Wednesday, October 28, 2009

do we need a hero?

do we need a hero to help us get through each day of our abyssmal lives? or
do we need to be distracted so we can forget how abyssmal we think it is? or
do we need to continuing learning, growing and building long after we have left the school system such that we come to find our authentic self within the lives we have made and make the most of ourselves, the relationships and opportunities that exist?

I fear that too many simply choose the path of distraction through entertainment in our current western world society. the consumer model supports it quite well. could we have gotten away with this model 1000 years ago?

the hero path still exists however with people pledging allegiance to brands, religions, celebrities and ideals so much so that they forget that they need to be learning and not following blindly.

Not staying on topic, like I ever do, I ponder the statement "Dodge trucks are the best there is" or some other like comment about a vehicle or any other material good for that matter. I have witnessed people defend their position so strongly as to damage relationships with others. How is it we latch onto an allegiance so strongly that we would rather give up relationship and community in its defense? To some an allegiance to a brand is so unsofisticated that they easily dismiss it with the person who is saying it. But if we consider religion, human rights, ethics, morality and justice (to name a few) then the level of complexity rises and we only easily dismiss the fundamentalists who are on the fringe and look like lunatics and so are easy to label. The moderate, however, is not so easily dimissed because like you and your position they believe their position to be true due to their information, their conditioning, their community and so to attack their position means to have your own equally convincing position on matters, or does it? Does the lazy atheist care if he cannot disprove Christianity, not really, it is entertaining to suggest the Chrisitian cannot absolutely prove it. Does the person who belives the death penalty is the answer to violent crime need to prove statistically and beyond a shadow of a doubt with empircal evidence that the fear of death will make crimiinals who can change do so? We take positions on the world for a variety of reasons and I wonder whether we are doing ourselves any good by doing so while ignoring our opportunity to live intentially instead of watching the world pass us by.

- dale


  1. Part 1:

    Things I don't like about Capitalism (and yes this is relevant to the first half of your post).
    1. The individual reigns.
    2. It's all about incentive. If there's no incentive (aka greed) its not done. (eg. preventions vs cures, peace, charity)
    3. One dollar, one vote; one million dollars, one million votes.

    When the driving force for our attention has capitalism at its core, there is no avoiding the subrogation of the populace into blind self-interestedness. It's the message with the loudest voice because its the result with the biggest pay-off.

    Distraction, un-community, hero worship, consumerism, mental laziness - big money makers.

    Intellectualism, family, informed consumer, egalitarianism - big money losers.

    Big money losers = no voice; no message.

  2. Part 2:

    We're not really rational beings. As much as I'd like to believe otherwise, I tend to use my rational side to support my beliefs instead of using my rational side to discover and critique them. I don't think I'm alone.

    I don't think this is laziness necessarily. I think it might be inherently human. I have to train myself, repeatedly, to use my rationale to alter my beliefs. Without this rigor, my beliefs follow their own course: for better or worse. The necessity of this rigor is suggestive.

    This is why we (humans) don't have to have a rationale behind our belief in: aethism, capital punishment, abortion, public schools etc. The belief was already there. It preceded the rationale.

    Personally, this has meant rational thinking is merely disecting what is already inside of me and attempting to establish a framework extant beliefs. Fundamentally, this taints the rational experience with the predisposition of my beliefs... but is there any other way? For my self analysis, its really an archeology of nature vs. nurture. Can my rational mind decipher between them in what is already formed?

  3. wow, really Good points. I wonder about the "counter" incentive to capitalism then for everything has an opposing force. If we are motivated by a self serving force that is being sustained by constantly changing opportunities to fulfill those desires.

    We (humanity) seems incapable of slipping out of our rut whereby the vast riches of the world are held in the small portion of the richest people. Even in Canada that small portion is no bigger than 10% for nearly 60% of the wealth (Stats Canada 2006 )

    When you heard our rich speak, providing free advice to others with the same desire to become wealthy their advice seems almost creepy. Robert Herjavec, one of the hosts of CBC's Dragons' Den and head of The Herjavec Group who lives in a 50,000-square-foot mansion valued at $15 million was recently interviewed on his success and advice to others. He says “Test what people tell you. They don't always mean to lie to you, but they do lie.” “You can never be satisfied as an entrepreneur, and the basis of any successful, growing business is new clients. Make sure your company always has the attitude of going out and hunting for its dinner. We don't pay our salespeople for renewals, that's a customer service job and not a sales job. Sales people should be hunters." "If you're going to play this game, play it to win."

    So the people we have in leadership roles of capitalism are living a life of sacrifice for business trusting no one. Sounds fullfilling.

    So, to comment on your point about the rational mind, I wonder if "the commons" and its inclusion in one's world is still present? What I mean is even if we can shake our selves out of our rut and decipher between preformed beliefs and what seems rational, has the good of the many been gone for two long that it is no longer comprehended by all?

    I really need to think about your comment about atheism being a belief not the result of rational thinking (if I am interpretting you properly). To me that would then imply that God does not have a prescence in all human life then perhaps. Very interesting.