The question:
Why do we feel the need to dominate over our fellow man yet work towards living in a pacifist society?  Can we curve our human nature or are we merely setting ourself up for failure?

From: Lady Curiosity [http://myspace.com/42775217]

My Answer:

It seems the use of domination in human society is a part of natural order. Social scientists would argue that dominance of one person or body over a group is a natural evolution of the structure in that group, and, in a variety of perspectives a person could create an argument that conflict creates dominance, the dominant serve a facilitating function, or that dominance is merely a symbolic construct created by those in power.

No matter the cause of it, the concept of dominance we are discussing is that of its nature to create conflict. In many societies, regardless of the perceived power of the people, a dominant party controls the functioning of that society, and it can be perceived that human psychology would preclude being controlled by another, especially without consent or with the perception of little control over the larger situation.

So, perhaps we can adopt the viewpoint that it's not that we "need" to dominate over our fellow man, but it's a hierarchy that naturally establishes itself. Call it human nature, evolution, or whatever explanation of ingrained psyche one may choose, but it only seems logical that one group should dominate over another.

Now, if we adopt this epistemology, we can ask the question as to how dominance manifests itself. If we take an example like a professor in a position of power over his or her students, it is more plain to see that the situation does not manifest itself in the same manner as, for example, slavery in the early United States. Clearly, in this second situation we find one group, in this case, white slaveowners, dominating over another group, African slaves. In this hierarchy, the lowest level on the hierarchy has very few rights and can't easily be made independent from his "master."

In looking at this extreme example of dominance, we can ask then what could be deemed a proper cognition for those in a position of power. In the slavery example, there is a dehumanizing and a control factor, taking into account the Kantian position that somehow Africans were less human than the white slaveowners. In the professor example, the cognition, at least ideally, is that while the students' rights are somewhat limited, they are not as controlled and should be treated equally. Also, students' rights are meant to be respected and the professor knows to follow certain guidelines, whether he or she agrees with them or not, another exercise in power by someone higher up than them.

So, to abbreviate the above point: those in power can choose how to treat those they have control over. In practice of the duties of one's position, it would seem best to follow a moral cognition that would allow fair, equal treatment to them while still maintaining the balance of power as needed for an institution to be upheld.

Finally, in accepting this conception of how a dominant party "should" act, we might posit that putting it into practice will create more pacifism - if those being dominated feel less threatened, more equal, more in control, then they are less apt to take actions that could create strife within the group.

Thus, while we can't change human nature, it is the responsibility of those in a dominant position to recognize that those in their control are also human and have certain expectations of how they should be treated and act accordingly.

I wrote this a year ago when I was in the midst of depression. It was after this that I decided to move away and reinvent myself. I posted it to gain some perspective on my life and maybe gain a little insight into what I was feeling. I've come to a lot of revelations since then, and now believe I understand my problems with the issues I've facing. I now feel like I have a purpose and have a much clearer understanding of the world.

 

-Mateo

--------------------------------------

Written 4/25/2005:

 

I went for a walk tonight to try to clear my mind.

 

Sitting here in my apartment, I felt I just had to get out to escape from this familiar surrounding and discover what the nighttime neighborhood had in store for me.

 

Here, trying to think, my mind is clouded with responsibilities, possibilities, and it makes it difficult for me to think, create, or imagine.

If I were to best sum up how I feel, it would be that here I am, with all this potential. However, I feel I am wasting it, and am very frustrated with my inability to channel moments of inspiration into something useful.

 

I feel as if I am special, that I have a great goal in life. I defined that goal to live a successful life, living by my standards, and holding myself to the utmost of my expectations.

 

As of yet, I feel like I am not fulfilling that goal. Rather, I feel I am living in the wrong place, doing the wrong thing. I don’t know where or what the right thing is.

 

Sometimes I feel as if I have the potential to accomplish anything, but don’t know where to start. I feel burdened, daunted, and lost.

 

I feel unique. I notice things that set me apart from other people. I have always striven to learn more, to be better. I hold myself to standards I hope will make me an exceptional person.

 

However, oftentimes I feel left out; unrecognized and always misunderstood.

 

Observing modern society, I am disgusted by a seeming lack of order; a general tendency toward self-servitude and a disregard for others.

 

I oftentimes find it very difficult to agree with much of the logic put forth by people.

I imagine things, possibilities;... [End of letter: I never finished writing it]

The question:
If you realize a certain path cannot fulfill you why then would you continue along that path?

My answer:
Because of a necessity to understand others and to learn from them what one couldn't find alone. The world is much larger than one person, and societies couldn't exist without people helping one another.

Above all, it seems that it's more of a sense that it's a duty, a responsibility, and a calling. Following that path, one can never do enough for others to feel like they've made enough of an impact, but perhaps they find contentment knowing they've tried.

-Mateo

The question:
How can we define instinct, or that sixth sense that makes us do things we  know we should do, but can't explain [Like how a specific person catches our eye, and we later find out they play some kind of role in our life]? How do we know what we don't know?

My answer:
Perhaps it's just human intuition driving us to do things or feel compelled to do things we can't explain. It's the sort of thing that makes us choose a different route home one day, to try something new or to feel the need to explore something without being able to explain it. Some people seem to be more inclined than others, more "in tune" with their intuition. Agreeably, there are those on one side of the spectrum who would rather not take the risk and who ignore such impulses. However, there are those on the opposite end, who would rather take the chance - the risk, the opportunity to find out what lies beyond the obvious and explore those impulses, and take whatever consequences or rewards come. That's not to say that one is better than the other, it just leaves one to consider which side of the spectrum he or she lands on.

Can we explain this "sixth sense?" Do we <i>need</i> to? Maybe that question is not as relevant as what we choose to do with this instinct. Do we ignore it, or do we follow it to where it leads us, wherever that may be? It's possible following our instinct may take us somewhere where we don't want to go. However, there's also the possibility that such events could lead one to something new, something different than what one would think their path would lead, perhaps something much greater than a person would expect. John Lennon explored this sort of thing when he said "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." Many of us can certainly sympathize with this sentiment. While we're busy planning the way our lives are going to turn out, things unexpected, both good and bad, tend to steer us in a different direction.

How we take this direction is the key to understanding life and its sometimes serendipitous nature. Do we take it in stride, adapting and seeking to find our place? On the other end, do we try to fight it, harboring regret, resentment, and not allowing ourselves to move forward? Where would you put yourself?

One thing is for certain: we don't know what we don't know until if we don't give ourselves a chance to find out.

-Mateo

Here's my take on the concept of the hero mentality:

It seems to me that the hero seeks fulfillment through fulfilling the needs of others. It's a yearning to find that missing something in their life.

The hero lives for others and provides a sort of selfless devotion that it seems could never be returned to him or her. Perhaps that is what they long for?

What more is there to say.. a simple concept with such complexity guiding it, summed up in so few words.

-Mateo

I wrote a response to a question a friend of mine wrote. She asked:

Why do we fight the path on which we must travel?
from Lady Curiosity [http://blog.myspace.com/42775217]

My Response

To not fight one's path is akin to saying we haven't free will. Reasoning - the ability to think and to make decisions that aren't completely dictated by nature is a uniquely human construct. Without it, we don't rise above the level of animals, whose behavior mostly derives from a more primitive set of motivations.

We have the ability to make decisions that both harm and hurt us. We can choose not to take nourishment, for example. We can choose to take our own lives or those of others for reasons that don't necessarily coincide with primitive motivations. These higher mental processes exist, and the argument can be and has been made that we can indeed be simplified to the level of beasts and say that everything we do is driven by some primal force.

Similarly, when one takes the notion there is a path we are meant to follow; that is, something higher than ourselves, then the argument can be made every decision we make based on "free will" doesn't matter.

So that begs the question, does anything we do really matter? Taking this idea at face value, it may suffice to say that in this strict notion, it doesn't. Is it the ultimate goal of our path that is predestined, milestones along the way, or is every action predetermined? Each of these viewpoints could give one a different perspective in how much of what we do really affects the outcome.

Perhaps a greater question can be does it really matter? Can we, will we ever know our path until we have traveled it? And, if we do, what do we do about it? If we don't like what we think we see, do we pour out our souls, putting every bit of ourselves into steering us away from that? This question also brings up another: Can our path change- do we have the power to change it? This notion of destiny exists throughout contemporary and modern literature. A prime example of this can be seen in Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, where the spirit world affords a character a chance of viewing what his life would be like if he doesn't change. In the end, his future seems to change from what he was shown. So, the question to be asked, is was that the future he was destined from the beginning, or can we have the power to change?

Is that power always within us, and some people don't have the energy, the drive to fight it and just remain content with what they feel they've been given? Or rather, is it a special few who perhaps who have the opportunity to change this?

Again, the question remains: does it really matter? Whether or not we agree with the path we believe we're meant to follow - no matter how far we feel we are in following the path or how far we've to go, there is one thing we should almost be certain of. That is, the best we can do is follow what we believe is best to us - life's larger goals are always composed of smaller ones. Every day is made of a series of challenges, small goals, and for each of us, depending on the lot we've been given, have to attend to these. The only time we can ever be sure of this path is until we've traveled it - but who wants to wait that long? Youth fades, conditions change- and sometimes swiftly. One constant we have is ourselves – the only thing we can ever be sure of, the only truth we can know is with our own selves. So, whether or not we know or like our paths, the only thing we can do is continue onward, taking whatever chooses to come our way, not being afraid to learn, grow, and question, never remain satisfied with those “givens,” and follow wherever we feel we’re supposed to go – if we can’t be sure of what we want, what can we be sure of?

I decided to write a response to a question by a friend of mine. She wrote:

Do we as individuals have the right to take our own lives? despite pain or disease just day to day, point blank is it our right to choose to live?

From Lady Curiosity [ http://blog.myspace.com/42775217 ]

My Response:

The question first one may be led to ask is what determines our right?

Does it depend on our indoctrination with a specific theology, or is this some sort of human truth that transcends all else? It would be easy to take the theological route and say it's wrong because our belief system tells us so. We can look at it from a more universal standpoint, free from the sort of indoctrination that can cloud our judgment, and assume that rights are guided by the notion of justice - justice to ourselves, justice to others.

The question itself is one that transcends our own ideals and into those of other cultures and time periods throughout history. It is normally conceptualized in the viewpoint of a person, distraught with existence, choosing to escape life with his or her own hand. We'll examine this viewpoint mainly. Suicide has been portrayed in literature - from shakespeare's Hamlet who uttered the famous words "To be or not to be" to Lord Byron's Manfred, who stood on a cliff and proclaimed to the mountains "Why are ye beautiful, I cannot love ye." Manfred says to himself in his contemplative speech that "There is a power in me which withholds, and makes it my fatality to live." This great, universal question calls into question the reason for our very existence and points at the frailty of human life.

Do we continue to exist - to be, or do we end it all, and save that suffering. G.K. Chesterton calls suicide "the ultimate and absolute evil, the refusal to take an interest in existence." This very notion is where the question lies. Is it inherently evil to take our own lives, or is it a choice we are free to make? Surely, suicide isn't only a personal issue. It is an escape from existence for the person who performs the act, but the ones he or she leaves behind are also affected by it. So, the question of whether or not we have the right could also be contingent on its effects on the world outside ourselves. So, to attempt the act means not only to affect ourselves, but to affect those in the sphere around us. However, while this may be relevant in consideration of whether suicide is just to others, the question more at hand is whether it is just purely to ourselves.

Does a person who takes his or her own life do an injustice to him or herself? An argument could be made that in committing suicide, one is depriving himself of the chance to exist, to experience things. This is an injustice to onesself - purposely taking away the chance to live and experience. Furthermore, the question needs to be addressed as to whether we have the right to do so. In accordance with the point of view that to do an injustice to oneself is against what is "good" or "right" conduct, and thus in the strictest sense of "right," it is not right, for to do so is to perform an injustice foremost to oneself, and perhaps secondarily to others.

So, to speak of "rights" at the most fundamental level - those not involving the doctrine imposed by the state, theology, or other external forces, one can say that it purely involves oneself. So, from the purely "self" standpoint, other factors like the ones mentioned in the prompt need to be considered. Is being so depressed and distraught that ending it almost seems necessary "on par" with a person who ends their suffering because of pain or disease? Is one more "justified" than the other? Surely, both can feel a pain so unbearable that the sweet solace offered in ending it all can seem justified in a way they both can feel. Looking as an external observer, however, we can't possibly understand the intricacies that go into building the thoughts that can lead one to contemplate taking their life. To judge quickly and tell a person in such a mindset that "life is worth living" without reason is to take the very essence of life and condense it to living for the sake of living - being just to be.

The reason to exist through pain, through suffering is not a universal one. There is no formula for living, no single, universal set of rules that we all must follow uncritically as a template for our lives. Instead, to determine the reason to be is to ponder the very question of the meaning of life. To keep living, life must have meaning, must have purpose. Perhaps it is continuing to exist for the purpose of finding a reason to exist?

A motivation at the core of most human existence lies a deeply personal question of why we live. To take this question and try to apply some doctrine, some specific viewpoint is to try and simplify life. Most would agree that the many complex ideas that go into forming the idea of why we are here are not simple. So, to try and fit them into a template and eschew notions of human control over our existence is to do a disservice to a notion of free will.

So, do we have the right to take our own lives? In the sense of rights in justice and being just to ourselves, we don't. In the sense of being the free-willed beings we are and taking rights to mean the justification we can build within ourselves to escape suffering, we do.

To be human and continue to endure and grow through pain, to live, to love, to experience, is the most fundamental and strongest right we can offer ourselves. To escape is easy; to continue to endure and perservere is to show that we have the potential to try to live to our fullest, and we have the capacity to exist beyond any obstacles, no matter how seemingly insurmountable, we face.