Things I Do Not Understand, Part IX

Things I Do Not Understand, Part IX – Well that certainly was not very religious of you...but it might be philosophical. But is that religious? Are we talking about theology, or theogony? I think I got confused...

I will simply say that doing these can at times be far grander than a measure of worry for the future of intellectual interests. Oh no, it is a straight up nightmare. 

This time, I just want to go over a ridiculous sense of attack I have to question out of a duty to intellectual interaction. No I do not speak of the “war” on a certain festivity, and by festivity I mean the largest, most powerful and recognizable cultural event in human history. I speak of those who are shelling and sniping the good people of that ever so popular philosophy known as Christianity. And yes I said philosophy because:

“Christianity is not a religion. It is a philosophy.”

First and foremost, this is neither my quote nor my opinion. Christianity is religion: I am rather certain squirrels of the Rainwater Glades National Park are aware of this. 

I am aware that usually I would not extend the observational essay into a long and drawn assessment as to what these two phrases, those being ‘religion’ and ‘philosophy’ mean in both denotation and connotation. I will not lie in saying that part of why I chose this topic was because the very expanse of the argument means everyone has an opinion, so instead of providing some detailed deconstruction I can instead defer to each individual direction, having derived from most people I have met a deep conviction that most people would agree with me, not the source I quote. 

The reality of this is then not any deconstructionist argument, because frankly I would win that argument too. I do not think we need to delve too deeply into the core argument per what the deconstructed essence of philosophy and religion is. I will in this case defer to Jon Stewart’s possibly perfect reason what the difference is between philosophy and religion. In reference to a comparison Stewart makes between Socrates of Athens (philosophy) and Jesus of Nazareth (religion) noting that although there are many similarities between the two of them:

“[After their executions]...one of them got better.”

I ponder most people can note this. I think a realistic retinue might also include the fact that if you ask ten people on the street who Jesus of Nazareth “was” all ten of them would get it right, whilst that same crowd I think I am being generous saying five would know Socrates, but that is a marketing strategy not a component of religion and philosophy. 

The reality is that while I could deconstruct everything Stewart said and the very real components to the spread and formation of religion as the whole and philosophy in the main, I would like to believe most people do know the difference.

Then again, considering the type of personalities saying they are not different is worrisome, since (and in many cases I have the urge to use the qualifier ‘unfortunately’) public ear is trained on some of these people. 

What I am most concerned with is not this issue in general though, it is my concerns over when we as a People forgot (since apparently we did) that what you believe and what you associate with says ABSOLUTELY N O T H I N G about you as a person. 

I find this a most irritating problem with music and movie fans. I suppose I find this because movies and music are far more mainstream than theatre and literature fans, where my two major concerns lie, but I truly cannot comprehend the phrase ‘Oh that song/movie/character/whatever some moron can associate themselves with is so me.’ 

This is my major problem, because this is a legitimate issue. Let me set the record straight:

NOTHING IN THIS UNIVERSE WAS EVER MADE FOR YOU, YOU STUPID, INCOMPETENT, CHILDISH, SELFISH, SELF-OBSESSED, INURRED, HOPEESSS, USELESS, IRRITATING AND INCOMPREHENSIBLE WASTE OF OXYGEN, NITROGEN AND CARBON DIOXIDE EXCHANGE.

Are we honestly this stupid? This is a serious question. We cannot really believe that in the infinite possibilities of all that Existence, the presential reality about us was stationed and cordoned off for us. 

Are we truly this insecure?

Do we really need for someone to be so willing to do things ‘for us’, to be made ‘for us’, to consider everything ‘for us’ that without this delusion we would in every sense of the phrase collapse into sheer nothingness of self and begin eating our own faeces?

Just because we are the ones who currently make up a group, populated a collection of individuals, tend the activity of something to our ideals, does not, now or ever, mean it was made ‘for us’.

Mainly, two incredible assumptions are made regarding this line of reasoning. 

The first, and sadly why I had to bring this topic into the issue in the first place, comes from the flawed concept of a universal ‘working’ designed for our presential betterment. I will not make judgment in any form on the topic, but if we as a People are truly so pathetically childish that we “need” the universe to work in our favour and for our benefit than, and I do in all honesty mean what I say, either stay in your parents’ basement your whole life or go excise your right to jump off a cliff without a parachute right now, as those are the only two ways you will ever be able to manage the world with something that could be mistaken for maturity. 

All I comment on is the fact that this line of thinking is incredibly immature and self-serving; this does not necessarily make it wrong, but from my travels, I have tended to notice that thoughts with traction along these lanes drift towards the more inhibited and unnecessary lines of living.

The second assumption is that whoever is involved in the mechanism of process in any of these things, entertainment, organizations, philosophy, religion, culture, society, Laws, is creating any of it with you or even the notion of ‘Humanity’ in mind. No offense to the brilliance of all the people I just implicated, but I find the second piece of my sarcasm inducing thought process to be even more unrealistic than the first. At least the first is an applicable way for us to delude ourselves, as no one could ever technically prove you correct or faulty. Delusion works best when your glasses have mud covering them, and in the question of ‘From whence does it come?’ there will only ever be a murky picture, at best. 

This second assumption is so ludicrous it actually makes me enjoin to try and get choking stupid people made into Public Policy. Just to make the easiest case I will pick on music and you can extend my argument, so I seriously ask, how do you seriously believe a song is “so you”? 

Again, do you think the song writer was thinking about you? Do you think that because an emotion is evoked per your response system that it was designed to do that? Do you seriously think that circumstances led to ‘that exact song’ coming on the radio when it did because “it got me through the day”? Seriously, are you that self-obsessed and deluded?

Now what this has to with the festivities and the “philosophy” comment is this notion that people believe things are for them. People believe Christmas is “for them”, and so they should be able to do whatever they want with it. People believe an organization is “for them” and they should be able to do whatever they want with it. 

I think in many ways this is why most people hate their jobs in life, as there the line between what you want and what is going to get done has a very clear mechanism for being transgressed or I suppose the word interchanged might work well too, and the line is itself very black and white, as there are real world implications behind why something can or cannot happen.

Donald Trump is not going to make his Casino Managers take up a policy that does not reek of misogyny, because, and I do with every ounce of me vomit in my mouth at this reality, it is bad for business, and in the corporate universe, the bottom line is THE line. 

People like the free play of the faculties they have with those things they chose because there are no limits. The only true limit is how many people you can get to agree with you or more realistically how many people you can get to put up with you being overbearingly annoying. And yes, this IS the reality. 

I can safely say most of my Muslim and Hindu friends do not care one way or the other whether or not someone mistakenly says ‘Merry Christmas’ to them. Quoting one of the ones I respect the most:

They thought of including me in a time they find special; I find that flattering and I thank them for warm wishes.

Now this is a woman of truly incomprehensible stature and I admire her for the fact that I can expect this type of response from her, you know a response that proves she is Human. 

At the same time, I am certain she does not approve, or would not as I do not know if this has ever happened to her, to be forced to go to a Christmas Party, or participate in the Office Christmas Special. Some people may not mind and go for the inebriation and leave it at that (...not that I would fit in this group or anything...) but some people do not want to go to these things.

I have often compared it to going to family functions because there are parts of your family functions that you do not want to do. On that, let me make my point clear: You should be present at what you attend, or simply do not attend. If you do not want to be somewhere, then do not go. And for anyone who said ‘Oh, easy for you to say.’ actually no, it is not easy, because stupid people who put far too much into this type of ridiculous nothingness, and there are a lot more of them then there are of me, complain, and complain, and complain...that when you are not invested the way they are invested you ‘Do not care.’ 

Wow, that was cute – I suppose you know exactly what I am thinking right now? Oh you do not have a clue, you cannot truly understand my perception of it because my identifying marks could never adequately be explained to you? Wow, I am shocked to learn...

My point overall can be surmised in this: If you want to celebrate something, enjoy something, engage something, live with something, so long as it is consensual and you are not hurting anyone in the process (this therefore ends 91.8% of all such current interactions of the human race with Others and with what we like) I am always going to be fine with it because that is your business, and frankly I could not care or concern less with what you do on your own time. 

However, even if 99.9% of all the Universe agreed with you, there is 0.1% that does not, and I do not advocate that you need to change your whole existence for them, but you are not allowed to force them into a position where they have to administer to you and pay attention to your wants and do things the way you want. 

You want to be left to your own devices, fine. 

Leave everyone else to theirs.

 

What you chose to believe in does not model what you are. How you feel that belief “allows” you to prance and pound upon someone else’s feelings and beliefs different from your own are the model of what you are. 

And fair warning, just because one “person” you think you follow once said ‘I came not to bring peace but the sword’ (and this works for quite a few ironically enough) is not precisely what I would call ‘model citizenship'. 

Learning to live under the Social Contract in part means we all have to learn to mature and accept that what we have and what we want is secondary to the upkeep of how the processing mechanism of our communities work, should they adequately be preserving and enhancing our humanity. 

If you want to ‘Do it my way’ so bad, great - here is a lighter and a tent. I will be here placing bets on how long you last.

Things I Do Not Understand, Part VIII

Things I Do Not Understand, Part VIII – What are tolerance, acceptance and respect, and when are they deserved?

Recently I was unfortunately dragged into a conversation as per why I looked at the “map of the times” objectively and with some respect that little thing called ‘International Law’. Since I have gotten used to having this thrown at me, I genuinely did not bombast with a barrage and neither did I need to control cackle and chuckle reflexes. No, I pressed onward in my best attempts. Then finally, the opposition delivered the final blow, that last unbearable straw to break not just the camel’s back, but my mother’s, my grandmother’s, my great aunt Lucy’s and the dog’s back, all in one ridiculous ribald that should make anyone with a working frontal lobe and cortical stimulation shiver in appropriate aversion.

‘Fine, I might be willing to tolerate them, but I won’t ever accept them as the same level as me.’

The source of the quotation, much like the people being discussed, to whom he placed a rather rich sentiment of human decency upon, are frankly not important in the sense that there is present little if any need for them to be named to make this comment horrifying and a crime against humanity. For much like that most laughable label ‘hate crime’, just because you label something does not mean that you have accurately described the situation, and does not mean you have encapsulated the true caveat to some unfounded emotional “catharsis” that is respiring within the context. I go out of my way to explicitly state that such labels discredit and devalue these situations, as much from those incapable of emotional distance opening their mouths as our (and by ‘our’ I mean people who possess a working frontal lobe) own ability to see things a tad too objectively.

So I will leave out any denominational remarks except to say that the speaker was a political member of a governmental body that is supposedly trying to ‘fix’ the situation perpetuated between ‘his people’ and some ‘other people’ across the border, and that the issue in question is deleterious to not only both sides of the argument but to all humanity, and is a measure of the scar that our time will leave in human history, encompassing every ounce of cruelty, childishness and caustic contemptibility we can so often have within ourselves. And congratulations world that this could adequately describe one of, off the top of my head, seven rather public and well-known causalities we are allowing to present peril to us as a people. And when I say top of my head, I mean what I did not have to think about – I shudder to think how that number would triple or quadruple if I sat down and really thought about it and wrote it all out, even without Google.

I wish I could say I am surprised. I am not. Not in the slightest bit did this statement throw me off and cause me to assume a major miscalculation for my faith in humanity. I am not sure exactly why I might as well just go fuddle about in the corner to this. Not sure if it’s the number of funerals, personal injuries because of sociopaths like this, or because I am very well aware this is how the average human being thinks, that I cannot perpetuate any sense of dread about this comment. Shame, embarrassment and the urge to beat myself with a rake were all certainly engendered.

I suppose I am at a loss because of what I intend to analyze this time: the fact that we, as a social order in Western Civilization, preach all of the verbiage to respect, acceptance, and tolerance, when we apparently have absolutely abysmal levels of conscious, collective conception as to the definition of these designations.

Now social hypocrisy in the main is certainly a tall order. Yet we do not go so far out of our way to make ‘Museums of Cultural Enlightenment’ as literal temples to the rest of the world about American cultural heritage. We might act as though we have a worthwhile culture, but we are all far too aware our culture is permeated with simplistic and consumable products and an economic concern that far outweighs the artistic concern: refuse for the rats and nothing more. Only a complete idiot, or someone for whom a toolbox would be a rather delightful, and sadly not ironic gift in every figurative way that can be taken, would actually straighten back and state with anything that might mistakenly manage as “assurance” and “authority”:

‘Jersey Shore is just like anything in art; you just do not understand it.’

Ignoring the reality that such a person would by no means, through either incapacity or apathy, correctly annunciate and punctuate a grammatically correct statement by novel and individual convention, the fact of the matter is collectively, we, as a society, are not so delusional that we could genuinely accept the aforementioned faecal stain as anything less or more than that. Yet we do have the audacity to literally construct a ‘Standards of Acceptance’ Museum with a ‘Hall of Tolerance’. 

Delusional much?

Believe it or not, I am not just singling out America here, I really am not. Hey Europe and other developed nations, you have quite a few boarding passes pre-ordered for this flight already too. And do not tell me that you are “all accepting” and “all welcoming”, not naming names of course, crazy groups of sociopaths who outlawed minarets and the Islamic ‘call to prayer’. Oh and brilliant quote:

Isn’t it just frightening to see someone covered like that from head to toe?

No you snivelling, sadistic, sociopathic stain on humanity, it does not scare me. It does not scare me that people believe a certain thing and want to follow that life format. I have to spend my whole existence on Earth with a vast majority of people who are confused by my professional education and who believe in imaginary friends providing personalized and protective predestined products. Yet it does not scare me, and it never will.

If you would like to know why this is, it is because I do my fair part in the process, treat everyone like a human being, and actively inquire and address issues with a perspective of objective analysis. But you know that is after all a by-product of my world view, that being that sensibility and decency are worthwhile pursuits, and considering your horrendous failure at both of these things sir I can understand your trepidation.