Passive Non-Compliance.

An instruction manual.

Okay, so you've been told to do a number of things which are impossible to do simultaneously by a number of different governing organizations that are staffed by incompetent people.

Ah! So I see that you've run up against the US federal government.

Well, I've been in the service of this organization for almost 27 years, and I'm here to help you parse this out.

First, stop doing something that you've been trained to do like a lab rat since you were young: stop assuming that they know something you don't. They don't. In fact, by virtue of the fact that you care about various issues and have access to an internet, you probably know more than they do about this random subject. Make your own decision and stop caring about their outrage.

Next, stop assuming they want the best for you, they don't care about you. They care about their job. Not only are they ignorant, they're also incompetent despite being provided cogent data. Do your own research, come to your own conclusions, and live your life as best you can.

Next, learn to not give a fuck about their outrage. You're smarter and more capable than them. You've done your research and have decided to act in a specific manner that may be counter to what they have imposed on you by some fiat. Their fiat does not trump your intelligence, competence, or ability to decide what is the best course of action. Do whatever the fuck you decide, and ride out the consequences.

This is not limited to the current pandemic bullshit. This includes everything in your life. Stop being a lemming. The idiot at the front of the lemming formation is just as clueless as the rest of the lemmings and will lead us all off a cliff if we let them.

Fortunately, your unique ability as an individual to decide how to act in a manner that serves your long term self-interests, and those of your family, your community, and your state, allows you to do whatever the fuck you want to do. Allow me to quote James Madison, who wasn't a lawyer either, but wrote the fucking US Constitution:

"Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Passive non-compliance is awesome. I've been doing it since I was a 1st Lieutenant. It's fucking liberating. Fuck 'em. Do what you want to do.

Religion, Part II

[Find part one here: Religion]

"Conscience" is the revaltion of morality.

"Transcendence" is the hyper-resolution of an experience that elevates one above mere existence.  It is the swift, sharp kick to the head that alters our perceptions and informs our morality.  So, to tie that concept into my last post, one can translate that as "transcendence realigning one's priorities."  One can see from this that transcendence can be of critical importance for us.  The search for transcendence seems to be relatively constant across cultures, across demographics within cultures, even though it takes on many, many forms. Transcendence is different for each of us.  Some find it in music, others find it in cooking, some in mathematics.  As far as I can tell, few of us have not found something transcendent.  It is as universal as truth or morality.

So, how do you prioritize your life?  What truths do you find meaningful?  How does the employment of those truths in pursuit of your morality manifest itself?  That is your religion.  It doesn't matter that you identify as an anarcho-communist-nihilist.  That doesn't mean that you have no religion, because that state-of-being actually defines the religion that you're acting out.  The a-priori structure that you're demonstrating simply belies the fact that you are expressing the exact same solution-set as a priest or pastor does.

This solution-set, completely independent of belief structure, is the answer to the ubiquitous question: "How should I behave?" How one pursues that behavior set is a religion.  One who steadfastly maintains that there "is no God", and "believes in nussing", is just as religious as the most zealous pastor, priest, rabbi or imam.  That individual is pursuing a morality, based on accepted truths, and conducts himself according to a corresponding ethical code.  How could it be any different?  Despite that individual's "identity", he has DNA and that genetic code has been passed down for several million years in a very specific manner.  This a-priori structure is ubiquitous within the human experience.  

So I believe that Christ is the "way and the life", why is my religion good?  Because pain equalizes us all.  I dare you to argue against it.  If pain exists, then something opposite has to exist.  That "opposite" is transcendence.  The elevation above the pain.  What is described in the Bible is the story of how to live, stories told many times over and from various perspectives.  If one accepts that the most awesome superhero is a guy who did nothing wrong, but who consciously volunteered to be betrayed by his friends, denied by his church, and tortured to death by his government, so that he could sacrifice himself to atone for the inherent fallibility of all mankind, then one might be aiming at an example that is worthy of following.  If one understands that each individual is made in the image of the creator, then one might be able to judge each individual according to his character.  If each individual should act in a manner in Christ's example, then society becomes enriched incrementally, as each individual lives up to his potential.  I can't see a downside to that, and societies that have encouraged those criteria have been wildly successful in providing their citizens with the resources that are required to remain free.  

On the other end of this, each society that has chosen to disavow God or fail to live up to Christ's example have resulted in corruption of its leadership, wholesale slaughter of its citizenry, and the destruction of truth and ethics, while attempting to redraw morality in a manner that doesn't recognize the inherent divinity of the individual.  In those nations, transcendence is only possible by becoming an enemy of the state.  See: Solzhenitsyn, Gandhi, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  

Moreover, individuals who choose to pursue a morality that is counter to the tenets of Judeo-Christianity generally find themselves bereft of meaning (unable to identify truth, or deny that any truth exists).  If there is no truth, no ethics, and a denial of morality, then how does a goal-oriented individual function?  For what does one aim to achieve? 

That last question, to my mind, gets down to the bottom of this.  If you are not striving in a manner that serves your family, your community, while you grow by your sacrifice for something other than yourself, then how does the "religion" that you're serving improve anything? To quote Tyler, "Those things that you own, end up owning you", unless those things serve some overarching purpose to drive forward and assist you in achieving your purpose, that reinforce the meaning of your life, that allow you to transcend the suffering of this mortal coil in that pursuit of purpose and meaning.  

"Religion" involves picking up a burden, and carrying it, with as much grace as one can summon.  It isn't about your "inalienable rights".  It is about your inescapable responsibility to yourself, to your family, and to your fellow man.  

Such is my perception.

Unclean

Religion

So here we are at last.  The central question.  

I spent many years, mostly in my 20's and 30's, in a state that can most accurately be described as "agnostic". I had some fundamental issues with the idea of the Christianity that I had learned as a child.  I think that, as I look back through the years, that idea was communicated to me in a very inaccurate and ham-handed manner.  "Believe this or you're fucked" is not the right way to perceive the teachings within the Bible, nor is it an effective way of communicating the lessons of Christ.  Yes, He did say "no one comes to the Father except through me", but that wasn't the explicit threat of damnation that was sold to me by my parents and some of my pastors coming up, and I wish they had framed the problem in a more realistic manner.  I seek to do so now, and I apologize with all my heart for not having resolved this sooner.  

Before I go any further, we need to define a few things, at least as far as I've been able to deterimine their definitions:

1) Morality: The thoughtful layout of what one prioritizes in thought and action.  

2) Truth: An idea that, if one strictly adheres to, results in meaning or purpose. A tool by which one structures the reality that one perceives.

3) Ethics: The method in which one employs truth to realize meaning, and thus live as a moral human being.

So one can see the interplay between these three concepts.  If one's priorities are fucked, then one is not aiming at a target that will be either fulfilling or meaningful.  If one can't discern the truth, one can't shape reality in a manner that results in a satisfactory purpose.  If one has no ethical structure, then one cannot therefore use truth in a meaningful way to reinforce or realize those things that one has identified as important in life.  

I can't believe that I've not thought deeply enough about these things to understand them in this fashion.  It has literally has been under my nose for almost thirty years.

Consider Aristotlean Ethics.  It's not a moral code.  It simply instructs how to employ the truth in such a fashion as to mitigate harmful behavior while increasing the chances of using truth to perceive reality in an unbiased manner.  Kant's "universal imperative" is very much like this.  I think that's why I've gravitated towards those ethical paradigms since I first heard them in my early 20's.  It's the same reason that Christianity strikes me as truth, and it's very much why I took to listening to Dr. Peterson several years ago.  

There is an a-priori structure within us that is so deep within our neurology that it's almost autonomic.  There are concepts that are so basic that we don't even question them.  "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game."  What the fuck does that mean?

"Always make a good first impression."  Well, no shit.  But why is that so important?

Well, in the first example about "playing the game right", we're teaching our children that it's not important that you're skilled at something, but it is critically important that you treat your peers in a respectful manner, so that you'll be chosen to play as many games as possible throughout your life.  

The second example is truly a throwback to how deeply seeded our initial perceptions are.  It's not higher-brain functions that comprise a "good first impression", it's so much deeper.  If you haven't seen this, go on a web search-engine and look up "cats and cucumber videos".  You'll see that cats have a primal reaction to cucumbers because they initially perceive them as snakes, and they're scared shitless of them when somebody puts one on the ground behind them, even though they've never seen a snake.  Lab studies of common rats will show that one can waft the odor of a cat through a rat cage, even though that rat has never encountered a cat, and the rat will go back into his den and scream for two whole days (which, when considering the life span of a common rat is like you or I doing that for a solid week.)  First impressions are lasting for this same reason.  A species of "featherless bipeds" (AKA "Homeo Sapiens") did not consolidate its hold on the top predator rung for the past million-or-so years unless we had some next-level instincts.  Among those instincts is the ability to spot an asshole on first sight. So there you go.  There is your a-priori structure.

So what are the implications of this a-priori structure?  Aside from threat-identification, I really think that we have a proclivity to manifest our behavior in such a manner that we are drawn toward truth, and we tend to structure our morality in a manner that draws us to purpose and meaning.  I don't think that it's an accident that our perceived-reality is structured as "chaos" and "order", while the left and right hemispheres of our brain are manifested to process reality in that exact duality.  

I think that what I've argued thus far is enough for one sitting.  It lays the basis for the instanciation of religion.  The implications of that instanciation will be the next chapter.  Please stand by.

Unclean