The Secondary Nature of Intellectual Endeavors

In the not so distant past, thinking was all there was...an interesting idea there, juxtaposition of ideas here, jaded connections over there, and a wonderfully complex yet simple model to tie them nicely into a bow...Merry Christmas. But thinking as all there is? Epistemically conceited and ideologically blackmailed, my only real joy once came from the satisfyingly existential brain-farting encouraged by the academic community. What misplaced pleasure this is that separates the mind from the body, thought from action, theory from reality. A life-course can be criticized as merely living the life of a corpse, trodding the narrow path of life devoid of its essence in bloom if that life merely exists in the mind. Aristotelian potentiality does not come to fruition, into true actuality only in the mind. Modern-day academia is right in taking our minds to places not yet in existence, so drastically different in every shape and size that they seem as opposites. However, these endeavors should also exist to aid in practical, every-day decision-making rather than merely the thinking that goes into writing academic papers on practical issues when nothing is actually being done regarding the issues addressed. Placing the human brain on a pedestal can be a bit dangerous when it becomes such an elevated speciality seated on an altar of scientific inquiry while other matters are left on the wanting end of the utilitarian spectrum, i.e. poverty relief, etc.

All this to say that perhaps my search for what matters most only matters most because of my search for "it" and what matters most has always been and will always be despite my search for whatever that is. What matters most is somehow connected to the bond that unites my family -- my wife, my son, our extended family and friends. Call it "Love" if you will. Not "that good ol' feelin'" love, not that "I luv u baby" love, not that "I love you because I have to" love, not that "chemical-impulses-in-the-brain-instinctual-parent-husband-clan" love. There is an inherent blessing in the kind of love that exists in my life today with my wife and son...a blessing that matters most to me...and will continue to the rest of my days...

No better result exists devoid of a teleological motive of love for an other person.

"Me"-thinks selfishly

What do we consider beneficent act? An act with no selfish motive done purely because some being in nature sets an example to act or so "moves" us to act, or, because there exists a universal morality which binds human beings to so act for survival purposes or because the universe is ordered as such to elicit, to guide action in some form or fashion somehow balancing the universe? I don't mean to start of with such questions and perhaps I have started by asking the wrong questions in the first place, but the questions merely segue into what I really feel the need to blog about. This entry is about, surprise surprise, human nature (such a daunting discussion to be sure -- but a very relevant one that needs never end). Why do we act the way that we do making this decision and not that, choosing this cup of coffee over that, choosing to go on mission trips rather than cleaning our houses, choosing to save a boy's life in Africa rather than buying a year's supply of chocolate? To get to the nitty-gritty, what are our motives for acting? From the general public and according to public opinion our motives can be one of two things (or perhaps both): selfish motives for acting (motives which are made for oneself) or beneficent motives for acting (motives made for the benefit of another). Taking this a bit further, these can be divided a bit further for clarification. A selfish motive may be a beneficent one as well, while a beneficent motive may serve well as a selfish motive. The line between selfish and beneficent may be harder to draw than the person contemplating an action may even realize.

But honestly, how often are we making a decision solely for the good of another without an element of selfish motive involved? I've found that the two components of motive are inseparable with regards to a beneficent act (in most cases). A truly beneficent act without a selfish motive would perhaps be better realized in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth to Christians, or perhaps Buddha to Buddists, or perhaps the theoretical potential of the human brain by contemporary scientists. A selfish act requires no beneficent motive as beneficence becomes merely a happenstance by-product of actions arising from pure selfish motive. To give an example of what I'm talking about, I can decide to help a child in another country because I believe it to be right. When I make this decision I perhaps making it under the pretense that I'm helping another, which in turn gives me a feeling of pleasure with myself for doing what I believe to be right? What I believe to be right need not be right, but because I believe it to be right it is right to me and because it is right to me and because I gain a sense of satisfaction with doing what I believe to be right then my motive and act is not solely beneficent. Here it is probably significant to divide selfishness a bit further. Perhaps we can suggest that a selfish motive is not necessarily a negative as popular culture makes it out to be. To be selfish and to think of the self is not necessarily a bad thing. We are one being among cultures of beings and we think with our own brains, we eat with our own mouth's, we speak with our own tongues. We are individuals in communities. Never have we thought solely for ourselves as human beings, but as individuals in communities. Because of a strong push for the individual in our culture it is often forgotten that we live in communities and thrive because of them. We don't thrive on our own. To think selfishly is natural since we are individuals, but to resort to solely selfish motives neglecting our communal nature is what I would consider negative selfishness, while selfishness that exists as a builder and motivator of relationships in community is positive selfishness. Whether an act or decision is made for a negatively selfish reason or a positively selfish reason (accompanied with a beneficent motive) is most times difficult to ascertain by anyone wanting to study (from an etic perspective) or examine, say, why a President chooses to go to war, or perhaps why a person decides to drink this coffee instead of that coffee.

Human beings are beings in constant tension between whole individuals and parts of communities, (for Christians) being made in the image of God (???) and yet not God, being in time and our perception of timelessness. We cannot escape being both selfish and beneficent because both characteristic of all human beings. I'm not making any claims concerning human nature here though this brief discussion has touched on some issues, because the discussion drifts off into various discussions on the defining of the terms "human" and "nature" which pretty much kill any discussion of "human nature" over disciplinary lines (i.e. religions, science, etc). Returning to the point of this discussion, is is significant to realize that we think selfishly and there is no way of escaping selfish motive. Of course I was raised and taught in the system of western ideological academia and very much have grown in locales and communities that tend to put emphasis on the power of the individual. The arena of ideas from which I speak can only arrive from this background and locale. Various cultures emphasize beneficence, the good of tribe, above all other values. And as such beneficence becomes the selfish motive as well, satiating the individual and group motive in acting. But does the way I categorized these terms (i.e. "selfish", "beneficent") really fit into such a scenario? Maybe not. Maybe I'm not being fair to other cultures, and this is a valid complaint, but as I said I am speaking concerning most industrialized countries where capitalism and democracy have hold as governing and economic systems. However, despite this Rogerian repose, I believe that I could apply this system to other individuals in varying cultures (This belief merely being an educated guess which may or may not be right. And because this belief is merely contingent upon whether or not the model does work across the board, this belief is different from the belief say in God which is a belief beyond contingency -- one belief can be verified or falsified while the other merely is without contention.)

Here's uncle Tim's advice: You're always going to be selfish. Be mindful of whether or not your selfish motives benefit others, strengthening relationships. When you act for the sake of others, it's okay to feel good about it, though your motive for doing the act was partially for that "good feelin'".

Conflict Resolution -- Now or Eventually?

Confict and violence have always been two concepts we experience throughout our lives resonating with various images that come to mind when the two words are heard. Perhaps for we Americans: Bush, Iraq, Iran, N Korea, murder, lack of morals (whatever they may be). But what is our responsibility as individuals to see that violence is minimized when conflict arises? Again and again I think we sheltered Americans find it hard to think out of our own comfort zones, ignoring the pain and violence that exist beyond our created artificial bubbles of personal space. This is not to put down those who go on mission trips, those people who volunteer time at orphanages, soup kitchens, environment clean-up, those who donate money to help children in Africa...this is to inform you that your money and time are perhaps wasted efforts in the global arena due to government confiscations of funds, the temporary nature of mission trips and volunteering which tend to cause more damage than good when you go back to comfort while the pain and violence continue elsewhere. Speaking specifically of conflict resolution in some African countries, Middle Eastern countries, Asian countries, the individual willing to give aid is limited by the governance of more than one country and by international rules and regulations. Thus for the individual to aid in resolution, the individual must rely on the governing body under which he or she lives to forward the aid. However, the specific government finds itself in similar entanglements worrying about such things as free trade, alliances, oil...yadayadayada...power. Conflict resolution propositions at the nation-state level can only be acceptable if a, b, and c are met. Right? Unless you have a cowboy President like George W. Right? Let's ask ourselves a question. Did George W make his decision to go to war with Iraq dependent upon whether a, b, c conditions were right to do so or did he make the decision to rid the world of a violent dictator? Depending upon which way a person leans, the answers get quite complex and conspiracy theory-esque. This brings me to a more important question. Should we wait until a country ends the violence for itself or should we, if we can, step in to bring it to a close much more quickly? Is there a certainty to how many casualties there will be either way? My gut answer is to avoid violence to end violence setting an example of violence as the answer to conflict resolutions. Would I swim out to save Adolph Hitler if he were drowning in a lake if I knew the atrocities he was responsible for during the second World War committing. In this situation, the act of violence would be ignoring the pleas for help and allowing him to drown. Granted, this does not compare with the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam since this violent act is perhaps a bit more active (or perhaps not depending upon ones perception of the act). Non-violence is perhaps a critical understanding firmly implanted during the Civil Rights movement within the United States by the late Martin Luther King jr. There is a power in nonviolence I agree, but the other side to the Civil Rights movement, less mentioned are the militant ones who fought and died for their civil rights...which was more effective? I've seen various arguments to date. Unfortunately escaping violence is a bit harder than most Americans would expect since we do live in imaginary bubbles where violence is somewhat foreign and exotic and atrocious. The average American does not understand violence as it is, but only as it is in what they've read or seen on a short stay abroad, or seen on television. Referring to what I said earlier, the average American perhaps gets more out of their attempts to resolve "the other" conflicts than those "others" affected by that conflict since the individual is limited in what he or she can do abroad. However, the individual does have a local existential responsibility to recognize the violence that occurs not just on the scale of governments, but in their own personal lives every-day. Look up the term "violence" in the dictionary and if you want to do something on the global scale start on the local being conscious of the every-day violence that occurs. Know yourself. Democrats -- realize the violence that ensues from hate for the Republican governing bodies. Republicans -- realize that violene that ensues from hate for Democrats unable to understand your reasoning. Arguing is beneficial in this circumstance, but hate merely kills the argument and divides people onto sides. We're criticizing violence elsewhere but merely accepting ideological violence here as if physical violence and ideological violence have nothing to do with each other. Both kill the possibility of conflict resolution. Let's get in gear America. No more taking sides, no more hate, no more violence, and for goodness sakes make an effort to think for yourselves.