To Be or Not to Be
Written:
11/16/05 11:55am
I suppose “conflicted” and “torn” aren’t really the words I need. It isn’t as much a decision between two equally rewarding options as it is a personal conflict. My moral core is positioned to put others before myself. To that side of me there is a belief that I need to practice forgiveness and acceptance. I need to learn to love unconditionally, without expectation of reciprocation.
But that side of me glorifies the martyr. That side of me is the side that feels all-encompassing guilt. That side of me is the dominant side. It yells at me all day long; “you are a terrible person”, “failure”, “pathetic”, “needy”, “undeserving”, “ungrateful”, “irresponsible”, “boring” and on and on. Yes, this side has value. It contains my moral fabric, my code of ethics. It keeps me from getting myself into trouble. It limits the pain I cause others and even the pain I could possibly cause myself. But has it become too overbearing? I'm I a victim of my own limitations. What’s the quote, “Argue for your limitations and they’re yours”?
My whole life I was taught to “behave”, to be considerate of others, to follow rules. The irony is that my parents were pretty much hippies. My father has followed very few rules in his lifetime. My mother isn’t exactly a traditionalist either. So how have “the rules” about right and wrong become so deeply ingrained?
Does the deviant in me deserve attention? Should the part of me that wants to be selfish be allowed to influence my actions? What happens when I make easily avoidable mistakes?
I behave the way I do because, for the most part, I truly believe that is the correct way to behave. But is it? I'm told I'm too judgmental, too critical. I never put myself first. Humility is a strong value. But have I taken it too far? Has my mind taken the notion of never thinking of yourself as “better than” and twisted it into always thinking of myself as “less than”?
Is it really necessary for me to swing to the opposite end of the spectrum? I'm too old to rebel. I don’t really have much desire to be a criminal or a psychopath. Or do I? It is true that I secretly admire such people. I don’t have much respect for them. But I do admire their complete lack of a sense of obligation. The moral part of me calls it a lack of self-control. But I understand that isn’t the whole story. These people don’t really lack self-control (well some do but they’re OCD). These people do control themselves, but their sense of responsibility and accountability is different than mine. Does that make them freer? Does it make them more virtuous? Does it make them happier?
Timothy Leary says, “think for yourself; question authority”. I have never been able to truly do this. Yes, there are the things I feel strongly about – racism, murder, theft. But I have trouble with drawing lines in the gray area. I am such a black and white person that the gray leaves me feeling uneasy. Thinking less of someone for being different from you is essentially racism. But is it wrong to think less of people who benefit off the labor of others?
There really is no such thing as wrong and right. I understand that concept, but my intellect cannot comprehend it. If more people could understand it life as we know it would be turned upside down. Therefore is it true? We all create these rules, these guidelines we follow in order to have a foundation from which to base judgment and behavior and action on. If we were to truly abandon these foundations what would we be left with? And what is it in man that needs to create it in the first place? Is Leary saying that our instinctual need to create balance incorrect? No. He is saying that reality, as we know it, has been created for us – that politicians and clergy and royalty determined the laws of right and wrong. He is suggesting we discover it within ourselves.
But how? By even considering breaking down that foundation my mind becomes fuzzy and unclear. Is a resolution created from a place of unclear thinking really to be considered valid?
Then there would be those who say what is reality? What is “clear thinking”? How do you know what you are experiencing is either of those things? How do you know you haven’t already created an alternate reality in your head? And if they are to be listened to how do we get to the place of purity? How does one unlearn everything they know? Is it possible to start fresh? Are drugs able to aid in that? Or do they mar it even further?
My first acid trip was touched by a soul who was tortured by the thought that he was tainting my perception. I found no reason for this angst at the time. But my previous paragraph brought up the memory for me. After birth, is the world working against us? Of course other people contribute to the foundation, especially parents. Is it possible to ever reach a pure state of consciousness with no “ideas” of what reality is?
If there is no such thing as reality, if life is what you make it, then how does anything ever get done? I don’t mean productive things, specifically. But how do we all adhere to certain rules of reality so well? Are we being manipulated? Sure, it is tempting to lay such blame. But I suspect that the reality we all experience is being created in the collective unconscious much more than a select consciousness. Indeed the theory of morphic resonance has appealing arguments toward a sort of memory of individual species based not on static settings but on repetition. One could go as far as citing this as a piece of evolution.
The real truth is even harder to embrace than the positing we do in the thinking world. No one knows what is and what is not. No one knows if there is a god. No one knows if there is a right and wrong. No one knows if reality is crated in the mind or if perception can ever be proved as “correct”. And following that logic everything is subjective.
And then there is Occam’s Razor – the argument that we only need to assume the proof of validity, we do not need to pontificate needlessly on proving the assumption. (as I have here, and yes I do understand that is not the pure definition of the razor but it fits the purpose) But human nature is to be curious.
At this point I feel I am thinking myself in circles. I continue to rest in a nihilistic place of non-commitment. It appears, thus far, that there is no point and no truth and frankly, no hope in answering the eternal question. A peer has suggested that my compulsion to ask these questions over and over to a blind and dumb reader is the point - that the search is the answer. And in response my brain begins meltdown.
If there truly is no truth and no purpose to life why spend it sitting behind a desk? Conversely, why spend life searching for some false honor or helping others who also have no true reason to live?Happiness. It seems that the only thing to work for in a world with no purpose is pleasure. But we shun those that spend their lives in pursuit of simple pleasure. Those who eat or sleep or drink to no end are considered addicts. Why not indulge ones self in earthly pleasures? Who cares if people hasten the arrival of death by pleasuring themselves? If there really is no point, why live a virtuous life? The only benefit I see in a virtuous lifestyle in a hopeless world is the joy one finds in the comforting and service of others. But if said one, in this case me, spends life pleasing others is it wasted? Is it in vain? It appears so because I have no proof that I have improved anyone else’s life to any degree. I also feel empty. Which, I hear, afflicts those who indulge in the typical earthly pleasures – eventually. So the next logical question is, “what else”?
11/16/05 11:55amI suppose “conflicted” and “torn” aren’t really the words I need. It isn’t as much a decision between two equally rewarding options as it is a personal conflict. My moral core is positioned to put others before myself. To that side of me there is a belief that I need to practice forgiveness and acceptance. I need to learn to love unconditionally, without expectation of reciprocation.
But that side of me glorifies the martyr. That side of me is the side that feels all-encompassing guilt. That side of me is the dominant side. It yells at me all day long; “you are a terrible person”, “failure”, “pathetic”, “needy”, “undeserving”, “ungrateful”, “irresponsible”, “boring” and on and on. Yes, this side has value. It contains my moral fabric, my code of ethics. It keeps me from getting myself into trouble. It limits the pain I cause others and even the pain I could possibly cause myself. But has it become too overbearing? I'm I a victim of my own limitations. What’s the quote, “Argue for your limitations and they’re yours”?
My whole life I was taught to “behave”, to be considerate of others, to follow rules. The irony is that my parents were pretty much hippies. My father has followed very few rules in his lifetime. My mother isn’t exactly a traditionalist either. So how have “the rules” about right and wrong become so deeply ingrained?
Does the deviant in me deserve attention? Should the part of me that wants to be selfish be allowed to influence my actions? What happens when I make easily avoidable mistakes?
I behave the way I do because, for the most part, I truly believe that is the correct way to behave. But is it? I'm told I'm too judgmental, too critical. I never put myself first. Humility is a strong value. But have I taken it too far? Has my mind taken the notion of never thinking of yourself as “better than” and twisted it into always thinking of myself as “less than”?
Is it really necessary for me to swing to the opposite end of the spectrum? I'm too old to rebel. I don’t really have much desire to be a criminal or a psychopath. Or do I? It is true that I secretly admire such people. I don’t have much respect for them. But I do admire their complete lack of a sense of obligation. The moral part of me calls it a lack of self-control. But I understand that isn’t the whole story. These people don’t really lack self-control (well some do but they’re OCD). These people do control themselves, but their sense of responsibility and accountability is different than mine. Does that make them freer? Does it make them more virtuous? Does it make them happier?
Timothy Leary says, “think for yourself; question authority”. I have never been able to truly do this. Yes, there are the things I feel strongly about – racism, murder, theft. But I have trouble with drawing lines in the gray area. I am such a black and white person that the gray leaves me feeling uneasy. Thinking less of someone for being different from you is essentially racism. But is it wrong to think less of people who benefit off the labor of others?
There really is no such thing as wrong and right. I understand that concept, but my intellect cannot comprehend it. If more people could understand it life as we know it would be turned upside down. Therefore is it true? We all create these rules, these guidelines we follow in order to have a foundation from which to base judgment and behavior and action on. If we were to truly abandon these foundations what would we be left with? And what is it in man that needs to create it in the first place? Is Leary saying that our instinctual need to create balance incorrect? No. He is saying that reality, as we know it, has been created for us – that politicians and clergy and royalty determined the laws of right and wrong. He is suggesting we discover it within ourselves.
But how? By even considering breaking down that foundation my mind becomes fuzzy and unclear. Is a resolution created from a place of unclear thinking really to be considered valid?
Then there would be those who say what is reality? What is “clear thinking”? How do you know what you are experiencing is either of those things? How do you know you haven’t already created an alternate reality in your head? And if they are to be listened to how do we get to the place of purity? How does one unlearn everything they know? Is it possible to start fresh? Are drugs able to aid in that? Or do they mar it even further?
My first acid trip was touched by a soul who was tortured by the thought that he was tainting my perception. I found no reason for this angst at the time. But my previous paragraph brought up the memory for me. After birth, is the world working against us? Of course other people contribute to the foundation, especially parents. Is it possible to ever reach a pure state of consciousness with no “ideas” of what reality is?
If there is no such thing as reality, if life is what you make it, then how does anything ever get done? I don’t mean productive things, specifically. But how do we all adhere to certain rules of reality so well? Are we being manipulated? Sure, it is tempting to lay such blame. But I suspect that the reality we all experience is being created in the collective unconscious much more than a select consciousness. Indeed the theory of morphic resonance has appealing arguments toward a sort of memory of individual species based not on static settings but on repetition. One could go as far as citing this as a piece of evolution.
The real truth is even harder to embrace than the positing we do in the thinking world. No one knows what is and what is not. No one knows if there is a god. No one knows if there is a right and wrong. No one knows if reality is crated in the mind or if perception can ever be proved as “correct”. And following that logic everything is subjective.
And then there is Occam’s Razor – the argument that we only need to assume the proof of validity, we do not need to pontificate needlessly on proving the assumption. (as I have here, and yes I do understand that is not the pure definition of the razor but it fits the purpose) But human nature is to be curious.
At this point I feel I am thinking myself in circles. I continue to rest in a nihilistic place of non-commitment. It appears, thus far, that there is no point and no truth and frankly, no hope in answering the eternal question. A peer has suggested that my compulsion to ask these questions over and over to a blind and dumb reader is the point - that the search is the answer. And in response my brain begins meltdown.
If there truly is no truth and no purpose to life why spend it sitting behind a desk? Conversely, why spend life searching for some false honor or helping others who also have no true reason to live?Happiness. It seems that the only thing to work for in a world with no purpose is pleasure. But we shun those that spend their lives in pursuit of simple pleasure. Those who eat or sleep or drink to no end are considered addicts. Why not indulge ones self in earthly pleasures? Who cares if people hasten the arrival of death by pleasuring themselves? If there really is no point, why live a virtuous life? The only benefit I see in a virtuous lifestyle in a hopeless world is the joy one finds in the comforting and service of others. But if said one, in this case me, spends life pleasing others is it wasted? Is it in vain? It appears so because I have no proof that I have improved anyone else’s life to any degree. I also feel empty. Which, I hear, afflicts those who indulge in the typical earthly pleasures – eventually. So the next logical question is, “what else”?
posted by tethys at 10:09 AM
1 Comments:
bold questions
I think the point is to ask what else.
The answers will take many forms,
and thereby change the question.
I think you have courage.
Post a Comment
<< Home