Starting a Journey: I know enough to know that I know nothing

From an amateurs’ (-my-) perspective the world seems to be full of men acting as women, and women acting as men. From a post-modern perspective this may seem like a good thing. People have been deconstructed such that anyone can be anyone. Yay. Yet how come the world is in such turmoil? How come real conversations cannot be had, that certain topics are off limits? That anyone can be anyone is a simplistic ideal, and really may not actually be ideal.

If men and women are exactly the same, and they are just a construct within a given body, then how come extreme sides of politics are dominated by each gender? Left by Women (Feminists), Right by Men (and I don’t mean alt-right, because that includes White Nationalists). Surely if this is increasing, then we would see less of this effect.

There are many things to consider, from evolutionary biology to psychological theory to religious theory.

Women seem to be acting out of their male persona, they have learnt that this is one way to succeed and be heard. However it may not sit comfortably with their identity, and they project everything that they consider bad from their feminine side onto men as the patriarchy, even though they are acting that way themselves by authoritarian actions of censoring any heretical ideas from that narrative. The ideas becomes almost a religious dogma that cannot be questioned.

From this onslaught and from a noble ideal of equality many men are guilty about their masculine side and so retreat into their feminine side. This is associated with withdrawal and depression in men, who no longer know what they are supposed to be. Hence suicide rates for men are terrible, effecting many lives in the community. Other men are sticking to their male personas and are completely rejecting their feminine side, and what they see as hypocrisy and unfairness of the dogma presented by women.

From evolutionary biology, men have traditionally been the producers, women the distributors. Men wanted to ensure the most was produced. Women wanted to ensure what was produced was distributed evenly. Hence women tend to the Left, men to the Right. Both noble but from different perspectives. Historically within small groups and the family, these decisions were quite separate, men and women operated separately. In modern times they are now different sides of politics that are in competition with each other. With the rise of women in politics, this has become more prevalent. In reality, a balance of both these ideas needs to exist.

So women seem to be acting as men to obtain the female ideal. Some men are acting as women in compensation, or acting as men only, disregarding their feminine side in defense of their masculine ideal. Relatively few seem to be acting in balance and in reality with the world and themselves. In this sense, the world is becoming more binary. Statistics show that in the U.S, around 12% are considered extreme Left of politics and around 8% are considered extreme Right, so therefore it may not be as bad as it seems. However those with an agenda seem to have made their way to places where they can be heard the loudest.

Has social media played a part in this? You are expected to take a position, and in defending that position (that many others can see), we paint ourselves into a corner with a narrow viewpoint. And because it is all recorded in history, it is used as an attack on an opponent, which is defended further. We align ourselves to a group which may not represent us completely. That group identity is certainly not perceived the same from the outside as it is within. It then becomes Identity Politics which align to a group persona and blame attached to the opposite of that persona, with Identities pitted against each other, rather than a balance of opinions to produce the best for everyone. However the number of people on social media who find themselves in these positions is still quite small, so again we may be over-estimating. It does seem that the result seems to permeate the remainder of society as often people will align themselves to a particular media personality or side with whom they bear all the slings and arrows.

Can men and women really be deconstructed in the post-modernist sense to be equal without biological factors as an influence? It is interesting because we are born knowing how to breath, how to eat, we learn how to grasp, how to physically move over time, but no-one directly teaches us this. Does a person’s size and strength have a determination over their personality as environmental impact? A person’s intelligence that they are born with? The many different aspects of intelligence have shown that each aspect of intelligence has a relationship to a tendency in personality. Are men and women also born with tendencies to different aspects of intelligence, therefore they ultimately affect who they will be? Therefore biology has tendency to personality? Psychological theories certainly espouse this, as men and women are treated differently, and have different aspects to each other. In regards to individual personality, surely no-one can ever be equal in this respect, and if there are biological differences, why would you want to force someone to be different from who they are?

There is so much to understand here, and I know I have not described the above very well. It’s an attempt at honest discussion with myself. I know enough to know that I know nothing.

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Question to the Answer 42

I happened to pose a similar question to myself a few years ago now, and I’ve been thinking that perhaps this question is the question with an answer 42. The answer will apply differently to different people’s Universes, but the question is still the same.

Douglas Adams was single and getting on in Life. At some point in life you ponder to yourself, am I now too old to meet someone and have a family.  I think the answer for him was 42.

The Arthur Dent character is also single and getting on in life. The whole story can really be put down to the surreal situation you find yourself in when you realise you may be alone forever.

This question does not really surface in your consciousness until it’s almost too late, and then it’s there and you realise. Maybe this is why the question is not known, while you are young you don’t fully comprehend it.

The equivalency is that you are ending in this Universe. You are just a, a….  hitchhiker in it, without your own path to follow, hitching onto other people with lives to live, without your own lineage and no destination apart from the inevitable Restaurant At The End Of The Universe.

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , | 4 Comments

What an easy life!

Imagine living in a big world made up entirely of food. And you were partly submerged in it, and could eat it through your skin. Wouldn’t have to do much, would you! Just eat and grow. Sci-fi? Well, welcome to the lives of plants.

They get it pretty easy when you look at it that way. They live in their food. Of course there are places where plants of certain types don’t survive, but that’s the same as us.

I wonder if there are the right conditions plants would develop an intelligence. Except I don’t really know what for, as I said, they live in their food, there isn’t much to do. Maybe if they had fast growing limbs of some kind that could tear down branches on top of them to get sun, but not sure if that would need intelligence, or just luck with design that led to a good scenario.

Vines probably have an intelligent design, they grow and it hooks onto stuff to climb. Do any trees grow their leaves to maximise access to the sun? Pine trees have a pattern. A good design I suppose, the more one section of a plant gets sunlight, the more it grows that section, which is a convenient by-product. The faster and higher trees grow, the more access to sun. Better and more efficient internals to grow faster and stronger. The constant race.

Maybe food is the easy bit then. Access to the sun in the forest is the hard part.

Easy life hmm… How about animals that don’t have any predators? Like the Kiwi, surely that might be an easy life if there is nothing that can eat you. New Zealand doesn’t even have snakes. Not sure how easy their food sources are, but might be pretty easy.

A predators life is probably the hardest. Even though everyone feels sorry for the Zebra that gets eaten, the Lion surely has the harder day to day life. Strange how the top predators probably have the hardest life.

Then again, how easy is our life compared to that of a Lion. And a plant for that matter. I know that sounds contradictory, but really we are made to work, not sit around and do nothing. It is hard to be completely not occupied. The challenge is directing our energy to something useful. In our Western Societies, we are super rich. How rich do you think a Lion would think we are if they could comprehend it?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The times, they are a mess

Who would’a thought? I’m back but enough about me. Just five years ago no-one would have predicted the times we are in now, the ‘hatred’ (is it really?) of opposing political and cultural sides and their resulting social media lynch mobs. Fear of doing or saying the ‘wrong thing’ and outed in social media is a real concern.

Would you say we live in better times? What has caused this?

They talk about history and try to align it to similar periods. Maybe they can align to levels of angst, I don’t know. Certainly this is different for me, something I would never have expected.

What has caused it? Structurally from the top down, I think it is Governments reacting to activist 24 hour media reacting to social media. Social media activists are often driven by an ideology and encouraged as a ‘team player’ of belonging to activist groups. Or they are just trying to get noticed, either to try to be known to make money out of it, or pushing a particular cause. Do they impact their cause? Not sure, but they are blissfully unaware of the consequences of their actions, and ultimately sing along to the downfalls of social media even though they are the ones contributing most to it.

It’s been talked about before, but activism in social media is the tail wagging the dog. What percentage of people are active on Twitter (or Twitter type platform)? What TYPE of person is active on twitter? Additionally, even if you aren’t one of those ‘types’, it’s easy to react negatively on social media because the other person is an idiot, but you wouldn’t say it to their face. It adds to the harmony (pick  your context). It is a very small minority of people driving the agenda. Why do we care? It ultimately causes governments to overspend on issues that the majority are not concerned about, or are against.

For journalists, it’s an easy story. Three people react to something on Twitter, it’s an idea they hadn’t thought of. Shazam. Lazier journalists pick up on those stories. When did we decide we need 24 hours of media? Has it made the world a better place? We now get hype around nothing. Over-reporting and wrong conclusions made. Oh sorry, it’s too late now, your reputation is ruined. Most probably that suited their agenda anyway. Their agenda ultimately is that you eyeballed them.

Activism in the media IS a thing. Why would you become a news journalist if you didn’t have an opinion on something? They are those little kids who feel the world is wrong. All grown up and not out of it. However, I also think we’re being a little duped by their owners. Media takes a side, but often not for the benefit of society. Not even for the direct benefits of less taxes and better economy. No, it’s ratings. Pick a side, and clicks and/or views go up. Stick to that side, and you’ve made friends who will stick with you. Be a stick in the mud for your ‘Team’, don’t take into account facts that reasonably affect a decision, twist facts and deride the other side, well, you’re married. Tada, Fake News. If you talked to someone in the street and they twisted facts like the media does, you would walk away in disgust thinking they had something wrong with them.

How do you oppose this? Well, write a comment pointing out their hypocrisy. You’re now a Troll, you oppose someone’s view on social media. If this is a Troll, then Trolls are the people you can’t fool all the time. Doesn’t say much for the rest of society, I know. Watch out, activists are trying to kill them off with sheer battery of stupid responses. Some places have laws such that some point fingers and try to see if they float so they can burn them or drown. Bullying? Hate Speech?

Aspects of different social media platforms has lead to different cultural sides dominating each. From my experience managing people in an office environment, those on Facebook the most are generally those who say the least in social situations. Perhaps they don’t know how to react correctly socially, Facebook makes them feel part of something. Facebook is more ‘sit there and read’, because you identify yourself and look at drivel and post drivel back. You are not going to post something that could be controversial, everyone is trying to look good. They post ‘do good’ items, with little words from themselves, or discussion about the real impacts of what they have posted. Yes, it’s what many have become. Perhaps they always were, but now we just know.

On Twitter, those who identify themselves often follow the Facebook ‘look good’ paradigm. Those who don’t identify themselves can say what they really think. Others just don’t care, or don’t get it. There is limited space to say anything, and therefore you can’t really have a good discussion or debate. Fast turnaround of responses is expected, so little thought goes into it, and one side often degrades to childish remarks if they can’t persuade you, or don’t have the facts on their side.

YouTube is interesting, it is predominantly Right leaning, as opposed to the others. I think this has occurred because the initial post (video) is in depth compared to the other platforms, and there is unlimited text for responses. It’s not expected that you respond to another response immediately, so you have time for thought and space for expression. The Right seems to need this space to explain, as it is based on reason. The Left may only needs so many characters to get their feeling across. They expect you to have the same feeling and it doesn’t take much to trigger it. Imho, this is the difference between Left and Right.

Either way, people take a side and often and won’t consider the other. Especially from Left Activists on social media. We are supposedly polarised. It certainly feels that way, as we are fed this illusion daily through our feeds. Walk down the street and talk to normal people, and this feeling is not there.

If you happen to meet one of these activists, then it can get prickly. They are caught up in some neurotic bubble where they need to prove themselves RIGHT. Watch out if you disagree with them in real life!

Perhaps the issue is that many people’s opinions can be expressed publicly that could never be expressed before. As a percentage of people overall it is small and skewed, but in actuality it is larger than ever experienced before. We are social animals built on fitting into a group, therefore many are being ‘manipulated’, or more likely following the skewed ‘social media’ norms. Many are aligning to these thoughts without knowing the full consequences of their ideology. Has something similar happened in history before? I will let you think about it.

How to fix it? Another post, another day. Maybe in another 5 years.

Just my thoughts.

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged | 2 Comments

Laziness and blogs

Yes. The two come hand in hand. Or perhaps laziness is the first leading the second. How many blogs have died in this world. How many people have died with their blogs out there that nobody knows about. It’s amazing how time can fly and you don’t write in your blog. And then you’re how old? Hmmm.

So what is laziness. A quick google search on the internet will tell us about the psychological reasons for it. But that is just someone’s idea, it is not written into the fabric of the universe. And you are probably so lazy you didn’t even bother to google it. I’m amazed you got this far. Apparently we are programmed to be lazy. Why exert effort and energy when you don’t have to. Animals will sit around and just be fed. Whereas most of us want to look good, so we put in effort to do so. Is ‘looking good’ a human trait, I think it must be. There is a lot more to it than this. Why do we want to look good? Sex, social acceptance, social domination?

We are also so lazy we can’t enjoy reading someone else’s blog. We rush through it, thinking that its only a blog so its someone else’s idea so therefore not important. I find it very hard to read anyone’s blog post in full. I’m sure you’re the same. But hey, you made it here:-)

Posted in Philosophy | Leave a comment

Is addiction just being too smart for your own good?

Are humans too smart for their own good, and hence get addicted to things. Our minds want to be occupied. Perhaps those that are too smart, i.e. their minds are continually processing very fast, re-do things too much.

Or perhaps these people get OCD.

Posted in Philosophy, Science | Leave a comment

Is God the only absolute truth?

In my philosophy studies, I heard a statement from a scripture that said the only absolute truth is God. In my humble opinion, I don’t think we can experience God like other experiences we know. God just is. We can experience many things and come to the opinion that certain things seem true for us, and I agree some seem to be universal truths. However are they absolute truth?

Having said that, our whole experience of life, that we exist, I think tells us that God exists. Its cause and effect. How can the universe exist if it wasn’t started by something? There HAS to be something that started it off. From our experience of this universe, it can’t just be, it was created. Indeed, God potentially just is. But the Universe as we’ve observed must have been started by something.

Would anything be true if we didn’t exist (if a tree falls in a forest…)? We exist, therefore something created us. Therefore the only truth is that we exist, and if we exist then God must exist. By our existance, God must exist.

Name that whatever you like, but really its the only absolute truth we know.

Posted in Philosophy | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments