jeudi, juillet 03, 2008

Eugenically Speaking . . .

In my never ending quest to bring the peoples of the worlds together, (and with a brain aflame in the sweet, sweet fever of sleep deprivation) I've spent a few hours reconciling various poles of contradiction.

For instance: What happened to cops? Everyone seems to have a problem with law enforcement. Yet somehow I have never met a bad one. Every cop I meet is courteous, respectful, often lenient. Even as a teenager skateboarding in technically illegal places, I always seemed to be caught by the patient officer with the kind word. No power trips. No smug authoritarians. No short (or otherwise undersized or testosterone deficient) men who needed a gun to compensate. Not even any Porn 'staches. Where are the corrupt asses I see in every movie? The shiftless ineptitude portrayed on television? There must be something missing from my experience, since everyone else seems to hate their guts. (Or worse, like my good friend who, as a teenager, could NOT get cited for anything in her home town, because her father was Chief of Police. And believe me she tried. They'd see her I.D. and just let her go.) Since I refuse to believe that television and movies have betrayed me, I have no choice but to determine that my experience is an aberration.  My anecdotal evidence is suspect.  

The question is, Was there ever a time when one joined the force for the right reasons? Maybe the old West. Because let's face it, in the here and now, if you're interested in real Justice, you become a caped vigilante.

On to another contradiction: I think you can believe in Evolution and God at the same time. Einstein did. (Set aside for a second that Evolution is not something that requires belief, and that saying you "believe" in Science belittles both Science and the being religious types call the Master Scientist. Why are both sides of this issue so invested in acting as if these elements are mutually exclusive? Why must evolutionists make it their religion while religionists make every effort to exclude it from theirs?  But that wasn't the point. . . was it?) It seems to me that most of the devout evolutionists I know are also on the political left, really into Utopianesque visions of a humanity where everyone takes care of everyone else and compassion rules the day. (Never mind that what they really mean, whether they know it or not, is that the government takes care of everyone while a small percentage of the citizenry pays for it.  Either that or the Vulcans are about to detect our warp drive experiment, land here, and inaugurate a new age of exploration where money is meaningless and technology will save us all.  But what was the original point?)  

The question is, if evolution is your "belief," where does compassion figure into it?  Nature has none.  NONE whatsoever.  Make no mistake, she is beautiful.  She is wise.  She is also the baddest pimp on the block.  Diabetes, Cancer, etc. are her ways of selecting you out.  So technically speaking we have no business preserving you, especially if you plan on reproducing.  If Nature is all there is, and we are simply a part of the beautiful ecosystem of earth, what business do we have acting differently from the other cogs in the natural machine? Why Art?  Why Charity?  If we are allowed to differ from the ecological consensus in so-called good ways, why is it such a tragedy when we do it in destructive ways?  And why do we seem to have so much more power to destroy and preserve?  Every creature produces waste.  But we are the only ones that make it with something other than our anus.  Is that significant?  

Wait.  What was the original point? 

 I guess sleep deprivation is not the path to enlightenment.  


1 commentaire:

levineclan a dit...

Hi Scott it's Steve, Marianne's husband. I'm not only impressed with your creative talent but your appreciation of philosophy. I consider myself an existentialist, but i have to admit after a promising start with courses at UCLA i have totally neglected this, which is sad because i equate my philosophical views with my religious views (which of course means that i am off course). In any event, you recently blogged "On to another contradiction: I think you can believe in Evolution and God at the same time. Einstein did." what little i have done since college is realize that Tibetan Buddhism bridges the gap between my spiritual and philosophical views, and your reference to Einstein inspired me to reaffirm his ability to connect the two. here's an excerpt from an inspired blog - looking forward to discuss:

"Einstein on Buddhism
Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and spritual; and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. -Albert Einstein

If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. -Albert Einstein

A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe'; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compasion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely but striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.
-Albert Einstein

Here's another quote from Einstein that I love. It is my signature at the bottom of my emails:

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. -Albert Einstein