an ultimate truth

In a recent edition of Skeptical Inquirer (Vol 32, Iss. 4) there’s an article by Massimo Pigliucci titled ‘Alternative Science‘. He discusses an idea put forth by Kyle Stanford called ‘epistemic instrumentalism‘ which he describes/explains as - “…we can go ahead and use scientific theories to make sense of the world, predict the outcome of experiments, and even build bridges and planes, so long as we don’t really believe what those theories say about how the world really is. Scientific progress, then, is re-conceived as the production of theories that are better and better as instruments of prediction about and manipulation of the world, but not as a march toward the truth.”

The concept behind this is something called ‘unconceived alternatives‘. This is the idea that there may be a better theory/way to explain a current scientific theory (say evolution for ex.) but perhaps it simply hasn’t occurred to anyone yet. As Massimo puts it “After all, one only needs to point out that all scientific theories proposed and accepted in the past turned out to be wrong, which is why they were replaced by the theories we currently think are right. But what makes us think that the trend is somehow going to stop?“

From my perspective, admitting that we have the ability to understand all there is is in itself a form of belief. A faith of sorts. It seems that we’re always in a search for what is right. Even now, as I contemplate the ‘wrongness’ of my various points, I somehow wish for my view to carry more ‘rightness’, and legitimately feel that my ideas are somehow more advanced than what they previously were. We’re always looking to be better, both personally and collectively …expecting to be smarter as time goes on. It’s a natural way of growing isn’t it …to become more than what we were? Isn’t that the definition of progress …moving/advancing past a previous mark? What would be the point of living if we merely maintained the status quo?

We need to advance. Science does this by providing a system that intrinsically promotes development while allowing new theories to take the place of old ones. The illusion though, is that there is a goal that we must ultimately reach. A ‘final theory’. I think this is a paradox of sorts, and is what moves Science into the area of Religion …searching for and conceiving of an ultimate truth.

Religion is (among many other things) an explanation of and for our life. It’s a belief in more than what we can understand on our own - a belief that gets us past the stumbling block of ‘not knowing’. It allows us the realization that we will, one day, know. ‘Not knowing’ frightens us …and both Science and Religion give comfort to this. In Science, ‘not knowing’ is accepted as normal, with the expectation that we will, like Religion, know …eventually. It will be solved. Although they both pull us forward and can equally be argued as advancing, I happen to feel that Science is, in a way, self-correcting - opposed to Religion that seems to be based more on preset guidelines, interpretations and personal choice. That’s not to say that Science is not interpreted or chosen, but rather that Science has the ability to change and/or diverge from its guidelines, allowing scientific ‘beliefs’ to be re-conceived over time, as Pigliucci mentions.

It’s this re-conceiving that allows Science to stay on top of things, and our march toward the truth should not necessarily imply a final destination - or a truth for that matter. That should be something reserved for Religion.

The march itself is Science …goal by goal.

communication brkdwn

I recently heard the comment from a news anchor person that her daughter, who is fourteen, has never used a pay-phone before. Wow!

Really, I think that’s incredible. But then at the same time, I suppose it’s just part of the changing ‘communication scene’. A few months ago I was at a local movie theatre deciding what show I wanted to see. My friend was coming to meet me and I thought I’d get the ticket early seeing as I was there already. The problem was, I didn’t know what he wanted to see. Since he was still at home, I could just call him to ask - problem solved. Not really. The mall theatre didn’t have a pay-phone. So I scoured the place (Edmonton Centre) and still couldn’t find one. The entrance ways, the eatery, the near-by street corners. Nothing. It appeared that Telus removed their pay-phones from the area. Twenty five minutes/three missed movie choices later (and after a bunch of running around), I was no further along. So what gives?

I suppose Telus decided that their pay-phones weren’t in high demand. Perhaps vandalized more often than used constructively. I suppose everyone has cell phone nowadays too, so what’s the point of putting up and maintaining a seldom-used land line? And they would have a point.

I don’t have a cell phone. I guess I’m an anomaly of sorts. I use one at work, but only because I have to - but I hate talking on it …and it gets used maybe once every few days on average. I’d rather talk to someone face to face, or in all honestly - not talk to anyone at all. But I digress

Talking is important, and the ways of communicating are varied and evolving with technology constantly. The land-phone was great …and still is of course - but the cell phone is even handier. Right? Video conferencing/chat takes things up a notch, paving the way for the eventual ‘instant’ communicator that is probably just around the corner. You know the kind …a mix between a Star Trek badge and an ‘in your brain’ Matrix hook-up. Who knows …ear-pieces might just be the start.

My point though, is that we always seems to be pulled into the idea of being connected. If we’re not within reach of our friends, family or anyone else who we needs to contact us, then perhaps there’s something wrong. Perhaps we’ve fallen off the face of the earth? Maybe we’ve fallen and we can’t get up - lol. Maybe we’re ‘disconnected’ - but secretly wishing we weren’t …and that all the people in our lives were in earshot and able to interact instantly!

Maybe though, we should be left alone for a while. Is that too novel an idea?

Maybe being alone and having to sort through things for ourselves might do us some good. Maybe being connected in so many ways (facebook, IM/email, cell phone etc.) means we’re also disconnecting in other ways …other more natural ways. Maybe our language is devolving with our increase in convenience (sms/lolcat for example) and our thoughts and ideas too are becoming truncated …less expressive and perhaps short in worth. Short in content. Maybe our lives exist as headlines? Sound-bites. Maybe we’re losing the ability to express ourselves completely - and the result is a failure to communicate (ironic!). Maybe how we absorb information changes that information itself, and as Nietzsche remarked (this quote is taken from an interesting article by Nicholas Carr) …“our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts.” Or maybe we no longer need the natural world as we once did, and we’ve grown apart from it and the silence it provides.

Communication shouldn’t necessarily be necessary simply because technology allows it, and when the first images of a new-born or the news of an old friend’s death arrive electronically - are we truly richer for it? We do have choices in the matter of course, and certainly we only take from each experience that which we need - but perhaps what we need isn’t always obvious …at least considering what we’re told we need most of the time.

And so we just go with the flow. The informational flow. We convince ourselves that our lives are richer through technology and the interconnectedness it brings. But at the same time, I can’t help to suspect that a part of us lags somewhat behind. Maybe in certain tactile experiences that add to that experience itself…

Like fumbling around in your pockets during inclement weather looking for that extra dime.

Lolita

Finally finished reading Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov.

” Just like the old man in that book by Nabokov” is a line from the Police classic ‘Don’t Stand So Close To Me‘ and was my first ‘hearing’ of this work. Next was the fact that ‘Lolita’ meant “a sexually precocious young girl” as stated in the dictionary …and what I just recently came to realize is a term that never existed before Nabokov. Lastly, I hacked my way through two-thirds of Reading Lolita in Tehran by Azar Nafisi, and she discusses this and other classics that I haven’t read. I think that’s part of the reason why I never did finish her book. It’s also the reason why I wanted to read Lolita, and when I came across an unabridged version in a second hand bookstore - I picked it up.

I’m not going to discuss what other people have said about it. It’s a controversial work (or was?) and probably elicits as many opinions as there are readers. I did come across one post where a reader described his understanding of the book through a forty year journey in his own life. He read it in his 20’s, 30’s, 40’s and 50’s and came across with a different ‘understanding’ on each read. I think that makes a lot of sense, as the reader takes away from a book (a good book at least) what ever it is that he or she brings in to it. The same can be said for music. Listening to a song when you’re younger will present you with different ’sounds’ than when you’re older. You’re going to grab different details depending on the time in your life. And this also explains why every person can come away with a different reading. There is no ‘correct’ interpretation in a sense, but rather an interpretation depending on your purpose and experience as a reader.

I’m going to reread it eventually. I found my interest peaked during the first third, wane during the second and then peak again in the last. I also took a look at the 1997 hollywood adaptation (with Jeremy Irons) and found myself reading, then catching up through the movie. Of course the movie omits substantial amounts of the story, but I suppose that’s expected when you have to condense such a broad work into a two hour time frame. Although I give the story the clichéd ‘two thumbs up’, what I’d like to touch on instead, are certain remarks in the closing statement about the book by the author himself.

In the afterword, Nabokov makes two statements that I found interesting -

“As far as I can recall, the initial shiver of inspiration was somehow prompted by a newspaper story about an ape in the Jardin des Plantes who, after months of coaxing by a scientist, produced the first drawing ever charcoaled by an animal: this sketch showed the bars of the poor creature’s cage.” pg 282.

“Whether they found it pornographic or not did not interest me. Their refusal to buy the book was based not on my treatment of the theme but on the theme itself, for there are at least three themes which are utterly taboo as far as most American publishers are concerned. The two others are: a Negro-White marriage which is a complete and glorious success resulting in lots of children and grandchildren; and the total atheist who lives a happy and useful life, an dies in his sleep at the age of 106.” pg 285

Regarding the first statement, what I found remarkable about this drawing (there is debate as to whether the drawing actually occurred and that Nabokov ‘made up’ this event …but it’s rather pointless to concern oneself with this because the importance is with the idea the author himself believes) was the idea that the ape could not envision anything further than the bars. This animals ‘mentality’ was limited to what was ‘primarily’ before him …not the crowds, the trees or the other animals, but instead the basic ‘in your face’ concept of what he sees, thinks about, and concerns him/herself with …through every captive day. The bars are the basic and simple view of a basic and simple animal …which to me represents the underlying primal vision of Nabokov’s main character, Humbert. (some have suggested that the caged ape is instead Lolita …”Lo a young captive” and Humbert “bought a bunch of bananas for [his] monkey [lolita]” - but there are other ape references that suggest the opposite as well …”she placed her trembling little hand on my ape paw” (pg 235) or “Show me your badge instead of shooting at my foot, you ape, you.” (pg 271) for example)

Humbert is both driven and consumed by this ‘basic’ vision …for when his ‘true love’ was lost during his childhood, he carried that hurt/despair/desire with him throughout his adult life. He could not put it aside. It engulfed him so completely that he could only act from it - letting it control both his adult relationships and his reasoning. He was no more above this impulse than an ape noticing its cage. Although Humbert was thoroughly schooled, educated and refined in social graces, he still surrendered to that primary, almost instinctual image/vision of love. It was an influential moment in his early life that set him on this path, and he was never able to escape its grasp as an adult. He knew at times he didn’t ‘fit’, and often lived his life between the lines of societal norms.

Which brings me to Nabokov’s second statement regarding taboo themes. Racism (in this case between White and Negro) is also based on a primal urge/emotion …the fear of something different or unknown. It too can be instilled at a young age, and when passed down or reinforced through tradition, it’s not uncommon for these early footings to persist into adulthood. To subsist naturally with adulthood and eventually society. Ditto for religion. A religious child rarely breaks from their initial learnings/teachings. They may stray occasionally, and they may grow to become prominent and respected adult figures, but their religious constitution persists, and they could no more conceive of a normal life occurring without God as a racist can envision a normal/healthy family existing across different genealogies.

Why (in America/Canada/the West) is a misguided sexual relationship taboo in much the same manner as a ‘Godless’ existence or the possibility of a happy/successful inter-racial family? Nabokov directs this question to American publishers - but of course publishers are typically the ‘mesenger’ for their readers …the people, and unfortunately the question is still largely unanswered more than fifty years later.

Lolita explores and addresses this ‘third theme’. Nabokov uses Clare Quilty to illustrate the monstrous extreme near which Humbert himself cautiously treads. He gives his character that opportunity to control what so completely dominates his life, eventually silencing that ’sound’ of Lolita, and allowing him to reshape his future.

“And soon I realized that all these sounds were of one nature….” (pg 280)

Religion and race are also of one nature …and their divergent extremes, no matter how eloquently displayed, can be equally monstrous.

spiritual inferiority

Did you know that women are spiritually inferior to men? Did you know that women are not creatures of reason? Did you know that women should generally stick to raising children and supporting their families? Would it surprise you to know that I overheard these sorts of comments from upstanding christian men?

It surprised me.

I’m sure the men in this conversation would also have many remarks regarding the benefits of women and the importance of their role with family as well, but I’m also certain that those ‘talents’ wouldn’t be as highly respected, at least in ‘man’ circles …and definitely not be something that a man would whole-heartedly concern himself with. But I suppose that’s the way in keeping with deep religious traditions - they ’self-fulfil’ themselves, and over time, as one follows the flock, what was good for the community hundreds of years ago seems to be just as good for the community today. I mean, why buck a trend when it works …right?

But does it work? Aren’t communities slightly different today then they were in the past? We all have opinions on the best way to live, and we all have opinions on whether or not they are the right ways to live. The majority opinion (also known as democracy …which, interestingly, does not imply morality) tends to promote certain ‘ways’ over others …but if religious man by nature is a sinner, how does he discern between what is the proper way of living? It’s almost as if having religion precludes that you have failure …it requires man to indefinitely struggle through life, eventually (and as promised) finding an end to that struggle after death itself. Sin is the only way to live …and if that’s the case, why even attempt to propose a better way of living over another?

I suppose you can say anything, as long as believe with your heart that what you say is sincere and born of the ‘truth’. But suppose, for example, that the entire world is christian, follows the Bible (through various interpretations) and speaks truthfully from their heart to the best of their abilities. Would the world be without conflict? Not at all - not when man’s nature requires him to sin, and definitely not when certain peoples are seen as spiritually inferior. So what do you do? Is it the struggle itself that defines your life …and consequently your life after death? If the struggle is simply commanded by God, then is the aspiration to be good also commanded? And currently, what of the remaining non-religious world …do the laws of the Bible release you from accountability to it - assuring your ‘good standing’ upon judgement day based on your feelings and actions as a sinning man?

If a sinning non-believer such as myself can do just as adequate a job in making this world ‘work’ as a sinning believer, then why is a religious way better when concerned with life on earth? Why not live and let live? Are there ‘bonus points’ for converting people into faith? Are you, as a religious person concerned for the non-believer, aware that if everyone on earth lived your way, things really wouldn’t be a whole lot better than they already are? Or perhaps you think they would? Or maybe it’s that my conversion reinforces your own belief?

If we’re all sinners, and you feel we’re all going to be judged in the end, then why care about me? Why not simply leave it in God’s capable hands?

The answer is because, to a small degree, the Bible instructed you to do so. But to a larger degree I would think/hope that you want the best of life and its opportunities given to everyone - you sincerely wish all the good in your life to be felt by every other person. You want to share your happiness …to share your ‘good word’ with others so that they can experience the joy that you do. So they can be given all that you have, and perhaps will be given.

Personally, I think that’s great …and it’s a nobel cause even us non-believers can stand behind. I’d even go so far as to say it’s a worldly cause. What I’m not certain about though, is how you plan to accomplish this by making statements such as those above. How is your way of life so much better when you honestly feel that gender precludes reason and spirituality? I understand you feel your opinions to be the truth as you see it …but how does your christian religion grant you the freedom to arrive at such conclusions? Is it in the Bible - somehow?

This is in the Bible (Matthew 12:36-37) …and although I’m not an avid reader, I’m somewhat certain that God (or the Bible) wouldn’t cast/present women to be spiritually inferior. Or cognitively.

*honestly, I’m trying hard to figure things out. I’m trying to give everyone their fair share. the problem is that it’s extremely difficult to find consistency between similar beliefs …or non-beliefs for that matter. it’s either one way or the other, and if you’re on the wrong side of the fence then your screwed. the other problem is that there appears to only be one side of the fence!*

Genesis 3:15

As I’m making my way through John S. Spong’s book Why Christianity Must Change Or Die (of which I’ll give my opinions on later), I came across the mention of “the tree of knowledge of good and evil”. I’m not sure why it suddenly occurred to me, but for some reason the words ‘good’ and ‘evil’ kinda stood out - and so I had this thought.

I’ve always had a problem with good vs. evil. They’ve never made sense to me - as one person’s ‘good’ can easily be viewed as another person’s ‘evil’ - and visa versa. I’ve always held the contention that there is no ‘good’ and there is no ‘evil’ …rather, there are tendencies to drift and to resemble either one, and this degree of drifting/resemblance is characterized by what society values at that time. Society, I believe, naturally promotes itself (develops, procures, extends etc.) and eventually ‘good’ and ‘evil’ become defined …and consequently changed, then redefined, then changed, then redefined and so on. Although they may appear blatantly obvious, they are still subject to ‘drift’. For example, killing babies with hammers is generally evil, but you could make an exception to this statement by saying “these babies need to be killed because they carry a contagious disease that can destroy the earth and hammers are the only objects around to do the job”. You might say that helping an old lady to cross the street is generally good, but you could also make an exception to this by saying “the old lady has a sub-compact nuclear bomb strapped to her waist and will detonate it when she reaches the other side killing millions”. Good and evil are subjective concepts, not hard and fast ‘inflexible’ descriptors.

And this brings me to the Genesis story about ‘the tree of knowledge of good and evil’. In the story God decrees that Adam NOT eat the fruit of this tree, but he does (thanks to Eve …thanks to a serpent) - and so God states “…I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed…” (Gen. 3-15 KJV) Essentially, because Man ate from the tree of knowledge of good an evil, he (along with Eve and all their offspring) have been made to live the rest of their lives with some form of conflict. My point then, is if you can discard the concept of good and evil, then you can discard the notion of conflict! You become like Adam was before he ate from the tree …problem free.

Of course this isn’t anything to be taken literally. Of course you’re not going to be transported to a new world because you no longer recognize the differences between good and evil. What I am suggesting is that by not playing into the absolutes of the terms, you may possibly see your enemies in a more positive light. You might see that there are underlying reasons for people to act the way they do, and hopefully you’ll develop an appreciation of them …realizing that people do things “not because they’re bad people”, but because of the circumstances in their life - and their life isn’t any less meaningful than yours.

Not eating from the tree would have been the best thing to do …but maybe we can reverse things a little by not buying so directly into the concept of ‘good’ and ‘evil’.

Maybe.

restlessness

Today I was going to do some stuff - today being late Thursday night - but I didn’t.  I don’t know why exactly.  I got a lot of crap done over the first part of the week, including my dreaded taxes, but for some reason I had plans to get stuff done but nothing became of them.  I was done working for the ‘Man’ early as well …but that still didn’t seem to help.  Just little things that needed to get tidied away.  Tomorrow maybe?  Possibly.

I’ve been on a sugarless diet of sorts this week too.  By sugarless, I mean I’ve cut out Slurpees, pop and chocolate things in hopes of getting some better sleep.  Does too much sugar make for bad sleep?  I’ll let you know I guess.  The last few nights have been pretty restful - so who’s to say.

Yeah, I don’t know.  It’s almost like I’ve been restless.  There’s always something stupid on my mind.  I keep having these visions of sorts …for example, I’ll be walking along somewhere and suddenly I’ll see something that’ll set me off to thinking about the meaning of things.  Of all kinds of things though, not just what I happen to see - but stuff like why people are the way they are (myself included) and why we seem to go about things in the same manner all the time.  I keep thinking about part of that poem I quoted earlier, how all we have now is essentially all we’ve ever had and all we will ever have.  Material is material, it simply reforms itself.

One of the big news items in Alberta lately was the death of 500 migrating ducks as they flew into a ‘tailings pond’ set up by a large oil company.  Everyone seemed to be distraught with the death of the birds but didn’t seem to give second thought to the idea that we have a toxic ‘lake’ set upon the earth.  My concerning thought with the story was about how connected everything is - the land, animals and yes - us.  But our view is only on the ‘living’ …the easily identifiably living, and not the larger picture.

Also, I’ve had thoughts about how confusing we make things for ourselves.  Our language is the perfect example of ‘dumbing down’ - we simplify for a point of convenience but the result is a loss of communication.  I’ll talk more about this later on - but I’m convinced it’s the best reason for most of the conflicts we have.

I’ve got a few gigs this weekend too - so I’ll probably post them as ‘filler’ …then consider elaborating about some of the other stupid things that have been in my head lately.

life

I’ve come across a few things that I want to share. They’re dealing with life in various ways, and offer wider perspectives than that which we typically experience. It’s good to step back once in a while …it gives you an appreciation for the details, and hopefully sheds new light on the staleness we all seem to encounter. The first is a quote from the eighteenth century Japanese Zen poet Ryokan. I came across this in the book Gods after God: An Introduction to Contemporary Radical Theologies, by Richard Grigg. The quote is from page 98…

“In all ten directions of the universe,
there is only one truth.
When we see clearly, the great teachings are the same.
What can ever be lost? What can be attained?
If we attain something, it was there from the beginning of
time.
If we lose something, it is hiding somewhere near us.
Look: this ball in my pocket:
can you see how priceless it is?”

The second is a passage is from a book that I picked up when I was in Vancouver a few weeks ago. It’s titled The Man Without Qualities, by Robert Musil. I’ve yet to get too far in, but the book so far offers more of a psychological breakdown/revealing than a strict story-telling …kinda along the lines of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s ‘Notes from Underground. Some of Musil’s observations are simply profound - and I’m looking forward to further reading. This quote is from page 60…

“Mankind produces Bibles and guns, tuberculosis and tuberculin. It is democratic, with kings and nobility; builds churches, and universities against the churches; it turns monasteries into barracks, but allots chaplains to the barracks. Of course it also provides hooligans with rubber tubing filled with lead to beat a fellow human being’s body black and blue, and afterwards it has featherbeds waiting to receive the solitary, man-handled body” …”This is the well known matter of the contradictions, the inconsistency and imperfections of life. One smiles or sighs over it.” …”there was desperately little use in doing away with the guns here and the kings there, and in diminishing stupidity and knavery by any greater or lesser piece of progress; for the measure of all that is disagreeable and bad is instantly made up again by new forms of the same thing, as though the world were always sliding back with one foot while it takes a step forward with the other.”

My final offering is a poem from Dante Gabriel Rossetti. I found this poem amongst an online collection of poetry from the University of Toronto Library. There are many poets/poems to discover in this database, and although lacking of a diverse offering of modern poets, there are a few Canadian ones that you can easily access.

“Think thou and act; to-morrow thou shalt die
Outstretch’d in the sun’s warmth upon the shore,
Thou say’st: “Man’s measur’d path is all gone o’er:
Up all his years, steeply, with strain and sigh,
Man clomb until he touch’d the truth; and I,
Even I, am he whom it was destin’d for.”
How should this be? Art thou then so much more
Than they who sow’d, that thou shouldst reap thereby?

Nay, come up hither. From this wave-wash’d mound
Unto the furthest flood-brim look with me;
Then reach on with thy thought till it be drown’d.
Miles and miles distant though the last line be,
And though thy soul sail leagues and leagues beyond,–
Still, leagues beyond those leagues, there is more sea.

mental slips

“…because if you don’t do it this way you’re going to look retarded, OK?”

At one of the schools I visited today, I overheard the above from a teacher as she was instructing her class on the finer points of on-stage body presentation …I’m guessing the class was drama or something. Nice. It’s good to see our future citizens armed with such political incorrectness. We rule!

What is it that keeps a mental error like this from dying off? Why is that certain terms, even after they’ve been publicly condemned and proven to be insulting, demoralizing and personally offensive, still hang around in our minds - only to be used in such inappropriate situations? Even unknowingly perhaps? I’m certain the teacher would be ashamed of the vocabulary slip if it was brought to her attention - and even apologize …proclaim she meant no harm and that she’d never (or rarely) say such things in public.

What could be more public than a public school though - lol. The problem as I see it, is that the teacher was in a comfortable environment, and when you feel comfortable - you naturally act with your guard down. You become more personable, friendly, and ‘open’ in your demeanor. You act as if you were in the privacy of your own home. Which brings about this question …how do you communicate in your own home? When you’re hanging out with your best friends? When you feel comfortable and secure enough to let your guard down?

I’d suggest that we lead two different lives …most of us at least. We act one way when we’re in a public place and are aware that our actions and words are being observed, and we act another way when we’re in the solitude of our own house, or room - or hanging with a group of close friends. When we’re in our ‘comfortable’ world, we casually assume that what we say (colorful expletives, racial slurs, sexist statements etc.) are ‘understood’ between our friends and family members. They’re understood as simply ‘kidding around’. It’s an unspoken rule that we’re only joking with such things - having a good laugh, and it’s implied that if we were to venture out to the real world where we’d be under the public microscope, we’d change our tune …reign in all the ‘bad’ words because we don’t really mean them anyway. We only say them for fun. For laughs.  We’re just lazy.

But that’s the problem. You say them for fun and/or for kicks when you’re in your own surroundings, but they do more than what you think …they get inside your head! The stick around for a loooong time - and when you constantly reinforce them in your private life, they’ll never leave. And eventually they’ll slip out. They’ll slip out with your kids, with your parents, your co-workers ..and if you happen to be a responsible teacher charged with shaping the lives and minds of our future leaders …they’ll slip out there too.

It’s a simple fix though …just stop yourself from doing it - and do this before you’re under the public eye. Think before you speak and ask yourself why you have to say something like that in the first place. If your answer is “cause it’s funny!” or “cause it’s true” …try going a little deeper. Why is it funny? Why does it make you happy when you say this? Why is it funny when someone does predictable/stereotypical things? Why is it so easy/fun to categorize people? What makes that word/statement acceptable?  How would you feel if a group of people made jokes/slurs against you when they know absolutely nothing about you - and then jump ahead and group your actions in with others? Laughing about you, generalizing you - and predicting your reactions in certain situations?

We all make silly mistakes and we all say inconsiderate things. What’s unfortunate is that we don’t think they’re important enough to do something about. We think we have them under control …when the obvious fact is that they have us under control.

And who here actually likes being controlled.

the evil gene

“Yeah I quit. My boss was a prick so I took a Big Mac and chucked it at him.”

Ahhh, good ol’ youth …or as My Cousin Vinny would say - ‘youts’. The above statement was something I heard as I was leaving one of my schools today while doing the rounds for the Man. I don’t know why, but it struck me as odd. Not the statement itself, but that it was said by a student while talking directly to a teacher at a local Catholic Junior High school. And the teacher’s response was …well, there really was no response?! The conversation was light, and from the informal attitude between the group, I got the impression that this kid was basically a good person …he must of had a bad day, and there were certainly worse things he could have done or said. Run of the mill I guess. Good kid …bad day.

I guess that might be the best way to diffuse situations at times …assign them as simple day to day activities and then get on with life. That’s what most of us do I think. If we have a bad day, we move on. Why put the effort into something as menial as a honked horn, a p-o’d co-worker, an obnoxious person in a line-up or a discourteous server or chain store clerk. We all have them …bad days that is. So let’s forgive and forget those little details, prepare ourselves for the important things we’ll sooner or later encounter. But I think that’s the problem though. We all have a tendency to put off today what we can do tomorrow …and when it comes to disagreements, whether between common acquaintances and casual strangers, we ‘let it slide’ just one more time. Then one more time. And so on. And so on. And so on.

I suppose in our crowded, fast-paced world, that’s what we have to do to remain somewhat sane. But we have to realize that we ALL have bad days - and we’re ALL good people at heart. We’re ALL good people? Lol - but if we’re all good then why should there be any ‘bad’ people around? And that’s what I basically took from the brief exchange between this student and teacher - that we’re not really responsible for a lot of our actions. Why? Because we’re basically good people at heart! And good people (god bless them) make mistakes and errors in judgement at times - and that’s what we have the rest of our life for …to learn from our mistakes.

The problem though, is that we don’t learn. We’re too lazy to learn. Too lazy to ‘instruct’. Instead, we simply pass the buck and lay the blame on someone else. We’ll make simplified statements like “That guys a dink!” “That girl’s mean.” “His boss deserved it.” “She’ll never be a good mother!” We say all kinds of things about people because it’s quick, fast and easy …and we say these things because they don’t require too much thought. Then over time, we eventually write them off as ‘bad’ people. The bad egg. Lol …kinda like the Simpson’s episode where Dr. Hibbert remarks “Well, only one in two million people has what we call the “evil gene”. Hitler had it, Walt Disney had it, and… Freddy Quimby has it.”

My point though, is that nobody does things because they’re ‘bad’. Everyone is a good person inside (”we all should be nodding our heads up and down right now” - thanks Rick), but it’s our ‘outside’ displays that we occasionally lose sight of and eventually, when these actions have elevated themselves to greater and greater heights, they create situations that result in us being labeled as the ‘bad person’. Heck, we may even attract others who have been handed the same fate as us. And with this new group in our corner, we take more and more liberties - and our good eventually becomes the group’s good. But the thing is, we know we’re not bad people. We all believe this …and sincerely too! Each one of us feels that inside we are good. Inside we’re correct, and we’re doing what we honestly believe is the best thing to do. That’s just human though. We go through life as best we can, doing the best we can. However, if we don’t take responsibility for our everyday ‘outer’ actions, then we just may find ourselves in the wrong spot at the wrong time …and risk being fenced into a category that labels us negatively. Labels us as bad. Or perhaps as ‘evil’?

It’s just not a matter of good or bad, kids - that’s something for fairy tales and young children learning how to get along with each other in a sandbox. We all learn variations on the ‘golden rule‘, and this guides us through life. It helps us as we struggle in this sandbox that is the world.

After all, you know that you’re good …you just have to remember to show it more often.  Like that time when your boss was a prick and you had this sweet Big Mac in the palm of your hand!

freedom’s structure

I’m not quite sure how this works but I’m gonna take a guess…

On the way back from the visit to Tisdale I seemed to have an epiphany of sorts.  Maybe it was the long drive.  The passing landscape perhaps.  Whatever it was, it let me step outside of the ‘details’ that typically bog you down in the day to day procedure of things.  I was able to get away from a schedule - get away from other peoples schedules, and kinda just do things as I wanted.  I realized all of this on the drive home.  When I got home though, the feeling left.  Maybe it was the ‘familiar’ that pulled me back.  Maybe it was the impending routine that loomed at 6:45am.  It all left though …and in its place was - well, life I suppose.  The regular.

All the minutia of everyday structure almost climbed back into me.  The stupid thing is that I didn’t even try to avoid it.  It’s almost as if I welcomed it secretly.

But I really don’t want it - lol.  I don’t want it back that is.  I see it for what it is and I understand its hold on me …but even knowing the ‘enemy’ doesn’t always permit you to destroy/avoid it.  It’s almost as if you’re hypnotized by yourself, and you get to the point of not even trying to fight it.

And that’s how it works I think.  That’s how ‘routine’ survives.  It doesn’t necessarily take from you - but rather you need to allow it in, because that’s the only way you can accomplish anything.  Anything practical that is.  That’s how you contribute to the ‘circularness’ of a productive society.  Your habits grow to define you as a person.  Your value is only that which is needed by those around you.  ‘Freewill’ might be something outside this influence …yet leaving this influence means leaving everything you’ve built.  What you’ve made determines everything you’re about to create - and freedom almost becomes an illusion.  Patterns are necessary.  Without them, you’ve nothing to base this ‘freedom’ upon.

It’s a catch 22 of sorts, and maybe contentment is simply these glimpses from time to time.  Getting a ‘taste’ - something to pull you along for a bit.  Yet, it just doesn’t feel like enough for me, whenever it happens - and I really can’t explain it.

Sorry if this sounds kinda weird, but I figure I might as well spew it out …something to look back on later at least.  Hopefully.