It is the very nature of humanity to have relationships come and go throughout our lives. It is inevitable. Friends drift apart; lovers part ways. Our paths are not all aligned.
Over the past 20 years, I have had people who were inseparable companions meander away as their lives went in different directions. Some of these people I mourn the loss of more than others, some of them were much dearer to me than others. Some of them are the same person that I used to know while others have changed into unrecognizable people wearing a recognizable shell.
It is these, in the last category, that I find most unsettling and the hardest to resolve. The people who are absent because they have changed so much that the person I knew is no longer there inside.
One of the most difficult things to watch is someone following that path. Seeing who they are on the inside take a path that is changing them and distorting who they are all while they are unaware of it. Watching their identity slide away through currents of hypocrisy and rationalization as their ego tries to satisfy itself and preserve its self-identity is a painful process to witness.
It’s important for us all, especially those of us with complex interpersonal webs, to know that we cannot fix other people. We cannot stop their path when they refuse to acknowledge it themselves.
It’s equally important to know that we are allowed to let them go. YOU, yes you reading this, do NOT need to rescue other people from themselves. You have no responsibility to do that. A good friend will try to exert guidance; a good friend will try to point out the path. A good friend will, usually, contribute more energy than they should to prevent the self-destruction of someone they care about. But it is not the responsibility of the good friend to follow on the path. It’s ok to say “enough.” It’s ok to cut the cord and let the person follow their path into self-implosion. It’s ok to sever their access to you when their behavior becomes damaging to you and other people in your life.
It’s also ok to be there for them when their implosion is complete and they realize they have destroyed everything in their lives for nothing. It’s ok to reach out and say “I forgive you. Welcome back.”
What is not ok is to let them destroy you with them. It’s not ok to let them gaslight you or manipulate you. It’s not ok for them to project their own horrible behavior onto you and blame you. It’s not ok for them to take out their frustrations with others deciding that their behavior is horrible on you.
If someone turns toxic in your life it’s ok to let them go. You’ll feel guilty about it. But, I promise you, it’s ok to let them go.
If someone turns toxic… LET THEM GO. You cannot fix them; you can merely help those who are willing to accept it. If they are not willing to accept help: let them go.
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Sunday, September 9, 2012
A review of In Time
Last night I watched the movie "In Time."
The core premise of this movie is one that is sound - that time is valuable.
In this movie we see a future in which our aging has been stopped and everyone is permanently 25 years old.
When they hit 25 a clock in their arm starts ticking. Everyone starts with one year on their clock. Time on that clock is the currency that the world runs on. There is no money; only time.
This is where the movie diverts from a raw concept into some serious philosophical commentary on socioeconomic policy and morality.
The phrase "for some to be immortal many must die" comes up several times within the movie. It outlines the capitalistic message behind the upper class in this movie. That message is also mirroring the way we handle money today - the few aggregate wealth and use their wealth to aggregate more wealth while perpetuating the suffering of the masses.
In short this movie touches on the topics that frame out the Occupy Wall Street movement. It shows both sides of the lifestyles that are made possible by a divergence in wealth and hints at the conflict that would occur if the wealth were evenly distributed. It hints that even distribution of wealth will collapse the economy that depends on the movement of wealth. It hints that there is no replacement for that system that has been shown to work better than the system of economic imbalance created by wealth disparagement.
This movie was entertaining and it does have multiple elements including a dash of Romeo and Juliet stirred in with adventure and a dash of Bonnie and Clyde. There is also a hint of a standard detective story for flavor.
One of the beauties of this film is that it hints at larger philosophical and moral conversations without treading on them too deeply.
It also served to fully infuriate Harlon Ellison, who has created a number of fantastic stories and concept in his day but who is rabid about defending anything he feels is his intellectual property and who demands unreasonable compensation for use of anything he feels he created.
It does leave several questions for me to ponder - and I expect others will also ponder them:
What would happen if the infrastructure that controls the economic transactions that rev up or spin down he personal clocks were to fail?
Why doesn't anyone have a cell phone?
And, of course, why do electric cars have mufflers?
These, of course, are my thoughts on the film as expressed without outlining any specific spoilers. As always, I welcome other thoughts.
The DVD & Blu-ray can be purchased from Amazon -
The core premise of this movie is one that is sound - that time is valuable.
In this movie we see a future in which our aging has been stopped and everyone is permanently 25 years old.
When they hit 25 a clock in their arm starts ticking. Everyone starts with one year on their clock. Time on that clock is the currency that the world runs on. There is no money; only time.
This is where the movie diverts from a raw concept into some serious philosophical commentary on socioeconomic policy and morality.
The phrase "for some to be immortal many must die" comes up several times within the movie. It outlines the capitalistic message behind the upper class in this movie. That message is also mirroring the way we handle money today - the few aggregate wealth and use their wealth to aggregate more wealth while perpetuating the suffering of the masses.
In short this movie touches on the topics that frame out the Occupy Wall Street movement. It shows both sides of the lifestyles that are made possible by a divergence in wealth and hints at the conflict that would occur if the wealth were evenly distributed. It hints that even distribution of wealth will collapse the economy that depends on the movement of wealth. It hints that there is no replacement for that system that has been shown to work better than the system of economic imbalance created by wealth disparagement.
This movie was entertaining and it does have multiple elements including a dash of Romeo and Juliet stirred in with adventure and a dash of Bonnie and Clyde. There is also a hint of a standard detective story for flavor.
One of the beauties of this film is that it hints at larger philosophical and moral conversations without treading on them too deeply.
It also served to fully infuriate Harlon Ellison, who has created a number of fantastic stories and concept in his day but who is rabid about defending anything he feels is his intellectual property and who demands unreasonable compensation for use of anything he feels he created.
It does leave several questions for me to ponder - and I expect others will also ponder them:
What would happen if the infrastructure that controls the economic transactions that rev up or spin down he personal clocks were to fail?
Why doesn't anyone have a cell phone?
And, of course, why do electric cars have mufflers?
These, of course, are my thoughts on the film as expressed without outlining any specific spoilers. As always, I welcome other thoughts.
The DVD & Blu-ray can be purchased from Amazon -
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Morality and Religion
I recently read an article examining the "New Atheist" movement and a counter movement that wants to study religion and how it has impacted civilization and whether there is a group evolutionary advantage to being religious versus being secular.
I found the article interesting and it clearly highlights two major arguments in the study of religion.
The first is that religion has caused a great deal of badness in the world and is the constant source of oppression and willful ignorance amongst a great many people.
The second is that there must be a reason we embrace it so boldly when it is the root of so many evils.
The article then proceeds to discuss the champions of each of these points. It refers to those supporting the first point as "New Atheists" and does not provide a specific name for the group supporting the second argument.
What I find interesting about both groups is that they seem to feel, at least based on the article's exemplification of them, that these two points are mutually exclusive and must be in competition with one-another.
This is far from the truth.
If one examines the situation closely one quickly and clearly sees that one is an examination of where we came from to get where we are today with religion and the other is trying to drive a religion-free end point for society. These are not mutually-exclusive, but valid actions to be taken. One informs us of where we've been and the other directs us to where we are going. The best way to get to where you want to go is to understand where you have been and the path you have already traversed. The New Atheists (at least as painted by the article) are attacking the best hope for understanding why religion is a powerful force among humanity. Understanding that force will be the key to defusing it and allowing for a reasonable and logical path in the future.
What this tells me is that the New Atheists have succumbed to is religious fervor. Their dogma is the eliminate all religion from the world and that appears to include the study of how it came to be. They are what I have previously referred to as Atheists whereas those who are simply lacking faith in any god are atheists. The capital letter matters.
I find this incredibly ironic as the force trying to wipe out religion is doing so with a drive that can only be described as equal to that which powered the Crusades and currently drives the concept of Jihad. They are forming a new religion. They are fueling the "science versus religion" concept and they are generating more push against science by their active drive to force people away from their faith. Those people are embracing their faith in higher levels as a defense mechanism to this attack on their religion and belief structure. The greater the attack on religion from this minority the greater the defensive response will be from the religious. The greater the attack the more damage the attackers are doing to their own cause.
Interestingly enough - this also holds true for all other religions. The more ANY religion drives an attack (whether intellectual, political or physical) against the non-believers the more they damage their own cause in the eyes of EVERYONE who is not a fanatic.
I am not religious. I fail to understand the very idea of creating a religion. I fail to understand how someone can have such blind faith. I fail to understand how anyone can have faith at all. I REQUIRE evidence to belief. Sometimes I find myself holding a belief and not knowing what evidence supports it but then, after reflection, I have always found evidence that reinforces the belief. My belief that humanity is generally stupid and easily led while also being generally neutral or good is built on years of being amongst humanity on a daily basis. My belief that my dog will not try to kill me is based on years of him treating me with love and respect. My belief that pizza is going to be delicious is based on a huge rate of success in which even bad pizza is good (although there are certainly exceptions to this one).
I fall into the atheist category rather than the Atheist category because I simply fail to believe. I do believe that religion has caused a lot of harm in this world but I also believe it has caused a lot of good. I have friends who are very religions but fail to proselytize their religious and condemn that don't follow. I respect those friends greatly. I respect their beliefs greatly. I actually envy them for having been given the gift of faith and the peace it brings them.
I also have people who pass through my life regularly who are very religious and do make condemning statements of those who do not believe as they do. People who believe that withholding legal rights from a population of people because it is not as the bible commands it is the right thing to do (I'll limit my comment on how they don't follow ALL of the commands of The Bible to this one sentence). These people I cannot help but condemn and take offense from. There people, invariably, make comments that apply to me and my opinions in a judging manner. This means that they are either judging me silently all the time or that they are hypocrites. Either way; I cannot abide by that stance without taking notice of it.
So far I have covered the topic of religion quite clearly in this post, at least for the purposes intended and you, the reader, are probably wondering how I intend to fit morality into this picture. That answer is quite simple: religious extremists invariably question the morality of people who disbelieve.
In fact, I think if it came down to it all of the religious people would align and ally themselves against the atheists and Atheists on this point. They, quite simply, believe that one needs religion to tell people what is right and wrong.
This is a concept that I find offensive.
I am clearly able to make a determination between right and wrong. I, clearly, do not go out creating havoc and pain and suffering amongst my fellow man. I do this not because any religion tells me to avoid these things. I do not do them because I know they are wrong.
The article I linked above outlines a few studies that show religious people tend to be more generous and forgiving, etc. I can find this concept realistic if one factors in all of the "normal" people who go to religious worship on a weekly basis. If you include my friends like the ones I respect and admire for their beliefs who do not try to force me to believe as they do. If the world is more filled with people like that than people who try to force their beliefs on others I can easily see those studies having merit.
I, however, can also see those studies being insufficient in size to have a valid data set. I can also see the flaws in the studies.
More importantly I can see the logical flaws that exist in the belief that morality comes from religion.
I leave this concept with the following questions:
1 - Who is more moral: one who avoids doing bad things to others out of fear of a supernatural punishment after death or one who simply finds the bad things morally wrong on the basis that they are bad things?
2 - Who is more moral: the person who gives to the poor and needy in an effort to buy their way into an eternal paradise after they die or one who gives because they can and they want to help others for the purpose of helping others?
3 - Who is a better judge or right and wrong: one who needs someone to tell them what is right and what is wrong or someone who can make that determination on their own?
4 - Who is more amoral - one who wants to protect the rights of everyone or one who wants to enforce oppression on people based on their religion?
For me the answers are clear.
While I still wish I knew what it was like to have been granted the gift of faith in a benevolent deity I find that my moral position in the world is solid without having an organized religion tell me what is right and wrong.
I found the article interesting and it clearly highlights two major arguments in the study of religion.
The first is that religion has caused a great deal of badness in the world and is the constant source of oppression and willful ignorance amongst a great many people.
The second is that there must be a reason we embrace it so boldly when it is the root of so many evils.
The article then proceeds to discuss the champions of each of these points. It refers to those supporting the first point as "New Atheists" and does not provide a specific name for the group supporting the second argument.
What I find interesting about both groups is that they seem to feel, at least based on the article's exemplification of them, that these two points are mutually exclusive and must be in competition with one-another.
This is far from the truth.
If one examines the situation closely one quickly and clearly sees that one is an examination of where we came from to get where we are today with religion and the other is trying to drive a religion-free end point for society. These are not mutually-exclusive, but valid actions to be taken. One informs us of where we've been and the other directs us to where we are going. The best way to get to where you want to go is to understand where you have been and the path you have already traversed. The New Atheists (at least as painted by the article) are attacking the best hope for understanding why religion is a powerful force among humanity. Understanding that force will be the key to defusing it and allowing for a reasonable and logical path in the future.
What this tells me is that the New Atheists have succumbed to is religious fervor. Their dogma is the eliminate all religion from the world and that appears to include the study of how it came to be. They are what I have previously referred to as Atheists whereas those who are simply lacking faith in any god are atheists. The capital letter matters.
I find this incredibly ironic as the force trying to wipe out religion is doing so with a drive that can only be described as equal to that which powered the Crusades and currently drives the concept of Jihad. They are forming a new religion. They are fueling the "science versus religion" concept and they are generating more push against science by their active drive to force people away from their faith. Those people are embracing their faith in higher levels as a defense mechanism to this attack on their religion and belief structure. The greater the attack on religion from this minority the greater the defensive response will be from the religious. The greater the attack the more damage the attackers are doing to their own cause.
Interestingly enough - this also holds true for all other religions. The more ANY religion drives an attack (whether intellectual, political or physical) against the non-believers the more they damage their own cause in the eyes of EVERYONE who is not a fanatic.
I am not religious. I fail to understand the very idea of creating a religion. I fail to understand how someone can have such blind faith. I fail to understand how anyone can have faith at all. I REQUIRE evidence to belief. Sometimes I find myself holding a belief and not knowing what evidence supports it but then, after reflection, I have always found evidence that reinforces the belief. My belief that humanity is generally stupid and easily led while also being generally neutral or good is built on years of being amongst humanity on a daily basis. My belief that my dog will not try to kill me is based on years of him treating me with love and respect. My belief that pizza is going to be delicious is based on a huge rate of success in which even bad pizza is good (although there are certainly exceptions to this one).
I fall into the atheist category rather than the Atheist category because I simply fail to believe. I do believe that religion has caused a lot of harm in this world but I also believe it has caused a lot of good. I have friends who are very religions but fail to proselytize their religious and condemn that don't follow. I respect those friends greatly. I respect their beliefs greatly. I actually envy them for having been given the gift of faith and the peace it brings them.
I also have people who pass through my life regularly who are very religious and do make condemning statements of those who do not believe as they do. People who believe that withholding legal rights from a population of people because it is not as the bible commands it is the right thing to do (I'll limit my comment on how they don't follow ALL of the commands of The Bible to this one sentence). These people I cannot help but condemn and take offense from. There people, invariably, make comments that apply to me and my opinions in a judging manner. This means that they are either judging me silently all the time or that they are hypocrites. Either way; I cannot abide by that stance without taking notice of it.
So far I have covered the topic of religion quite clearly in this post, at least for the purposes intended and you, the reader, are probably wondering how I intend to fit morality into this picture. That answer is quite simple: religious extremists invariably question the morality of people who disbelieve.
In fact, I think if it came down to it all of the religious people would align and ally themselves against the atheists and Atheists on this point. They, quite simply, believe that one needs religion to tell people what is right and wrong.
This is a concept that I find offensive.
I am clearly able to make a determination between right and wrong. I, clearly, do not go out creating havoc and pain and suffering amongst my fellow man. I do this not because any religion tells me to avoid these things. I do not do them because I know they are wrong.
The article I linked above outlines a few studies that show religious people tend to be more generous and forgiving, etc. I can find this concept realistic if one factors in all of the "normal" people who go to religious worship on a weekly basis. If you include my friends like the ones I respect and admire for their beliefs who do not try to force me to believe as they do. If the world is more filled with people like that than people who try to force their beliefs on others I can easily see those studies having merit.
I, however, can also see those studies being insufficient in size to have a valid data set. I can also see the flaws in the studies.
More importantly I can see the logical flaws that exist in the belief that morality comes from religion.
I leave this concept with the following questions:
1 - Who is more moral: one who avoids doing bad things to others out of fear of a supernatural punishment after death or one who simply finds the bad things morally wrong on the basis that they are bad things?
2 - Who is more moral: the person who gives to the poor and needy in an effort to buy their way into an eternal paradise after they die or one who gives because they can and they want to help others for the purpose of helping others?
3 - Who is a better judge or right and wrong: one who needs someone to tell them what is right and what is wrong or someone who can make that determination on their own?
4 - Who is more amoral - one who wants to protect the rights of everyone or one who wants to enforce oppression on people based on their religion?
For me the answers are clear.
While I still wish I knew what it was like to have been granted the gift of faith in a benevolent deity I find that my moral position in the world is solid without having an organized religion tell me what is right and wrong.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
The Common Factor
I've been thinking a lot about the commonality in my viewpoints on things social and political.
At first I didn't see a pattern (other than finding that both the extreme right and the extreme left are filled with idiots who are more interested in protecting perception than actually helping anyone). This morning I discovered the general pattern.
That pattern is that I dislike any situation where the inappropriate behavior of a small percentage can ruin the entire experience for everyone else.
My views on social support systems can be reduced to that viewpoint.
My views on rules put in place to limit fun can be reduced to this.
My views on excessive safety requirements can be reduced to this.
My views on the Occupy Wall Street movement are entirely reduced to this.
Any time there is a small group of individuals whom are acting in such a way as to ruin whatever activity/situation for the remainder is a situation where I dislike the small group AND their behavior.
When I find a problem in the world and voice my discontent on it it, almost invariably, can be reduced to the simple statement of "Group X is doing behavior Y and the end result is that everyone else pays for it."
I encourage everyone who reads this to examine their reactions to the world and see if you, too, have a pattern to your preferences. If you do, does it hold true? Does that pattern of preference, if corrected among the entire population, allow for the world to be a better place?
I certainly hope so. I wouldn't want a world where correcting behaviors leads to a worse situation than allowing them to continue.
At first I didn't see a pattern (other than finding that both the extreme right and the extreme left are filled with idiots who are more interested in protecting perception than actually helping anyone). This morning I discovered the general pattern.
That pattern is that I dislike any situation where the inappropriate behavior of a small percentage can ruin the entire experience for everyone else.
My views on social support systems can be reduced to that viewpoint.
My views on rules put in place to limit fun can be reduced to this.
My views on excessive safety requirements can be reduced to this.
My views on the Occupy Wall Street movement are entirely reduced to this.
Any time there is a small group of individuals whom are acting in such a way as to ruin whatever activity/situation for the remainder is a situation where I dislike the small group AND their behavior.
When I find a problem in the world and voice my discontent on it it, almost invariably, can be reduced to the simple statement of "Group X is doing behavior Y and the end result is that everyone else pays for it."
I encourage everyone who reads this to examine their reactions to the world and see if you, too, have a pattern to your preferences. If you do, does it hold true? Does that pattern of preference, if corrected among the entire population, allow for the world to be a better place?
I certainly hope so. I wouldn't want a world where correcting behaviors leads to a worse situation than allowing them to continue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)