A Different Set of Stories

It is everything I can do during the last half of November and all of December to not growl at every human being around me. I want to buy the tee shirt from NorthernSun that says, "Do not assume I'm Christian." But I would rather have one that says, "Don't assume I believe in a creator god or other religious delusions."

For all the argument I get when I say this, it is still true. Thanksgiving is a christian holiday. It is not a biblical holiday, but it is christian, nonetheless. And everything associated with christmas, including the crass commercialization, is christian or plays on christian "values."

If you believe something is true, then for you it is true regardless of any contrary evidence. Tthat does not make it true for anyone else.

Just because a lot of people believe something is true does not make it universally true. Just because a lot of people believe something is a "sin" does not make it universally wrong. Just because a lot of people believe in a god does not mean there is a god.

I don't believe. Further, I have a lot of trouble dealing with people who seem to think that I should. Do not wish me a merry christmas. I have about all of christmas as I can stand without it. And "happy holidays" isn't any better.

I know that there is some mechanism in the human machinery that makes belief in god(s) more or less automatic and natural. We don't really like unsolvable mysteries so we assign the unexplainable to an unexplainable god then say that this god loves us and has a plan for our eventually happiness.

BULLSHIT.

.

I love reading or listening to Supreme Court arguments. (www.oyez.org). I just realized what one of my underlying reasons is. It is mostly an unemotional set of arguments. Public opinion is not put forth. It is almost entirely arguments about language.

It is an intellectual exercise.

And I can see why many Americans are certain that "activist judges legislate from the bench." Those Americans either don't listen to the arguments or can't understand them.

I know some people who speak a kind of righteousness that assumes most or all people are deliberately assholes, cheaters, thieves, liars, and con artists. When they complain about people, there seems to be an undercurrent of "not fair." Something like "I follow the rules, so it's not fair that your don't." It might be "I work hard to support myself and I'm just getting by while you don't do anything but live of of others." It just sounds to me like "I'd do that too if I could get away with it."

I wonder if this is a case of the pot calling the kettle scorched?

I have a different kind of righteousness, I think. I don't believe that people are fundamentally sinful (which I think is often the basis for that kind of righteousness), but I think people are fundamentally unconscious and unconcerned with anything that doesn't look like an immediate threat. It's biology. And average people don't really have much facility to move beyond their biology.

That means that most people have the potential to be deliberate assholes, cheaters, thieves, liars, and con artists. This includes those are righteous about not being those things.

I'm an intellectual elitist. The difference between me and those I've cited in the first paragraph might be that I don't have a moral agenda. And it always seems to be that the righteous believe they are good and godly while everyone else (not closely associated with them) are evil.

I know that I'm having ever increasing difficulty interacting with folk who think the minutemen have a point or that 2 blocks is "too close" to "ground zero" or that bankers are evil.

In another forum, a conversation about "settling" came up. There are many ways to "settle" for a relationship.

One way I tried was this: I started a relationship with the first woman who was willing because I was convinced this was my only chance and any relationship was better than none. I have no idea how common this is, but I clearly knew that I was settling for less than I wanted but having no hope of anything better. That was a miserable relationship for both parties.

Then I tried a different way. I fell for someone who looked good on paper and for whom I had a strong attraction. I did not take the time to find out if this person matched the the information I was getting from all sources. It was a pretty good relationship. Only a little disappointment as I slowly began to realize that my assessment was pretty far off from the truth of the matter. I think this method is VERY common. So common, in fact, that most relationship get started this way. We fall for the person as we have created them, not for who they really are in the world. This was pretty good, just not quite good enough and the relationship ended.

Then I tried a third way. In this method, I was not looking. Actively not looking. And when my hormones jumped I refused to pay attention to them. It took me several years of observation to see that Stacey closely matched who I thought she was. Only then, did I entertain the idea of a relationship with her. And then I waited another year during which we worked closely together on a shared project. This relationship is perfect.

The problem with the third way, I think, is that it is difficult for most people to pull off. I had pretty thoroughly stuffed sexual attraction into a dark hole. So I was not being driven by my biology. And I was considerably older this time around, my hormones weren't jumping around quite as wildly.

From my personal experiences and from the many, many stories of relationship collapse I've heard, I think the "normal" way people settle is by not knowing they are settling at the beginning. They are blinded by the rush of feel-good chemicals their bodies are producing. After a few years, they finally figure out the relationship isn't what they thought it was.