artificial characteristics. Well then, what about an athlete who has corrective eye surgery resulting in 20/10 vision? This is an artificial characteristic just as much as the effects of steroids. Should this be banned as well?

Another typical argument is that we aspire to present our kids “positive” role models. Well, if this is the case, I would steer kids clear of idolizing athletes. Rather, I would steer kids toward those that exude first class character.

So if parents, and people in general, truly prioritized role models according to character and not ability, then ability would be less a focal point and hence the athlete might feel less compelled to “cheat” and more compelled to become a better person.

One of the central points of my philosophy is this: we need to become conscious of how we all individually and collectively contribute to the purported “problems” of society.

Where Does Oppression End And Freedom Begin?

What does it mean to be “free”? To be “free” from oppression perhaps? Freedom is often touted as being the most absolute of ideals, at least according to “free” societies. If one is oppressed but unaware of this, is he still oppressed and ultimately “imprisoned”?

In other words, is freedom an intrinsic ideal or is lack of freedom wrong or evil only when it is recognized by the oppressed? If oppression is only so if recognized as such, perhaps we should not be so quick to judge others as being oppressed if they do not know it.

On the other hand, I suspect many will claim freedom is an intrinsic ideal and therefore lack of freedom need not be recognized by the oppressed to be wrong or evil. But in this case, how would anybody know he himself is not one of the oppressed and therefore a “prisoner” himself?

For example, many seem so fated to follow a certain path in life only because they follow the path of least resistance or the path that simply "follows the herd". Or how about many who simply acquiesce to the “demands” of society to determine what path should be followed? Might this explain why job satisfaction seems so lacking even during prosperous times? The young and impressionable seem so apt to follow societal norms when a careful analysis of themselves just might reveal this to be unwise and lead to depression because it prevents them from being who they genuinely are.

Might the world be better off if people were not controlled by this norm and were thus able to just "be themselves”? What about those of us with seemingly beyond instinctive tendencies to be prejudicial and judgmental? Might childhood indoctrination be responsible for this and thus itself be a form of oppression? 

Many will be angry at this because much of this indoctrination involves long-held and cherished beliefs. But I am not against beliefs themselves, only the usage of them to indoctrinate the very impressionable among us, especially children, as this can likely cause “oppression” later in life.

If this is so, maybe we should become free ourselves before worrying about freeing others simply to follow our “superior” version of oppression, which we are no doubt unaware of.

OK.....I admit it.....I'm SELFISH!

I'm reading the newspaper and come across an editorial questioning how we should deal with the backlog of social security recipients in this fine state of Georgia. “I could not care less about this issue owing to the fact that it does not affect me one iota (at least not yet),” the thought occurs to me.

One might be quick to judge me as being selfish. And you know what? You're right! But ask yourself: is this any different a manner in which "I" justify my viewpoints on society's problems?

If you make incredible amounts of money, what are you going to care about? More than likely voting for a candidate that will keep taxes low to preserve your hard-earned money, something or other.

Conversely, if you make little or no money because of laziness or lack of skills or whatever other reason, what are you going to care about? More than likely the candidate which will maintain and/or create entitlements for you by taxing the “evil” rich.

If this is scoffed at because you rise above this selfish standard, yours is most certainly in the minority. But alas, it is not the minority view that “rules the roost” so to speak. It is what the majority does or thinks. 

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not judging those that think selfishly. This would include yours truly and why would I ever want to judge MOI? I am simply pointing out what is with no implication to what should be.

This not wanting to judge oneself is the principle reason judgment is so arbitrary and hence hypocritical. 

It is imperative to point out that this strict avoidance of self-judgment is almost always unconscious which is why most vehemently deny being hypocritical.

Alas, simply judge and condemn others engaging in selfish behaviors you do not involve yourself in and hide behind or attempt to assuage the evilness of the selfish behaviors you do involve yourself in.

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?

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".

What If All Of Society's Leeches Got Jobs?

What might happen to our capitalistic society if, as its most vociferous followers steadfastly desire, all the “low-lifes” and other dregs of society were to get their acts together by focusing on education and vocation as opposed to idleness and mischief? It would create a more competitive landscape placing downward pressure on wages and pay, all things being equal. So the trade-off might induce lower welfare outlays but this in turn would create decreasing wages and pay. So there might be little effect on net pay.

For instance, if one earns $80/hour and is taxed for $25 of it, his take home pay is $55/hour. However, if the “low-lifes” and other dregs involved themselves in the civilized affairs of society (i.e. got jobs), perhaps taxes could decrease by $10 (due to decreased welfare outlays) but the downward pressure put on wages and pay due to the “low-lifes” and other dregs getting involved in the economy would likely drag the hourly wage to $70/hour. In which case, the net effect on take home pay is $0. Taxes are lower but so is gross pay.

Perhaps psychologically people feel they are being “cheated” less if their take home pay is closer to their gross pay? Apart from this, however, there is no quantitative difference. $70/hour is $70/hour. This is overly simplistic to be sure, but the point of my argument is that a balanced and well functioning society seems to necessitate 3 distinct classes being present, this being a high, middle and low one. We should never hope for anything but this.

To many this seems unfortunate and depressing. But I did not author the nature of reality. I am but one of its messengers! To summarize, all 3 classes complement the functionality of the whole. One must remember that when attempting to “perfect” something as complicated as a society comprised of millions and billions of citizens, there will be innumerable unwanted and unforeseen consequences. This is why from a very reflective perspective, I think it wise to accept many things just as they are.

This comes across very pessimistic to many, understandably, but not heeding this principle simply gives the “advocates of change” something to feel self-righteous and superior about of which in actuality there is no superior method of dealing with complex issues like this because they are all of them fraught with difficult and oftentimes painful trade-offs! This will not be at all obvious to those that identify with one and only one perspective.

However, it becomes readily apparent when one looks beyond his single perspective. Remember, truth is not a product of one perspective. It is an amalgam of oftentimes opposing perspectives!

Is Man But Machine?

In many ways, it seems that as we progress technologically, our machines become more like us and we become more like our machines. Our purpose in life seems relegated to being nothing but vehicles to produce and consume “stuff”.

As confirmation of this, one might pay careful attention to the implicit or explicit indicator of a society's success which is almost always based on whether its economy grows from year to year. At some point in the future will we and our machines be one and the same? Or are we already?

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).

For Practicality's Sake Or For Tradition's?

It is being debated whether the Australian Parliament might end the practice of reciting the Lord's Prayer at the start of each session. It is a tradition more than a century old and as such many question its relevance in today's secular society.

But what puzzles me is that many traditions seem to be followed not because they are in any way relevant but because they are cherished traditions.

What is the imperative? To follow tradition for the sake of following tradition or to follow tradition only when deemed relevant to today's society?

If we uphold tradition only if relevant to today's society, why even call them traditions? Why not just call them “relevant practices”? Is not tradition almost by definition not practical, hence why it is referred to as tradition.

Abusing Humanity

Might one look at today's society a hundred years from now and accuse it of having been abusive? HUH?

Today's society is so inundated with advertising. Why or how could this be abusive?

What is the ultimate purpose of almost all forms of advertising? To promote or reinforce the fallacy that one will only ever find his identity with “stuff” found outside himself. The absurdity of this is that only within self can identity ever be found.

A Worthy Contribution To Society?

Should we instill our children with confidence and self-esteem? This seems to be a worthy contribution to society, but how far should we take this? At what point might this instillation become detrimental? Does it not seem some kids are too confident of themselves? Have you ever seen kids that project superiority?

I believe what should be ingrained in children more than confidence and self-esteem is respecting others. Jesus referred to this as “putting others above yourself”. The problem with prioritizing your kids' confidence and self-esteem is that this ultimately puts it above respecting others. And as I have alluded to before, if one believes their children should have the utmost in confidence and self-esteem above all else, they will at times subvert sensitivity and decency toward others.

Furthermore, I believe instilling your children with the ideal of respecting others will systematically lead to a positive self image, in turn engendering confidence and self-esteem. Might many peoples' confidence and self esteem be built upon the fallacy that they should be better than others? Might this very well explain why many feel obligated to be better or at least appear better than others? Because of low confidence and self-esteem?

In this case, the very thing instilling confidence and self-esteem is supposed to prevent (low confidence and self-esteem) is the very thing it invites! This is not unlike many things in life. Oftentimes, wars are waged supposedly for the sake of peace. Retribution is doled out supposedly to stave off further “wrongs”. Do they tend to be effective? If anything, they are effective at magnifying the very problems they are meant to eradicate.