Bradezone

There are three principles which I believe are vital for living a life that is satisfying: empathy, balance, and loyalty. I use the term satisfying to mean the various positives that one might use to describe such a life: successful, virtuous, self-actualized, finding inner peace. I have considered the value of my three principles for a while now, partly because time is the best indicator of the veracity of my belief, and partly because I desired to communicate my ideas about them in some grandiose fashion worthy of their supposed importance. Such essays, as many of us know, take time to formulate. Right away I must acknowledge that one of the most presumptuous things a person can claim is to possess the keys to a happy life, and I hereby announce that this is not my intention. There is, after all, frequently a disconnect between theoretical abstractions and real life. And at any rate, I have not set out to discuss these three attributes primarily—they merely serve as a framework for what I really want to discuss, which is that the human condition throughout history is largely resultant from the mind’s natural inclination towards single-tasking.

This is roughly as difficult as keeping our own lives in proper balance

In plainer terms, I could be guilty of stating a self-evident truth—we act the way we do because the mind behaves the way it does. Yet I believe this simple insight helps explain several facets of human behavior, and indeed highlights the difficulty of adhering to one set of principles at all times. The very concept of “balance” that I hold so dear necessarily depends on the consideration of opposing viewpoints. I am quite aware, in fact, that the other two principles I mentioned, empathy and loyalty, are themselves two sides of the same coin.

The human mind has been aptly compared to a computer, and the similarities occasionally run deeper than many realize. Computers have had the ability to multitask for many years now, yet upon closer inspection one notes that the central processor merely devotes a number of “clock cycles” per second to each of its tasks consecutively, granting the illusion of handling several things at once. In the days before it possessed multiple processors working in tandem, a computer’s “brain” had to be nimble enough to switch tasks quickly and effectively. Such is the case for a person’s mind, and barring the potentially grotesque emergence of multiple brains of our own, this nimble handling of our collected information is the challenge we perpetually face.

Since even our best attempts at multitasking are illusory and we are thus bound to varying intervals of single-tasking, one can begin to explain an array of naturally occurring human behaviors: mood swings, the power of persuasion, becoming distracted, practice makes perfect. The mere fact that one line of thinking can overwhelm and eventually dominate someone’s mind not only describes the experience of addiction, it also gives rise to the tendencies that manifest as homicide or even genocide. Such domination of a single idea or fixed set of ideas could also describe religious zealotry and its frequent nemesis, obsession with pop culture.

With this essay, I feel that I am arriving at a synthesis of my previous philosophical musings, a unified concept of the human experience that is admittedly basic—perhaps a result of my own predilection towards pragmatism and common sense. The implications of these thoughts are that the cynic and the optimist are both right. While I am forced to concede that tragedy in all its forms may always be part of the plight of mankind, I also know with utter certainty that through the convergence of our individual efforts and serendipitous timing, we the people can continually inspire others, and ourselves, to greatness.

I hope to say more of the principles of empathy, balance, and loyalty, in due time. But perhaps it is best that we simply consider the words themselves and what they mean to us. Our single-tasking minds would surely do well to recall them often.

There we were, all seven of us, discussing the salient points of G. K. Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man—the distinctions between mythology and philosophy, or the motivation of a soldier during war, or how strange the life of Christ must have appeared to an outside observer. And before the evening was done, we found ourselves debating matters more tenuously connected to the book at hand—the merits (and shortfalls) of Catholicism, or why the American revolution succeeded where others had failed, or the importance of stewardship and ethics in agriculture. It was just the sort of exchange of ideas we were hoping for when the plan for “The Applebiters” was hatched only a couple of months earlier. Some clues to our purpose may be found in the original email I sent out for it:

Greetings to all,

Do you remember the joy of a puffy pan pizza as your ultimate reward for a personal dedication to reading? Then you remember Book It! The edible bonus was of course secondary to the personal enrichment you must have felt after blazing through such classics as “Superfudge” and “Five Children and It.”

Recently it has become apparent to me that we would do well to recapture the spirit of this bygone era by establishing such a stimulating reading programme for the upcoming year. I have run this idea by a few of you already, and I’d be honored for as many people as possible to take part. Essentially I would like to establish an agenda of reading 12 books over a 12 month period, and holding a meeting each month for discussion and general merriment—so yeah, a Book Club. At the end of the 12 months, we could then decide if we want to “renew the contract.”

…

But the big thing is keeping it informal. These are just ideas, and mostly I want it to be dang fun. And I want it to be low-pressure. Don’t feel the need to read every page of every book if you don’t want. Pick out the parts that seem intriguing and be on your way. I want this to be something we will be quite glad we did when we look back on it.

Drawing obvious inspiration from The Inklings of Oxford, the goal for our group was similarly informal and straightforward. And thanks to the recommendations I received from the others, we began with arguably the best possible selection by reading Chesterton’s famous work, which was even regarded by C. S. Lewis as a chief inspiration for his own thoughts on Christianity and history.

Chesterton is the sort of witty and enthusiastic writer that anyone would do well to emulate, even if you don’t agree with his philosophy. For my own part, I can’t say that it was so persuasive that it changed my mind forever about any one thing, but I must agree that its stated mission was accomplished. Written in response to H. G. Wells’ The Outline of History, the book aimed mainly to demonstrate just how unique is this religion called Christianity—how it cannot be subject to simple studies in comparative religion because of the special claims it makes, and how Christ himself must not be merely admired as a capable moral teacher when he balanced those teachings with specific proclamations about his deity and his life’s purpose for all of humanity. It is a convincing case, and the author chooses to make his point by framing man’s entire history around those outrageous events in the Roman Empire two millennia ago, when mythology and philosophy were finally joined, and the course of history truly changed drastically. Jesus spoke aptly indeed when he said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”

It is not my place to convince anyone reading a summary blog post of anything contained in the book, so I would merely encourage each individual to read it for yourself, as you are at least guaranteed to be entertained by such a sweeping look at the world’s past. And from so grand a starting point as this tome, any reader could then springboard to any number of subjects. For The Applebiters, we’ve got our big sticks ready for this month’s entry, The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt.

The following is an essay I wrote in October 2000. I felt quite strongly at the time that I had crossed an important bridge of thought in my own mind, and I have since thought about these writings many times over the last decade and how they still truly shape the way I approach life. In many ways this is the foundational essay for everything I have written on Bradezone, and I have decided to republish it today since I have been considering very recently the dichotomy of individuality and assimilation—a subject I hope to write about soon enough.

Above all else, I try to make decisions based on logic and common sense. Many people corner themselves into doing things solely because most others do them or solely because most others don’t do them. I see both of these as entirely simplistic, even though the former faction thinks the latter weird and freaky whilst the latter thinks the former mindless and shallow. Those who show up at the school prom because “everyone’s going” are just as flawed in judgment as the person who gets multiple piercings and tattoos simply to “stray from the norm.” This has led to a situation wherein I am the guy few understand most of the time, even though theoretically I should be the easiest to understand. People have sacrificed so much of their potential because of their concern for how others perceive them—the one type wants to be loved, the other type wants to be hated. Why not live based on your own sound judgment, without regard for the reactions of others?

I have an idea for an invention called the Discussion Light. It would be a light on a bracelet or necklace that people could wear to indicate whether they want to be talked to. Green means I want to be talked to. Red means do not talk to me right now. Yellow means I do not care one way or the other. Good idea, right? Then we could avoid all those stupid times where we say “hi” to someone just because we know them. I am a guy who does not need to be acknowledged every time I see a familiar face. Unless we have something to discuss, let’s not waste time with a meaningless conversation. This could also apply when you see someone you know in a store, restaurant, or doctor’s office. With the Discussion Light, awkwardness is avoided.

The above is an example of something that would be considered odd by many people, even though it is a fabulous concept. I am a person with immense confidence in myself, whilst fully recognizing what my limits are. Any reluctance to share ideas comes not from a lack of self-confidence, but from the knowledge that everyone has not adequately trained their minds to react without pretense and predictability. It’s like laughing at a sex joke. Are you laughing just because sex is being mentioned, and you do not want to be deemed a “prude” or “religious right” by not programming yourself to laugh regardless of the actual existence of humor? Or are you laughing because it genuinely is funny? Here we have the perception issue again.

We have been called a selfish society, but in a way we are only selfish in the wrong way. We all seem to be immensely unselfish when it comes to formatting our personality based on who we are around. This is precisely the occasion where we do not need to make such a sacrifice. Our society uses the catchphrase “be yourself,” but they seem not to have the slightest idea what it means. To most of them, it simply means “be rebellious, make people mad, be different for no reason other than to be different.” Until this simple-minded and incorrect thinking discontinues, our world is stuck in Lameness Mode.

I am someone who manages to get along great with others by actually “being myself.” No, I won’t laugh at 99% of your sex jokes. No, I won’t go to that party with you and enjoy a beer or two. No, I won’t rent a tux and go to a formal with you. These are things that have proliferated not because of any logical reason, but simply because society feels they need a few things to proliferate in order to be considered a society, regardless of how truly dumb said things are. It is all part of crafting our “culture.” Ah, now this is a loaded word, and one I tend to despise. Culture mostly applies to the predominant behaviors of a society, but the vast majority of these behaviors become predominant for the reasons I mentioned above—simply because society is always feeling this need for a common behavior rather than a preference for autonomous thought. It is here where I could dive headfirst into religion, and describe what kind of common behavior is the intended ideal for humanity as a whole, but I am all too sure I would receive resistance from someone who is too “open-minded” for me. Be aware that society’s current definition of open-minded actually teeters between closed-minded and half-minded. Thus I will leave this topic at present.

So are others important? Absolutely. I have an intense affection for humankind. I want to see them happy. But our current society is set up in such a way to guarantee that will not happen. The concept of rebellion as voiced in such loaded terms as “open-minded” and “be yourself” depends on the perpetual existence of a large faction of society to “rebel” against. Rather than seeking to throw off our simplistic concepts of “culture” and actually attempt to reach a true harmony in humanity’s existence, we are still too wrapped up in the wrong kind of selfishness. The kind based on a primitive sort of competition. The kind based on a few being better than the rest. The kind based on excess, without regard for the condition of others—be this in the form of actual contempt for those others, or the idea that someone else will take care of those others.

For reasons mentioned in my long-lost essay The Final Echelon, this world is not designed for perfection—death and harbored emotions are the key reasons. Our intellect and basic emotions must coexist. Far too often we use the terms “what I think” or “my opinion” or “what I want” without realizing that our intellect and emotions often conflict with each other. What seems to be what you want may simply be what one aspect of your self wants, but not the other. A million problems have been caused by this lack of recognition—in fact, any problem not based on pure accident. Having sex prematurely, taking your first drug, killing someone—all these are based on what your immediate emotions told you that you wanted. You failed to engage the intellect. In the opposite way, the intellect can override the emotions of love and compassion. You may not logically see the need of saying a nice word to this person or buying a gift for that person, but emotionally you know it is right. Without emotion, we may not have murder or rape. But we would also not have laughter, crying, joy, and contentment.

This leads to the obvious conclusion. The world is based on balance. A balance of selfishness and unselfishness. A balance of intellect and emotion. A balance of culture and individuality. The problem with our society is merely that different people place far too much emphasis on one or the other in each pair. I do not claim to have figured it all out myself, but by recognizing the problem and keeping my eye on the solution, I feel I am making adequate headway.

My main fault is communicating with others as though they possess the same mindset as I have. That is why I have previously used terms like “scum,” “pathetic,” and “poison-tipped thumbtacks” while addressing others, when I definitely should not have. If that person were another me, he or she would take no offense, recognizing that I said those words out of my perception of their relative insignificance. But this tendency must be tempered until all of us are on the same page. In the meantime, I would best be served by writing something like this very document, which attempts to relate my thoughts to any and all readers.

I still hold out hope for humanity. Maybe we will learn to exist together without war and disregard for each other’s feelings. But in the ever-important spirit of Balance, I must also realize that we could simply continue to fail.