Do you have intellectual honesty? Do you know what it is? I apply it to a broader spectrum than just academic points of endeavor. I also look at intellectual honesty – or its absence – as pertaining to any time when an individual's reason must weigh facts.
Human beings (people) are SO subjective. Do you see through rose colored glasses? Darker ones? Does it depend on your mood? The time of the month? Whether someone was nice to you or mean to you or indifferent? How you were "enculturated" growing up? Like it or not, these can all significantly affect a person.
But when it comes to processing "The Truth" or let's just say information, how do you do it? Do you recognize your own biases? Do you know that your ability to approach objectivity can fluctuate based on how your energy level is, or what you feel? And that is the kicker.
As emotional beings, our feelings are broad ranging and subject to many influences. But I am not here to be an apologist or coddle anyone, because frankly, I am tired of what I see as people who are not "honest with the truth."
This is not to be "judgmental," but merely to judge the truth accurately. There is a world of difference.
When faced with a shortcoming or failure, how do you do? Do you sugar-coat it? Do you deny it? Do you turn tables and counter accuse, so as to divert attention from what you could acknowledge in yourself?
This is not a call to self-flagellate, but it is a call to be honest with yourself. Who but you and those you care about have more to gain?
And besides that, I believe in a truth-based life, or in a word, one with integrity.
Let me ask you: If faced with a statement that may make you uncomfortable or upset, but is factual about something or someone you care about, how do you accept that?
Like anyone else, I have not always accepted the truth gracefully, but really, I hate personal dishonesty. And ultimately, I cannot truck with someone who cannot face facts, and deal with what is true. I hate the tendency to "spin" something into something else with a prettier face, but an untrue heart.
If people could be more honest you would not have the rampant fraud we do these days. People would not be able to B.S. themselves into believing lying and stealing or misrepresenting is somehow good, or OK. Nor would you have as many people so at a loss for what to think when they see such misrepresentations.
Problem is, so many have an agenda and are ethically challenged. This is true of George Bush, Enron, Alan Greenspan, Oprah, all the spammers out there and who ever else.
A liberal view is to sugar-coat and excuse lying and misrepresentation and stress differences of opinion, or orientation, or shades of gray, and what have you. In some cases, this is true.
In others, we have forgotten how to call an ace and ace, and a spade a spade.
Intellectual honesty involves weighing facts and viewpoints, and arriving at the truth without dressing it up, shading it, spinning it ...
One example: Do you like to gamble at casinos? Why? Is it glamorous? Do you hope to get rich and not have to work? Are you secretly lazy? Do you believe you could cash in big, and say "screw you" to the world, or maybe be something more than you have been able to earn the honest way? These questions imply ugliness, and I am NOT NOT NOT saying all gamblers share these motivations, but – if we were honest – we might agree with some.
Maybe not all, but if the shoe fits, go ahead and put it on.
You see, maybe there is some ugliness or weakness in your soul – or mine. The question is, what do we do with it? Do we lie to ourselves and others? Do we create a false facade, put on airs, or do we squarely admit in our heart of hearts: "Yes, I am this way," or "Yes, I feel that way."
And beyond that: If we can see and acknowledge that which we consider a personal shortcoming (could be anything) do we settle and say "oh well," or do we repress or deny it, or can we face it head on as a characteristic we are willing to do what it takes to try and change?
What I am saying here is that gut-level honesty is the only way to live – or create a world, or at least influence our environment – in a way "worth having."
I link gut-level truth with quality of life. I do not believe in taking an easy way out, but I do believe taking the "high road," (what ever that may be in any example) and all honest work has its own rewards.
Gambling is just one random example. How about porn? Why is that so rampant? Why is that industry thriving? What unfulfilled needs are we not facing as people that leads us to compromise and look at that stuff?
Some would say it hurts no one. I could not agree less. It makes virtual prostitutes out of people. It rewards people for behavior that cannot bring true happiness. It can wreck lives, and it is a living lie. How long can you sustain a living lie?
I believe in sustainable living which is why intellectual honesty is not an option.
Anyone who does not prize the truth does not understand life, and lacks wisdom.
Wisdom is the ability to process "information" or knowledge and use it profitably and create greater good and harmony, not pain and suffering.
Yes, I know I am making inductive leaps. If you are wise, you may recognize the inherent truth of my summations.
As a nation, we excuse so many things. Look at Nixon. Is he now an elder statesman? "Trickie Dick" is now one of the great ones? OK, I believe in forgiveness, but he lied to us, as did Bill Clinton.
I fail to understand when I hear some people say, "Oh, I love Bill Clinton." (Unequivocally, unqualified, blanket endorsement).
To such people, his wrongdoings are completely forgotten and whitewashed as though they never happened. In fact, some secretly (or openly) admire him for his audacity and chutzpah. He "got off" on getting B!@w-jobs from Monica Lewinsky with the door to his office slightly ajar. The Secret Service looked the other way.
We nailed him for a while when it felt politically expedient or fun to do so, then we forgot it. Was he a great president?
How is it that instead of some of the worst wrongdoers among us "falling from grace," we reward them with a lucrative book contract, speaking tour, and their own reality TV show? Why do they get paid to show up on a talk show to tell it all?
As a society, we are rewarding dishonesty, and what is the lesson kids – who you can't kid – will learn? That honesty is NOT the best policy, and why bother? They learn nice guys finish last, and it's all about me, and so on!
Great. Let's see how long that lasts. Go ahead and violate laws of life, and see how long it lasts; how long will America last as the Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave. America the Beautiful ... The breadbasket to the world? We used to be so proud: Give me your poor, your tired, your hungry, your starving masses. ... Our forefathers and mothers made monuments to this, but today, we suffer from a mass guilt complex, and are ready to concede our world position for a reason: Every great empire that ever was, first fell from within.
I am so saddened by these things. I think we as people can do better. If this does not smack of the truth to you, disregard it. But if it does, read on...
I guess what I am saying is we are becoming self-indulgent people who judge each other on a sliding scale. We will stone to death someone who does or can do nothing for us – or simply not reply to their phone call or e-mail – but we will give the key to the city to a scoundrel, if in it, we also feel we have something to gain.
Too many among us do not judge or state things objectively, but in our self-interest as a species, we are as fickle as a Roman mob in the Coliseum when we decide thumbs up or down?
It depends on how we feel, not justice or truth, and this ought not to be so. And if you want it to change, it begins with personal choice...
Now I do not unequivocally accuse the entire human race of these traits, but – if YOU are intellectually honest – you will recognize these tendencies do exist – in too many cases.
Perhaps most blatantly do we see them in the world of "marketing." Today, misrepresentation in the form of exaggerated claims is the norm. And do we protest? Sort of. But "Truth in Advertising" rules are run roughshod over daily, and just like our kids in school, everyone and their sketchy claims are being graded on a curve.
The concept of being "honest with the truth" or intellectual honesty, as this post is titled, is applicable to every aspect of life and society in this country, as it is the whole world.
You see it in also in religion. Why DO you believe the things you do? Or not? Because you have made a thorough examination of all available data on the subject?
When it comes to matters of FAITH, your heart and its motives are revealed, as is your own personal integrity.
NOT believing in something – whether you have considered this or not – is as MUCH a matter of faith as believing it.
(I find it very interesting how many U.S. soldiers in Iraq believe in God, and open prayer is not discouraged ... it is because at any time any one of those people may have opportunity to find out if He really exists ... So – for some, not those who already believed – the thought might be "don't be caught on the wrong side." Hedge your bets, at least!)
On the other hand, I have no problem with a person who honestly believes differently than me, but – to whom it applies – why do you hate someone else or their God? Because your own conscience is tweaked, or they pose a challenge to your rule and way of life?
Do some people different from you just sort of stink, and you want nothing to do with them? How much have you tried to understand them? Are you even capable of that? Are you doing the best that you possibly can? If so, great. If not, do you care?
In literature, it is called fear of "The Other."
Why can we as people so easily hate people different from us? I find this especially disturbing and hypocritical in observing this trait exhibited by certain people. I speak of those who otherwise pride themselves on "celebrating diversity," or their mission statement of "inclusiveness," or whatever happy saying they use to boast that they are open minded.
Uh huh. Human nature has a way of exerting itself in spite of what we would like to believe is true, or in spite of what we can allow ourselves to be so proud of in our sometimes candy-coated self images.
I have seen this: People who pride themselves and openly declare to others in an inadvertent campaign of self-promotion that they are these big hearted souls. And I have seen them contradict their claims, and I realize some people just like to believe certain things because it makes them feel like bigger or better people than perhaps maybe they are.
We have all done it. No one is perfect, but an honest person could self-examine and call it for what it is. Personally, if I see myself doing it, I abhor it. I do not want to live a lie, but others seem to without ever waking up, but does this have to be the way it is?
If we could be more honest, we would realize that as people, we are so very subjective. This may sound caustic, but I say anyone who does not recognize this is self-deceived and in the process, therefore, attempting deceit on all people with whom they come in contact.
If you believe a lie, you live a lie, and are by definition living a false existence.
Sounds kinda harsh? I know many people are subject to innumerable personal challenges, and maybe not educated, or have experienced trauma, and who knows what else? This blog post does NOT contradict my belief in being kind and helping people graciously through their problems. I DO believe in the power of love and forgiveness, but I do NOT stand for willful denial, and deliberate self-deceit. I do not stand for an ethos or culture that is slipping into a murky netherworld of non-accountability. That is where I draw the line.
And in this generation of sugar-coating and grading on a curve; in this country where we now think foreigners will subsidize our ever-increasing debt and credit-based, consumer lifestyle, this might sound merciless. But am I wrong? If I am half wrong, or my slant is too harsh, or biased itself, is there any truth to what I say? Can you see it? If you can see what I am trying to say, great. Or – to whom it applies – will you deny it because you don't agree with my style or examples?
Anyway, truth lovers as I understand them don't make these distinctions, and wise people can learn even from fools and enemies – neither of which am I to you! Believe it or not, I write these things with care and peaceful intentions!
Al Gore does not have an exclusive perception of "inconvenient truth" (regardless whether you believe global warming is true or not). Truths not faced are innumerable, and facts of our daily lives.
If you think it through, the very fact that Al Gore can chronicle one alleged mass denial shows the we, as human beings, have this flawed tendency in ourselves. To those not inclined to want to agree with him, is it because you have made a thorough examination of all pertinent facts? Or have you jumped on the polarized political bandwagon of those who for what ever reason cannot agree with Al Gore?
There are daily things that we may find too tough to deal with, or that we will sweep under the rug, or spin away for political or social issue-based reasoning.
No matter where you stand on the belief of global warming, I think it is certainly true that in too many cases, we might allow ourselves to live with unresolved issues, or hold to untruths we inwardly know better about all of our lives. Perhaps we think we are doing the best we can, but are we? It's a tendency we should be on guard against, not glorify.
And in any case, I say these things with the thought that if you love someone, you tell them the truth as you believe it. So I am telling YOU – whoever you are reading this – from my heart to yours.
Sometimes the truth can hurt. Maybe that's why some avoid it. I can tell you for a fact that in flushing out my own personal "demons" it has not been easy. It can be a lonely thing standing for not sugar-coating or living a happy-go-lucky but self-deluded existence, but what can I say?
To thine own self be true. It's the only way to fly!
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Will the real good guys please stand up?
NOTE: Before I dive into this observation, allow me to fully say my intentions are peace and good will; They are in hope for building dreams, finding solutions that we can use to set ourselves on the road to greater peace and real happiness where we live.
###
Blog-
In these divisive times, Americans in every quarter – on the national, state and local levels – are ideologically at odds with one another.
Two polarizing sides, which each represent values that confict in some aspects, and converge in others are often termed Liberal Democrat and Conservative Republican.
There are myriad variations and flavors of these extremes, but allow me to take NEITHER side as I point out a few random things I see. Certainly there is room for much more, as with any intellectually honest explortion of truth in a matter ...
As an eyewitness (and fly on the wall) of the January 2005 presidential inauguration in Washington, D.C., I was struck by the ubiquitously obnoxious signs, slogans, and talking points that really disparaged the character of the president, and made things into a moral fight, as much as political.
One sign, held by a group of protesters from New York said "F**k Bush in huge neon green letters painted on a 6-foot by 6-foot or so black banner held by two people above the crowd. I am sure they wanted to be seen far and wide, especially by TV, if they were so lucky. Riot police eventually were dispatched to cordon off the people as the group chanted in unison, twitching the street sense of every cop there as obviously a potential hostile threat.
No violence came of that, but the point that struck me like a hammer blow to my psyche was these were contentious people. The cops read their body language loud and clear and assigned maybe 50 (salaried, thus taxpayer supported) officers in full riot gear to keep them company for the day.
These protesters, and their spiritual kin nearby, were exercisers to the limit of their democratic rights and no doubt believed in screaming (never mind if their children were there watching the spectacle). Many others that day were also in their own right describing their anger in foul and abusive and insulting language.
Perhaps these good citizens were led to justify their position by such slogans as "If you are not mad, you are not paying attention," and others like it.
OK. I'll grant them this: Free speech is a fought for and protected right. These people obviously cared. They made a real effort to get there. Ostensibly a noble effort. And they certainly had a ton of good points. Namely, did the president lie? Likely. Is Cheney an unprecedented (for a U.S. V.P.) coercive, co-opting power monger? It sure looks like it. Is the war invalid, ineffective and a waste of human and monetary resources hemorrhaging from people who need help here? Good chance of it ... And so on ...
Yes, this past administration did let the country down, no doubt!
I understand frustration, and can commiserate, but only so far ...
Here's my contention: I believe instead of cussing someone out, or equivalent, there are equally assertive and effective ways – more eloquent and graceful ways – to make a point than to say "F-You, and yo mama, and your breath stinks too ..." (or worse) ...
This widely utilized tact (or lack thereof) violates what I believe is a clear need to "take the high road." Certainly the English language affords us all the words we need to not make our political disagreements into a gutter fight, full of personally disparaging remarks and below-the-belt innuendos if not outright statements.
There is a Korean proverb I once read that says, "To throw mire upon your neighbor, you must first put your own hand in the mire."
The net result is if you want to throw mire (or sh*t if we want to keep it real) then you are going to get that stink on you too, and this is my point:
In dirty name-calling, you cannot escape some of the stench yourself that you accuse the other from your moral perch of betterness and goodness, and claimed position of "what America needs now is ..."
Ever hear of the "pot calling the kettle black?"
I want to know: Will the real good guys please stand up? How does one assert he or she is "morally in the right," by resorting to nasty character assassinations, often as a first resort, and using language and implied or stated concepts that by any definition are or until recent memory were considered OBSCENE?
I am not the first to make this argument in history. These are tenets of establishing and maintaining a higher civilization vs. endorsing more brutish, base instincts. But I rarely hear anyone make a peep these days, so let me continue ...
To me, those protesters tactics reek of ineffectualness, and invalidating one's own assertion of speaking from the moral right because they display a conflicted agenda.
Further, their tactics serve to escalate tensions, and anger people and perhaps lead them to counter accuse or try to justify or deny allegations, and it just gets ugly, and where does it stop?
It sort of reminds me of when my mom would say, "two wrongs don't make a right," and here's another point:
The ethics of many who first ascribed to modern liberal values did so as a cultural backlash against the ways of Mean White Men who ran this country until the 1970s, or so, and who yet hold sway in many arenas.
The counter-culture's mantras of "celebrate diversity," "inclusiveness," "no discrimination," "acceptance of all" preaches a secular gospel of tolerance for, if not celebration of those who may think differently than we. From this position stems the perceived moral authority of many who feel they are more tolerant, of say gays, lesbians, minorities, the homeless, women, other trod upon people of any persuasion, really ...
OK. Well, this is a good start. I'll credit them fully for their honest hearts, but remind all that "Love thy neighbor" was not coined in 1961 by the writers of the Port Huron Statement.
It really is a good idea that has been with us for a long, long time.
It has moral and spiritual authority that none can deny.
But I want to know, who is really living it? Who has the ability to live it un-hypocritically, congruently? Plausibly?
How is it consistent with what proponents of a new moral order say they believe in – respecting people, standing for something better – to also justify a slam campaign and inflammatory rhetoric as a means for stating one's case? Do people think the ends justify the means here?
I understand people were mad, and still are, but there are more noble ways of expressing it.
I will submit that if this is a Democracy, a higher civilization that is ruled by law, there are ways to disagree with respect even if we vehemently oppose everything the other side stands for.
In fact, to do it that way lends support for one's cause by leaving his or her dignity intact. A more high-minded, fair-minded approach enables one to be equally if not much more powerfully effective than to wage a campaign of character assassination, and gutter language and base concepts.
Yet, if I look at any bumper sticker or T-shirt or just talk to persons of a certain disposition, their almost invariably modus operandi is to smear thy neighbor if he does or says what someone finds morally repugnant.
It is often a self-justified, knee-jerk I see all the time.
Hey! Practice what you preach!
What good is it to attack and slam your opponent, dredging up real or alleged dirt? That is a smut tactic, not issue-based.
You may have the right to take the fight into the gutter, but does it do anything wholly constructive with potential to take a cause in the "right direction?"
And ultimately, those who wage their campaigns in this spirit make me take pause ...
If the standing president is so bad – and he obviously seems to be – who is the really wonderful, compassionate, honest, strong, person of integrity, and unimpeachable values that will take his place?
The one supported by the woman or man cussin' up a storm with children watching them freak out?
Is it the one whose supporters all say F-that guy, I wish he'd get assa**inated?
Hmmm. You scare me in your obviously hateful anger – passive aggression or overt.
Can we take our ideological blinders off for 10 minutes people?
The ends do NOT justify the means, and even if they did, i.e., if a "good" person wins by destroying his opponent's character (or allows his supporters to), I am afraid of such a mentality on principle.
You know, Ghandi was congruent. Martin Luther King was congruent. They made a case in far more powerful terms, without sacrificing their own dignity in the process.
No, in fact they enhanced their dignity for they understood moral authority. They, without mean-spiritedness, made lasting and undeniable points for their worthy causes based fully on right principles and truth without readily perceived self-contradiction!
Even their enemies feared their power, and could find little to honestly criticize them for in the light of day.
Americans: Are we yet waiting for such a one who can convincingly act to take us in the right direction? He will have to come from among us. He will be a product of us, so why don't we realize this and devote ourselves to a culture that will foster someone not sold-out and conflicted in his own right even as he preaches from a moral high horse against the bad guy on the other side ...
Am I the only one who sees these things?
Qualifier:
In the spirit of intellectual honesty, I am always willing to be wrong. I have no axe to grind. I hate no one. My intentions are peace, harmony, understanding, congeniality and respect. I reserve the right to amend, or qualify anything I say in this blog. No one is perfect, least of all me. That said, I publish what I believe up to the moment, but as a student of life and the truth, I am always willing to learn. Peace. -J
###
Blog-
In these divisive times, Americans in every quarter – on the national, state and local levels – are ideologically at odds with one another.
Two polarizing sides, which each represent values that confict in some aspects, and converge in others are often termed Liberal Democrat and Conservative Republican.
There are myriad variations and flavors of these extremes, but allow me to take NEITHER side as I point out a few random things I see. Certainly there is room for much more, as with any intellectually honest explortion of truth in a matter ...
As an eyewitness (and fly on the wall) of the January 2005 presidential inauguration in Washington, D.C., I was struck by the ubiquitously obnoxious signs, slogans, and talking points that really disparaged the character of the president, and made things into a moral fight, as much as political.
One sign, held by a group of protesters from New York said "F**k Bush in huge neon green letters painted on a 6-foot by 6-foot or so black banner held by two people above the crowd. I am sure they wanted to be seen far and wide, especially by TV, if they were so lucky. Riot police eventually were dispatched to cordon off the people as the group chanted in unison, twitching the street sense of every cop there as obviously a potential hostile threat.
No violence came of that, but the point that struck me like a hammer blow to my psyche was these were contentious people. The cops read their body language loud and clear and assigned maybe 50 (salaried, thus taxpayer supported) officers in full riot gear to keep them company for the day.
These protesters, and their spiritual kin nearby, were exercisers to the limit of their democratic rights and no doubt believed in screaming (never mind if their children were there watching the spectacle). Many others that day were also in their own right describing their anger in foul and abusive and insulting language.
Perhaps these good citizens were led to justify their position by such slogans as "If you are not mad, you are not paying attention," and others like it.
OK. I'll grant them this: Free speech is a fought for and protected right. These people obviously cared. They made a real effort to get there. Ostensibly a noble effort. And they certainly had a ton of good points. Namely, did the president lie? Likely. Is Cheney an unprecedented (for a U.S. V.P.) coercive, co-opting power monger? It sure looks like it. Is the war invalid, ineffective and a waste of human and monetary resources hemorrhaging from people who need help here? Good chance of it ... And so on ...
Yes, this past administration did let the country down, no doubt!
I understand frustration, and can commiserate, but only so far ...
Here's my contention: I believe instead of cussing someone out, or equivalent, there are equally assertive and effective ways – more eloquent and graceful ways – to make a point than to say "F-You, and yo mama, and your breath stinks too ..." (or worse) ...
This widely utilized tact (or lack thereof) violates what I believe is a clear need to "take the high road." Certainly the English language affords us all the words we need to not make our political disagreements into a gutter fight, full of personally disparaging remarks and below-the-belt innuendos if not outright statements.
There is a Korean proverb I once read that says, "To throw mire upon your neighbor, you must first put your own hand in the mire."
The net result is if you want to throw mire (or sh*t if we want to keep it real) then you are going to get that stink on you too, and this is my point:
In dirty name-calling, you cannot escape some of the stench yourself that you accuse the other from your moral perch of betterness and goodness, and claimed position of "what America needs now is ..."
Ever hear of the "pot calling the kettle black?"
I want to know: Will the real good guys please stand up? How does one assert he or she is "morally in the right," by resorting to nasty character assassinations, often as a first resort, and using language and implied or stated concepts that by any definition are or until recent memory were considered OBSCENE?
I am not the first to make this argument in history. These are tenets of establishing and maintaining a higher civilization vs. endorsing more brutish, base instincts. But I rarely hear anyone make a peep these days, so let me continue ...
To me, those protesters tactics reek of ineffectualness, and invalidating one's own assertion of speaking from the moral right because they display a conflicted agenda.
Further, their tactics serve to escalate tensions, and anger people and perhaps lead them to counter accuse or try to justify or deny allegations, and it just gets ugly, and where does it stop?
It sort of reminds me of when my mom would say, "two wrongs don't make a right," and here's another point:
The ethics of many who first ascribed to modern liberal values did so as a cultural backlash against the ways of Mean White Men who ran this country until the 1970s, or so, and who yet hold sway in many arenas.
The counter-culture's mantras of "celebrate diversity," "inclusiveness," "no discrimination," "acceptance of all" preaches a secular gospel of tolerance for, if not celebration of those who may think differently than we. From this position stems the perceived moral authority of many who feel they are more tolerant, of say gays, lesbians, minorities, the homeless, women, other trod upon people of any persuasion, really ...
OK. Well, this is a good start. I'll credit them fully for their honest hearts, but remind all that "Love thy neighbor" was not coined in 1961 by the writers of the Port Huron Statement.
It really is a good idea that has been with us for a long, long time.
It has moral and spiritual authority that none can deny.
But I want to know, who is really living it? Who has the ability to live it un-hypocritically, congruently? Plausibly?
How is it consistent with what proponents of a new moral order say they believe in – respecting people, standing for something better – to also justify a slam campaign and inflammatory rhetoric as a means for stating one's case? Do people think the ends justify the means here?
I understand people were mad, and still are, but there are more noble ways of expressing it.
I will submit that if this is a Democracy, a higher civilization that is ruled by law, there are ways to disagree with respect even if we vehemently oppose everything the other side stands for.
In fact, to do it that way lends support for one's cause by leaving his or her dignity intact. A more high-minded, fair-minded approach enables one to be equally if not much more powerfully effective than to wage a campaign of character assassination, and gutter language and base concepts.
Yet, if I look at any bumper sticker or T-shirt or just talk to persons of a certain disposition, their almost invariably modus operandi is to smear thy neighbor if he does or says what someone finds morally repugnant.
It is often a self-justified, knee-jerk I see all the time.
Hey! Practice what you preach!
What good is it to attack and slam your opponent, dredging up real or alleged dirt? That is a smut tactic, not issue-based.
You may have the right to take the fight into the gutter, but does it do anything wholly constructive with potential to take a cause in the "right direction?"
And ultimately, those who wage their campaigns in this spirit make me take pause ...
If the standing president is so bad – and he obviously seems to be – who is the really wonderful, compassionate, honest, strong, person of integrity, and unimpeachable values that will take his place?
The one supported by the woman or man cussin' up a storm with children watching them freak out?
Is it the one whose supporters all say F-that guy, I wish he'd get assa**inated?
Hmmm. You scare me in your obviously hateful anger – passive aggression or overt.
Can we take our ideological blinders off for 10 minutes people?
The ends do NOT justify the means, and even if they did, i.e., if a "good" person wins by destroying his opponent's character (or allows his supporters to), I am afraid of such a mentality on principle.
You know, Ghandi was congruent. Martin Luther King was congruent. They made a case in far more powerful terms, without sacrificing their own dignity in the process.
No, in fact they enhanced their dignity for they understood moral authority. They, without mean-spiritedness, made lasting and undeniable points for their worthy causes based fully on right principles and truth without readily perceived self-contradiction!
Even their enemies feared their power, and could find little to honestly criticize them for in the light of day.
Americans: Are we yet waiting for such a one who can convincingly act to take us in the right direction? He will have to come from among us. He will be a product of us, so why don't we realize this and devote ourselves to a culture that will foster someone not sold-out and conflicted in his own right even as he preaches from a moral high horse against the bad guy on the other side ...
Am I the only one who sees these things?
Qualifier:
In the spirit of intellectual honesty, I am always willing to be wrong. I have no axe to grind. I hate no one. My intentions are peace, harmony, understanding, congeniality and respect. I reserve the right to amend, or qualify anything I say in this blog. No one is perfect, least of all me. That said, I publish what I believe up to the moment, but as a student of life and the truth, I am always willing to learn. Peace. -J
Thursday, October 4, 2007
On Anger
The emotion of "anger" is rapidly becoming politically incorrect. In its place we find people increasingly acting out passive aggression (which is readily practiced as an outlet, and is just as real a manifestation of anger). Problem is, it's insidious and insipid and weak.
I am not a fan of outrage, meanness, bullying. Nor do I have a personal problem with "anger." That is, I don't have a chip on my shoulder, but if I do get angry, I don't want to be made to feel like I have a social disease. Just be sure I am not some angry guy trying to justify his issues (!) ...
What I am saying is that by regulating away overt anger, we are denying our human nature, trying to snuff it out as a dictate of the "thought police," (READ: those who are attempting to force a PC agenda). Like it or not, anger is an authentic and inherent manifestation of human nature. While it needs to be controlled, and not allowed to run its full course, it will happen.
Anger cannot be manipulated and guilted into non-existence, no matter how much some people wish it were possible. And if you attempt to repress or suppress anger, it will find a way to show itself anyway.
It's like implementing prohibition on the human psyche. And while yes, effects of alcohol abuse were ugly, Prohibition did nothing to solve the problem!
I realize this touches on the nature vs. nurture debate. I believe in both factors, not one or the other. There are groups that believe all behavior is a social construct. Social anthropologist Margaret Mead has been quoted by one such organization to lend support to this supposition. I am told she was taken out of context, and in any case let it be stated clearly: Human Nature exists, and it is "hard-wired."
This blog does not pretend to be comprehensive. I will touch on some factors, and say the question bears further study ...
###
From whence did the social phenomenon of denying anger as acceptable, and implementation of a weak substitute, passive aggression arise?
Since the beginning of time there have been dueling sensibilities between yin and yang, male and female, weak and strong, good and evil...
Passive aggression comes from what was considered a "woman's" mindset. Men practice it well too, but the spirit of it is weak and feminine by traditional definitions.
It has become commonplace as a manifestation of the shift in power between men and women (empowering women is a good thing certainly, but this issue in question is one point men essentially have capitulated to when they should have stuck to their guns, if you'll pardon the phrase...).
Historically, women in this culture have not been given opportunity to act out aggression or anger and were limited by a number of internal and external constraints: Namely, women are usually much weaker, smaller, less able to back up anger in a fist fight. Enough said on that one. Secondly, it was considered undignified or unladylike or not desirable for a woman to act overtly aggressively. It was a turn-off to men in times past at least, if not the present.
Poor women. They really were boxed into a corner, because the natural tendency for anger is equally strong in females as in males! What to do? Passive aggression, manipulation, head games ... stuff like that.
Today's world has put men in much the same position as women. In part, we can thank the coercive affect of radical feminism, and men's culpability and complicity (A whole subject in itself). In a sense, men today are systematically gelded. And it probably is their own fault.
Want answers why? ...
One part of the equation: In certain circles (PC ones) it is considered a weak or wrong-headed person who lets his frustration show, much less cause him to resort to anything approaching or suggestive of physical confrontation. Such behavior has connotations of being a bully. Further, a smart-witted person can win in a civilized world by his or her wits, right? (This is a sensibility that immediately appeals to women who have ultimately learned to think that way having had few viable alternative options.)
Essentially, say anti-overt anger advocates: If a man feels injured or offended or wronged, in some way, it is not an option to behave aggressively, or even to very plainly express his displeasure or frustration. Any outright show of anger is suggestive of physical confrontation. And we all know that is out of the question, right? That would be seen as taking advantage of physical size which is not only unfair, it is brutal, ego-centric, and ultimately, non-egalitarian. (In most cases, this is correct which is why the argument has such potent appeal. There are however wiser, nobler, more honorable and civil ways of dealing with confrontation besides the extremes of knocking someone's head off, or passive aggression. This could be a subject for another post ...)
Back to the subject at hand: While I am no advocate of settling things physically, we have taken this mentality to the point where any expression of behavior in which a threat may be interpreted is prohibited and frowned upon.
It is as though the one who feels offended finds himself blamed because he is angry, while the person who did something that obviously riled his sense of fair-play is free from accountability.
How ironic. Does this smack of emotional injustice? Even so, never let them see how you really feel is the lesson being enforced.
The net result is men must fight like girls.
In part, they must do so if they want female approval (and they do, which hints at part of how this mess came upon us).
Now, especially in today's metropolitan/corporate/what-have-you social environments, if men get mad, they must never show rage or anger. Instead, the "smart" man must go underground. From there he may seek revenge, or harbor resentment, or stew and fuss, and look for opportunity either overtly or subconsciously to exact retribution.
Or, alternatively he may "get over it." This might be some form of repression or denial, or he may truly reconcile it inside himself. This last option stems from a philosophy mandating to "let it go." (This is Buddhist derived, calling for no attachments.) Or he may forgive someone and mean it. (This is what Christians espouse.)
(NOTE: In the ideological landscape that is America at large, there are many competing and sometimes complementary philosophies floating out there. Some advocate one or another option or attitude, or all or none. In this age of global communications, the free-flow, and cross-pollination of ideas, and thoughts is rapidly changing the landscape.)
Back to passive aggression: Phrases such as "revenge is a dish best served cold" come to mind, as does "don't get mad, get even." These phrases were popular in the 80s and 90s and helped justify and have evolved into the openly acceptable practice of the catty, passive aggressive mentality.
SIDENOTE: "Catty" is an interesting phrase too: It's a metaphor based on an observation of cats. Think literally of the self-centered, me-first cat. A cat has been known to scratch the eyes out even of one who feeds it – if that person rubs it the wrong way. To you cat-lovers, I'll say not all cats are like this. Call it a tendency. Say it is only true of "ill-mannered" cats, or what ever ...
Be this as it may, catty is a metaphor with implicit female connotations, though men can be catty too.
And also, while on the subject, why do we employ the metaphor "pus*sy?" (Excuse me if this offends; I am not trying to sound vile). As an alternate term for a cat, the word is an idiomatic sister to "catty." It describes more than a sexual organ, it is also descriptive of a mindset, an attitude, a way of acting, feeling, etc. The connotations are not of strength or integrity. They implicitly speak of weakness and of acting aggressively from a place of weakness.
Of further interest is that the concept of "nobility" (or behaving from a place of very high integrity) is implied as existing by the speaking of its opposite: i.e., Be a pus*sy, and you are weak, not assertive or strong. Not in the moral right.
But does that stop anyone any more? Nope. We can give the finger from our cars without even being too distracted from our conversations on our cell phones any time we want ...
To try to come to grasp with these things further, consider that in a "handicapped" situation (as in physical or mental weakness), in order to "win" any confrontation, one must be more cunning, if not conniving and deceptive. Sleight-of-hand whether mentally or in-fact must be employed. No one can win in a one-on-one evenly matched fight if they are weaker and smaller and slower – whether physically, mentally, emotionally or economically.
So a catty mindset employs passive aggression, and other similar tricks.
It's not exactly like the martial arts. The martial arts are an example of overcoming greater force with finesse and brilliance. They also require immense personal discipline and rely on other laws to overcome. Not so with passive aggression. There is usually little grace or beauty associated with a "win" by a catty, passive aggressive person who puts one over on another. It was never a fair fight.
Sadly, the things I describe are shallow, small and treacherous. Results of passive aggression are often further rage and counter-reaction that perpetuates its practice.
I wish we could be wiser. I wish we could be more noble and enlightened and learn what it takes to make peace and a civilization we can be proud of. That is why I write this.
In this world, the world of rapidly shifting ideological mindsets, it seems to be a time of confusion.
Are we in a shake-out process in society? Are we sure the best will survive? Are we so sure we are becoming "better" as a culture? Is noble-mindedness assured its place as our highest goal in the long-run?
How can it when we can no longer even define noble behavior or thinking?
For that matter, what can we define? Good? Evil? Right? Wrong? Situational ethics and radically diverse if not divisive standards all compete with the traditional.
Who can say?
All I can do is speak now. If I believe it – and I do – it is my moral obligation.
Qualifier:
In the spirit of intellectual honesty, I am always willing to be wrong. I have no axe to grind. I hate no one. My intentions are peace, harmony, understanding, congeniality and respect. I reserve the right to amend, or qualify anything I say in this blog. No one is perfect, least of all me. That said, I publish what I believe up to the moment, but as a student of life and the truth, I am always willing to learn. Peace. -J
I am not a fan of outrage, meanness, bullying. Nor do I have a personal problem with "anger." That is, I don't have a chip on my shoulder, but if I do get angry, I don't want to be made to feel like I have a social disease. Just be sure I am not some angry guy trying to justify his issues (!) ...
What I am saying is that by regulating away overt anger, we are denying our human nature, trying to snuff it out as a dictate of the "thought police," (READ: those who are attempting to force a PC agenda). Like it or not, anger is an authentic and inherent manifestation of human nature. While it needs to be controlled, and not allowed to run its full course, it will happen.
Anger cannot be manipulated and guilted into non-existence, no matter how much some people wish it were possible. And if you attempt to repress or suppress anger, it will find a way to show itself anyway.
It's like implementing prohibition on the human psyche. And while yes, effects of alcohol abuse were ugly, Prohibition did nothing to solve the problem!
I realize this touches on the nature vs. nurture debate. I believe in both factors, not one or the other. There are groups that believe all behavior is a social construct. Social anthropologist Margaret Mead has been quoted by one such organization to lend support to this supposition. I am told she was taken out of context, and in any case let it be stated clearly: Human Nature exists, and it is "hard-wired."
This blog does not pretend to be comprehensive. I will touch on some factors, and say the question bears further study ...
###
From whence did the social phenomenon of denying anger as acceptable, and implementation of a weak substitute, passive aggression arise?
Since the beginning of time there have been dueling sensibilities between yin and yang, male and female, weak and strong, good and evil...
Passive aggression comes from what was considered a "woman's" mindset. Men practice it well too, but the spirit of it is weak and feminine by traditional definitions.
It has become commonplace as a manifestation of the shift in power between men and women (empowering women is a good thing certainly, but this issue in question is one point men essentially have capitulated to when they should have stuck to their guns, if you'll pardon the phrase...).
Historically, women in this culture have not been given opportunity to act out aggression or anger and were limited by a number of internal and external constraints: Namely, women are usually much weaker, smaller, less able to back up anger in a fist fight. Enough said on that one. Secondly, it was considered undignified or unladylike or not desirable for a woman to act overtly aggressively. It was a turn-off to men in times past at least, if not the present.
Poor women. They really were boxed into a corner, because the natural tendency for anger is equally strong in females as in males! What to do? Passive aggression, manipulation, head games ... stuff like that.
Today's world has put men in much the same position as women. In part, we can thank the coercive affect of radical feminism, and men's culpability and complicity (A whole subject in itself). In a sense, men today are systematically gelded. And it probably is their own fault.
Want answers why? ...
One part of the equation: In certain circles (PC ones) it is considered a weak or wrong-headed person who lets his frustration show, much less cause him to resort to anything approaching or suggestive of physical confrontation. Such behavior has connotations of being a bully. Further, a smart-witted person can win in a civilized world by his or her wits, right? (This is a sensibility that immediately appeals to women who have ultimately learned to think that way having had few viable alternative options.)
Essentially, say anti-overt anger advocates: If a man feels injured or offended or wronged, in some way, it is not an option to behave aggressively, or even to very plainly express his displeasure or frustration. Any outright show of anger is suggestive of physical confrontation. And we all know that is out of the question, right? That would be seen as taking advantage of physical size which is not only unfair, it is brutal, ego-centric, and ultimately, non-egalitarian. (In most cases, this is correct which is why the argument has such potent appeal. There are however wiser, nobler, more honorable and civil ways of dealing with confrontation besides the extremes of knocking someone's head off, or passive aggression. This could be a subject for another post ...)
Back to the subject at hand: While I am no advocate of settling things physically, we have taken this mentality to the point where any expression of behavior in which a threat may be interpreted is prohibited and frowned upon.
It is as though the one who feels offended finds himself blamed because he is angry, while the person who did something that obviously riled his sense of fair-play is free from accountability.
How ironic. Does this smack of emotional injustice? Even so, never let them see how you really feel is the lesson being enforced.
The net result is men must fight like girls.
In part, they must do so if they want female approval (and they do, which hints at part of how this mess came upon us).
Now, especially in today's metropolitan/corporate/what-have-you social environments, if men get mad, they must never show rage or anger. Instead, the "smart" man must go underground. From there he may seek revenge, or harbor resentment, or stew and fuss, and look for opportunity either overtly or subconsciously to exact retribution.
Or, alternatively he may "get over it." This might be some form of repression or denial, or he may truly reconcile it inside himself. This last option stems from a philosophy mandating to "let it go." (This is Buddhist derived, calling for no attachments.) Or he may forgive someone and mean it. (This is what Christians espouse.)
(NOTE: In the ideological landscape that is America at large, there are many competing and sometimes complementary philosophies floating out there. Some advocate one or another option or attitude, or all or none. In this age of global communications, the free-flow, and cross-pollination of ideas, and thoughts is rapidly changing the landscape.)
Back to passive aggression: Phrases such as "revenge is a dish best served cold" come to mind, as does "don't get mad, get even." These phrases were popular in the 80s and 90s and helped justify and have evolved into the openly acceptable practice of the catty, passive aggressive mentality.
SIDENOTE: "Catty" is an interesting phrase too: It's a metaphor based on an observation of cats. Think literally of the self-centered, me-first cat. A cat has been known to scratch the eyes out even of one who feeds it – if that person rubs it the wrong way. To you cat-lovers, I'll say not all cats are like this. Call it a tendency. Say it is only true of "ill-mannered" cats, or what ever ...
Be this as it may, catty is a metaphor with implicit female connotations, though men can be catty too.
And also, while on the subject, why do we employ the metaphor "pus*sy?" (Excuse me if this offends; I am not trying to sound vile). As an alternate term for a cat, the word is an idiomatic sister to "catty." It describes more than a sexual organ, it is also descriptive of a mindset, an attitude, a way of acting, feeling, etc. The connotations are not of strength or integrity. They implicitly speak of weakness and of acting aggressively from a place of weakness.
Of further interest is that the concept of "nobility" (or behaving from a place of very high integrity) is implied as existing by the speaking of its opposite: i.e., Be a pus*sy, and you are weak, not assertive or strong. Not in the moral right.
But does that stop anyone any more? Nope. We can give the finger from our cars without even being too distracted from our conversations on our cell phones any time we want ...
To try to come to grasp with these things further, consider that in a "handicapped" situation (as in physical or mental weakness), in order to "win" any confrontation, one must be more cunning, if not conniving and deceptive. Sleight-of-hand whether mentally or in-fact must be employed. No one can win in a one-on-one evenly matched fight if they are weaker and smaller and slower – whether physically, mentally, emotionally or economically.
So a catty mindset employs passive aggression, and other similar tricks.
It's not exactly like the martial arts. The martial arts are an example of overcoming greater force with finesse and brilliance. They also require immense personal discipline and rely on other laws to overcome. Not so with passive aggression. There is usually little grace or beauty associated with a "win" by a catty, passive aggressive person who puts one over on another. It was never a fair fight.
Sadly, the things I describe are shallow, small and treacherous. Results of passive aggression are often further rage and counter-reaction that perpetuates its practice.
I wish we could be wiser. I wish we could be more noble and enlightened and learn what it takes to make peace and a civilization we can be proud of. That is why I write this.
In this world, the world of rapidly shifting ideological mindsets, it seems to be a time of confusion.
Are we in a shake-out process in society? Are we sure the best will survive? Are we so sure we are becoming "better" as a culture? Is noble-mindedness assured its place as our highest goal in the long-run?
How can it when we can no longer even define noble behavior or thinking?
For that matter, what can we define? Good? Evil? Right? Wrong? Situational ethics and radically diverse if not divisive standards all compete with the traditional.
Who can say?
All I can do is speak now. If I believe it – and I do – it is my moral obligation.
Qualifier:
In the spirit of intellectual honesty, I am always willing to be wrong. I have no axe to grind. I hate no one. My intentions are peace, harmony, understanding, congeniality and respect. I reserve the right to amend, or qualify anything I say in this blog. No one is perfect, least of all me. That said, I publish what I believe up to the moment, but as a student of life and the truth, I am always willing to learn. Peace. -J
We The People
An editorial I wrote; published Aug. 15, 2007 in a local newspaper in the Philly suburbs
Does life sometimes seem too stressful?
Do the 253-plus (and counting) murders in Philadelphia this year make you wonder what society is coming to?
Or how about increased road rage or corporate and governmental corruption or pervasive fraud?
If things feel a little out of control, you're not alone.
But what can we do?
Do you think Hillary or Barack Obama is going to fix America?
I'm not betting on it.
A new president can help, but ultimately we are living in a world of our own making.
As a democracy, this nation was founded on numerous factors required to make it work.
I'd like to focus on one: the value of individual character.
America was created around the power of individuals, while implicitly stating we should hold ourselves accountable.
The Revolutionary colonists justified breaking from the British Crown, declaring it had forfeited its right to have a say because it was morally and ethically compromised.
They said they stood for something better and agreed upon virtues, including graciousness, fairness, kindness, concern for others, loyalty, not trying to bend the rules, lawfulness, etc.
The other day someone told me of his friend's recent trip to Japan.
She was shocked to learn that if someone sets her handbag down on a subway, no one will touch it. Or if someone did lose it, people would make every effort to return it with all money and cards intact.
Wow.
Some have that mentality here, but what if almost everyone did?
In the 70s, my grandfather used to tell me "America is the greatest country in the world."
His generation believed that.
Did they know something that maybe is being lost?
It's been said it's too bad the "Bill of Rights" did not come also with a "bill of personal responsibilities."
But at the time no one knew it was necessary.
We basically no longer have "The Church" or strong family structures or clear societal standards molding behavior.
We are much more free to dance to the beat of our own personal drummer.
Freedoms have increased, but have personal responsibilities?
My mom taught me my "rights" end where another person's begin. This agrees with the "The Golden Rule."
This simple ethic says, "Do to others what you would want them to do to you."
All religions and creeds have some variation.
In this civilization, with so many freedoms, we have to be able to trust our fellow citizen does not mean us harm.
Also ruled out are ethics that justify overt selfishness.
I know this may sound naïve or idealistic, but if it is, so were the Founding Fathers.
Do you remember their assurance of "unalienable rights," in the Declaration of Independence? It means no one should infringe upon your "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If we agree to play nice, we can go to the movies and not have people cut in line or talk loudly during the show. We can have property and not worry someone will steal it. We can (today) have the Internet and not have our identity taken and credit ruined. We can send our kids to school and not worry whether their teacher is a sexual predator.
I am very aware that dishonesty and crime have always been with us!
But it seems fraud, murder, theft, corruption and other emotionally stressful challenges are so pervasive all while the teaching of "human dignity" and "the sanctity of life" seems so absent in some quarters.
What are these video games where kids visualize being criminals, killing people and running from the cops?
When in this country's history did you have to worry about "dissing" a 14-year-old, because he or she might come after you with a gun?
I believe these are markers of our society's health.
What do we do? Make more laws? Hire more cops? Go back to living in castles?
How about we talk about causes, not just react to their affects?
Wanna play a game? Let's agree just for a while to only discuss our own power to do good.
It's easy to scream about Dick Cheney, or Ken Lay, or Michael Vick, or the Radnor Township School Board [which is alleged by some to skirt the edge of ethics], but we don't have control over their consciences.
We do, however, have control over our own.
Why am I telling this to you? You say you are a good person?
Of course you are. That's why I'm telling you.
Maybe while we're chatting, you'd also like to take my personal integrity
test.
No one but you will know how you score.
Ready?
Here it is: If you could get away with "it," would you?
No matter what "it" is.
That is, if your better self tells you something is wrong, but you could do it and have zero consequences, would you? For example, if you could claim you were hurt when you weren't and get money from an insurance company, would you? If you could take cash from a bank without being arrested, would you? If you could make a killing in the market on an insider's tip without the SEC finding out, would you? Would you lie if you could not get caught? Would you cheat on a test if no one knew? Would you eat something for sale
at the market because you knew personnel would look the other way?
Would you have sex with someone – even if you're married – if your secret could stay
with you? Is there ANYTHING that if you could get away with it, you would?
At any price?
In some cases people might ask, "What does "it" hurt?"
I'd answer, "What if it happened to you?"
Now before you think I'm running for sainthood, I'm not.
I've not always been a good boy.
That's not the issue.
I simply believe "what goes around comes around." Call it "karma," or "reaping what you sow."
Even if I think I can "get away with it," I never really can.
The Law of Unintended Consequences will haunt me.
It's beginning to dawn on me that who I am revolves around motives, and what I value.
Wouldn't you prefer I feel this way?
After all, if I am "all about me," then how much could I care about you?
And if it¹s true for me, it's true for everyone.
Want to poke holes in my theory? Go ahead.
As for me, I know I have choices. It feels good to at least try to take the high road.
And not whitewash it when I don't.
It's not about how people perceive me. It's about knowing at the end of the
day I really cared, really tried to do my best.
Why?
I believe The United States consists of We the People.
What would happen if everyone took this to heart?
Does life sometimes seem too stressful?
Do the 253-plus (and counting) murders in Philadelphia this year make you wonder what society is coming to?
Or how about increased road rage or corporate and governmental corruption or pervasive fraud?
If things feel a little out of control, you're not alone.
But what can we do?
Do you think Hillary or Barack Obama is going to fix America?
I'm not betting on it.
A new president can help, but ultimately we are living in a world of our own making.
As a democracy, this nation was founded on numerous factors required to make it work.
I'd like to focus on one: the value of individual character.
America was created around the power of individuals, while implicitly stating we should hold ourselves accountable.
The Revolutionary colonists justified breaking from the British Crown, declaring it had forfeited its right to have a say because it was morally and ethically compromised.
They said they stood for something better and agreed upon virtues, including graciousness, fairness, kindness, concern for others, loyalty, not trying to bend the rules, lawfulness, etc.
The other day someone told me of his friend's recent trip to Japan.
She was shocked to learn that if someone sets her handbag down on a subway, no one will touch it. Or if someone did lose it, people would make every effort to return it with all money and cards intact.
Wow.
Some have that mentality here, but what if almost everyone did?
In the 70s, my grandfather used to tell me "America is the greatest country in the world."
His generation believed that.
Did they know something that maybe is being lost?
It's been said it's too bad the "Bill of Rights" did not come also with a "bill of personal responsibilities."
But at the time no one knew it was necessary.
We basically no longer have "The Church" or strong family structures or clear societal standards molding behavior.
We are much more free to dance to the beat of our own personal drummer.
Freedoms have increased, but have personal responsibilities?
My mom taught me my "rights" end where another person's begin. This agrees with the "The Golden Rule."
This simple ethic says, "Do to others what you would want them to do to you."
All religions and creeds have some variation.
In this civilization, with so many freedoms, we have to be able to trust our fellow citizen does not mean us harm.
Also ruled out are ethics that justify overt selfishness.
I know this may sound naïve or idealistic, but if it is, so were the Founding Fathers.
Do you remember their assurance of "unalienable rights," in the Declaration of Independence? It means no one should infringe upon your "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If we agree to play nice, we can go to the movies and not have people cut in line or talk loudly during the show. We can have property and not worry someone will steal it. We can (today) have the Internet and not have our identity taken and credit ruined. We can send our kids to school and not worry whether their teacher is a sexual predator.
I am very aware that dishonesty and crime have always been with us!
But it seems fraud, murder, theft, corruption and other emotionally stressful challenges are so pervasive all while the teaching of "human dignity" and "the sanctity of life" seems so absent in some quarters.
What are these video games where kids visualize being criminals, killing people and running from the cops?
When in this country's history did you have to worry about "dissing" a 14-year-old, because he or she might come after you with a gun?
I believe these are markers of our society's health.
What do we do? Make more laws? Hire more cops? Go back to living in castles?
How about we talk about causes, not just react to their affects?
Wanna play a game? Let's agree just for a while to only discuss our own power to do good.
It's easy to scream about Dick Cheney, or Ken Lay, or Michael Vick, or the Radnor Township School Board [which is alleged by some to skirt the edge of ethics], but we don't have control over their consciences.
We do, however, have control over our own.
Why am I telling this to you? You say you are a good person?
Of course you are. That's why I'm telling you.
Maybe while we're chatting, you'd also like to take my personal integrity
test.
No one but you will know how you score.
Ready?
Here it is: If you could get away with "it," would you?
No matter what "it" is.
That is, if your better self tells you something is wrong, but you could do it and have zero consequences, would you? For example, if you could claim you were hurt when you weren't and get money from an insurance company, would you? If you could take cash from a bank without being arrested, would you? If you could make a killing in the market on an insider's tip without the SEC finding out, would you? Would you lie if you could not get caught? Would you cheat on a test if no one knew? Would you eat something for sale
at the market because you knew personnel would look the other way?
Would you have sex with someone – even if you're married – if your secret could stay
with you? Is there ANYTHING that if you could get away with it, you would?
At any price?
In some cases people might ask, "What does "it" hurt?"
I'd answer, "What if it happened to you?"
Now before you think I'm running for sainthood, I'm not.
I've not always been a good boy.
That's not the issue.
I simply believe "what goes around comes around." Call it "karma," or "reaping what you sow."
Even if I think I can "get away with it," I never really can.
The Law of Unintended Consequences will haunt me.
It's beginning to dawn on me that who I am revolves around motives, and what I value.
Wouldn't you prefer I feel this way?
After all, if I am "all about me," then how much could I care about you?
And if it¹s true for me, it's true for everyone.
Want to poke holes in my theory? Go ahead.
As for me, I know I have choices. It feels good to at least try to take the high road.
And not whitewash it when I don't.
It's not about how people perceive me. It's about knowing at the end of the
day I really cared, really tried to do my best.
Why?
I believe The United States consists of We the People.
What would happen if everyone took this to heart?
First post: a mental tune-up, etc.
I write for a living. My degree is in journalism, and I use it. This however, is for fun, and edification, and to discuss observations I have. I will not edit it to the Nth degree, but if it reads OK, I'll let it fly.
Since I was a kid, I have been fascinated by what would be described as sociology. I liked to study people, and contemplate lots of things, usually on my own, without a lot of outside influence.
Ground rules:
I am a believer in congenial discourse, and not accepting of disrespectful, rude, snarly, snarky, mean-spirited or otherwise attitudes in discussing things.
I am a believer in congenial discourse, and not accepting of disrespectful, rude, snarly, snarky, mean-spirited or otherwise attitudes in discussing things.
The assumption here is I am as intellectually honest as I know how to be, and assume you wish to be also. No game playing, only "forthrightness," as this blog is named.
I am neither Republican nor Democrat, though have voted for both parties in elections.
I cannot help noticing (actually, the cultural shifts are screaming at me on every front) that we are in a time of ideological upheaval.
Much divisiveness and anger and quick-responding (reactive and mean) rhetoric is being cast about these days, and I really wonder what motivates some people. Is it to propagate the "truth" to the best of their ability? In some cases, yes, in others, I have doubts.
Much divisiveness and anger and quick-responding (reactive and mean) rhetoric is being cast about these days, and I really wonder what motivates some people. Is it to propagate the "truth" to the best of their ability? In some cases, yes, in others, I have doubts.
In any case, cooler heads must prevail. Intellectual and emotional honesty is a non-negotiable MUST!
Do you want the truth and to live a life of integrity and happiness and fulfillment? Do you want America to continue as a great nation? Do you believe it starts with you and me, here, now?
If so, great, let's continue. If not, you probably won't like what I have to say, and I probably won't want to hear what you think either.
If so, great, let's continue. If not, you probably won't like what I have to say, and I probably won't want to hear what you think either.
I operate under the premise that a "good life is possible." People often settle and sell themselves short. Or they do not think things through. This is true of individuals and people collectively.
I believe in a world of enlightened living. Not one empty and shallow and that operates from a place of weakness. (NOTE: I hesitate to use ideologically loaded phrases, or "talking points," or buzz words coined by spin masters. For instance, just because I said "enlightened," does not mean I am advocating from a Buddhist or other ideological slant. I think for myself, and believe many disciplines have something to offer. Ultimately, my orientation is Christian, but I am no fan of the "Religious Right," or any of those politicos. You never met someone like me, I don't think, so don't think you can pigeonhole me so easily ...)
I believe in a world of enlightened living. Not one empty and shallow and that operates from a place of weakness. (NOTE: I hesitate to use ideologically loaded phrases, or "talking points," or buzz words coined by spin masters. For instance, just because I said "enlightened," does not mean I am advocating from a Buddhist or other ideological slant. I think for myself, and believe many disciplines have something to offer. Ultimately, my orientation is Christian, but I am no fan of the "Religious Right," or any of those politicos. You never met someone like me, I don't think, so don't think you can pigeonhole me so easily ...)
In successive posts I hope to discuss things for honest people who love discovering what is true. I hate perversity. It does not serve. It does not yield long-lasting harmony in any aspect or sense. My assumption is you are the same.
Peace. Respect. Understanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
