In the previous post I talked about how far we’ve traveled
away from the time when doing the right thing was what truly made us happy,
until we have become a race that defines right through justifications that
legitimize our own happiness without taking into account how we might be
hurting others. So what happened to
us? It seems we lost our understanding
of logical reasoning and failed to see the flaws, even as we introduced them
into our moral code.
The changes began with an ego flare. This sudden eruption of ego caused us to
question the accepted belief that if the only way to get what we wanted or what
would make us happy was to do the wrong thing, then we didn’t actually want what
we thought we did and it would never lead to true happiness.
All of a sudden we started asking ourselves, “Who said I
don’t really want that or that it won’t make me happy? It seems like it will. So if the Moral Life and the Pleasing Life
are the same, gaining pleasure will not affect who I am morally.” You don’t have to be students of logic to see
the flaws in this reasoning. It’s a
simple transformation from A is a necessary condition for B although they exist
simultaneously, to A and B are the same so when B exists A must also exist.
Luckily, before we’d traveled too far off into the
wilderness, religion stepped in to clean up this misconception. Religious leaders admitted that doing the
right thing wouldn’t always make us happy or get us what we wanted and that it
was indeed a hard path to follow. What
religion added was that despite all this, doing the right thing was still in
our best interests. This was
accomplished by introducing us to the concept of Heaven and Hell. So while we may actually lose what we want
and not be happy all the time in this world, doing the right thing will get us
into Heaven, a very good thing, while doing wrong will send us to hell, a very
bad thing.
But then we lost our footing once again when our intellect
became dominant and faith without proof was no longer enough for us. We entered an era when we believed nothing
was required to earn being happy or getting what we wanted, because we had come
to label these things “rights”.
Everyone had the right to be happy and have what they wanted. So those running around talking about
responsibility to ourselves and others just didn’t get it. Morality was supposed to be natural not
hard.
We’d done a 360, arriving back at the belief that doing what
it took, at least within reason, to be able to experience the pleasing life,
now an actual right for all, was the proper order of things. And since the moral life and the pleasing
life go hand in hand, morality couldn’t really be compromised by exercising our
right to happiness, to advancement, to admiration, to attention, to gain in all
manner of things. Logical flaws, anyone?
Unfortunately, although by this point we’d significantly
shifted our moral code regarding what we believed defined the members of that
magic circle, to the point of overcrowding, we weren’t done yet. We had begun our struggle with what was
becoming the ever expanding “within reason” criteria for what was morally right
and there’d be no regaining control of the reigns in the foreseeable future.
And then there’s the contribution of psychology which
suddenly began to fascinate everyone so they learned just enough about the
topic to create a huge amount of trouble.
As each day passed, more and more psychological verbiage was thrown
around as justifications despite the complete lack of understanding of what we were
holding up as to champion our words and behavior.
And if others were hurt by what we did or say that wasn’t
our fault it was theirs. Entirely blameless,
our moral selves could not be touched. We
created the adage that no one could be hurt unless they let themselves. This allowed us to take it another step
further. Since we weren’t responsible
for others pain, we became convinced it was our moral right to judge, deemed
fully within reason (alas the slippery slope).
However, we also refused others the same right. Thus, any attempts at working through an
issue or problem which entailed the slightest suggestion that we possibly could
have played some part in whatever had gone wrong triggered our defenses. Out they came in full force, disguised by
what were now automatic justifications though accepted as absolute truth.
First, the other was clearly, undeniably wrong. Then came the reasoning or attack showing
just why they were wrong. Their oh so
obviously incorrect position was based on low self-confidence, self-hatred
creating the inability to respond to others in any manner other than hate, lack
of self-esteem and poor self-concept.
Add a few maladaptive coping strategies the individual was clearly using
to cover all this up in particular repression of self awareness and projection
of their negative traits onto others. Now
mix well and bake. What comes out of the
over is the justification of all justifications, “Well, heck that person should
be hurt, needs to be hurt so they can self-actualize.”
While I find I’m still working through this topic, I’ll end
here for tonight, but not before I challenge you to perform one task when you
finish reading this. Don’t worry, it’s
simple, at least on the surface. Take
out a mirror, and look into to it for at least several minutes, longer if you
dare. For some nothing may happen other
than confirming the exercise was as stupid as originally thought; for others it
may trigger something. I can’t say what
exactly, as its specific to each person.
But the results are up to you.
For you will only see what you allow yourself to see. Do you have the courage to permit even a
sliver of the illusionary self we all hide beneath to be revealed? And lest you think I hold myself apart as
being above such things, be assured that you won’t be alone. I’ll see you at the mirror.
No comments:
Post a Comment