I spoke of impetus in a previous post. I have seen men with a will that sees them into and through great hardships on the way to their goals. Sometimes the hardships are a choice or even the goal and other times they seem to be a necessary obstacle. I watch as men climb mountains, toil through mounds of books to gain knowledge, and compete with each other for gold medals. I watch these men contest themselves first, then go on to contest the unknown, the seemingly unyielding, or others who have done the same. I was there once, I was pushing and pulling myself and my environment until one day I broke. The conscious personal self and will were intact and functioning but some, as of yet unidentified part of myself, perhaps my body, survival instincts, and or unconscious mind, decided it didn't like the risks and the effort and perhaps didn't see through to the goal and returns. Knowing what I do, I know I was in extreme waters and that I did go over edges of physical exhaustion, personal danger, and social dangers which I don’t think anyone is made necessarily tolerate. Because of the split, I became trapped in a prison of flesh which chose it’s own path over all my will and conscious efforts.
So the question of what drives a man is of great interest. But I have no answers, only questions, and doubts. How much of this drive is physical, how much mental, how much spiritual? Is it like nerves are said to be in that when it’s link is severed it cannot heal? Is there a work around as can happen in brain trauma? I don’t think my difficulty is purely psychological, nor do I have good reason to believe in psychiatry in general. Of the various treatments for the possible illnesses associated with my affliction, none seem to satisfy my recalcitrant aspect and there is a great impediment in the medical communities will to see if there isn’t physical component to the illness. Only trauma therapy has alleviated some of the harshness and bite, slowing the number of dreams and flashes, evening the temperament, and offering peace of mind when that other part decides to play boss, and on darker days. After nearly twenty years, one would think some recovery would have transpired. I have even considered street medications, yet I know that would be very unwise. Some people are too dangerous to allow their grip on reality to slip, I am among those. No, but there must be another way.
I did have to deal with depression. The depression was real, but it was causal. Going from 120 percent output to backsliding against one’s will in a heartbeat tends to be depressing. Being a functional, life and work loving, playful human who suddenly can’t stand up for lack of energy really hurts. As well, I probably added to my dilemma in those days by very nearly killing myself on several occasions in less than savory manners. Now that I understand there are real limits, that it isn’t my fault or a choice, I do fine. Even when I can’t go, I can smile and I often laugh. When I can’t stay awake for long, I can enjoy tidbits. Yet I know I have abilities that are being lost, interests not being met, and fun not being enjoyed.
I will go through my affliction, as I understand it, and in whole, just in case someone might have a recipe for recovery, an insight I have missed, or even wisdom to share. The main complaint is exhaustion. My body constantly craves sleep. I have been able to stay awake for 14-16 hours a day, drinking 20-22 ounces of the strongest fresh ground coffee available AND lots of sugar once and sometimes twice a day, but even that doesn’t always work. At worst I can only be awake 2-4 hours at a time, sleeping 6 to 12 hours between hours of wakefulness. If I go to the store, go to church, have a meeting, or do anything else, I need an extra 2-6 hours of sleep. If I do two or three things on a day, I pay in sleep for days. There are periods of remission in which I am able to function perfectly normal. I haven’t seen any typical period for either of those modes, any indication there will be a change, nor have I found that stress or other typical problems act as triggers. Winters are harder, though the reverse is not necessarily true in that summertime is no guarantee of normalcy. I do have night sweats and nightmares bad enough that I can pull muscles and recently seriously hurt my foot by twitching?, stretching?, or clenching?, muscles. I have migraines, on the left side of my head, from a point in the center back which moves to cover the width of my left eye brow but back in the near front of my head right behind the hairline and near the surface of the skull roughly in a line. As well, I am always tense, ready, afraid, defensive. And though I have had some difficulty in life, I am not sure they can be the cause. I have dealt with these things and let them go, honestly dealing with them to include caring for parental troubles and other wrongs I have done and which have been done to me. I was never in combat, despite my unchanging unchangeable combat nightmares (I can change most other dreams, for example if falling I can and do learn to fly, if being hunted I can and do become the hunter, etc.).
I am currently overweight. But for someone who rarely walks, never works out, and has no needs which force me to use my muscles, I am extremely strong. My midsection is solid, my grip is vicious, and my capacity to walk outstrips a lady friend (who once a year, more if she can, steals me from the grip of safety and inactivity and compels me to her outdoors world along many and varied paths). It’s like my body and mind has a green light and is ready (rearing) to go but no one knows how to push the start button.
I honestly wish I could say I was as slothful, apathetic, or dejected. I wish I could say that I am too limited to learn. I wish I could say I was physically crippled. Any several of these would explain what is wrong but I own none of them. I have tried thrashing the “dead horse”, I have tried self-sympathy, treats, ignoring the problems, therapy, drug treatments, and everything I can think to change this. I should add, I do pray. Though I don’t expect God to take these things, only that if it his will to do so then so be it, if not I then pray that he allow me the strength to live with my failings. I certainly have learned humility if I have become, perhaps, too self-centric.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
What are women?
Women have been people and sometimes objects I have studied. As people, they include my mother, sisters, aunts, friends, girl friends, lovers, and teachers. I have known these women as people who I have worked with, played with, and with whom I have shared care, learning, and various forms of love. The object that is woman is the body she inhabits, a sensual, soft, curvaceous creation. Not all women have been objectified, certainly my mother and girls are precluded from this group. But many other women might receive attention due to their anatomy, actions, voices, or just from my desires and needs. I will not make a claim to understand women, their motives, the physics related to their mechanical actions, or my attraction for them. I just know they are different in form and function. I also know that I am often attracted to them. None of this is fully understood and it is my sincerest hope that it remains a mystery until I die. And yet, I wish to consider and share some of my thoughts about women.
Women seem to have a vast head start in communication, maturity, and perhaps creativity over men which over time becomes more equal if not directly on par. They seem to lack physical strength, mathematical understanding, geometric grounding, and an overall competitive nature, if they may seriously compete with other women. The president of Harvard was kicked out for saying only one of those things, so, of course, I could be wrong. Still, I do not bother to lie for the sake of conformity and I tell it as I see and understand a topic. There are no absolutes, still one can seemingly fly until one hits the ground nose first. Perceptions and beliefs can deceive. I should also add that I do not believe in limiting people, but I do believe if they don't have the ability they should be turned away, which too often doesn't happen.
But this is not what women, or men, are about. What they are about is what they do in life and in relationships. My full belief is that women are lovers, complete, whole, and unabashed. I am not speaking of mistresses, necessarily, but givers. Women give of themselves, their time, their care, and their energy. They give so much it hurts and yet find a way to keep on giving. That is how I see it. There doesn't need to be a logic with it, it doesn't need to be focused, and it doesn't have to be taught, so it seems to me. It appears to be natural. This is where a woman cannot be defeated by any man. I think the women who wage the war cannot ever win, the woman who surrenders will always win. Such is the nature of the imperfect world, or more to my way of seeing things, a reflection of perfection in the act which yields far greater good and returns than any can at first contemplate.
As a Christian, I see in this something Christlike. I see something immortal and holy. Yet I see the mundane humility and grace as well. It is something I admire. And, it is something I do not understand nor have the capacity for in that way or to that level. It is one of the things I seek as I contemplate a wife. A wife I no doubt do not deserve. Though who truly deserves a loving mate? Why, no one if you insist on guessing and fail. Who can truly say they stand in grace in such a way that they can say they deserve love?
Some say strong women are a problem. I think that there are problem women, but strong women are not among them. A strong woman doesn't contest her equality, she proves her worth, she doesn’t demand her way she guides through diplomacy and tact, not outsmarting but loving, she turns the other cheek, and she does forgive. Only an unconscionable monster does not in time see his own faults, understand his wrong, and address it by surrendering himself to his deserved fate. This is where the strong women truly shows her strength and forgives. It's a powerful thing. It is more powerful than any hurtful thing she could say or do. It returns a man to grace, and to her grace, and grants her a true thrall. The servant is, was, and always will be the master, if not the master modern feminism even could understand.
The wisdom of women is known. I know of this mostly from knowing my mother. I have known her the longest so I will speak of it. Now, I would never deign to give my mother an algebra problem, let alone calculus or physics problems! But I would ask her advice regarding really complicated issues such as any relationship, on almost any action (unless I know full well already that the action is foolish:), and about life. Her words and wisdom are only part of what she offers, often what she is giving me is the simple acknowledgment that it is OK and that she has faith in me. It's woven into her words in ways no linguist has ever understood fully and no machine will duplicate.
These things may not be who a woman is, but it is how I know them. I believe these are her essential aspects that in a modern world are overlooked, set aside, or put up like a ball gown which will be worn once then forgotten. With the rush and the crush of hectic life, the world is trying to make women into smaller men and both into machines. She is fairing well, but like a dove in a hurricane, she is losing heart and the United States is suffering with her. Woman is failing and exhaustion and confusion are setting in. She will have to make a choice soon or she may be left with no choice at all. Europe is in worse shape, and more so the farther east you go. Getting to Russia you find a dying people. I still have hope. If women can find themselves and regain their nature, if men can decline to become machines, if they can walk together as they always used to, the contest will not be in doubt.
Women seem to have a vast head start in communication, maturity, and perhaps creativity over men which over time becomes more equal if not directly on par. They seem to lack physical strength, mathematical understanding, geometric grounding, and an overall competitive nature, if they may seriously compete with other women. The president of Harvard was kicked out for saying only one of those things, so, of course, I could be wrong. Still, I do not bother to lie for the sake of conformity and I tell it as I see and understand a topic. There are no absolutes, still one can seemingly fly until one hits the ground nose first. Perceptions and beliefs can deceive. I should also add that I do not believe in limiting people, but I do believe if they don't have the ability they should be turned away, which too often doesn't happen.
But this is not what women, or men, are about. What they are about is what they do in life and in relationships. My full belief is that women are lovers, complete, whole, and unabashed. I am not speaking of mistresses, necessarily, but givers. Women give of themselves, their time, their care, and their energy. They give so much it hurts and yet find a way to keep on giving. That is how I see it. There doesn't need to be a logic with it, it doesn't need to be focused, and it doesn't have to be taught, so it seems to me. It appears to be natural. This is where a woman cannot be defeated by any man. I think the women who wage the war cannot ever win, the woman who surrenders will always win. Such is the nature of the imperfect world, or more to my way of seeing things, a reflection of perfection in the act which yields far greater good and returns than any can at first contemplate.
As a Christian, I see in this something Christlike. I see something immortal and holy. Yet I see the mundane humility and grace as well. It is something I admire. And, it is something I do not understand nor have the capacity for in that way or to that level. It is one of the things I seek as I contemplate a wife. A wife I no doubt do not deserve. Though who truly deserves a loving mate? Why, no one if you insist on guessing and fail. Who can truly say they stand in grace in such a way that they can say they deserve love?
Some say strong women are a problem. I think that there are problem women, but strong women are not among them. A strong woman doesn't contest her equality, she proves her worth, she doesn’t demand her way she guides through diplomacy and tact, not outsmarting but loving, she turns the other cheek, and she does forgive. Only an unconscionable monster does not in time see his own faults, understand his wrong, and address it by surrendering himself to his deserved fate. This is where the strong women truly shows her strength and forgives. It's a powerful thing. It is more powerful than any hurtful thing she could say or do. It returns a man to grace, and to her grace, and grants her a true thrall. The servant is, was, and always will be the master, if not the master modern feminism even could understand.
The wisdom of women is known. I know of this mostly from knowing my mother. I have known her the longest so I will speak of it. Now, I would never deign to give my mother an algebra problem, let alone calculus or physics problems! But I would ask her advice regarding really complicated issues such as any relationship, on almost any action (unless I know full well already that the action is foolish:), and about life. Her words and wisdom are only part of what she offers, often what she is giving me is the simple acknowledgment that it is OK and that she has faith in me. It's woven into her words in ways no linguist has ever understood fully and no machine will duplicate.
These things may not be who a woman is, but it is how I know them. I believe these are her essential aspects that in a modern world are overlooked, set aside, or put up like a ball gown which will be worn once then forgotten. With the rush and the crush of hectic life, the world is trying to make women into smaller men and both into machines. She is fairing well, but like a dove in a hurricane, she is losing heart and the United States is suffering with her. Woman is failing and exhaustion and confusion are setting in. She will have to make a choice soon or she may be left with no choice at all. Europe is in worse shape, and more so the farther east you go. Getting to Russia you find a dying people. I still have hope. If women can find themselves and regain their nature, if men can decline to become machines, if they can walk together as they always used to, the contest will not be in doubt.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Notes From The Underground II?
I just started reading Fyodor Dosoyevsky's "Notes From The Underground". Though I won't pretend to think exactly what he writes, that I am a writer of any potential, or that my skills in any way are truly comprable, I will say we have some basic commonalities that are disturbing. It was written in 1864 by a man who was about my age at the time. Now, the book seems histrionic even if somewhat interesting. It is filled with seemingly unedited ramblings only coherent to a degree, as I am reading it so far. I think what I am getting at is that it makes me wonder if men in my age group suddenly drop into some weird way of thinking that just isn't right! Perhaps he, we, and or I am searching for something or just trying to describe what we are seeing from what we have gathered to this point before pushing on through into old age then past to death.
Well, I suppose it might be expected. Maybe more so for those of us who feel we have gone nowhere with our hopes and dreams, seen little of what we might have wanted or hoped to see, and accomplished less knowing it won't get better with age. I suppose there really is no way to capture the world, to put it in our pocket, see all we want, and understand it. Our hopes are beyond us, even should we be fortunate enough to be wealthy, interested, able, and have the time. I should be, and in some ways am, happy to have experienced what I have in life and to have been introduced to some of the things of which I am now aware. It's just that there is so much more... and so little time.
Well, I suppose it might be expected. Maybe more so for those of us who feel we have gone nowhere with our hopes and dreams, seen little of what we might have wanted or hoped to see, and accomplished less knowing it won't get better with age. I suppose there really is no way to capture the world, to put it in our pocket, see all we want, and understand it. Our hopes are beyond us, even should we be fortunate enough to be wealthy, interested, able, and have the time. I should be, and in some ways am, happy to have experienced what I have in life and to have been introduced to some of the things of which I am now aware. It's just that there is so much more... and so little time.
Monday, January 22, 2007
What is man?
I have been considering the question recently. This time in a general manner. Not pertaining to what he might become, what he can do, or what he can learn but only what makes man different from an ape, lion, or mouse. I have said that I do not believe males of the species to be equal, with the provisions given. I believe this too with all mankind. That being said, I go on in search of some essence of the difference between men and beasts. Free will, the ability to choose above and beyond what is learned and sometimes in spite of what would seem to be in our own self interest might be an aspect for further examination. Cognitive abilities that allow self-awareness, independent thinking, and creativity would seem to be a points of interest. And of course, the belief in the God is a topic that might well fit in this discussion.
Some believe man to be no more than an animal, if one of the most advanced, which can be and perhaps should be used as a machine might be used. A biological computer composed by genetic material, played on flesh, bone, sinew, and nerves, ending in the grave. If this is true, in time man will be processed into categories and his lot will be sealed. He will no more understand this then he has ever understood God, but being known his compliance will be assured. I suspect that even if it isn't true, that is where science is leading. If man cannot be used in quite that way, perhaps he can be produced in such a way that he is sure to function as needed or wanted. My guess is that countries such as North Korea, Cuba, the former Soviet Union, and many of the muslim nations are attempting this through selective eliminations, constant and real fear, the removal of the sensuous, an attempt to enforce equality, with various other tools used to varying degrees. I would call it an immersive or organic method of turning men into machines which, to my knowledge, hasn't yet called upon genetics and programmed breeding to it's ends. I would guess a large part of the reason many academics support these states is to study the results rather than any true belief in the systems, even should they support the man as machine or animal ideals. Since World War II it has been regarded as suspect, unconscionable, and often illegal to study human subjects in this way, however, when it is a whole other nation and there are no direct links or possible claims of coresponsibility, scientists are allowed their foray into human misery, suffering, programming, and death to look for the essences and building blocks of men.
My belief is that man is not programmable as a dog, monkey, or pig might be. And more, being far beyond the sum of his parts, he is truly a free being if limited by his nature. The difference could be seen by two men, both given an automobile, the knowledge to operate it, the destination intended by the owner of the automobile, and one being given explicit instructions about how and where to go and the other being given a road map and perhaps some hints. One will do as instructed and be where he is expected to be, within a given variance, at any given time. The other might take the same path, or not, depending on too many factors to attribute here. If speed, safety, or a few other parameters are the measuring stick, the bot man will have the edge initially, but in time the free man will always win. Because the free man will win in the end, I believe that we are born to freedom. Further, it is a part of that essence that separates us from animals.
Does that mean I believe we are driving our bodies? Yes, we are the will and spirit behind the flesh and we are not defined singularly by the flesh, only identified more readily by it. I believe also that as the flesh of men is not equal, so also are the spirits of different qualities. Though there are kinships generated by both flesh and spirit, and in combination, in attempts to create communities of near equals for our comfort and well being and of dissimilar equalities filling our various needs. Here is where I believe my commenter's beliefs might be applicable. Once we are in a community of likeness, our need to find our place and compare ourselves with others continues, creating the ego issues that seem to dominate any clique, fellowship, or community.
If we are free men and not machines, then what gives us impetus? What part does training play? What part does nature play? These are the questions which will help provide some truth. First, I do wish to say that if our bodies are similar in some aspects to automobiles, then we do have a duty, a requirement, to care for our them. This provides some impetus, but enough to deliver a man to the moon for no actual short term or personal, possibly long term, gains except knowledge gained in both the means and the action? That is too doubtful to be correct. What drives men is not visible, it can't be measured in spite of the fact that the attempt is made to do so. Needs and wants might carry some weight in our drives but are too weak, like gravity is to physics, to explain what we see in the overall view. Our impetus, taking us past any real needs and desires and frequently into territory that is against our own best interests, is our own. Each man carries it as he does his feelings, thoughts, and fingerprints. Animals do not do this, they aren't even aware of tomorrow.
Genetics play a part in deciding, to some limited extent, what we might become or be able to do. Does it bind us to limits or greatness or infamy though? I do not believe so. Many men have come from nothing to power, from greatness to ruin, and we see it nearly daily in a country where it is (still, mostly) free to happen. As well, training can be an asset and just as possibly a hindrance. Many of the inventions we take for granted today were created by people who formally simply didn't know better. Electricity was considered impossible as an energy source since it was believed it would take too much energy to send it across a wire, thus destroying the wire and the connection, thus stopping the transportation. Flying in heavier than air vehicles was not possible, in the technical sense, prior to the Wright brothers. Yet all of these men had some education, enough to read, to consider options, and practical abilities to begin a search that would lead them to remove the "im" from impossible. In genetics and in training, we find again that man is neither in complete need nor without some due to these things. In final, these things are not what separate men from animals but they begin to show what some differences could be.
If free will is true, if creativity, original thought, and self-awareness are real and true, is that enough to make man different from animals. If it is true, yes. Proving these things is by no means a simple feat. That being said, proving 1 + 1 = 2 in reality, is also a mean feat, impossible actually. (Any mathematicians out there who wants to be added to my Wilber, Orville, and Thomas list, by all means, let me know. However, if you Google it, keep it. I don't do doo.) Some things are so plain one can't but see them. That certainly isn't proof, otherwise bigfoot, the lochness monster, and UFOs would be acceptable science. The problem with science is that it only models what it sees, meaning first it must see the anomaly then it can only attempt to offer a working design that seems to act in the same manner and then hopefully be reproducible. The problem with sensory perception is the inability to perceive everything, our emotional connection to our perceptions, and and our connection(s) to the subject(s). Still, I believe in the truth of original cognitive actions and free will by men. Just that I am writing this, that I ponder these questions and my solutions as I write, that I am unsure about particular truths and proofs, indicates some truth, if not a proof in and of itself and in spite of the possibilities of errors of this method of discernment.
Beyond these simpler separations between man and animal is "the whole God thing". Many say they do not believe, others are unsure, and then there are the individuals and groups who claim unique and true divine knowledge. According to most religions that I am familiar with, excluding muslim, a man cannot become a practitioner by force, one has to be called to an understanding. One can be raised "understanding" God, but will at some point have to choose faith and then what forms that faith will take. Given this, not all men can believe in God. That man can believe in God is an interesting thing of it's own accord in that having a God places man not at the head of his reality, but as a part of it. It is sacrificing self proclamation and claims to power, greatness, and wisdom which otherwise any man would be quite reluctant to relinquish. It is, in a natural world, an unnatural act. It is this final capacity that I claim the final separation between man and animal.
Finally, I believe the pieces are collected. The evidence is gathered, the doubts have been noted. Statistically, life should not exist. That said, man is just another scientific impossibility. That there are nine billion and more might seem to lower the value of any one, yet that would be a mistake. Man is no animal, he is special. Why he is special is for another day.
Some believe man to be no more than an animal, if one of the most advanced, which can be and perhaps should be used as a machine might be used. A biological computer composed by genetic material, played on flesh, bone, sinew, and nerves, ending in the grave. If this is true, in time man will be processed into categories and his lot will be sealed. He will no more understand this then he has ever understood God, but being known his compliance will be assured. I suspect that even if it isn't true, that is where science is leading. If man cannot be used in quite that way, perhaps he can be produced in such a way that he is sure to function as needed or wanted. My guess is that countries such as North Korea, Cuba, the former Soviet Union, and many of the muslim nations are attempting this through selective eliminations, constant and real fear, the removal of the sensuous, an attempt to enforce equality, with various other tools used to varying degrees. I would call it an immersive or organic method of turning men into machines which, to my knowledge, hasn't yet called upon genetics and programmed breeding to it's ends. I would guess a large part of the reason many academics support these states is to study the results rather than any true belief in the systems, even should they support the man as machine or animal ideals. Since World War II it has been regarded as suspect, unconscionable, and often illegal to study human subjects in this way, however, when it is a whole other nation and there are no direct links or possible claims of coresponsibility, scientists are allowed their foray into human misery, suffering, programming, and death to look for the essences and building blocks of men.
My belief is that man is not programmable as a dog, monkey, or pig might be. And more, being far beyond the sum of his parts, he is truly a free being if limited by his nature. The difference could be seen by two men, both given an automobile, the knowledge to operate it, the destination intended by the owner of the automobile, and one being given explicit instructions about how and where to go and the other being given a road map and perhaps some hints. One will do as instructed and be where he is expected to be, within a given variance, at any given time. The other might take the same path, or not, depending on too many factors to attribute here. If speed, safety, or a few other parameters are the measuring stick, the bot man will have the edge initially, but in time the free man will always win. Because the free man will win in the end, I believe that we are born to freedom. Further, it is a part of that essence that separates us from animals.
Does that mean I believe we are driving our bodies? Yes, we are the will and spirit behind the flesh and we are not defined singularly by the flesh, only identified more readily by it. I believe also that as the flesh of men is not equal, so also are the spirits of different qualities. Though there are kinships generated by both flesh and spirit, and in combination, in attempts to create communities of near equals for our comfort and well being and of dissimilar equalities filling our various needs. Here is where I believe my commenter's beliefs might be applicable. Once we are in a community of likeness, our need to find our place and compare ourselves with others continues, creating the ego issues that seem to dominate any clique, fellowship, or community.
If we are free men and not machines, then what gives us impetus? What part does training play? What part does nature play? These are the questions which will help provide some truth. First, I do wish to say that if our bodies are similar in some aspects to automobiles, then we do have a duty, a requirement, to care for our them. This provides some impetus, but enough to deliver a man to the moon for no actual short term or personal, possibly long term, gains except knowledge gained in both the means and the action? That is too doubtful to be correct. What drives men is not visible, it can't be measured in spite of the fact that the attempt is made to do so. Needs and wants might carry some weight in our drives but are too weak, like gravity is to physics, to explain what we see in the overall view. Our impetus, taking us past any real needs and desires and frequently into territory that is against our own best interests, is our own. Each man carries it as he does his feelings, thoughts, and fingerprints. Animals do not do this, they aren't even aware of tomorrow.
Genetics play a part in deciding, to some limited extent, what we might become or be able to do. Does it bind us to limits or greatness or infamy though? I do not believe so. Many men have come from nothing to power, from greatness to ruin, and we see it nearly daily in a country where it is (still, mostly) free to happen. As well, training can be an asset and just as possibly a hindrance. Many of the inventions we take for granted today were created by people who formally simply didn't know better. Electricity was considered impossible as an energy source since it was believed it would take too much energy to send it across a wire, thus destroying the wire and the connection, thus stopping the transportation. Flying in heavier than air vehicles was not possible, in the technical sense, prior to the Wright brothers. Yet all of these men had some education, enough to read, to consider options, and practical abilities to begin a search that would lead them to remove the "im" from impossible. In genetics and in training, we find again that man is neither in complete need nor without some due to these things. In final, these things are not what separate men from animals but they begin to show what some differences could be.
If free will is true, if creativity, original thought, and self-awareness are real and true, is that enough to make man different from animals. If it is true, yes. Proving these things is by no means a simple feat. That being said, proving 1 + 1 = 2 in reality, is also a mean feat, impossible actually. (Any mathematicians out there who wants to be added to my Wilber, Orville, and Thomas list, by all means, let me know. However, if you Google it, keep it. I don't do doo.) Some things are so plain one can't but see them. That certainly isn't proof, otherwise bigfoot, the lochness monster, and UFOs would be acceptable science. The problem with science is that it only models what it sees, meaning first it must see the anomaly then it can only attempt to offer a working design that seems to act in the same manner and then hopefully be reproducible. The problem with sensory perception is the inability to perceive everything, our emotional connection to our perceptions, and and our connection(s) to the subject(s). Still, I believe in the truth of original cognitive actions and free will by men. Just that I am writing this, that I ponder these questions and my solutions as I write, that I am unsure about particular truths and proofs, indicates some truth, if not a proof in and of itself and in spite of the possibilities of errors of this method of discernment.
Beyond these simpler separations between man and animal is "the whole God thing". Many say they do not believe, others are unsure, and then there are the individuals and groups who claim unique and true divine knowledge. According to most religions that I am familiar with, excluding muslim, a man cannot become a practitioner by force, one has to be called to an understanding. One can be raised "understanding" God, but will at some point have to choose faith and then what forms that faith will take. Given this, not all men can believe in God. That man can believe in God is an interesting thing of it's own accord in that having a God places man not at the head of his reality, but as a part of it. It is sacrificing self proclamation and claims to power, greatness, and wisdom which otherwise any man would be quite reluctant to relinquish. It is, in a natural world, an unnatural act. It is this final capacity that I claim the final separation between man and animal.
Finally, I believe the pieces are collected. The evidence is gathered, the doubts have been noted. Statistically, life should not exist. That said, man is just another scientific impossibility. That there are nine billion and more might seem to lower the value of any one, yet that would be a mistake. Man is no animal, he is special. Why he is special is for another day.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
On manhood.
It is not always a simple thing to describe an aspect of ones own self. Just being a man should be enough and for the most part it is. Uncovering the truth of manhood seems to be an unimportant issue except at certain points in a man's life, and then only to decide what type of man he might become. As well, the uncovering is done without consideration of manhood but is instead focused on the situation at hand. The first girl that seriously catches our attention and then how we approach the matter is, to my mind, one of the first of these tests of manhood. All through our teens and young twenties we step away from childhood and begin becoming men. Our lives are filled with tests, temptations, thoughts, and teaching.
Traditionally, men have been the head of households, protectors of their family, neighbors, nations, and beliefs, or so it has been said. This is true to some extent, being more true in Christian societies, less true in others. And there has always been a vast minority who have chosen to do harm. The majority of men no longer seem to choose those institutions today, having been 'freed' by feminism and modernism and further drawn away from Christianity, marriage, and social expectations by the laws enacted against there interests in those institutions. In spite of these things, men will always be what men are. As well, the institutions never defined manhood, only one perception of expectations of manhood.
A man could be defined by his needs, wants, or a handful of characteristics such as bravery, cynicism, wit, or charm but all of these would miss the point. Though these things might begin to clarify the truth about the equality of men. That truth being that no man is equal to another. Equality is only sufficient as a theory in order to attempt a basis for law and evidenced purely only as an understanding of God's love for man. Those are the only things to which equality has any claim, despite 'modern common sense'. Most men know this in spite of, sometimes delineated by, socialist laws, feminine input, and group think.
So, how can a man be described? Most men have similar traits. The strength of body separates us from women. The need and will for action seems to be a common trait even for the lowly coward who will take the action of fleeing the action rather than standing spellbound. Men also seem to have an innate tinkerers delight, whether repairing a car, working on a rifle, creating a computer, or designing a gadget, men like to wreck, repair, and create things. Yet no two men are alike. Our differences range from our capacity to think, the ability to act, and the wisdom to choose which of those to engage. Our various abilities singular to each of us. Our primary difference, once inequality is accounted for, however, is our strength of character. This is what any women wishing to be with a man and any man interested in allying himself with another man must directly investigate.
Strength of character, or the lack of it, is nearly decided by the time we reach our early twenties. It is revisited at various times in our lives via tests, and can change. It is how we are best measured. If it is not who we are, it is how we will live within our other capacities. All the great men, even the infamous if in a misguided fashion, have the singular distinction of great fortitude and the will to move that forward through enemies, difficulties, bureaucracies, exhaustion, and the mediocrity of the uninspired to stand triumphant. It is also what a steady husband and father, a great worker, thinker, artist, and any solid man has some significant measure.
Traditionally, men have been the head of households, protectors of their family, neighbors, nations, and beliefs, or so it has been said. This is true to some extent, being more true in Christian societies, less true in others. And there has always been a vast minority who have chosen to do harm. The majority of men no longer seem to choose those institutions today, having been 'freed' by feminism and modernism and further drawn away from Christianity, marriage, and social expectations by the laws enacted against there interests in those institutions. In spite of these things, men will always be what men are. As well, the institutions never defined manhood, only one perception of expectations of manhood.
A man could be defined by his needs, wants, or a handful of characteristics such as bravery, cynicism, wit, or charm but all of these would miss the point. Though these things might begin to clarify the truth about the equality of men. That truth being that no man is equal to another. Equality is only sufficient as a theory in order to attempt a basis for law and evidenced purely only as an understanding of God's love for man. Those are the only things to which equality has any claim, despite 'modern common sense'. Most men know this in spite of, sometimes delineated by, socialist laws, feminine input, and group think.
So, how can a man be described? Most men have similar traits. The strength of body separates us from women. The need and will for action seems to be a common trait even for the lowly coward who will take the action of fleeing the action rather than standing spellbound. Men also seem to have an innate tinkerers delight, whether repairing a car, working on a rifle, creating a computer, or designing a gadget, men like to wreck, repair, and create things. Yet no two men are alike. Our differences range from our capacity to think, the ability to act, and the wisdom to choose which of those to engage. Our various abilities singular to each of us. Our primary difference, once inequality is accounted for, however, is our strength of character. This is what any women wishing to be with a man and any man interested in allying himself with another man must directly investigate.
Strength of character, or the lack of it, is nearly decided by the time we reach our early twenties. It is revisited at various times in our lives via tests, and can change. It is how we are best measured. If it is not who we are, it is how we will live within our other capacities. All the great men, even the infamous if in a misguided fashion, have the singular distinction of great fortitude and the will to move that forward through enemies, difficulties, bureaucracies, exhaustion, and the mediocrity of the uninspired to stand triumphant. It is also what a steady husband and father, a great worker, thinker, artist, and any solid man has some significant measure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)