Reality, Belief, Awareness, and Action

Desert Landscape

I think a definition of enlightenment I heard recently presents a clue to why we don't make changes that would make our world better.  Simply, enlightenment is seeing reality.  Unfortunately, that search is like looking for water in the desert.  Reality is difficult to see.  Reality is colored for all of us by our past experience and beliefs.  Reality is only in the present, not in the past or future.  And reality requires being open minded, not closed minded with absolutist certainty.  Reality requires that I accept everything I believe may be wrong.

I really know little if anything.  I have various theories about reality, but many of them are wrong.  I really don't "believe" anything.  I think some things are correct, but often I am wrong.  I am almost certain that most strong belief systems that people use for a sense of superiority and belonging to one group or another are probably wrong.  Whether beliefs are religious, political, economic, or philosophic; belief limits awareness.

Belief leads to a mind like concrete, "all mixed up and permanently set."  If I am Christian, conservative, Buddhist, Jewish, capitalist, environmentally conscious, socialist, atheistic, authoritarian, democratic, Machiavellian, loving, peaceful, warlike, whatever; I limit my consideration of ideas that conflict with my stated position.  I diminish anyone who challenges my stated position, and I create conflict.  I'm right and you're wrong are the basis of most belief.   Ultimately, because of this duality I sever connections with others to my own and others detriment. 

I suggest that we all live in our own perception of reality.  Mine is wrong for you, yours is wrong for me.  But our myriad differences if allowed can create harmony, not agreement, or common belief, but harmony.  Most belief systems that prevent this are acquired from others, not self developed.  To be authentic, we must reach our own conclusions after honest introspection,hard thinking, and consideration of opposing views.

The core quandry stems from perception of the character of man.  Is man bad or good?  I sense that mankind is inherently good.  If mankind is naturally good not bad, then we do not need to be saved, enlightened, educated, improved upon, or forgiven; and all efforts to do so are misguided at best or self serving deception at their worst.

If I believe false information and base my actions on it, I will get poor results from my efforts.  Cause and effect can only be estimated with an open mind.  With a closed mind, reality is an illusion.  I may get a feeling of belonging to a group of similarly closed minded people.  We're right and the rest of the world is wrong.  In reality, we are all alright already, good enough, and know what we need to do for us right now.  We don't need higher consciousness.  We simply need to honor ourselves first, not last.

Rather than hero worship of gods, sports legends, things, or other idols; we should honor our self, not diminish our self.  This reduces our emotional upsets, gives us a feeling of importance, and prepares us to take action in line with our personal best interest, with confidence.  If you must worship or exalt something, worship your authentic self, exalt your authentic self, and all will be well with the world providing you see that others are naturally entitled to the same self esteem. 

No one who loves you can demand that you be diminished.  I percieve human sacrifice is an anathema, perpetrated by misanthropes.  It is the belief in self sacrifice that causes the lack of action to improve our world.  We are divided against our own best interests by distorted logic that deceives us into acting for others benefit at our own expense.  This blinds us to the natural course of action that we will see clearly as our birthright when we awaken from the worlds' collective trance of altruism and self sacrifice.  If we are ethical and honorable, acting in our own best interests will benefit everyone we interact with.  This enriches all parties unlike the current status quo of harming one person to help another.

"To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I'.  -  Ayn Rand

James T. Hitt


This quote is here primarily to remind me to consider other's opinions.  Very often, they are right!

"The problem with smart people is that they like to be right and sometimes will defend ideas to the death rather than admit they're wrong. This is bad. Worse, if they got away with it when they were young (say, because they were smarter than their parents, their friends, and their parent's friends) they've probably built an ego around being right, and will therefore defend their perfect record of invented righteousness to the death. Smart people often fall into the trap of preferring to be right even if it's based in delusion, or results in them, or their loved ones, becoming miserable. (Somewhere in your town there is a row of graves at the cemetery, called smartypants lane, filled with people who were buried at poorly attended funerals, whose headstones say "Well, at least I was right.")

Until they come face to face with someone who is tenacious enough to dissect their logic, and resilient enough to endure the thinly veiled intellectual abuse they dish out during debate (e.g. "You don't really think that do you?" or "Well if you knew the <insert obscure reference here> rule/law/corollary you wouldn't say such things"), they're never forced to question their ability to defend bad ideas. Opportunities for this are rare: a new boss, a new co-worker, a new spouse. But if their obsessiveness about being right is strong enough, they'll reject those people out of hand before they question their own biases and self-manipulations. It can be easier for smart people who have a habit of defending bad ideas to change jobs, spouses, or cities rather than honestly examine what is at the core of their psyche (and often, their misery)."   Scott Berkun