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 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?

The Malady Of Ignorance

Ignorance is not a crime in itself. It does, however, seem to foster it. How?

Ignorance commonly creates hatred or distrust as a by-product. This can then breed any number of crimes.

On the other hand, much of this hatred and distrust breeds no actual crimes. Does this necessarily make it harmless?

I think “secretly” harboring hatred and distrust is very insidious. Jesus taught that “sin” or any other such undesirable action must originate as a thought. Much like those below any hypothetical “line of greed”, it seems many of us have hatreds or distrusts that “evade the radar” as it were.

However, these “thoughts” can actually have a very dangerous effect on society only because they go largely unnoticed. They foster tension that can not be pointed out or “diagnosed”, much like a disease that has no apparent origin.

Would Have, Could Have, Should Have!

Do animals, other than us, ever have regrets? Suppose they do not. In which case, this “thought experiment” just might shed some light on what we humans burden ourselves with so frequently.

 Would have, could have, should have! Certainly this type of thinking can be used to make wiser choices in the future, but how much of our regret is only ever used to make ourselves miserable?

In this sense, regret is nothing but a distraction from experiencing and enjoying the Present moment. Which in the grand scheme of things is all there ever is.

An Alternative To Incessant Fighting Over Ideology

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a great example whereby controlling thought (akin to Huxley's "Brave New World") could create a peaceful society, at least relatively so. Just “deprogram” all the contradictory dogma both have been indoctrinated with and simply replace it with an identical ideology into both populations. It matters little what it is so long as both believe it. You must worship Mickey Mouse if you want to be spared from a hellish eternity!

My prediction is they would instantly be more friendly to one another! I am not seriously suggesting this be done (assuming it is or ever will be possible), but am simply posing it as an alternative to incessant fighting and arguing over who is supposedly “right”.

Many will say this control of thought would be evil. But upon further reflection, it seems to be the awareness of having thought controlled, not the control itself, that makes it so evil. What if nobody knew thought was controlled simply as a means to get everybody to agree?

If one still thinks this would be a miserable reality, how is it any less so if by not controlling thought people continue to kill and maim each other over differences in "opinion"?

 It seems then that life is forever destined to have misery as company.

Who Or What Killed Friedrich Nietzsche?

It is often said by easily offended religious people in response to Nietzsche having said God was dead, that God then killed Nietzsche. But God did not kill Nietzsche. Nietzsche apparently died of an unknown illness, possibly syphilis. Furthermore, if God actually did kill Nietzsche for his seemingly irreverent remark(s), how would this make Him good?

Killing somebody simply for making an offensive comment (more than likely just an innocuous comment interpreted offensively) sounds decidedly like a human response to an insult. This is simply the ego “protecting itself". Would not a great, glorious God be above this seemingly childish type of response? Why would anybody feel an obligation to avenge insults? Because the insulted has staked his identity in something other than himself, in this case a thought. How could God stake His identity in anything but Himself? Furthermore, if God does in fact exist, why would He have felt compelled to strike Nietzsche dead for a comment that is not even true?

I would have to imagine a sufficiently glorious and powerful Entity would be aware enough of His identity such that He would not have to resort to striking someone dead only because this person “thought” God was dead. If He really is wonderful and powerful and completely fulfilled, what need would God have to punish anybody? And for what?

Many people impart their egos on God such that He is “forced” to serve their whims. On the other hand, if God is a slave to His ego much like we tend to be, then I am afraid we are all in big trouble!