As usual, this idea is controversial, especially if you believe in the New Age idea of molly-coddling children. If you have a mass-produced bumper sticker on the back of your car that lauds your child's completely irrelevant and minor scholastic achievements, and you read this, you will probably think I'm utterly barbaric. You're probably right, but then, that's the whole reason for this post.
Here's the reason for the post: I DO believe in child abuse.
Let me rephrase that so the politically correct types can stop hyperventilating in preparation for an apoplectic fit of yuppie rage.
I believe that the responsible application of corporal punishment on children for offenses which merit criminal punishment in adults is both a more effective and more suitable deterrent to the possibility of re-offending than the current method of punishment of using "time outs" and the restriction of other privileges.
Lying, cheating, stealing, fighting, public disturbances, talking back; all of these are offenses at some place for an adult for which a civil or criminal penalty is imposed. Most kids these days will get a "time out" for them. Most kids will then re-offend and do the same thing. If, as an adult, you're getting back-talk from a five year old, something is wrong with this picture.
Let's look at child-rearing, then and now, and explode a few myths along the way. This might help put things in proper perspective.
Back when I was growing up (a time somewhat after the last Ice Age, before the Computer Age, when Leave It To Beaver, Gilligan's Island and Star Trek - the one with William Shatner as captain of the Enterprise - weren't in reruns), kids played outside with toys that sparked imagination. The term "helicopter parenting" wouldn't appear for at least four decades and a Bush was household shrubbery. No one talked much about the latest kidnapping, rape and murder of children (though, actually, it happened more often then than now). No one had GPS and cell phones to keep track of their little darlings. School officials were allowed to beat the living crap out of you if you got out of line. (okay, okay, they could spank you - but if you saw my Assistant Principle you knew that if he were to spank you, your odds of survival were the same as those of the proverbial snowball in Hell). While some places had kids acting out, for the most part, schools were gun-free, knife-free and generally well ordered. Crime, for my generation, started a decline. The criminals were people who were either over-the-top abused or were never spanked.
Then we enter into the age of the Time Out.
Now we have children in gangs (lots more gang activity today than back then). We have a new way of teaching everyone that everyone wins in school, when in real life, practically no one wins and no one gets out alive. If someone acts out, they get a "time out" which is a period of not too unpleasant boredom to "think about what they did". What they actually think about is how not to get caught the next time. Corporal punishment was removed from schools and as a result, metal detectors and police were installed in its place. But with the plethora of entertainment devices a child has today, even if they're sent to their rooms, it's not like that's all that much of a punishment. Sitting them in a corner is no more effective than being bored on a Sunday afternoon.
You see, my generation didn't enjoy getting the crap beaten out of us (well, that's how we thought of it at least). We were thinking way too short-term. We felt the pain and thought to ourselves, "Isn't there a better, more enlightened way to direct a child's behavior than by inflicting pain?" We vowed never to beat our kids because we were beaten. But we never really thought about the consequences of our beatings on our behaviors. For the most part, we grew up to be fine examples of modern society. We may have thought of it as having done it in spite of the way punishment was meted out to us. Few ever stopped to consider the probability it was BECAUSE of the punishment meted out to us.
Yes, it was unpleasant, but it was memorable. VERY memorable. And in that is the key to punishment. Is a "time out" memorable? Let's put it this way, if you were ever standing around on a Sunday afternoon, say around three fifteen in the afternoon between games on TV and after mowing the lawn, with nothing to do, you're experiencing the exact same thing as some kid who is sitting in a time-out. I know I can think of a time or two when I was bored, but what kind of an impact does that make on my desire or willingness to break a law (or rule, transgression, etc)?
Pretty much none. It wasn't memorable. It was boring, yes, but it wasn't a trial of any kind. There was no lasting impression made from a time-out.
But a paddling?
Talk to anyone with gray hair. Almost universally, they'll remember being paddled, spanked or in some other way physically touched in order to inflict a mild to moderate amount of pain with no permanent physical harm. And if done right, it will be not only memorable, but effective as well.
This segues nicely into the fact that getting spanked has a right way and a wrong way. The wrong way is to haul off and beat the crap out of a kid the instant the transgression happens. Yes, it's viscerally satisfying on a deep, emotional level to strike at the source of one's irritation, but a civilized society usually refrains from such indulgences. The best way to beat the crap out of a kid so that it is a lesson that is memorable and effective (preferably without requiring a doctor's visit or hospitalization) as opposed to abuse is to be calm, be timely, be consistent, have rules and explain what's happening, when and why.
So, step 1. Rules.
A child can't know when they've broken rules unless they know the rules ahead of time. Ignorance of the rule is no excuse. So a wise parent will have rules and, just as importantly, punishments for breaking those rules. Make sure there's a "when in doubt" rule to cover all bases.
Now that the boundaries are laid, crossing them should always require a parental review. Was it justified? If so, the boundaries have to be moved. If not, it was a violation and punishment is required. That's the consistency part. Look over the transgression. Yes, kids will be kids. I really do get that. But kids need to learn the limits and what better way than to put an electric fence on it - make them stop, look, be very careful if they're going to cross that line and understand that if they screw up, they get zapped. Be consistent in applying the rules and don't be secretive about them.
Next, make punishment a BIG THING. A fast slap on the butt in the marketplace (aside from probably drawing the attention of Child Protection Services) isn't going to leave much of an impression on the child (no pun intended). But if you discover a transgression, treat it as if they're an adult. Depending on the severity of the transgression, place them under "arrest" with restrictions on toys, activities, privileges, etc. Sit them down in a trial. Tell them what they did wrong, why it was wrong, let them argue their case and show them the error of their ways. Then pronounce sentence. Let them think about THAT for a bit. Finally, commence with the bea..., er, spanking, in a calm, measured, dispassionate way. Do not tell them that it hurts you more than it hurts them. They won't believe you. Do not sympathize with them. The lesson won't be learned properly.
When it's over, don't hold grudges.
The point here is that if a punishment isn't memorable, what's to stop a kid from doing it again and again? If there's too much punishment, it becomes difficult for a child to know what's right and wrong. Not every transgression merits a spanking, of course. Every child is different, as well, so one must know whether physical pain, administered in a measured, controlled fashion will be the most effective deterrent to that child's case of bad behavior.
And if you don't have the kind of time to do this, you should give your kids up for adoption. They need parents, not playmates.
Now, as much as I believe in child abuse for kids, I believe even stronger that such punishments should extend to adults. Only with adults instead of safely tucking it away behind prison walls where only whispered stories of various levels of truth leak out from time to time in specials designed to show how awful it is in them, we need to be public, open and visually brutal.
Adults aren't children. They generally don't live to please an authority figure. They have a greater ability to rationalize away criminal behaviors. Adults are capable of a level of brutality far exceeding that of children. Meeting this brutality with a controlled brutality is the only way to mete out a punishment of sufficient intensity to be memorable in such a way that one would NOT wish to experience it again. I think public floggings for relatively minor offenses which would normally merit a jail sentence should be the norm. The number of strokes would depend on the offense. It should be administered by a machine (for the sake of consistency and safety) which is physically constrained from exceeding a safe "per-stroke" level of force. A medic should be on hand to ensure that no permanent damage is done (aside from the potential of scarring unless a scar-free way of flogging someone can be found).
Why flogging? Because it's visual, visceral and brutal. It's MEMORABLE, both for those who undergo it and those who witness it. And it's not an experience one would wish to repeat.
While we're on the subject, I'm NOT an advocate of the Death Penalty. Yes, it gets rid of unwanted vermin, but sometimes they throw out the baby with the trash - innocent people HAVE been executed in the US. That's very bad juju. Instead, I advocate a "Prison TV" channel for people who would otherwise have been executed. Every prison should have their own station, which the viewer can access and control, to watch what happens to a lifer in a prison. No privacy. No escape. Public humiliation. It's been proven that the death penalty isn't a deterrent. But maybe something like this will satisfy society's desire for vengeance.
One thing for sure: It's memorable.
The fact is, the criminals of today's society need a good spanking. If it's memorable enough, painful enough and embarrassing enough, it may have more of an impact than the way we punish criminals today.
Okay, the yuppie, new-age, easily bruised sensibilities people can now go and have some white Zin and tofu cakes and get on with your lives. Keep repeating to yourselves, "It's only a blog... It's only a blog... It's only a blog..."
Friday, October 29, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Forgiveness - It's Why We Fight
It struck me recently (yes, it hurt) that humans don't forgive and that lack of forgiveness drives our societies, religions and politics.
Our histories are rife with acts of revenge, blood feuds and grudges held against a people, families or tribes that can last centuries. In some cultures, such demands of vengeance are considered honorable and good. People don't avoid it, they embrace it. We as a people seek revenge instead of justice, demanding not just that biblical limit of only an eye for an eye and only a tooth for a tooth (yes, folks, it's a call for restitution, not bloody retribution - Exodus 21:22-25. And Matthew 5:38-48 says to turn the other cheek anyhow.), but to take the whole body (and then some) for incidents that aren't even criminal in some cases.
Remember the Alamo! Remember Pearl Harbor! Remember the Maine! Remember 9/11!
All of these have been used as rallying cries to inflict harm and damage on people who had nothing to do with the atrocities mentioned. It wasn't uncommon for prisoners to be shot, so the Alamo had no survivors. Pearl Harbor was a strategic mistake in many ways, but would it have made any difference if the Japanese had managed to declare war before the attack? Germany didn't attack us and look what happened there. Millions of Japanese civilians who had nothing to do with the war died. Investigations have since determined that the Maine probably blew up due to a coal dust explosion, but a lot of Spaniards who had nothing to do with it died because of our seeking revenge for it. And 9/11... It was used as a political excuse to go to war with a country we didn't have to fight, resulting in well over a million casualties and countless more people seeking vengeance.
Our tendency to fight first, understand later is what makes humans so dangerous. We kill in haste, repent at leisure, but the problem is that those we kill are often not responsible for what happened to us. And they knew people who hold grudges over friends being killed for something that friend didn't necessarily do. If we throw in the tendency to rationalize our violence (like convince ourselves that because the people who flew planes into the twin towers and the Pentagon were Middle Eastern Muslims that all Middle Eastern Muslims are dangerous and should be exterminated before they do the same to us again), we end up going far and away beyond the eye for an eye concept. When the fact that those being killed have the same reaction to being killed as we do (because to them, they're perfectly justified in killing us) the violence never ends.
Look at the Palestine/Israel conflict. The damned thing's been going on for 62 years. The conflict has raised the stakes so that now, even if the Palestinians got a "home" and all demands on both sides were met, the violence would not end because both sides carry grudges.
This is the essential nature of mankind: Vengeance, revenge, retribution. Making someone hurt and pay for what they did to you. There is no INHERENT goodness in man. There is only the caveman hunched by a fire with a sharpened stick waiting for the tribe from which he stole one of their women to come after him and wipe out his tribe because of it - then kill the woman he stole because she was no longer "pure".
Sound familiar?
Here's the funny thing: We LOVE this stuff. We can't get enough of it. How many movies, books, stories and such are based on the simple concept of over-kill in retaliation for a wrong? We sacrifice horny teens by the gory score at summer blockbusters just to build up the concept that an entity (or person) is bad and deserves to die. While this would be fine in the normal scope of things, the simple fact is humans DON'T KNOW WHEN TO STOP. In real life, if that entity or person was slaughtered in an imaginative and sufficiently gory way, attention would then turn on their friends, associates, family members, religion and/or workplace. How many times has it happened that innocents suffer for what someone they know did?
Way more times than is comfortable to think about.
Let's face it, mankind doesn't WANT to forgive transgressions against it. No one ever believes themselves to be in the wrong. Even if they know they are, they deny it. So they fight, and maim and kill all in the name of righteous retribution for a transgression against them - be it real or imagined. The ridiculous lengths to which we go over this kind of thing is beyond imagination, but sadly not beyond reality.
How many sports fans have attacked and killed other sports fans for what a member of or a whole team did? How many Muslims died in protest over the depiction of their Prophet and how many of them wanted to see the entire West die because of it? An accident in one household can lead to murder in another. There is an inherent lack of perspective when it comes to events such as this that we are not willing to embrace. We seek the "noble cause", the "righteousness of our cause" or some other high-minded rationalization to justify our basic desire to kill people over what we see as harm. Politicians and religious leaders have played on this concept for so long, it is part of our culture and mindset. It's not like we're going to be able to change that anytime soon.
Now, I'm not advocating that we all take a Christian point of view about forgiveness. After all, reality doesn't work that way in the first place and in the second, not everyone can stomach the Christian morality. Forgiveness isn't about saying, "What you did was bad but I forgive you." Real, true human forgiveness should be about saying something to the effect of, "I won't take it out on people who aren't responsible, and once you are punished for what you have done, I won't hold a grudge."
Be aware that, in the human mind, the balance of scales regarding acts demanding revenge are skewed. Therefore, it's necessary to seek a proportionate punishment for the act on the individuals actually responsible for the act. This is the root of the beginning to understand real human forgiveness. It's a forgiveness that is realistically attainable for most people which can help contain the mindless, directionless violence that often accompanies vengeful acts.
Mankind will never give up the desire to seek retribution. At least not anytime in the next few thousand years. But a "civilized" species can learn to moderate that desire for revenge by acquiring some perspective and spending a lot of time in anger management lessons.
We COULD, I suppose, get into a long, involved discussion about "justice" as an alternative to revenge, but let's face it, revenge balances the scales in the mind of the one seeking revenge. Justice is strictly something society does and really doesn't address an individual's harm. Learning "forgiveness" is the simple act of seeking a revenge that balances the scales in proportion to the act being avenged and then moving on without letting the original act consume your life or bringing others into the picture.
Forgiveness: Proportionate revenge with the perspective of an outsider.
Now let's examine the proper application of this idea, since in religions we get a lot of rules without a lot of ideas in exactly how to go about this in real life.
To begin with, let's quantify what we're talking about: Personal harm should be defined only as acts intentionally directed at you specifically intended to inflict emotional, physical or mental damage. If it isn't personal harm, let it go.
First of all, examine the act. This is the anger management part. Were you hurt? Was property damaged? Was there any lasting harm to you? If not, get over it. You only have one shot at this life. Filling it up with petty garbage from slights and insults that have done nothing to you will only screw up your life and I'm sure you have better things to do than to have your life screwed up by something which did you no personal harm.
Always think first. Not about how many tiny bloody bits you can carve someone into, but about what happened in proportion to what you want to do. Did someone in another land do something you don't like? Did it hurt you personally? If so, how much? Is it righteous indignation you feel? Let that go. Others don't share your faith and if you don't respect their right to have a different one, you don't deserve to have your faith respected by others, either. Did they disrespect your faith? Fine, let them. If you think your faith can't handle the disrespect of others, then you need to find a stronger faith. Their disrespect for your faith doesn't hurt you or your faith. Are they killing you over your faith? Go for the ones who are doing the killing, not the ones you think have the same faith.
The point here is that what you believe is personal harm usually isn't. The other point is that you need to know who is actually responsible for inflicting that personal harm because it's usually not the ones you hurt back.
Stop and think about things, folks. That's how to implement this whole concept. Revenge is a dish best served cold and you can't do that when you're enraged. Once you cool off, you may realize that it wasn't an act deserving of any retribution at all. I don't advocate forgiveness as a free pass. Human nature demands punishment for acts that cause harm. But we do need to learn some perspective about what we think is harm and be proportionate in seeking any retribution. We don't swat flies with shovels or spank babies with axes. Why do we do that kind of thing when it comes to revenge? Perspective and proportion. Those are realistic interim behavioral goals that humans can actually achieve on our paths of spiritual exploration and evolution. Rome wasn't built in a day. Human instincts have had millions of years of evolution to get to this point and only thousands of years to get used to civilized behavior.
As for me, I think about revenge a lot, but my personal philosophy doesn't let me seek retribution without incurring grievous harm on myself. For the most part, I let the universe sort it out. It takes patience but it keeps the dry cleaning bills removing blood stains to a minimum.
Our histories are rife with acts of revenge, blood feuds and grudges held against a people, families or tribes that can last centuries. In some cultures, such demands of vengeance are considered honorable and good. People don't avoid it, they embrace it. We as a people seek revenge instead of justice, demanding not just that biblical limit of only an eye for an eye and only a tooth for a tooth (yes, folks, it's a call for restitution, not bloody retribution - Exodus 21:22-25. And Matthew 5:38-48 says to turn the other cheek anyhow.), but to take the whole body (and then some) for incidents that aren't even criminal in some cases.
Remember the Alamo! Remember Pearl Harbor! Remember the Maine! Remember 9/11!
All of these have been used as rallying cries to inflict harm and damage on people who had nothing to do with the atrocities mentioned. It wasn't uncommon for prisoners to be shot, so the Alamo had no survivors. Pearl Harbor was a strategic mistake in many ways, but would it have made any difference if the Japanese had managed to declare war before the attack? Germany didn't attack us and look what happened there. Millions of Japanese civilians who had nothing to do with the war died. Investigations have since determined that the Maine probably blew up due to a coal dust explosion, but a lot of Spaniards who had nothing to do with it died because of our seeking revenge for it. And 9/11... It was used as a political excuse to go to war with a country we didn't have to fight, resulting in well over a million casualties and countless more people seeking vengeance.
Our tendency to fight first, understand later is what makes humans so dangerous. We kill in haste, repent at leisure, but the problem is that those we kill are often not responsible for what happened to us. And they knew people who hold grudges over friends being killed for something that friend didn't necessarily do. If we throw in the tendency to rationalize our violence (like convince ourselves that because the people who flew planes into the twin towers and the Pentagon were Middle Eastern Muslims that all Middle Eastern Muslims are dangerous and should be exterminated before they do the same to us again), we end up going far and away beyond the eye for an eye concept. When the fact that those being killed have the same reaction to being killed as we do (because to them, they're perfectly justified in killing us) the violence never ends.
Look at the Palestine/Israel conflict. The damned thing's been going on for 62 years. The conflict has raised the stakes so that now, even if the Palestinians got a "home" and all demands on both sides were met, the violence would not end because both sides carry grudges.
This is the essential nature of mankind: Vengeance, revenge, retribution. Making someone hurt and pay for what they did to you. There is no INHERENT goodness in man. There is only the caveman hunched by a fire with a sharpened stick waiting for the tribe from which he stole one of their women to come after him and wipe out his tribe because of it - then kill the woman he stole because she was no longer "pure".
Sound familiar?
Here's the funny thing: We LOVE this stuff. We can't get enough of it. How many movies, books, stories and such are based on the simple concept of over-kill in retaliation for a wrong? We sacrifice horny teens by the gory score at summer blockbusters just to build up the concept that an entity (or person) is bad and deserves to die. While this would be fine in the normal scope of things, the simple fact is humans DON'T KNOW WHEN TO STOP. In real life, if that entity or person was slaughtered in an imaginative and sufficiently gory way, attention would then turn on their friends, associates, family members, religion and/or workplace. How many times has it happened that innocents suffer for what someone they know did?
Way more times than is comfortable to think about.
Let's face it, mankind doesn't WANT to forgive transgressions against it. No one ever believes themselves to be in the wrong. Even if they know they are, they deny it. So they fight, and maim and kill all in the name of righteous retribution for a transgression against them - be it real or imagined. The ridiculous lengths to which we go over this kind of thing is beyond imagination, but sadly not beyond reality.
How many sports fans have attacked and killed other sports fans for what a member of or a whole team did? How many Muslims died in protest over the depiction of their Prophet and how many of them wanted to see the entire West die because of it? An accident in one household can lead to murder in another. There is an inherent lack of perspective when it comes to events such as this that we are not willing to embrace. We seek the "noble cause", the "righteousness of our cause" or some other high-minded rationalization to justify our basic desire to kill people over what we see as harm. Politicians and religious leaders have played on this concept for so long, it is part of our culture and mindset. It's not like we're going to be able to change that anytime soon.
Now, I'm not advocating that we all take a Christian point of view about forgiveness. After all, reality doesn't work that way in the first place and in the second, not everyone can stomach the Christian morality. Forgiveness isn't about saying, "What you did was bad but I forgive you." Real, true human forgiveness should be about saying something to the effect of, "I won't take it out on people who aren't responsible, and once you are punished for what you have done, I won't hold a grudge."
Be aware that, in the human mind, the balance of scales regarding acts demanding revenge are skewed. Therefore, it's necessary to seek a proportionate punishment for the act on the individuals actually responsible for the act. This is the root of the beginning to understand real human forgiveness. It's a forgiveness that is realistically attainable for most people which can help contain the mindless, directionless violence that often accompanies vengeful acts.
Mankind will never give up the desire to seek retribution. At least not anytime in the next few thousand years. But a "civilized" species can learn to moderate that desire for revenge by acquiring some perspective and spending a lot of time in anger management lessons.
We COULD, I suppose, get into a long, involved discussion about "justice" as an alternative to revenge, but let's face it, revenge balances the scales in the mind of the one seeking revenge. Justice is strictly something society does and really doesn't address an individual's harm. Learning "forgiveness" is the simple act of seeking a revenge that balances the scales in proportion to the act being avenged and then moving on without letting the original act consume your life or bringing others into the picture.
Forgiveness: Proportionate revenge with the perspective of an outsider.
Now let's examine the proper application of this idea, since in religions we get a lot of rules without a lot of ideas in exactly how to go about this in real life.
To begin with, let's quantify what we're talking about: Personal harm should be defined only as acts intentionally directed at you specifically intended to inflict emotional, physical or mental damage. If it isn't personal harm, let it go.
First of all, examine the act. This is the anger management part. Were you hurt? Was property damaged? Was there any lasting harm to you? If not, get over it. You only have one shot at this life. Filling it up with petty garbage from slights and insults that have done nothing to you will only screw up your life and I'm sure you have better things to do than to have your life screwed up by something which did you no personal harm.
Always think first. Not about how many tiny bloody bits you can carve someone into, but about what happened in proportion to what you want to do. Did someone in another land do something you don't like? Did it hurt you personally? If so, how much? Is it righteous indignation you feel? Let that go. Others don't share your faith and if you don't respect their right to have a different one, you don't deserve to have your faith respected by others, either. Did they disrespect your faith? Fine, let them. If you think your faith can't handle the disrespect of others, then you need to find a stronger faith. Their disrespect for your faith doesn't hurt you or your faith. Are they killing you over your faith? Go for the ones who are doing the killing, not the ones you think have the same faith.
The point here is that what you believe is personal harm usually isn't. The other point is that you need to know who is actually responsible for inflicting that personal harm because it's usually not the ones you hurt back.
Stop and think about things, folks. That's how to implement this whole concept. Revenge is a dish best served cold and you can't do that when you're enraged. Once you cool off, you may realize that it wasn't an act deserving of any retribution at all. I don't advocate forgiveness as a free pass. Human nature demands punishment for acts that cause harm. But we do need to learn some perspective about what we think is harm and be proportionate in seeking any retribution. We don't swat flies with shovels or spank babies with axes. Why do we do that kind of thing when it comes to revenge? Perspective and proportion. Those are realistic interim behavioral goals that humans can actually achieve on our paths of spiritual exploration and evolution. Rome wasn't built in a day. Human instincts have had millions of years of evolution to get to this point and only thousands of years to get used to civilized behavior.
As for me, I think about revenge a lot, but my personal philosophy doesn't let me seek retribution without incurring grievous harm on myself. For the most part, I let the universe sort it out. It takes patience but it keeps the dry cleaning bills removing blood stains to a minimum.
Monday, October 18, 2010
The Existence, and Absence, of God
I debated writing this post for a long time. My faith (Neo-Paganism as influenced by Wicca traditions) forbids doing harm. Interfering with the spiritual paths of others is, indeed, harm. Therefore it's vital that I add this warning:
IF YOU ARE CLOSE-MINDED IN YOUR FAITH - DO NOT READ!
I mean it. This post is an addendum, of sorts, to The Simple Truth, which I wrote before finding the belief system that best fits my world view which placed that caveat on me to "harm none". In The Simple Truth, I said why we have religions and my opinion of that is not much different. But while The Simple Truth invests much in mankind's inherent nature, there still exists in most people a desire to address spiritual concerns. Leaving behind, for the moment, the whole question of the existence of the soul and fully acknowledging the fact these are generally rationalizations based on certain scientific theories, I believe I can explain a simple, moral way of expressing one's spirituality without having to resort to science-bashing, denial or any other of the dogmatic traits infesting most mainstream religions.
Before we get started, I want to go over some scientific understandings. Basically, these are findings and theories which explain creation. Not so much why as how. The why could be simple random chance. Mankind is NOT all he thinks he is. But in the interest of fairness, let's argue the why is religious, the how is physical and this is where we are today.
So, on to the science:
There is something called the Grand Unified Theory, or the Theory of Everything. There is also something called Quantum Mechanics. There is finally the conservation theories. All of these actually play into the belief system I follow. Note I call it a belief system. I consider a religion to be a predefined set of dogmatic rules to which all must abide. I also note again that they have nothing to do with faith or beliefs. One can believe anything, but if they follow the predefined, dogmatic behaviors, to all outside appearances, they are a follower and practitioner of whatever faith the dogma applies. I believe in certain things and have faith that they are true. I follow no pre-set rules or dogmatic behaviors. Therefore I have no religion, but I do have a faith.
I hope that clears things up a bit.
Back to science.
First of all, the Grand Unified Theory or the Theory of Everything is a way of explaining existence. It shows how the four primary forces in the universe are related and are actually different physical manifestations of the same thing. Without going into too much scientific mumbo-jumbo (because this is supposed to enlighten, not necessarily educate), we'll focus on one aspect of it. The GUT or ToE (whichever you understand better) requires, among a great many things, an infinite number of dimensions in order to work.
People say "infinite" without really grasping what that means. For the sake of clarity (explanation-wise if not scientific-wise), let us assume that every dimension is exactly like ours, with only one difference. That difference can be as small as whether we sneezed at a particular time, woke up a fraction of a second later or earlier. That small difference had an impact on that dimension. Now, multiply that single difference by the number of possible events that happen which can cause a difference in one life alone, and you begin to get the idea of what "infinite" means. Toss in that number multiplied by the number of people (or event-causing things) in the universe, and we're talking a number beyond the scope of human understanding.
So the long and short of it is everything we do splits off a new dimension. We don't notice because our minds are part of the quantum flux and don't know about the other dimensions. We don't see or sense the dimensional splitting.
Which brings us to the next part of science - quantum mechanics. This is pretty highbrow stuff, but the essence of it is that everything effects everything else ON SOME LEVEL. This is proven, scientific fact based on small scale testing with large-scale ramifications. (As an aside, this is how faster-than-light communications may be possible by something called "quantum entanglement" - look it up if you want to go "wow..."). Further studies have proven that thought has an effect on objects outside of the brain. Not exactly telekinesis, but an effect.
Adding quantum mechanics to the notion of infinite dimensions and you have thought actually creating new dimensions. The changes are so minute, we can't even notice them, but even if we did, we'd probably not realize we were the ones creating it.
So, taking the infinite to a logical conclusion, it's logical to assume that if all things are possible, and have happened (somewhere in the dimensions) we have learned a great deal, created a great deal and can access this information/wisdom/stuff just by thinking about it. This leads to the last part of our scientific trinity: Conservation laws.
It's been proven that energy can not be created or destroyed. It simply takes on a different state. Energy can be turned to matter and, sadly, vice versa (the whole idea behind a nuclear bomb is mass to energy conversion). So we are a bundle of potential energy walking around ready to effect our world, our universe and every dimension in it. We each are "god".
Sort of...
More on that and how it relates to conservation laws in a bit.
What we lack in the dimension we're currently inhabiting is the wisdom of the ages. What we have to help us with that wisdom are all of the gods we've created over the years.
Have any of you ever wondered about our deities? I mean, all of them are very "human-like", be it "good" or "bad". There's a simple reason we did this: We created deities to which we could relate. All of them have their own unique "personalities" and few of those personalities are really much different from people we probably already know. Don't tell me that the God of the Bible, Torah or Koran are that different in behavior, or attitude - all of which have easy-to-spot counterparts in human behavior. Our gods ARE us. At the same time, they aren't. We created ways and means of relating to the infinite universe; to all of those dimensions, all of those possibilities, all of that knowledge, wisdom and insight that is out there. We call them "gods". They're really personifications of perspective who, by the quirks of quantum mechanics by which thoughts can effect things, are real - at least to those who 'believe' in them. It is how we can touch the infinite in a way that doesn't make our heads ache trying to keep it all in perspective.
Now, the explanation for gods is covered by the first two of the trinities of scientific theory. Our gods are a reflection of our own selves because we created them, and find ways to relate to them to grasp the infinite that is the universe. This is how we see spirituality. But WHY do we seek the spiritual at all if it's all made-up-stuff?
The answer Conservation laws.
Energy can not be destroyed. That is a fundamental law of science. We are all "potential energy" just by existing. Our thoughts are electro-chemical reactions which produce energy. None of that can be destroyed. It can, however, change into something else. Call it a soul if you will, call it decomposing into the earth to become something new. I don't necessarily believe that consciousness continues since that is energy and that can change, but it changes. It isn't destroyed.
Whether by the inability to conceive of our own non-existence or the firm belief that we go on after death, the fact is we do go on after death. The question, is in what form? The answer is "energy".
The details are a bit skimpy and left up to the imagination or desires of the individual. But here's the really interesting part. In an infinite universe, with all things being possible, then heaven, hell, limbo, reincarnation, nonexistence and all other guesses as to what happens to life after death are equally possible. With quantum mechanics forming our realities as we go, it's possible (though I'd hate to do the math to figure the odds) that whatever we believe will happen to us after death WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN to us.
But the ultimate question is: To what end?
Based on the above-mentioned rationalizations, that entirely depends on the individual's belief system. In my belief system (which is why I put up the warning, your belief system may vary), mankind's individual energy has increased as our ability to think has increased. This energy is what I think of as the "soul" and it evolves as we do. (I believe in reincarnation, but not always or necessarily as distinct individuals) . The more we live and learn, the more we evolve. That's the good news. The better news is because the universe is infinite, there is no game end point. We keep learning. We keep growing. We keep evolving. There is always something exciting and new ahead to peer into, to explore, to understand.
Now whether we retain consciousness as individuals after death or not isn't really the point. The point here is that, and with physics backing this up, we are all connected to each other and to everything around us. The fact is while mankind is egocentric by nature, nature isn't. But if we recognize that connectedness to everything, then we have a reason to improve ourselves. Energy that is positive, improving all of us, increases our potential. Energy that harms, diminishes us all, decreasing our potential. In short, if we do good for everyone else, we do good for ourselves as much as them. If we do harm to others, we harm ourselves as well.
All we need to do is to live by the simple rule: Harming none, do as you will.
There are energy penalties for doing things that are counter to the evolution of the soul. Call it a loss of lessons, or failing a test for lack of a better term. These push the individual (or mankind's overall energy) back. I call this Karma. Bolstering the energy by promoting a lack of harm pushes the energy forward, to a higher level thus benefiting either the individual or the whole (depending on one's point of view). This is also Karma. It doesn't require doing anything more than not doing harm.
It's a pretty simple philosophy that encourages thought, education, science and discovery. The difference is, my belief system has far more science behind it than most. I believe it best - at least for me and in my mind for everyone else. But as I said, it's not a good thing to interfere with the spiritual path of another. Thoughts can create reality, though. And I do think about this a lot...
These are just the basics of my belief system. The scientific framework upon which I hang the rest of it: the rituals, the ideology, the rationale for doing what I do. I'm not perfect, I make mistakes. I get rewarded for doing good. I get "punished" for doing bad. It's a rather esoteric reward and punishment system, but this is taking the very long view of things.
Mankind has a very large amount of potential energy. How that energy is used is up to us. I'd like to think we will go far and do great things. So far, I don't see a lot of good coming out of our existence. With any luck, should we prove to be more than the universe can handle, we won't take the rest of existence with us when we go.
But it's possible...
IF YOU ARE CLOSE-MINDED IN YOUR FAITH - DO NOT READ!
I mean it. This post is an addendum, of sorts, to The Simple Truth, which I wrote before finding the belief system that best fits my world view which placed that caveat on me to "harm none". In The Simple Truth, I said why we have religions and my opinion of that is not much different. But while The Simple Truth invests much in mankind's inherent nature, there still exists in most people a desire to address spiritual concerns. Leaving behind, for the moment, the whole question of the existence of the soul and fully acknowledging the fact these are generally rationalizations based on certain scientific theories, I believe I can explain a simple, moral way of expressing one's spirituality without having to resort to science-bashing, denial or any other of the dogmatic traits infesting most mainstream religions.
Before we get started, I want to go over some scientific understandings. Basically, these are findings and theories which explain creation. Not so much why as how. The why could be simple random chance. Mankind is NOT all he thinks he is. But in the interest of fairness, let's argue the why is religious, the how is physical and this is where we are today.
So, on to the science:
There is something called the Grand Unified Theory, or the Theory of Everything. There is also something called Quantum Mechanics. There is finally the conservation theories. All of these actually play into the belief system I follow. Note I call it a belief system. I consider a religion to be a predefined set of dogmatic rules to which all must abide. I also note again that they have nothing to do with faith or beliefs. One can believe anything, but if they follow the predefined, dogmatic behaviors, to all outside appearances, they are a follower and practitioner of whatever faith the dogma applies. I believe in certain things and have faith that they are true. I follow no pre-set rules or dogmatic behaviors. Therefore I have no religion, but I do have a faith.
I hope that clears things up a bit.
Back to science.
First of all, the Grand Unified Theory or the Theory of Everything is a way of explaining existence. It shows how the four primary forces in the universe are related and are actually different physical manifestations of the same thing. Without going into too much scientific mumbo-jumbo (because this is supposed to enlighten, not necessarily educate), we'll focus on one aspect of it. The GUT or ToE (whichever you understand better) requires, among a great many things, an infinite number of dimensions in order to work.
People say "infinite" without really grasping what that means. For the sake of clarity (explanation-wise if not scientific-wise), let us assume that every dimension is exactly like ours, with only one difference. That difference can be as small as whether we sneezed at a particular time, woke up a fraction of a second later or earlier. That small difference had an impact on that dimension. Now, multiply that single difference by the number of possible events that happen which can cause a difference in one life alone, and you begin to get the idea of what "infinite" means. Toss in that number multiplied by the number of people (or event-causing things) in the universe, and we're talking a number beyond the scope of human understanding.
So the long and short of it is everything we do splits off a new dimension. We don't notice because our minds are part of the quantum flux and don't know about the other dimensions. We don't see or sense the dimensional splitting.
Which brings us to the next part of science - quantum mechanics. This is pretty highbrow stuff, but the essence of it is that everything effects everything else ON SOME LEVEL. This is proven, scientific fact based on small scale testing with large-scale ramifications. (As an aside, this is how faster-than-light communications may be possible by something called "quantum entanglement" - look it up if you want to go "wow..."). Further studies have proven that thought has an effect on objects outside of the brain. Not exactly telekinesis, but an effect.
Adding quantum mechanics to the notion of infinite dimensions and you have thought actually creating new dimensions. The changes are so minute, we can't even notice them, but even if we did, we'd probably not realize we were the ones creating it.
So, taking the infinite to a logical conclusion, it's logical to assume that if all things are possible, and have happened (somewhere in the dimensions) we have learned a great deal, created a great deal and can access this information/wisdom/stuff just by thinking about it. This leads to the last part of our scientific trinity: Conservation laws.
It's been proven that energy can not be created or destroyed. It simply takes on a different state. Energy can be turned to matter and, sadly, vice versa (the whole idea behind a nuclear bomb is mass to energy conversion). So we are a bundle of potential energy walking around ready to effect our world, our universe and every dimension in it. We each are "god".
Sort of...
More on that and how it relates to conservation laws in a bit.
What we lack in the dimension we're currently inhabiting is the wisdom of the ages. What we have to help us with that wisdom are all of the gods we've created over the years.
Have any of you ever wondered about our deities? I mean, all of them are very "human-like", be it "good" or "bad". There's a simple reason we did this: We created deities to which we could relate. All of them have their own unique "personalities" and few of those personalities are really much different from people we probably already know. Don't tell me that the God of the Bible, Torah or Koran are that different in behavior, or attitude - all of which have easy-to-spot counterparts in human behavior. Our gods ARE us. At the same time, they aren't. We created ways and means of relating to the infinite universe; to all of those dimensions, all of those possibilities, all of that knowledge, wisdom and insight that is out there. We call them "gods". They're really personifications of perspective who, by the quirks of quantum mechanics by which thoughts can effect things, are real - at least to those who 'believe' in them. It is how we can touch the infinite in a way that doesn't make our heads ache trying to keep it all in perspective.
Now, the explanation for gods is covered by the first two of the trinities of scientific theory. Our gods are a reflection of our own selves because we created them, and find ways to relate to them to grasp the infinite that is the universe. This is how we see spirituality. But WHY do we seek the spiritual at all if it's all made-up-stuff?
The answer Conservation laws.
Energy can not be destroyed. That is a fundamental law of science. We are all "potential energy" just by existing. Our thoughts are electro-chemical reactions which produce energy. None of that can be destroyed. It can, however, change into something else. Call it a soul if you will, call it decomposing into the earth to become something new. I don't necessarily believe that consciousness continues since that is energy and that can change, but it changes. It isn't destroyed.
Whether by the inability to conceive of our own non-existence or the firm belief that we go on after death, the fact is we do go on after death. The question, is in what form? The answer is "energy".
The details are a bit skimpy and left up to the imagination or desires of the individual. But here's the really interesting part. In an infinite universe, with all things being possible, then heaven, hell, limbo, reincarnation, nonexistence and all other guesses as to what happens to life after death are equally possible. With quantum mechanics forming our realities as we go, it's possible (though I'd hate to do the math to figure the odds) that whatever we believe will happen to us after death WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN to us.
But the ultimate question is: To what end?
Based on the above-mentioned rationalizations, that entirely depends on the individual's belief system. In my belief system (which is why I put up the warning, your belief system may vary), mankind's individual energy has increased as our ability to think has increased. This energy is what I think of as the "soul" and it evolves as we do. (I believe in reincarnation, but not always or necessarily as distinct individuals) . The more we live and learn, the more we evolve. That's the good news. The better news is because the universe is infinite, there is no game end point. We keep learning. We keep growing. We keep evolving. There is always something exciting and new ahead to peer into, to explore, to understand.
Now whether we retain consciousness as individuals after death or not isn't really the point. The point here is that, and with physics backing this up, we are all connected to each other and to everything around us. The fact is while mankind is egocentric by nature, nature isn't. But if we recognize that connectedness to everything, then we have a reason to improve ourselves. Energy that is positive, improving all of us, increases our potential. Energy that harms, diminishes us all, decreasing our potential. In short, if we do good for everyone else, we do good for ourselves as much as them. If we do harm to others, we harm ourselves as well.
All we need to do is to live by the simple rule: Harming none, do as you will.
There are energy penalties for doing things that are counter to the evolution of the soul. Call it a loss of lessons, or failing a test for lack of a better term. These push the individual (or mankind's overall energy) back. I call this Karma. Bolstering the energy by promoting a lack of harm pushes the energy forward, to a higher level thus benefiting either the individual or the whole (depending on one's point of view). This is also Karma. It doesn't require doing anything more than not doing harm.
It's a pretty simple philosophy that encourages thought, education, science and discovery. The difference is, my belief system has far more science behind it than most. I believe it best - at least for me and in my mind for everyone else. But as I said, it's not a good thing to interfere with the spiritual path of another. Thoughts can create reality, though. And I do think about this a lot...
These are just the basics of my belief system. The scientific framework upon which I hang the rest of it: the rituals, the ideology, the rationale for doing what I do. I'm not perfect, I make mistakes. I get rewarded for doing good. I get "punished" for doing bad. It's a rather esoteric reward and punishment system, but this is taking the very long view of things.
Mankind has a very large amount of potential energy. How that energy is used is up to us. I'd like to think we will go far and do great things. So far, I don't see a lot of good coming out of our existence. With any luck, should we prove to be more than the universe can handle, we won't take the rest of existence with us when we go.
But it's possible...
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Beating Mind Games: Why Johnny Will Never Be A Genius
This post will probably offend a lot of people, but if you can get past the resentment (mine and yours), I think the point is both valid and one needing to be addressed.
As someone with an above average IQ (Okay, WAY above average and yes, I've been tested.), I find the fact that geniuses are universally hated and reviled, bullied and put upon to be rather depressing. Let's face it, we as a nation, revere strength and physical power over brains and mental agility. The former are muscular bad-boys with good looks who are glorified on the field of combat (well, sports fields in mock-combat) while the latter are bespectacled, acne-scarred social misfits relegated to musty, dark rooms, pouring over stacks of moldy old tomes in the search of something the stereotype will typically say is relevant only to the searcher. The former gets the girl and his face on magazines until he's too old for ESPN. The latter gets the Nobel Prize, and pretty much complete obscurity after that.
People call geniuses social misfits (at best), mock them, deride them, insult them and yet without them - that top 10% of brain-power among human kind - civilization as we know it would cease to exist. Without the thinkers, the doers could only do so much. In warfare, if you eliminate the planners, the army can't fulfill its role and is eventually defeated by the side with planners. Better planners will win over poorer planners.
In schools, mediocrity is ENCOURAGED, if not enforced, by the social structure. The person who skews the average by actually learning the material better than anyone else is vilified and outcast from the rest. Never mind that they are more likely to make more money, be more successful in life and have the last laugh at the 20 year reunion, they're hated by their peers all their lives. Given this proclivity in our social expectations and traditions, it's hardly any wonder that they tend to form intellectual clubs.
Geniuses tend to group with other geniuses because, finally, there is a new peer group that actually understands what's being said as well as one in which the peer group has a mutual understanding of the life experiences of others in that group. They don't talk football stats or which steroid is least likely to turn one's testicles into useless raisins. They talk Cobal, or Klingon, or Chemistry. Like everyone else, they have mutual interests. Unlike everyone else, those interests have little or nothing to do with physical prowess (except in sex, but that's just the human condition of wanting what you can't get).
The similarities between the two groups - the physicals and the geniuses - are numerous. It is the mentality of the two which is so vastly different. Geniuses think. Their activities involve brain-work. Physicals do. Their activities involve muscle work or relatively mindless entertainment. Because of this mentality gap, the two groups don't relate well to one another. And because of the fact there are ten physicals to every genius, general society is made up of physicals who take a dim view to thinking.
Now, least you think this is a skewed perception consider this: The person most likely to get beaten to a pulp in school is above average in IQ. The evil character is almost always portrayed as an "evil genius". Even "Brainiac" was an outcast among the super heroes. Politicians especially do NOT want an educated, smart electorate. God forbid they have one because then they'd actually have to come through with their campaign promises. People would remember them. They'd also have to stay on their best behaviors, because educated people aren't about second chances when these elected officials screwed up so badly the first time. They can't lie to them (smart people actually bother to check snarky things like facts and figures, starting with the hypothesis that most politicians are lying in the first place in some way). They can't twist the truth (for the same reason). Smart people are usually smarter than the politicians.
And so, because society, and their leaders, are generally made up of physical types whose brain-power is less than equal to those of the geniuses, they make life very hard on the geniuses. Everything reflects the bias against being smart, against being well educated, and against having a point of view that differs from what these physical types have decided is 'normal'. Mediocrity is the goal. If excellence is to be seen, it must be a physical feat because they can see it. Mental feats require people to understand what they were, why they were done and how it may effect them. That requires thinking on the part of society in general and, as we have already established, society in general isn't really cut out for that kind of thing.
"ELITIST!!!" you scream.
"Damn straight," I reply mildly.
Consider this: Most of you will never understand quantum relationships or how faster than light communication is not only possible, but is being tested now.
No amount of ditch digging, wrestle-mania, pro-sports or any other physical act is going to make this register in the minds of most people. These who can't conceive of such notions are the people who deny global warming, believe in politicians or political pundits as if those people are saying or going to do anything other than what it takes to get elected and generally go around beating up the very people who actually understand what's going on. Let's face it, most of you don't understand the technology you use every day - even the exact means necessary for you to read these words on your screen are little more than a vague notion that it's "like TV". (It isn't, by the way. It may look like a duck and quack like a duck, but it's not a duck.)
Now, it's not that you HAVE to understand these things. You don't. You're probably a doer (though one could argue that doers are out doing and thinkers are out thinking, and most people who bother to read are thinkers, which means this blog post is being read by the wrong people, but isn't it nice to have someone who understands your plight and is willing to put it out there?). Doers have to do.
Yet it's up to the thinkers to invent this technology, find those medical cures, design those buildings and cars and motorcycles and sports safety equipment. I'll bet most people could name the winner of last year's world series (or who's in the playoffs this year) than can say who discovered Penicillin which has saved more lives than will ever WATCH those games. (Just so you don't have to Google it, Alexander Flemming is credited with the discovery in 1928, and awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1945 which he shared with two others who helped him develop the antibiotic from the penicillin mold. Ian Flemming (no relation) invented James Bond. The two Flemmings are often mistaken for the same person.)
So while doers make the world go around, it's the thinkers that enable them to keep it spinning, making things faster, better, stronger for everyone. We each have our roles to play in the grand scheme of things and the thinkers recognize this. It would be nice if the doers were less inclined to beat the crap out of the thinkers, though. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's bad. We know you don't like change or new things. But we're thinkers. That's what we do. We make things better and by doing so, change the old things. You are doers. You will learn to do with the new better than you did with the old. Just take a deep breath, let it out slowly, follow the instructions (I admit we thinkers could write them so you can actually understand them better) and you'll be fine.
In the meantime, buy a thinker or two a beer. After all, it was a thinker who invented the stuff in the first place...
As someone with an above average IQ (Okay, WAY above average and yes, I've been tested.), I find the fact that geniuses are universally hated and reviled, bullied and put upon to be rather depressing. Let's face it, we as a nation, revere strength and physical power over brains and mental agility. The former are muscular bad-boys with good looks who are glorified on the field of combat (well, sports fields in mock-combat) while the latter are bespectacled, acne-scarred social misfits relegated to musty, dark rooms, pouring over stacks of moldy old tomes in the search of something the stereotype will typically say is relevant only to the searcher. The former gets the girl and his face on magazines until he's too old for ESPN. The latter gets the Nobel Prize, and pretty much complete obscurity after that.
People call geniuses social misfits (at best), mock them, deride them, insult them and yet without them - that top 10% of brain-power among human kind - civilization as we know it would cease to exist. Without the thinkers, the doers could only do so much. In warfare, if you eliminate the planners, the army can't fulfill its role and is eventually defeated by the side with planners. Better planners will win over poorer planners.
In schools, mediocrity is ENCOURAGED, if not enforced, by the social structure. The person who skews the average by actually learning the material better than anyone else is vilified and outcast from the rest. Never mind that they are more likely to make more money, be more successful in life and have the last laugh at the 20 year reunion, they're hated by their peers all their lives. Given this proclivity in our social expectations and traditions, it's hardly any wonder that they tend to form intellectual clubs.
Geniuses tend to group with other geniuses because, finally, there is a new peer group that actually understands what's being said as well as one in which the peer group has a mutual understanding of the life experiences of others in that group. They don't talk football stats or which steroid is least likely to turn one's testicles into useless raisins. They talk Cobal, or Klingon, or Chemistry. Like everyone else, they have mutual interests. Unlike everyone else, those interests have little or nothing to do with physical prowess (except in sex, but that's just the human condition of wanting what you can't get).
The similarities between the two groups - the physicals and the geniuses - are numerous. It is the mentality of the two which is so vastly different. Geniuses think. Their activities involve brain-work. Physicals do. Their activities involve muscle work or relatively mindless entertainment. Because of this mentality gap, the two groups don't relate well to one another. And because of the fact there are ten physicals to every genius, general society is made up of physicals who take a dim view to thinking.
Now, least you think this is a skewed perception consider this: The person most likely to get beaten to a pulp in school is above average in IQ. The evil character is almost always portrayed as an "evil genius". Even "Brainiac" was an outcast among the super heroes. Politicians especially do NOT want an educated, smart electorate. God forbid they have one because then they'd actually have to come through with their campaign promises. People would remember them. They'd also have to stay on their best behaviors, because educated people aren't about second chances when these elected officials screwed up so badly the first time. They can't lie to them (smart people actually bother to check snarky things like facts and figures, starting with the hypothesis that most politicians are lying in the first place in some way). They can't twist the truth (for the same reason). Smart people are usually smarter than the politicians.
And so, because society, and their leaders, are generally made up of physical types whose brain-power is less than equal to those of the geniuses, they make life very hard on the geniuses. Everything reflects the bias against being smart, against being well educated, and against having a point of view that differs from what these physical types have decided is 'normal'. Mediocrity is the goal. If excellence is to be seen, it must be a physical feat because they can see it. Mental feats require people to understand what they were, why they were done and how it may effect them. That requires thinking on the part of society in general and, as we have already established, society in general isn't really cut out for that kind of thing.
"ELITIST!!!" you scream.
"Damn straight," I reply mildly.
Consider this: Most of you will never understand quantum relationships or how faster than light communication is not only possible, but is being tested now.
No amount of ditch digging, wrestle-mania, pro-sports or any other physical act is going to make this register in the minds of most people. These who can't conceive of such notions are the people who deny global warming, believe in politicians or political pundits as if those people are saying or going to do anything other than what it takes to get elected and generally go around beating up the very people who actually understand what's going on. Let's face it, most of you don't understand the technology you use every day - even the exact means necessary for you to read these words on your screen are little more than a vague notion that it's "like TV". (It isn't, by the way. It may look like a duck and quack like a duck, but it's not a duck.)
Now, it's not that you HAVE to understand these things. You don't. You're probably a doer (though one could argue that doers are out doing and thinkers are out thinking, and most people who bother to read are thinkers, which means this blog post is being read by the wrong people, but isn't it nice to have someone who understands your plight and is willing to put it out there?). Doers have to do.
Yet it's up to the thinkers to invent this technology, find those medical cures, design those buildings and cars and motorcycles and sports safety equipment. I'll bet most people could name the winner of last year's world series (or who's in the playoffs this year) than can say who discovered Penicillin which has saved more lives than will ever WATCH those games. (Just so you don't have to Google it, Alexander Flemming is credited with the discovery in 1928, and awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1945 which he shared with two others who helped him develop the antibiotic from the penicillin mold. Ian Flemming (no relation) invented James Bond. The two Flemmings are often mistaken for the same person.)
So while doers make the world go around, it's the thinkers that enable them to keep it spinning, making things faster, better, stronger for everyone. We each have our roles to play in the grand scheme of things and the thinkers recognize this. It would be nice if the doers were less inclined to beat the crap out of the thinkers, though. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's bad. We know you don't like change or new things. But we're thinkers. That's what we do. We make things better and by doing so, change the old things. You are doers. You will learn to do with the new better than you did with the old. Just take a deep breath, let it out slowly, follow the instructions (I admit we thinkers could write them so you can actually understand them better) and you'll be fine.
In the meantime, buy a thinker or two a beer. After all, it was a thinker who invented the stuff in the first place...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)