Unintended Contention

I'm sorry to realize that the words I wrote yesterday led some to anger and contention. Some were offended. Some may have inadvertently fomented hard feelings unintentionally through forwards and comments. I apologize for that. It is not my intention to place any kind of burden or judgment on another person. We all have enough challenges in this world that we don't need to find or produce more. Nobody I know would want to injure, abuse or defame anybody else I know. I accept responsibility for my words even though their intention was not to discredit someone else's feelings and sincerely beg your pardon.

Anyone that knows me knows that: 

1.      I like to explore issues that may be controversial 

2.     I will defend positions that I oppose and explore ideas with which I disagree without allowing personal bias to impede my progress

3.     Any specific idea I promote may change drastically as my principles come into conflict with the implementations of that idea

4.     Although I do believe that in the end everything is a degree of good and/or evil we      all have the agency to espouse what we will and be accepted for it as long as it doesn't infringe upon another (Your right to create cancerous air (tobacco smoke) ends where my right to breathe begins)

5.     Many of the points I make are simply observations about which I have formed any judgment at all

6.      I have an incredible track record of being wrong about things

7.     I believe you should decide I am wrong if it makes you happier

I decided long ago that I no longer have the energy or sufficient pride to be offended. I also know that when I am angry I am likely to do and say things I would not if I weren't angry. Since both of these ideas reflect a situation where I am no longer rational, I try to be on guard for their appearance and refrain from action until I am back in control. Many believe that the antonym of rational is irrational. They are probably correct. I believe that the antonym of rational is passionate. I am probably right too. We are, at times, controlled by our passions. It is generally our passions that will make us do something irrational.

At the same time, I am grateful that I am immensely passionate. I come to tears easily (just ask my sisters). I choke up when I see my children excel (I get to do that a lot) . I burn feverishly when I observe injustice. Music can release endorphins at a level cocaine could only aspire to achieve. One of La Rochefoucauld's maxims that I absolutely agree with is (my translation), "Pure logic destroys the soul." I hope I am never completely rational.

We like to think we are rational beings. We are to a degree, but there seems to be a point where our passions overcome our logic. Answer the following silly questions honestly and determine for yourself:

1.     Have you ever kept change that you were not entitled to?

2.     Have you ever nibbled a grape in the produce section before buying or not buying the bunch?

3.     Have you ever found something in your shopping basket at home you didn't pay for and keep it?

4.     Have you ever received more than you paid for from a vending machine?

5.     Have you ever driven faster than the posted speed limit?

6.     Have you ever looked at someone’s outfit and commented to yourself "What was he thinking?"

All of these things are "violations" of the rational behavior we describe as honest, yet I'm sure we consider ourselves to be honest. Ironically the word we would use to justify these technically dishonest tenets is "rationalize".

1.     "It would be more trouble for them for me to go back and return the pennies I got incorrectly."

2.     "They know people test the produce before they buy it so they price it to compensate for the shrinkage from sampling."

3.     "The cashier must have put that in my bag by mistake. It's more trouble for them if I go back and return it."

And so on. Our rationalization is our passion (feelings) overriding our an absolute argument. BTW, I am very gifted in providing rationalization for item number 5.

So much for the secular explanation.

For the Christian discussion I offer a simple observation of Christ in the New Testament. He never responded in kind to the taunts of those around him. He never took offense from the Pharisees and would even accept a dinner invitation from them. He never sought revenge or even justice, but extended mercy even when the perpetrator really "deserved getting his".

We'll take one more step for the Mormons. We like to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and therefore we should be outstanding examples of Christian behavior. I offer this point of doctrine (and covenants) from Section 122:

 7 And if thou shouldst be cast into the ^apit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the ^bdeep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to ^chedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of ^dhell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee^eexperience, and shall be for thy good.

 8 The ^aSon of Man hath ^bdescended below them all. Art thou greater than he?

Finally, I would offer that if you disagree with what I've written, or feel I have misinterpreted what I have posited, by all means, respond in the public forum. This is an open discussion, not a personal tirade. I am still teachable, and truly consider everything I read in hopes of learning. Please remember that you are not arguing with me, you are simply stating a position contrary to the words I posted. It only becomes personal when we decide to receive it that way. Again, we choose when we will be offended. I happen to love most people I've met, and have profited most from those who expressed ideas I hadn't considered or had discarded as without value. This is especially true for my family.

Whenever we talk about Religion and Politics, we are discussing highly combustible opinions based on our own interpretation of the events and record we have been exposed to. The problem with the “right” is that they think they are; and want to arrange things so everyone can be “right” too. This imposition is an incredible expression of entitlement. The problem with the “left” is they usually don't know how to explain, define and implement what they think is right. The hesitation to potentially offend someone else leads to inaction which causes all to suffer.

I have yet to find a label with which I am comfortable. I consider myself extraordinarily conservative from the standpoint that I don't believe I have the right to impose my values on anybody else. If you read my words honestly and know me at all you understand I have absolutely no expectations from others or sense of entitlement other than to be blissfully wrong. Views to the contrary would be projection. Anyone who does feel that they should control what other people do because THEY wish to exercise THEIR agency, I refer to simple social contract doctrine (Rousseau is a good place to start, but don't think for a minute that agree with all that he says). The foundation of this is that civilizations must do that which is most beneficial for civilization. In the end, Socrates took the hemlock.

To avoid further contention, I will not email notices to people of my posts. The people who have received emails until now are people whose opinions I value. If you want to read my rants, you may subscribe to my blog, but do so at your own recognizance.

A postscript: If in reading what I have posted the last couple of days you have determined that I must be a liberal, you have completely confused my observations with my values. Even if you have determined that I am not conservative, I would disagree vehemently. What I am not is a reactionary. That is, I do not base my position on taking contrary stance to something else based on who it was that proposed it, passed it and enforces it. This benefits nobody. Almost every law that has been passed has had something beneficial to it. With “Obamacare” I have been able to provide my daughter finishing her PhD with affordable health insurance that has not endangered the solvency of Maria’s employer. Some of the statutes that address illegal immigration have provided greater safety to American citizens, business and even the illegals themselves. My opinion is that this is a good thing, but I am open to rational argument that I may be wrong.