Substance

I don't like politics. By I don't like politics, what I really mean, is I don't like the way people treat each other in the political sphere. One man or woman attacking another just so they can appear better. It detracts from the purpose of why politicians are there in the first place. It's not to be a good liar, though, granted, things that wouldn't get done with an honest person can get done with a liar. It's not to be seen as a great leader, though, again, great leaders can unify people and really get things done. It's to be seen as a willing servant for the greater good. A politician should speak to how he or she has and would spend their time helping the community and prove it with what they have already done. Arguments between two ideologies will happen but there's a reasonable and responsible way to have a conversation. A brawl of words should never appear on a political stage.

Unfortunately, that's too idealistic. Most people don't want to talk about what needs to happen or how we'll get there. Oh, no. They want to see politicians squirm and fight like a herd of demon-possessed pigs. They don't want facts, they want hyperbole and anecdotes.

This is true in a number of settings. Whenever I hear a sales pitch for a new product that my company is thinking about investing in or a company that we could be partnering with, it's the same thing. I'm given a handful of shallow facts while being whisked on a grand tour of "our product is so much better than the other guy's" and "how much better would your company be if you had this". Sadly, I know no other way that sales could work because the people making the decisions want to hear that they're going to make the right decision by using the widget because it's going to save the company so much money and the other guys' widget isn't nearly as shiny. Really? This is how we think?

What about when it comes to philosophy or theology?

I'm a fan of Socrates. The Socratic method is a wonderful tool that I believe many people could benefit from if they took the time to hold real conversations with other people about what things mean. However, as good old Uncle Ben says, with great power comes great responsibility. As the Apostle Paul wrote about numerous times in the New Testament, it's difficult to pull people away from arguing at length about the smallest of matters and, often times, becoming divisive over it. I mean, how many Christian denominations are there? How many of those denominations were formed because people couldn't agree on a theological matter that bore no significance on how people lived their life?

Here's what I'm getting at. I like to talk at the thousand foot level. I like to talk about random stories because they're quirky and, hopefully, interesting. There comes a point in time that we need to get down to brass tacks (whatever that means). I would describe myself first and foremost as a thinker. Only later, do I realize, I must also be a doer and that that which I think about, must have some relevance to what I do. Otherwise, what else is it other than empty talk.

I closed out the last post of my assumptions series last time and, while it began as a something that was highly abstract (I assume that reality exists), I tried to bring it to a logical conclusion that's practical and, I hope, motivational. I would strongly advise others out there to do the same. I know I don't have a lot of followers and I doubt that any one person has read all of my posts (other than me, of course) but I know for a fact that reading about how much some person deals with a specific situation has a narrow scope to which my life is effected. On the other hand, if someone posts about interesting stories and/or speaks in an abstract manner, I find it very difficult to have any real impact on my life.

In summary, we need facts to ground ourselves in our doing and hyperbole/anecdotes to help us move forward in our thinking. That, my friends, is substance.

Moderation

It's been too long but this will be my final post pertaining to assumptions I have made concerning existence. Don't worry, I will still post but it may be less focused. That's probably how you like it though so I'm sure you don't mind.

I don't normally drink beer but, when I do, I prefer Guinness. No offense to the most interesting man in the world and Dos Equis might be a great beer (I've never tried it) but I like to drink some that has a lot of good flavor to it. Much to the chagrin of the larger breweries (like Budweiser and, my hometown favorite, Miller), I don't like drinking beer that tastes like it's already been through someone's digestive track.

Why is one drink so much better than another? Personal preference, potentially but I think it has to do with content of the brew itself. There's going to be a certain percentage of the drink that's going to be water, hops (or maybe even rats though I find that hard to believe) along with other ingredients that make the beer distinct. However, for our purposes of simplicity and my points, let's focus on the water. In order to not immediately turn your blood immediately into alcohol or in order to appreciate the taste or maybe even in order to sell less product at a higher profit, brewers will add water. However, adding too much water will ultimately destroy the product. At some point, the beer tastes more like water than an alcoholic beverage or it won't fulfill the true intent, which, as everyone who's truthful with themselves, knows that it's to either take the edge off or go to the point of not feeling feelings (a state of being I do not recommend).

What am I getting at? Certainly not my preferences in alcoholic beverages. They can be good at times, don't get me wrong, but I really don't care that much at all about them. The point I'm driving at here is moderation. Yes, drinking in moderation and being responsible is important but it's also important, from the brewer's perspective, to be moderate with the amount of poison that's put in the brew by watering it down.

And now for something completely different and one of the two theses of this blog post:

You are a one-of-a-kind person but you are not, in any way, special in a general sense.

This is a concept that I believe, to the core of me, but wrestle with constantly as it applies to my own life. As I must, let me explain.

You are unique and you should never doubt that. However, so is everyone else. This is, all too often, taken to two extremes.

Extreme 1: Overdose - The philosophy of "if you aren't special at all, then your life doesn't matter" is a dangerous one. It leads to destructive behavior, both towards others as well as yourself. If life doesn't matter, then your actions don't matter and you can do whatever you want because, in the end, there's nothing to care about that isn't artificially constructed.

I take issue with Nihilism, if you couldn't tell but not on the logical arguments that it makes. It's quite difficult, if not impossible, to argue with nihilism based on arguments alone because, in the end, you can't prove anything from foundations. A foundation must lay upon some other foundation and I don't think it can be turtles all the way down. It's no way to live. Even if we cannot find some root to sprout from, we must grow our knowledge in some fashion, even if our seeds and soil are assumptions. However, let's not forget about the last people who attempted take fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. Everyone needs to take precautions against being banished from the great Garden and be willing to sacrifice that Tree, if the need arises.

Extreme 2: Watered Down - I am a professed Christian. I may not have expressed that here and the fact that I'm taking about drinking may detract from your belief in that statement but, nevertheless, I stand by claim. I attend a church regularly and, last Sunday, my pastor spoke to the children about how each and everyone of them was special. He pointed to their fingerprints for evidence of that. He told them that God loved them and sent them on their way. He did the exact same thing today but with bubbles instead of fingerprints. This is what originally got me thinking about this part of the blog post. That and my increasing frustration with my pastor's theology but that's another story for another time. It adds greatly to my point.

I take issue with everyone being special because, if everyone is special, then no one is really special. I don't want to sound like a bitter old man (believe it or not, I'm still quite young) but special used to mean something. According to my definition of special, one must stand out. A red rose among a dozen white, a cygnet among ducklings, or a pacifist among warmongers, these are special. Individuals, as they are alive and walk among us, are not special in and of themselves.

Moderation: Ideal elixir - You have an opportunity here to be great. Don't mess it up. If you do, sure, there will be more opportunities to redeem yourself and leave an impression on those who go before you. That's ultimately what you want to do though, isn't it? If you believe there is nothing you can do to be special, you will do nothing to be special. If you believe there is nothing you can do to escape being special, you will do nothing to be special. The key here lies in a sermon that my pastor preached that I actually do agree with. That one is that you need to take action.

If you are to be remembered for generations to come, if you have any hope of immortality beyond the mortal coil you shuffle off, you must make efforts towards maximizing the measure your life has on the remainder of reality. Here in lies my final assumption in this series and my final these:

The best way to maximize the effect your life has on the remainder of the universe is to align your actions with reality.

I could go on a tangent about how Christianity is the way to go with this. I could tell you about how I believe that the will of God is the true reality but, if you really want my theological stance, write me a message in the comments and I'll shove religion down your throat as much as you'll let me. That's not my point here. My point is that you have to find something to believe and align yourself to the best of your abilities with it. If it's a divine father figure, then obey your parent as best as you can. If you believe that the ultimate reality is uncover all of the knowledge in the universe, then pursue it wholeheartedly.

In sum, don't drink. If you do, do it in moderation. Then again, as Petronius supposedly once said, "Everything in moderation, including moderation." With a name like Petronius, who can argue with him?

Speak Softly, Teddy

It's been well over a month since my last post. I hope you didn't miss me too much.

Have you thought much about this last assumption that I stated? In case you forgot:

The measure of the life of a man is equivalent to the power with which the components of his existence that he controls touches and effects the remainder of reality.

It's all about power. What does it mean to have power? What does it mean to wield power? Well, we may have been condition to believe a number of things. My guess is that the greater majority of people out there believe it to be primarily displayed through physical manifestations of power. Let's take a look at a few of these examples.

1. Individual Physical Might - Whether it's the ability to carry the largest stick or hit another entity the hardest, individual physical might is one of the most common manifestations of power. A number of our most distant relatives in the animal kingdom began out this way. Think of the ancient beasts of old: dinosaurs. Their dominion over the Earth wasn't challenged for quite some time. Their sheer size would certainly have been something to behold. At least, for those few moments before you began running in the other direction. They're gone. What's more is that the largest land carnivore in the world today is now the Polar Bear. Seriously? At least according to Wikipedia, it's true. Although I'm not going to formally state it, I think we could probably take a cue from nature, which has forced its largest predators to the outskirts of the world but that's neither here nor there.
   
2. Collective Physical Might - What's better than having the biggest stick? Having two large sticks and a friend to help you out. Not to be cliche but there is strength in numbers. Animals that live in collectives can be seen throughout nature. Beehives, wolf packs, schools of fish, flocks of geese, and so many other examples show how well things work when things work together. Nations and empires have been built upon the premise of collective physical might ruling with an iron fist over the masses. Countless millions have been conquered through these means. I would argue that this way of life will cause, at best, stagnation and, at worst, demise if it were not for another kind of power.
   
3. Knowledge - It's great to learn, cause knowledge is power! I love Saturday morning cartoons. Well, I used to. Now, they're way too involved. I remember when I could turn on the TV on Saturday morning, watch some Looney Tunes followed by Schoolhouse Rock and, hey, learning was fun! Conjunction Junction, what's your function? If you can't answer that question, you need to be schooled! How about this one: what's better than having two large sticks and a friend to help you out? In most circumstances, the answer would be having a gun. Even better, having two guns and a friend to help you out. Better technology leads to more efficient ways of killing things which, as we all know, leads to personal prosperity, right?

Whoa, what? Hold on a second here. Are we making a connection between power and the ability to make other things die? That seems a little backwards, don't you think? If we could find a way to optimize power as well as the other entities that witness our power, that would be the greatest power, wouldn't it? That's a nugget that I would like to plant into your mind but this brings up another assumption that I want to get out there.

Man seeks, and should seek, to predict how to maximize the measure of his life.

That seems like somewhat of an obvious statement to me but it's something that I want to make sure is understood. I won't go as far as to say that it is a "good" thing to seek to maximize the measure of one's life since it would bring up a debate on good vs evil (we'll save that for another time) but, as far as life pursuits are concerned, I feel that it's one that should rank above others. Call it foolish idealism or what you like but there's a certain purpose, a certain drive, that maximizing one's life gives to a man that, I would argue, is the best because if life is something to cherish deeply, then immortality is invaluable. I won't beat that point too much but let me tie it back into my previous points.

If we want to maximize the measure of our lives, we need to maximize the power with which the components that we control effect the remainder of existence. Destruction certainly will leave ripples but will it create the largest waves?

Think on it. With luck, I'll be back to discuss within a short while instead of a long one this time.

Drops in the Ocean

I have a confession to make. The previous assumptions that I have blogged about are actually rewrites on entries I have in my journal for the year. I'm not quoting myself verbatim or even use the same stories but a lot of the concepts I've developed in my previous posts have been written about before by me... until now. I'm starting in uncharted territory here so, if I start going astray, I apologize. It's my first crack at these topics.

The following concept is not new. It was developed probably closer to just shy of 2000 years ago and, in Western Culture, particularly Texan culture, it would be a little difficult to escape Biblical passages. The one on my mind tonight is James 4:14.

Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.

Not exactly an uplifting verse and I won't speak to the theological implications of it but what I will say is this.  I agree with James when he says that we are mists. We are only around for a short stretch of time before we are gone, wiped off the face of the world to be heard from no more. We are a drop in the bucket. To paint a more accurate picture, we are a drop in an eternal ocean.

Depressed yet? You shouldn't be.

In chaos theory, there's a concept known as the Butterfly Effect. This may invoke images of a terrible movie with Ashton Kutcher in it but, let me assure you, the two are unrelated, as far as I can tell. In chaos theory, the Butterfly Effect refers to an idea that the flap of the wing of a butterfly can cause a small change in the atmosphere which, potentially, could hinder or give birth to a tornado somewhere in the world. Now, quite obviously, there are other factors involved in making or breaking that tornado but it may be the case that this small creature doing this minor action is the key component to such a drastic event in the history of the world.

In a similar way, the actions a man takes create ripples in the eternal ocean. These ripples can join together to make waves. These waves can join together to make greater waves and so on. In the same way, mighty waves, in isolation, will disperse as there energy is lost and become nothing. This eternal ocean is a great equalizer. It can make the mighty fall and uplift the weak. It raises empires and then desolates them. And where the waves will culminate next? It would be nearly impossible to tell unless you had a grasp on all of the energy in the system. However, that's another topic for another time.

What am I getting at? This is what I'm getting at, my next assumption:


The measure of the life of a man is equivalent to the power with which the components of his existence that he controls touches and effects the remainder of reality.

That's a bold statement. And I'm not just referring to the font-weight property of the text. (CSS guys, you with me? No? Ok, moving on.) That statement is so bold that I'm going to have to stop this post and let that sink in.

I would encourage you, dear reader, to think on this statement and probe it as much as you can. If this were true, what would it mean? How would you live if you felt this were true? Or how do you live if you already believe it to be true? What does it mean to have an effect upon eternity, to be able to stretch beyond the life of a man to effect the remainder of reality? How do Western concepts of good and evil play into this?

If you have anything to say, please share it in the comments section. I built up the crux of my thought / theory in the last post and now I have given you the key to my understanding of life as I know it so I cannot stress enough how important this is to take seriously.

Next time, I will expound upon this idea and, hopefully, get into my next assumption. I only have a handful of them left and they may be used up within the next one or two blog posts so stay tuned. So, until next time!

Self-Determination

This is somewhat of an important post. It's the crux of the practical portion of my argument so I hope I don't screw it up. I apologize for it taking so long but I want to make sure that my thoughts were all here. It all begins with a question.

When you think of what defines a man, what do you think of?


From a historical perspective, it's the actions a man takes and the consequences these actions have therein. From a spiritual/metaphysical perspective, it's the passions he has and the thoughts that drive him to achieve a more definitive state of being. From a biological perspective, it's flesh, bones, tissues and memories imprinted upon others. All of these things and more can describe what a man is.

Yet, I would like to take this a step further and, with my next assumption, claim a relation between the definition of a man from all of these perspectives to the constitution of reality.

Events in a man's life, thoughts that he has, actions he takes can all be considered as some of the components of reality.

Within out definition of existence, we can take not to the fact that other entities can and do observe these components of a man's existence. As a refresher, our definition of existence is relative between an entity (the existor) that perceives the existence of an entity (existee). I would go as far as to say that these components of a man can, and do, trigger additional components within reality as a whole. This is observable but, as I must state, assumed. It is one thing to claim that components interact on their own and are observed / perceived by other components and a whole other matter to say that, through these interactions, effect the components to which they exist. I feel this is, however, a necessary but minor assumption.

Moreover, these components can go beyond the finitude of a man's biological existence. This, I feel, is not so much of an assumption but a logical conclusion to a chain reaction of existence upon existors but, again, I must say, in good faith, it is an assumption I use.

On a related note, fairly recently, I watched a lecture on TED talks about quantum mechanics entitled Making sense of a visible quantum object and it made an interesting point that I wanted to share.

You hear a lot of talk about how quantum mechanics says that everything is all interconnected. Well, that's not quite right; it's more than that, it's deeper. It's that those connections, your connections to all the things around you, literally define who you are.

I realize that I may be bending O'Connell's words at this point but I do see a parallel between his words and my philosophy. Seemingly, an entity (existor) that perceives an existing entity (existee) and therefore has defines the existence of the existee in such a way. If you begin to remove the existors from the picture, the existee becomes a little more ambiguous, a little less well-defined. Add existors to the picture and the existee becomes bounded to the existor's definition.

I know, I'm reading into this a little much but it brings me to my next important assumption.

Regardless of free will or lack thereof, man can control these components within some capacity of his abilities.

A man is made of stuff. We've established that. This stuff includes events in his life, actions he takes, and thoughts he has. It's not too difficult to make the leap to him being able to control the components within some capacity of his abilities. Some of the objections that may be raised, in my experience, have been: What about free will? If he doesn't have free will, how is he really in control, in any capacity, of these components that make up his being? To that I say, doesn't matter.

This is somewhat of a brash statement. I mean, we encounter this idea of "free will" in philosophy and theology all the time. However, from a practical perspective, whether we truly choose what we do or if we are controller by a set of determinable components, we still interact with the reality in which we exist. Whether the components that we see ourselves as controlling are controlled by some movement of a mysteriously unknowable force called free will or by a knowable albeit complex sequence called logic, the components in our reality that make us up effect the remainder of reality.

And so it is. A man is bounded by the definition given to him by the existors. A definition which he can help mold with his actions and thoughts to some capacity of his abilities. This is a measure for him. Let me leave you with that hint about my next post, which, hopefully, will come soon.

Temporary lapse

This is a bit of a tangent from the serious posts I've indulged in lately. I've tried to not get too personal but I'm afraid I'll have to break that trend in this post. I want to throw this out there before it's too late, before I lose these thoughts. Ignore this posts emotional content, if it begins to show.

I was the best man in a bachelor party last weekend for my best friend. He's a guy I've known since seventh grade and I really couldn't ask for a better friend. It happened a long way from home and I was pretty much disconnected from my life, as it is, from Wednesday night to Monday evening. This pretty much sets the stage. 4ish days filled with time spent solely preparing my best friend to, well, take another person as his best friend (that last bit isn't completely fair, I got married almost a year ago so I got my new best friend first). Every experience is a learning experience and I learned a number of things.

1. I hate how I've become so cut-off from my friends and, yet, I do nothing about it. That's not anything really new. I've known that for quite some time but this past weekend really brought to light how much I don't know about my friends when that distance begins to form. I become sad for the wasted time. I become jealous of the new relationships that form to take my place. I become estranged from this person that I've known for so long.
   
   It's so strange going back to people you've known but fallen out of touch with. It's like watching a movie that has the exact same cast as a movie I've seen before but the entire plot has changed and the characters, though similar because of the directors choice in typecasting the roles, have changed but only to fit with the plot itself. It doesn't feel right. It feels like I relive the same moments but, since I myself have changed so much since I saw the last film, I know that I can't relate in the same way as I did to those characters the first time around.
2. I take life way too seriously sometimes. After getting home and talking with my wife about this, I've come to the conclusion that I think way too much and I really need to start doing instead of thinking. I won't be the next Socrates or Kierkegaard or MLK but, while it's noble to die for a cause you believe in, I really don't need to be that guy who dies for it. I'm not saying that it's good to be completely lax in one's morals but, at the same time, if you don't have any fun, if you get no pleasure out of life, then, how have you lived? In all seriousness, how have I lived? I'll have to think about that question a little more.
3. I need to live more without preconceived judgments. There are times that I remember people for being saints and they're very much sinners. There are time that I remember people for the wrong they've caused me and they're actually very nice people. There are times that I remember people being really annoying and, after all these years, they've changed.
4. I am very self-destructive person. I internalize my anger and turn it into something that would destroy me before it hurt anyone else. While it's better than lashing out, it leads to inappropriate responses on my part.
    
5. I am fat and a lot less charming than I once was. I really need to do something about that. Also, I've been a big jerk to a number of people that I need to apologize for.
    
6. I am getting older. I'm not saying that I'm about to die. Hopefully, I still have some years ahead of me but I am getting older. Just seeing the wedding makes me think about how far things have come and what left there still is to do, what's still even possible. Things kinds of events put life into perspective.

Some great stuff did happen, don't get me wrong. These lessons aren't negative. At least, I don't view them as such. They're motivation to be a better person, which is something that I strive for.

At any rate, I began writing my next blog topic so that should be out within the next few days. I hope you like what comes of it.

PS. I now have a love/hate relationship with the phrase "Everyday, I'm shufflin'!"

Clockwork

I was unable to post last weekend because I was on a retreat and the weekend before that because I was sick but I'm sure all of my readers out there will understand. It was, however, a fortunate thing that I didn't write immediately because I was listening to Radio Lab a few days ago on KERA (Yes, I'm name dropping for the cause of public radio) and they had a program on about stochasticity, which my text editor is claiming to be a word that does not exist in the English language but, let me assure you, stochasticity is a word which means, essentially, randomness. Within the program, they began talking about what makes up our bodies, breaking it down to the microscopic level of genes that make protein and what scientists expected to find, but didn't (much to their chagrin), was that the genes would output protein in a relatively stable manner.

Even though this can be seen as destroying their original hypothesis, it brings up a good point. We, as humans, tend to put things in nice little packages. There are electrons, neutrons and protons, which are a part of atoms, which are a part molecules, which are a part of proteins, which are a part of humans, which are a part of civilizations, which are a part of the universe. It all scales up and down, seamlessly... well, almost. Asking the question "What makes up a human?" and expecting a full answer is a little far-fetched in our day and age. Similarly, asking "What makes up an atom?" won't probably get you the full answer you expect when you take into account the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This leads me to my next assumption:

Reality is constructed of arbitrarily definable but, possibly, not completely indivisible components that interact with each other.

That's a mouthful.

Regardless, what I mean is this. Reality, as a whole, is constructed of components that make up larger entities and, even though at times we may not be able to see all the gears that make up this clockwork, we can definitely count on the fact that there are parts to it that will make it tick. Some parts we would label to be distinct from others. We may say that gear itself is a unique part of the framework but, in the end, it is arbitrarily chosen through our conscious belief in similarity and, probably more important, dissimilarity. Half of the gear is not seen as it's own component. No, the entire gear is seen as the component. The gear and a shaft are not seen as one component. No, these two are easily taken apart, one replaced without the other if the need arises and it is not seen as replacing part of a whole. Even it was, that would be arbitrarily defined. So, you see, in this way, I see our reality as being constructed by arbitrarily defined, but, potentially, not completely indivisible parts.

Furthermore, I would venture to say, as we have looked at in a previous post, the mere existence of an entity (existor) to another entity (existee) can have an effect upon the existee and, therefore, any form that the existor takes with its existence, sometimes denoted as an action or state, may have an effect upon the existee. We commonly perceive this in the temporal realm of existence to denote change and, through the assumption I have stated, this is implied to be possible. The existor interacts with the existee and, potentially, vice-versa. To go back to the clockwork example, the gears themselves will turn, making other gears turn within the clock, making not only the existee (the primary mover) change but also the existor (the reactor to the primary mover) change as well.

Finally, I want to make sure that I go back to my original paragraph in this post, in case you are starting to think that I consider the universe to be clockwork. That's not what I'm saying at all and I would rather not box myself into that assumption given the results of that scientific study. In a later post, we will actually see that the question of free will has little relevance in the grand scheme of things but that's for another time.

Until then, I wish you the best in your philosophical inquiries and please post any comments or questions you may have about what's in here. I would love any feedback.