- Insufficient Information … February 26, 2017
- Compatibility… February 19, 2017
- Darwin… One of My Favorite People… February 12, 2017
- Some Truths… February 12, 2017
- The Spokesperson… February 5, 2017
- The Puppet Masters and the Puppets… February 5, 2017
- Lay Your Bets… January 29, 2017
- Gynocentricity, Built-in Anti-male Bias… January 22, 2017
- An Inherent Automatic Function … January 15, 2017
- Inherent Flaw… January 08, 2017
- Common Sense
- Health and wellness
- Law and order
- Political comment
- Religion and Reason
- religious comedy
- Religous politics
- Science and science fiction
- Social morality
- Wildlife sanctuaries
Every year has been the same. Improvements were desired but not accomplished, or if accomplished, then lost. Stability is desirable.
Humanity is polarized into various groups. Each group opposes all other groups in some way. If you do not adhere to all of the tenets of a specific group the members will become vicious or attempt to silence or shun you. You cannot pick the best of each group and expect any group to show you amity. A centrist becomes an outcast to all groups.
I am a centrist. Each centrist is unique in that they choose the best of groups but from different groups as judged by their own subjective morality. Centrists are lone wolves by default.
A centrist’s life can be one of continuous frustration or stoic acceptance. Being at odds with everyone else leaves no other choices.
Being indifferent is a difficult position. Indifference or stoic acceptance are my choices. They sound similar.
Resolutions can be made at any time during the year. Yet, it has been a tradition that change is desired at the beginning of the new year.
The following are my resolutions or changes, or behavior modifications….
- To be friendlier to those less mentally fortunate.
- To be less reactive to those intentionally agitating.
- To be more productive and also more responsible.
- To ignore those who desire mundane status quo.
- To speak out more against pseudo-progressives and regressives.
- To continue to support human rights and stand against race based or gender based drives for special privilege.
- To be more clear yet maintain the necessary façades.
- To care less whether someone agrees or disagrees with my stances and become more indifferent about it.
There may be more throughout the year.
Each person is an independent unit. Each individual directs or influences their own fate through conscious decision. Independent humans can be influenced by other independent humans. Independence of independent humans is diminished by this influence. The optimum state is independence. The independent human rejects or resists control by other humans. Even if the influence is positive a human may reject the influence so as to preserve the independent state. An individual may even choose a negative corrosive course rather than accept outside control, influence. That said, humans are disappointing as to their choices and behavior. Judgments are made by comparing reality with optimum desired states. Naturally, each individual has their own criteria through which they visualize optimum desired states. I am no different. Moral states and immoral states are delineated through utilization of established criteria. Through this process an individual can fabricate a conceptualization of what an ideal reality might comprise. Sadly, humans do not reflect the ideal reality I have envisioned. As a result a condition akin to depression has resulted. It is not control I desire. Nevertheless, the disappointment persists. The criteria is sound, and changing it is not desired. The process of judgment by which the conclusion has been reached is as sound. The only course open to me is to become indifferent. Why is that always the conclusion: indifference? Is that not the same as “giving up”, accepting the inevitability of what is? It has been said by some that “One man with a vision can make a difference”, but that seems rather idealistic under the prevailing reality.
Each person is an independent unit. Each individual directs or influences their own fate through conscious decision. Independent humans can be influenced by other independent humans. Independence of independent humans is diminished by this influence.
The optimum state is independence. The independent human rejects or resists control by other humans. Even if the influence is positive a human may reject the influence so as to preserve the independent state. An individual may even choose a negative corrosive course rather than accept outside control, influence.
That said, humans are disappointing as to their choices and behavior.
Judgments are made by comparing reality with optimum desired states. Naturally, each individual has their own criteria through which they visualize optimum desired states. I am no different.
Moral states and immoral states are delineated through utilization of established criteria. Through this process an individual can fabricate a conceptualization of what an ideal reality might comprise.
Sadly, humans do not reflect the ideal reality I have envisioned. As a result a condition akin to depression has resulted.
It is not control I desire. Nevertheless, the disappointment persists.
The criteria is sound, and changing it is not desired. The process of judgment by which the conclusion has been reached is as sound. The only course open to me is to become indifferent. Why is that always the conclusion: indifference? Is that not the same as “giving up”, accepting the inevitability of what is? It has been said by some that “One man with a vision can make a difference”, but that seems rather idealistic under the prevailing reality.
Did you have an imaginary friend when you were but a child? Did your imagination make that friend seem real? Did you talk to that friend and then hear it respond in your mind?
There seems to be a need, even in the adult human, for guidance or consultation from a higher source, a better source, a more moral source. Seen in children who invent their own and in adults which accept the sources that have become common among their peers and parents.
The famous pair, a boy and his tiger, Calvin of the comics, is a famous analogy. His tiger is brave, more intelligent, faster, and more cunning… everything he wishes for himself. The tiger is always there for Calvin, never absent, never leaving him wanting.
Fabricated by his imagination due to need and fueled by his conscience, Calvin’s tiger does not exist…except to Calvin.
Humans are afraid of many things, though less and less of predation these days. Now they fear the loss of job, support, and being ridiculed by their fellow humans. They fear natural disaster, doom from space, and even the loss of their car keys. A person fears many things. As a child they were protected from harm by their parents… not that a child does not have fears, but there was always someone they could count on. An adult seeks companionship but needs more than simply someone equal. They also seem to need a father or mother figure to protect them from things that others cannot.
It is difficult to let go of such things. To stand by oneself knowing that you are the only thing keeping you from harm (others may help, but can’t always be there) is a very difficult thing to endure. Is it no surprise then that atheists are so few? Could it not be said that the only true adults in this life are atheists?
But God… yes, let’s discuss god. Have you ever seen god? Has god ever spoken anywhere but in your head? When in time of need and god speaks, couldn’t that be just your conscience? Attributing an inner voice to some deity could be said to be a mental malady. It’s you, yes you, that speaks with suggestions from the inner most mental bearings of your own mind.
Children have their Teddy-bears, adults have their gods. Oh yes, I am certain, very certain, that it is as simple as that.
There is a human phenomena known as “in-group”, sometimes also known as “in-group thinking”. Humans form groups. Each group considers itself the in-group. Other groups are looked upon unfavorably. Sometimes a group forms and develops actual animosity for other groups that do not subscribe to their particular beliefs. Group forming in itself is divisive. Members become biased toward helping other members of their group and oppose members of other groups, or simply ignore the needs of other groups.
Turmoil is inevitable between groups seeking the same resources or living space. Ideologies also become points of disagreement leading to struggles between groups to persuade one or the other to their points.
There are many groups. Religious, non-religious, hobby-oriented, race, gender are but a few. Religious groups develop superiority perspectives. Non-religious groups develop superiority perspectives. All groups develop superiority perspectives. Everyone thinks their group is the right group, their perspectives the correct perspectives. As a consequence of superiority perspectives the members of one group begin to look upon the members of another group as an enemy. Hatred, often denied, but present nonetheless, develops.
Many members of religious groups hate members of non-religious groups. Their ideology forbids this hatred, so they vehemently deny it, but it exists anyway.
Many women form groups calling themselves feminists. Despite exhortations to the contrary these groups develop hatred for men. Not only that, they develop hatred, though not as severe, for women who do not join such groups. It happens, whether intentional or not.
Even in religious groups there are divisions, as Catholics may despise Protestants. Fundamentalists may despise those religious groups not holding to what they consider the tenets of the Bible in total.
The Rich and powerful develop animosity towards the poor masses, as they develop paranoia thinking that the poor want to take their wealth away. Sports team fans develop hatred of fans of other teams. This has resulted in many deaths. Hunters are opposed by non-hunters. Developers are opposed by those seeking to preserve wilderness. Yet, all these groups would suffer if animals went extinct, and all wilderness were “developed”. Is this why it seems that preservation is futile? The intellectual crowd and the “stupid” masses do not respect one another. One political party’s members despise another party’s members.
The groups are endless in number. Whereas in the past such groups aided survival, now such groups detract from progress. Even the end goal of all humans is irrelevant, that of survival… unless of course it is the group to which a person belongs.
Nationalism is part of this in-group. One nation against the others… none pulling for the ultimate goal, that of survival of the human species. As resources decline, food becomes scarce, and population balloons, war will increase… and war is unproductive to say the least. To be frank it seems the human species is bent on extinction as the end goal.
Whereas evolution might have favored in-groups, in-groups are no longer desirable. Evolution may have gotten humanity into this mess, will it enable humanity to get out? The speed at which evolution works indicates that it will be incapable of changing humans in time. In fact, that is my opinion… that is, that it is too late already.
→Christians claim that morality originates from god. They also claim that the Bible is the perfect word of god (at least most fundamentalists do).
→Morality as presented in the Bible is not seen as moral today. Exceptions that are moral seem out of place among the others which most definitely are not.
→Most all “Christians” today are buffet style, choosing which parts of the Bible to hold true and rejecting others. This fact is the only reason that Christianity is able to exist within modern society today. In fact, those “Christians” that assert the Bible is totally infallible, and acceptable as a source to pattern your life are incompatible, just as Islam is incompatible, with modern western societies.
→It would be prudent for society to prevent any and all fundamentalists from seeking or holding office in a modern western society. NO ONE believing in Armageddon should be in control of weapons of mass destruction as they may attempt to hurry the return of their “Lord” by hastening the end of humanity.
Conclusion: Biblical morality is incompatible with modern morality. The Bible should be condemned as a barbaric relic. This condemnation is for the entirety, for even the New Testament offers little that does not conflict with human interests. Fundamentalist Christians, Islamists, or fundamentalists of any other religion, should be prevented from seeking or holding public office.
The cry is often made for “open-mindedness”. Usually made by those with a perspective which they wish to spread. By making the plea they hope to decrease the resistance to whatever issue or world vision they wish to promote.
This endeavor is quickened by creating a ready and malleable as well as receptive gallery. Some of these receptive vessels reside in groups that form with good intent, but become twisted due to actions by invading ideologies.
There are the “Co-existers” who in the name of “open-mindedness” believe erroneously that groups that desire each others’ demise can co-exist within close proximity. Religious as well as other ideological groups that carry within them incorporated hate will never accept each other within the same realm.
There are the “humanists” that I liken to the “Can’t we just get along” crowd. Willing to endure those who carry baggage in excess just to maintain a peace which will not, cannot last.
There are the myriad “atheist” groups which form for the noble purpose of eradicating the ignorance of religion, but more often end up being co-opted by other groups with less noble goals.
It is time to put a meter on that phrase: “open-minded”. It is of paramount importance that a point be set, found, or determined where “open-minded” exceeds reason and becomes absurdity.
Humanity as a whole does not care enough. They do not care about each other sufficiently. They are selfish. Most live for the day but not for the tomorrow.
Greed brings the exploitation of the world’s resources. Irreplaceable commodities are being depleted without care for the future and instead for the profit that might be gained today.
No effort is made to attenuate population growth. There are meager suggestions and futile efforts put forth by the well meaning, but without the urgency that might elicit compliance. Imminent extinction of humanity needs to be taken more seriously.
Other creatures than human are slowly being eradicated: their living space preempted by human expansion. Lions, elephants, and rhinoceros will soon be left only to zoos, until the space occupied by zoos is needed for continued human expansion.
Humans arose through evolution. Evolution failed to endow humanity with sufficient compassion and caring. It is true that many can recognize that more is needed, but even those many do not seem to comprehend the urgency.
Wildlife organizations solicit for donations, but year after year, the tide against wildlife worsens and the call for donations increases. There seems no return for invested donations.
If there were some optimism to be found I am unable to locate it.