Do you ever wonder what would or could have happened if you had only done something differently? That play that keeps repeating itself in your mind, what if I had only done B instead of A maybe C would have happened instead of D.
Many claim that if it weren't for the liberalism of the 60's, society would have been more moral and stable, we would see more responsibility, lower divorce rates etc., but maybe the consequences of this alternate reality would have been less innovation as a result of a lack of creative individualism. Life today might have had fewer people resisting authority, even more pollution than we are experiencing now, more poverty, poisoned food sources, malfunctioning medicinal remedies, no Ipods, cell phones or WiFi and a host of other things i can't come up with at the moment. The imagining of that moral, stable "better" world might have left us at a place we really didn't want to live in.
For some it is easier to reside in the what might have been world rather than harmonizing with the what is. When we imagine that only a single incident like liberalism of the 60's can be enough to change our present, we indulge in what might have been. This single element did not and could not create all the change we experience today. It is not the sole determining factor.
The 60's brought in a renewed focus on love as a result of the war they were watching being waged in their names. For many of the participants the time spent trying to educate the nation was filled with failures and yet, here, today, they are being credited for the lack of morality in present society.
All of us on some level indulge in what if's. But when we indulge in what if's we leave out other options for why the world and our way of living is functioning as is. We fail to stay present, we live in the past for all of us can only work with what we have not with some fantasy alternate reality.
Consider this..........maybe, the lack of morality today is a result of self-interest rather than liberalism and the result of choices rather than mistakes.
Just look at the laws of nature some say for it explains mankind.
Natural law as described in the International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences had stoics being indifferent to the divine or natural source of the law: "the Stoics asserted the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe (a divine or eternal law), and the means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this order was the natural law, which spelled out action that accorded with virtue. Stoics emphasized the universal ideas of individual worth, moral duty, and universal brotherhood."
The Christians on the other hand had the Fall and according to Wikipedia
"some Christians believe the Fall corrupted the entire natural world, including human nature, causing people to be born into original sin, a state from which they cannot attain eternal life without the gracious intervention of God. Protestants hold that Jesus' death was a "ransom" by which man was made forever free from the sin acquired at the Fall, and other denominations believe that this act made it possible for man to be free without necessarily ensuring it. In other religions, such as Judaism, Islam, and Gnosticism no term "The Fall" is recognized and varying interpretations of the Eden narrative are presented. Natural Law still plays a role in all these."
"Prelapsarian" refers to the sin-free state of humanity prior to the Fall. It is sometimes used in reference to sentimental recollections of a past time when conditions stood in sharp contrast to the present." It demonstrates the what if mankind could have had if only they had followed orders.
Many philosophers, modern and ancient both, have used the term "Natural Law" to argue and dissect the human condition. Philosophers added to the catalog of man made discourse and man made "laws" concerning "Natural Law," our "rational" participation in what if scenarios encouraged the acceptance of "Natural Law".
My question concerns "Natural Law," can we consider it an invention by man? Nature has never once insisted upon or commanded us to use any "natural laws" that we must follow, but many men have insisted that according to nature this or that is so and mankind must adhere to that law.
Again we aren't following orders.
So...........just to throw this out there, can you consider that there is no such thing as a Natural Law?
Eons may pass until mankind completely penetrates to the core meanings of our existence and then there may be no meaning at all. We have become deaf to each other in the present while our belief's from the past try to conquer all. We may just be here along with every thing else living and dying as part of our earth's cycle. Why is it that modern researchers who delve deeper into the chemical makeups of everything on earth continue to find symbiotic relationships dominating? Where is this conversation?
Some of us can spend too much time in the substrate, learning the lessons, filling in the slots, and thinking about what if"s. We can't look ahead the way you do in chess, we can plan but we can't know absolutely or see the end result until after it has happened.
Consider this....maybe if we step back, take a look around and go on a longer journey in the present maybe more will reach that goal of "happiness in this life" faster. If you are indulging in what might have happened or what if ‘s, you may have forgotten a piece of knowledge that has been stored in your unconscious, something left there which had no rule for handling. Access to it was lost but it never left storage, it is still there waiting to be opened on a different level.
Choose to examine it.
Take it out of storage.
Work with it and use it to divest of the what if's.
Take action now. Don't wait for tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment