My Ignorance Defines Me!

In my early 20's, while I was in prison, I remember explicity realizing that I was defined more by what I didn't know than by what I did know. I remember thinking, "My ignorance defines me!" And I have often said as much since.

But, what does that mean? It's really rather simple. We are defined by our limitations, not our capabilities. If you think it depends on your perspective - as in, is the cup half-full; or half-empty? - then you're missing the point. The cup is not defined by its contents, but by its ability to place a limit upon its contents.

When we become aware of something, that knowledge becomes a part of us. And, it changes us. Which is to say, that the knowledge changes our "definition". But, the knowledge itself existed before we became aware of it, so it doesn't change. Only we change. But, if the knowledge (i.e. fact, reality, etc... whatever you want to call it) doesn't change, and yet our definition does change, then what has changed?

What changes is our ignorance! Something we were ignorant of becomes known to us. And thus, some of our ignorance is lost (be sure not to confuse ignorance with innocence here, they are not the same at all(1)). And it is this change in our ignorance that changes us, and changes how we are defined.

This is an important realization, because it helps us to genuinely respect our ignorance, and our limitations, rather than falsely boast of our knowledge and our capabilities. If my ignorance is less than another man's ignorance (i.e. I know something he does not) then realizing how we are defined by what we don't know rather than what we do, lets me more easily realize that my "knowledge" does not make me superior to the other man; it only changes my ignorance.

Being less ignorant is not the same as being superior. It is like being less blond, or less handicapped. It may give me some advantage, but it does not make me a better person. Of course, the same thing is true about having more knowledge. But, if you realize that all knowledge is really only the absence of ignorance then you might better be able to see that all people are fundamentally defined by the same thing; our ignorance.

(J.D. August 30, 2015)

Notes: (1) Ignorance is the act of ignoring something that may otherwise be known to us. So, ignorance always involves some effort, usually on an unconscious level. But, innocence is simply the absence of judgement, and hence requires no effort. So, in a very real sense, innocence is exclusive of ignorance; you can't be ignorant and innocent at the same time.

The Carcinogen of Justice

Throughout history, "law" has never been anything more than a social mechanism for protecting the interests of those with money. As such, it does little or nothing, and commonly less than nothing (i.e. by making things worse), for those with little or no money. This is as true today as it has ever been; and you needn't just take my word for it. Many books have been written detailing this very principle - written by highly respected and well known social analysts and philosophers, such as Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault, not to mention historical greats such as Nietzsche and even Plato (1) (though I am forced to admit that most of these don't put it in so blunt of terms as I have).

People are conditioned to believe that without law, society could not funcion. In fact, the "rule of law" is considered one of the five factors that give rise to modern society (amoungst trade, agriculture, organized religion/government, and writing itself), if I remember my history correctly (and correct me if I'm wrong, but whatever error I may have made here will not effect my point: that we are taught that law is a prerequisit of society). I won't argue this point; society, as we know it today, certainly depends on law, much as a cancerous tumor depends on certain DNA sequences that are copied from one cell to the next.

My point? Perhaps laws, as we know them through history, are the very mutation in the natural sequence of human developement that promotes our unchecked population growth and consumption of natural resources. And, along with other mutations that promote societal developement (religion, etc...) this sequence of social events supports the unstable growth of the human population in the same way that a set of DNA sequence mutations promotes the unstable growth of cell populations in people who have cancer. It's not only possible, but even highly probable that I am right.

So, expecting the "law" to somehow "cure" itself, is a fool's gambit. It could happen, of course; after all, some cancers do manage to cure themselves, don't they? I just wonder what the odds are!

(J.D. August 30, 2015)

Notes: (1) According to my philosophy dictionary, Thrasymachus, who inspired Plato's philosophy of justice (i.e. "law"), defined Justiced as the "interest of the stronger".

The Problem With The Idealistic Life (The Christian Fantasy Life)

Christianity is a fantasy-based religion. Everything that Christians claim to believe (but don't really believe, judging simply by how they typically behave) is based on romanticised ideals that have little or no basis in reality. I challenge any Christian to show me otherwise. They might try pointing to their Bible as “proof”, but the problem with that is pretty obvious, especially given the academically established questionable origins of everything in it, not to mention the ridiculously fantastic and contradictory content.

So all Christians ultimately fall back on the “belief”-argument. They say that “God tests our faith” and demands (according to their Bible..) that we believe what “He” tells us to believe (according to their Bible..). But, if we believe in something that directly contradicts our experience and irrefutable evidence, then that's not belief at all; it's make-belief! And the only reason psychologists don't call Christians delusional is because they make a specific exception when defining delusional thinking that says if a person believes what their peers believe, no matter how much it contradicts the evidence of reality, then it is not a “delusion”. The DSM (the standard “Diagnostics and Statistics Manual” that all psych-doctors use for diagnosing mental illness, which I am quite familiar with because of the “competency” question in my death penalty case (I)) does not say what such fantasy-based-belief actually is (they only say what it is not..). They very carefully avoid defining it at all because the only definition that fits would be “mass delusion”, which wouldn't make the DSM very unpopular with Christians.

Of course, the problem with delusional thinking is well-established and documented. If you live your life according to beliefs that are not based on reality, then you must either spend a lot of time and energy defending and compensating for all the discrepancies that arise, or suffer the consequences. Ultimately, of course, the consequences, and all the blame for the consequences, ends up getting projected onto people like me, the “sinners”, or “demons”, or just “evil” in general.

So the idealistic Christian life is not only a fantasy and a lie; it is the source of more pain, suffering and misery in this world than hell itself could ever contain; it is the very crucible of hell! And that's why I criticize Christianity so often. It is not because I hate them, or judge them. I am only trying to expose their hypocrisy, and the hellish consequences of it.

[J.D. August 26, 2015]

Notes:

(I) The man who literally wrote the definition for “delusional thinking” in the DSM actually testified at my competency hearing a couple of years ago. He told the court that because my beliefs were not practiced by any known religious group, they were delusional. Since then I have found numerous writings that reflect and support what I believe, but as this man said, no organized religious groups; thank God!