Beliefs and Suffering

The Buddhist idea that “attachment is the root of suffering” I think relates closely to my idea that belief itself should be abandoned. A belief is a conclusion. Because of that, the conclusion is “attached” to the believer, becoming part of their sense of self. Therefore, if that belief is challenged, the believer suffers because it is seen as an attack on the self. The result is a series of self-defense actions that only further the suffering. So, if the Buddhist idea is that attachments are a problem, so are beliefs.

Falling Short as the Norm

If someone thinks they have successfully used language to accurately communicate, they have misunderstood the potential of both. Turning thoughts into words degrades those same thoughts because the process can only distort.

"Idea Diversity" Can and Should Exclude What's Been Disproven

 There is a complaint often heard that says something like "intolerance of idea diversity" is too pervasive and undercuts the claims that people are actually searching for the truth. This idea that gets expressed in many ways is not accurate, however, unless it includes the caveat that old and disproven ideas don't need to be tolerated. It is perfectly fine--and a necessary component to the advancement of knowledge--to leave behind those things which have been superseded with new information. I find that a large number of the people who get on this "intolerance" bandwagon refuse to accept that their idea(s) has been shown to be wrong. The misdirected claim that they are somehow being unfairly discriminated against is a desperate effort to stay in the game with faulty and irrelevant claims that mask some other agenda.

Denying the Need For Others

There is a recent Pew report that shows conservatives tend to want to live apart from others while progressives prefer to live in closer proximity to others. I think one of the reasons is the more conservative idea that they can (and should) support themselves with little help versus the more liberal idea that individuals require support from one another. But this is actually a false notion of sorts because conservatives actually do think individuals require help, only they see it coming from a god, deflecting the reality that the cooperation of others is actually necessary. Even when conservatives do get assistance from others, they still attribute it to "the will" of their god, which denies where the help actually came from.

A Prediction That Never Fails

Anyone can make a prediction of a coming economic collapse and always be right. Humanity's promotion of its worst traits and the constant denial of how the earth's systems operate requires it.

The New World's Free Ride is Over

I am convinced that any political/economic system that took control of any part of the Americas in the wake of Columbus would be able to call itself a "success." The two continents had huge untapped natural resources that would sustain any system put in place. The fact that what did take place included genocide and slavery (and still does) only makes more ridiculous the claims of "success." We are now past that era of virtually unlimited resources, meaning that the real test of a system's success is now underway, and unregulated capitalism is failing badly.

Autoimmune-Diseased Politics

There seems to be little difference between descriptions of modern American politics and autoimmune diseases.

Ignoring Results

It's amazing that all social structures persist for extended periods regardless of the results of their existence. Change, even for the better, is always resisted.

Blast the Past

There are always people who push others to return to the past, an effort which always end up making matters worse because it's not possible to go back in time--even if it was universally decided to do so. Even if people tried to recreate as much as possible some point in history, it is literally not possible, and undertaking a journey that is sure to fail is never going to be fruitful. We must always take what we know and move forward. Always. It's the only path that exists and, therefore, the only path where change is possible.

Weak Similarity

Religious Person to Science Person: "We are no different than you because we are looking for answers to the same questions you are."
Science Person to Religious Person: "Sure, but we're using things like the Hubble Telescope and the Large Hadron Collider and you are using tea leaves and hallucinations, a distinction that clearly separates us in to one group that continuously increases our knowledge and one that keeps repeating the same failed guesses."

Needing a Reason

Sure, you can be an atheist and a conservative, but what's the point?

Comfortable With Confinement Conditioning

I think we are grooming children to accept as normal the idea of confinement. From the rope lines attached to the wrists of toddlers when walking to together, to playgrounds being fenced off, to schools and school buses being mandatory places of separation, to entire neighborhoods where they grow up being "gated," to home alarm systems, we are conditioning the newest generations to feel comfortable with confinement.

Protecting One's Political Abuser

When I see member of a historically oppressed minority group promoting the the rhetoric of the right wing and attacking the progressive ideas that would actually help them (and everyone else), I can't help but see them like I see a battered spouse who still seeks the approval of her abuser.

Piss Me Off, Please

This whole Bowe Bergdahl thing is the perfect example of how pundits and opinions rule rather a calm search for what's behind it all. I find it frightening that so much of what I see and hear is simply one partisan talking head/blogger trying to maintain a larger agenda with any twisted hot-button language that can be assembled.

It seems we have a growing number of people who want to be pissed off, jumping at any chance to get that desire fulfilled. I just don't get it.

Coincidentally, a chapter of Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers I just finished may shed some light on this.

In this chapter he outlines the idea that our cultural baggage not only stays with us when we leave where we have lived, but it can be traced back for hundreds of years. One of his examples is the culture of the American South which largely comes from the people who migrated in large numbers in and around the Appalachian Mountains from specific parts of England and Ireland, places where personal and family honor carried a lot of weight. Any insult against a person or their family often results in a hostile reaction to protect their honor.

In a study he outlines, individuals are insulted by someone they simply encountered walking down a hallway. Those who were from the South had higher levels of chemicals in their blood like testosterone and cortisol after the encounter, things that indicate they were in an excited mood. Other tests that were done showed that these people were also more likely to get in a fight or support someone else who was extracting a honor-based retribution through violence.

Because I just read these two stories near each other in time, it made me think that there might be a hint here to what's going on. If a group of people with this kind of cultural background feel insulted, they are more likely to look for a fight, and it doesn't really matter what the fight is about--they can become trolls looking for a confrontation.

For whatever reason, people from the American South--where conservatives have the most influence and power--feel like they are not being respected by the rest of the country. The actions in response seems very close to this lashing-out phenomenon I think we're experiencing, and not just about the Berghdal situation. Add in the additional factor that conservatives generally like change less than others, it seems to be a recipe for all kinds of confrontations.

I'm sure it a complicated set of factors that are in play, but to me this idea makes a good deal of sense. 

The Conservative Drift to Socialism

With the ongoing consolidation of corporate power continuing without an end in sight, it seems to me that we're heading (if we're not already there) toward a society that is actually more socialist than capitalist. It has been a rallying cry from the political right that a "strong central government" or "government control"--their overly simplistic definition of socialism--is detrimental. But substitute "corporation" for "government" and we have the same basic overall effect: a source of immense power that is dictatorial and untouchable. What we are doing is actually worse because for corporate power to be stronger or equal to democratically based government institutions creates the illusion that capitalism is working as advertised.

Consider that corporations now put serious restrictions on employees' behavior at levels that are dictatorial--on and off the job; have workers sign papers for everything from non-compete agreements (not at all capitalist) to keeping rights to all of their creative output--again, on and off the job; can give their top tier people money at levels incredibly higher than everyone else--exactly like old-style communist class systems where the privileged were part of a elite group called the Nomenclatura; support efforts to restrict voting--the old communist parties did it by picking candidates for approval (often with no opposition), where we now do it with unlimited corporate money and legal maneuvers to stop people from voting at all; and the intricate spying networks used by Eastern Bloc countries we used to criticize are nothing compared to what the U.S. is doing to its own citizens now.

Except for the names, we are becoming no different that what we claim to despise.

The Negative Effects of Being the Best

The book The Worst Journey in the World by Apsley Cherry-Garrard is the story of the author's experience being part of the 1911-1912 trip to the South Pole lead by Robert F. Scott who famously died with four others on the way back from the pole. In the book, it is noted that one of the problems that ended up unnecessarily wearing down man and animal (horses and dogs) was overwork of those willing to volunteer to accomplish the necessary tasks in the year preceding the actual trip to the pole while preparations were made on the coast on Antarctica.

I think this points to a general truism about human behavior that has unfortunate consequences: we give more work to those either willing to do it or who are better at it, often resulting in their being overworked and wearing out and becoming ineffective or getting burned out and quitting. This is a problem needs to be remembered.

The Dangerous Desire to Concentrate Power

It seems to me that there is a strong and dangerous human tendency to concentrate power. This proclivity ranges from a head of the household, to head of a government, to head of a religion, to monotheistic deities. A one-stop shopping solution at which to concentrate our attention is obviously easier, requiring much less work and brainpower to drive action. Even if people see the inherent problems of a single person having super power with little or no restraints, we always seem to end up drifting in that direction while ignoring the clear warnings from history against doing so. 

It's likely a default desire we have to concentrate our efforts to influence a source of power. In addition, praising or demeaning a diffused group is much less satisfying than doing so for a single and powerful entity. Concentrating efforts on one face instead of many seems to makes people less passive generally because there is an easy and clear target for their attention.

Yes, You Are a Sex Object—Just Like Everyone Else

From time-to-time the topic of sexual inequality and discrimination rises to the top of the pile of problems we need to address. But each time it happens, there seems to be a rush to the extremes, with the ensuing fight resulting in little more than increased hostility and misunderstanding that becomes the degraded starting point for the next time. It seems to me that the course most likely to bring positive results must start with a true acknowledgment of the actual situation being addressed, and we have never done that. It's long past time for that to change.

One core problem that gets this issue off on the wrong foot is the refusal to acknowledge the actual sexual attitudes that exist and the fact that they aren't universal for everyone and aren't in play 100 percent of the time. We also fail to acknowledge that what one group of people finds unacceptable when it comes to sexual attitudes and behaviors is not always a problem for others. There is a huge and complex sliding scale of sorts that exists in this area, and no point within it is null.

Perhaps the most common refrain that gets voiced in times of increased tension is the idea that being seen as a “sex object” is something to be corrected. It is insulting and degrading to be seen this way, the thinking goes, because it makes it okay to treat certain people as unworthy of respect otherwise. This is certainly true for some people in some situations, but the best way to address it is not to simply try and shut down the idea that people can be seen as an object of sexual desire. As anyone competent in the area of human behavior can attest, our individual sexuality is one of the few core elements that makes up a person's being. This component of one's self-identity is so foundational that to insist it be fundamentally altered or eliminated is like trying to convince someone to commit suicide.

Instead, what we should be doing is acknowledging that strong sexual attitudes and desires exist and that they are a large part of what makes us human, but with that awareness comes the responsibility to not let them be a detriment to others. If instead we try to assert that sexual desires are to be unconditionally attacked and vilified in an attempt to correct any problems, then we are likely to continue our record of colossal failures, just like sexual abstinence programs for teens. What does work is addressing this (or any) situation with open honesty about where we are and where we want to go. Otherwise, instead of embarking on a fruitful journey, we are engaging in a type of trench warfare that results in nothing but casualties.

So, the best place to start is to acknowledge that each of us is seen as a sexual object by others. Nothing we ever say or do is going to change that basic fact about humanity. What we can do, however, is realize that this reality doesn't mean we have to be single-minded when it comes to those seen as sexually attractive; there's no requirement we be myopic about it. The issue must be addressed based on awareness and mitigation, not elimination. The goal should be to never see anyone as only a sex object.

Self-Defense Against Pregnancy

Those who are pushing for "stand your ground" and "personhood" rights for fetuses to try to outlaw abortions don't realize it, but this path contains within it an increased constitutional justification for abortion at any time.

A pregnancy can certainly be seen as an assault on a pregnant woman's body, a situation in which she can take whatever measures she wishes to end the attack, including abortion. If a fetus is declared to be a person, the pregnant woman is given an extra legal position on which to stand: self-defense. There is no exception to the legal concept of self-defense when one person is being attacked by another. This is clearly a constitutional argument  under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.

On top of that, wherever there are "stand your ground" laws on the books, the pregnancy woman has one more legal point in her favor if she chooses to exercise her right to an abortion.

So, if the fetus is not legally seen as a person, there is no basis in the law on which to outlaw abortions because the pregnant woman is not harming anyone. On the other hand, if the fetus is declared to be a person, a pregnant woman actually has the addition legal support of the universal tenet of self-defense that clearly allows an abortion to be performed if so desired.

Getting in the Way of Our Own Ideas

The reason I don't like debates is that members of the audience can mistakenly rate the quality of the information based on the performances, which has nothing to do with the worthiness of an idea or assertion. Attacks are often directed solely at the participants, bringing to mind the "don't kill the messenger" warning. Any information delivered by an individual doesn't get eliminated or validated by attacking or praising the person delivering it. It is an ineffective response that can be attested to by the failure of blasphemy laws.