Does it matter?

Everyone always says that things are too complicated these days. We have too much information, too many stories trying to get our attention, and too many people trying to rile us up for various causes. What is a [nearly] sane person to do? Well, I am developing a formula so that I only get upset at the most upset-worthy things, and rest just slides away so that I can catch up on Facebook in peace.

(Issue + Viewpoint 1 + Viewpoint 2)PossibleOutcome - OutcomeSoFar = HowMuchICare
*Please note that this only works with a minimum of two viewpoints.

Let's take a rather controversial example to illustrate my process. When Barak Obama bowed to a foreign dignitary, much of America was in a firestorm over the event. Me? My main thought was "What's for lunch?". I just wasn't revved up for either side of the debate.

I'm going to give a little detail into how I got my Viewpoint, PossibleOutcome and OutcomeSoFar variables, first:

1. The meaning of a bow is cultural and there are tons of contextual nuances to consider.

a). Viewpoint 1 is that the bow was a sign of respect. If that's the case, I'm okay with that. I like to think that we respect other nations, and I'm sure they appreciate such sentiments (PossibleOutcome). It just seems like something positive that helps keep everything spinning.

b). Viewpoint 2 is that the bow was a sign of subservience, in which case it could be taken two ways. It could be a sign of disrespect to Americans. I grant that. But it also occurs to me that the symbolic gesture could actually do us a great deal of good in international relations (PossibleOutcome). I know this is incredibly hard to believe, but a good portion of the world sees America as kind of arrogant and pushy. If we really are as powerful a nation as we believe, I'm pretty sure we can absorb a hit to our pride for the cause of goodwill and future cooperation. So, I don't consider the disrespect thing to be a heavy hitter.

c). Whatever happened symbolically, in the more relevant matters of America's power and safety and nationalism, it really doesn't change anything (OutcomeSoFar). Our military is still there, our economy (such as it is) is still ticking, our government still meets and our bargaining power with other nations doesn't seem to be affected.


Now, I'm not a math genius, but if I add all this up I get:
(Bow + PossibleRespect + PossibleSubsurvience)AngryAmericans/ PositiveInternationalRelations - NoChange = More Cheetos.

...Oops. Make that, "= Doesn't change anything, hurts only pride in a country famous for arrogance, so not feeling the urgency".

As another example, let's take the scenario of a magazine announcing that researchers may have found another clue to curing some disease. I see these fairly often. Then I read the article and realize that the discovery, albeit in a promising direction, has so many "might's" and "maybe's" and "possible's" attached, it's like navigating a minefield to find the meat of the article. Basically, many of these wonderful discoveries are actually akin to getting the gas cap off your car so you can fill up for a cross-country road trip. When I encounter one of these, I just skim the article before moving on to truly enlightening discoveries- like about how to achieve bikini abs.

(Discovery + ThisIsPromising + ThisIsn'tGettingUsAnywhere)CouldCure - Hasn'tCuredAnythinYet = Don'tBetYourLifeSavingsOnIt

On the other hand, we really do sometimes have things that affect us. Take the illness of a close family member, for instance:

(Illness + LessNaggingNow + ILoveFamily)GuiltLaterIfNotHelpingNow - OpportunityToHelp = Yes,ICare

Now I must come up with a name for this brilliant new formula...

Look me in the eyes

I have a theory that our society is both too connected and not connected enough. We are too connected in the sense that we can immerse ourselves in news from across the country or across the world, but we often don't have any sense of the undercurrents and background behind the stories. And yet, we have so much information at our fingertips, we assume we know what is going on. That is how we are too connected.

As for how we are not connected enough, we know a lot of people and hear stories of many more, so it can become hard to assign individuality. It is much too easy to become callous and forget that these people have faces, stories, and feelings. We do not live near them, nor do we see them at work or the store, so we are not confronted with their reality.

That is how we are not connected enough.

For myself, I am working on a phrase to ground me whenever I catch myself falling into one of the above pitfalls.

"Would I say the say the same thing if I had to look them in the eyes?"

I have my moments of a Social Darwinist attitude. If people are not competent enough to survive, it is the way of nature that they are eliminated from the gene pool. But if confronted with someone who fits the profile, would I voice my attitude? I don't know.

If I don't like the health reform and say that those of us who work should not have to support those who don't... would I hold to that if I had someone unemployed in front of me? What if I knew that person's reasons for unemployment? Or what if that person had a serious illness and got caught in the "doughnut hole" of coverage? Would I stand firm on principle?

If someone is ranting on an online post in a way that I don't like, do I jump in and start firing back? Or do I moderate my words, remembering that just because I don't have to face the person directly, that doesn't mean that words don't still hurt?

Since I cannot take one position from a distance and another from closer in without becoming a hypocrite, I feel that this approach will only benefit me and those around me. If we all conducted our lives as if every interaction were face-to-face, I wonder what differences we would see...

Truth, Where Art Thou?

Modern scientists say that water is the most diverse element known to man. It can exist as a solid, a liquid, and a gas, and requires very little environmental change to effect these transformations. I contend that as wondrous as we may find the properties of water, the properties of the element “Truth” are far more varied and difficult to pin down. Unlike water, which exists in its various forms regardless of perspective, the many forms of “Truth” depend on the mind of the beholder. However, for the purposes of this discussion it will be useful to view Truth through the lens of elemental properties.

For example, take Truth in its solid form. I have felt some ideas so powerfully, I could no more imagine them untrue than I could credibly think concrete was soft. I have met people for whom “Truth” is as unyielding and unchanging as an actual solid. Entire religions are based on such principles, and millions (perhaps billions) of people around the world accept the premise that their religion’s Truths possess that level of solidity. Plato famously proclaimed in his Theory of Forms that there are ideas so pure and fundamental, they exist outside of human perception. Effectively, he characterized “Truth” as an external force, an independently existing “solid”.

Then we have Truth in liquid form. This occurs when the information used to determine Truth changes, or when new circumstances come to light. Or, it can also arise when a person changes his or her mind about something. If that person’s attitude was the subject of the Truth, then it now must shift with the changing perspective. Truth is also now different in the mind of the person, so in the universe defined by that person’s beliefs and history, Truth has changed. In some ways, this scenario could meld seamlessly with the earlier discussion of Truth as a solid; one could argue that the Truth has not changed, just the human perception as we gain or lose varying levels of access to the greater Truth.

Consider Truth as having the properties of a gas, however. This concept is a favorite of modern philosophers, atheists, and social anthropologists. (This is not to say that everyone in these professions ascribes to such a flexible notion of Truth, but there is something to be said for the professional leanings in that direction. However, I digress.) Sometimes Truth has all the presence and force of water vapor, invisible and without weight or substance. Some people contend that Truth is not externally defined and then sought, but rather internally defined and acted out. When enough people with similar definitions of Truth congregate, larger ideals of an archetypal Truth are born (but are not necessarily accurate). This perception requires a different mindset from the other two, because it is by necessity a big picture mindset. It requires seeing Truth as a human perception that makes us feel better about the chaotic world in which we live.

The funny thing about the different forms of Truth, is that we will never know which (if any) is correct. Those who favor the “gas” form of Truth will not accept someone’s word that Truth is a solid thing beyond our ability to affect change. Those who believe in solid Truths will not have any reason to believe in the gaseous model. The liquid is the fence-sitter, and could go either way in the discussion. The binding element- if you will pardon the pun- between all three is that each is blinded by its own biases and assumptions. The constraints that make them beliefs are also the blinders that keep those inside from seeing events objectively.

As a reader picking your way through this meandering discussion, you may wonder what the take-home message could possibly be. To me, the message is that is we believe many things, but we know nothing for sure. And yet we proceed through our daily lives assuming that we have the answers. In my opinion, the path to making this world a more tolerant (and pleasant) place begins with us being open-minded... and perhaps even humble... about our own and other people’s view of the Truth. That sounds like a worthy goal to me.

Mosque Madness

I keep on hearing a lot of controversy regarding the proposed mosque near ground zero. Frankly, I am baffled by it. I know some people who have very strong feeling regarding this project, but I have trouble seeing their side of the issue.

Here are some of the points I have heard, and my reactions to them:

I have heard that the building of a mosque in that particular spot is a "slap in the face" to the people who died there. My first thought is... why? The people building the mosque are, by reputable reports, peaceful people who abhor the violence preached by extremist groups. They have also been praying there for years in a nondescript building that the mosque will merely replace (according to the New York Times). The only change is the symbol of the building itself, which despite propaganda still represents a religion of peace.

I know it is tempting to point out that there are many high-profile cases of terrorism perpetrated in the name of their religion, but let's be honest: which of us can legitimately point a finger? Christians, put your hands down- the Crusades alone are a black mark. If you're not convinced, think of the recent murder of a doctor performing abortions. Whether you agree or not, it was murder in the name of religion. If you ask a Palestinian, the actions of Jews in Israel in their long conflict is tantamount to terrorism. A Jew would say the same thing about Palestinians. Catholicism, besides its bloody history in Europe, has a history of legal scuffles regarding their strict behavioral code in schools. Are we all tarred by the brush of our religions?

I have heard exhortations to protect America by protesting the mosque. My first thought? How does that protect America? Let's break this down a bit. America is a land of the free. A place where we can pursue happiness without fear of persecution based on religious beliefs. I believe that America stands as the land of tolerance. The way to protect these ideals, it seems to me, is to perpetuate them. By bringing down an effort to peacefully worship (and if you disagree on their intent, prove it. Innocent until proven guilty), we make ourselves into the very type of people we say we despise: full of irrational hatred, willing to lash out at people we don't know just because they have different beliefs.

If we act as if the mosque has any power over ground zero, 9/11 remembrances, or the memories of the fallen, we have already betrayed the sacredness of those memories. If we remember in our own hearts, NOTHING can touch that. So why do we get so upset about a mosque?

Bottom line: I would rather create peace instead of war. If what goes around really does come around, I can live with my decision. How about you?

Opinion vs. Fact

Okay, it seems that it is time for a little vocabulary lesson (pay attention- there will be a quiz later).

1. Fact: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

2. Opinion: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter

Do we see a difference here? I have seen many discussion boards, online posts, and heard or been part of conversations where these two become mixed up. All too often we want to emphasize our point... or we are just in the habit of assuming a "my way or the highway" attitude... or whatever, but in the end we tweak the presentation of "truth" to bolster our points of view, perhaps without realizing what we're doing.

Let me give you an innocuous example: I see a dress in a store, and I say "That is an ugly dress. Who was stupid enough to design it?" This may seem pretty harmless, but the principle is that I am making my opinion into an absolute. To be accurate, I could have said "I think that dress is ugly and the designer incompetent". The difference is that in the second statement I am stating my own point of view and nothing more.

This may seem like nit-picking, but what if I switch the example and move to politics? How often do we get frustrated because people make statements that sound like fact, but because we disagree we say it is just an opinion? (i.e. That candidate is a lying, career politician.) How often do the people on the other side of the fence accuse us of the same tactic? Once we get into that kind of mud-slinging, nothing is solved and people just get more deeply entrenched in the opinions they already had. Then we go and vote.

What if I change the topic again to healthcare or science? Or religion? The sticky thing about these is that people think they have facts to back up their positions. Traditional healthcare people have medical studies to point towards; alternative medicine advocates use history and different medical studies as their proof. Atheists use science as their backup, while religious individuals can point towards documented events that science can't currently explain. EVERYBODY has fact on their side... so who is right? I'd say that as long as we are talking about things that can't be proven or disproven, due to conflicting evidence or the nature of the question itself, assume that each point of view is an opinion and be tolerant of other ideas. Until something happens that is absolutely conclusive, it is premature (and immature) to gloat.

The thing that gets to me most is the automatic tendency of humans to self-congratulate. We find the "facts" that suit us and we stop there. We don't often look too deeply into where our facts came from. We don't usually research the opposition's viewpoint. We don't even consider that something will appear in the future to totally change our thinking on the subject. We tend to automatically assume that we have THE ANSWERS (caps intentional) and that they are eternal.

Well, my favorite rebuttal is best encapsulated by a quote from-- ironically-- "Men In Black". A character says, "One thousand years ago, everybody knew that the world was flat. Five hundred years ago everybody knew that the earth was the center of the Universe. [...] Imagine what you'll know... tomorrow." The underlying idea is that we absolutely positively without-a-doubt know things, right up until they are disproved. Really, how intelligent can we be as a species if we keep on repeating this pattern over the ages?

Let's be ahead of the curve this time. Let's learn humility and tolerance, because they will last longer than fact, and they will make the world a better place than inflated opinions can ever manage.

Separation of Religion and Politics?

I saw a news article today on a debate currently raging: the separation of church and state. Should they be separate? What does that phrase mean, anyway? What are the implications in either direction?

Separating religion from politics sounds good to a lot of people in an idealistic sense. Even if we adhere to the religion currently in power, the wheel inevitably turns and we don't want to find ourselves at the mercy of an administration with opposing spiritual views. But how much can we really separate these two ideas? Morality may be hard to pin down, but a sense of it still pervades just about every facet of life. If religion tells us how to live, how can religious lawmakers act separately from their conscience?

These are tough questions, and unfortunately not easily answered. I make no secret of my preference for a more distinct separation than we see today, but I also acknowledge the challenge this poses for many people, both lawmakers and constituents alike. Furthermore, I also recognize that while I think I am "right", so does everyone else. And we all have our own good reasons for believing as we do. It could be due to faith, our personal experiences, or own own reflections, but we all choose our paths because we believe it is best.

Here is one of the reasons for my view... Keeping in mind that everyone in this democratic, free-thinking country has a different opinion on religion, and that we all have an equal say in the direction of our country, I posit that separating religion from politics/lawmaking is the fairest way to deal with the matter. From a logical standpoint, if we all have good reasons for believing as we do, who is unbiased enough to say who is right? (God may be unbiased, but multiple religions claim that he endorses only them, so perhaps that is not the greatest measure, either.) If mere mortals cannot determine correctness, the only fair alternative I see is to remove religion entirely from the laws that govern everyone.

Of course, that still doesn't address the "how". People who make laws and play politics are still people, and I don't have a guide for how they can accomplish this. I can claim that it is necessary, but I haven't gone through this process myself. Perhaps if someone who reads this has ideas, you will be willing to share.

Valentine's Reflections

*Note*: I had this post ready to go on the day itself, but for whatever reason it didn't post.

Valentine's day is such a perfect opportunity for a post, saturated as it is with soppy candy hearts and commercialized expressions of true love. People who have significant others typically plan and scheme and fret over their extra special dates... or they forget altogether and buy some flowers or chocolate from that store down the street that happens to be open today. Those of us without a special someone on this mushiest of holidays sleep late, eat ice cream right out of the carton, and generally do whatever we need to do in order to fight off feelings of lonliness and unworthiness.

You might have noticed that I lumped myself into the second category. Being seemingly doomed to eternal singledom, I am well acquainted with the spectrum of feelings we unattached can experience every February 14th. There are a number of well-worn guests called Lonliness, Despair, and Frustration who tend to visit, and there are infinite ways of handling them. Some years, I go for the approach that such a commercialized holiday has little intrinsic meaning, so it shouldn't matter if I am alone. Other times, I rationalize that being in a relationship is a huge drain on time, energy, and money, so I'm really better off avoiding the whole mess.

This year, my single approach is simply to be. Living in the moment and letting myself experience whatever comes will probably serve me best in the long run, but there is also a sort of comfort in honesty with onesself. Most of this Valentine's day was just another day for me, so I wasn't bothered by its presence. But now in the evening, I feel the weight of all my years alone becoming heavier by one more landmark. One more Valentine's Day can be crossed off the calendar, and I still have not experienced that romantic, magical experience of being in love on this love-centric holiday. There is some hurt in that thought, but this year I acknowledge it instead of pushing it away. The hurt is my clue that, as happy as I am most of the year to be single, part of me wants something different. And maybe if an opportunity comes along, that sting will remind me of the feelings that await next February if I pass it by.

Why should I put stock in the feelings that well up but once a year? After all, I am generally a happy person, and being single has made me strong. The answer is that it's the mystery of this "love" thing that gets to me, because the truth is that I don't have any way to comprehend what I am missing. The obvious answer is to go out and meet someone, but trying to hurry up and fall in love is like trying to fall asleep. It just happens when it happens, and trying to rush the process only makes me frustrated and cranky... and ultimately sleep-deprived.

In my own meandering way, I seem to be reaching out and describing my situation so that others can understand (or empathize, as the case may be). Whichever case is applicable for you, I hope I have given you some insight into what I, as one of many singles, go through each Valentine's Day.