Meanspiritedness

People never get in your head. No more of this "I'm in your head shit." This-and-that and mind games. Never mind "I'm a cat and you're the mouse, so run run run."

BS. It's what people do when they want to blow up a situation to be bigger than it is. Drama.

If a person was "in your head" they would understand why you understood the world as you did. They would know something of your history, motivations to a point that they would have sympathy and maybe even empathy for you. None of this "I'm in your head" shit "to knock around your brain." No. If they knew you, they would have mercy for you. If they had to fight you in a boxing match, they would punch with the upmost respect, and only punch because that's their living--to punch and get punched--and you share that living. None of that headbutting, cheating.

So when people come at you in an aggressive, and/or, selfish, and/or antisocial manner, they come at you from what is a detached mental condition. They are distant from your motives, from your history, and this distance can be achieved from either ignorance or aloofness. Actually, a combination of ignorance and aloofness, usually.

Instead of a burglar, people shooting evil juju at you are more like the annoying kids who run up to your door and knock on the door, and hide away. You had happened to be washing dishes, and left the sink on while you opened the door to find no one there.

Then you shut the door, and "no one" knocks again and hides again. And then you open the door again. They are at the side of the house to rap on the window. You check the window. They rap the window on the other side of the house. You check. They knock on the backdoor. You check. They knock on front door. You check.

They knock here. You check. They knock there. You check.

They knock here. They knock there. They knock here. They knock there.

You check. You check. You check.

And now, when you were checking, you're distracted from washing dishes. Instead, running around the house, accidental knocking a chair over, breaking the TV, accidentally knocking over the dishes, hitting the wall frustrated, letting the sink overflow because you're frustrated.
And you caused the damage. The kids didn't break your stuff. The kids may have made noises outside; yet, staying outside the entire time. You broke your stuff. You kept running at their knocking, and forgot to take care of your house.

###

A conversation with Lucifer

*Lucifer frequents Burger Heaven at 62th st and Lexington. Once a week, Thursday or Friday, he stops by at about 5:30pm, buys a Cheeseburger Special, with French fries, and a glass of Sprite. He usually eats alone, at the bar.*

*4/17/08. 5:35pm, the restaurant is pretty much empty. A young man in his early twenties sits two seats to Lucifer’s right. Lucifer scans the young man’s fingers, as the young man flips through the menu.*

Lucifer: I distrust the word, ‘Friend’

Man (turns his head to Lucifier): Pardon me?

Lucifer: I distrust the word, ‘Friend.’

Man: Oh. Ok.

Lucifer: I mean, how many friends do we have anyway?

Man: We’ve got friend, some friends, I’m sure

Lucifer: Sure. Why not?

Man: Oh. No reason.

Lucifer: Then we got lots of friends, everyone we meet, speak to, breath on, look at, feel, hold. We have a lot of friends, we do.

Man: Sure.

Lucifer: What are you getting?Man: Probably a cheeseburger special.

Lucifer (points to plate) : That’s what I got.

Man: Oh. It looks good.

Lucifer: It’s ok.

*The waitress comes, takes the Mans order, and leaves. Minutes pass, and neither man speaks. They stare up at the TVs hanging from the ceiling. CNN. After a story on the current death toll in Iraq, there is a story on Lindsay Lohan getting caught on footage picking her nose. The waitress returns with the Man’s plate of food. The man begins to eat.*

Lucifer: What’s your name?

Man (places a French fry in his mouth, chews for a moment, swallows): Greg.

Lucifer: Greg?

Man: Gregorio. Call me Greg.

Lucifer: Yes. Greg. Well, Greg, I have a theory. I think people are looking for every opportunity not to speak to one another. People want to get away from each other. No matter what. The less talking they have to do, the better. If they can, just sit in the room and not be seen, they would do so. They would sit in the background.

*Greg pops a few French fries into his mouth.

Lucifer: Ever see a man sit alone during a paty.

Greg: Yes.

Lucifer: It’s disgusting. Nursing his beer, staring at his feet, then glancing at some girl’s ass as she passes by. Disgusting. And you know why he’s there.

Greg chews.

Lucifer: He wants pussy. But he’s too damn scared to get it. And you know what’s the only thing worse than that?

Greg: What?

Lucifer: A person who tries too hard. Who really, really wants one particular human being. The person—the lover—thinks the lovee is so damn special, so damn awesome, so unique. Out of 7 billion people. So unique, when another would do. Makes you think.

Greg: Yes it does.

Lucifer: But he doesn’t really want to talk to her. No. Romantic love? That shit in movies when only one girlfriend will provide happiness in the world, or life is fucked up? It’s BS. Any person will do. Any husband, any wife. The trick is to be mature enough to understand this. To understand that love—friendships—is about consumption. People are like chocolate cakes. But what we forget about chocolate cakes is that after passing through the intestines the cakes become poop. The same with people. People are disposable.

Greg: Really?

Lucifer: Hell yes. That’s what the Bond movies get right. Ever wonder why every movie had a different chick? Because people are disposable. Agent James Bond is the representation of the male fantas y where the man can exist outside of the boundaries placed upon him. That he can go anywhere. That he can do anything. That he can fuck anybody. And this fantasy is a one man show. The name ‘Pussy Galore’ represents an ideal more than a human being. Represents more of an urge than a soul. People are uninterested in each other’s soul. An individual wants the most gain with the least pain, and burying ourselves into each other’s souls require effort. It requires pain. The man totally obsessed with a woman fails to understand her soul. He is in love with ‘Pussy Galore’

Greg begins to eat his burger.

Lucifer: Not the woman. If the learns to love the woman as he loves himself, he must learn to acknowledge her habits, her desires rather than his own. And that bitch better be reciprocal. Because when two people pay more attention to personal urges than extrapersonal urges, then the relationship suffers. Now, they don’t have to spend all damn day with one another, they just need to understand each other, that’s all. And people have no strength to understand. They just don’t, they just wrapped up in their own thing, and worry little about the world of others. Seven billion narcissists. Do you own a MySpace account?

Greg (bites, chews, and swallows): Check please?

Vengeance (1st draft)

I have yet to meet God. I am uncertain of a metaphysical engine that fumes with love, and sneers at the slime dripping through the streets. I am uncertain of its form, and more uncertain of its existence. Therefore, this essay--and perhaps all my essays--restricts itself to the form of the universe. The way it seems to me rather than the way it has been told to us.

A completely ninhilistic viewpoint of the world fucks up the need for an essay, since it assumes that nothing matters, inherently speaking. IE. That all meaning stems from the biological, rather than biological steming from the meaning. Maybe that's true, that there is no substantial meaning in the world. People, do, however, react with feeling and constructed meaning. From this, I can only assume that they is a meaning in our heads. Should there be no God, and our lives built upon wholly biological processes, there is nothing to say that there is no meaning in the universe. Only that there is no God, and that what we call the souls rests in our skulls. But this fails logically knock out all ideas of morality. This may mean, however, that meaning varies from person to person, from biology to biology.

The problem of vengeance stems on the idea that those who have been hurt deserve to seek retribution. They should, in a moral sense, hurt those hurt who hurt them. For vengeance to be justified in a utilitarian sense, more good must come from it than harm. It the target of vengeance will likely hurt others again (eg. a serial killer) retribution will be warrented since an act of vengeance will eliminate all possibility of the future atrocity occuring. If the target serves the public good, however, then utilitarianism can mess things up. Should the target be a billionaire philanthropist, sending him to jail for an assault charge may cause more harm than allowing him to remain free, since his money should save hungry children, send people to college, aid the efforts to clean up after an environmental disaster, etc.

Let's assume, to complicate things, that people have a difficulty understanding the public good. They have a difficulty separating their needs from the needs of others. In this case, which I believe to be pretty damn pervasive, utilitarianism is only an idea. It's pretty damn hard to stick to. Maybe if the billionaire's assault ended in an black eye, then the victim might be able to forgive and forget. But let's say the assault ended in the victim becoming a quadrepligic. Then the parents of that victim would sure as hell have a difficult time sticking to a utilitarian view of the word. I mean, shit, unless technology fixes things, their kids is going to be physically dependant forever.

FOREVER.

The parents will be inclined to purchase a weapon, repay the quadrepligia, and then some. Even if they decide to not seek vegeance, they will almost certainly have some trouble getting over the situation, if they ever do get over it.

"Vegeance is mine, I will repay" says the LORD, in the most hard-ass declaration of all time. If this is true, then everything is okay. No matter what happens, and who is hurt, GOD will settle the score. He will know what to do with the billionaire.
Let's assume, though, that God doesn't exist. So where are we? Obviously, in pretty fucky situation. And this situation gets evewn more fucky when people's perception of God allows them to take violence into their own hands. Many people of the Abrahamic faiths have been involved in a considerable amount of violence throughout history. I reject the notion, however, that the violence stemmed from the faiths, but from the interpretation of the faith (my interpretation, in all fairness, could be mostly wrong as well). That people have been able to skew the commandments of God to allow mass atrocities is something that says more about Man than about God.

The 9-11 attacks are very interesting since they are direct antagonism between two cultures that serve separate religions--Christianity and Islam. My knowledge of the islamic tradition on violence is incomplete, so I'll focus on the Christian interpretation of this event.

America has been considered a Christian nation, in a cultural sense. this is true. Most of our presidents and people have been christian. Some would argue (perhaps incorrectly) that this nation was founded wholly on Christian ideals, and therefore should look at the Christian faith as a moral backbone.

"Turn the other cheek," Jesus says, in the most difficult-to-follow commandment of all time. Submit to others, though they persecute you. Love, though others hate you. For Jesus (I can't remember which gospel at the moment, I think it's in Matthew that he says this) loving our enemies is the most commendable act a person can do. However, some people can define love for friends differently from love for enemies. A mother protecting her son from a burgler, may think, "I love you enough not to wish death upon you," before stabbing the burgler in the eye with a butterknife."

Taking a leap of faith, and allowing God pay vengeance is very difficult to do. For anyone. Only iffier in a situation is someone taking vengeance, and hurting people who may deserve this.

The 9-11 attacks further illustrate this. Perhaps the attackers believed that the people in the planes and buildings deserved death since they were American. Or that God's judgement render the deaths of innocents justified. However, in an atheisitic sense, vengeance only leads to more vengeance. When they attacked the buildings, they gave the US gov't reason and an opportunity to engage in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Deaths caused by US forces would make the friends and relatives of the dead wish for earthly retribution. When the attacked flew those planes into those buildings they began (actually, continued) the chain of violence.

"I'm going to go to Afghanistan to get the bad guys who did this to us," says a volunteer to the US marines in 9-12-01.

"I'm going to make those American pigs pay for this," says a farmer after a missile blows up his house.

And then the violence spills into more violence, and different groups go for what they think they deserve. And the chain goes on and on, with everyone saying in their hearts, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay."

Politicians

I.
Let's assume that humanity is comprised of two elements: the Angelic, and Demonic. Let's define these elements in the most broad, agnostic way possible, ie. with angelic representing 'desirable behavior' and demonic representing 'undesirable behavior'
Positive theories of government inherently assume that anarchy hurts the public good. They assume that the Demon-part of humanity is substantial enough to create chaos, unless a benevolent 'Big Brother' exists to sustain order. It assumes that the act of murder must be punished, or other potential murderers will kill without fear of reprisal.It assumes that banks must be regulated, or money will be misused and placed in inappropriate hands in inappropraite amounts.It assumes that the chaotic part of humanity exists as a substantial force to occasionally override the Angelic.

Yet, if the Demon-part of humanity is substantial enough as a force, then the government--the 'Big Brother'--cannot be trusted as we would trust as a benevolent, omnipotent God. People make up governments, and therefore pollute that government with their flaws.
II.This all sounds pretty damn obvious. But we like to knock our politicians, or put them on pedestals. No middle ground. No acknowledging that 'They are who we would be in their situation.' The public, generally, paints their politicians as either Angels or Demons. The problem with this stems from the fact that 1) if we consider them angelic, we overlook their flaws. Democracy requires the public to be active in the government. Therefore, if the public official makes a mistake, the public should rectify this mistake. He is not God. He is only a man. And any one of us (of both sexes) are capable of doing his work about just as well. Indeed, if we can choose a good leader, and recognize the leader's good traits, then don't we have the potential to also having those traits?

2) If we paint the official as demonic, then we risk overlooking our own demons. We overlook that possibility that 'They are who we would be.' Again, you may disagree, considering that you are unlike the guy who spends $80,000 on hookers. But what if you were rich? What if you were tempted to do something that could damage your standard of living, your marriage, your life...and you had the chance to get away with it? You could cheat on your spouse, and never get caught. Would you do it? Did you do it? You could steal $1 million from the bank, and pay your way through college. You could cheat on the exam.

Again, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only thing worse than this is when a little power corrupts absolutely, and in the case of some, this is true.

Opportunity, power. "They are who we would be' Ignorance to this fact, is like a tapeworm. And when we pull that fucker out of our ass, it's gonna hurt.

It's gonna HURT. So, it takes courage to acknowledge and battle our personal flaws. It takes the ability to look at what's happening, and choose righteousness. Rather than allow righteousness to choose us. Because if we wait for a situation to arrive that allows us to display our angelic side, we often fall into a demonic state. The demonic state is more vigorous than the angelic in choosing us.

III.
In 1963, Stanley Milgram tested people's obeidience to authority. Look it up, for your own benefit, but I'll give you a summary. A subject is deceived into thinking he will be the 'teacher' while one of the experimenters pretends to be another subject, a student. The real student, the teacher, is told by the main experimenter to ask the student a number of questions. The teacher is to give the student an electric shock for every wrong answer provided, and each subsequent shock will be more powerful than the last. The student will get questions wrong on purpose. At one point, the student will feign a heart condition, and ask for mercy. (In the classic application of this experiment, the teacher and student are in separate rooms, and they can only hear each other's voices.) The experimenter simply tells the teacher to continue the experiment, no matter what the student cries out. Finally, the student stays quiet, and the teacher is unsure if the student is still alive. The experimenter urges the teacher to continue, and shock the student again if the student fails to answer.

An average of over 60% teachers, in the many reproductions this experiment, continued it to the end: where the teacher will administer the maximum shock of 450-volts three times, despite quiet from the student all three times. This is how I interpret the results of this experiment: to be good people, we must take an active stance. We must acknowledge our temptations, and we must be ready to accept any discomfort. For the sake of rightheousness, we must be a sort of masochist. We must be ready to boycot a racist bus system. We must be ready to be arrested. We must be ready to disagree with our friends. We must be ready to be totally embarrassed. Otherwise, if we don't, then we are hypocrites when we declare our love of goodness. Instead, we would rather be comfortable in our own evil.

IV.
Many want a democratic president, a 'liberal' president because they are very disgusted with the actions of the current 'conservative' president. They--both the supports of the Democrats and Republicans--are caught up in a gang-mentality. But true Democracy rejects the gang mentality. It assumes that people make up their own mind. It assumes that every individual is a separate political party.

I am leaning toward Barack Obama for the upcoming election. He seems like a smart, strong man. I enjoyed his racism speech, and his speech on religion a few years back. I need to do more research on him before I can say I truly want him for president. (By the way, where is the love for our local politicians?) But, even when I do this research, I must acknowledge that this research falls short of knowing the real man. Falls short of what he might do in a stressful, compromising situtation. If we have lived at all, we have had experiences where the actions of others surprise and disappoint us. Our parents, our friends. They do things that shatter our positive, angelic perception of them. We, too, have performed acts that suprise others. We ran into a compromising situation, and fell in danger of choosing the greater of two evils. And often times we did choose that evil.

It's 2:07pm, and I've got to go somewhere. So let's wrap this up--Choose well, not just in the election, but in life, period. Choose the choice that you know is right. Not the choice of our parents, or our society, necessarily. Choose the choice of righteousness. Choose even though your heart will break. Choose though your feet hurt. Choose though the world sneer at you with its beastly glee.