On Blogging

In the beginning of this semester I dedicated this blog “to the contents of my mind in relation and pursuit of truth.” I think I accomplished that goal. Through various topics I think I have represented my libertarian and moralistic viewpoints. While this project may not have opened my eyes to as much hidden and underlying opinions as I would have hoped, it did affirm many of the beliefs I do hold. Perhaps it was too lofty an ambition to hope that I would locate all sorts of unfounded beliefs. More likely, however, is that such an ambition was assuming the worst: I have a large amount of unfounded beliefs. Nonetheless, I was forced to rethink my justifications for monogamy (because “it’s what works” does not cut it), and I did discover new reasons for my interest in mixed martial arts (namely, my father).

In the end, I think the most helpful aspect to this project was the constant necessity to write. In order to best manage my time and complete the requirements of this blog assignment, I was constantly thinking of topics. Utilizing my downtime between and even in classes, I wrote, sketched, and drafted many blog entries. It was a fun, challenging, frustrating, and even, somewhat liberating. In many weeks of this semester, I felt mentally, physically, and emotionally overwhelmed with school, work, and life in general. Writing down my thoughts, even if not on the specific topics of stress, was therapeutic. While I most likely won’t continue blogging (I don’t exactly have or desire a virtual constituency) I will consider routinely free-writing.

On My Years at the University of Arizona

I figure the end of my senior year and the end of my blog assignment is as good a time as any to wrap up how I feel about the University of Arizona (unless of course I ever get into the U. of A. law program).

I have spent four year here. The fact that it feels like it flew by probably reflects positively my time. When I arrived here four years ago, I was a knee deep into a long distance relationship with my 19 year old “high school sweet heart,” discontent with my loss of religion and moral misguidance, happy about escaping the grips of California, sitting on the fence between nihilism and stoicism, and feeling overall useless. Since then I have resolved the issue of the high school sweet heart (in hindsight this is my favorite way to word that break up), found moral guidance my major (philosophy), distanced myself even further from California, and overcome any problematic stoic or nihilistic impulses. Unfortunately, I feel like I have, in one way or another, remained useless.

My time here has taught me how to do the work necessary to pass my classes while maintaining a job and taking care of myself. Congratulations to me: I’m not entirely dependent. However, I remember little of any content I was ever tested on, spent most of my time working at a market making burritos, and made friends through random chance encounters. In other words, I have not been in control of my college career.

In sum, my years at the U of A have felt rushed and unimportant. I’ll receive my diploma. Hopefully I’ll be pleasantly surprised on its usefulness, which will reflect on mine.

On the National Day of Prayer

“A federal judge in Wisconsin declared Thursday that the US law authorizing a National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional” (Warren Richey The Christian Science Moniter). (Weblink: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0415/Federal-judge-National-Day-of-Prayer-is-unconstitutional)

A friend of mine (perhaps it is relevant to point out that he is religious, Christian to be specific) was substantially upset by this outcome. He argued that the establishment clause of the first amendment of the Constitution was written to protect religions from government infringement and not, as he put it, to remove religion from American life. He went on to say that if the government where to ignore religion, as in not having such things as a National Day of Prayer, they would be “alienating” themselves from a majority of the population.

I don't think anyone is arguing that the government should remove religion from american life--that would be very much against the Constitution. However, the government setting aside a day for prayer is a problem, because, as the judge stated, it serves no secular purpose. Which means: it should have never been created in 1952. She also stated that there is no problem with the government's recognition of its religious citizens, however, a National Prayer Day is a deliberate move by the government "to encourage all citizens to engage in prayer..." People can pray whenever they please; creating a National Day of prayer is not only intrusive to non-theists, but to theists who shouldn't have any form of pressure from their government regarding when and where to practice their belief. If a majority of theists freely decide on a single day to "pray together," then so be it--it just doesn't belong as a national holiday. Come to think of it… I am not sure what does.

On M.m.a. #4

My Father

This last entry on m.m.a. comes from some degree of psychoanalysis—due to my distrust in everything and anything Fruedian, I’m not convinced of its truth. Nonetheless, in hindsight, m.m.a. seems to be an important aspect in my life with roots that go back to my father (biological). As a child, for better or worse, I was terrified of him to the point of silence and hesitation in his presence (even without his presence with the idea that he was somehow observing). As I grew up, this molded into a tendency to submit to authority, of any kind. I justifiably grew to hate this attribute of myself. Consistent with the idea that this characteristic reflected my father, I could not help but think that the tendency was based on physical intimidation. Learning how to fight, beyond petty altercations with peers, was in many ways therapeutic. It was a call to be a better, more independent and confident person—to speak and act as my mind sees fit and bear the consequences of any individual who disagrees with force, namely my father. It was perhaps no surprise then that the first time I ever stood up to my father verbally was over whether or not I would continue boxing. In a completely rational society, the use of physical force would be unnecessary. Unfortunately, we do not live in such a society. Knowing that I don’t have to limit my actions to conform to the irrationality of others is, for me, the best aspect to m.m.a.

On M.m.a. #3

The Experience

Fighting for sport, in many ways, flirts with the feelings associated with an actual fight: survival. Like any other experience, these feelings need to be felt in order to be fully understood. Most commonly there is a rush of adrenaline, which can be a blessing or a curse. Sometimes it can make you feel energized, focused, and less prone to injury. It is important to keep in mind, however, that this is only a feeling, and that such a state of mind can lead one to make poor choices (such as wild looping punches or wasted energy). At other times it can be overwhelming to the point of immobility. In other words, the sensation to act, if unguided, can leave one hesitant and uncomfortably anxious. The biggest curse is the inevitable consequence of operating under this heightened state of being: exhaustion. It is normal and if there is any sense to the word, probably natural, to be uncomfortable in the state of being. Nonetheless, there are few experiences in life that remind you of every sense in your body. In essence, you are alive, aware of it, and fighting for remain as such.

Conquering the Experience

Fighting for sport requires that one embrace that said experience—to confront that zone of discomfort and to aim to master it. Being able to control myself in a fight atmosphere has given me confidence and the peace of mind to confront many obstacles in life.

Winning:

Putting your body and mind to something and accomplishing is a rewarding experience in itself. Doing so in a setting where your wellbeing was just at stake against an equally competent opponent is literally amazing.

On M.m.a #2

Two entries ago, I began talking about why I enjoy mixed martial arts (more commonly and unfortunately known as “cage fighting”). The first two reasons dealt with nostalgia and self-defense, but these alone hardly justify a hobby that involves being punched in the stomach, kicked in the head, and choked unconscious. I will attempt to complete the list.

Competition:

I am, in general, a competitive person. Usually, this quality emerges during useless challenges, such as racquet ball, trivia, arm wrestling, running, monopoly, basketball, connect four, etc (it’s a shame such competitiveness is lacking in regards to actual challenges such as eating well, bettering myself, or life in general). And then, there is fighting, a unique form. Fighting is what other competitions are compared to in order to symbolize drama, importance, and high stakes. With actual fighting, there is no need to use metaphor. Each fight risks serious physical and psychological injury (although, if officiated correctly, far less than many sports).

Fight enough times and eventually you will lose. This principle is tried and true (just ask Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson). In training, the aim is to tilt the probability that the next fight will end in victory. Fights may be won entirely on physicality, but in order to have any lasting success one has to rely equally, if not more so, on one’s mind (simply compare the careers of the three hundred and fifty pound muscles mass, Bob Sapp, 11-6-1, with the overweight couch potato, Fedor Emelianenko, 31-1-0). Fighting is chess with one’s body instead of the board or pieces: matching the strength, conditioning, skill set, etc. You have to know when to attack with full force so as to not cost oneself the victory, reserve your energy so as to not become defenselessly exhausted, know the counter to the moves of your opponent so as to not take damage, know the counters of your own moves so as to not be countered, remember to breathe, et cetera.

On Work

(On M.M.A. Vol. II to be continued later)

I spent over thirty hours at work in the last three days. I cannot help but have this blog reflect that fact; not only is it on my conscious mind, but it haunts my dreams. Hell, it “gets my dreams for free” (“Waking Life”).

Work has always been important to me. Combined with work are the principles and ideas associated with money, self-sufficiency, independence, and in many ways, pride. Even as a kid, I have always been concerned with money. Unless I’m paying my own bill, I will always get the cheapest thing on the menu. I think this is largely due to the fact that I have worked since I was a child. I would accompany my dad to construction sites as a “labor.” I learned early on that the phrase “time is money” should be said “money is time.” If someone buys me a twenty dollar gift, they are not only giving me that gift but time and effort of themselves. To put in that time and effort is what it means to give a gift, appreciate help, and earn a living.

Similar to how people can detect one’s values based on that person’s friends, one can also detect one’s values based on their job. Currently, I work at Highland Market as a student manager—a student employee with the responsibilities of a manager without its pay or benefits. I love my job for the fact that it has put me through school, puts food in my mouth, and puts a roof over my head. But I cannot help but think I have wasted hours and hours of time on something completely unproductive to my long term goals. I can’t help but think it’s cost me some of those goals. I am graduating without anything to show for it but a piece of paper, debt, and a job at a market.

On M.M.A. #1

When I tell people who know that my hobby is boxing, jiujitsu, and mixed martial arts for the first time, they tend to think that I am joking. When I tell people that don’t know me that same thing, they tend to think that a, for the lack of a better word, “bro.” I can see, at least at first glance, how it does not match my personality. Even now, I have little in common with those I train with… conversations that I have about fighting with others who are interested in the sport are generally shallow and redundant… Nonetheless, I love it. And like with any other desire, I have attempted to understand why.

Nostalgia:

Power Rangers. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Surf Ninjas. 3 Ninjas. Bruce Lee Movies. John Wayne movies. The list goes on. Whether it was my karate obsessed uncle or my peers who shared the interest, fighting has always seemed “cool.”

Self-Defense:

From kindergarten to seventh grade, I was always getting in fights. In my private school (St. Phillips), my light complexion and disinterest in baseball was the vast minority. In public school (Washington Elementary), I thought I had enough “street cred” to talk down to people. In actuality, I had zero ability, and was generally acting in a way lashing out against my low confidence level. Thanks to my older sisters, I had developed a high tolerance for pain, and thanks to my scrawny physique, I was either constantly forced to, or otherwise felt the need to, prove myself…

To be continued...

On Music: Lyrics

It has come to my attention that I began this blog with the intent to cover concrete and artistic aspects of life, and I have, for the most part, ignored any artistic aspects. I will attempt to right that wrong in this post:

For me, as for most people, music can play many roles in my life: it can be an emotional release, a puzzle, an escape, etc. Sometimes music brings up nostalgia or offers inspiration for the future, but every now and then, for me, a song can have a much stronger impact on the moment. More specifically, the lyrics of a song can offer a new perspective on my life and/or express real emotions that I could not find the words to articulate. Radiohead’s “Pyramid Song” contains such lyrics:

I jumped in the river and what did I see?/Black-eyed angels swam with me/a moon full of stars and astral cards/and all the figures I used to see/All my lovers were there with me/All my past and futures/And we all went to heaven in a little row boat/There was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt/I jumped into the river/Black-eyed angels swam with me/a moon full of stars and astral cars/and all the figures I used to see/All my lovers were there with me/All my past and futures/And we all went to heaven in a little row boat/There was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt. There was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt/There was nothing to fear and nothing to doubt.

Initially the song reminded me of Homer’s Odysseus:

“But he’ll make you fight, for he takes the forms of all beasts wind and water, and blinding fire, but you must hold on even so…”

But the song itself stands alone. The words describe one’s own life taken as a whole, an entire lifetime in one experience. The image is powerful and at times, overwhelming. No matter how many times I hear this song, I always feel a unique combination of happiness and sadness.

On Monogamy

This past week, I got in a discussion with my best friend regarding the feasibility of polygamous and/or open romantic relationships. The conversation further cemented my previous views on the subject: there seems to be no other reason to have a hard and fast rule of monogamy other than safeguarding one’s self-esteem. That being said, I do not think that I would be capable of an “open” relationship. But as I think my friend rightly pointed out, relationships should be built upon strengths rather than catering to weaknesses. It is for this reason that I would prefer any person I was in a relationship with to be honest and upfront with any desires to see other people. I just do not think I would have the confidence to not be hurt and/or react rationally.

It seems to me that two-person relationships are hard enough to manage and keep alive without any other variables. People are growing and changing shapes of beliefs, values, and characteristics. Linking two such dynamic shapes together for any period of time seems challenging enough (especially when it is so challenging to know one’s own “shape,” let alone discover/learn another’s). Adding in other variables, which involve other such shapes, over-complicates an already complicated task. I believe such relationships have and can work; it just seems to me to have derived from sheer luck more than anything else (perhaps the same can be said of all successful relationships).

Then again, it is possible that seeking a relationship(s) founded upon such principles of freedom, honesty, and overall openness is a worthwhile goal. The msn article, “I have two husbands,” describes one of the most seemingly happy marriages I’ve seen: http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/29239960/

Interesting Thoughts (based on my biased vantage point)

There are some days where I can’t bring myself to focus on the content of some of my classes (I’m looking at you Spanish 202). On such days, I will often write out random thoughts in my notebook, which for the most part, are utterly meaningless. Every now and then, however, I write something that I find to be worth being rethought or revisited. Here are a few such passages from this week:

“So much so, that many people have used these observations to justify the belief in the existence of numbers, evolution, and God (among other things). That is, almost everything fits... Qualia sticks out like a sore, unexplainable, parakeet. Qualia as qualia doesn't fit into such theories as well as we'd hope. This observation has proved troublesome for scientists and believers in theories that can't explain them (behaviorism, physicalism, etc.), and have fueled many movements that challenge or disagree with such doctrines (many religions and spiritual movements for examples). In light of Russell's theory of logical atomism, it seems as though it is because "what there is" is qualia; everything else, on the other hand, we make up. Why does it all fit so logically together? Because our minds run, when we use them, logically.”

I believe that in order to want, desire, wish, hope, care, or love anything or anyone one must believe in Realism. To believe in that is to believe that where objectivity can be, it is and without contradiction. The priority of usefulness, even if false, is inescapable. To those that deny this, please PLEASE get out of the way.

As children, we are ingrained with a lot, A LOT, of very bad ideas. Youth is determining which ones are good and which ones bad.

Moral Actions Based on Selfish Grounds

My last post read:

“…[T]he pursuit of happiness also guides our actions of what not to do: do not kill, do not cheat, do not lie, etc. All of these actions can be defended on selfish grounds. I hope to cover how.”

There are beliefs and arguments that such actions as killing, stealing, and lying are only restricted based on “moral” principles that somehow overcome the self; that is, such actions are selfish and benefit the individual. Since I have previously argued and currently maintain that all actions are essentially selfish, I will not argue the first point. The claim that “such actions benefit the individual,” however, is a claim that depends upon factors outside of an individual’s mindset or motivations. This can be seen in any scenario where someone is convinced that some mean will attain some end that is entirely unrelated. What are the benefits of such actions? To name a few: ridding the world of someone you’d prefer not to exist, attaining goods without the nuisance of earning them, and convincing a relevant someone that reality is a different than its actuality.

The cons?

The cons largely depend upon what society you commit these actions within (since such actions are generally heavily frowned upon). Taken in the extreme, perhaps for some ideal, situation that there would be no social consequence, these actions still have negative consequences for the individual. These include: constantly attempting to maintain one’s lies, not attaining the comfort and happiness attributed to earning things desired, and living within a society where murder, theft, and deceit are permissible/ easily achievable. This does not end the debate, but I think the idea that morality can be structured for the sake of the individual is often overlooked.

The Pursuit of Happiness

In my last post, I touched upon the broad role morality should have on life: a benefit to those involved. Some might chastise this as “selfish” (although, I’m not sold on the moral weight of such an “accusation”), but I think the same can be said for human behavior in general and moralities commonly viewed as “altruistic.” I don’t believe true altruism exists; that is, the ability or position of one person to act solely for another or others in sacrifice of his or her own desires. Moreover, many “altruistic” moralities are sold on the principle that they offer the biggest benefits for those subscribed: everlasting life. How the desire to have everlasting life is often seen as altruistic is beyond me. I think we would be better off just removing “selfish” from our list of necessarily negative adjectives (certainly irrational and unsuccessful selfishness can be a negative, such as theft). What does the fact that people are universally driven for their own gain derive from? Evolution answers this one way (self-preservation) and religion another (the devil?). But to put it simply: pain hurts, pleasure feels good, and happiness makes us happy. “The pursuit of happiness” then is the standard that frees us to pursue this universal end. It is important to distinguish what this does, and doesn’t say. It does say that people are free to pursue their happiness. It doesn’t say that we have a right to happiness. Not only would such a standard be virtually impossible (what evidence do we have that happiness is the same or quantifiable from one person to the next), but it would be self-defeating: if happiness is a house with green grass and a white picket fence, then I have a right to it. But houses don’t fall from the sky. Someone must build it. If they do so because they must, because I have a right to it, then we have adopted slavery. Instead, the pursuit of happiness also guides our actions of what not to do: do not kill, do not cheat, do not lie, etc. All of these actions can be defended on selfish grounds. I hope to cover how.

Agnosticism Revisited

On February 28^th, I wrote on agnosticism. “GoodWorks” responded with some questions aimed at things that were either unclear or absent. I think that they deserve attention. Rather than answering the questions in light or in “defense” of my post, I will treat them as new questions, and therefore avoiding semantic arguments as much as possible. GoodWorks asked one question that I think, if answered, addresses the others:

“The problem lies in that you posit the moralistic concepts of "right" and "wrong" as isolated from any reference point. How do you assert a reference point for such transient concepts?”

Adhering to agnosticism isn’t giving up morality or more specifically, a reference point. While people of faith often attribute the cause of morality as God, agnosticism is the claim that there is not enough evidence to make or deny this assertion with certainty. The reference point then is life. Admittedly, I have not gone into much detail on what this entails specifically, but I think this can be defended broadly as well: from both religious and secular viewpoints (a possible appeal of agnosticism). The relationship between God and faith are not exactly pellucid: did God choose what is moral based on its merits or out of shear whim? Some have answered that what is moral is moral simply because God chose it. Others have noted that God is perfect and therefore would, out of all possible (maybe even impossible?) options, have chosen the best option. On one hand we have an arbitrary morality, and on the other we have a God shackled by determinism. If the answer is “arbitrary morality,” then we are in some serious trouble: how do we, simple mortals, understand a morality defined outside of the scope of our reason? Most will say that we must turn to the Bible (or other texts), but this is little consolation: how should we interpret it? Will our reason help in this regard? Why should it? Even if it does, there have been different interpretations on very important aspects of morality made by various intelligent people. The other option, if not objectively correct, is certainly more useful (what good is a morality we can’t hope to understand?). If God chose a morality based on its merits, then it is possible to learn and follow this morality based on the realization of its merits. It is then possible to have a morality, perhaps identical to one a person of faith would, or rather should, follow, without a clear understanding or faith in God. As those without God follow, or at least should, follow moralities based on the value it has to their own lives (such as social contracts: don’t kill, don’t steal, etc.), agnostics are free to do the same. The only difference being that agnostics claim that it is still possible, and consistent, to have all things derive from a higher power(s). The reference point is our own lives.

The Slippery Slope of Censorship

My last post was on the censorship of the human body. The issues there reflect a bigger issue: when is it justified to censor? Certainly the argument in favor of legalizing nudity isn’t that everyone looks good naked or that there are those that everyone will enjoy viewing. The idea is that one’s actions don’t have to conform to others wishes. But isn’t there a right not to be offended? Imagine the girth of such a legal code. Some people are offended by leisure, others by overworking. Some people are offended by the consumption of alcohol, others by the lack of consumption of alcohol. Some people are offended by sexual intercourse, others by children—so much for the continuation of the human race. The standards for censorship are not based on a coherent understanding of rights: there is no right to impede on the rights of others. If we allow censorship for such reasons as “majority rule,” then we justify further and further censorship on the same grounds (as is often the case with nudity and/or “decency”).

The argument for a lack of censorship is not an argument for overall tolerance. There is no coercion to accept or agree with others’ words, expressions, or actions. We have the right to disagree, to be angry, et cetera. We have the right to deny friendship, to socially ostracize, to make up our own minds on our own actions. That is the standard. Our freedom is limited only to the point at which it infringes on the liberty of others.

On nudity

It probably isn’t too strong of a statement to say that we all, for the most part, have some sort of combination of the same body parts. Certainly the support of this argument is inductive. It is not with extreme certainty that I make this claim. It mirrors the claim that we all have brains within our heads—regardless of opening each one up to check. It is with such support that I say all human beings generally have a penis, a vagina, or some mutation/combination thereof. And yet, many cultures, including our own, seek to censor certain areas of the body (despite the existence of mirrors and necks capable of moving the head down). It is bizarre that something that everyone shares is seen as off limits for society (consisting of genitalia-having individuals). Some common arguments include: think of the children (which someone implies censorship) and protection of females (whether it be for their physical or mental protection). One legitimate argument is a plea for sanitation. While I admit that allowing people to sit naked on public benches would probably result in negative consequences, this is nowhere near enough to say that the human body should be censored.

The most problematic factor to this censorship is inconsistency. First off, the standard of “decency” is relative to each society—ranging from extreme in Saudi Arabia to European Beaches. This is a case for freedom: there’s no objective reason to oppose nudity. The second issue is perhaps the most arbitrary and unjustified: laws against, and only against, topless women. What’s more: women can often acceptably show 90 percent of their breast, as long as the nipple is covered. Any change in skin pigment is, apparently, offensive.

On Agnosticism

Pascal aimed to show how, all things considered, people should believe in God based on the possible pros (eternal bliss) versus the possible cons (eternal suffering). But he begged the question, which God or gods? What about the other possible standards of God or the gods? What if God banishes everyone who believes in him to hell? Sure there is no proof that God would do this, but is there proof that he’d send anyone to hell? Is there proof in Hell? The tangible aspect to all these questions is how their answers will affect our lives on Earth. Will my belief in God limit me to marital sex? Will my uncertainty drive me insane? Will my lack in belief in God ruin me of morality? Morality seems to be the biggest issue at hand.

If two people lived the exact same objectively moral lives, one of them believed in God, one of them didn’t, would God send the disbeliever to hell? Obviously one’s own religious background might force there answer, but if the question of God is actually on the table, the answer seems to favor “no.”

People often try to use the theory of evolution to refute the idea of God, but it still seems possible that some being initiated the evolutionary process (I believe this is a form of Deism). The fact remains, that with or without God, we are here in the universe that is currently best explained (in terms of usefulness and explanatory power) via such theories as evolution. Whether the principles and laws that guide these theories are dependent or independent on God are, for us, irrelevant to our moral actions. Answering whether or not God does or does not exist is not required to answer the question of whether murder or theft is wrong. In other words, people can try and be the best people they can be regardless of their belief or lack of belief in God. Either way, decisions should be formulated based on this world, because this world is either all there is or (in any relevant sense) this world is reflective of its creator, God.

On God and religion #3

Whether or not it is true that a being (or beings) created life as we know it seems more than a frivolous question. Like any other ontological claim, we need to look at the evidence in favor of the existence of that being, a.k.a. God (for the sake of simplicity, let’s call all understandings of a higher power or powers God). Some will argue that all you need to do is open your eyes to see proof (proof everywhere), while others will argue that all you need to do is close them and look inward. To speak as safely as possible, I can only refer to my own experience. This is to keep in mind the possibility of those who believe they have or even have experienced a “miracle.” I was raised Catholic and for a large portion of my life believed in, prayed to, and more or less, worshipped God. The evidence for me was extrinsic and intrinsic. The complexities and logical order of the world seemed to necessitate His (Catholic God) existence, and moments by myself or in reflection seemed anything but alone. The feeling, perhaps, is evidence; this much I don’t care to challenge here. However, my explanation of that feeling was the result of my environment, my catholic upbringing. In a different upbringing my feeling might have been explained via another deity, deities, or perhaps, left unexplained. This is not frivolous seeing as how God is often invoked as a moral compass—indeed that was His role in my childhood. But the specifics of this role, what is or isn’t objectively moral, are far from casually linked to that feeling. What about that feeling would point me deductively to the Qur’an or the Torah or the New Testament? Should we deduce from this that God is a figment of our imaginations? That would seem to be reaching equally as far as inferring that God is Mormon, Male or Female.

On God and Religion #2

Free-write #2 (copied directly from my notes)

Disclaimer: the narrator is not supposed to represent my own views.

Eulogy 7

Allow me to be blunt: we’re all going to hell. No one denies this—no one whose words match their inner thoughts. It’s considered as much a maxim as self-consciousness and gravity—a constant, albeit much more harrowing, presence. And who’s to blame for this is no secret—hence our guilt. Whereas Jesus placed himself on the cross with knowing intent, we manage the same end while stumbling—no matter which direction we choose to fall, we fall. Some of the greatest amongst us have recognized such helpless foolishness for what it is, and promptly took their own lives. Is this what is to be done? Should we eradicate ourselves from this tragic comedy?

I am much more optimistic. I propose the opposite—at least at present. “Go forth and multiply.” Kind words to the damned—advice to the addicted, to those whose sin is combined, necessarily, with any and all action, to us (you, the reader, and me—Hello). Allow yourselves your carnal pleasure. I would say that it is your “duty,” but it is usually the case that such sinners don’t speak in such terms honestly (perhaps I am no exception, but it is no matter). Nonetheless, I will explain the benefits to others, the only “others” worth mentioning in conversations of moral possibility (there is no need to explain the benefits to you). As agreed upon, we, to put it in maximal clarity and eloquence, are fucked. Enjoy this time now, it will be a forgotten dream in the flames of where we might as well call home. And what better way to spend our time, then in the arms of those who share our fate—we are brethren of our own unique order—such “incestuousness” is not only fitting, but a beauty home only to the human condition—a soft note in an orchestra of screams. The goal then is to live as only we know how: for the moment (present and on Earth). To procreate. The question I’m sure you are asking now is: Why bring more to the inferno—more goats to the slaughter?

But, alas, the issue; the difference between us and them—the lost and the new, the innocent. Where our souls have been lost to the selfishness required for self-sustainability in this world, they are more equipped for the next—helpless, meek, and purely ignorant. The fall of man was not born from innocence, but from the defiance of God’s will, a will enumerated beyond our comprehension (the 6## of laws of the Torah, the subjectively vague laws of the New Testament). The longer you live, the greater the chance of breaking one (let’s be honest, most of those laws). The longer you live, the greater the chance (let’s be honest, the inevitable) of breaking God’s will. Your extended life leads to the breaking of God’s will. The death of a child is no such impeachment. The death of a child is a direct pass to heaven—a get out of jail free card—a passing grade without taking the test—“Suffer the children;” don’t let your jealousy stand in the way.

To kill a child is without a doubt in direct conflict with God’s law—“Though shall not kill.” But, have we not agreed—are we not already fated to the torments, rather justices, of damnation? Let me speak to the child in you, the wishful thinking that imagines a lack of consequences, that denies cause and effect; imagine that we are not sentenced to death, and that for each of us there is still hope for salvation. It is now that I will show you what it means to be Christian. Whether you are reading this in its original form, the note in the crib where I left it, or in the police station, in the local newspaper, or on the internet, it is no question that I have sealed my fate in hell—you see we agree: I am sick, and justice should bring me crippling pain for no other reason than to bring feelings of security to the innocent (unfortunately, you are no innocent). Here is the disagreement: where you see wasteful murder, I see the embodiment of human’s greatest capacity for good, sacrifice (of course the greatest human good would require bloodshed and vanity; we are not ideals, we are human—a moment in space and time, objectively different from the perceptions of all angles). I am not speaking of the sacrifice of #7’s life for my faith or beliefs, but of my soul for his. Why this note now? I must admit, I am partial to symbols and metaphors. Jesus’ number is 7 and as he came known as a man he left known as God. And ever since then (#years) we have been awed by his indirect image—years, decades, over a millennium apart. Imagine the awe in person. #7 did not know of Jesus in this life, but he knows Jesus now (admittedly, I will not hide my jealousness). Do not pity that whose very being is now greater than you or I. As Jesus, he came as a potential sinner and left a god (unlike Jesus, there were six gods behind him). When does “life” start? This is no matter. When does sin become essential/inescapable? When is accountability viable? Destroy before this moment and you, the flaw of Earth, will have done something right. (What do you have to lose? Your soul? My friend, whose consciousness is the cause of my grievances, we both know it is already lost.) Forgive this Polemic. Allow me to explain.

We are told to be like Jesus—the innocent Son of man whose relevancy relies on his murder for the souls of others. The principle: sacrifice for others. Indeed many do try to live for this principle. Unfortunately, there is a hole in this attempt at the Christ-like-action—as many famous skeptics excitedly exclaim (despite the fact that their argument successfully brings light to their own waiting flames). The motivation is no, at base, for others, but for the promises of the everlasting gems of heaven: sacrifice today and see the benefits in death. Selfishness, if not more selfish than self-preservation in life, for its unreasonableness, its hidden premises (from others and oneself), and the quality and quantity of the aim (EVERLASTING LIFE!). Whereas Jesus had nothing to gain in death (his soul secure), we did and human attempts to mirror this activity have thus far been inherently faulty and meager—inescapable selfishness (I will explain how I am no different and why, in my case, it is no matter). No one attempts to claim that good works (obviously combined with sin) in one’s life justifies heaven or even not hell. Why live under the unspoken falsity that it does? I have my theories (cowardice being a front-runner), but they aren’t incredibly relevant at the moment). What is relevant? The inescapable presence of self-interest for one’s soul. “But we are not Christ!” you exclaim. Correct, the obligation to be “Christ-like” does not mean to be Christ. But note what has thusly been ignored: the distinction also shows how Christ’s actions, since He is essentially different, should not be held at the highest standard, that is, the ceiling. Jesus did the greatest action within His context. The greatest action of our context demands more than life, our souls. Ask yourself who has earned their rights in heaven with certainty?

Your hesitation is telling. What could better epitomize the principle of being Christ-like, self-sacrifice, than giving up the possibility (however fleeting) of the greatest imaginable end (EVERLASTING LIFE!) for another? But how can we know the cost of our soul could save another’s?

Jesus came and opened the gates of heaven for those who did not know him—are our children not given the same expectation? Think of others; the cost of our own souls should not be a wall to thought and options. But isn’t it possible for the child to grow up without sin? Do not the laws of probability somewhat demand this? Perhaps, but it is clear now that we are speaking of anomalies. The reward is the same for the worthy, we should not risk the greatest end when we do not have to.

I, like you, am the scum of creation; a one-time beauty allowed to rot in the imperfections of the human mind: I should not hide an interior motive as if this were not the case. The hope: perhaps there is room in heaven for a spiritual martyr. Clearly I am not following the laws of man; even clearer, I am not following the laws ordained for this land by God: Though shall not kill? But why? Why not? The call demand comes as a threat to the offender: OR ELSE! But, as a Christian, what should I care for me? That is the noblest principal: care not for you. I face the OR ELSE knowingly. But let’s be honest; we both know we all face the flames regardless of infanticide. Yes; but now, they shall not. Why? Because of me, and I have no doubts that when I face my final sentence, it shall be multiplied for every fated soul I stole from Satan’s grasp. I shall face my sins and what would have been there’s; the devil thinks not of justice but of vindictive revenge. Perhaps this defiance shall be recognized with the greatest gift of heaven… perhaps not. Behold my ever-present vanity. But it is no matter, to heaven they shall go. “If God is not good by the same token as I will call my brethren good, then to hell I shall go” and go regardless.

Do you doubt my Christianity? Read the Scripture; you will find no contradictions. In the days of early Christianity, they were slandered to have committed ritual infanticide. If only they had, and a thousands souls be saved. “Christians” have thus for protested abortion and women who have had them. But it is not their faces that deserve spit, but your mothers’, and theirs, and mine. But expect it back with due justice—the price of ignorance is a growing debt we will never fully pay nor flames escape.

If I shall fail in persuasion and fall a criminal, let them not call me a lunatic. Let them call me a Christian, and finally, recognize what that means. The advocation of neither “pro-choice” nor “pro-life,” but staunchly and reverently PRO-ABORTIONIST, that is Christ-like, that is Christian.

-The Anabaptizer

On God and Religion #1

The next three posts will be on God and religion. The first two posts (including this one) are “stories” I wrote while “free-writing” in other classes (admittedly, I should have been paying attention to class). I believe that these stories reflect my views on both God and religion. The third post will be a more direct explanation of my views.

Free-write #1 (copied directly from my notes)

The Observer

I have lived my life for a quiet observer. In fact, the observer is completely silent, perhaps even mute. And yet even now in apparent reality, apparent silence, I cannot but escape the anxiety of waiting for a voice or sound, and no matter what volume it may come, it would, no doubt, have any other impact upon me if it were a shout or a scream. And while I cannot say that I have felt this observer, and by this I mean the observer’s presence or anything that it may cause, this alone may show evidence for the case that I may know nothing but the feeling. A proper description of this feeling (in its entirety) escapes me, but I may be capable of some loose success of communication.

It is as if my life is a stage, and my consciousness the performer, but the performance remains unclear, at least equivocal and at times blatantly deceiving. And accompanying me upon that stage are my, apparent, tools to perform: an automobile and the various settings or sets. This automobile may drive me through these sets (and by doing so, hopefully fulfilling my performance to its conclusion and to the approval of the observer) but which type of vehicle I maneuver is at times unclear. What is clear, or at least has been until my recent stage of adolescent transcendence, is that this performance doubles as a test, for my driver’s license. But what type am I going for? A? B, C, or D? What is this morality that, presumably, I should know how to not only drive sufficiently but exceptionally or at least, extraordinarily to the extent that I may boast/deserve an observer. Even now I fear a failure of my communication. I fear that my writing flow and form have now taken over the wheel from truth. But I do want truth, especially now in this time of my life, this seemingly objective form of mind: I want truth. So much so that I feel compelled to drive whichever and whatever way may best fit my settings rather than the observer.

And then I THINK. Why must these be any different? How can they? And yet my whole life I have thought that they must; even worse, I have felt that they must (still permitting and insisting the fact that I have always doubted the type of automobile at my disposal; disposal; even this word I question insofar as I have felt the disposer and the disposed); even now I struggle to acknowledge and overcome intuitions. “What are their bases?” Often the answers are parental settings or even the entire lineless stage with its congested traffic of vehicles pointing in different directions but so close that none may give way without taking it. And all including, up till now and even as my pen continues to write I have thought, “What would the observer have me do?” what rules do I follow in this task? Only recently have I even thought about what my own rules may be. Rules determined by my reason, however flawed it may be it still remains perfect in its one way path, its single road that makes all other’s unobservable. Objectively pointing to performance for the performer’s sake. And yet I cannot help but smirk and laugh as a cold uncomfortable chill seizes my frame; familiar guilt, as present as the lines just previous, in which my mind went blank and hesitated, the pistons clanking, after the word reason. Perhaps a “boo,” for I have heard how distracting an unpleased audience can be to a performer, so much so that the entire performance can be forgotten. When the audience shows that they are displeased the performer, having thought that he or she were on to something even brilliant and commendable, will rethink and doubt the performance that they were acting out in favor of their performance they have forgotten: the one that was objectively worth watching.

And so it seems that the observer makes me second-guess my path and direction until I turn the key and think again. For how else am I to fulfill this act and travel than by using what I have to set this vehicle in motion, because I cannot help but think that it is impossible for the correct performance to entail the sight of a brain-dead man who, keys in his left hand, holds his right thumb up to the audience as his own vehicle shines on display behind him. Perhaps this intuition is the one I should be fighting. The words “I don’t know my lines/(or)/my performance” would be ironic. Unless of course the audience would answer back as the observing director: “This is rehearsal, here are your stage directions…”

On “True” Love

“True love” is generally a topic I could go without, but since today is Valentine’s Day and “true love” is at its commercial peak, why not? The belief in there being one and only one person for each seems to be beyond naïve. This isn’t only for the way in which it is advertised (via unrealistic works of literature and media), or for the possibly unjustified view that the universe is structured in such a way so as to account for the love life of each person. Rather, “true love” goes against my understanding of what it means to be human. In what I’ve lived and witnessed in my life, people are not static, “characteristic” puzzle pieces that lock into one another permanently on all, if any, counts. I have been referred to as someone who “has his head on his shoulders,” who “knows who he is and what he wants,” and who “lives by a strict morality.” People, who say this of me, generally know me from my actions in some aspect during some period of time in my life. Most importantly, they don’t know my thoughts. I recognize that some of my characteristics are unfounded, built on insecurities or pure custom. Is there a “true love” for me? Doubtful.

Is there someone who is sufficient to my needs and vice versa? Probably. But, if there’s one person, why wouldn’t there be more? Are we that distinct? Are we all that unique to where being with anyone else wouldn’t work? And if a relationship does work, would the reasons it works last forever? In my personal life, I’ve seen more divorces and relationships that shouldn’t be together than I have lifelong relationships. Of the few that I have seen, they are almost entirely surviving off their comfort and lack of alternatives. I don’t mean to imply that great, long lasting relationships aren’t worth attaining, striving for, or possible. I only mean to say that the priority to find “true love” creates more problems than otherwise necessary. People engaged in relationships built upon a mutual, blind faith belief in “true love” run a higher risk of ignoring personal faults or the faults of their partner than those in relationships built upon the effort of both (or possibly many) sides. Those who believe in “true love” run the risk of “being in love with being in love” rather than their partner. The goal shouldn’t be eternity, but each step. Not everything beautiful must exist forever. Life, in fact, seems much more powerful with the acknowledgment of an end. Having the recognition that relationships can die before they actually do makes people fight to sustain it. This is opposed to waking up to the realization that you’ve committed your life to a corpse and that you know longer have the life to leave.

On the Objective

Based on my commitment to Quine’s “Web of Belief” epistemology, it might seem as though I might be committed to some sort of variation of objective truth—such as the view that truth is subjective or altogether unknowable. Some have even called it an anti-realism theory based on the fact that all beliefs require a posited theory as a foundation. The background theory, however, is still subject to everything external; I don’t think such “attacks” actually resemble the descriptions they imply. While I do believe that it is hypothetically possible for truth to be nonobjective and that it would thus be warranted to change my views on truth, I believe that experience, my own and all others I am aware of, have shown truth to be objective. Is Elvis still breathing? Did I get paid for working today? These questions have objective answers. Perhaps I don’t know the answers, perhaps no one does, but there still is an answer that represents the fact of the matter. As I have stated in previous posts, completely covering questions like this can and have filled books. I have read some answers to the contrary, and they are generally inflated, convoluted, and in the end, not incredibly moving (a strong proof would, most definitely, be moving). While I would rather have someone read the material for themselves than take my word for it, the belief in objective truth is not only intuitive, but incredibly useful. Useful doesn’t seem to do the belief justice, yet necessary would be too circular.

On Calculators

As previously stated, I believe that we are each our own centers of belief from birth. I also believe that which guides the formulation of our beliefs and actions to be an important archetype: we do what we believe is best (Socrates/Plato). The word “think” is crucial here, because it allows for error in result, in thought, and in direction. What is “best” is generally an infamously elusive fact. Nonetheless, we aim for it after a tedious intellectual struggle or whim. What we determine to be “best” is distinct from individual from individual (and often, from context to context for each particular individual). For one, the best option would be to go to University of Arizona rather than Pima. For another, the best option would be to completely cover their body in piercings and tattoos. Importantly, I am not advocating or positing moral relativism. I am merely recognizing the relatively safe conclusion that people create their own understanding of what is best. With this in mind, it may be understood that someone would act in what is commonly, if not practically universally, objectionable: a woman may steal, a man may rape, etc. etc. Such offenders may even recognize their actions as “immoral” or even, “evil,” but their words carry a different meaning: “your morality says this is wrong.” Nietzsche, for example, famously referred to himself as “evil,” immoral, and “the anti-christ.” A thief might think, or conclude via a lack of thought, that the instant gratification combined with the consequences is better than not having the gratification or the consequences.

The term “self-preseveration” is often attributed to encompass what I mean, but I think it is only a great example, rather than the word attached to my description. One’s own balancing of what is “best” is, by definition, selfish. This doesn’t mean that all actions are guided for the sake of what is commonly associated with the word “selfish.” For example, one may martyr themselves because they either believe it will get them into heaven or that they don’t wish to live in world alternative to their martyrdom. This does mean that people are inherently selfish.