There are always values (things people want to experience) at stake when humans get into conflict, whether in theory (such as a debate or discussion) or in practice (such as a fight or war).
The values at stake in the Black Man-White Woman conflict, for me, are the following:
1. Kinaesthesia (of the man) or physical intelligence
2. Passive sensory impact (the impact of the man’s physical attributes over which he has little or limited control, on me)
3. Cultural compatibility (of the man with me, such as his use of books, deodorant, filing systems, underwear, newspapers, internet, in daily life)
It is clear to me that no matter what people may say or feel about the nature of dating or mating, the relative importance placed on values associated with them (dating and mating), such as the three I stated above, are the things that will keep the couple together, or eventually break them apart.
It is definitely hurtful to a young Black woman with those three values high on her list, who has been raised on not only Cinderella and Snow White, but just about all the other love stories you can think of, to think that she won’t get a Black Man. It is profoundly hurtful.
My problem with those who say that this hurt is unnecessary is not that they cannot conceptualize it; that they cannot help. What I resent is that they villainize the woman who feels it. They say that she is foolish to be disappointed by so little, that to prioritize a man’s dancing ability, among other things, is unreasonable; they say that to put premium on a good-looking man with “jock” athletic qualities is shallow.
For your information, O ignorant ones, a girl who wants a man with dance (which incidentally requires both spatial and emotional intelligence) or other physical ability, and who is easy on her eyes is not a weirdo, psycho, or shallow to look for a mate who is likely to be able to physically and intelligently protect her and her offspring, and who can pass on good genes (i.e. genes for increased desirability to future suitors or partners) to that offspring. She is looking for exactly what she should, for the survival of the fittest.
Her naysayers never bother to wonder what could happen to the human race if it did not breed according to the best genes and physical strengths possible, especially when technology is a baby compared with Mother Nature in terms of years existing, and at any time may die in her arms, given the dangerous power-lust and madness world leaders have displayed throughout history, and continue to display, as Michael Moore of Farenheit 9/11 and other films has shown.
That being said, it is definitely and profoundly frightening to a young woman who:
1) identifies with the ethnic label “Black”
2) has those three values high on her list
to be consistently bombarded with images of Black Alpha-males with non-Black females.
The first characteristic is her problem. She should, in theory, identify as human first, and Black afterwards, if at all. When she doesn’t, she unnecessarily limits her potential mates into in-groups and out-groups.
The second characteristic is a real, human, raceless problem: the problem of acquiring a sexual/familial experience satisfying to herself. As you know humans have two main operating systems: nature and nurture. Nature is what programs us to choose mates with more symmetry and other fertility symbols: nature is concerned with straight reproduction of the biological fittest. Nurture is what programs us to choose mates who prefer the same things we do; reproduction of the perceived cultural fittest.
A man who is more physically skilful is (generally) more likely to be observant about physical capacities, including hers, for sexual pleasure, and enemies’, for self-defense during a fight. Therefore this is the type of man who may be best able to fulfil her two Nature-driven needs.
Now, when it comes to culture, it’s just a sad fact of life that a Black Man generally tends to inherit what is comparatively (to other ethnicities) the highest degree of kinaesthesia through his cultural background, as well as other sensually appealing traits such as taking pride in dress (“pimpin’” or “cuttin’ it” or “lookin’ cris’”), signature cologne, and athletic ability. And the cultural agenda backs the biological agenda greatly in this case. That’s all.
In a world full of assholes, deadbeats, and players, or perverse combinations of the above, some of us women feel that if you at least get a good gene donor or a good dancer, you’re 1/3 of the way in the genetic/evolutionary ‘black’ rather than ‘red’. That’s why it hurts when you don’t even think you’re going to get your 1/3, because a White woman always has the one you see who has access to it.
The problem is our biology and our socialization, which tells us we are nothing unless we have a spouse and children. We have to learn the meaning of a life beyond biological programming and cultural socialization for reproduction. We have to learn to give ourselves meaning in spite of childlessness or singlehood. If we can do that, then our prospects for happiness won't seem quite so limited.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Open Letter to President G.M.R.
Dear Mr. President,
You are a very articulate man. I wish to be so here. I submit that it is not true in all cases that "to err is not to act disreputably".
To err is to make a mistake. It is a mistake for students to disrespect each other and their teachers, or to waste time fighting rather than learning; for a cook to use salt where he should use sugar; for a surgeon to remember a joke or nightmare suddenly and, hand jerking, to cut the carotid artery of his patient; for a nurse to administer the wrong medicine having taken up the wrong bottle; for a teenage girl to willfully engage in activity that makes her pregnant when she has no means whatsoever of supporting herself, except the means that prostitutes may have.
It is surely a mistake for a person to drive drunk only because they forgot to call a designated driver, and because they also forgot that they had not called such a driver. Forgetting is a very human trait, but in the eyes of the law, this act, which stemmed from a very human error, is a disreputable act, the act of a criminal. All these acts are the results of normal mistakes in thinking, judgment, and remembering. But they are not 'reputable' either; they are irresponsible: they cost a great deal. Not only in life-and-death terms but in life-and-life terms- the difference between just existing, as many animals do, and living, as befits the dignity true humanity deserves.
You see, unpunished errors are destructive to the fabric of society and civilization directly (as in murder) or indirectly (as in plagiarism). They prevent honorable citizens from living with the dignity of knowing they are protected by a reliable social code of ethics, to which all citizens, regardless of position, must adhere, and they encourage those less honorable to risk profiting from dishonourable behaviour. Thus, errors are very expensive; like anything creating debt, they should be paid for or strenuously discouraged—by a privation of some kind, like an interest rate, whether self-imposed or society imposed—to discourage their being repeated.
I agree that a mistake-maker's/wrongdoer's intentions must be considered when deciding what should be done about their errors. I acknowledge that Trinidad and Tobago's society regularly and carelessly uses the pressure of rumour and mauvais langue to blackmail public figures and others into submission to its apparent desires. But the kind of thinking that states that it is an axiom of human behaviour that "to err is not to act disreputably", in my view, is what encourages so many errors to be made daily, errors against which every effort should have been made to ensure their non-occurrence. The laxness and leniency towards errors is devastatingly destroying our people and nation.
I hope you see why for me, you have not cleared the air. I don't think you should resign for the reasons the media seems to list. I think you should resign because you seem to believe something that no civilized bank or country could and successfully run its affairs: that the only account required for errors of the kind you made is encapsulated in the tired cliché: "To err is human, to forgive is divine."
You are a very articulate man. I wish to be so here. I submit that it is not true in all cases that "to err is not to act disreputably".
To err is to make a mistake. It is a mistake for students to disrespect each other and their teachers, or to waste time fighting rather than learning; for a cook to use salt where he should use sugar; for a surgeon to remember a joke or nightmare suddenly and, hand jerking, to cut the carotid artery of his patient; for a nurse to administer the wrong medicine having taken up the wrong bottle; for a teenage girl to willfully engage in activity that makes her pregnant when she has no means whatsoever of supporting herself, except the means that prostitutes may have.
It is surely a mistake for a person to drive drunk only because they forgot to call a designated driver, and because they also forgot that they had not called such a driver. Forgetting is a very human trait, but in the eyes of the law, this act, which stemmed from a very human error, is a disreputable act, the act of a criminal. All these acts are the results of normal mistakes in thinking, judgment, and remembering. But they are not 'reputable' either; they are irresponsible: they cost a great deal. Not only in life-and-death terms but in life-and-life terms- the difference between just existing, as many animals do, and living, as befits the dignity true humanity deserves.
You see, unpunished errors are destructive to the fabric of society and civilization directly (as in murder) or indirectly (as in plagiarism). They prevent honorable citizens from living with the dignity of knowing they are protected by a reliable social code of ethics, to which all citizens, regardless of position, must adhere, and they encourage those less honorable to risk profiting from dishonourable behaviour. Thus, errors are very expensive; like anything creating debt, they should be paid for or strenuously discouraged—by a privation of some kind, like an interest rate, whether self-imposed or society imposed—to discourage their being repeated.
I agree that a mistake-maker's/wrongdoer's intentions must be considered when deciding what should be done about their errors. I acknowledge that Trinidad and Tobago's society regularly and carelessly uses the pressure of rumour and mauvais langue to blackmail public figures and others into submission to its apparent desires. But the kind of thinking that states that it is an axiom of human behaviour that "to err is not to act disreputably", in my view, is what encourages so many errors to be made daily, errors against which every effort should have been made to ensure their non-occurrence. The laxness and leniency towards errors is devastatingly destroying our people and nation.
I hope you see why for me, you have not cleared the air. I don't think you should resign for the reasons the media seems to list. I think you should resign because you seem to believe something that no civilized bank or country could and successfully run its affairs: that the only account required for errors of the kind you made is encapsulated in the tired cliché: "To err is human, to forgive is divine."
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Some Old Baggage, and Olympics
I have an aversion to witnessing live coverage of the Olympics and in fact any sports coverage overall. I don’t watch sports news with pleasure, although I intellectually consider sport a noble endeavour. My heart always burns up with annoyance that athletes achieve incessant recognition, while others, who are perhaps more deserving, don’t. It is not fair.
So much attention on a national scale is paid to the physical endeavours. In fact growing up, authority figures seemed not to have any value for my particular greatnesses as a creative person—in art, drama, performance, and visualization of elaborate scenarios pertaining to those fields—though they will, patronizingly, allow me to perform when my talent begs for such an outlet of expression: Lip Sync competitions, Scouting for Talent, et cetera, none of which had an artist-development program attached thereto.
What do athletes DO to change the course of history? Can their participation in games stop genocide? Can their world records end hunger? Can their careers and trophies increase the economic robustness of their respective nations? What does the world benefit from ‘the love of the game’? And what do sportsmen really do to encourage their fans to live in peace with fellow men, no matter their nationality or club allegiance? What is the point of sport, besides personal fitness, in the wider world? Is it really responsible in this badly under-evolved world, to simply be a sportsman, uninvolved with intelligently addressing the passions, often life-threatening, galvanized by sport? How do their life-altering (for them) experiences really touch the lives and minds of their average countrymen?
And why is it that they get the chance to represent their countries on a world scale, more than I do, I who do now and have always tried to have a vision that goes beyond the ability to run 100 m in a couple of seconds? How can it be that Olympic sport, which comes around but once every four years, has more of an influence on the world’s psyches than music or drama, which are used to accentuate sporting events worldwide, which people listen to daily and around the clock with super-religious frequency? Why do they get to put on country colours and be told by their country’s leaders that they have made a difference in the world, even be given national money for training and glory, whilst budding original artists, poets and songwriters, Bob Marleys and Miriam Makebas, are scoffed off as wannabes, rather than as a cadre of unique national ambassadors capable of changing mindsets throughout the world?
I am deeply displeased that no one in authority ever seems to notice the unfair disparity of respect accorded to excellence in fields other than sport or academia, but especially to the field of sport.
No one in authority bothered to attempt a campaign demonstrating the equal value that creative endeavours such as drama, literature or art contributed to civilization in a fundamental (not ornamental or decorative) way. It is not fair to be valued less, on a national and international scale, and to be treated as less than someone who is simply better endowed physically, or more inclined to physical exertion than myself. I know that my talent is world-class; but how can I prove it to people busy applauding El Guerrouj or Michael Jordan? So what can I do? Withdraw my eyes, my attention, my conscious and vocal support—just as has been done to me.
At the time of this writing, August 13th 2008, American actor and comedian Bernie Mac is not yet cold in his grave, having died at age 50, on 9th August 2008, of complications arising from pneumonia.
As far as I am concerned Bernie Mac was a kind of new Bill Cosby, for a new generation of young African Americans and Caucasian Americans, showing what wonders could be done with a little humour and both kinds of ethnic identity (wrt black-white dichotomy), not just one, in a free nation, with opportunities for education, affluence, and the emancipation demonstrated by ethnic versatility. It seemed to me he tried to demystify, on television, the 'other'ness of Black Americans to white ones, and vice versa.
No worldwide crowd will congratulate his family for his achievements—and far less the American entertainment industry and economy for facilitating such achievements.
Where is his gold medal?
I know they say money makes the world go around, so the reason why Olympics is so big even tho it's just sports, is money-related. But I really don't buy that. How much more money could you make by hosting Olympics for inventors and philosophers, people whose ideas form the currency that informs civilization? It's all about attitude, perception, and again...evolution. The human brain is still very animal, very caveman like. It is much more stimulated by what is visually exciting than by what is abstract. But why do we have to encourage that? No mother would keep lifting her baby knowing that it had to learn to walk. Why do we still encourage masses of our species to keep creeping intellectually? It's great to achieve, to struggle, to win, yes. But why is worldwide acclaim given only consciously to sport???I always said I wanted to be a dancesport athlete if I would enter Olympics for anything. I won't hold my breath waiting for them to make room for that, never mind that music, more than any javelin throwing or sprint race, has vastly increased in volume and quality over the hundreds of thousands of years since the Olympics came into being. I know that they have their agenda. I'll have mine. Don't expect my life to stop because of the Olympics (as it currently is). Olympics can kiss my brown bubbly ass.
Citizens of The World...and Patriots
Mystic Melange's "On Patriotism" is a well-thought out essay. It makes a great case for not affording patriotism to Trinidad and Tobago, a fairly new nation which only achieved independence from colonial rule in 1962, 46-odd years ago. I am in full agreement with her reasons to not exhibit patriotism , towards Trinidad and Tobago ,in its currently bourgie-practiced form.
However, this essay does NOT make any case whatsoever for choosing the United States of America as a target for her-- or any Trini's-- patriotic energies. The USA is a very old nation which achieved independence from colonial rule hundreds of years ago, and is not necessarily evolving towards a true fruition of its core ideals-- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness-- but is rather, according to some, truly devolving from it.
There are too many instances in which the United States of America has betrayed the viewpoint and spirit of its Founding Fathers, and thereby, the well-being of not only the world but itself, for me to enumerate here, even as under-informed as I am. But I can cite one:
The separation of Church and State -- something which US policymakers insist many Islamic countries ought to achieve so that they can run their countries properly-- is under continual pressure in US politics. So says Richard Dawkins, atheist author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion, in the latter book.
According to Dawkins, increasingly frequent calls by many Christians for legislation against homosexuality, common-law relationships, and abortion, as well as prejudicial attitudes against Islam (imagine if Barack had been a Muslim), show them to be increasingly ignorant of the words of the Tripoli Treaty of 1797, the year the British took over Trinidad and Tobago:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." (bold mine)
Also consider the growing freedom to promote intolerance in (of all places) the United States of America: "In 2004 James Nixon, a twelve year old boy in Ohio, won the right in court to wear a T-shirt to school bearing the words 'Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!' The school told him not to wear the T-shirt-- and the boy's parents sued the school...Their victorious lawsuit was supported by the Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona, whose business it is to 'press the legal battle for religious freedom'."
What I do not understand is why Mystic Melange and others seem to believe that exchanging one hypocritical and decaying society for another larger one is a sort of pseudo-sacrificial virtue worthy of defense. Let me be clear: Trinidad and Tobago is not a land I am currently proud of, even though I too, take pleasure in parang, bake and shark, Shadow, Machel and 3Canal. But by the same token of rational and objective analysis of pros against cons, especially in the practice of principles which benefit the human being, neither is the United States of America a land of which I am proud.
I would far sooner pledge allegience with the one mouth that God gave me to Canada or Switzerland, for at least they do not bandy about grand phrases like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" without truly understanding how universally valuable these things are to the rest of the world or to the rest of their citizens homosexual, atheist, or the like, whatever the US political interests may be therein.
At the very least, they do not encourage complacency among their people towards persons of the outside world. How much has the Canadian Gender Equity Fund done in countries around the world? What is their equivalent in the United States? How many refugees has Switzerland taken in per world conflict since 1939? Do they have an equivalent in the United States?
Has Mystic Melange really studied these things before deciding, common-American-style, that the easiest way is the best, and that it is moral to pledge your allegiance and energy to a country which for all intents and purposes is the biggest political and moral whore the history of mankind has seen given its original closeness to a commitment to the best within man and the best intentions of men for man?
I wish you the best on your journey to truth.
However, this essay does NOT make any case whatsoever for choosing the United States of America as a target for her-- or any Trini's-- patriotic energies. The USA is a very old nation which achieved independence from colonial rule hundreds of years ago, and is not necessarily evolving towards a true fruition of its core ideals-- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness-- but is rather, according to some, truly devolving from it.
There are too many instances in which the United States of America has betrayed the viewpoint and spirit of its Founding Fathers, and thereby, the well-being of not only the world but itself, for me to enumerate here, even as under-informed as I am. But I can cite one:
The separation of Church and State -- something which US policymakers insist many Islamic countries ought to achieve so that they can run their countries properly-- is under continual pressure in US politics. So says Richard Dawkins, atheist author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion, in the latter book.
According to Dawkins, increasingly frequent calls by many Christians for legislation against homosexuality, common-law relationships, and abortion, as well as prejudicial attitudes against Islam (imagine if Barack had been a Muslim), show them to be increasingly ignorant of the words of the Tripoli Treaty of 1797, the year the British took over Trinidad and Tobago:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." (bold mine)
Also consider the growing freedom to promote intolerance in (of all places) the United States of America: "In 2004 James Nixon, a twelve year old boy in Ohio, won the right in court to wear a T-shirt to school bearing the words 'Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!' The school told him not to wear the T-shirt-- and the boy's parents sued the school...Their victorious lawsuit was supported by the Alliance Defense Fund of Arizona, whose business it is to 'press the legal battle for religious freedom'."
What I do not understand is why Mystic Melange and others seem to believe that exchanging one hypocritical and decaying society for another larger one is a sort of pseudo-sacrificial virtue worthy of defense. Let me be clear: Trinidad and Tobago is not a land I am currently proud of, even though I too, take pleasure in parang, bake and shark, Shadow, Machel and 3Canal. But by the same token of rational and objective analysis of pros against cons, especially in the practice of principles which benefit the human being, neither is the United States of America a land of which I am proud.
I would far sooner pledge allegience with the one mouth that God gave me to Canada or Switzerland, for at least they do not bandy about grand phrases like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" without truly understanding how universally valuable these things are to the rest of the world or to the rest of their citizens homosexual, atheist, or the like, whatever the US political interests may be therein.
At the very least, they do not encourage complacency among their people towards persons of the outside world. How much has the Canadian Gender Equity Fund done in countries around the world? What is their equivalent in the United States? How many refugees has Switzerland taken in per world conflict since 1939? Do they have an equivalent in the United States?
Has Mystic Melange really studied these things before deciding, common-American-style, that the easiest way is the best, and that it is moral to pledge your allegiance and energy to a country which for all intents and purposes is the biggest political and moral whore the history of mankind has seen given its original closeness to a commitment to the best within man and the best intentions of men for man?
I wish you the best on your journey to truth.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Evolution
What is evolution? Why does it matter? What does it have to do with me?
Since childhood, I've been fascinated by the process of reproduction, since, in itself, sexual reproduction is a kind of evolution. Mitosis and meiosis make sure that better and better offspring are produced, overall, even as they pass on the same total set of genes. Positive mutation ideas gave us as a society all the superhuman myths-- superman, the x-men, telepaths-- and they gave me a thirst for more than what was (in addition to Sesame Street's "Sometimes I imagine" and " "Imagine that" music videos) in the current world.
Because of this thirst, I see this world as a stepping stone to something better, rather than good enough as it is. My measure of how good the world is, is to see how it deals with our fundamental problems. Genocide. Hatred. Irrational discrimination. Plain old ignorance that leads us to rational discrimination because we have to make decisions on information that is too limited. Going after smokescreens instead of the real thing...saying "nigger" is a problem when in fact it is hatred, prejudice against thick lips and kinky hair, and actions based upon the assumptions proceeding therefrom, that are the problem.
Being able to eat, and drink, without HAVING to stop working, being able to think in different modes, on different sides of the brain at once; being able to leave a country, having the experience of separation from the country, live somewhere else, experience the beneficial changes of that experience to your person, without having to leave the country via plane; these are the things that I think our world ought to at least attempt solutions to.
Although all of those things I suggested have issues associated with them, the point remains, that I believe that the human race is not at the peak of its powers, and that part of the reason for that is people's inertia, their unwillingness to "get on up" as James Brown suggested in his timeless hit, and be a sex machine-- a being geared towards making new, unique, and better offspring, progeny, products, in our own race, in our own species.
The great thing about this to me is that there is a synergistic, syncretic opportunity we have as human beings to evolve alongside with the things we evolve. We invent ipods; I bet in 30 years the human eardrum will be just a sliver thicker and less prone to deafness; likewise in 100 years. We can make changes to ourselves as we make changes to our world. But half the time we miss the opportunity to change ourselves, because we keep thinking that we do not need evolution; we are the top of the food chain, what could possibly be wrong with us?
Ha! Is all I can say to that idea, that we are the top of the food chain. As far as I am concerned we are so far below what we could be that it is not even funny. If animals ever become our equals in calculatory and self-interested intelligence, then God had better intervene to help us, because then they would be naturally armed and intelligent, while we, though intelligent, are not naturally armed.
We are so easily fooled, so gullible. We can be manipulated so easily with material things rather than spiritual principles. We are fragmented, easily acting without integrity, thinking we have to...our inner governors are so Machiavellian, so unprincipled. We always want company when we should learn how to be strong alone. We cannot even teach ourselves how to be, and we have children thinking that we have the right to reproduce-- when we do not notice that reproduction is a word that implies existing productivity, and that in the Bible God is said to have told Adam and Eve FIRST to be fruitful and then to multiply.
I'm sick of our weaknesses as a race bogging down the things I can do and the places I can go; the time I can spend singing rather than arguing or explaining things that should be obvious to people who are born and raised knowing that their brain was made for the highest, deepest, and widest possible use of it, and that slacking on one's capabilities, in light of the fact that there are those born with less, with cerebral palsy, with Down's syndrome, and other things, who do their best, and wish they could do more, is as immoral as adultery.
More to come.
Since childhood, I've been fascinated by the process of reproduction, since, in itself, sexual reproduction is a kind of evolution. Mitosis and meiosis make sure that better and better offspring are produced, overall, even as they pass on the same total set of genes. Positive mutation ideas gave us as a society all the superhuman myths-- superman, the x-men, telepaths-- and they gave me a thirst for more than what was (in addition to Sesame Street's "Sometimes I imagine" and " "Imagine that" music videos) in the current world.
Because of this thirst, I see this world as a stepping stone to something better, rather than good enough as it is. My measure of how good the world is, is to see how it deals with our fundamental problems. Genocide. Hatred. Irrational discrimination. Plain old ignorance that leads us to rational discrimination because we have to make decisions on information that is too limited. Going after smokescreens instead of the real thing...saying "nigger" is a problem when in fact it is hatred, prejudice against thick lips and kinky hair, and actions based upon the assumptions proceeding therefrom, that are the problem.
Being able to eat, and drink, without HAVING to stop working, being able to think in different modes, on different sides of the brain at once; being able to leave a country, having the experience of separation from the country, live somewhere else, experience the beneficial changes of that experience to your person, without having to leave the country via plane; these are the things that I think our world ought to at least attempt solutions to.
Although all of those things I suggested have issues associated with them, the point remains, that I believe that the human race is not at the peak of its powers, and that part of the reason for that is people's inertia, their unwillingness to "get on up" as James Brown suggested in his timeless hit, and be a sex machine-- a being geared towards making new, unique, and better offspring, progeny, products, in our own race, in our own species.
The great thing about this to me is that there is a synergistic, syncretic opportunity we have as human beings to evolve alongside with the things we evolve. We invent ipods; I bet in 30 years the human eardrum will be just a sliver thicker and less prone to deafness; likewise in 100 years. We can make changes to ourselves as we make changes to our world. But half the time we miss the opportunity to change ourselves, because we keep thinking that we do not need evolution; we are the top of the food chain, what could possibly be wrong with us?
Ha! Is all I can say to that idea, that we are the top of the food chain. As far as I am concerned we are so far below what we could be that it is not even funny. If animals ever become our equals in calculatory and self-interested intelligence, then God had better intervene to help us, because then they would be naturally armed and intelligent, while we, though intelligent, are not naturally armed.
We are so easily fooled, so gullible. We can be manipulated so easily with material things rather than spiritual principles. We are fragmented, easily acting without integrity, thinking we have to...our inner governors are so Machiavellian, so unprincipled. We always want company when we should learn how to be strong alone. We cannot even teach ourselves how to be, and we have children thinking that we have the right to reproduce-- when we do not notice that reproduction is a word that implies existing productivity, and that in the Bible God is said to have told Adam and Eve FIRST to be fruitful and then to multiply.
I'm sick of our weaknesses as a race bogging down the things I can do and the places I can go; the time I can spend singing rather than arguing or explaining things that should be obvious to people who are born and raised knowing that their brain was made for the highest, deepest, and widest possible use of it, and that slacking on one's capabilities, in light of the fact that there are those born with less, with cerebral palsy, with Down's syndrome, and other things, who do their best, and wish they could do more, is as immoral as adultery.
More to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
