Flower

Swearing

The first thing I'm going to do when I get off the plane in NJ is scream, "Fuck!". Why? Because the thing I miss the most is swearing. It's bad enough you can't swear around the damn kids but people down here in the South are so goddamn polite, if you say "shit" or something they look at you like you're going to fuckin' hell. I mean jesus christ, give me a fuckin' break. It's bad enough I have to deal with the no good son of a bitchin' smug bastard neighbor and his stupid shit, but god forbid I swear at him or something. Then I'm the asshole or something. Hell, I'm just using language, while he's being a complete dick. Fuck'm.

Ah, but back home, every fuckin' other fuckin' word is fuck this and fuck that and I'll feel at home again.......

Beer

As I've mentioned before, I'm more or less a "live and let live" kind of person and only have a tendency towards snobbishness when it comes to: books and beer--don't know enough about wine to consider myself a snob there.

Anyway, I spent the weekend working one of the beer stands at downtown Fort Worth's Art Festival. The event is typically sponsored by Coors beer distribution. The main stage area beer stand sells the normal choices that every other stand has: Coors, Coors Lite, Killian's Red, Mike's Hard Lemonade. But it also sells specialty beers such as Blue Moon, Tecate and others. Then there is one stand that carries Miller Lite--the only stand in the event that does so.

This year I worked the "Miller" stand on the second day. We don't advertise at this booth that there is Miller--we just tell people or they come, sent from other stands looking for Miller specifically.

Now, I don't care for any Coors product, nor Miller products, nor Budweiser products--we did get many queries for Bud as well--I've never understood how anyone can actually stomach Bud--it is THE worst tasting beer I've ever had. At least with Coors, if it's cold enough, you can tolerate it.

Anyway, (here's my snobbishness), I just don't understand America's love affair with crappy beer? Especially when you look at beer history in America before Prohibition. There where many beers and breweries.

But, it was deeply disturbing to hear people be offended at being offered Miller over Coors and vice versa--I mean, a shit sandwich is a shit sandwich--arguing one tastes better because it's on rye bread instead of wheat makes no damn sense. Thank god for the late 80s and 90s when micro-brews where introduced and now the rest of us don't have to suffer having to choose from imports or crap. Now, we can patriotically hold our heads high and drink great American beer.

Ah, if only our international affairs was as good as our micro brews....

Never....ever....judge a book by its you know what....

You've all probably seen this by now, but it is worth posting anyway...as my old friend Lou pointed out....never judge a book....

The Rich Are Scared...

...or something. I've been meaning to post about this, but, as usual, Jon Stewart sums it up much better than I. And while he takes the "loser" angle, I personally think it a propaganda campaign because the rich don't want to be taxed.

It reminds me of Jack London's Iron Heel. But I must say, I can't recall so much fear coming from this sector in a very, very long time. And the right wing is hitting hard using terms like "tyranny".

It is laughable, as Stewart shows it to be. But don't underestimate an oligarchy.

Dysfunctional Families

You know what (I MUST be in a bitchy mood today)--I'm tired of that phrase. What the fuck IS a "functional" family?

Outside of complete disasters of families, those who abuse each other and their kids, aren't the rest of us in the same damn boat--trying to figure it all out, adhering to the "norms" of our current society, trying to raise the kids the way we think they should be (or I should say, as our current society thinks we should)?

Note: I say current because if you do a little research, the way we raise kids today is NOT the way kids have been raised in earlier years--even 40 yrs ago....

Yes, there are certainly better "adjusted" families or perhaps we should say "happier" families? I'm not sure. But I can guarantee this...we don't take into account our genetic makeup enough so we all go around wondering why we are screwed up or why "so and so" screwed us up (usually our parents--well, your kids are going to say the same damn thing as you are about yours).

In the end, we all try to do the best we can. Will we fail? Hell, yes...but on a personal level don't we fail ourselves most of the time? Isn't that what it means to learn and grow? Besides, the affects of our family home life on us are greatly over exaggerated. The affects of our peers on us growing, well, that is a whole different ball game.

For those who already don't have a positive outlook or attitude (or those for whom it comes easy (probably due to genetics))--it maybe a constant battle but every morning when you wake up, you have a choice; to be happy or not.

And that's all that there is in this life.

Crusty Old Religion Guy

Let's just get this part out of the way: regardless of beliefs, there is a difference between being religious, believing in a God and being spiritual and they can all be mutually exclusive (as far as I'm concerned, you don't have to agree, but then, this is my post).

Myself Defined: ex-Catholic, non-religious, spiritual, agnostic at best.

Raising children: I was raised Catholic, my wife, Baptist. Neither of us wanted to raise the kids as either of those. So, we converted to Presbyterian (figuring that was safer).

Long story short: We've moved around different churches, partly because I just can't stand ANY church--don't like them, hate going. But also, to find something the kids would at least like.

Caveat: Just so everyone knows, there is evidence that supports a genetic propensity to be adverse to organized religion...my father was, I am, and I think my son is (my daughter is my step-daughter so there's no biological factor involved for her--from me at least).

My "other' problem: Aside from my distaste from attending, I also can't seem to escape my "catholic-ism"--Any other church just doesn't feel like church if is isn't done the same was as I'm used to--so much for being liberal and why I'm ultimately a crusty old religious guy in this area.

Current situation: We are in the freakin' heart of the bible belt--TX--baptist churches as large as compounds and one on every corner just like donut shops. Then there are the "other" types of churches that claim to be non-baptist, they call them fellowships or non-denomination churches but they all seem to take their cues from the baptist way of doing things (like full body dunking of baptism)...

Baptists and my crustiness: If you have never attended a real baptist sermon, well, and please forgive me, those who do attend, but remember I was raised catholic so, what can I say, but a baptist sermon is like a Vegas show to me, run by P T Barnum type ministers and boy do they know how to "close" the deal, just like a real sales person--they try to get you to commit to what you just heard and pledge to the church.

Current, current situation: So, now we attend this "fellowship" type church that has it's central location in one town where the minister is, but then has satellite churches in other towns and states. So, when you enter the "church" you sit in front of a screen and watch the pumped in sermon. Also, before it goes live, you get a live full band playing christian rock and all the attendees are dressed, for the most part in jeans.

This to me is NOT church (and isn't it odd that most, not all, but most attendees are of the younger set?) I suppose if I were 18 I'd have preferred this one, with their young hip ministers singing rock songs and wearing jeans and nose rings etc...but having been brought up catholic, I just can't escape the fact that it doesn't "feel" like church. (I do the same thing for any other church as well, when it comes to communion--you don't take it unless you've been to confession and to church the week before, so I can say I haven't taken communion since I stopped attending catholic churches.)

So, here I am, still attending, hating every moment of it, out of (catholic) guilt because I'm supposed to "for" the kids. But guess what, my father never attended and we were only holiday catholics. And despite my beliefs, I'm not an evil person.

And frankly, the fact is, it doesn't matter to the kids if the parents attend or not, whether you believe this or not, the facts don't support it...it really comes down to what their peers do....that has more affect on them than we parents.

Rebuttal

A recent comment to an old post reads:

The problem I see in leading a life based on impacting the life of another is this: our impact on another can never fully be gauged as positive or negative. In my experience (which I fear is the only lens I can see fully through) the positive impact I thought I was having on others was guided largely by false beliefs I held at the time, and I may, in hindsight, have done more harm than good. I shudder to think of the way my life has weaved through the lives of others. Makes me never want to leave my house.

Unfortunately, life is never so clear cut. In my fantasy world, the pieces of the puzzle come together in the last moments before death and we see what our true impact on our life and the lives of others has been. In the meantime, we are all stumbling in the dark, paving the road to Hell with our good intentions.

But hey, that's just me. Can't say this view makes me happy but I can afford no further delusions.

Here's my rebuttal:

First, this person would need to immediately stop blogging as this person (and from here we'll say "he") cannot possibly know what kind of effect his words have had or are having on those that read them. If he shudders to think how his life has weaved through the lives of others, then stop blogging now as you can see, your words have already had an affect on me.

Second, let's discern from "intentional" impact on other's lives and "unintentional".

Here's an earlier comment on the same blog entry:

<why life? because we have the ability to make an impact on another- that's what I believe...>

And my response:

<I agree, it's all about impact on the world around you, however far out the ripples roll. I thought originally about linking to this book; The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker. In the end, he writes:

"Who knows what form the forward momentum of life will take in the time ahead or what use it will make of our anguished searching. The most that any one of us can seem to do is fashion something--an object or ourselves--and drop it into the confusion, make an offering of it, so to speak, to the life force.">

We have the ability to impact the lives around us both intentionally and unintentionally. None of us is an island unto himself no matter how hard we try...we are biologically a social species; even alone, we are with a group as we cannot think of ourselves without thinking in terms of others. Thus, we cannot possibly know or control nor be responsible for our unintended impacts.

Now, our commenter, feels that he was making impacts based on false beliefs. Ok, to err is human. I certainly do not hold the same beliefs now as I did at age 20, that's called growing older and maturing. It's also called being human. Nor are impacts a one way street. Whatever impact I may have had on someone, I'm sure they had some impact on me as well. What if they held false beliefs? Does that put us both into a cesspool of hellish impacts? No, otherwise every human would be in our cesspool with us and so...if the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then the road to null void is paved with those who opt out and do nothing, afraid they may cause damage. I'll take hell, at least I'd know I'd lived--right or wrong. Malice is the only form of intentional negative impact and I think we can agree our commenter does not appear malicious. Our commenter thinks, in hindsight (and we all know the value of hindsight), he may have done more harm than good.

Thinks he may have done more harm than good. Well, without any empirical data to support that, our commenter is living a delusion. What if he has done more good than harm and has now stopped?

Of course, our commenter wrote, "Makes me want to never leave the house." But I bet he does leave the house....not just for needs either. He wants to be "in" the world, be a part of it. Our commenter says he cannot afford further delusions, but he's living in one...thinking he can avoid having any kind of impact on others. To interact is to have impact. Otherwise the only solution is to live as a hermit, a true hermit, cut off all physical and non-physical communication with the human race, the only problem with that is there will be an impact, probably both positive and negative.

If we feel like a bull in a china shop and that everyone would be better of without my actions, well, that seems self-nihilistic and the only forgone conclusion to that would be suicide, but of course, this would also have an impact, positive and negative.

Damn, it seems there's no way out of impacting others--that's because there's no way out of being human. Your only decision is to act or sit on the sidelines, both having impacts.

Now, what about those impacts? Well, most people I know more than casually interact with me of their own free will and don't mind being impacted by me (as for those who don't want to but "have" to--co-workers mostly and ultimately, they have a choice--there are other jobs out there). They can take my actions/words, etc... and decide to be impacted or not, at least to some degree because, just as we cannot control our subconscious from seeing everything, we cannot control our "selves" from being completely impacted. And vice versa, I have some control over the impact of others and I can make a conscious decision to be impacted or not. Of course, I could be under false beliefs, but in this life, I can keep looking for the truth or, in my personal case, I now believe that I make it what I want it to be.

Yes, life is never so clear cut, nor will it ever be, nor will any religion or philosophy make it so. Even my making it what I choose to make it will make it clear cut. It's not supposed to be clear cut. Of course love hurts, it wouldn't be what it is if it didn't.

In the end, this all smacks of cop-out. I haven't liked the results or I haven't found the "right" way to act so I'm not going to. I'm going to sit around and contemplate what it all means.

We are human, we have no choice but to make an offering, of some sort, to the life force. Attitude is everything, we must choose the positive and let the world take care of itself from there.

But Wait, there's a Catch...

Like many philosophies, Existentialism came before we knew what we know about genes and the way the brain works.

Let me see if I can tie in a few things around the web site into Existentialism. I already mentioned how it ties into Ernest Becker's The Denial of Death. Let's tie this into Julian Jaynes' theory of consciousness (did not possess an introspective mind-space) very simply--existentialism would not exist unless man became conscious.

Another area of research not available or widely available until the 50s (but seemingly forgotten) is social psychology. Now, here's where we tie in Judith Rich Harris' The Nurture Assumption and Group Socialization Theory.

So, what does all this mean? Well, we are subject more to our biological makeup than the early philosophers every could have understood. The decisions we make are much more subject to genes and our social behavior because we are more social than unto ourselves then we ever thought...even when we are alone, we relate to the group. So, without taking into consideration the effects genes have and group socialization, we cannot properly assess how a philosophical theory applies to us.

Flavors of Existentialism

According to Wikipedia:

Atheistic

Atheistic existentialism is the form of existentialism most commonly encountered in today's society. What sets it apart from theistic existentialism is that it rejects the notion of a god and his transcendent will that should in some way dictate how we should live. It rejects the notion that there is any "created" meaning of life and the world, and that a leap of faith is required of man in order for him to live an authentic life. In this kind of existentialism, belief in a god is often considered a form of Bad Faith.

In this kind of existentialism, the way to face the absurdity of the world is to create a meaning for yourself. This creation of meaning ex nihilo doesn't degrade your meaning as such, as all meaning would be created meaning. In other words, creating a meaning of your own life is completely legitimate, as long as you do not base it in "objective" existence, or let it be the main "pillar" of your life. According to Kierkegaard, one would be in a perpetual state of despair (although it would be an unrealised despair that one would flee from whenever it showed itself) if one had some meaning (It doesn't necessarily have to be one single meaning; even a multitude of meanings is fragile) as the main pillar of one's life.

Two leading 20th century figures among atheist existentialists were Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus.

[edit]Theistic

Theistic existentialism is, for the most part, Christian in its outlook, because the way traced by Kierkegaard, Gabriel Marcel, Karl Barth, Paul Tillich and others is even nowadays quite strong. But there have been existentialists of other theological persuasions, like Islam (see Transcendent theosophy) and Judaism. Unlike atheistic existentialists, they posit the existence of God, and that God is the source of our being. It is generally held that God has designed the world in such a way that we must define our own lives, and each individual is held accountable for his own self-definition.

I think it fair to add Agnostic Existentialism here...for those who, well, are agnostic and not sure one way or the other