Five Questions

Just a little Q and A with myself, questions I wonder about, think about, most times not aloud, lest I get accused of a variety of PC crimes... :)

Seriously, most of these are simply lame, but some are hard questions one must ask about motives and methods of those around us, how history has affected us, and how the machine of politics and media distorts our perceptions. Some are even obvious questions with some obvious, or not so obvious answers.

1) Is cultural imperialism(or social imperialism) better or worse than actual imperialism? Let's beat them with Coke and McDonalds (or democracy) instead of conquering them, or for the anti-American crowd, let's just out breed them (ah, no stopping demographics. The US and New Zealand are the only Western nations with a sustainable birth rate at the present time).

2) Should not the 'holiday' spirit be the 'year-round' spirit? Or does being a hypocrite for only 2 months of the year make you feel better about the other 10? Needless to say, I question this every year, and get no easy answers. Some people are extraordinarily generous year round, some or not. Sometimes it is financial, other times it what is expected of them. Me, I help when I can if I can, holidays aside. I just like the holidays for the extra time to spend with family and then there's the food :)

3) Would Jesus approve of Christmas? Clearly, he might not approve of what Christmas has become. But as for remembering his birth, the Jesus of History would certainly be confused since he probably expected the Kingdom of God to be at hand before his death as he was an Apocalyptic Messianic Jew... though as a Messianic Jew he might like the idea of being remembered. As for the Jesus of Faith, I am sure he would approve of the 'spirit', but would probably like it to be year round.

4) Should the media be blamed for the perception of the problems in the world? Certainly a loaded question, for I think the media has its agenda (all media outlets want their papers to be sold, their programs to be watched and listened to, so this is perhaps obvious) and wants to press it. Anyone who reads the NY Times, The Washington Post, or even The Dallas Morning News knows this. Conversely, if you watch Fox news and MSNBC, agendas are easy to read. Now, strange thing, Fox sports is sponsored by MSN, though their news outlets are diametrically opposed... never could figure that out. So, we can blame them for perception, but we have only ourselves to blame if we cannot read between the lines and understand bias and perception in the mixed up world of media.

5) Why do celebrities get accorded the status of 'celebrity' and why should we care? I think it is something that we lack in self confidence that we have to give credence to those who can do certain things better than us whether it be act, play sports, or give speeches. I mean that generally, for there are those like myself that simply give nary a care to the concept of celebrity. Now, I do respect certain actors and athletes for their work on film, stage, or on the field, but I care little about what happens in off time. And I certainly do not like hearing about it on the news, but such is the way of modern society.

Just some odd points to ponder that might or might not make sense and an example of the random things I think about during the day.

C.

Belief and Thought

I might have touched on this some in an earlier post, but briefly. What I am keen on discussing, in this post at least, is the contrast between the usage of the word 'belief' and its derivatives and the word 'thought'. I tend to say 'I think' instead of 'I believe' when discussing matters of opinion because belief implies faith (though many people will interchange belief and think and not care otherwise) more than saying 'I think' does. Even 'I feel' seems to have less of a connotation.

Now, many people have a great deal of faith and would have no problem using belief in the phrase. I do. I did not in the past, as I was surely a true believer, but not any more. Nor do I say that thought and logic rules me... truly not. Indeed, I am less rational in defending my feelings than what was once my beliefs.

Much of this goes back to my dealings with religion and the problems I have had with them, ranging from starting as a Fundamentalist Baptist (plus 12 years of Baptist School all the way through high school), then allowing myself to be taken in by Wiccan thought. In the end, while I did not reject the concept of a god or universal hand in our lives, I certainly rejected the personifications of god/goddess in all its forms. I still feel the energy of the universe and know my place in it, but do not need to worship an anthropomorphic manifestation of the universe to understand. If this understanding is served better by your worship of a humanized divine being or otherwise, then wonderful. If it gives you power in your life and makes you happy, then I am happy for you.

So, this rejection then became my decision not to believe, but to understand and to feel.. and to know. Now, some of this is similar to belief (and I do slip from time to time... hard to shake some of that programming) but the word has such power and has caused so much destruction throughout history I have rejected it. Belief is murdering people as I write this.

The question then is... 'Am I right or wrong?' I hope I am right, really. Belief has murdered as many souls as passion, probably more. Of course, if your belief is a peaceful path to understanding of the spirit and the universe, then I hope your life is blessed by it. I simply cannot use a word to describe my understanding that has so much blood on it.

'Till we all understand,

C.

An Echo

Sometimes you just have to write without thinking, only listening to the voice of your heart, and the voices of those who cannot speak.

'Echos'

Can I still hope?

Hands reaching to others
Smiling laughing caring
Gentle words...
Simple endearments...
An echo from a millenia gone.

Can I even see?

Sentiments lost amid posturing
Sneering biting unmoving
Harsh doublespeak...
Empty platitudes...
A spin of a sound infecting today.

Will it even matter?

Shadows occluding the numbers
Bleeding burning gone
Feigned indignance...
Shifting all blame...
A ruin of what has been
And may ever be.

Can anyone see?

C.

A Good Heart And Right Action

Just some random notes and thoughts from a rambling insomniac early in the morn (I'd say morning light, but it is still dark out, and I'd have to type for a few hours for morning light).

Shakespeare wrote 'Nothing is good or bad, only thinking makes it so.' While Shakespeare's sentiments do sound good (and I admit taken way out of context), it is hard to accept our thoughts cause good and evil. Our decision, perhaps, which I suppose is an extension of thought, play the ultimate part in goodness and right action. We will choose to do what we think is good for us, or we will not. Of course, that is the problem, what might be good for us could be bad and what we might even think is right could actually be wrong. And then you have the problem of a good action/intention having catastrophic effects. Now, I was raised to understand that this is not true. The whole tenet of Christ's (not necessarily current Christian thought) philosophy hinges on the fact that doing good for its own sake will always prosper. Let us say you help a person out that then decides to use the money on an addiction (pick your poison) and then winds up hurting or killing someone because of their addiction. Was good done for its sake? And if you found out what had happened, would you do it again? The idea itself was right but the end was not.

Then the question is asked, what if not doing good, in fact, allowing the ends to justify the means, results in goodness? One might think that this action cannot really be random and is self-serving, and therefore is not for its own sake. I guess at least that person is still doing something.

I suppose, in the end, the worst thing is inaction. Edmund Burke commented, 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.' An observation applicable to any time. This world has become so apathetic and uninterested that most people would rather do nothing. Perhaps that is the case mostly in the West, and many times in my case. At least I try and understand the past and the present and through it, maybe understand the future. Still, I feel that is my excuse and/or justification to observe and not act. Perhaps that makes me even worse than being apathetic. I am informed and still do not act in a manner I should or at the least, I would like. Unlike most academics, who have a tendency to preen and posture while feeling that their comments alone mean that they have acted, I know what I am not doing is wrong.

So here I am, discussing goodness and my own guilt at not doing more than I have done, which is to say not much more than writing and trying to understand cause and effect, action, reaction and inaction. Has anything I have said changed anything? Or am I like the ones I have called out, hoping that my words alone constitute some sort of right action on my part? Is having the right heart enough? As always, I have too many questions and not enough answers. I hope, at least, I am asking the right questions.

C.

One Life At A Time

In the TV show Babylon 5, a phrase is tossed about by numerous characters but mostly espoused by the Minbari, 'Some must be sacrificed for all to be saved.', while the Talmud says that 'He who saves one life saves the world entire.' (and I realize I might be paraphrasing that one, but the essence of it is correct). Both, to me, are a paradox of wisdom, though I am sure I might raise an eyebrow or two comparing Babylon 5 to Judaism, but I have seen stranger comparisons. Anyway, that is not the issue at hand, it is the question of when is it ok to sacrifice one for many or vice versa? The essence of true compassion is to save others, but is it any less compassionate to let others be sacrificed in order to save more? Of course, I am in no position or career that involves the saving of lives or ordering the deaths of others in some cause, but I do ponder such things as one in a free society should. And I ponder such questions to you, gentle readers.

Therefore, what does one do when faces with such things? Or what does one do that cannot affect any outcome? But, what would you do? Would you trade one life for thousands, or a thousand for one? Millions for billions? Is death for life, or the promise of life (say, in the case of genetic experimentation) ever a fair trade? Where does ethics end and pragmatism begin? And I do assure you, I understand necessity and pragmatism for I do live in this world. In the past, most would never ask such questions, for the answers are apparent in history and in the history of politics. Indeed, some philosophy would agree with the trade of death for life. But, will it ever be enough? Can we ever evolve to a consciousness where in order to preserve life we do not have to extinguish it?

Overall, I am not being too practical, but one has to think such things, or at least reiterate them from time to time.

C.

False Gods

This is a direct result of the previous post, so do have a look if you would like, or not too, whatever makes you comfortable. I have always had an interest in religious/spiritual history, but organized religion and the zealotry that has resulted because of it has always hurt me. It is a terrible thing to see what has been perpetrated, rightly or wrongly, in the name of a god. The tragedy is that we can make our own decisions instead of being blinded by submitting to the will of black-hearted gods and men... but many of us do not. Many still submit to what is clearly a primitive and outmoded way of thinking, or lack of thinking as it has turned out. To that end, I reject such gods. For gods that allow what has been allowed in their name are not deserving of being called 'God'.


'False Gods'

Their love was not enough
Their deaths a rationale.
You were blinded by adulation,
Buoyed from their deeds in your name.
Their joy had to be tempered
With your zeal for fire and sword.
Their love could never be enough,
Unless they all loved you.

Their deaths were your price,
For their idea of your love.
They were deceived by false hope,
Fueling their desire for deeds in your name.
Your anger was made manifest
In the fire within their eyes.
Their deaths would be enough,
Since they would not love you.

How many dead?
Shall I count the graves?
How many lives is their love worth?

Their hopes you have borne,
To make real horrific ideals.
You craved their adoration,
Praising deeds conducted in your name.
This madness you have created
With their zeal for fire and sword,
You believed would be enough
To make them all love you.

My love was not enough
To embrace the idea of your love.
I am hardened by cold facts
Of the deeds allowed in your name.
My joy comes in the rejection,
Of your zeal for fire and sword.
Perhaps you will take my life,
But you will never have my love.

How many dead?
Shall we count the graves?
How many lives is your love worth?

C.