True Perfection Equates To Lifelessness

So much for the idea of perfection.....one of the fundamental reasons we exist at all is due to imperfection.

Imperfection in the way the early universe was able to coalesce non-uniform aka "imperfect" pockets of gases such that stars and planets and eventually LIFE could ensue. If perfection existed, the matter in the universe would have been "perfectly" uniform precluding any tendency for  matter to clump together at all. In this way, the universe would be lifeless. Hats off to imperfection! It is the unsung hero of reality!

How Do YOU Derive Meaning In Life?

Ultimately, existence could be seen as pointless regardless of what is believed or not.

If one who would otherwise be bad is good simply to meet the demands of God, it could be construed as meaningless. This is merely bribery or manipulation.

Alternatively, if one is terrible only because he believes God's grace will suffice, it could also be construed as meaningless. This is sheer arrogance!

Or if one is terrible only because he believes nothing, this could be viewed as meaningless too. If there is no God to appease, his only “hope” seems to be bettering himself at the apparent expense of everybody else. There is just something “cold” about this.

On the other hand, one who believes nothing but is nonetheless good could be viewed as meaningless as well. Why be good if it precludes him from maximizing his own desires and ambitions?

And last, one could be good independent of his belief but believe anyway. This could be seen as meaningless because why would he believe if he was already good? Possibly his only reason for believing is that he genuinely believes it to be true as opposed to believing only because he thinks great benefits will ensue and/or he will avoid eternal judgment.

Refer to my discussions on the nature of belief and it will reinforce my argument that belief's only worthwhile contribution is that it can, not necessarily will, make otherwise bad people good or at least relatively better. The reason I say it can as opposed to will make people good or better is because some people systematically become worse through the use of arrogant self-righteousness.

My point here is not to sow hopelessness. It is to demonstrate that because we are all different, there are numerous ways to find meaning in life.

What Is Sacrifice?

Say a friend of mine, Jill, asks if I will help paint her house. Suppose, and this would not be far from actuality, that I do not like painting. But I agree to help her regardless all the while grumbling under my breath about this arduous task I have now obligated myself to.

On the other hand, Boris loves painting! So Boris helps too, and with a much more inspiring attitude. The question is, who is the “true” sacrificer? The one with the negative attitude or the positive one?

Well, certainly my attitude is not exactly appreciated but does this not make it perfectly clear that I am in fact sacrificing? On the other hand, Boris' attitude is decidedly more appreciated and commendable, but remember, he loves painting whereas I do not! If one gives Boris credit for being the “true” sacrificer, it seems misplaced.

The trouble I have with this is that the idea of sacrifice seems to necessitate a distaste for doing something, though doing it nonetheless in the name of sacrifice. Even if my grumbling is done surreptitiously, am I not still acting with somewhat of a rotten attitude? Which is genuine sacrifice?

It seems to me the trick in getting help with something is not to find people to “sacrifice”. It is to find people which love doing whatever task is at hand. Of course I need not have it pointed out that many of the tasks we need help with will be loved by none! I think we just need to accept the fact that sacrifice will seldom if ever be met with cheers and smiles. This, after all, seems to be what makes it sacrifice.

If one lauds those who conceal their contempt for the task at hand, might we suggest their lack of being forthright about this as being in some way dishonest? Might the best sacrificer be the one who makes it perfectly clear he would rather be on a beach frolicking about with beautiful babes than helping out with this miserable task? What is sacrifice?

Must Heaven Be Larger Than A Narrow Box?

Why are views regarding who will go to heaven and who will not seem to be getting less restrictive? Because as different cultures with different religious views come together as a result of globalization, it becomes more and more apparent that exclusive views are no longer tenable.

In the USA, for example, the European settlers (invaders might better describe it for the realist) came over here and decimated the native people and subsequently adopted a predominantly Christian landscape. Up until the USA started seeing substantial numbers of non-Christian peoples, there were largely Christians and atheists. Even now, though probably not as much, atheists are thought of as largely expendable and as such it is easy to believe they will not get into heaven and worse yet will suffer eternity in hell.

But what about a wonderful neighbor who happens to be a Muslim, Buddhist or member of some other belief system? Is one prepared to believe these people will not adopt a place in heaven solely because they did not adhere to or believe in the “right” system? Increasingly less so I would say.

So what is a believer in "some will go to heaven and some will go to hell" to do with this new reality? Most will simply conjure up their own arbitrary belief to circumvent this dilemma. “God will ultimately evaluate us based on intentions,” something or other. (see How Will We Be Judged? for further consideration)

But then how does belief have anything to do with this? If we are evaluated on the basis of belief, then one must believe. On the other hand, if it is based on the purity and intention of a person's heart, why does belief matter in the least?

Hatred Toward Liberals Is A Proxy For Hating YOURSELF!

Seen on Conservapedia: A liberal is someone who loves double standards -- for his own (temporary) advantage. Hmm.....I guess this includes me? If you must hate me, so be it. I'll get over it.

In relation to how arbitrary regulations seem to be concerning government attempting to control peoples' lives through encouraging and sometimes seemingly forcing certain behaviors, why does the manner in which we define liberalism and conservatism in our society so often seem to betray their true meanings?

Is environmental control (thought of as a liberal pursuit) really liberal? Or is it more conservative? Liberals should by definition be more about “live and let live” but instead they want to implement strict rules such as banning smoking everywhere. I really dislike smoking but deep down I believe any sort of no-smoking policy should be determined by the owner of any given establishment, in general. If there are enough people that “hate” smoke, this will be a business opportunity for those wishing to fill this void.

The arbitrariness of these kinds of things just reinforces my point that people generally let a collective mentality “think” for them. Of course just a small dose of scrutiny exposes the arbitrariness inherent in most “group” thought.

Liberalism seems to me a cross between conservatism and libertarianism. Libertarianism's mantra might be “live and let live”. Simply let the chips fall exactly as they will. Conservatism by definition should revolve around implementing regulations and laws in order to conserve tangible and intangible qualities of life as a means to uphold tradition. We might say it advocates or at least attempts to advocate the status quo through control. How about upholding the tradition of SLAVERY? I believe there was a war fought largely over "protecting" this status quo?

Since liberalism seems to arbitrarily pick and choose issues and ideas to control, it essentially violates any libertarian premise of “live and let live”. Conservapedia's claim follows suit then: liberalism IS predicated on double standards.

However, I don't believe anybody avoids double standards. Who out there does NOT form convictions, opinions and actions solely around those which are advantageous to HIMSELF/HERSELF/SELECTIVELY CHOSEN CAUSES?

If this is the case, perhaps we are all of us liberals, many of us masquerading under the auspices of conservatism and libertarianism.

I believe liberalism is essentially the spectrum that spans libertarianism on the left all the way through conservatism on the right. Is there anybody out there completely sold out to either end of the spectrum? Not likely. We all seem to be stuck somewhere in the middle. (see The Trouble With "The Middle" for clarification).

Liberalism's arbitrary issues and ideas are essentially the “zeitgeist” or “hot-button” issues of the day. 

On the other hand, I think conservatism has mix-ups and mismatches much like liberalism. Big business is associated predominantly with conservatism yet seems more akin to liberalism in that most conservatives tend to think in a libertarian way with a few arbitrary regulations implemented here and there to prevent cheating or despotism (which seems to be what capitalism “degenerates” into if left completely unregulated). Of course there is much disagreement over which regulations should be implemented because, once again, they are merely arbitrary. It seems the political parties of the day evolve to suit society's changing views based on the “zeitgeist”. Behold! Morality does evolve!

It seems then that conservatism in its strictest sense would be what liberalism appears to be in the USA, at least concerning capitalism and business. Whereas liberals seemingly attempt to control every aspect of businesses, is this not what conservatives should want to do? Strictly speaking, is not conservatism protecting and upholding tradition through control and regulation?

It seems to me that this “mismatch” if you will, is due to people not thinking for themselves. Instead, they let a collective think for them. The question is, who or what is the “brain trust” behind this collective thought which seems “mismatched”? Perhaps a person or group with a self serving agenda of some kind? In this way, people that let a collective think for them are essentially surrogates for some person's or group's self serving interests! And we call ourselves FREE?

Insofar as my definition of liberalism is concerned, it seems we are all liberal, of course many of us dressed in conservatives' and libertarians' garb. What could possibly make all of us liberal? The fact that we all arbitrarily believe some things should be regulated whereas other things should not no doubt motivated by personal preferences and life experiences, essentially for our own (temporary) advantages! We all seem to be “stuck” between conservatism and libertarianism. Not that there is the slightest thing wrong with this. It just is.

I think this once again reinforces the role that continuities play in this reality. Our only method of dealing with these continuities is to attempt to intertwine discontinuous solutions to issues that can only be resolved continuously. (see Drawing Lines for clarification) And how could we not? It is the only conceivable method of dealing with the nature of our reality. This of course creates many of the paradoxes and hence disagreements in life. Could one be libertarian or conservative yet simultaneously be liberal? It seems so, does it not?

Does God Prefer Paternalism Or Self-Reliance?

I shall preface this by supposing a paternalistic and socialistic society of God's would not seem oppressive or evil because it would be the choice (perhaps this "choice" could only ever be conceived through God's use of force and manipulation?) of every member to partake in “spreading wealth and resources evenly”.

In any case, I want to digress into a discussion concerning believers in God and their thoughts on how society should view paternalism and self-reliance from a purportedly “Godly” perspective.

First off, is it not painfully obvious that any view of this dichotomy is completely arbitrary? Some will espouse a God that inspires complete self-reliance whereas others will espouse a God that inspires complete paternalism. But of course far more will espouse a God that is some combination of the two. The overly confident will arrogantly assume God desires whatever combination of self-reliance and paternalism they deem ideal.

But I don't think “God”, whatever one sees as God, can be placed in one of these groups (or even in a combination of them) because they are merely interpreted by the limited perspective inherent in an individual. But God's perspective can not be individual. God's perspective must be collective. And I think God's interpretation of these ideals is that they are both good and bad, both true and false simultaneously. Neither is ideal in itself nor is any combination thereof because we humans are forever engrossed in a collective struggle, especially of ideals.

Ultimately, I believe God's view on this (again, whatever God might mean to you) is for humanity to be One such that it is the desire and choice of all humanity to share wealth and resources freely. In this sense, it is socialism through desire and choice not through force and manipulation. I am NOT by any means claiming this is what we should strive for, or am I?

In any case, this is my view as to how God sees it. Whether most, including myself, are willing to deliberately embrace a socialistic society seems very far-fetched. Is this perchance what makes it ideal? Perhaps this is why most envision heaven as a place beyond here?* For they very much wish to experience a totally socialistic society, perhaps unconsciously, but have it not in them to embrace this because it would entail redistributing their (my) coveted wealth and status.

I think Jesus advocated a socialistic society predicated on choice, not through government force or manipulation nor guilt for that matter. However, it seems governments must ultimately force or manipulate. Otherwise nobody wants to pay for and/or support necessities outside their interest(s). Everybody wants to party but nobody wants to clean up! In any case, Jesus talks about giving out of the heart, not doing so out of a sense of duty or obligation. Giving out of a sense of duty or obligation will likely lead to resentment, bitterness, guilt and perhaps above all feelings of self-righteous entitlement. This seems to be our Achilles' Heel if you happen to be one that envisions a world such as this. On the other hand, if you are one who sees the current world as ideal, maybe it is not an Achilles' Heel at all. Maybe it is exactly as it should be!

Many (especially the religious among us masquerading under the auspices of "working for God") will correctly but naively claim this type of society would undermine incentive and motivation to put forth maximum effort or any at all. The problem with this is that it implies they are motivated only for the sake of reward and compensation. But then what becomes of their claimed or at least IMPLIED pretext of "working for God"?

Furthermore, if everybody imagines a “heavenly” realm where we are all of us perfectly happy and harmonious, might this be a place where we are all equally endowed with resources yet feel not the least bit cheated because we are so happy and fulfilled being ourselves and hence doing that which we love? In this way, wealth would be of little importance. I am not by any means claiming this to be my reality nor am I necessarily suggesting society should follow this model. I am simply pointing out that peoples' conception(s) of what heaven is or should be, literally or figuratively, seems to mimic this. Which suggests people want this type of society. The question is, why must we wait?

Presumably because many (including moi) can not bear the thought of parting ways with our hard-earned wealth and status. This is why many leave it to God in the "Great Beyond" to change their attitude. As in, “God, I can not embrace a socialistic attitude here. It would require me to share everything I own with all others, many of which I do not care for in the least. I would like You to change my attitude when I get to heaven so I can willingly embrace sharing with all Your miscreants.” Of course most ideas of heaven are devoid of materiality rendering the idea of sharing irrelevant anyway! Such is the absurdity inherent in these kinds of ideas when scrutinized even in the least.



*Please see further corollary to heaven in the following blog posts:
 
A Heavenly Realm
A New Take On Heaven
The Collective Struggle Of Existence

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!