f scott fitzgerald – you are so right/wrong

the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. – f. scott fitzgerald

this quote, while likely a heinously cliched line, is quite possibly the most perfect way to understand conviction.  ask me for a contradiction and i will ask you for a conversation.  it is the nature of this life and this world that we are mired in contradictions.  hypocrisy is an inherent reality in our everyday go-abouts and though it invariably draws the ire of so many stalwart, principled men (and women), we only do so because it is so hard to achieve the aforementioned ‘first-rate intelligence’.

we are told to be our very best and to excel beyond the flock, yet we must strive for equality and fairness.  we ask for humility and restraint, yet we idealize passionate, expressive individualism.  we seek harmony, yet reject conformity.  we seek absolute freedom, yet balk at social deviation.

it is not something that we consider often, because the opinionated are only so through their convictions and their convictions are only so through their ignorance.  one can only support universal health-care when ignoring the right to privacy and property.  we can only support the free market when we ignore the inherent inequality it produces.  there are so many things we believe in that we consider to be instrumental towards painting an accurate portrait of our identities that we must inevitably indulge in hypocrisy in order to navigate the unclear and nonpartisan nature of the real world.  this reality, cold and warm, bitter and sweet, it provides no meaning, no suggestions, no moral compass in any matter.  it is only man who generates these meanings (tip of the hat to kant) and it is exactly because of the meaningless reality that we have so many complex beliefs about everything.  when in the absence of direction, we scatter.  we arbitrarily choose any direction and run.  but when we realize finally that every story has an equally compelling antithesis, we freeze with uncertainty and doubt.  we wallow in confusion and disarray- OR-we simply adapt the world to our existing schema, mold it to our needs, and tip the scales so that we might again find the conviction to move.

i have thought upon the life i lead and wondered of the virtues i aspire towards.  i have reviewed and critiqued and edited myself over and over, and in each session, i have come nose-to-nose with contradiction.  yet i realize that there are desires and needs which the indulgence of make life palatable and preferable over nothingness.  i stepped down from the soapbox long ago for only the truly confused believe they have something true to say (lol- hypocrisy).  i have given up the task of decoding and submitted to the simple state of being.  if there is meaning, it is not for us to know.  for us, we have but the most basic desires of the flesh.  all else is a perversion of those needs, folded over and over into a convolution of contradictions.  that voice you hear, your conscience, the angel upon your shoulder, your jiminy cricket; that is your mother and father speaking.  that is cnn and mtv speaking.  that is the text of your childhood stories speaking.  it is not real like the glacial ice of the arctic or the iron core of earth.  but make no mistake that it does bear consequences, for as unreal as it may be, it is part of you and will always be, like the use of forks and knives or driving on the right lane.  we can dissect the theoretical ambiguity of our beliefs forever, but what life would that amount to?  a life of counting stars or catching fireflies; useless in every way.  but we have our likes and dislikes, our desires etched upon our souls and to abstain would be to squander the gift of life.  you have all eternity to be ascetic, but only these brief years to indulge.

so the fundamentalist who preaches of bombing abortion clinics shall indulge in the hypocrisy of his beliefs because it is what pleases and soothes his being.  the musician who writes sentimental, unoriginal ballads will do so because it soothes his being.  the teenage girl who reads serialized fantasies of vampiric romance will do so because it soothes her being.  and i will squander a few hours everyday counting the stars because it soothes my being.  though i might know and understand the hypocrisy, the incredible tragedy of my decisions, the immense wrongness of my actions, it is my only power in this life to indulge.  and for those who find it wrong for me to indulge, it is their prerogative to act against me, and soothe their offended beliefs, for that is all they have.

i believe in many things, foremost is the irrelevance of all my beliefs, but i refuse to let it weigh me down, for i can do nothing more than choose a direction and run.  that is conviction.  it is unfaltering and unrelenting and unshakable conviction.

the soulless atheist

after listening to the entirety of the four horsemen discussion and thinking on it before falling asleep, i came to an interesting perspective.  i won’t comment on whether or not religions are viable or believable arguments.  what i will comment on is what religions bring to the table in terms of social benefits.  regardless of the truth behind gods and deities, there is a rather common belief that religion imparts within people a morality which would otherwise be unfamiliar to the human race.  it is religion which has held the moral fibers of society together and maintained the necessary solidarity between individuals to foster a secure and righteous society.  in fact, this role is so greatly respected that most religious people don’t bother to examine other possible moral foundations.  this is fine, since most of you know that i don’t believe in moral absolutes, however, the problem is that because religious individuals hold their religious morality with such high regard, they come to believe that those who do not subscribe to their beliefs must necessarily be absent of the moral values they also hold as sacred and vital.  this isn’t to say that people of one religion don’t recognize the religious morality of other religions.  certainly every religion has it own set of values which are often quite congruent.  however, when addressing a person who is an atheist, it seems that because the individuals chooses not to practice any faith based value system,  he/she must ultimately lack a concrete moral compass.

now, to me, this argument seems similar to economic theory, particularly regarding the smith/marx divide.  it is believed by smith that the cumulative diversity of self-serving behavior within the market place ultimately produces the most productive society as every person’s greed pulls society in a unique direction and ultimately the forces balance to a perfect equilibrium.  this idea is hotly contested by marxists who believe the unregulated market ultimately leads to exploitation and increasing class divide which will inevitably reach a tipping point in which the united will of the proletariat will outweigh the centralized power of the bourgeois elite, leading to revolution and massive social and economic reform.

the similarity comes from a belief in whether individual people can enact positive outcomes without the assistance of an overseerer.  the belief that without religion, humanity devolves into ruthless amoral beasts is similar to saying that men cannot be relied upon to create and uphold their own economic lives.  without the guidance of the state, or some theoretical social conscience, economics becomes corrupt and flawed.  it is an argument against economic liberalism.  similarly, to believe that w/o religion, man cannot maintain a civil and sustainable society is almost an equivalently antagnozing argument against social liberalism.  of course, i will grant that religion has in great part throughout the course of history provided a very salient moral outline for societies to mind and abide, however, i find it ignorant to dismiss the possibility of alternatives to religious moral guidance.  i believe mankind has the rational capacity to analyze and understand social circumstance well enough to theorize and effectively argue in favor of a new brand of moral code rooted in logic and social necessity.  it would be a moral code reinforcing the same socially beneficial principles of religious doctrine, only without the unverifiable faith based justifications.  better yet, because this code relies on rationality and reason, it would be inoffensive to criticize and reevaluate the doctrines so long as the criticism stems also from valid logic and reasoning.  unlike the unquestionable voice of god, the redress of outmoded policies and open discussion regarding the credibility and effectiveness of any mandates would be far less difficult to approach.

for an example, we can turn to immanuel kant’s writings on ethics, particularly his conception of maxims as rules of behavior which promote rational social cohesion and sheer existence.  thus, we ought not to kill because rationally, no society can exist if all members are allowed to freely kill at will.  the individuals of the society would eventually murder everyone among them, forcing the dissolution of the society and thereby any rational need for moral codes.  it is a behavioral condition predicated on a logical rational.  one ought not to lie because were everyone to lie without reprecussion or reprehension, it would undercut the value of any promise or statement of truth, not only eliminating the necessary social glue of communication, but also intrinsically ruining the value of lies, as they are predicated on the fundamental value of trust.  of course, i wouldn’t suggest this to be the best solution, but it does exemplify the kind of rationality that i’m referring to.

in fact, it seems that those adherent to religious doctrine or any absolutist mandates are often the most dangerous to society and generally conduct the most devastating acts of moral offensiveness.  so, when viewed from this light, it appears that the soulless atheist is far less soulless and perhaps a more critical eye ought to be cast upon the moral codes so many theists refuse to question.

smart people

these guys talk like u would try to write a dissertation.  AND they’re drinking!  what do u sound like when you drink?

NOT for the easily bored.  if you take ritalin, don’t bother.

More on this later!

activist guilt

it is no secret that i view activism to be a very amorphous and unstable endeavor, but recently i came to a unique understanding. it is something i have dubbed activist guilt, something i wish i’d see more of. this is the guilt that one suffers for being an activist in a cause that does not effect him/her. a prime example is the war on iraq. we all know that everybody is a-hootin’ and a-hollerin’ about how misguided and terrible this war is, but consider how many people are actually negatively impacted by this war. the only people who truly suffer by this act are the soldiers and their families. the rest of us americans are simply losing a bit of money in the way of taxes and hopefully, we’ll make that up in the form of oil in the near future. even if we don’t, we can’t possibly compare our economic grief with those of the families who must actually sacrifice. however, a great many of us are in opposition to this war as if it were a child molester trying to put an early end to our childhoods, even though we have no direct connection to the effects of the conflict. we rage on and on about the moral wrongness of this military endeavor, yet we have given nothing, lost nothing, felt nothing of the consequences. does it not seem slightly foolish for one such as myself, who has given nothing to this war, to raise my voice and cry foul like i’ve sent my dearest child to be killed in a foreign desert? what of the families who willingly and bravely part with their sons and daughters for the sake of this war, giving them up for a cause which people who have given nothing so vehemently attack and oppose. aren’t they the only ones who truly have a moral right to object? consider this on an even higher scale. for everything that improves, something else must degrade. that is the fundamental law of this world. to become richer is to take another’s money. in order to live better, someone else must live worse. if you want socioeconomic equality for the less fortunate, then you must bear the consequences on your shoulders. pay those sweat shop workers higher wages and everything you buy will increase in price. if you let the middle east use their oil to better their national infrastructure and support their citizens, then you must be willing to pay the oil prices that inevitably begin to rise. so, to simply speak of these things in agitation and thoughtless emotional outbursts is a slap in the face to those who must actually bear the cross upon their backs. without your own personal sacrifice and action to truly make change, you are doing nothing more than mimicking the frustration of the poor souls that actually suffer. there are those who exhibit this quality of insubstantial concern for matters which they do not fully understand or are unwilling to sacrifice for, most commonly the apple demographic. their lifestyles are a superficial concern over the appearance of injustice and moral wrongness, but an inevitable lack of initiative and understanding for how things truly work. sadly, most of them are probably too weak-minded to even understand why i attack them, only that it’s not very nice. for those of you offended, please accept my apologies. you are great people. i’m amazed how you are able to maintain social awareness and political activism while also managing to be so trendy. your lives are an inspiration to us all. i can only hope that one day, my macbook helps me to solve poverty in latin america like yours undoubtedly can. also, you’re always so pretty and well-kept. you’re great at sports. you’re funny and witty. despite your beauty, people are interested in you because of your engaging personalities. you will one day be great humanitarians and be known for your great deeds of compassion, as well as your popularity, trendiness, and aphrodite-like comeliness. people will be so awestruck by your many qualities of greatness that they won’t know which to worship more and simply fall into an ecstatic state of incapacitated convulsing brought on by the overwhelming sense of reverence; unable to control their bodies, they can do nothing but arch their backs in the orgasmic joy that your presence alone elicits.

evolutionary dialectic of social politics: are you liberal or conservative?

i once posted a short blurb in a previous entry entitled “ggthoughts” about how evolution had selected for a dialectic of survival urges. it was a sort of yin and yang philosophy that explained how competitive and cooperative nature both exist in a balance to maintain human survival. i would like to expand this concept into an area which most people 18-24 find overtly fascinating; politics. most of us young people are decidedly liberal. this however, i believe to be generally not a cause of our core beliefs, but because of our rebellious vestiges stemming from parental authoritativeness. conservative social politics tends to promote social order through authority and obedience, concepts which are often reflected in parental relationships. young people are liberal because liberality promotes independence and freedom of choice. however, as they grow older and the shackles of parental supervision recede with maturity, people lose their rebellious nature as consequence and responsibility finally bond with independence and freedom. also, as young people grow into positions of authority and power themselves, they will seek to maintain it, shifting stances to a more socially conservative approach in order to preserve their new statuses.

here is where things get theoretical. consider the yin and yang of social politics and what each side stands for. social conservatism is a call for order and harmony founded upon obedience and adherence to authority. it is the product of our social contract; an abdication of our complete and full freedom for the promise of safety and order. it promotes peace and unity, to protect and defend the society in which it exists. the government asks that we obey laws, not to prevent, but to monopolize violence. it seeks to unite a people and sublimate individual aggressions into a collective will to fight. it unifies and galvanizes a people into one dense but manageable entity. this is the cooperative evolutionary urge. this is where we set aside personal selfishness in order to produce mutually beneficial relations that work to mediate and mitigate interpersonal disputes within a population. on the other hand, we have social conservatism to the extreme right, where personal liberties and freedoms are entirely stripped in order to facilitate a completely utilitarian and functional society devoid of sedition, violence, and dissension. it is the classic distopia where the faults of human individuality are wiped away, leaving a sterile and faultless civilization of monotonous harmony.

now consider the yang, liberality. liberal society promotes individuality and the rights of the individual. it promotes freedoms to pursue behaviors adhering to our own standards. we are granted the rights to be introspective and unique. it promotes qualities like creativity and independence. this is the world of choice, a world of individual voice and expression. we wish to be our own persons, to prove our worth as individuals. however, this too has a dark and violent extreme variation. it is the natural world that we create governments to protect against, yet it is this natural world which we crave in our individuality. we wish to do and act as we please, without restrictions and limitations, however we cannot, for such behavior would lead to chaos and destabilized societies, rife with violence and disagreements. if a murderer wishes to rape and kill every women he meets, by absolute liberal ideology, in which our freedoms to act and choose as we please are guarunteed, such behavior is acceptable. a world of insidious selfishness, overrun with egocentric beings citing freedom of choice as defense against crimes against their fellow man.

i have introduced the polarized social politics which govern our existence. with this, it is clear how the two are intertwined in our society to provide us with a compromised position of both extremes. it is a dialectic amalgamation of these opposing forces that guides and steers the course of our society. we see that both sides represent relative good and evil. they both present pros and cons which can be used to argue for or against either side. understand now that this mixture of theories spawns from the evolutionary dialectic of human nature and that everything is linked to everything else, from our humble beginnings as competitive prokaryotes to our complex system of social governing. there is a balance in all things which must be understood in order to fully appreciate the change we hope to make.