Change or Kill

When your life exhibits truth, is it by coincidence or is it by intentional articulation? If you are not a truth seeker, then, more than likely you are opportunistic and when you do exhibit the truth, it is indirectly. Those who are opportunists do not realize they made a choice to put self-interest before truth, but those who chose to seek the truth are very aware that they are truth seekers. If you say, "There is no absolute truth.", then you must concede that at least that statement is absolutely true, and if logically there is no escaping this contradiction, should that not tell you something? If I say, "There is absolute truth.", and that statement is true, no issues, right? If I have learned one thing in philosophy, it is that general statements such as this usually turn out to be Sophistry. They are wonderful words, which easily fool those who are unexamined. This essay is for those who have already made that fundamental choice to seek the truth first. Do not kid yourself, just because you have made a choice to do "something" that does not mean you are open to truth. The truth devastates a person's ego, and destroys any ground you thought you had, before it allows you to realize, and to understand. If your "truth" does not start with logic, rationality and observability, then, it is not true at all. There is no such thing as "subjective truth". That is opinion plain and simple, and prescient predictions are not knowledge and truth until they become history. This essay is for those who are seeking truth, because after you have made this decision, the very next gate you must pass through is the second most important decision you will make, and that decision frees you to walk a wide open road of smaller choices. Make this decision with good nature, and you will be correct, and right, and good, and true. When you err, it will be against a paradigm of true justice, and when you triumph it will be a triumph for all. This fundamental choice is:

Will I support rigid traditional values and strong division, or will I support a position of less attachment and allow natural change?

After you have decided to seek the truth, please, listen to my advice in making this next decision.

I am highly biased about this, and as far as I am concerned it is with good cause, reason and urgency. First, I would like to point out that I understand clearly the benefits of traditional values. Traditional values give a person a sense of identity. For a person who believes that a person must live a "principled" life, they believe that those principles must never change. Let us define "principles" here:

Principle
1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
3. A fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.

* Dictionary.com

So, who says these "rules of action" cannot be situational? In fact, I am a very principled person. I put more work into understanding clearly what it is that I am actually doing than those who claim to be "principled" in the general population. Essentially, "principled" to the traditional folk means, simply, opposed to change. These are the people who will not change, simply because it is change. These very same people will put themselves in way out irrational positions simply not to afford the slightest change, because for some reason to be principled means to not change. The unfortunate consequence of this position is that the people who think this way draw hard dividing lines between themselves, and those who would lead a different life. This unchanging rigid self-affirmation has the unfortunate consequence of a fundamental desire to negate others who are different. When a person does not put truth first, which is derived from logic, rationality and observability, then the group sets up divisions between themselves and others that only serve their group. What happens is, their actions are to the detriment or benefit of others outside their group only by coincidence. Since their own vision overrides anybody else's view automatically, it is rightly labeled insensitive and selfish. I want to make it very clear, I do not advocate relativity. I know simple minds would immediately assume this, but in fact I find relativity a repugnant copout. Every person has an inescapable desire to feel right about what they stand for. When I was a skateboarder I thought everybody should be a skateboarder, and that I would skate forever. When I played music, I thought everyone should play music. When I was a young illustrator I thought everybody should be an illustrator, same with poetry, and in the end, I became academically inclined and I do believe everybody should be educated. This final end I do think is true though. After all the things that I have done, I was wrong in thinking that everybody should do those things because those things were particular to me. But, when I extended this innate human idea of, "I am right." to education, I finally became right! The one thing that never changed is my desire to believe that I am right. Everyone has this desire for themselves. But we should not take the relativist position and say something like, "Everybody is right, in their own way." We also should not take the absolutist position of, "My way is the only right way. Only those like me are correct." I could easily write ten books worth of ideas on these topics, but let me get to the true "right way".

Even those who believe themselves principled, and unmoved are changing. They have some idea of what the want to be, but their view of who they are themselves, and what should be done is constantly changing. Change is just a given in the universe we live in. It is even possible to argue that there is no such thing as knowledge! Sometimes these concepts are very hard, if not impossible to refute! It has been said, it is easy to be certain, as long as you are sufficiently vague. After one decides to seek the truth, one has to balance the importance of helping one's self, and helping others. At least one who seeks the truth makes it to the second choice, but the one who indirectly chooses self-reifying opportunism never makes it to a balance point. Since they missed the opportunity to walk the path of truth, they immediately decide self importance is paramount. They essentially make two decisions at once, indirectly, and go through their whole lives feeling like something is missing, because they do not know how to back track all the way back to this point on the path to truth, and seek the right way. It is possible to do it, and I hope this essay can shed some light on that. When we start weighing our own necessities, against what we can do for others, we start to understand the truth about justice. This is where fundamental morality stems. It is super, super crazy that those in modern American society who claim to be the "values" crowd, are the ones who missed the search for truth all together! Their whole mentality of justice is based on injustice! Since they cannot put things laterally next to each other on a balanced scale and see which is more or less beneficial, they do their "justice" measuring in a master/slave vertical comparison of domination and submission. This is not justice, plain and simple. This is wild animal domination, and submission. This is what tyrants do in the extreme. Only the truth seeker will find true justice. Only the truth seeker is right, with potential to be good. Only the truth seeker has the keys to the kingdom of morality. That fundamental principle is:

Do what is necessary for you and your family to survive, then, seek out the less fortunate and see to it their necessities are met also.

Everybody, in every group will claim to be arbiters of this idea. Pragmatically, even those who do not understand why or where this principle comes from can make a positive difference for the less fortunate. But, if you want to talk about principles, then you better understand the reason why this is so important! You better understand that this comes from lateral thinking, not master slave impositions! You better understand the true morality, and true justice comes from lateral thinking! You better clearly understand, that those that are devoted to this kind of thinking do anything they can to throw out unnecessary division, because that which is necessarily important to all human beings is imposed upon us objectively beyond choice, and when you cut your particular divisions through universal necessity, indirectly by seeking your own self interest, and "identity" then you commit a paramount injustice and coincidental immorality!

Lastly, let me close with one more point. One may say:

"Well, the desire to believe one is right is a universally innate, right?"
Yes.
"So, you say you are right about change, and I say I am right about tradition."
Okay.
"So, what is the difference?"

The difference is in the details of what you think you are right about. Again, I do not support relativity. You can be right, you can be just, and you can be true and correct. When you are on the right path, then it is okay to be divisive because you are standing for real truth! Everyone believes they hold real truth, it is innately human, but since this is the case, how will you recognize if you really have it or not?! It is only through study and understanding. All these great and good values that are taught to us by religious and philosophical leaders of the past can be impressed into you by simple stepping stones of realistic evaluation! If you clear your mind, and search for truth, then goodness just comes to you naturally! You become something greater than your simple imagination could create! You become a song of intellectual beauty! To the casual reader it may seem hypocritical to advocate divisiveness against those who are traditional, while pointing out that the divisiveness of the traditional is a massive problem. It is not contradictory or hypocritical because, traditional divisiveness only attains truth through coincidence, because it promotes its own particular ends through history only exhibiting truth by chance, whereas the true stand against this type of division, by drawing their own lines and to take a stand for what is actually true. In simplistic terms, the true see universality in all men and work to push that universality as the realization. The traditional intentionally divide men, to gain master status for their group. It is the duty of the universal adherents to stand against those who negate Universality indirectly through the pursuit of their own particular ends. A simple mind would say, "You promote divisiveness, just like the people you condemn." The difference is the division created by the universal is a forced duty to stand against the opportunistic divisions of the tradition. It also stands to show that these Universalists are not Relativists. The do stand firm on what is true, and just and moral and will fight, and kill if necessary to protect their ideas. No one should get the idea that this is a weak position, when in fact it is the most fundamental ground one can stand on. I do not go too far in saying this ground is the first true ground that a soldier could authentically be martyred for.

Fight with me truth seekers..........