The Romance of Reason

What does the word "reason" (in its noun-form) conjure for you? Does its factual connotation denounce or pronounce its value, for you? Does it present itself with a face of arrogance, or perhaps a discord with creative thought? Does it pop, or does it fizzle?

In conversations about the topic of reason, with those in favor of and opposed to secular thought, I often get the feeling that reason lacks romantic appeal. For clarity, I am suggesting that romantic appeal is the sentimental capsule for love, hope, kindness, and empathy. That being said, its as if reason, or a belief in concepts that evidentially align with fact, are worse for the wear because they protect reality, rather than foster mysticism.

Upon thinking about this, my natural instinct said to form a case against the romanticism of belief in unreasonable and antiquated concepts. But, like in any debate, the more time one spends dogging on the opposition, the more likely the opposition is to close their mind and put up a barrier. So, I'm going to fight that instinct and spend your valuable Internet-time bolstering a case for the romance of reasonable thought. Herein:

Creativity is a rich, often therapeutic way of seeing and thinking about existence, and beyond. Its a medium of thought that allows the mind to either break from the restraints of our linear life path, or at the very least, loosen them a bit. Creativity often translates into art of many kinds. Its safe to say that we all find value in the art of language, canvas, invention, sculpture, sustenance, etc. Even when intangible and metaphorical, creativity can bond individuals because its a forum for subjective thought. Fact is not required; fiction is as welcome as any other characteristic.

Creativity can translate to fact, especially when it comes to invention. It does not have to remain in dysfunction with fact. Before planes became the norm, the idea of flying like a bird was a radical idea reserved for dreamers. As we all know, it took creative, innovative minds to discern that flight is possible, and can be factually diagnosed. This can be said for a number of staples in our life today, from unlikely food combinations to space exploration.

However, the inverse of its ability to translate into something factual is its ability to remain fanatical. Creativity more commonly translates to fiction. I will not give examples or go into detail, because we can all reference stories, books, and tall-tales that exemplify creative genius, but have no home on the plane of fact.

We harbor adoration for this type of creativity. It may be in the form of a child's imagination. We do not fault a 6-yr old child for thinking that whales could flap their tail and fly out of the water into the sky. In fact, we find it cute! It demonstrates a richness of the mind, and a stage in learning. Creativity can be beautiful, even when naive. It cultivates a random, spontaneous thought and molds it to the taste of the thinker. For those in my age range, it can turn ordinary turtles into pizza-loving crime fighters, with a giant rat sensei. That's entertaining!

Drawing you back to my original point, when advocating reason as it relates to pious or secular topics, the romantic appeal of fictional creativity is at play. Its romantic to think that one has a relationship with an unknown, unspoken deity and is both nothing and everything, simultaneously. Its romantic to think that a spared life in a brutal car accident is an act of God. Its romantic to believe that we have an individual purpose on this planet, one that nobody can take away from us. This is fictionally creative because we have no evidence to suggest that any of this is true.

Reason becomes flat and unappealing. When arguing that the pious individual is simply talking to himself, that the spared life is nothing more than a complex physics equation, or that purpose on this planet is to reproduce like all other living species, those speaking on the behalf of reason look like a Debbie Downers. I can see how this is the case, because we are trained from our youth to be creative and romantic. Art and music are staples in most school curriculum, and excelling in these fields brings about local, if not national honor.

For this reason, I posed the question about how the word "reason" resonates with you. If it boxes you into a mindset of textbooks and science tests, take this opportunity to adopt a new likeness:

Reason is one of the most rich and personal concepts that we are fortunate to experience. It blends the past, present, and future of our experience and emotions. It is dynamic and honest. As individuals, do we not seek honesty before deception? Is it not more appealing to know what IS, rather than what ISN'T likely? Factual creativity is more useful in our adult world because ideas turn into inventions, such as airplanes.

This is not to say that fictional creativity is useless. It is not. Its a catalyst for our youth. But, as our concept of reason develops with age, it is criminal not to apply it. It is criminal to allow child-like creativity to guide our understanding of this life. As children, we were spurred towards creativity because of its catalytic and developmental value. However, as adults, we would be better to apply this creativity to music and art, and separate it from our existential opinions. Ignorance towards reason as it relates to religious thought is an allowance for fiction...the same fiction the guides our youth. Ask yourself: as much as you may love your child, would you allow him or her to repair your car, operate on your spouse, or explain the laws of physics?

Now, if a child was diagnosed a genius of the functional sort, would you allow a him or her to conduct any of these activities? What separates a genius from his or her peers? ...the ability to reason at an age when reason has not generally developed. The ability to learn, more quickly, how reason dictates our being is a prime characteristic of a child-genius.

The indisputable answers do not always lie in reason, but the likelihood does. The absolute truth is not available to any of us, but it leans towards reason. Reason is an ally. Reason does not yearn to deceive you. Reason is clear and sunny in a sky where religious manifestations cloud. Reason offers free thought in an existence that perpetuates irrationality through child-like religious ideas. While many succumb to this romance of the religious imagination, reason awaits your better judgement.

A Rolling Rant...

I abhor Rolling Stone magazine in this musical era. The magazine has few rock musicians on the cover (undertones about the lack of presence of "rock stars" in today's music), and now dotes on general celebrity figures…politicians, movie stars, etc.

They have an article per magazine that is solely charged by the left-wing propaganda, and this comes across as equally guilty as Fox News in skewing facts around their agenda (which is a huge bull's eye for them)

The advertisements are extensive, and to top this hate-sundae with a bitter-cherry, they took away the vintage, thin paper material and over-sized dimensions that made it stand-out when I was a younger lad. I used to have cut-outs of rock stars and rap moguls throughout my room, locker, and folders, back in high school.

But, that being said, I still receive it and read it, depending on the topic. The most recent RS has Adele on the front, whom I understand is fantastic. I am not familiar with her music, but I’ll have to dig in a bit, as I understand that she incorporates a lot of piano. At this point in my musical-taste-progression (which is ever-subject to change and mood), it goes 1. Piano, 2. Harmonica, 3. Guitar.

Anyway…RS is tough for me to appreciate, but not impossible.

This issue has an interview with Bill Maher. OK, yes...I am VERY biased in his direction, so sift thru my elation as you see fit. The article was great. He generates in me vigor to be more pronounced in my views, and rely more consistently on what I believe to be all-too-often a concept loss in translation: simplicity. Where common-sense and comedic wit cross, you will find Bill Maher. Some may not enjoy his aggressively jaded views, but they are jaded on conceptual simplicity, which does not get its fair shake in today's world.

If you get time, read it...its a 5-minute read. I laughed aloud for portions of it. For instance, he was asked about his support towards legalizing pot, and says that its partially a personal benefit to his life, and partially "a great way to save a metric fuckton of money." I want a metric fuckton of savings…sounds beneficial to mine and the lives of many Americans.

Now that I think of it, RS has been on a roll, putting Ricky Gervais in the previous issue, with his unforgiving satire and distaste for effusive religious motivation (better said, he hates everything about the religiously fervent).

I'll leave this rant with a few old RS covers that evoke better times in RS history, and musical history alike.

Pragmatism Lost

Ted Williams, the "Golden Voice," has made a gluttony of appearances in various media outlets in 2011. Most recently, he was on The Today Show, answering viewer emails about his career path, family life, future plans, and his struggle with addiction. Formally on the streets of Columbus, OH, he has now been through addiction treatment and continues to do voice-over work for commercials and other media circles. This new found sobriety and lease on life has been a public inspiration for others who have found themselves stuck in the mud of self-loathing.

When asked about the key to actuating his new exhilaration, his response was simple: prayer.

Before reading this blog piece, most of you are aware of my views on prayer. If not, you can read my previous blogs and understand the springboards from which I bound. Knowledge of my stance assumed, I am asking for your consideration on the relationship between an addict's daily plight and Ted's key to remission: prayer.

We have all seen the reality shows that follow the life of addicts, celebrity and otherwise. According to doctors, addiction specialists, and addicts themselves, the urge to relapse never goes away. For some, it does not even diminish. In order to promote a remission and maintain hope for a healthy life, a daily struggle with addiction is the hand that one has been dealt. One must avoid associating with enablers and avoid contact with addicting habits of all kinds (alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex, etc.).

This is where prayer comes into play. Prayer is both a spontaneous and regimented act that allows you to separate from the reality of your being at the best and worst of times. When you are feeling susceptible to relapse, you pray for holy support. When you are succeeding with your daily goals and avoiding temptation, you pray in thanks. Either way, the doomed state of incessant conflict that addict specialists and doctors alike have drawn out for you is still what constitutes your being. It is still waiting for you.

For addicts, prayer is used to hide from the reality of your chemical being, because it disassociates your body from your soul. In this capacity, prayer has value. The body of the addict is weak, and prayer is the crutch that keeps it up. Near scientific-consensus says that an addict is prone towards chemical and psychological addiction no matter what he or she does to avoid it. The only lessening medicine is the concept of communicating with a body and soul that is NOT inflicted with this illness.

Let me make this abundantly clear: I see value in prayer when it functions as a crutch for the chemically weak. It breeds hope, and gains momentum with time.

Let me make THIS abundantly clear: Prayer's positive effects on the weak do not support its value within the reality of existence. An atheist can pray, without contradiction, if he or she feels that it is a force that separates the weaker body from the stronger soul. Like a child's imaginary friend, creating a support network is a known function of the mind.

By means of the Old Testament, many fundamentalist trains of thought on religion, and to an extent Milton's Paradise Lost, prayer is the weapon by which the Godly stave off The Devil. Within an addict's reality, this makes sense. An addict can manifest an epic if it means that he betters his existence as a result. In no way, however, does this support the need, truth-value, logic, or larger-scoping benefit of prayer, or religious piety.

Those that have an addictive nature are also prone towards a sensationalist and imaginative one! Addictive personalities do not only suffer from a raging desire for substance or action, they suffer from holistic instability. They suffer from the conceptualization that the reality of their actions can be separated from the reality of their consequences (immediate harm to themselves or others, disease, financial loss, etc.). In other words, they are good at being addicts, and good at justifying it. They have an imagination that supports their habits, both in the realm of addiction and their grasp on reality.

In this regard, Ted and Charlie Sheen have something inversely in common: They both let addiction drive their reality. The inversion is that they are driving in different directions. But the operative vehicle for both is the imagination. Pragmatic in their day-to-day cycling, the addict forms reality around a step-by-step program (be it in remission or relapse). Each individual's program separates him from the reality of his being. That is my primary point.

House of the Holy

"This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us - whatever we ask - we know that we have what we asked of him." (1 John 5:14-15) From what I understand, a prayer is a personal praise or request, intended for an omnipotent being or other consciousness. Is it safe to make this broad assertion for the sake of this conversation, or is it necessary to breakdown the individual techniques, styles, and versions of the prayer concept? I mean, there are people that state prayer to be an internally aimed directive, or a socially-bonding inspiration (see: Jonathan Edwards). Whatever the case, I am going to understand it as a communication to a being or consciousness other than oneself, intended for the sake of personal therapy or miracle. So, what makes a “successful” prayer? When players are holding hands, praying for a field goal that pushes wide-right, is success measured by a miss (see: Scott Norwood)? When someone prays for the well-being of a loved one with cancer, is success the annihilation of the ailment, or is it the process of a relatively quick and painless passing? At Easter dinner, when the family gives thanks for the food before them, no matter how bountiful, is the fact that there is an acknowledgement of appreciation a success?

"We must be our own before we can be another's."

I have heard about and considered the idea that "love" does not exist. Love is a chemical reaction. Love is an emotional crutch that we can liken to anything else that provides us with a security blanket. This basic tenant of the human experience (as well as that of many animals) is a fallacy. I was reading about this idea last night, and at first it came across as crass and overly analytical. It doesn't matter if its a chemical reaction, or if it demonstrates a fault in confidence or character...its still a great feeling, and one that I can't imagine living without. However, if I bounce the initial thought of a loveless existence off my idea of our purpose in this life, which is strictly scientific and evolutionary, I would have to call myself a hypocrite for buying into the drunken euphoria that is our sense of love. Its no different than considering God's existence for the sake of feeling more orderly and purposeful in life. Unconsciously, this is a common occurrence. I can't expect anyone to consider that any of my philosophical ideas hold water if I bend some rules around my logic for the sake of seeming like a good, sensitive guy within the public mainframe. I would be just as guilty of manufacturing the truth-value of a new religion as those who do so with the Bible today. So, I continued reading. As I read on about this idea, it started to open a new train of thought. What was being explained is that real love is not what it is taken for today. Its not the Romeo and Juliet poetry, nor is it the innate love we possess for a relative. Love is not an outward-motioned sentiment attributed to another creature or object. You don't supply love, and you can't make someone happy by loving them. Love is how you feel about yourself and your place in life. If you develop a reliable sense of love from within, your actions are unconsciously loving. If someone else makes you develop your own sense of self-worth and self-interest, you may develop an affinity for that person. You may seek out his or her acquaintance, and may miss him or her when absence. But, this longing and fellowship is not the essence of love. If we reference the love between a couple, or the Romeo and Juliet sense of romanticism, how does this idea of love relate? Its not very complicated. If you have not developed an adequate sense of self-worth, you will develop a sense of love for your partner similar to that of a drug addict and his next fix. You need the chemical reaction, and you need the security. It may not even be that your partner's finest characteristics are tantalizing to you, but rather that your partner has vowed to honor you, be available to you, and adore you. But, that vow may be the result of various factors, including age, family pressure, lust, or community status. This is what makes matrimony so tricky. The smartest and most sincere people can still get caught up in the whirlwind of romanticism. However, it does not mean that this person feels love in its root sense. This is not to say that love cannot develop with your partner, and reach beyond romanticism. Your partner may have the talent and self-assurance to be an example for you, and guide you (even if unconsciously) towards a better, more loving view of yourself and your life. But, what I think what needs to be considered is if the match is such where these pieces fit. I see this philosophy as so basic in structure (love oneself, THEN, love others), but yet so difficult in action. Take another example...your love for a parent or additional relative. Love is assumed, but I see this as a result of the developmental role in your life. Your mother nurtures you, and your father disciplines you...or vice-versa. They have assisted you in becoming who you are. If you like who you are, you assume a responsibility and undying gratitude for their years of service. You are a shadow being raised in their being, and you appreciate them for this. Is this the feeling of love? Its beyond the romanticism that we feel with a partner, so isn't this nearly a tangible and indisputable sentiment? Is it acceptable to consider that you may not "love" your parents? The feeling you have is an appreciation and likeness for their efforts, but you feel love within yourself for it. The internalized sense is love. If you like who you are, they are credited with having created an energy within you that you will never be able to repay. Their duty was to harness the positive in your life, and allow you to proceed accordingly. In essence, what the essay in question did for me was help me accept that love is not a gift that can be given. Its not an connection between two people. Its an unconscious feeling of value that can be attributed to the development and cycling of emotions. You can learn about love from others, but you cannot receive love from others. This does not de-value the love between people (partners or family), but it removes the tendency to rely on others to give it to you. If you take value in who you are, and move forward accordingly, your relationships become easier to understand and foster. If love is taken as a gift that is exchanged, it becomes susceptible to human tragedies and fauts Its an interesting concept. I hope it does not come across as de-valuing love, because that is not my point. My point is that its not a toy. I still say 'i love you' when the feelings are strong. I still fall into the paradise of romanticism. But, maybe we should conceptualize love as an essence that is not to be handled and mishandled. Maybe it can be thought of as the natural perpetuation of goodness. There are no people, places, or things connected to this.

The Long Arm of the Law

I was thinking about the concept of intent recently, and how it relates to crime and punishment. My knowledge on law-making and the justice system as a whole is quite limited, so I speak from a cloudy vantage point.

How important is intent within the justice system? Can it be a damning factor in and of itself when in a court of law? Can it be an augmenting factor when paired with circumstantial evidence? Because intent is not tangible, and the law tends towards tangible proof, what does intent contribute to a case?

Intent carries a heavy weight with me. An action is preceded by intent, otherwise intent does not exist as a precursor to action because its the result of impulse or instinct. On one side, you have an action that is carried-out based on fear, anger, or sheer surprise. In our justice system, it matters not. The action was carried out, and its mindlessness does not deny its repercussions. Intent, however, is mindful. It demonstrates an awareness of your surroundings and the repercussions of your actions. This carries with it a burden. Its not a mistake when an action is intended.

If we agree that intent is deliberate by definition, then we must consider a crime with intent to be the product of a menace to society. If someone desires to kill, and carries out his intent, he demonstrates that he intends to harm, and will do so again if a similar sentiment arises. Intent leads to action, the combination of the two is exponentially damning.

Can we agree to that? Someone intended to kill and did so...its not just murder, its murder with intent.

This leads me to the concept that I am struggling with...without intent, how should the crime be judged? In the case of a murder, its difficult to determine. With intent, the murder is cold in nature, and the verdict is easy. But, what about the drunk driver that kills a sober driver on his way home from the bar? Initially, you may say that the action was still that someone was killed, and it makes no difference that there was not intent because a life has been lost. Understood...and that is how our justice system works in the vast majority of these cases.

Now, what if that drunk driver was a 40-year old married mother of 3 that had a BAC of .08 because her children were out of town staying with Grandma? What if the drunk driver was a first-time offender? What if the sober driver took an illegal turn, or simply a questionable turn, and initiated the action? What if the other driver was not in fact sober, but had a BAC of .04?

I feel that intent must come into play with a heavy hand. Don't play holier than thou with this scenario...we have all driven home "drunk" in our day. Are you a menace to society? Are you a cold-blooded killer? I realize that something tragic and unfortunate has happened, and a family may be losing a major part of their life with the loss of the killed party. But, does that justify ruining another life, or another family? If the intent to kill is not present, where do we draw the line for incarceration?

You can think about in a few ways...if the drunk driver* was hammered beyond belief, and has a history of this action, it may behoove the courts to consider her a menace to society. Intent is implied (and thus the problem of tangibility) because its become apparent that this individual refuses to respect the laws of responsibility and accountability.

But, if history shows that this person has not been a menace, and the intent was to remain within the law's definition of "beyond the limit," then the court MUST look at things with a microscope. Its not good enough to claim that the law is the law, and she was drunk so she goes to jail. According to that logic, you will throw her in prison in the same cell as a convicted murderer who shot someone point-blank, because they both committed the same crime. This is not acceptable. The law is not perfect, nor is it fool-proof. Its a basis, and we must use it as springboard into logical thinking. We cannot deny our ability to use cognition. We cannot point to a static book of laws and convict accordingly. If that is the table at which you sit, you are irresponsible. It is not acceptable to incarcerate for the sake of legitimizing another life's value. I realize that someone very special to another family has died here. But, our justice system should not adopt the "eye for an eye" mentality by ruining another life...especially when intent is not present. If the guilty party has intent, and is considered a menace, we have a case to convict in order to avoid future disasters. However, if intent is not present, its our duty to unravel the onion and get to the core of the crime.

* The term that has latched itself to someone who drives home with a BAC of .08 (or even .06 at police discretion), is faulty. It implies a mis-represented character. The intent of the term was to make the labeled individual feel so dirty and despicable that he or she would not drive again after drinking. Given that roughly 70% of Americans drink (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/05/people-of-class-drink-alcohol/), its judgemental and likely hypocritical to put on such a facade of classlessness.