I, Hypocrite

Hi. I posted this some time ago. I figured I would repost it because I think it is a worthwhile read.

====

I am a hypocrite. Yes, little old me, waxing philosophical is a stupendously foolish hypocrite. But is that bad?

I think most people would regard that as bad, but I’m not sure I agree—at least, not always. Let me explain.

Hypocrisy is usually defined as saying that someone (usually someone else) should do one thing while you go about and do the exact opposite.

One of the most common forms of hypocrisy (and perhaps the most infuriating) is moral hypocrisy where an individual claims to embrace a moral code they do not practice. But what if they try to practice that moral code and simply fail? For example, what of the Christian moral code? The most striking thing about the Christian code is how high and demanding it is. In fact, it may be so high and demanding that no one can live up to it. Hence, the accusation of hypocrisy can be leveled at all Christians. But if Jesus was divine as He claimed to be, then the source of the code He left behind for His followers is also divine. And if it is divine, it may very well be the case that no one can live up to the code. Does that make the code useless? No. It can still serve as a goal to strive for, but one accompanied by the understanding that it can never be fully reached. As men and women strive toward the code, they will necessarily improve, morally speaking, but they will never reach perfection. They will be hypocrites, all of them, but non-threatening ones. So, I would classify that as a kind of justified hypocrisy.

There is another form of hypocrisy that is inherently justifiable: that of hypocrisy by experience. Basically, in life we learn things—call them life lessons, if you will. Such life lessons may serve to change our behavior as we grow older, because we learn, morally speaking, that our previous behavior was bad by some measure. For example, suppose a woman at a young age gets pregnant and has an abortion. She comes to regret that decision and counsels others to not have abortions. Is she a hypocrite? In some sense, yes, but if you acknowledge that experience can change a person and teach them valuable lessons, you will realize that sometimes hypocrisy may simply indicate that a person has learned something of value and wishes to pass that knowledge on to someone else. And passing knowledge on to the young is not only a great service to those who make up the young, it is also a duty of those who are older.

Anyway, by both these measures, I acknowledge that I am a hypocrite. I’m not going to share the full list of all my particular failings with the world because that would make me feel uncomfortable; still, I feel inclined to acknowledge the simple fact of my hypocrisy. I leave others to their own self-reflection.

Yes, I tried to defend hypocrisy. Did I succeed? I’ll let you decide.

Advertisements

The Mandela Effect and the Return of the Dead

Okay, a lot of people seem to be aware of the Mandela Effect on line. It first started happening to me in 1997ish, possibly 1998ish shortly after my antichrist experience. I still insist it is the handiwork of Satan/Mara/Shiva/Etc… (the sentient, evil universe). I think you can get a better handle on it if you remember all those times you said A to a friend who heard you say B. Both of you insisted the other was wrong, but you were, in fact, both right. It’s basically the same thing. Both you and your friend are trying to reach each other, but Satan is getting in the way.

A lot of people think it is shifting dimensions, but it isn’t really. You are you, and there is only one of you. What I think is happening is that “we” aren’t skipping through dimensions collectively at all. “We” were never in the same “dimension” to begin with. It’s kind of like an extreme form of perceptual relativism, but it is because Satan is responsible for manipulating our perceptions.

Anyway, my more important point concerns death. I believe people have “died,” but instead of going to heaven or hell (although some did go to both of these), they split off and entered another “dimension” (although dimension isn’t quite the correct word). Satan produced a body for us to grieve over and inflict pain upon us.

I don’t mean to get anyone’s hopes up, but I’m thinking that for some of us, loved ones whom we have believed to be dead may return via the Mandela Effect. They are still alive living in a reality where they saw us die and be buried. And since Jesus’s Second Coming is happening, He’s undoing the dimensional splits so that we will, ultimately, all wind up in the same dimension.

Anyway, that was one of my thoughts. I hope it doesn’t get your hopes up too high, if you have lost someone. I don’t mean to be cruel.

Love and prayers to Everyone. Satan (lies & truth, yin and yang, and nature) is a Liar, and Jesus Christ is the Lord.

The Mandela Effect and the Return of the Dead

Okay, a lot of people seem to be aware of the Mandela Effect on line. It first started happening to me in 1997ish, possibly 1998ish shortly after my antichrist experience. I still insist it is the handiwork of Satan/Mara/Shiva/Etc… (the sentient, evil universe). I think you can get a better handle on it if you remember all those times you said A to a friend who heard you say B. Both of you insisted the other was wrong, but you were, in fact, both right. It’s basically the same thing. Both you and your friend are trying to reach each other, but Satan is getting in the way.

A lot of people think it is shifting dimensions, but it isn’t really. You are you, and there is only one of you. What I think is happening is that “we” aren’t skipping through dimensions collectively at all. “We” were never in the same “dimension” to begin with. It’s kind of like an extreme form of perceptual relativism, but it is because Satan is responsible for manipulating our perceptions.

Anyway, my more important point concerns death. I believe people have “died,” but instead of going to heaven or hell (although some did go to both of these), they split off and entered another “dimension” (although dimension isn’t quite the correct word). Satan produced a body for us to grieve over and inflict upon us.

I don’t mean to get anyone’s hopes up, but I’m thinking that for some of us, loved ones whom we have believed to be dead may return via the Mandela Effect. They are still alive living in a reality where they saw us die and be buried. And since Jesus’s Second Coming is happening, He’s undoing the dimensional splits so that we will, ultimately, all wind up in the same dimension.

Anyway, that was one of my thoughts. I hope it doesn’t get your hopes up too high, if you have lost someone. I don’t mean to be cruel.

Love and prayers to Everyone. Satan (lies & truth, yin and yang, and nature) is a Liar, and Jesus Christ is the Lord.

Explaining the Mandela Effect

Perhaps I am just humiliating myself with this, but nevertheless, I will continue.

For those that don’t know, The Mandela Effect is something a lot of people have been noticing lately; it consists of one’s memories of past events not lining up with the “official history” of reality. It gets its name from the fact that thousands of people remember Nelson Mandela dying in prison sometime in the late 80’s or early 90’s. But according to the official history (supposedly Reality), he died a few years back and Obama caught grief at his funeral. There are other examples, like the thousands of people who remember the Berenstain Bears as the Berenstein Bears, or what have you. If you are interested in the topic, check it out on the Internet; for myself, I found out about it on Youtube.

A number of explanations have been put forward by various people: the advent of quantum computing is causing dimensional shifts in our Reality, to the dawning of a new New Age consciousness, to the birth of Super AI.

The reason I am bringing it up is because I wanted to give my own explanation. And, since I believe I am the antichrist, my explanation goes back to Satan. As I’ve said elsewhere, I believe the universe is Satan and Satan is the universe. It doesn’t matter if you call him Satan, Mara, Kali, or Santa Claus, when you look out your window, his is the face you see. That is, the universe is both sentient and evil (Check out my book “Delusions of Grandeur,” if you want more on that—not that I intended to plug my book in this post). Basically, Satan is kind of a pantheistic wanna-be deity, while the real God is a Transcendental Deity. I believe Jesus’ Second Coming is imminent and that He’s in a kind of tug-a-war with Satan for both me and the rest of the inhabitants of the universe. I’m trying to do what little I can do to help Jesus (No, I am NOT consciously on Satan’s side despite the fact that I am the antichrist) win that contest.

Anyway, I believe that Satan believes that Power is what makes God God. However, I believe Love is what makes God God. I like to think Jesus agrees with me, but I’m the antichrist so, I don’t know and I’m always operating with the notion that Jesus is going to blow me away sometime in the near future. Anyway, since my “antichrist experience” where I came to the conclusion that Satan was the universe, I came to believe that Satan enjoys toying with us. Have you ever had the experience where you’ve said a word (say “green”) to your friend and you are absolutely convinced that that was the word you said, but your friend is convinced you said something else (say “blue”)? It is a trivial thing, but both of you are absolutely convinced the other is wrong. I’m convinced that it is possible that you both are correct. You said green, but somewhere in the transition from you to the other person, Satan interfered and twisted the word around to blue. Why does Satan do this? Well, one, he enjoys messing with people. But two, its also due to his arrogance. The whole fiasco is a little hint he’s giving about what he’s done to us (turned himself into the universe, invented pain, suffering, and death), and he thinks we are too stupid to ever figure that out. The Mandela Effect is basically the same thing; he’s in control of what we normally think of as “objective reality” and he messes things around for basically the same reasons.

Once upon a time, I was very much dead set against relativism. Nowadays, I think our universe is kind of relativistic (in the relativism sense, as opposed to Einstein’s relativity sense—not that Einstein was wrong, or anything). My perceptions are my perceptions, and I have no way to perceive anything beyond them, except maybe with thought I can deduce mathematical truths. Anyway, you’re in the same situation. According to me, I could look at a blue road sign and perceive it as blue. You could look at the same sign and perceive it as red. And Satan would be responsible for the disparity. It can even get more dramatic. Imagine two ships on the ocean sailing along. One circumnavigates the globe. The other falls off the edge of the flat earth. (I know, I just lost everyone there) Satan is responsible for both.

The Mandela Effect is basically that principle applied to our experiences. I could go on, but this post has already gotten longer than I intended it to be. Satan is a Liar and Jesus Christ is the Lord. Love and prayers to everyone.

(Just wait until people meeting for lunch manage to meet each other on different days of the week. That is, Bob meets Jim for lunch on Tuesday, but it is really Thursday for Jim. I think that may be coming. Ta-ta.)

On Equality

What is equality as it applies to people? There are different types. One type of equality is equality in identity where two items are said to be equal only if they are identical. Such a form of equality, when applied to humans, would mean that everyone looks exactly alike, has the same strengths, abilities, and weaknesses. There’s not even room for gender. It is really quite boring and obviously not the case. Humans embody variety. As such, they cannot be considered identically equal.

Another form of equality is equality in treatment. This is basically an exhortation on how humans relate to one another. Basically, they should treat everyone the same. This is a more interesting definition of equality. It can apply to one-on-one relationships, in which it morphs into the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It is essentially a religious maxim. It requires a conscious and deliberate decision of the individual; and it is not a government thing. In fact, it would be bad for the government to try to impose a religious maxim like the Golden Rule on its population; such would violate the first amendment.

The next form of equality to be discussed concerns how the government treats different individuals of its population. In this case, we have Equality Before the Law. The rich man is treated the same as the poor man (the Founders believed in this). According to this approach, if you take 20% of the income of a rich man for taxes, you should do the same for the poor. We don’t do this anymore, having opted for a more progressive tax structure. There is more to this, of course, than money. For example, legal penalties. If the penalty for murder is a life sentence, it should not matter if the murderer is rich or poor, black or white, male or female, or what-have-you. Lately, our society seems to be more concerned with equality as it applies to economics. The terms income equality and income inequality are tossed about. But I’ll get to that in a minute.

First, related to income equality is the Equality of Economic Opportunity. This is an ideal that can’t be realized. Life is too full of chance and strange occurrences for this to occur. Rich parents implies better opportunities. Medical mishap implies poorer opportunities. Etc…. I think equality of economic opportunity is a goal worth striving for, but one should never make the mistake of thinking you will ever be able to achieve this and thereby sacrifice rights and freedoms in your pursuit.

Lastly, is the Equality of Economic Equality (that’s kind of repetitive, isn’t it?). In this case, everyone’s income is controlled by the government and is precisely the same. This is a species of socialism (or maybe communism) which has been tried in the past (and currently) usually with disastrous results. In a world of individuals, needs and wants vary. One man might be fine with $1000 a month, another might require $10,000. Variety is necessary for a healthy society. I’m not a fan of governments controlling incomes, for a number of reasons.

Anyway, those are my brief thoughts on the various species of equality.

Invisible Theft

I had a thought. I’m not really sure which category I should place this post in, but as I don’t have an “Economics” category, I’m stuck putting it in my “Politics” category. Basically, I want to say that, for the most part, I am a capitalist. Capitalism has its faults and weaknesses, but I believe it has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system out there. Is it perfect? No. But I think it is the best economic system our species has developed to date.

That said, I think it is worthwhile to point out … limitations or errors or weaknesses inherent in the system. Back in college I had a friend who was a dedicated socialist. One day, we were just talking and he said something like, “Locke gives you the ‘Labor Theory of Value’ and he takes it away, just like that. And I can show you where, too.” That’s when the light bulb went off for me. As a philosophy major I never studied economics, so the term ‘value’ had a different meaning for me. But after a moment’s reflection, it became apparent to me that my friend wasn’t referring to anyone’s hierarchy of goods or anything like that; instead, he was focused on money. Basically, he was saying that money is backed-up by labor. Money is labor, and labor is money. Or so my friend might say. I don’t think I necessarily agree with that in its entirety for a number of reasons, but it is worth reflecting on at least for a few moments. I call it the socialist point.

Basically (remember: I am not an economist, so I could be flubbing this point entirely), the socialist believes that the real currency that runs our economy is labor. The money you are paid for when you work is meant to compensate you for that labor. Hence, money represents labor. And that does seem to have some merit. After all, it would be exceptionally difficult for the economy to run without any labor. Without labor, nothing is done, and ultimately, everyone starves.

Once you make that connection, the socialist’s problem with capitalism should be easy to recognize. Pick the CEO of any major company. He is paid far, far more than any person in the lower ranks; yet, if you remove the labor from the company, the company ceases to exist: It cannot exist without labor. The socialist says that the company produces only what its labor force produces. Hence, its labor force is responsible for all of the company’s profit. Yet, it is the CEO who reaps the greatest reward.

How is that possible? The simple answer is that the CEO has power. The rank-and-file do not. The CEO benefits from a better strategic position in the company than does the average laborer. As a result, he can fire laborers who complain and there is little the laborers can do about it. So, the CEO—who seeks his own self-interest first—earns a big salary because the laborers produce a valuable product that earns a substantial amount of money. From that money, the salary of the CEO and the laborers is taken, and excess profit is put back into the company or maybe paid out to shareholders (who contribute nothing to the actual product of the company—their only value is that they provide monetary fertilizer to fuel company growth from time to time). The socialist is basically saying that the laborers are directly responsible for the profit the company makes, and yet, they never see a dime of it. Their labor has been stolen to produce it. Since, labor does not constitute a visible thing, such a theft is an invisible one. The labor/money taken from the worker is never seen.

So, the socialist feels fully justified in using the government to “steal” the money back from the wealthy.

I’m not sure I wrote that clearly enough, but I think it encapsulates a critical component of socialist thinking. For myself, I think socialists win a point, but not the argument. There are a number of counter-points to be made, none of which I have space for. Things like money shouldn’t represent labor, but rather accomplishment (I think—and only in a macro-economic sense). Intelligent decision making should be rewarded. Freedom should be promoted. And individual choices have consequences. And I’m sure there are many, many more, but, like I said, I don’t have space for them all.

How Do You Get To Heaven? By Your Own Actions or By The Will of God

How does one get to Heaven? Can your actions influence such an event? Or is the end result totally dependent upon the “Will of God.” I’ve read numerous times in numerous Christian books that it is not our actions that get us to Heaven. Only the “Will of God” will land us in the eternal realms of paradise. And that has always been a sticking point for me. I have a number of difficulties with traditional Christianity, but this is one of the bigger ones. It is almost like what we do in life doesn’t matter, according to traditional Christianity.

I remember hearing once (I think it was on EWTN) that living a good life was a necessary condition for entrance into Heaven, but not a sufficient one. Necessary and sufficient: those are the key words, philosophically speaking. Fortunately, I studied philosophy and mathematics in college, both of which used the terms “necessary and sufficient” as they are used here. And I thought it would be pretty simple to explain, but I just spent thirty minutes trying to explain it here on my blog and wound up deleting everything to spare you the confusion. Dear Lord, I hate brain rot.

Anyhoo, back to Heaven. Upon reflection, I don’t think the issue about Heaven is really a big deal. Will you get to Heaven, if you live a good life? I’m inclined to think the answer to that question is “Yes, you will.” Yet, does God have the final say? Again, I’m inclined to think that yes, He does. The way I see it, it’s up to God to decide who gets to Heaven and who doesn’t. However, the reasons God uses to determine this involves how you lived your life. I suppose it’s possible for someone to live a good life and have God decide not to let them in, but if that happens, I’m sure God has a pretty good reason, although what it may be is far beyond me.