Fatalism - Fatalistic

1.  the doctrine that all events are predetermined by fate and are therefore unalterable.

2.  acceptance of the belief that all events are predetermined and inevitable.

A few years ago when I first arrived at the Lighthouse Mission in Terre Haute Indiana, I was sitting in the foyer engaged in a conversation with a young man from a local mental health institution, who helped residents with paperwork, to aid them to receive services from various sources, (I was not one of his clients). This was more in the line of two individuals wanting to learn from each other. I believe we did become acquaintances of a positive sort if we should ever meet again. But as he was asking about my life he made the comment, “Well, that seems very fatalistic".

This young man, I assume in his mid to late 20s, to me, seemed to think we are in complete control of our situations, and subsequently life’s circumstances are a matter of our decisions and control. To an extent I believe he is right. But what I think he fails to see, even as we do have the ability and responsibility to use our resources as best we are able, we are subject to conditions outside of our control, and even far outside our control, which produce a cultural and social environment we must learn to adapt to.

His perception of my "fatalism” was very limited. You see, like him I do believe we as human beings are endowed with certain mental and physical means to create our own realities. But as we are corporal beings, this ability to create, or re-create our reality is within a particular range. As human, or rather the human race, we exist as mental and physical beings. There are some limitations as to what we are capable of existing in, without the aid of technological advantages, but we do have the mental capacity to create these technical advantages which enable us to go, and do, into environments which otherwise are unnatural.

On a more limited basis our social environments may be every bit as limiting, and those who are either unable or unwilling to acquire the resources to adapt to this social environment find themselves at the whim and will, of whatever it is that social environment may provide for them. By this sense they are fatalist.

I am not a fatalist in the sense that I recognize my abilities, and shortcomings, but within the reality of understanding these, I will survive. Some, maybe many, find it necessary to be more adaptive to the social environment which provides more in the way of what they think are “human need". I don’t have a problem with this, but what I do have a problem with is the fact that those who do become more adaptive, think that what they have acquired is a result of what or who they are… It is not… It is a matter of “consume, conform and obey".

What makes our social environment work is a populous who buys into an idea that their purpose is to consume products, conform to society’s rules and obey its laws… In most cases, without consideration of what it is they have become… Without consideration of the society they have made… For many the idea that the life they could lead, the decisions they could make would have an effect on the reality of themselves and others is inconceivable. There is a perception, and it is a myth, an illusion that the way things are, are that way as a matter of some “divine or natural" assertion. The fact is things are the way they are because of centuries and millennia of simply not caring, and those that do care exercising more fore-sightedness than the general populace was capable of perceiving.

In this sense the doctrine of fatalism is something that is ingrained into our culture. But I do not believe I am fatalistic… There are things I can change, things I want to change, some things that cannot change unless we all begin to open our eyes and our minds… But that does not mean they are the way they should be.

Seven Pillars

Sometime before the motion picture Lawrence of Arabia came out, I had already heard of Lawrence. Don’t ask me how, it could of been a teacher at school, or my relatives, I simply don’t know. But the legend of Lawrence of Arabia was already something I was finding interest in. Then, when the motion picture Lawrence of Arabia came out starring Peter O’Toole, I obviously went to see it. My initial reaction at the time, you got a figure I was only about 11 years old, I was perplexed. At first, I didn’t understand it. But it has remained one of my favorite films ever since.

A few years later I discovered that David Lean was the film’s director. He had also directed “The Bridge on the River Kwai”, then came “Lawrence”, then “Dr. Zhivago” and , one I still have little interest in, “Ryan’s Daughter”. He had earlier  films, but these were the big ones, these were the epics.

In more recent years, as I have watched Lawrence of Arabia, I have come to understand it as a study of the change of a man’s personality as he experiences life in some very unique and demanding situations. At first he is intellectual, optimistic and ready to put himself at the forefront of any challenge. But these challenges begin to take something out of him. Eventually, though trying to retain his initial perspective, he begins to realize who he is, and what makes him different from those he would serve. He realizes he cannot be what it is he thought he could be, what he would want to be. He realizes he is what he is and there are some things he cannot change.

I have found his book, TE Lawrence’s “Seven Pillars of Wisdom”, to be as interesting as the motion picture, although it would be very difficult to detect the connection between the two, though I understand the motion picture is based on the book. The book goes into much greater detail. There is a great deal of insight into the character and personality of those Lawrence associated with. TE Lawrence does not come across as the central figure of the book. Much credit is given to the British officers and his Arab Associates which is not emphasized in the motion picture.

In the film, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance”, a newspaper editor makes a statement. “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” I believe this is exactly what the motion picture does. It focuses on the legend of Lawrence and not so much the reality of the experience of Lawrence in Arabia. That is not to negate the accomplishments of Lawrence or his knowledge of the peoples he was working with. What comes out in both the book and the motion picture is that there were many details around the Arab conflict and the subsequent partitioning of lands after World War I, which Lawrence was not a party to. Lawrence had become an expert on Arab peoples, of their differences in religion and politics, what made one tribe antagonistic towards another, and how to work within all these differences to accomplish the Arabs goal. Unfortunately that goal was only one piece of the overall “Western” plan for the region.

Just within this past year I had seen a map produced by TE Lawrence of his recommendations for the partitioning of the lands following World War I. It is quite different from what was actually adopted. Powers greater than Lawrence had a way of using him, and then as it suited their needs discarding him.

A few years ago, I believe it was 2008, most of my social life was online. At the time this was a very good thing, I still spend a lot of time online, but some friends as usual have come and gone. But back then there was an Arab student I was connecting with. We really had nothing in common, but I think it was these differences which caused us to be interested, to learn from outside our normal sources. Though I actually think it makes little difference, though maybe it did, she was beautiful and rich, the daughter of someone in the oil industry and had the opportunity to travel between Europe and the Middle East with apparently no difficulty at all. She was studying engineering at the time. For a while she was even trying to convert me to Sunni Islam. I was absolutely not interested in converting to anything and I think this finally led to our no longer having contact with each other. But at one time I asked her what she thought of the motion picture “Lawrence of Arabia”, and she told me “it focused too much on that Englishman”.  As I am reading the book, I cannot help but think she may have had a valid point.

Legends are seldom the whole truth. As a matter of fact, they are generally the conglomeration of a lot of different facts twisted, or spun, to produce a particular idea. Though I enjoy the motion pictures of David Lean, I have to remember they are motion pictures. Their purpose is to entertain, their purpose is not to depict history as it was or is. The purpose of a motion picture is to engage your thinking, to draw you in, to someplace you might miss or not necessarily go on your own. The purpose of a motion picture is to focus on “the legend”… And the truth, whatever it may be, will have to be sorted out by the viewer later.

Take That Pollyanna

I am generally considered pretty liberal, but I am not 100% liberal. By that I mean I am not which would be considered politically correct. On some issues I fall into the conservative camp, on others and probably most, I am definitely out of step with my conservative brethren. And it should be no surprise to anyone that the older I get the more conservative I seem to become. But I can say that is not without a great deal of consternation. It does seem that most of my liberal nature is in the area of how we come to certain conclusions and not so much the conclusions themselves. For example many of my online liberal friends, at least to me, seem to have a Pollyanna-ish perspective on the way things are or should be. It is almost like just put on a happy face and the world will smile back at you. I have not found this necessarily to be true, although I do think one’s attitude does play into what one actually perceives as reality. But that being said I have found there are situations and persons regardless of the positive face one might put on, these persons and the situations precipitated do not necessarily resolve themselves to the betterment of all involved.

Many liberals, if not most, and I actually think this applies to conservatives as well as liberals but it is liberals I have spent most of my thinking time with, are willing to entertain an idea until it actually conflicts with their own, then they cease being quite so liberal and turns you off or wish to turn you off to prevent further discussion. It is like it is okay to engage in a discussion until there is some kind of conflict or argument to be engaged in, and argument not in the sense of personal attack but argument as a philosophic or academic engagement. It is as though an unwillingness to hear potentially effective ideas may somehow enter and taint what they have already determined to be the truth. Like I say I don’t believe this is just a liberal problem, or a conservative problem, but a human nature problem. We don’t want to face the possibility first, that I might be wrong, and second, this new information may affect or possibly even change my mind. And God forbid that I might ever be lumped together with those conservatives.

Being conservative has an image problem. Generally when one thinks of a conservative things like biased, bigoted, close minded, traditional and unthinking come to mind. Though I realize this is not the case I also realize it is a real perception. And though some conservative ideas and ideals do have valid foundation that foundation is only within a limited perspective, or way of thinking. The biggest problem I can see with conservatives is that they are died in true to the status quo. Whatever has been is the way it should be. And anything which counters the way it is … is suspect. It would seem that the willingness to take chances for the betterment of all concerned was tossed out at the end of the revolution for independence from Great Britain. Of course here I am speaking to an American audience so my European and world friends will simply have to tolerate my being an American.

We are all affected by our life’s experiences. I think first and foremost is our actual first-hand experience but other factors play into this including education, natural temperament and a myriad of others. As all these factors become part of our mental equation our perceptions are formed and subsequent to these decisions are made as to how we respond in life. Some of us have led more sheltered lives than others, others have been thrust out and have had to deal with realities which are not the experience of their sheltered peers. I do not think there is any absolute as to which may be become liberal or which may become conservative, as stated above there are a plethora of factors which go into this equation. The point is not all of our experience is the same and the more experienced one is there are more factors which come into play, or can come into play if education is equal.

I post essays on numerous Internet sites. Depending on my life’s demands I may find myself writing and blogging more than others. As I post essays, I leave them posted and often they are forgotten. After a while I remember I had been posting at a particular site and go back to reread some of these. I virtually never pay attention to comments that are left until it is well past the time of the original post. But I had the “Fortune” or “misfortune” to read one of these comments that was left about a year ago. This was from a person who I would describe as a classic liberal, but at a time I was being accused of certain anti-liberal and biased or possibly antisocial behaviors in the past, without considering what I might have to say or hearing the full story or understanding the conditions underlying the accusations they decided to drop me as a friend but not before posting their own opinions. To me this is an example of limited biased prejudicial thinking… Of the liberal sort. But let it be clear conservatives behave the same way… Human beings whatever else we may be… Are not perfect… And for now that’s all I have to say.

 

Conscience and the Law

Human beings are conscious entities.That means we are endowed with the capacity of mind. There is a great deal of argument, and has been for quite a long time, as to whether human beings are first and foremost purely physical beings or whether we are innately thought or mind or consciousness. I'm not sure whether we will ever come to some kind of agreement and conclusion to this argument, there are valid points to both sides, and both sides can easily be established as the foundation of human reality. But that does not negate the fact that besides this physical being which exists there is something incorporal which appears to be the foundation or first principle which makes our humanity significant amidst all the other aspects of human existence. This conscious element has been deemed spiritual, whether or not it is actually an extension of some divine thing or not is part of the argument which may never be concluded. But the divinity or or natural nature of what we are is not the question. Tthe question is what is the role of this consciousness, this part of us which is our conscience, the part of us which gives us values and determines ethics and morals?

It is argued that's ethics and morals are simply a matter of what best suits the general well-being of the many. IE we do not steal because it would be harmful to a member of the collective whole and ultimately harmful to the rest of us or we do not commit murder as that is harmful to the individual and threatens the rest of us. Every ethical or moral standard is substantiated or validated as a matter of its negative impact on the whole. There is no intrinsic right or wrong, all is a matter of qualitative impact on society as we exist as corporal beings.

Law is the attempt to provide a substitute or level of consciousness to a corporate entity or collective, but is actually artificial. The collective or corporate entity is not a real entity, it is an arbitrary construction of the human mind to establish something as real which actually has no existence beyond human imagination.

 Our problemis the fact that we have bought into this imaginary existence as if it were real. By buying into this illusion we have sacrificed the human capacity of conscience. Law has been substituted for what is innately a human quality. The assumption is that laws can be made to cover all of human experience and that in these laws all exceptions may be considered.unfortunately that is not the case and there are always exceptions which will not be codified, and it takes something other than a code, a set of rules to apply a rational human ability to judge and make exception.

To a very limited extent our judges are given leeway to apply conscious exceptions and as far as it goes this can be good, it can also be abused, and unfortunately has been. But regardless of the abuse rendered that does not change the fact that it is we the human being who are innately conscious beings, and it is we the human being (prior to possible extra-concious influences) who are the people, whose will and conscious minds exercise conscience. Admittedly, though this may be the natural state of the human being, many factors come into play which taint our ability to exercise good conscious judgment, thus we depend on what appears to be our second best, a legal system with human judges subject to the same frailties as the rest of us. So as a matter of our not being able or confident to exercise what is our natural human endowment we have to settle for our second best ... The Law.

The Path to Empathy

My primary interest have been in the areas of philosophy psychology metaphysics quantum physics and history. These have always been fundamental although it's only been in recent years that they have become more defined and as they became defined I am better able to consciously direct my inquiries. In prior years this was a matter of seeking the truth where I thought it could be found and that was of a religious nature, and being an American, Christianity seemed to be the most logical place to start. But I had always been a free thinker and always directed my own course and though I took advice and studied what was prescribed it was always with a bit of independence and openness to things beyond the scope prescribed. This turned out to be a point of contention with religious authority as religion is doctrinal and to go beyond doctrine and accept things which are extra doctrinal leaves one open to accusations of heresy if not outright demonic influence. This has never been much of a concern to me as I have never actually sought a position which depended on sustenance and income from ecclesiastical sources. The idea of God, if God is actually God, meant to me that this divine entity whatever it may be would sustain me whatever the situation. This is something I still believe although just what it may entail and has entailed is something I may not have stepped into had I known exactly what I was getting myself into, although the sustenance needed was always there. I'm sure there are those who would argue that such sustenance is in reality negligible by standards generally accepted. But these standards are not necessarily real standards, they are arbitrary at best, and by my estimation self-defined and convenient excuses not to rely on the God one claims exists.

I have been homeless, and taking care of myself and have relied on resources provided by others concerned for my welfare and the welfare of others in similar situations. I have never had to resort to anything criminal or of a nature which would make me ashamed of what I am as a human being.

I am of a mind one never really fully understands another's situation until one has actually had to live experiencing like circumstances. I'm sure there are those who disagree, and some truly do care. Sympathizing and empathizing are two different things and very seldom is it possible to empathize without actually experiencing. To emphasize is a gift whereas sympathy may be learned or even one may be guilted into becoming sympathetic . Empathy is to actually know what the less fortunate experiences.

For whatever reason, whether it be my own stubbornness or something divinely implanted, I have had to live a life which gave me an insight to the realities and experiences of a class of people most of society snubs their noses at . Being such as I am and having a faith that I do, though many might deny such a faith actually exists, I do not believe I have just been stuck out here to experience these things just to be forgotten . I do not know what God is, the only thing I'm sure of, if there is a God, is it does not fit into the contemporary Judeo-Christian conception. But that does not negate the reality of the divine, it only means the church hasn't figured it out, and may not have had it right for the past two thousand years . Living in a situation where the only thing that you have is God, for lack of a better term, you begin to realize there's something about this divine reality which is what has been stated but not exactly the way everyone would want you to believe it.

In more recent years I have explored writings which would be considered anathema and at the very least heretical by contemporary orthodoxy. But I have found as much truth there as there is and possibly even more then there is in Orthodox Scripture. Some of these were originally rejected by the church, and some are from other world religions. Yes there is a striking parallel between many of these Scriptures and the Orthodox canon. Orthodoxy has a way excusing these or writing them off as works of the devil. Unfortunately I have found this to be a convenient cop out, a ploy of the ignorant, of those unwilling or too lazy to do the work, the research to investigate the truth of the subject. Orthodox Christianity and those who seem to adhere to it so strenuously tends to rely on its own resources to the rejection of all others which do not fit some approved Orthodox criteria as established by themselves.

Though I do think a certain level of discernment and intelligence is necessary to judge the validity of resources I do not believe that simply by claiming something is Orthodox or Christian, or being declared by some established Christian organization is a valid qualification of whether a resource is worthy or not. Unfortunately in too many cases a person or an organization may be biased and unable to provide an objective assessment. It must also be recognized that this is not a religious or a Christian problem, it is a human problem. Human beings have a tendency to support whatever it is that is most like what they have already accepted. The truth or untruth of the matter is irrelevant, what matters is the status quo.