The big question when dealing with reality and art is, should art be a reflection of reality or should art try to change reality and how it is used to influence society or at the least should art be judged on its' own standards, such as expression to the observer. Plato criticized the poet homer because although his poetry is aesthetically pleasing it is removed from the perfect form that god intended. This is one of the first statments of an absolute devine will, such as morality is treated by conseratives today. A question though is why would a God choose this art or morality the absolute ideal. One Greek philospher asked is morality just because it is moral or because it is pleasing to god, if it is the latter it is arbitary accoridng to a God's whims, if it is the latter than God is just a middleman. If we state that art even if made in only one orginal form by god, absolute? If it is not then how can an imitation of one true form, be it a couch or a mountain be less perfect than the orginal in the terms of reaching perfection, a most unattainable goal. The copy could of course be an imperfection of the orginal form but at the same time surpass it in beauty, morality or the ability to give emotion to the observer of it. because something, an idea, a philosphy or morality or art form pre-existed a later type does not necessary mean it is better, as history is so apt to show. A mountain, tree might be reality in terms of what we view even if imperfect but not all art concerns itself with showing only external qualites to its viewers. plato's main criticisms of Homer rested on that he did not try to reflect the form of god but what that Homer's purpose? In his stories was it not to report and gain incite on the human experience, the tradegies, the loves that his characters felt. Is love or happiness, absrtact objects, part of god's orginal form that Plato wishes to seek out. If so they cannot be shown by tangiable models such as a tree but essays that illustrate though emotions and concepts. Plato asks how has Homer's work benefited man, "what city was better governed" but then again the question can be reversed, what city has ever become better because of trying to duplicate a reality by a god. If god created men, would not men trying to make art that reflects their experiences and thoughts in our world be not a reflection of reality; unless there is a higher form of man or man's consecious who is more in tough of what is real and not lead astray by the material deliusions of what we perceive as the real world, such as the Hindus or Buddhists search through mediation of a real world. I also take argument with the notyion that Homer's or any other works not centered on achieving an imitation of natural reality cannot help progress that individual or larger society. The Orwellian novel "1984" is a great example of art that mirrors a possibility thatt did not entirely exist when it was written and warned of future consequences of a society that allows itself to become totiliarian, a good example of this was the later communist regimes of Eastern Europe. This novel has helped influence not only political elite but also members of society at large of the threat of a totalitarian regime. There are those who argue though that art if not a duplication of external reality must be true in the sense of being brought forth from inspiration. It is the argument of D. Dutton that art, if comes from one who commits forgerty it is defective even if undistinghable in style from an orginal. This I must disagree with. the observer of the art if not told sees the art as a reality of the orginal artist but when told taht it is indeed a forgert throws his hands up in exasperation. The question then arises what is the observer looking for, don't they both have the same aesthetically pleasing arrangments, didn't they at least before the observer was told that one was a forgery, move the observer the same emotionally. What is the difference, and Dutton answers in defense that it is because the orginal one showed more devotion on the part of the artist and that the forger is only duplicating not only the sytle but the emotional message that the first artist wished to impart. But if the art was so easily recognizable as to be taken as an orginal before the observer was told, does it not imply that the first artist would only be duplicating his orginal form; woulld it not lost it's emotional message that the observer so wants over time because of repeated duplication of this. If this is lost what is the purpose of the argument that the difference between the orginal and forgery art that the former expresses the emotional energy of the artist if it can be so easily duplicated. "At the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th, nature has been eliminated from art or taken to pieces and replaced by shimmerings of colours or musically abstracted words as if they were part of a musical composityion." These were the words of Joseph Chiari and they expressed the fact of the final revolt against the notionsof Classical School and that art is free of it. People had now looked at art to reflect or encouratge their own perceptions of reality, much as social criticism seeks to highlight certain arguments while ignoring others. This is the way of much of contempory art, as a tool of communication of stating not only your perceptions but also of striving to find those of the people around you. Chiari goes on to argue that art's most important quality is the devotion that is evident in the artwork. This I have to question, a ballet dancer you can see while they are performing their art their great devotioin to it and that leads to a greater aesthetic experience, but how is it easy recognizable in a painting per se. I had previously argued that Dutton was wrong when he tried to to state that one piece of art could be greater just because of who the creator is even if duplicated. Art this is an end product has to stand on its' own, what eth artist wishes to portray, the feelings he wishes to give not only differ from his and an observer because of pre-existing beliefs that they bring, hoe else does one explain the great contrast of feelings that can be brought from Mapplethorpe's art of relgious satire. Emotion that comes from the art is important and is a product of large part of the creator but not as important is the emotion felt by the artist. Icould for example be inspired to create what is in my mind a great piece of art on canvas, it is a form such as Plato would say that I could not duplicate and of course I would not do so, since I can't paint. Even if I put my whole heart into it,t eh observer would say that it is not aestetically pleasing to him and society and he would be right. An atheist can vew the great cathedrals of the middle ages that were inspired by a love of god by the creators of them, and say they are beautifgul and impart a a sense of emotional enjoyment to him. Art is an end product and the perspective of the observer, his reality not that trying to achieve reality by duplication of external criteria, is what is important. Abstract art is the greatest evolution in terms of art, although at first glance it seems to allow anyone with a brush and a canvas to crate chaos it though does not emphasis technical skill but emotion and perceptions to reality. It allows imagination, it is not platonic picture of the world but allows us all to be creatively. It is a tool to the inner consecious of us all.
"Critical Approach to Structure and Standards in Aesthetic and Social Criticism"
In this paper I wish to place special emphaisze on the standard of spirituality and if it even has place in the realm of deciding if an object or piece of prose does indeed
qualify as being art or having artistic qualities present to it. Although not religous myself I acknowledge that spirituality-the more superantural art of the church, is dearly held
by many people who search for it as a source of truth, guidance and morality in their personal journeys in our world. Can something taht is of a spiritual nature solely be artistic? Of course,
the museums of Europe are filled with paintings from artists filled with the need to soothe their spiritual hunger. Spirituality though unlike emotion and the intellect is not something that can be
traced to as pre-existing at birth, one is born into a climate of spirituality. One might argue that it is an inhere trait of the human nature-if one tried to raise a group of children born into atheist families
some of them indeed might become spiritual, but isn't that a proprty of the mind and/or intelligence searching for answers in a rational manner or one of hope. When one person creates an object because of love of
god is that not really emotion moving him. WHen one writes prose that the universe needed a creator because of the order of it is that not really the intellect moving him? In essence from an objective standard of one
not holding allegiance to spiritual thought it has to be concluded that spirituality is just an artifical standard of man. A professor once asked me does religon built into nature have some evolutionary benefit
for society, did he progress into his present intelligent state in comparison to the lower animals. It is ironic that man, the smartest animal of all has evolved dozens of religons that rely on myth, supersitition
because he can't find questions to answers that others cannot ask, because they don't concern them. There was some benefit at time for primitive to religon, to quell his anxieties, to create order and loyalty in
competion against the lower tribes but with the unleashing in this century of a brand of huminism it is at least in terms of creating policy for societies a dinosaur and whose only benefit is giving greater happiness
to its' members.
Many don't consider nature art, they feel that it needs a creator. What difference does it matter if something is made by a creator, can one necessary tell the difference between something made by a man and nature? Say
for example that a mountain was created by God, taht it has pleasing aesthetic and emotional qualites to it, is it now art more so because one knows a being created it from his imagination than because of natural causes? This
would be true only if one puts the standard in place taht a creator was needed to be present in order to give his inspiration to the viewer of the art. Is a painting of a flowr any more inspiring than the real thing. If the effort
is to recreate the flower in exact detail than how could the painting have more inspiration than the flower when it is the flower than causes the inspiration? I wish not to be perceived as one rejecting any standard of art. What I do
reject are such things as tradition, public opinion, authority used as criteria to judge something as good or not. Societies are very subjective. Many a christian if born in an extreme radical beatnit type family would consider Maplethorpe
a great artist for his stunning criticisms of christanity, instead they think he is an obnoxious, immoral deviant. Art or any criticism in general is not always based on individual subjective standards but often subjective society standards.
Just because a majority of people agree with a wrong statement, such as earth is flat and center of the universe does not make it objective, it hasn't been diciphered for its' correctneness or the function that makes it correct. In "Zen and
the art of Motorcycle Maintance" the author Capra wonders where quality come from, is it purely subjective or is there a real objective standard most would agree with. It as he says function, or a symetry with the rest of the world. Function
is how everything connects with everything, if a social or artistic criticism is good then it serves a function with reality, maybe not exactly mirroring it but elaborating it or showing the absurdites of reality as we let it happen, such as
war, poverty when we can do something about it. Then it might be asked, could anything be art if it serves a function in which the external reality was different in nature and there was a symetery between the quality of the art or criticism and
the reality? What also if the reality in itself is not of quality, does that mean the function, quality of the art of criticism also must be poor so that it functions or must it be even greater to make up for the poor showing that reality
might take, be it warfare, massacures, disease etc.
Social criticism differs from aesthetic criticism but has similarites. It has of course intellect. It would be ludiricous to not base criticism menat to better society not on the mind, but it also has emotional aspects. The question is,
is this good? Does it not confuse social criticisms when something is not solely based on rationally and objective insight. This is rampant in social criticism today as anyone with an ounce of experience to others thought could attest.
Emotion is good in the sense that it can motivate the individual into a flick of the pen although what those words contain might not always be rational thinking.
There are two constant standards evident in all social criticisms taht aren't norms in aesthetic ones. They are rights given over to the individual over the state or rest of society and rights given over to the state or society over the individual.
These are constant in every society, there is just a mixture of them differing on each society. To take two extremes liberatarians in this society argue from a near elimination of all government in the name of freedom while conversly socialists argue for
greater power to the state in the name of freedom. They both have good points, but how can this be if they're at opposite poles? How could one want freedom more when they differ by so great a margin? One wants freedom away from government, one wants freedom
from big business-but freedom of the individual or freedom of society from the non-conformist invdividual is always constant in any social criticiism.
"Notions on free Will"
A concept that has been debated about by Western philosphers for thousands of years since the time of the anciet Greeks is do people really have free will or is that just an illusion we have allowed to happen which doesn't reflect reality. Much of Eastern religon and
philosphy is built around the notion that there is an ultimate reality whre all are joined and that the idea of individual self is just a simplistic conception of reality that is built by individual persepectives even if it seems all have interlocking persepectives that
correctly fit each other and if didn't we couldn't function as small groups, let alone a huge society. This unreality might be termed real in the sense we all experience it and having substance but not the height of reality that we wish to reach. Would this mean that the notion
determinism and free will have no place in Eastern philosphy because they make the assumption that the one doing so is an invidividual being I really don't know. does the collective group, when it reaches a state of nirvana or a different dimension guided by free will or determinism
or a combination of the two, and if not what could be a third process. If there is an outer reality where free will, heaven, hades or others lie and is not just themselves an illusion where would they come from? Could it be that the world is just a giant extremely advanced virtual reality
game that we are seperated from and that heaven, hell, outer reality are just vague primitive notions of what we once knew of it. Is God us, the collective controllers of the game who is now afraid of ourselves by personaifying a mythical being. Maybe relgion, eastern or western is on to
reality, Jesus maybe a game player who came to wake us up, but we have a childish notion of it now. We need to incorpate science into our invagiastions or nothing we come of it. Nothing is magical or beyond the realm of science, it just requires a higher knowledge of it. Scientific evidence
that matter at the quantum or subatomic level can exist at different forms at the same time, such as a wave or particle would seem to reject the notion that we are guided by the simple determinism of chemical processes and our external environment and that maybe not even a Supreme being could not know
with positive certainly a future causes by these interactions and consequentially the being they represent.
I propose that to determine the notion if that na individual has free will than we might have to build a fully operational artificual intelligence being that not only mimics human consecious but also posses the same if not greater conscious of humans. This form could be done in either of two ways: a
computer intelligence or a living organism, such as a product of cloing and/or genetic manipulation. A possible third option is a combination of the two or a cyborg. These first two options both have their assets and liabites. While an living organism might very well closely simulate a human being it might also be harder to control
for non-anticipated varables than a computer intelligence. The computer intelligence though could be lacking another ingredient than a human posses, such as the notion of a soul that trancends the material world, a collective conscious that human beings might be using now to receive free will. The robotic intelligence would be tested
to see if it has individual choice or free will. What would be done would to give it the same problem which emphasises invidvidual choice and taste over a right and right answer and to see if he ever chooses a different answer. Criteria are that its memory must be cleared after each experiment and that all internal factors of the computer
must be absolutely the same. If it does it not make different choices then that not might mean we have no free will, after all the computer of Artifical intellligence even if closely mimicking us would still be different; and even if it showed free will there still might be external factors influncing that aren't taken into account that fact
that humans are different.
In Ann Rice's "Mnmeoic the devil" men acquire souls because of free will and their determination to get to heaven the oposite of stating that a soul or something similar to it the cause of free will. Some books have stated that evolution or robots could be crated that have emotions, consicous, myths just like humans and this would give
weight to the experiment of using a robotic intelligence. To state that free will or scienfitific determinism is a delusion and agree with some post-Descartes writers who said that man or other men are manipulated by God in terms of their senses if not controling their actions, would hurt the individual stating this because it would be logically
deducted that the observer himself does not have free will like the others, a solid argument in favor of determinism. One could suppose taht only they have free will or even conscious, since how can conscious be understood if another being makes all your choices, that though would be egotistical and justify any sort of hedonistic thinking and practices
since only they really exist in the context of how we usually define it. to argue taht one does not rally have free will is to imply that evil or good does not really exist, only the one who is controlling the influences, such as God. If that is true we are not evil but might do evil acts, the one is evil is the god who allows and orchastres these things
to happen. What does this all meant other than a metaphysical exercise, well it could bring about new ideas in policies that are meant to correct behavior in individuals, such as the concept of the death penalty. If the individual really doesn't have a choice then what is the use of keeping in place a plicy that does not serve its purpose. In essance nothing is
definitvely known about these concepts and to give such an answer is extremely naive.
"The Wrath of Sillyness"
"Let me tell you folks a story that happened way back in say, '02. It was a hell of a time, de-regulate this, take the govternment off your back here, at least when it was the one in washington and had to do with the green. Everyone was trying to outdue himself in how patriotic to his country he was, even if it meant killing the freedoms that it was founded with. Kind of
like destroying the village to save it. Elephants everywhere in parades, breaking up individuals with their trunks if they looked to happy. Only way to happiness is the green they said. There was a movement to privatize all the fire departments, including the one in Helmsville and it suceeded. Unfortuantely a large fire came the next year, let me tell you about it. Her name was Cin..."
Cindy was getting bored from studying, she couldn't take it any longer, she wanted to quit but there was the big exam the next week in history on Joseph Mc Carthy, "God, or just Savior." She was cooking smores in the toaster, she always liked them and they tasted better when cooked that way, it though it was a fire trap. She decided to call her friend Trudy and see if she agreed that
this chapter was indeed a bullshit like she thought. She forgot too long about the smores though.
"Hello this is the Helmsville Fire Deparment how may I help you?"/ "Yes my house is on fire, I am at"/ "Do you have fire insurance miss?"/ "Well no, but what difference could that make, if you don't come here quick the whole neighboorhood is going to catch on fire"/ "Sorry can't do that, must have fire insurance, sorry" A new caller /"Hello Helmsville Fire Department how may I help you?"/
/ Hi, it looks like the whole Biden district is in flames, aren't you going to do something?"/ "Sir we did all we are obligated for by our contract, moving those people to safety for a small fee of course, we are obligated to do no more"/ "Don't you people have any morality, common sense the whole city is going to burn down if nothing is down, including those who own fire insurance, who's going to
pay your insurance then or salary. Use my insurance."/ " Can't do that, can only use insurance for yourself. Sorry."
"And that boys and girls is how Helmsivlle burned to the ground. Many of those fire deptarment executives were given medals for doing what they were obligated to do. Nero couldn't have been more proud. Right now they're debating to insitute old public fire department though some say its' a commie threat even though Cold War has been over 15 years. Guess some people never change.
"An exploration of Humanism and utitilitinism and their interconnecting function"
I like to think of myself as being a strong humanist and a weak utilitinism. Both are sytems of ethics and morality but they aren't necessary contradictory. Humanism, be it secular or religous is just hte extensin of moral relevance to other beings. I take this a step futher and extend moral value even if not not of the same importance to animals or possible extertestial beings, with the amount depending on certain criteria. The notion that individuals posses natural or inherent rights is not inherent in humans. Many societies have members who have never heard of the concept of rights by itself but has members who wish to be happy in their lives. Rights from the Magna Carter to the Civil rights laws of the 60's are just devices to uphold and increase happiness of its members. Humanism does not imply that not all are equally intelligent, athletic or able to make rational choices, it is not egalitanism although humanism is often given charastics of it. What humanism does state is that all beings no matter what community that they live have the same moral relvance, rights and right to pursue that happiness as long as it doesn't unduly conflict with the rights and happiness of others. For example I could put Rush Limbaugh in my moral community although I disagree with much he says and who would in fact place little moral considerabilty to some beings, such as animals, prisoners, communists etc.. Utility theory as stated by Mills says that happiness should be the goal to pursued. This does not mean instant gratification though which can in the long term equate into greater unhappiness. It also is not moral relatism because it places a burden of being moral, just and ethical to other members of the community. What it not is irrational taboos against happiness or freedom based on mythology and then fears that if these aren't enforced than man won't be moral. This is a low evaluation of man's ability to be moral and ethical. According to fundalmentalists those who don't believe in God are going to eternal punishment for not believing even though he is an all good god. When questioned about the absurdity of this good god punishmening rational men who choose not to believe on the reason given by this god they just quote out of the bible as this being so. One might wonder if the bible said to boil alive all 2nd born black children then they wouldn't question it as immoral since it comes from the all good god of the bible. Either god is insane, evil, playing a trick on individuals or doesn't exist. An all powerful god would not in reality send people to hell for not believing in him just as much the president of the united states doesn't torture rabbits who don't take heed of him. Although I believe in the last option there is still the possibility of the last option. I wouldn't want to face the alternatives if he was insane or evil. Why would he trick us into believing we would go to hell for disbelief with not only giving children nightmares but also create Metallica songs. One idea is that he doesn't like anarchy created by no fear in god, a deterance model. He knows that some, the morally superior who don't need fear of an eternal punishment or the gift of a heaven to be moral and ethical, might be in the minority without this system. It is a pragmatic system to insitute morality much more efficent than utilizing rationally in regards to barbarians. Why one might ask doesn't god say be moral or go to hell, well that is an ambigorous question, many a person's morality and ethics can differ from another even if both are trying to extend moral considerability to other members of society. Abortion is a classic case of this, both sides are trying to emphasize moral points, such as right to life or right to choose. The problem is they often don't see or want to see and understand the arguments of the other side. Abortion encompases both humanism and utitiltyinism because both groups try to extend moral considerability to more members along with happiness of members, it is just different members and happiness emphasized. Instead of the anarchy of different moral values god would impose certain spefic values which would of course lower the free will of the members to choose their moral and ethical values. A second possible reason that god might have for moral values would be as a test to see who is intelligent to throw off society and cultural values that impose largely absurd doctrines on them and maybe go with him to a place similar to the conception of heaven. That is not to say that those who believe go to hell, there is no logical reason for hell to exist, it is a bluff. And I humbly call it Mc Collom's Wager. This is similiar to Pascal's Wager which said one cannot know if there is a god if is one is and you don't believe, you're screwed. If there isn't and you believe then doesn't make a difference. Well this one says if there isn't a god and there you don't believe don't worry, if there is a god and you believe much of the absurd bible then you don't go to heaven but go to a limbo, get eaten by worms etc.
The reason I went into this sidetrack on heaven and hell and Mc Collom's Wager is to highlight the absurdity of using chrisanity as an ethical system, it can create ethics and morals among individuals but it is not a good device to base a system of ethics on. Religon is fine as a a device of utility theory in creating greater happiness among individuals and curtailing worries. Such as about death, one's place in the universe, is there any point in the universe. The same goes for Buddhism, Hinudism, New Age cults plus others. Like any system that resembles drug like qualites that remove the individual from reality there are libabites such false knowledge of reality so that the indivdidual members of the religon might argue in favor of absurd mythologies such as Noah's Ark, The Tower of Babal, skyline of New York much bigger though etc. They argue against science and reason which show how absurd the religon is. The consequences are an isolated group who are very defensive. I though like William James are not keen up on reality as the all good goal. If reality creates unhappiness what's the point, reality does not gain if you know it, and if you or other members of society aren't happier with the knowledge than no real good came of it. Religon will continue to exist for the next few hundred years until science, immorality, reason and humanism conquor it. It though still serves a limited place in society until then. Those though who take this drug should think twice of participation in the civil process, if they choose not to embrace the world but to live out childish fantisies don't delude yourselves that ideas that come out of delusiosn will have a positive impact on policy that affects those who choose to live in the real world.
In the novels "Farrenheit 451" and "Brave New World" an utopia exists of hedonism and nihilism. Rebellion is not in dance, music or sex, it is in the book. While most members of the society are happy there are some that are not. They are tortured by not being able to protest against injustices elsewhere, free theirselves out of this pointless paradise. Utility theory is not just about idle happiness from sensory pleasures, some must need intellectual pursuits, the ability to help others. Those policy makers who try to create greater happiness for the masses by insitution a pointless charade would do the elite of the masses a disservice.
Inherent or intristic rights is a vague concept, how is it inherent, natural or devine law. My idea of natural law has to do with an absolute bare minimum of absolute rights that futher increase happiness, such as the right to be raped. If an action serves no purpose at all for society or creates happiness other than one built on maschostic pleasure those committing it and create unhappiness for one member then it is immoral. Rights as Locke or Jefferson saw it are just devices to create greater happiness. Happiness the highest emotion, even greater than love since love is an emotional device to achieve happiness, is inherent. It is part of the mind. Rights are just an artifical device to acheive greater happiness. How one achieves it, be it alstruism, pleasure does not matter as long as one respects others.
I alwo wish to explore the notion of utility in economic systems. Capitalism is a system that assumes there is no limit to greater shares of wealth in acheving a concept of happiness. After all, why do people acquire wealth if not to be happy? If the goal is power or ego the far goal is still to be happy even if it is a upsurping other individuals rights and happiness. Lot of the ultra-wealthy are unhappy though, they go to psychatrists, therapists, commit suicide. Does a few million dollars more of wealth make a coresponding increase in hapiness for a person worth billions? If so is this the idea of happiness we wish to encourage in society. I argue that there is a dimenshing return of hapiness from wealth, power of all but the most power and egotiscial which aren't indiviuals we want to be role models for society. These few millions who would not make much difference in terms of giving that individual greater happiness would make huge amounts of difference for thousands of third world villagers. Not just in terms of hedonistic material goods but also giving them the tools; such as education, investment in jobs etc. This is not to say utility theory is purely socialist. Capitalism is a great device of not only acquiring luxuries but also necessarites. A great tool for creating wealthy in society capitalism if left unrestrained is a horrible one for distributing it not just on equal shares but also in how productive individual members of that society are, such as poor productive workers receiving substandard income while sharholders who barely work cultivate their labors. Religon only works if it increases happiness if it doesn't than it has no purpose for man. To deprive gays happiness is an effort of deternce, which doesn't work because being gay won't be detered by denying partner health care benefits because that is not why people are gay is really anti-family and moral relavisist. It is anti-family as I said because it increases suffering by indvidual family members in less benefits, creates fear in telling parents and being able be accepted by them and does this in a morally relavist way that denies rights and happiness in an idealist way. Many gay parents are great parents, I personally know one, but most don't know this because of properegnda and fear that discrouage this.
Lastly humanism is not about loyalty to an arbitary country one might be born in but loyalty to one's ideology. I am loyal to the things that make the U.S. great-freedom, its' people. I must realize that like everything else the U.S. was never perfect and still isn't and it is my job to try to change it for the better like the world. To those who said "love it or leave it" they miss the whole point. You should love something just because you are born there, why? If born in a ruthless dictatorship then you either have to love it or leave it. One is only a traitor to their ideology, beliefs and consecious, not an arbitary state if it no longer represents those things.
"How Evolution Increases Man's Value"
Many fundamentalist christians rail against evolution because it says it debases man, states he is nothing more than a smarter than average ape. That he is not the chosen ruler of the earth or maybe universe by God. In centuries past they had attacked the theroies of the earth being round, Jesus spoke to all corners of the world on a tall hill remember; earth not being the center of the universe. A very arrogant anthroceptic and arrogant view to say the least. Now they question the big bang and evolution not really on scientific grounds but because it threatens their disblief. These problems have problems with them but it is analoguous to somebody in a beat up '73 nova with a door falling off and an engine that catches fire every three miles telling another driver that his '95 Mercedes is screwed because the turn signal doesn't work. I arug that not only evolution, big bang or other possible scientific reasons by far more likelier but place man in a far greater position of importance. Evolution says that man through deterimination, spirit was not just given his intellectual capacites in a fully developed state but had to work his ass off to achieve it. Man is so great he can arrise out of the wilderness and be a steward and leader for the lesser animals. He does not require a God to do what he does, he only requires himself. He dosesn't have to thank a God for his achievements he can thank those who came before him. One might argue that man could become near godlike himself if given the freedom to pursue his ends. A god who restrains man and limits him is one afraid of what man might be able to accomplish.
"The Three Dimensions of Holistic Symetery"
Capra's classic book "Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintance" had a profound effect on me in my metaphysical thinking. Metaphysics or the search for the true reality of the universe if diffent from our sensory perceptions, after all sensory data can be subjective; we lack the ability to see microwaves or as strong sense of smell as a dog. It could be argued then that there are other sensory data out there for the taking if we had the technology and vision to find them. This destroys any hope of a enlighted subjective view that wishes to rationally and logically analyze all subjective views and to give emphathy at how others receive those views. If we cannot know true reality, such as how ghosts might exist but not as the dead but say beings from a different dimensions, this limits us in our thought. Indeed science has stated that it is possible and maybe likely there are other dimensions which we are not aware of, such as how a two dimensional being would only miss one whole dimension of our three dimension world. The supernatural though is not really so as it denying science or natural law, even if that natural law is on a cosmic scale short and arbitary and maybe made by intelligence. There exists in all probablity a cause and effect relationship with the unknown that we aren't aware of but unfortunately man such as the way with primitive religons that still influence us today has added many myths to it that make it unappealing to those of a ratonal and scientific bent. If there is real supernatural events that does not mean there is a coresponding christian heaven though. They could be as I said different dimensions, aliens hiding. Even if really dead humans doesn't mean chrisantiy is right, virtually all relgions have myths of ghosts of dead men. It is inherent in human nature this reaching for immorality and chrisanity is just a manifest of this. Chrisanity also can give circumenstial answers that might fit if many of the pieces weren't absurd into answering the questions of the orgins of man, the universe. These today aren't even circumstanial since they don't correlate with evolution or science except in basic deist cases of one who created the spark of life.
If religion is not an answer to reality, empirical evidence can be incomple and consequentally lead to incomple values for reaching a logical conclusion what can be done? Reality like everything has to be taken into context. All arguments are true as long as they are taken in context, that is how others arrive at different ideas and conclusions. A libertarian for example lists the advantages of capitalism and his is right, a socialist the same for his system and his is right as long as they are within the confines of their particular context. Once they exit these contexts than this no longer assumes. I for example see all the advantages and disadvantages of systems of thought and try to incorpate features that emphase the strenghts of each depending on the context of need-for example a context of creation of wealth leads to capitalism, context of distribution socialism.
I have one view of reality to look at, the holistic interplaying parts of reality. This is not just abstract metaphysical thought I aruge but real reflections on ordinary reality in a new light. Capra had stated on the functions between forms, how they are just not individual parts but part of the whole that is needed to be there if the whole and other parts aree to function to their goal. He gave for example the case of the motorcycle. Although mechanics for the most part bores me like higher math because I had thought of it as a disclipine of individuals who are great in memorizing its tools but who lack the ability to apply it to new areas of thought. Capra stated that there is no absolue way of putting something together or arriving at and end. That this is often subjective scientifically, as I stated in an earlier essay. What is prevalent is symetry and the function it serves to itself and the other aspects that it function with. Art for example serves a symetry between three parts. The work of art, the observer and the outer society and all are needed for it to function. The work of art for example is needed for the artist to show his frustration with society or love of it conversly he needs the society to create the art. The art of course needs the individual to create it and the society as a sourse of inspiration to create it. Lastly the society needs the artist to create the art which changes the society. The art serves as a tool to change society so other artists can criticize and appreciate it. This is not just art though, inventions, ideas, prose, political theory or even my own writing is influenced by this. Nothing is purely subjective or is created out of a vacuum, it is not only influenced by other people but also by objects, such as art or writing, which serve as a device of communication between individuals. Rebels or non-conformorists serve a part in society and so do reactionaries, without each other their would not be rebels or reactionaries. Same with heroic indivduals and evil men. There is a symetery between all things which create excitement even if a complex game. Does rebellion serve an end, such as the revolution with Great Brition or is rebellion in itself serve a purpose?
"Nature of Change"
Nature sometimes is great in letting us think, to give us the time to do just that. While on a river bank one day and throwing stones into it I noticed the rifts that grew when they broke the surface. They were strong at first in destroying the waves that came into its radiance but after a few seconds subsided. This process gave me a few thoughts. One of them was the ironic musing that no matter what I accomplish that throwing that rock into the river might have more influence on physical changes in this world than anything I might do for the rest of my life. After all that rock for the next 10,000 or 100,000 years hundreds of gallons of water overflowing over it. My effects on society will probably have little impact compared to that over that amount of time. Another thought is how things or people can effect other things or people. That rock would not affect me unless I slipped on it or somebody hit me with it, though I can just throw it into the river. Even natural events not influenced by people, such as tornados or hurricanes have physical causes that are a function of the form or parts. A human though could be impacted though easier by other humans which are in itself just parts of a whole, but a consecious one. Even if free will is an illusion mental processes still exist which cause change. All this reminds me that we are part of nature even if it is unconsecious.
A Word about Militas and Cults;
Every day I am just amazed at how many people who should belong in insane asylums are on the far right: people who believe a U.N. whose annual budget is porobably less than .01% of the world GNP believe it is going to take over the U.S. with only redneck hicks in the way. Also the federal government that couldn't hide Watergate, Iran Contra, Teapot Dome etc.., is secretly helping the U.N. for who knows what purpose. And where do they get their information, well from such esteemed sources as the ultimate nut Pat roberston, a person who if trips over a chair thinks it is the fault of the devil, feminists, globalists, humanist and other assorted "evil left wingers" He cites prophecies which could be interpetered to defend any idea that anybody would ever want. Than their are cults which are just early religons. Heaven's Gate, whose members weren't really conseratives I think exhibted the same traits as many religous nuts whose cults later became religons. Remember every religon there ever was was once a cult. This is not to say all cults or relgions are inherently bad, the worse ones though, the Pentacostians or Fundimentalist for example are filled with people who can't deal with reality and make things up to fit what they want the world to look like. They then proceed to create theist governments that also don't fit reality but pushing them on other people. If you want to take a drug find, but don't push your hallunications on anybody else!!!