Fate, free will and all that jazz

Okay, so I know I haven’t written in a while. It’s not that I haven’t wanted to, mind. But between the business of life, illness, and family obligations, writing somehow fell by the wayside—which is sad, when you consider it is one of my greatest joys in this world.

So, why return to writing now? Well, I was very gently nudged by a sweet friend and I couldn’t say no—especially since it’s Christmas, and she expressed the sentiment that my writing something would be a gift.

She probably sensed that my muse was on a long holiday, so she prompted me to write about a particular topic. Even as I write this bit right here, right now, I have absolutely no idea what I’m going to say.

So, there it is. For better or worse, here it goes.

The topic given to me was life. It’s a pretty broad topic, isn’t it? There’s so much to say about it—what can you say about it? It just sort of...is. So, in her infinite wisdom, my friend narrowed the subject further by asking me to expand upon how fate and freewill affect life.

Basically, I believe in both. But that sounds both contradictory and stupid, so I’ll have to explain.

My beliefs are a mixture of a thousand different faiths—some I’m pretty sure I’ve made up myself—science, and the philosophy of others who’ve lived before me. (I’ll always believe the past holds the key to the future.) So, when I say that you can have both fate and freewill, I’m very, very sure of it, partly down to my view on existence itself.

To me, the universe might as well be infinite, for there is so much we don’t know about it, and there will always be new things to discover every microsecond of every tiny Earth day. So, you have this universe and it’s in flux and it’s ever-changing.

Then, I believe, there is a higher power. Whatever you call this power doesn’t matter. You could call the power God, Vishnu, Allah, Thor...it really doesn’t matter. In the Bible, God refers to God’s self as “I Am That I Am”. Now, before you freak out and go, “OMG, she’s getting religious and attempting to indoctrinate me”—I’m not. Not in the least. Rather, I want you to think about the infiniteness of that name, “I Am That I Am”, and how it applies to the universe, a higher power (if you believe in one), the world and even you yourself. “I Am That I Am” means that I Am is infinity itself. There is no beginning, no end, no gender and, most importantly, no limitations. That is what “I Am That I Am” means. God is all. The beginning, the end—and everything in between. To me, God is the universe, God is in you, and me—and in my personal belief, God existed before any of this and created it all, so the laws of nature don’t really apply for one outside of all this nonsense.

I believe what many Christians call God the Father is a creator, an ouroboros that exists outside the normal laws of our universe. I Am That I Am exists outside of reality. I Am That I Am uses the aforementioned name because I Am existed before anything else—particularly the concept of names—ever did. (Therefore, when God says “I Am That I Am”, God is not only referring to God’s name, but also God’s function.)

That is why I always sneer when people put limitations on God. They make God out to be a small, hateful man. My God is infinite. My God can do anything. My God is All. By thinking for myself, I somehow have the most complete faith, despite what purists of most religions who are reading this are probably thinking, because I truly believe that God is everything and infinite and can and does do anything.

So, why am I bleating about God anyway if this is an essay on the influences of fate and freewill? Simply, it’s a nonscientific way to explain a very scientific concept: we live in an existence where so much exists beyond our world, billions of billions of galaxies, holding more stars than anyone could ever count. And the further away you look, the longer ago it is. And when looking at the past, we see we can’t really change it. Stars exploded. Galaxies collided. It’s highly likely civilizations far greater than ours lived and died a thousand times over. And there is NOTHING we can do to change it. We can see the past so vividly—we can even see the Big Bang that started it all—but we can’t touch it. It’s gone. It’s not coming back. (Well, not until time begins again—but that’s for a different essay.)

Murphy’s Law goes something like “Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong”. Let’s expand upon that and accept this very strict fact: Anything that can happen, will happen. We are not limited to the bad. As stars die, they are born. A couple gets divorced, another marries. The universe craves balance, I think, otherwise it’d simply be too unstable to exist, or at the very least support life such as ours.

Again, the past is gone. But each second we’re alive, we’re careening into the future. And there’s the point: each decision you make is one foot through the door into the future. You’re in a never-ending hallway and life requires constant decision-making until the day you die or lose your mental faculties—whichever comes first.

And that’s when we start thinking about fate vs. free will. A lot of people like to divide it thusly: If God exists, fate rules, and there is nothing we can do about it. If there is no God, we’re on our own, and free will reigns supreme.

The universe isn’t black and white. It’s one, big, giant in-between place. And people, in their small thinking, with their small God and tiny science, like to think their way is the only right way. Religion and science can be mutually exclusive—true. But spirituality and science are the best of friends. Religion is a practice, a ritual, that you do to make sure that you’re in The Club—the “I’m going to heaven” club or the “I am a pillar of my community” club. Spirituality is where you accept that the limitations that man puts on God are just plain stupid. You can be a Christian and realize that God has no limitations. Likewise, you can still be an atheist (which is often stricter than most religions I’m aware of), and realize that the universe is still full of amazing wonders that are bigger than us. And whether you want to build a religion around those wonders is your business. (Considering you’re an atheist, you probably don’t—and that’s okay.) But you make the universe—which you are a big part of—so small by denying that there are things bigger than you, things we think are magic now, but we’ll call science just as soon as we actually understand them.

In my thinking, because God is many-faceted and limitless, and the universe in which we live—the laws of which govern us all—are part of the great I Am, everything is possible. Thus, fate and free will are not mutually exclusive, just as science and spirituality are not.

Now’s when the science happens:

Okay, so, say I make a decision. I decide that I will take the bus to Nashville. On the surface, it seems like that is that, big deal, whatever, etc. And that’s true, if you want to think with limitations (which so many people seem so fond of—amateurs).

There are actually many factors regarding my prospective Nashville trip. First of all, I could decide not to go. And I have lupus, so that’s very possible. That is Universe B. (Universe A is where I went to Nashville.)

Because I didn’t go to Nashville, I stayed in my home town. If I call the doctor because I feel unwell, that is universe B1. If, instead of calling the doctor, I decide to “wait and see”, that is universe B2. In universe B1, after leaving the doctor, I need to have lunch. I could either make a sandwich at home or pick up fast food. If I pick up fast food, that is universe B1a. (Making a sandwich would be B1b.) Let’s say I go get fast food. It could either go well (B1a1) or I could get food poisoning (B1a2). Let’s say I get food poisoning. I could be fine (B1a2a), or I could need to go back to the doctor (B1a2b). If I go to the doctor, he may send me home with anti-nausea meds (B1a2b1) or he may admit me into the hospital (B1a2b2).

Do you see how the choices begin to snowball? Simple minds would bring it back to the lupus thing and say because I didn’t go to Nashville I eventually ate a bad cheeseburger. If I had just sucked it up and gone to Nashville, I might’ve gotten a different cheeseburger at a different restaurant in the same franchise and had been fine. They would say, because it didn’t turn out that way, it was obviously my fate to have food poisoning. Sucks to be me.

But since I laid out to you the path it took the hypothetical me in these multiverses to get to that one specific universe where I got food poisoning, can you honestly say it was some preordained thing that someone, somewhere, decreed I had to get food poisoning? No. Logically, if there was someone out there that decided I needed to get food poisoning for some reason regarding fate, the path would’ve been much simpler, with far less variables and input on my part.

However, in that hypothetical scenario, it was indeed my fate to get food poisoning. Why? Because I made a bunch of decisions that tied together that culminated in that catastrophe. I had free will. I could’ve done so many things differently prior to the decision I made whether to get lunch out or go make a sandwich at home, and each one would’ve resulted in a different universe, each universe a descendant of that one where I decided whether or not to take a bus to Nashville.

Every action has a consequence, driving you to make another decision until you wind up at some point that is enough of a roadblock to feel like “fate”. (Whether that is a pleasant roadblock or not is really not the point.)

 

So, do I believe in fate? Yes. Do I believe in freewill? Yes. How can I believe in both at once and get away with it? Because, in my infinite reality where all things are possible, they conspire together to make life happen, propel it forward and just...do things. Without their synergistic relationship, we’d all stagnate. And that’s never any fun. 

My Response to Montgomery's Raid on Education Funds

My response to HB159 and HB160 (two attempts by Montgomery to legally raid the Education Trust Fund and use the future of Alabama's children as corporate leverage):

 Raiding the education fund is not only a slap in the face to students and teachers alike, but it also sends a clear message that Montgomery wants to dumb down their future voters as much as possible, so they get away with more stuff like this. It also proves the Republican agenda is not one that advocates a better life for its people, but one that wants to give kickbacks to the rich, while trodding on the backs of innocent children and hardworking educators. Shame on Montgomery.

HERE is a petition to stop this travesty. Be a human and sign. It may not stop it -- this is a red state -- but it shows you're one of many who thinks this is bullshit. And that alone is worth taking the minute out of your day it takes to sign this.

And it's funny -- big government is bad only when it's federal, right? That's what's so ironic.

My post to my Congressman in regards to the piracy bill

And here it is:

As an American it is my legal right to freedom of speech, and expression. This law takes away from my fundamental rights as well as those of any other American, including yourself. I would personally never endorse a member of Congress who would even consider backing this bill. I don't know anyone else who would either. It is wrong; it is unjust.  

Instead of diminishing our rights as citizens of this fine nation, please work with your colleagues protect us and our domestic freedoms. We depend on you to do the right thing.  

The second the Internet is censored is the second we become a nation with conditional freedoms. That is not what the founders of our nation would've wanted, and that's not what any of your constituents would want either. Please think of us, we who depend upon your representation of our interests, in regards to this matter. 

And then it was signed, and yada, yada, yada. There are petitions and other things. This is how I sent my little letter. And it also gives better info than what I just did.

Facebook "rape pages": beyond tasteless jokes

One current event issue that hasn't been getting a lot of press in America, even though it involves Americans, is the Facebook "rape" pages. What do I mean by Facebook "rape" pages?

Personally, I would like to link you -- just so you can see with your own eyes -- but Blogger actually has a TOS thing about even linking to hate pages. And that's exactly what the "rape" pages on Facebook are. So, instead of linking you, if you haven't seen them, I want you to Google the phrase. You owe it to your sisters, girlfriends, wives, and mothers -- and most especially YOURSELF, if you are a woman -- to know what this page is, because only then you will see that it's not just a joke.

Because that's the thing. When I first read about this issue, it was a link someone posted on Twitter through a feminist website. So, I didn't take it seriously. I'm not what you would call a "feminist". I shave, bathe, and I like it when men open the door for me. Because the thing is: I'm a Carrieist. I think I'm better than everyone else. And as for other women -- I don't think they're equal to men: I think they're better than men. I mean, we birth them, change their diapers, cook for them, do their laundry and -- all the while -- most of us work full time jobs just like they do (only for less pay). So, not only can we do whatever men do, we can do more. And when we do what they do, we usually do it better.

So yeah. While women are better than men, I am better than all humans. Obey me. And obey me when I say men would be nothing without women and should worship the ground women walk on.

But the people from the Facebook page: "You know shes playing hard to get when your chasing her down an alleyway" don't think so. In fact, they think women deserve less respect than inanimate objects. I mean, after all, they don't rape people's cars or chairs, do they? But it's okay to rape women, according to them.

But who is "them"? According to this article from The Telegraph, the author of the rape page is, apparently, a British schoolboy with ties to British, Australian, and American hackers. People offering support to this page and pages like it are called in this article and others "cyber anarchists". But that's wrong. See, calling them "cyber anarchists" implies that they are exercising an anti-government philosophy and using these hateful pages to demonstrate that in a free society, they can say anything -- even this.

But no. No, no, no, no, no. Any true anarchist knows that anarchy means you don't want other people to rule you; the implication is that you, yourself, as a human being, have the innate moral compass to move about in society by doing no harm to others. That's what actual anarchists believe. All these "I'm gonna do whatever I want because I'm an anarchist" shitheads aren't getting it. They corrupt a non-violent philosophy and use it as a platform to do whatever they want -- and doing what they want isn't a good thing, judging by the rape content on these pages.

Another thing: the page I mentioned is rife with grammatical errors and if there's one thing I know, it's that the only thing that has worse grammar than a 13-year-old American schoolboy is a 13-year-old British boy. And that's what's scary. This screwed up little kid claims he's just joking. But the fact that he thinks this is a joke -- which I rather doubt -- is in itself not okay. And what's also not okay is the fact that this page is attracting real sexual predators. It's a fact. Real predators are visiting this page and it's become a meet up for them.

And what happens if you let people on the page know you disagree? Well, read the article by The Telegraph. Though, I find it very pathetic that while I blog and Tweet using my real name, this kid -- and many of his cohorts -- don't even do that. They are cowards. They have to hide behind the internet to say these things, because they're scared of what would happen to them, scared that people would hate them, if people knew who to blame. If you can't say something and put your name on it, you don't have a right to say it at all.

So, why does this page even exist? Simply put: Facebook loves getting the ad revenue off of it. It gets a lot of hits. That's why, even though this and pics of breastfeeding both violate their TOS, the pictures of breastfeeding gets taken off -- not because a partially exposed boob is more offensive and not because it's okay to publish hate stuff about women. Really, it's because Facebook is so freaking greedy that they will allow a page to violate their own TOS provided it brings in a shit ton of revenue. Because that's the thing folks: no one but a close circle of family and friends cares to see your breastfeeding pics, but people love to see something that's horrible whether they agree with how bad it is or not.

So, instead of saying "Facebook allows this because they hate women" we should be saying "Facebook allows pages that promote hate and violence to women as long as it makes them money". And that, my friends, is the real issue here.

And still, we all use Facebook because we can't be assed to go back to MySpace.

They're OUR Bitches: My View on Politics and Why it Should Be Yours Too

Democracy as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

1.a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Could it be any clearer? Let me break it down into modern terms.

We hire politicians via voting. We pay them (far too much) via taxes. We are their bosses; they are our employees. But it's more than that. We hire them to represent our interests on a national level, because all of us doing it at once, in person, would be far too confusing. And since they are specifically hired to do our bidding, they are, in effect, our bitches.

But everyone seems to have forgotten that. Instead, when they vote somebody in, they think they're voting for an autocrat that rules them and makes their decisions for them. If you think a democratic government rules you, then you need to read the definition (several times if need be). Instead, the real point of a democracy is that we, the people, create an administrative body to represent us on a national scale. They do our grunt work to keep society flowing smoothly. Laws should be for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Any law that tells you what you can read, who you can talk to, or where you can go, what you can wear -- that's a dictatorial law of an autocratic fascist and you really shouldn't even listen to it, because it came into being by your bitch (aka politician) usurping the job you gave them for their own agenda.

Now, I don't mean to tell you what political party to believe in. That's not why I'm here. The reason I'm here is to educate you on how a democratic society works and to tell you -- whatever your political affiliation -- that in a free country, you are the boss.

It's time for us, as Americans, to take our country back. From this moment on, I challenge any and all politicians to go to work for me, for their people, and not themselves. And I challenge the American people to remember their place, to remember that you rule this country.

We live in the best country in the world. But it often doesn't seem that way. The reason is this: We forget why we're here, what our ancestors fought and died for. We forget that this was supposed to be better, we forget that we're supposed to be the best. Anyone not willing to stand up with me and adopt this philosophy is already beaten and you might as well just go ahead and lay in that hole in the ground, waiting for them to pile the dirt on you.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think my little blog post can effect overnight change. But I hope that this idea takes hold, that you share it with your friends, that they share it with theirs, and eventually Americans, on a massive scale, are reminded why we are here and of the power they posses.

So, be a human and pass this on. If you don't pass this on, I assume you like being the bitch of your bitch and I'll remember to buy you a blindfold, gag, and some fuzzy handcuffs for Christmas, because you're apparently going to need it.

Hey you! Be a human: the compassion post

As I was eating my breakfast yesterday morning, I stared at the battered, lifeless corpse of former Lybian dictator Muammar Gaddafi, and had an epiphany: people really don't recognize the moment that they become hypocrites.

I firmly believe the rebels had a right to be pissed. And they had a right to oust Gaddafi. All people deserve to be free and live in dignity, served by (not ruled by) a government of their choosing. But when I saw Gaddafi all battered and dead, I realized something even more harrowing: the rebels had become Gaddafi. And isn't that the way it goes? We turn into the thing we hate, because instead of rising above it, we think to give it a taste of its own medicine.

I was talking to a friend on Twitter yesterday. And, in the midst of my disappointment and shock, I actually said something wise and mature: "The only right way to fight oppression is to fight smarter and better and righter -- not violenter." Violenter is not a word, but the rest are, and I think I made a good point: our evolved brains are supposed to give us the ability to rise above of oppressors mentally, physically, and -- most importantly -- emotionally.

As people opposing Gaddafi's ridiculous autocracy and ethnic cleansing, the rebels' main job was to get him out of power (and hopefully not tear the country to ribbons while doing it). That was their original goal. But then, how do you explain Gaddafi's battered body yesterday? Easily: it was hate. It was anger over him and everything about him and the fact that he was the enemy. Why is it that hate is the most human trait there is, yet it's the one we're supposed to rise above? But that's the thing: every human, no matter what their beliefs or culture knows that hate is wrong. They know what it does. They know that hate festers until it's all there is. Fear is the mind-killer, but hate is the soul-killer. We all know it, but we still let it get the best of us.

Overwhelming anger and passion is the only way an average person could actually go through with killing someone. (Psychopaths and sociopaths obviously operate differently, but we shan't go into them now.) But when you're full of hate, you change. Killing becomes less of a big deal. It becomes less justice and more vengeance, and you've probably forgotten the real reason you were angry in the first place. That dudes who were parading Gaddafi's corpse were all like "Fuck yeah! We killed that sonbitch!"

Yeah, you killed him. Now what?

Because that's the thing: killing him during a raid is just vengeance. You showed everyone (especially Gaddafi) that you were pissed off. But you forgot why. If he was put on trial and had a sentence according to the local legal system, the whole world would've seen why the rebels were angry. They would've showed everyone that Gaddafi's a bad guy, he did bad things, and they refuse to be ruled by that. Execution under law is a political and social choice of a people. But Gaddafi was just killed out in the streets; what was done to him, he'd probably had done to others in the past, but that doesn't make it right.

And, when you kill someone: you just became a killer. You just became the thing you hated. The bullied became the bully; the beaten child beats his children. And that, my friends, is the worst kind of hypocrisy there is.

But with all that said, I sincerely hope the Libyan people find peace, because they deserve it. Everyone does.

The one where I say things to piss you off: My view on Steve Jobs' death

I wanted my first post to be something lighthearted and altogether more exemplary of what the majority of this blog will be like -- but that's not going to happen.

Unless you've been frozen in carbonite , you've probably heard the sad news that Steve Jobs passed away two days ago. And yes, it's very sad news. He was a genius, relatively young, and he died way too soon. My deepest sympathies go out to his loved ones, who no doubt miss him very much. (And I really do mean that.)

But, do you see what I did right there? I reacted normally to the death of a stranger whose work I respected; I reacted normally to the death of a fellow human being. But what's getting me is all the abnormal reactions other people are having. I'll elaborate.

I first heard about the news on Twitter. Like the rest of my generation, I find it much quicker to read a 140 character or less tweet about said event than to watch CNN anchors drone about it six hours before they actually get to the point. And, since I learned about this sad news on Twitter, I had the unique opportunity to instantly see the reactions of everyone who was commenting on Jobs' death. The first couple of condolences were normal, sober, and well-expressed. (i.e "I'm very sad to hear about the passing of Steve Jobs.") But as I continued reading, it became apparent that people who never even knew Steve Jobs were freaking the fuck out. "OMG. I can't believe he's dead!" -- which is, granted, rather normal.

And I get that. Everyone reacts differently to death. And the death of someone you look up to -- even if it's someone you've never met -- is very hard for a lot of people to wrap their heads around. You know, I can understand it. And with that said, I can move along to my point.

There is a line between being upset (including very upset) about the passing of someone iconic in their field and between turning that being upset into a yuppy trend, a bandwagon for others to hop on just so they can feel included in this tragedy. Further more, I saw a lot of celebrities who probably didn't care one wit about Steve Jobs tweeting vehemently about his death. And I mean, I can't say that with a categorical certainty -- that they didn't care -- but I can say that a lot of them seemed to be using it as a platform to get attention. That is Thing Number 1 I saw very wrong that day.

And then there is Thing Number 2, which I found even more disturbing. And it may seem like a small thing to a lot of people, but just humor me, follow along with my thought train for a moment, and THEN see what you think...

When I was reading through my Twitter feed, I saw a tweet done by Alyssa Milano:

This tweet came after a usual sort of sympathy tweet, where she spoke her sentiments from her heart. This tweet however, is merely a well-meaning gesture that's actually rather shallow. And what thought did this tweet provoke in me? I thought to myself: Why is she using her celebrity to get her followers to do a tribute to someone who's already died when she could instead be using it to raise awareness for the disease that killed him? 

I have lupus. Right now, I'm doing rather well and I'm grateful for that. But I've nearly died from it before. And if I ever did die from it and I was looking down from above, I would want a celebrity to use their power and influence to help save others from my fate via raising awareness, charity work, etc. My spiritual, spectral self would probably appreciate sincere comments, but empty gestures? Just no.

And I want to make it clear I don't think Alyssa Milano was doing this as a purposeful thing to gain attention for herself. I mean, she could've been -- I'm not her and don't know what she's thinking -- but whatever the motive, I wish she knew that a better, more meaningful tribute to Steve Jobs would've been something to raise awareness. After all, one of the greatest things Jobs is known for was his innovative spirit. He saw the world going forward. He saw new ways to look at the world, to make daily life easier, to make entertainment more entertaining. And since he had that way about him, I think a greater tribute than an empty gesture would be to carry on his message, you know? For instance, helping solve what caused him to die -- even in a tiny way -- is an innovation. And aside of the tribute aspect, I think, even in death, he'd want the rest of us to use every opportunity to just keep moving forward.