Saturday, March 19, 2016

Circumcision...The Spirit of Abstraction

The spirit of abstraction is a psychological mindset that reduces a human into a function so that you can treat people with cruelty and indifference and go to bed at night and sleep soundly without a sense of culpability or guilt in having done so.
There was a time when it was a legal right and choice to own another human being as a slave. Everyone knows that slavery is an insufferable existence.  Whether that be human trafficking in our present day, sweatshops across the globe, slavery in America or even the slavery of Hebrews in ancient Egypt. Slavery is a blight on civilization.
In the United States, before slavery was abolished, there were people who were opposed to it and advocated on behalf of the humanity of those held in slavery. But the people who owned slaves advocated for their rights and choices to own slaves under the law as property.
We know that slavery is wrong. But people actually believed at one time that this was their right and their choice to engage in owning other people as property.
Slavery was never a right or a choice afforded to humanity ever. It has always been wrong and always will be wrong. And the reason why it lasted so long is because of the spirit of abstraction. The spirit of abstraction is that psychological mindset that reduces a person from a human being to a function, thereby making it easier to treat a person with cruelty and indifference without a sense of culpability or guilt in having done so. And that is a psychological defense mechanism that provides conscious camouflage so that we can be ok with elevating a person's function over their humanity. Since functions are disposable, each time we engage in this, we send a clear message in regards to how we value others. And the message is that we just don't value them at all.
That's why slavery lasted so long. Slave owners couldn't break free from that psychological mindset in order to see a race of people as human beings. Slavery is a blight on humanity. If it was legal to own slaves in this day and age, it would be appalling.
So very simply, why can't we apply that same mindset to circumcision? The answer is that we are clearly operating from the spirit of abstraction. We don't see the humanity of boys and girls or men and women. Instead we see functions are valued over humanity and we want to control functions. Because it's legal or considered religious or cultural, we can do this with impunity. It's our right. It's our choice. It's legal...It is an undeniable fact that boys are the primary target of circumcision. I've seen so many videos at this point where people focus the debate on a choice between circumcising or not circumcising. We knew we were going to have a boy so we had to sit down and go over the decision to circumcise him or not circumcise him. This is not where the focus of the conversation needs to be.
This is not a decision that was ever supposed to be afforded to the human race. It was never meant to be a choice and that's the insidiousness of having choices offered to us. You can choose to circumcise or not circumcise. That is a smokescreen. That choice needs to be rejected with  the same attitude of being offered the choice to own a slave as an option. It surprises me that people don't see it that way. It should sicken them to even consider even entertain the choice.  We should say...what are you doing offering me a choice like that? Are you insane? That's no choice. That was never afforded to the human race.
That's what circumcision is in today's world. The exact same spirit of abstraction that made slavery possible for so long is the exact same spirit of abstraction employed to deflect attention away from guilt and culpability related to violating a person's rights and choices, regardless of gender...male or female. This is why circumcision has lasted as long as it has. It's the same reason that slavery lasted as long as it did. Because we can't break free from the spirit of abstraction that reduces a human into a function that we can dispose of. Circumcision disposes of function.
When I hear people discussing their rights and choices to do this to their children, it disturbs me as much as it would to hear someone defend their right and choice to own a slave. Slavery is a blight on humanity and so is circumcision. The attitudes of people engaged in the spirit of abstraction are a blight on everything that we call civilized. Circumcision rights are not afforded to parents anymore than the rights to own a slave are afforded to anyone.
Today could you imagine a debate about the benefits of slavery vs. freedom? It would be atrocious. It would be called racism and discrimination of the worst kind. Yet we still think that by having this discussion, where the focus is primarily the rights and choices of parents and religions or the benefits and risks of circumcising vs. not circumcising, that we don't see that as a deflection away from where the focus really needs to be.
The focus of conversation needs to clearly point out that it is healthier for humanity to operate from a psychological mindset that is void of the spirit of abstraction. After all, it was the spirit of abstraction that also made the holocaust and every genocide possible in the first place.
The spirit of abstraction is not human health. What's healthy is not affording to ourselves the right to treat people with cruelty and indifference without connecting it to personal guilt and culpability. It's healthy that we can't do that without feeling guilty. The spirit of abstraction promotes the same exact mindset that made slavery possible. That is where the argument lives and breathes. That psychological mindset is where the blight is, and it needs to be acknowledged as such. It lives in our hearts and minds. That's what needs to be circumcised...the spirit of abstraction. That's where the focus needs to be. That's where the conversation and debate needs to takes place.

There is nothing wrong with our bodies. There is something wrong with our beliefs and to continue in beliefs that are held in the spirit of abstraction, preserves the mindset that is the motivation behind all of humanity's cruelty and indifference and when we employ this to serve ourselves we give up our right to call ourselves civilized.
Take care.

Circumcision...I Don't Forgive It

I want to talk about the effect circumcision has had on me personally.
I was circumcised as an infant. I didn't even know I was circumcised until I was 9 years old. I was told by my mother and when she revealed this to me she laughed at the shock on my face. It was a surreal feeling to discover that I was somehow purposely made to be different and I didn't even understand why or what took place. Subconsciously I began hating every thought that crossed my mind about it.
After I was told...I became obsessed with looking at my penis, just trying to figure out what happened. I also became extremely self conscious about what others thought. I was thinking about it so much that I imagined that that was all people thought about. The scar from my circumcision became a permanent reminder that I was assaulted sexually.
I remember trying to find information at the library before the computer age and how impossible it was.
Eventually, I put it in the back of my mind and my self image was modified and my self esteem and confidence lowered. I was different and it has affected me ever since. I've always overcompensated to present myself as valuable and I believe that's directly related to how circumcision makes me feel about myself.
Being circumcised makes me feel hurt, betrayed, sad, cheated, unworthy of protection, vengeful, varying levels of madness where I have private conversations with myself in an attempt to protest on behalf of my body. I secretly practice my defensive arguments as if I were a child about to undergo circumcision or directly after...arguments that I would make to justify my humanness or advocate for myself in some way to change the hearts and minds of those that participated in hurting me. Because I can't undo what they did, I always lose the arguments.
So, I erase my love and trust, so that they suffer a loss that cannot be regained. I tell those people that they gave up their right to be loved by me and I withdraw it. I picture them laughing at me because how can I erase my mother or father. It causes me to spiral down even further.
I do this in private and I don't let anyone hear me because I don't want people to think I'm crazy. It's very isolating.
I don't feel like there's anything about my penis that belongs to me. It belongs to those that cut me and society in general. With every circumcision that takes place, I am clearly told that what happened to me is a socially approved trauma. It's weird to say this but my penis feels disconnected from my body, almost separated. I even tell myself it's not mine.
I've had a sex life but I will never be able to say that it was good and now I am starting to hate sex or even the idea of it.
I am jealous of men who have not been circumcised and happy for them at the same time. There's a lot of mixed emotions about it. You can't talk about because people think it's funny or they support circumcision and don't want to believe anything outside of the propaganda associated with it. Any form of complaint brings ridicule. Everyone tells me to just get over it.
People love to tell me I have  issues or that I have a problem with women when I bring it up because I talk about the beliefs that people hold about the opposite sex. Everything I say gets deflected to something else. I don't feel like people will ever really listen and so if I don't matter to society, then why participate. It's very isolating and I turn to online platforms where I can at least go on record publicly and leave a testimony that will mostly be ignored in a sea of testimonies. It's so easy to ignore people in an age when we are told that connections costs so much. It's as easy as changing the channel.
There literally is nowhere to turn for support and there is no way to undo the harm and so I have had to teach myself to accept it. Well, I don't want to accept it. I simply don't want to accept it. I don't want to deny or invalidate myself so that everyone else can be ok with it. It feels like the worst lie and I'm being told to believe it for everyone else's benefit.
One of the most difficult things to listen to is the opinions of women on the subject. Especially, those that are for circumcision. For some reason, it seems like their opinions matter more and that really bothers me. It's like women have granted themselves some kind of authority or self appointed approval power over male anatomy in order to gain control over how men feel about themselves through the lens of female acceptance. This allows women to secretly celebrate that you can do anything to a man and he will still love women because of how men hate being rejected by women. It's no secret that women like men who demonstrate a resilience and survivability because women basically choose who has the most courageous attitude or having somehow overcome the odds and that promotes their own survivability by proxy. It adds an unnecessary component of complexity to the subject and focuses more on women than the men it actually affects.
I've heard so many women say that uncircumcised penises are ugly, including my own mother. It's very hypocritical to hear a woman make these sexist remarks about circumcision when they would never allow that to be said in regards to their anatomy. I don't see how a woman's critical ideas about male anatomy and aesthetics are even relevant unless they are promoting a man's natural body.
Whenever I hear these sexist comments and opinions, I don't feel like I have a right to my own body and that I'm thought of as flawed for my natural physical being. Nature didn't make a mistake.
People have posted many videos of actual circumcisions and their opinions, and I think to myself...this is like watching a rape. I make it a point not to listen to women that support circumcision because of how they go out of their way to try to make men hate themselves or associate indifference to men. The comment sections of all these videos are filled with comments about God and religion or medicine and statistics and all of the excuses that go with it. It's rare to find support or empathy. I do commend the men women out there that don't think circumcision is a right of choice for parents and religion and they actively advocate on behalf of boys.
Here in the states we are supposed to have equal protection under the law and we clearly operate from double standards. Girls are protected and boys are not and there is no escaping that double standard.
Society knows that this is wrong...I am convinced of that.
I can't forgive because in so doing, life will go on and people will conclude that men eventually get over it and so it's ok.
It's true that I have to live with circumcision and I'm powerless to do anything about it but let what I'm about to say next sink in...
Circumcision has taught me a sad truth about people and the world we live in...
When a man has suffered circumcision, he thinks that because he still feels something or because he can have an orgasm, that he is experiencing the fullness of what he was meant to experience, but he is only operating from a mutilated fraction of what he was meant to experience.
The world has suffered an emotional circumcision. Empathy has been cut away from the human body of emotions where we are most sensitive and because people still feel something that resembles empathy, they think they are operating from the fullness of what they were meant to experience when it's only just a mutilated fraction.

Take care.

Friday, March 18, 2016

Curiosity Kills The Cat But Dogma Kills Curiosity

Personal dogma is a pet that ends up pissing on everyone else's carpet.
Despite the efforts made by atheists to prove that there is no God or the efforts made by those who believe in God to prove that God exists, there is still no evidence either way.
Because everything that we know and believe is held in limited observability and considering that the question of whether or not God exists or doesn't exist is also held in that same limited observability, the most reasonable approach to exploration in my opinion is to remain open to the possibility of both points of view. I say this because anything held in limited observability, yet declared in absolutes, risks the promotion of dogma.
Dogma filters our ability to explore and examine our own point of view which holds the potential to transcend what we currently know and believe to be truth. The filters of dogma are the most disabling limitations placed upon human beings and does not promote the use of our natural inclination to be curious.
I have been told by the atheist community and the religious community alike that one of the most dangerous places to be is somewhere in the middle but I disagree. To be open and unbiased about both positions allows my curiosity to thrive in the exploration and free examination of meaning, purpose, intention and truth, regardless of whether those things are in my knowledge or my faith. Since, the question of God is one of the most deeply personal exploration in the human experience, the very last thing we need is limitations in regards to that. Now that doesn't mean that limitations are bad because the use of boundaries are limitations in regards to trust and trustworthiness. These limitations are beneficial to everyone for the purpose of discerning the intentions of others and our own need of safety in the world.
Openness is an honest elimination of the limitation of dogma on both sides of the discussion whether that be religious dogma or intellectual dogma, so that curiosity and the possibility of personal transcendence and growth and development can take place for the one who asks the question of whether or not God exists.
Hypothetical questions of why or what if are important questions for human beings to ask.
I was raised to be catholic...and as child, I was naturally inquisitive. So, I asked lots of questions. More often than not, the answers I was given ended with...because God. This failed to satisfy my curiosity to say the least, and not only that but I was discouraged to explore or examine beyond that answer. Eventually, I stopped asking questions altogether and surrendered to the limitation of dogma.
As I am now 48 years old and thoroughly enjoying my personal exploration of evolutionary processes, I have found a similar dogma in regards to the intellectual and scientific community that limits exploration and examination with similar answers that end with...because evolution. Well, that fails to satisfy my curiosity as well.
At this point, I refuse to surrender my curiosity to the dogma and limitations of both contexts. I'll just rely on my own observations and enjoy the freedom of open exploration without the necessity of a context. Openness is freedom to explore and examine life on our own terms and whatever a person discovers will almost certainly be held in a continued, limited observability. Whatever conclusions a person comes to is also their freedom and so long as that freedom doesn't hinder another person's exploration with dogma, then curiosity and openness to possibilities and new discoveries will remain a journey of growth and development, rather than a destination of limitation.
I am open to the idea that there is no God and that there is a God, and I enjoy a freedom in my curiosity about both ideas. If it were proven without a doubt that there is no God (and I think that would be impossible) but if it could be proven, then I would experience a loss of exploratory freedom and my curiosity would end up relegated to a limitation of one possibility without the other. If the opposite were true and it was proven that God exists then I would also experience a loss of exploratory freedom and my curiosity would suffer as well.
The benefit of not being able to prove either affords a greater openness to personal curiosity and that benefit of openness cannot be derived from one without the other.
Bottom line...dogma promotes limitation and openness promotes growth and development. Maybe the latter of the two leads to a greater mutual appreciation of what it means to celebrate human curiosity and the question of...what if? Maybe science and faith without the filters of dogma can remain curious about both possibilities.
It would be refreshing to see a paradigm shift in that direction instead of the incessant arguing and belittling of one position over the other.
That's all I really wanted to say on the issue.

Take care.

Thursday, March 17, 2016

The Golden Rule

The Golden Rule
This is going to be a long piece but I wanted to make sure I put all the information in one place. I want to talk about the golden rule and the subject is somewhat in depth so I apologize for the length of the post. With that said, I'd like to begin...
The nature of moral relativism is to gain an advantage.
In a world where everyone is engaged in competition for resources, we are all criminals committing crimes against other criminals. We are also hypocrites when it comes to being offended by this and we cope with these crimes through moral relativism.
So what is the primary advantage that the moral relativist seeks? Conscious camouflage. This is a selective advantage. Relativity is conscious camouflage so that we can behave like predators and sleep soundly without a sense of culpability or guilt in having done so. It does so to promote competition instead of cooperation. One of the most efficient methods that the relativist uses to apply selective advantage is the use of backdrops. Where the backdrop of perfection is used to expose others while they remain insulated from the same scrutiny on a backdrop of imperfection.
Here's what I mean...
Take a white sheep and put it on a green hillside and it looks white and pristine. Put the same sheep on a snow covered hillside and it becomes filthy. This is the double standard that the moral relativist engages in. It is a perfection fallacy and it is their greatest weapon.
We live in a hierarchy of predators and I can only speculate but I believe it is because we are scared and desire safety, and it is how we can best manage our associations by employing our discriminatory efficiencies. And that brings to the surface our predatory nature. How righteous is a thief next to a murderer or how about a liar next to a thief? Did you notice how you discriminated with that? That allows you to assess your environment and you assign a certain danger factor to each one of them. But how righteous we are, but with the backdrop of pure white perfection we are all just filthy criminals committing crimes against each other and that's the reality of it. The reason that the platform of the moral relativist is so effective is because they accuse from a place of supposed perfection and provoke a person's defenses to rise up and get them to cower and recoil from the exposure of that imperfection on a backdrop of perfection that no one is able to live up to. Shame is our warfare and our weapons are the dull daggers of pointing fingers. Shame has one goal and that is to modify a person's behavior and spur a productivity that only benefits the one promoting shame. That is how all power is acquired...all power.
Power is safety for those that fear the most, much like power is safety for a bully, until it's not. We feel safe judging and condemning the behaviors and actions of others to deflect attention away from our fear of being under the same scrutiny. How many of us are willing to examine ourselves outside of our own contexts and environments long enough to see that the prisons we place others in are the ones we unconsciously say we deserve. I've said many times that as human beings we are putting people in prisons made of shame or we are setting them free or we're indifferent. How many are in prison because of our unwillingness to examine the grays that make up the contexts of our own imperfections The effect of relativism on society has only made an excuse for the opportunism of a predator.
You see we came from nature and in nature there is no right and wrong. You won't find it on the African plains or in the deep blue sea. There is no court system. There is no justice system of any kind. There is just the delicate balance of nature. But there is no right and wrong, it doesn't exist, just like with relativism. In the mind of the predator, there is no right and wrong, just opportunity. As human beings we are predators...that is our nature. We exchange that nature for the artificial nature that we call civilization, so that we may advance and the incentive to do so is the justice of a common standard that provides an equal opportunity to survive. The mutually agreed upon standard was morality and ethics in the form of laws to restrain our predatory nature. But that wasn't enough. We also had to exchange our natural prey for an artificial prey, which is money.
The predator is opportunistic in the exploitation of their prey. Money is our prey and the double standard of relativity is an opportunity to exploit human weakness. Take away the standard of the rules of engagement and replace it with double standards and the artificial nature of civilization is exchanged for our actual nature. And in that nature there is no right and wrong, just opportunity.
Civilization is experiencing a double standards where piety and lawful behavior is expected and enforced at the bottom and corruption is permitted at the top. In tough times we are all seeking an advantage and leverage. Everyone has an angle they're working but if civilization and its' artificial nature is going to survive, it will only do so if the same standard applies to all, and yes, a single standard is as artificial as civilization but without a singular standard, what's the incentive to remain civilized? Nature is based on double standards and balanced by that. I mean, why not engage our predatory nature if the incentive of justice in the form of a single standard is just taken away?
The answer is simple. Double standards promotes a hierarchal food chain. Relativity creates ascension for predators and descension for prey.
Consider the pyramid. The pyramid is stable and withstands the test of time. A symbol of civilization. A singular standard of justice for all causes the burden of civilization to be well distributed. And in today's world that's an idealistic notion of perfection that doesn't exist. It is, however, to our benefit that we build justice this way. If we operate from double standards, those at the bottom will naturally try to ascend to the top and the pyramid begins to resemble a tower. There is more pressure at the bottom than there is at the top. That's the punishment for piety and lawfulness, and if this continues then the tower becomes an inverted pyramid and collapses. We learn that if only one person adheres to piety or a lawful standard, it is not enough to hold up a civilization alone.
The tower is where we are.
Civilization is an artificial nature that affords us a way to trade the danger of double standards found in nature for the safety of a singular standard that restrains our predatory nature. Now, we still engage in competition and savagery but with a different set of rules. Crime and punishment and ethics and morality is how we strike a balance in the artificial nature of civilization. And it begs the question...Is nature where there is no right and wrong a fair trade to make for human advancement and the artificial nature of civilization which is balanced by a system of justice? I believe it is a fair trade but only if corruption is not unleashed by double standards.
Moral relativity promotes that double standard and ultimately the corruption that leads to the decline of the artificial nature we call civilization. In other words, advancement can only progress so long as the justice system of morals and ethics and crime and punishment is maintained alongside advancement. If morals and ethics decline, so will advancement as a result. So, the corruption of society by double standards is also the corruption of advancement. Because we rarely ever get the justice we were promised through morals and ethics, we suffer, and sometimes turn to savage exploitation as a result. Relativity is how we excuse it. We turn to double standards to achieve balance in this equation of self and everyone re-engages their predatory nature that civilization and it's artificial nature took away. We all return to the primitive.
Morals and ethics are an attempt to restrain our predatory nature under the promise of justice through standards of right and wrong and all the ambiguity in between. In an attempt to call ourselves civilized we can be more savage than what we find in nature. And that savagery is how we exploit ourselves and each other when we blur the line between competition and cooperation or rather nature and civilization. We compete against others when we should be competing against self. We cooperate with self when we should be cooperating with others. Regardless of our personal inclinations, the only moral or ethical response to maintain social cohesion in the artificial nature we call civilization is the elimination of double standards that promotes predators and prey. Now, that's not a promotion of perfection because nothing is perfect and by and large we don't hold ourselves to a standard of perfection but rather rely mostly on a standard of refinement that allows for growth and development, which is a much more realistic approach. No one can live up to a standard of perfection, but since we are all growing and developing, we do experience refinement and improvement.
Now it's time to ask some different questions. How does someone decrease suffering in the world while at the same time increasing empathy for it and what is the incentive to concern ourselves with any suffering except our own?
Why do unto others as you would have them do unto you when a world without hope makes the reciprocity of the principle rare or virtually nonexistent? I mean, just imagine being the only person or group under the pressure of a belief to turn the other cheek while the rest of the world lines up to hit you. Why would anyone allow themselves to endure such suffering when the only expectation is to be hit again?
The answer is, of course, that they wouldn't unless they had a very good reason. That's what I want to explore in the rest of this piece and I think that some of the natural conclusions are surprising.
The golden rule is commonly referred to as the gold standard of human interaction. To do unto others as you would have them do unto you, typically brings up religious connotations or just the inspiration to be altruistic towards our fellow man. But it is also often referred to as the highest philosophical principle and remains unsurpassed as such.
It takes very little research to discover that the golden rule has existed for thousands of years and possibly since the beginning of time. It has emerged cross culturally, in every religion, philosophy and socio-economic background and this occurred unbeknownst between civilizations. It stands to reason that it could very well be the conclusion that all civilizations come to realize, as the pinnacle belief to operate from to sustain a civilization. Meaning that the whole reason for civilization is the promotion of cooperation over competition.
However, in this day and age, altruism is hardly promoted as such. Instead we follow the rule of he who has the gold makes the rules and, of course, this is a promotion of competition over cooperation and so everyone is racing to the pinnacle.
And this is the fundamental difference in regards to a civilization with a divided inclination. Some compete and others cooperate. Those that compete, do so to benefit self and their advantage is at the expense of those that cooperate. Those that cooperate, do so to share a mutual benefit and the integrity of that advantage weakens the more competition is promoted.
Despite our positive or negative personal inclination in regards to the golden rule, if competition is promoted over cooperation, then we are playing a game of Jenga with civilization and the more we play, the more unstable civilization becomes until it collapses and we start all over again.
The minute you build a civilization, you construct hierarchies. Those hierarchies are one brick placed on top of another. That creates pressure and the brick at the top has less pressure than a brick at the bottom. The United States were formed because of the same kind of pressure under the rule of England. It was out of that pressure that language in The Declaration of Independence emerged with words like...But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future was from this spirit that the bricks at the bottom got out from underneath the bricks at the top and a new civilization was constructed to promote cooperation with checks and balances to ensure it.
That happened because there was no reciprocal altruism, which is tyranny. The bricks at the bottom got out from underneath the tower and it fell but now we have constructed our own tower and altruism is becoming less and less reciprocal and in an effort to escape from beneath, civilization is at the cusp of another fall.
Consider the great depression. The stock market is a game of Jenga in the money markets. When the stock market crashed in 1929, who weathered the collapse best except the bricks at the bottom or rather the people at the bottom of society? It was the investors at the top that jumped off buildings and shot themselves and if at that moment they could go back in time and trade competition for cooperation to avoid that outcome, they would. The only way to avoid these outcomes is with foresight, not hindsight.
Some argue that altruism is only found in civilization and not nature and that oppression is the cause that produces the effect of altruism. That's a fair argument to make but I disagree with it. There are just as many if not more examples of altruism in nature than there is in civilization. I'll post some links in the description.
We all have a different description of what we value most in the world and we pursue it every day. Most of what we pursue is in regards to either empathy for self and others or indifference for self and others. One is cooperative and the other is competitive.
Each and every human interaction describes what we treasure perfectly. It works the same way with love and trust and relationships and sex or money or power or anything for that matter.
Whatever it is that we pursue is what we call gold. We do reap what we sow because both bring reward and justice. If we pursue relationships altruistically, we will reap a similar intention. If we pursue relationships competitively, we will reap a similar intention. Whatever the intention, both bring reward and justice that are one and the same.
Within the golden rule there is no discrimination. It's justice and reward is like the sun or the rain. The sun shines on all just like the rain falls on all. The golden rule doesn't discriminate any more than the sun or the rain or gravity for that matter. We invent ways to defy gravity but what goes up also comes down. And that is exactly how the golden rule applies itself to those that attempt to thwart its' operation with competition.
The golden rule works in tandem to similar principles such as an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and reaping what you sow and this brings us to natural outcomes. Every time we experience karma, those natural outcomes become painfully obvious, but only in hindsight.
For example, look at a bullying. We know that the bully is destined to lose and get unexpectedly owned at some point. When it happens, they always wish they could've exercised foresight instead of hindsight. If that karma is extremely intense then the bully may realize that they have been fighting a losing battle their whole life. I've faced some bullies in my life and I've won some and lost some but 9 times out of 10 when I won, the bully wanted to be my best friend afterwards and an eye for an eye was enough of a catalyst to produce that result.
If a person operates from the golden rule in the positive sense, they will tend to use their strengths to uplift the weak because they know that eventually they will be the weak one in a situation. This is a humble approach and it exercises foresight. One thing is can't exercise a strength that you don't possess.
If a person operates from the golden rule in the negative sense, they will tend to use their strengths to overpower the weak until karma forces self correction because they experienced an eye for an eye or reaping what they've sown. This is a prideful approach and it exercises hindsight. one thing is certain here as well...people who can only unleash power without the ability to restrain it as well, have no power.
Now we want people to operate from the same compatibility such as the positive application but because we are all at different levels of growth and development, our compatibilities are different and so the best we can do is choose our associations carefully.
It is so important to realize that we consider both our strengths and our weaknesses and to consider ourselves carefully because of that.
It is better to live in harmony than to be shoved back into harmony by force. Anyone currently serving time in prison may attest to that.
The golden rule is an unsurpassed standard that allows us to calibrate our compasses which are both moral and ethical so that we can safely navigate our relationships and cooperate.
We cannot escape the golden rule. It applies itself without discrimination.
The golden rule is not an ideal or a sales pitch or even a utopian idea because loss and suffering still occur but it is mitigated by the consolation of shared risk and reward.  We see this in nature with emperor penguins and how they withstand winter by rotating in and out of a circle and in a sense create seasonal changes of relief and struggle and it's not ideal or utopian because loss still occurs but if they can do it in the harshest environment we can certainly try in the most hospitable environment of civilization. It really is a choice between life and death.
In the world today we are facing every person for themselves or we share the burden of survival and share the risks and rewards, but closer to reality is that some don't have to participate and others do, which is the axiom of...He who has the gold makes the rules. This capitalizes on participation in a group at the expense of the group.
Right now we live in such a deferred hope that everyone under the pressure at the bottom have a broken spirit and they will try to escape and when they do what incentive is there to come back except the consolation of reciprocal altruism?
Now, before I go any further, I don't want to start a religion around the golden rule any more than I want to start a religion around gravity. I just want to make an argument on behalf of ethical altruism as mutually beneficial to a sustainable civilization. So, even if you hear me speaking about religion, that doesn't mean I advocate for it or even against it. I remain neutral.
No matter what school of thought you engage, if you follow it to its' natural conclusion, you will find no better standard for the survival and sustainability of life than the golden rule. This doesn't mean that you can't be an individualist or a collectivist but an ethical application creates a healthy balance between the two to allow for growth and development.
The golden rule is a threat to the relativist because it involves exposure to vulnerability and possible exploitation and that represents a reliance upon mutual trust. Trust is something no relativist wants to establish, because it equates to weakness without safeguards. Trust isn't something that people talk about enough. How to establish it and maintain it. It may be worthy to note that the rise and fall of civilizations are right on par with the rise and fall of individual relationships. It is no surprise that relationships built on mutual appreciation, trust, communication and altruism and interdependence have better survival rates than those that don't. The same is true for any civilization as well.
Feminism is a good example of shifting pressures that have deeply affected relations between men and women..Especially, in the area of trust. Feminism operates from a double standard which shares a society at the expense of men who are expected to adhere to a single standard.
The traditional conservative relationship between men and women with traditional roles has been dismantled by feminism in favor of independence rather than interdependence. I'm actually ok with that. What I have a problem with is that not only do women want independence but also all the perks associated with interdependence that belonged to the traditional conservative relationship.
Before feminism, humanity and function walked side by side in the role of being a woman and humanity and function walked side by side in the role of being a man.
Now, the thing to notice is that change has occurred in the way we view the humanity and functions of a woman where her humanity is now established and valued over function and in contrast to that a man's function is now valued over his humanity. This creates ascension for women and descension for men and if this is a tower and men are at the bottom where the most pressure is and they walk away then the tower crumbles, that is to say, civilization crumbles and we start all over again.
We cannot play Jenga with civilization or any system found therein or we become the architects of our own destruction. Since men obviously built civilization, it may be wise for women to consider negotiating a way to promote a man's humanity over his function as well, because if civilization falls, what's the incentive to build another civilization only to live beneath it?
A promotion of egalitarian humanism is a better prescription than the snake oil of false equality. Then and only then will gender become irrelevant.
It cannot be expected of two groups to operate from separate infrastructures that are not mutually incentivized and mutually beneficial to preserve relational cohesion.
Those at the top rely on the pressure they impose, to enforce mutual participation, and this is the nature of slavery and why it was abolished. Feminism based on double standards is a promotion of a sadomasochistic relationship. This relationship requires mutual participation that is gained by using social expectations and conditioning against ourselves by insisting that if we don't, then shame is what we'll suffer as a result and that's political correctness. The power of political correctness is creating commands for what you're already doing. You take a drink from a cup only to have someone see you doing it and place a command on it...TAKE A DRINK...SET IT DOWN...we naturally resist and when we do, we look hostile and suffer accusation and shame for not conforming. That's how political correctness causes pressure.  Then there's the use of manufactured danger, such as rape culture and wage gap myths to not just maintain pressure but to exponentially increase pressure. In an effort to escape this pressure we find a rise in suicide rates in men, lower birth rates and lower marriage rates and higher divorce rates initiated by women and feminism is directly related to these statistics. These are a good indicators of who is experiencing the most pressure.
Feminism is just one example of an insidious application of competition rather than cooperation in each and every system that is found in civilization. And these same tactics are being employed in systems such as religion, government, economics, relationships and anywhere a hierarchy is found and all of them rely on mutual participation. We are out of control because we do unto others as we would never have them do unto us.
The idea is to create a fair distribution of the burden of civilization. That's the golden rule and right now it reflects anything but that.
Now I want to shift gears a little bit and talk about relativity and circle back to this.
The relativist is seeking a selective advantage over others by excusing their behavior while at the same time condemning others. This is done through double standards applied to systems selectively for advantage. In other words, the relativist never puts their money where their mouth is when it comes to the double standards they promote. That's because a standard that shares the same calibration takes selective advantage away. That selective advantage provides camouflage for intentions. In nature there is competition over cooperation. In civilization there is cooperation over competition. When the two are combined to coexist in the same civilization, those that compete...feed on those that cooperate. The wolves are hiding amongst the sheep but what if I told you there were 10 sheep and 100 wolves competing with each other to see who's going to eat? They are running out of food and when they do, they will turn on each other.
Let's apply relativity to some common things we know to make some comparisons and see if relativity holds water or if it is used selectively for advantage in civilization.
Apply relativity to the transportation system or air traffic control where everyone has no speed limit or traffic signals or signs or even roads and moreover make everyone blind to everyone else except self and how long will it be before accidents occur?
Choose two test groups of people that live by traffic laws and without traffic laws and decide which group you want to participate in based just on intuition alone and more people will choose a system of rules for safety than a system of reckless freedom, and this is because of rules and safety afford the ability to assess the surroundings and environment. Now just because safety precautions exist doesn't mean that there won't be accidents but at least the risks are balanced by each person that participates.
Not to mention if they can't assess the safety of the environment, then they will abandon technology and advancement.
Notwithstanding a more select few that possess the skill of navigating the environment and rapid adaptation necessary to survival in that environment cannot call themselves civilized if they impose that environment on others.
How many of you have been driving along on a highway and a crotch rocket goes by at 120 miles per hour. Are you going to tell me that you don't get startled by that when it happens?
Just in that scenario alone, one imposed on the other forces the race car driver to feel comfortable at 50 mph. It's boring but safe. But it also forces the person used to 50 mph speed zones onto a race track at 200 mph. It's the difference between boredom and trauma.
It may be prudent to examine a separation based upon adaptability. That's not to say which is more or less beneficial or preferred but rather considerate to allow for innovation for compatibility to use. In the stock market, some investments are riskier than others and so we invest according to our own sensibilities. The payoffs in both are similar also.
Just this example alone is enough to show that if we applied relativity to the artificial nature of civilization, safety would disappear instantly and no one would travel based upon that application which means we would sacrifice advancement in order to mitigate the risks. Therefore, advancement and altruism are mutually contingent.
Apply relativity to every system and those systems become nature.
The reason we don't apply relativity to all because applying relativity to systems selectively gives an advantage to one and not the other in the only area of civilization that restrains our predatory nature and unleashes it instead...and what is the system of choice that provides the best camouflage for advantage?
You guessed it...morals and ethics and conscience... the only thing that separates us from the animals. Relativity is conscience camouflage so that we can behave like predators and sleep soundly without a sense of culpability and guilt for having done so. It does so to promote competition instead of cooperation.
Because of morals and ethics we impose universal safety standards for mutual benefit. In civilization, altruism trumps natural selection. To do away with morals and ethics for the double standards of applying relativity to systems, selectively, gives an advantage to one and not the other. To be forced to participate in a system of double standards is the equivalent of being forced to sleep with hungry lions, swim with hungry sharks and shepherd sheep with wolves and expected to feel safe and experience no ill effects as a result. This same application insists that someone turn the other cheek and be refused the right to defend themselves, just so they can be hit again and not just that but be ok with it.
This forwards the cost of despair to the lowest common denominator.
How can that kind of uncertainty and unpredictable behavior, which is not conducive to a soundly structured civilization, expect anyone to thrive in civilization when survival in civilization is becoming worse than survival in nature? They are as mutually exclusive a house being built by two men and one using the standard measuring system and the other is using the metric system. No one would build a house that way. No one would buy a house like that. Can a civilization be built similarly. I mean, that's the point that needs to be made here.
Maybe we are still too young in new knowledge to see clearly, but no one can deny that since the promotion of natural selection and survival of the fittest found in nature, that altruism hasn't declined, as a direct result. That's not a dig against evolution, but we are turning to more primitive interactions as a result of relativism and double standards. It's ironic that this evolution revolution has brought us right back to where we started, which is nature. Then we forsake the idea that civilization is built upon altruism, which is what got us to the discovery of evolution in the first place. Do we throw altruism in the garbage at this point, and if we do, how wise is that? If it wasn't for altruism, a civilization would not rise in the first place. What makes us think that without it, we can sustain a civilization. If that's the gold , so be it. The golden rule will give back a return on our investment, and if it dismantles civilization, it will re-emerge. It is in no danger at all of becoming extinct, but on the other hand, are we?
A promotion of relativity in the world takes away one thing only and that is a shared calibration of the rules of engagement when it comes to human interaction.
Case for altruism
A case for altruism or the golden rule is easily made. We cannot have a civilization without it otherwise we put at risk mutual safety, social cohesion, cooperation and advancement, not to mention reproduction in a nurturing environment which are the primary benefits it provides.
The gold of altruism is better than the gold of indifference. Our civilization is divided and exists as two sides of the same coin. On one side says...Do unto others as you would have them do unto you and on the other side says...Do unto others as you would never have them do unto you. Our behaviors are at the flip of a coin and when it comes unto others as you would never have them do unto you...we should panic at the thought of what that bad karma could produce.
The greatest justice and the greatest reward really is that we drink from our own cups. In that cup is the nectar of altruism or the bile of indifference and the only one that will drink from that cup is the holder of that cup. We can argue that we inherited these cups from the previous generations but that doesn't mean we can't dump them out and put something better in them.
Closing arguments
What is the incentive to move towards the application of the golden rule in terms of cooperation rather than competition, when cooperation is under more pressure than competition? I don't know about you but I can't support the fall of a civilization for the sole purpose perpetuating a cycle of rise and fall again and again. In my opinion, and I know it's not popular one, but that goal violates what we know to be the highest principle that we operate from. Any goal that plots the demise of humanity for the sake of a reboot is not ethical, moral, intelligent, advanced or even human. Any plot that promotes the demise of humanity clearly demonstrates that we don't have the vaguest conception of how to invigorate or regenerate except through destruction.
The next time I hear someone claim to be smart...I say...prove it. If the asteroid is coming, don't just report on the problems without offering solutions. otherwise you're no different than the media.
Turns out the world is bad and always will be...back to you Susan...I mean tell me that isn't every media outlet. It's ridicules.
This places us in the perpetual flux of absurdity.
The real problem is that real solutions require real effort. Identifying the problems and solving the problems is not our weakness. Our weakness is not getting people to work within the solutions because it would mean that they would have to cooperate and relativity has taught them to only compete for resources instead of sharing them with each other. Civilization perishes every time because of this. That is why the golden rule is the highest principle and the reason that it needs to be maintained above anything else. That principle alone should be at the pinnacle of civilization and nothing else.
What is easier, lifting a brick from the top to relieve pressure on the bottom or pulling a brick from the bottom? That is the nature of the exponential pressurization that relativity places on civilization.
The only possibilities that relieve that pressure are to get out from underneath the pressure and ascend, to repair it by evenly distributing its burden or to depart the architecture that perpetuates the pressure. These are our choices.
The pressure is a mutually agreed upon trade for a nature without rules where there is danger... for an artificial nature of civilization with a mutually agreed upon standard of human interaction and engagement based on safety. But, again, what's the incentive to be moral or ethical when that's where most of the pressure is? It's the difference between a civilization that exists and one that is extinct.
I say again...A promotion of relativity in the world takes away one thing only and that is a shared calibration of the rules of engagement when it comes to human interaction.
At the beginning of this video, I asked, what is the incentive to be concerned with anyone else's suffering except our own? The answer is that if we play Jenga with civilization, we will not have a civilization because it will fall and if we can't exercise foresight in this civilization, what makes us think that hindsight will avail us in the next, because after all, our current civilization was created in hindsight.
To exercise our conscious awareness naturally produces altruism, cooperation and advancement and safety and sharing and expansion. To exercise our instinctual unawareness naturally produces savagery, competition, decay and danger, selfishness, contraction etc... There's a cause and effect to all of this and a balance as well.
Consider the behavior of light. Put a light in a dark room and the darkness flees and the light prevails, but causing civilization to behave in opposition obvious truth that is self evident... would be to put darkness in a room filled with light and expect the light to flee. Has anyone ever observed this as a naturally occurring phenomenon? If not, then why promote behaviors in opposition to what we know is naturally true?
We say the universe is expanding but our behaviors promote its' collapse.
We declare that we are an ever advancing species and promote pictures of man in the evolutionary scale. At this point the evolutionary scale has done an about face when it comes to our behaviors and it looks like we're all becoming monkeys instead.
Altruism is the natural response in the direction of what we say we observe.
When we apply relativism in opposition to natural truth, we become hypocrites and then act surprised when the Jenga tower collapses. We can learn a lot from playing that game.
And to the relativist that boasts from the top or is attempting to ascend, you will not find survival at the top. You are merely one of many architects of a hastening destruction.
I also asked at the beginning of this video, how does someone decrease suffering in the world while at the same time increasing empathy for it? That suffering is due to a weakening of the structural integrity of what we call civilization and so we have to ask what will slow the rate of an ever increasing suffering. I have to answer that question with another question. What has caused more suffering in the world...a promotion of double standards or a single standard? That's really all we have to choose from.
Why do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Why exercise the golden rule? The answer obvious. Take a look around the world. The reason it looks the way it does is exactly what we get when we unto others as you would never have them do unto you, instead.
The secret to dismantling this current damaged world is in understanding the secret to Camelot...The sword in the stone cannot be removed alone. The secret to Camelot is that everyone that tries to remove the sword from the stone fails because they only want to pull the sword for their own glory.
When Arthur pulled the sword from the stone, it was because he saw every hand that believed in Camelot joined to his. He pulled the sword for a glory we could share. The truth is... anyone can pull the sword from the stone. Only the spirit of the golden rule can remove Excalibur. That stone is a representation of our heart. If you could pull the stone for your own glory, that stone would bleed. Only the golden rule can soften the stone enough to release the sword without bloodshed.
You know, we see pyramids in the world and marvel at their ability to withstand the test of time and endure. Did it ever occur to anyone that humans build pyramids as a warning against what we naturally do with civilizations? As if to say, stop here at this point.  
The only other question I can think to ask is what's the first step towards a more altruistic society that will make those that operate from the opposite want to be a part of us more than we want to be a part of them? It will have to be a better reward than money. The answer doesn't cost a dime because it is just a simple shift in thinking. We have to value a sustainable civilization as currency.  and the only way to do that is to facilitate a phase in phase out system with rewards and incentives for doing so. That's a subject to explore in other posts.
But for now, I suggest being better ethicists and finding the best ways to apply ethics universally. First take the log out of your own eye before you try to remove the speck from your brothers eye, meaning eliminate the double standards that you operate from and grow and develop away from them. Know the difference between right wrong. Have compassion for all the grays and colors in between and tailor justice and reward to promote better outcomes for all. Stop responding to obvious truth with the hypocrisy of behaviors in opposition to truth. Realize that perfection is not a healthy ideal, there will always be risk and loss so be realistic. Forget about revenge and judgment and condemnation. If the ethic is do not kill, then find a way to support life. If the ethic is do not lie, then speak the truth. If the ethic is do not steal, then find something to give. If the ethic is do not covet, be content with what you have. Besides, it's not what you have, it's what you're willing to share.
Learn how to cultivate trust by not using a person's greatest loves, fears, hopes and dreams against them. Let your law be self control. If you have faith, let your religion be consolation.
Grow and develop and help each other to do the same. Allow inspiration to be the alchemy that transcends limitations and experience expansion and the ever increasing enhancement of life and look for opportunities to create.
Let's forgive ourselves and each other and make an apology to civilization that we can live out.
The golden rule is a universal, absolute, unsurpassed and inescapable principle. It emerges on its' own and it is true whether we believe it or not. Its' logic is in the sinews of our civilization and in life itself.
If there is life on another planet, the golden rule is there. If human life ends on this planet, the golden rule will re-emerge.
The golden rule is not something we need to zealously defend or protect or preserve any more than gravity or time. It operates without the necessity of approval. It doesn't need us, we need it.
A rescue from altruism will never be necessary. It exists to rescue us.
With all of that said...
I'd like to dedicate this video to all who suffer under pressure for the sake of the golden rule and who endeavor to turn a civilization right side up and unfortunately, sometimes, lay down their life in an effort to do so.
May you live forever.
Take care. Dog Saves Dog,Girl Dead in Street! BEAR SAVES CROW FROM DROWNING Dog Tries To Save Fish Out Of Water

Tuesday, March 15, 2016

The Religion of Self

There is only one religion in the world and it is the religion of self. Since there are many selves in the world, we will fight to the end, until only one self remains. When this occurs, the last remaining self will do something completely radical by suddenly changing the religion of self into the religion of others. I hope I'm not the last remaining self.

People think that if only one religion dominates the world that all of our problems will magically solve themselves and there will be world peace. This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, I believe our problems will become magnified. We will always pursue power positions using discrimination as a means to attain it.

Think of it in terms of race. If there were only white people eventually we would value one skin tone above others and eliminate the rest then maybe hair color or eye color will go on until only one person remains and then loneliness and the consolation for that loneliness will be gone with no way to reverse the elimination. We would be all alone with all of our discriminations...that's what we're competing for. That's the top prize.

Now we all discriminate and religious discrimination is no different from any other but the only religion we follow is the religion of self and when asked what religion we are, we should just state our full name and leave it at that. The only reason we don't is because there is power and strength in numbers. Religion is like any other marketplace and it is saturated with competition and so an alliance promotes survival and yes, even atheists participate.
I have no problems with sincerely held beliefs but when those beliefs dictate and promote the destruction of others simply because they're different...That's where I draw the line.
People will say that they are against the killing of the innocent but who decides who's innocent and who's guilty and by what laws do we decide who's guilty and who's innocent?
A man steals a piece of fruit because he's hungry and has no money or job. How quickly do we rush to cut off his hand...not to mention that no one despises a person who steals to satisfy their hunger. No...I think we like cutting off hands...we enjoy it...just another way to discriminate. Are we even interested in what lead this man to such poverty and how our own actions are relative to his own? Are we even interested in examining the infrastructure of our systems that contribute to theft by way of heavy taxation and corruption in high places?
Yes stealing is wrong but religion will never examine the grays of life. Religion is only interested in black and white, and right and wrong and no one is innocent in that mindset. If no one is innocent then every discrimination and elimination  is fair game for the religious.
We love listening to people who lived thousands of years ago whether what they have to teach is relevant or not. Yes, many of the teachings are timeless and I value that, but others are antiquated and useless. When a religion commands you to violate the rights and choices of others, especially by taking their lives from them, then I am in opposition to that. Not even god violates our rights and choices...

No, I think that we naturally discriminate and we need no help from God to do so but as long as we can attribute that to God we have a platform and we can shake our fists.
Whether we are born into religion or choose our faith freely, we align ourselves with religion to use it as a platform to do what it is in our nature to do...eliminate the competition. We use it as a platform to shake our fists at what we discriminate against and we enjoy the privilege of calling ourselves righteous in doing so. When we do that, we throw our religion in the sewer and ourselves along with it.

Religion is about cultural ascension and the more we ascend the more we claim to be blessed and it is ascension at any cost and we will discriminate the whole way there, but it is not an ascension to the realms above. I am completely certain of that.

What if I told you that I was going to say something today and 2000 years from now I will expect your future generations to obey my words or die? How reasonable would it be for me to tax the beliefs of people 2000 years from now even if I did speak truth? How reasonable would it be if I taxed their behaviors and forced them to discriminate on my behalf to the point of killing others just to uphold my beliefs about truth?

Well, as it is, I do want to say something to people for the next 2000 years and here it is.
Whether you trust in the law and ethics or religion and morality, I want you to imagine a world where you are the only person that exists. What do you suppose would be the law or religion that you cling to?

Would it not be, first and foremost, a belief that steers you in the direction of personal safety and self protection?

In fact, could it not be argued that there would no belief except the belief you impose upon yourself regardless of whether that belief is based in ethics relating to the law or morality relating to a particular religion for that matter?

And again, whatever you impose upon yourself, would it not be likely to promote your survival?

Because we are not the only person in existence and there are many of us...should we not afford to each other what we are so willing to afford to ourselves? Is not the law and religion something that is universally true to us all? No matter the law or religion, if it does not promote the safe passage of our fellow man, can we rightly call it beneficial?

Consolation is my religion and my law and that would not change even if I was the last person on earth, why should it be any different amongst many?

The law and ethics exist to govern social interactions between people that desire a community and we need that because of how many of our beliefs are in conflict with others based on the human alchemy of experiences. In other words, no two people are the same or ever will be. The law does not exist to govern faith nor does faith exist to impose law. They exist to point us towards what we mutually agree upon as right and wrong or humane and inhumane and our mutual safe passage. This is how we arrive at what we call civilization, and in no way should  an effort be made to undermine that.

In order for any civilization to emerge, there needs to be an engine that creates community. Whether those communities be based on ethics or morality, they must be contingent upon common benefits, not the least of which is life or freedom or safety or choice etc...the same things that we would afford to ourselves if we were the only person on the planet.

The law and religion are not difficult things to comprehend.
Simply put...
You cannot violate the rights and choices of others...and as I said earlier God doesn't even do that.
You cannot present yourself as a danger to self and others, otherwise you forfeit your rights and choices.
You take responsibility for your life and actions.

More than any political schematic or religious view should be our pursuit of what it means to internalize these simple notions and behave responsibly and accordingly.

Anyone that does these things need not fear judgment or condemnation and if someone takes these actions against may rightly claim persecution.

All religion exists on the foundation of hope in the possibility of finding consolation for the suffering that exists outside of civilization and being that consolation for others, not to exploit the greatest loves, fears , hopes and dreams that make up our greatest vulnerabilities or to become the very danger that civilization first sought to rescue us from.

We think that our religion and law is saving the world but have we considered that the only way to save the world is to save it from ourselves?

Have we ever once asked ourselves what it must be like being on the receiving end of ourselves?

Or what it would be like to drink from the cups we've forced others to drink from?
Is not the greatest justice and the greatest reward that we drink from our own cups?
Would we reconsider our actions in the world, if that were the reality we actually faced?
With that said, the time has come to mature and to grow and develop to a greater understanding of what community and civilization have to offer and remember that  Religion and the law were always meant to uphold a society where a consolation could be found to assuage our suffering and yet, how difficult it is to find?

Right now as things are...
There really is only one religion...and it is the religion of is the religion  of self and it is radical and extreme.
We will fight to the end, until only one self remains if we continue down this path.

We are all such extremists...such certain of our against any form of compromise...and I ask,
where is our protest and dissent away from savagery more cruel than what we find in nature?

If radical extremism is the remedy, then allow me to suggest something truly radical... instead of letting hindsight be 20/20, let's for once allow that to be our foresight instead.
And whatever outcomes the future has in store for us...If we are leading ourselves to a destiny where only one self remains...I hope I'm not the last remaining self...

Take care...