Have you ever wondered where evolution might be taking us? First there were the pre-cellular quasi-life forms, then on to the single cell creatures. Cells cooperated and formed tissues and organs and higher animals and plants came about. And man himself keeps evolving, from the earliest human like apes to modern Cro-Magnon man. Cities and massive inter-cooperation developed. Now, with the internet as its central nervous system, mankind seems to be converging into a kind of super being. So, really, doncha s'pose that mankind is evolving into a God? Doncha s'pose that many such Gods have already evolved? Doncha s'pose it's possible that one of those Gods might be ours? That wouldn't necessarily mean that he is the Christian God or even a good god. But, scientifically, it all makes very good sense that we are evolving into something, that using our current understanding, we can only call godlike creatures.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
What would you do?
The contrast between his white outfit and shiny long black hair was eye catching. He was at the amusement park with two of his buddies. They looked like college guys. He wore those long loose silky shorts; impeccably white. His white shirt was tight Lycra, revealing well developed pectorals and a complete six pack. Yes, he was muscular, but not too much so. But the nicest thing he wore was a jaunty smile. His shirt had the message 'free hugs' printed by hand on it. I couls have used one of his free hugs. But somehow I do not think that they were intended for 60 year old admirers of male beauty. Fuckin' forsooth.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Humanity as an Organism
In my post on the good/bad dichotomy, I suggested that an appropriate alternative to considering actions and people good or bad might be to teach everyone to live in service to others. The more I am thinking about that, the more I am liking it. I sort of envision humanity as becoming a single organism by that single tenet; service to others. The blood cells carry food and oxygen to the nerve cells that think our thoughts and feel our feelings. Shouldn't each man have relationships like that with each other man. Well, in actuality, we do live in a society like that. It is almost impossible for any man to live by himself like on an island and to be happy with that situation. Where would we be without the grocer, or the guy who drives the truck or the people who grow the food, or those who produce the fertilizer and machinery to grow it? Existence alone would be a meager existence indeed. So humanity lives cooperatively. At least we live cooperatively in an external fashion. But what about internally? Why doesn't each human love the hand which feeds him? Why is there nothing personal in all this cooperation? Where is the love?
Parents bring up kids teaching them the difference between good and bad. We expect them to love the good and to disdain the bad. Yet, there is good and bad in everyone. We need to teach kids differently. We need to show them that each of us is immensely valuable to the others. We need to show people how we value them. We have to recognize their contribution to our lives and to show appreciation. As for perceived wrongs, we should ignore them when possible and forgive them when they can't be ignored.
Our daily mission should be to show love to all those we encounter each and every day. This can be done simply. For example, a driver shouted a "thank you" out of his car window in response to an effort I made to make it easier for him to pass an obstacle. Also, there was a police officer who stopped traffic to let a little child cross the street. Upon arriving at the far side the child turned and, smiling and waving, shouted a "thank you" to the officer. I think well placed 'thank yous' can go a long way towards showing our love to our fellow man. It is acknowledging that the other has been a part of your life and has made it better. It is validating the other person; saying that they have value in your eyes. And that's what people really want. They want the feedback from others that says, "You have made my life more pleasant". Rather than spend a lifetime learning the difference between good and bad and sorting everyone we meet by their attainments in these two categories, we should seek appreciation of our personal contribution to the world. We stand the best chance of seeing that appreciation if we live every minute of our lives in service to others. Thus will humanity evolve into a single organism. Life started with a single cell. Cells combined in symbiotic relationships to be able to do new and greater things move, multiply, respond to stimuli, think, and love. From cell to tissue to organ and bone to a man. Is that the end? I think not.
Men in groups cooperated to reach even greater levels of existence. Cities and countries were formed. Ideas were exchanged discussed and refined in a "two heads are better than one" atmosphere. Families, cities and countries formed and trade went on between them. Ideas cross-bred to give birth to newer and greater ideas. Now we have a world wide web to mingle our thoughts together freely. Will this be the nervous system of the new being that humanity is evolving towards? I think it will. I think that's our purpose.
Parents bring up kids teaching them the difference between good and bad. We expect them to love the good and to disdain the bad. Yet, there is good and bad in everyone. We need to teach kids differently. We need to show them that each of us is immensely valuable to the others. We need to show people how we value them. We have to recognize their contribution to our lives and to show appreciation. As for perceived wrongs, we should ignore them when possible and forgive them when they can't be ignored.
Our daily mission should be to show love to all those we encounter each and every day. This can be done simply. For example, a driver shouted a "thank you" out of his car window in response to an effort I made to make it easier for him to pass an obstacle. Also, there was a police officer who stopped traffic to let a little child cross the street. Upon arriving at the far side the child turned and, smiling and waving, shouted a "thank you" to the officer. I think well placed 'thank yous' can go a long way towards showing our love to our fellow man. It is acknowledging that the other has been a part of your life and has made it better. It is validating the other person; saying that they have value in your eyes. And that's what people really want. They want the feedback from others that says, "You have made my life more pleasant". Rather than spend a lifetime learning the difference between good and bad and sorting everyone we meet by their attainments in these two categories, we should seek appreciation of our personal contribution to the world. We stand the best chance of seeing that appreciation if we live every minute of our lives in service to others. Thus will humanity evolve into a single organism. Life started with a single cell. Cells combined in symbiotic relationships to be able to do new and greater things move, multiply, respond to stimuli, think, and love. From cell to tissue to organ and bone to a man. Is that the end? I think not.
Men in groups cooperated to reach even greater levels of existence. Cities and countries were formed. Ideas were exchanged discussed and refined in a "two heads are better than one" atmosphere. Families, cities and countries formed and trade went on between them. Ideas cross-bred to give birth to newer and greater ideas. Now we have a world wide web to mingle our thoughts together freely. Will this be the nervous system of the new being that humanity is evolving towards? I think it will. I think that's our purpose.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Is the good/bad dichotomy good or bad?
The good/bad dichotomy has brought about much ugliness in my life, so I'm sorta down on it. It seems that assigning every action to one of these two categories opens up a plethora of pitfalls to one's personal morality.
I guess that the root of the problem is that everyone has their own definitions of good and bad. Even for an individual, what he considers good or bad changes over time. Everyone knows this. Philosophers have long discussed relative morality; some holding forth that everyone's various experiences give everyone a different sense of what's right and what's wrong. These cogent arguments are usually refuted with equally cogent arguments, usually involving a hypothetical case where the counterparty is somehow brutally savaged by some 'obviously evil' act. I find both sides of the argument are equally convincing.
Humanity has likely lived on the 'right/wrong' or 'good/bad' standard for hundreds of thousands of years. And it seems to have worked pretty well. Some would argue, but I think that humanity has become kinder over its history. Yet, considering how these concepts have played out in my life, I feel compelled to entertain the thought that perhaps it's time for humanity to chuck the good/bad judgment thing.
We are all taught what is right and what is wrong. We are all encouraged to choose the right and disdain the wrong. We are all biased to favor our personal views of propriety. That's a recipe for disaster, isn't it? I'm right. You're wrong. Those two simple statements have been the progenitors of war and murder and hate for untold thousands of years.
I'm a Roman Catholic. This church is always emphatic as to what is right and what is wrong, as determined by the dubious authority of 'the church'. The same authority that burned Jews and homosexuals. The church was very similar to Adolf Hitler is that respect, wasn't it? As I said though, right and wrong does work a little bit and so, the church doesn't burn anyone anymore.
Now they say its fine to be homosexual, so long as you commit yourself to an abnormal life of sexual abstinence because homosexual sex is 'wrong'. Yes...a little better...but still no good. The most horrid thing about this is that this view teaches believers to look down on the vast majority of homosexuals for whom abstinence is neither desired nor possible. An equally horrid thing is the possibility that this supplication towards abstinence deprives the world of good wholesome homosexual loves. If a homo is 'good' and abstains, his would be partner leads a diminished life. There's nothing 'good' about that.
I was taught that divorce was wrong, so I had a tendency to look down on people who suffered tragic divorces. I was taught that sex outside of marriage was wrong, so I had a tendency to look down upon sexually active singles. I even went one better than that. I would categorize people as good or bad. Then when someone seemed too good (which usually meant that they seemed better than me), I would begin to watch them closely for some 'wrongs', so that I could feel that I was better than them. The scary thing is 'what if religion instills this kind of activity into all believers'. What if all believers work towards elevating their opinions of themselves at the expense of others? Everyone considers themselves the repository of all good and all others flawed. That's the evil of the good/bad dichotomy. Maybe there's a better way.
Perhaps it's time for a paradigm shift. Something that would give us all the benefits of the right/wrong dichotomy, but none of the evils. What if each baby is taught that his purpose in life is to promote the happiness of others. That's really the only way to true happiness anyway. Would the last man in the world, who owned and controlled everything, be happy? Obviously not. Why not? Because we can only be happy by feeling that we are valuable to others. It's absolutely true. So why not make this the obvious goal of each human life? Wouldn't such an attitude give us the benefits of 'good/bad' without the evils?
I guess that the root of the problem is that everyone has their own definitions of good and bad. Even for an individual, what he considers good or bad changes over time. Everyone knows this. Philosophers have long discussed relative morality; some holding forth that everyone's various experiences give everyone a different sense of what's right and what's wrong. These cogent arguments are usually refuted with equally cogent arguments, usually involving a hypothetical case where the counterparty is somehow brutally savaged by some 'obviously evil' act. I find both sides of the argument are equally convincing.
Humanity has likely lived on the 'right/wrong' or 'good/bad' standard for hundreds of thousands of years. And it seems to have worked pretty well. Some would argue, but I think that humanity has become kinder over its history. Yet, considering how these concepts have played out in my life, I feel compelled to entertain the thought that perhaps it's time for humanity to chuck the good/bad judgment thing.
We are all taught what is right and what is wrong. We are all encouraged to choose the right and disdain the wrong. We are all biased to favor our personal views of propriety. That's a recipe for disaster, isn't it? I'm right. You're wrong. Those two simple statements have been the progenitors of war and murder and hate for untold thousands of years.
I'm a Roman Catholic. This church is always emphatic as to what is right and what is wrong, as determined by the dubious authority of 'the church'. The same authority that burned Jews and homosexuals. The church was very similar to Adolf Hitler is that respect, wasn't it? As I said though, right and wrong does work a little bit and so, the church doesn't burn anyone anymore.
Now they say its fine to be homosexual, so long as you commit yourself to an abnormal life of sexual abstinence because homosexual sex is 'wrong'. Yes...a little better...but still no good. The most horrid thing about this is that this view teaches believers to look down on the vast majority of homosexuals for whom abstinence is neither desired nor possible. An equally horrid thing is the possibility that this supplication towards abstinence deprives the world of good wholesome homosexual loves. If a homo is 'good' and abstains, his would be partner leads a diminished life. There's nothing 'good' about that.
I was taught that divorce was wrong, so I had a tendency to look down on people who suffered tragic divorces. I was taught that sex outside of marriage was wrong, so I had a tendency to look down upon sexually active singles. I even went one better than that. I would categorize people as good or bad. Then when someone seemed too good (which usually meant that they seemed better than me), I would begin to watch them closely for some 'wrongs', so that I could feel that I was better than them. The scary thing is 'what if religion instills this kind of activity into all believers'. What if all believers work towards elevating their opinions of themselves at the expense of others? Everyone considers themselves the repository of all good and all others flawed. That's the evil of the good/bad dichotomy. Maybe there's a better way.
Perhaps it's time for a paradigm shift. Something that would give us all the benefits of the right/wrong dichotomy, but none of the evils. What if each baby is taught that his purpose in life is to promote the happiness of others. That's really the only way to true happiness anyway. Would the last man in the world, who owned and controlled everything, be happy? Obviously not. Why not? Because we can only be happy by feeling that we are valuable to others. It's absolutely true. So why not make this the obvious goal of each human life? Wouldn't such an attitude give us the benefits of 'good/bad' without the evils?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)