I've determined that inherent in an open-minded, easy-going philosophy on life is not an inability, but rather an unwillingness to form an opinionated lifestyle. This is because at the crux of open-mindedness is an admission to yourself that regardless of the views and opinions you create, there is always a chance that the very opposite is true. I say 'opposite' because the laws of relativity invoke the transitory and illusory nature of 'right and wrong.'
Despite what the theists - mono or poly - say, there is no Absolute Truth for which our decision making has a reference point. More interestingly, and something I would really like to expound on in later posts, is my refutation that morality does not stem from this supposed Absolute Truth that was inserted into each and every one of us prior to birth as a DIVINE SUPPOSITORY; rather, is a byproduct of an evolutionary survival mechanism within a societal matrix. Basically what I propose is that morality started as a cro magnon quid-pro-quo of sorts. It's the same principal we see in schools of fish or herds of mammals. In order to promote survival, the individual - even at the most basic and primitive level - identifies that their chances lie within the group. Therefore, the individual is only as strong and safe as the whole of the group. For sake of time, the conclusion I draw is that after several millenia of evolution, what some see as morality from a God is actually a physiologically conditioned sense of right and wrong in order to strengthen the group in order to preserve the individual.
.......................................
Until Chicago begins to thaw and I buy my first road bike, my north-side/south-side cross-town commute will continue in my truck (28 mpg's so get off my back hippies). Sometimes I take Lakeshore Drive, especially when we have temperate weather because nothing beats the coastal illusion and energetically dense sky line. Other times I'll just hop on the loop. Independent of route is the comfort and joy I feel during the transition of bitter cold to the warmth of my cab with the vital assistance of my Silk'd up English Breakfast tea and talk radio. Since I absolutely cannot stand music radio, I have adopted four talk radio stations. I begin with 820 AM Progressive Talk to get a boost from my fellow compassionate, social-oriented libs. During commercials I'll switch to AM 560 to get an idea of the conservative talking points for the day. When I get tired of politics I'll go to NPR, but when I get tired of hearing about the biography of the first librarian or genocide in Africa, I'll resort to WGN 720 and listen to Kathy and Judy talk about soccer mom drama.
It's really intriguing to andectdotally identify the differences between progressives and conservatives (P's and C's) on the radio. My observations are as follows:
-While rates of Christianity among both groups parallel at high levels, C's tend to adopt more of a literal interpretation of biblical text that leads back to my earlier accusation regarding Absolute Truth and morality. P's tend to follow the teachings of Jesus (as I know him; a fictional being who epitomized compassion and socialism and liberalism) much more closely. P's are spiritual in their religion where as C's lack the right-brain ability to introspectively gain empathy.
-C's are much more narrow-minded (probably a result of their skewed theocratic following), much more likely to judge others and much more stubborn. P's are tolerant of differences and view all human beings of equal worth.
-C's tend to be self-centered and hold grudges. P's are socially generous. C's are mine mine mine.
-P's believe everyone should have an even playing field prior to developing a capitalist identity. C's believe inborn circumstance is tough-luck.
Perhaps the most startling and sad difference, which leads into the main point of this post, is that conservatives spew unadulterated hegemony.
The other morning I was listening to the conservative John & Cisco on AM 560 interviewing Bill Ayers, the media declared 'domestic terrorist' whom Republicans tried to smear Obama's presidential campaign with a supposed association. Regardless of Bill Ayers' political and philosophical ideals, his responses in this interview were eloquent, intelligent, compassionate and humble. However, the comment he made that motivated this blog was perhaps the single most prevalent saying I have ever heard, at least in terms of national identity.
Listen to the interview and decide for yourself:
Bill Ayers Interview on Chicago Conservative Radio
I'll end on the following:
"I love the ideals (of our country), and we should live up to them. The difference between a Patriot and a Nationalist is a Patriot says let's live up to the ideals of this great country. A Nationalist says our country is great no matter what it does." - Bill Ayers
