Free Will Exercise - If you were being forced to kill, would you?

I was thinking on the concept of free will and whether it truly exists for us or not. Various philosophers have made arguments both ways so I started thinking of a situation where a free will argument could be made both ways. Conditions will change in the scenario as it goes along.

You and another person have been kidnapped by a gang. The other person is tied to a chair. You're given a gun by the gang leader and told to either shoot the man or be killed yourself. If you kill the person, you'll be let free and clear and the gang will take credit for the person's murder (yes, it's a dubious situation but stranger things have happened so humor me.) I know it doesn't sound like a situation where free will is on the table but bear with me.

You're handed the gun. First hypothetical condition: You're a devout religious person and you believe killing is so terrible that you'd choose to die yourself rather than risk your immortal soul. This is your choice aka your free will. You're under duress but you are given two options and are free to choose either. You're shot in the head instead of the other person. End of situation. You had a choice but your religious upbringing prevented you from choosing anything other than death. Because you've been religiously programmed, did you have the capability to make a fair choice that could lead to your own survival? This is murky.

Next hypothetical: You're handed the gun. You have a strict reverence for life that is empathetic and compassionate but not religious. You feel for this poor person you're supposed to kill. Your survival senses tell you to kill but you can't. You're too good a person inside. Is this free will? Because of your innate compassion and feeling, you literally can't kill. There's something from deep inside preventing it. Being killed happens because the opposite situation is impossible. Free will is devoid in this situation because a choice of one or the other is impossible. This is the very definition of not being able to make a choice under duress.

Next hypothetical: You're a borderline sociopath and have no problem killing the person. You choose to blow their brains out and do. You're free to go. This is a choice but is it 100% free will? A sociopath lacks empathy because they just do. It's not really a choice for them. However, even if they want to kill, they have the choice not to kill so I see this one as being an argument for us having free will, even if it's a little more complicated. It's not a no win situation for you so it's an easy choice. You're free to make a decision that is beneficial to you.

Next hypothetical: Both the religious character and the empathetic character face a new wrinkle. You won't just be killed if you refuse to kill the other person, you'll be tortured and disemboweled before you die slowly in agony. Would the religious person still be guided by faith not to kill? Would the compassionate, feeling person shoot the other, knowing they'll die instantly, if they choose that option? The threat of torture has created panic in many a person and a choice to kill in that case is much more understandable as being out of character of a normally good human being. The survival instinct is also very strong and can be overwhelming. In such a situation, I think many people would implode, unable to make a choice at all. If so, I think free will is highly compromised. Could a choice be made? Yes. Is the person 100% responsible under threat of torture? I say no.

Next hypothetical: You're presented with the kill scenario again but you'll only be tortured if you refuse but not killed. You're also told that the person you're told to kill is a serial pedophile and child murderer. You're not a killer but presented with either torture or killing an evil person, would it be so bad if you killed that person? In this case, death is off the table but terrible pain is not. Many in a situation where they knew nothing of the other person would choose not to kill because no deaths would occur if you refuse. But knowing you're dealing with an evil person, would you feel it's a moral responsibility to execute the person by choice, even if nothing were on the line? If you chose to kill, would it be so bad? I think we'd all understand if you killed the person. And the fact that the person is a child murderer is a strong incentive to WANT to kill the person. You choose to kill out of free will and being tortured isn't even a major factor. You feel forced to make a decision but it's an easier choice and arrived at more willfully.

Final hypothetical: The other person is a beloved family member. Your options are killing the family member or being tortured and disemboweled while alive. I think free will is completely off the table here. You won't be able to kill the person and will therefore be tortured by default. There's no real choice here.

If any of this had to do with the law, none of it would be considered a free will issue because forced coercion would be the understandable stance. We obviously have free will in many aspects of our lives. We can choose Coke over Pepsi or a football game over a baseball game. We have free will in these ways. Oddly, in these exercises, the sociopathic character may be the only one that truly faces a choice of free will because killing would not be a problem for him. There would be no guilt feelings that would torment him as in the other hypotheticals. So, in such situations, do the normal people have free will to make certain choices? To kill or be killed? It could depend on the person and the situation, if these situations have any possibility for freedom of choice at all. They'll be forced to make a choice but they'll have the freedom to make that choice. Is any free will involved there? I think an argument could be made either way.

Can Ethics Be Rejected Completely as a Human Endeavor?

The following is an intellectual exercise of probably nothing new yet, as one with a different perspective, I feel the need to pursue.

Essentially, mankind has a dual nature. The animal, which is the physical, and the intellectual, which is the higher mind. The animal, of course, seeks to satisfy our physical needs and wants. The intellectual goes beyond; it contemplates life, the nature of man and anything potentially metaphysical perpetually beyond what we know or possibly ever can know. It's the lower mind and the higher mind, the Id and the Superego. The ego, our individual personality, can be rejected in an argument about ethics. Our personality is the rudder between our base instincts and our power to wonder, ponder and create. It's the marriage counselor but it's not a prime mover. "I wish we had peace on Earth" is a nice hope but it's one of personality, namely an individual that greatly wants peace. However, this basic belief is personality, not the superego because it doesn't think about HOW to make such a dream a reality. It just wants peace as a matter of temperament but doesn't argue how peace can happen or if peace is even desired. Those are deeper matters. Some like conflict and some like peace. It's a matter of how we think as individuals, not as we see things in a broader, greater, more profound sense.

As stated, we're driven by our passions and our intellect. Our passion are, quite frankly, stupid, yet we all indulge them with some frequency, some more than others. Some are driven solely by instinct and desire. They fuck, eat, drink and that's about it. In this reality, ethics can be described by our base behaviors. We're dogs and cats. It's just what we do. We live, we die and there's no reason to think about anything else. If we choose to look at this as the meaning of life, we can either call it ethics or reject even the concept of ethics because the behavior isn't ethical or unethical. It just is.

The higher mind, the intellect, must reject this view in any proper abstract argument about how we SHOULD live and behave. The higher mind is our only advantage over the animal kingdom. Our ability to reason and think makes us special. To me, a life solely based on hedonistic indulgence is de-evolved. We've grown the ability to reason, therefore it must be important. If it's important, we should use it and that means speculating and analyzing ourselves and the world around us soberly and dispassionately, something we've been working on since man truly evolved into man from our animal pasts.

So we have these brains that can think so let's ponder about the concept of ethics. Many brilliant philosophers, both religious and scientific, have created moral philosophies. How best can we process ourselves and our world? Men like Aristotle put forth and trusted in the five senses as our primary means of accumulating data. Men like Plato put forth the idea of intuition and perception because our five senses can be faulty and we can misperceive. Since then, great thinkers have become more refined as society has grown. In this time, the idea of ethics has become an enormous subject. What is ethical? From the simpler ideas of Hammurabi's moral code of "An eye for an eye" to the Jewish idea of the Ten Commandments to Kant's Categorial Imperative of Universal Morality, we've always strived to rein in our potentially destructive nature. This is, of course, necessary to create an interdependent society where we work together to achieve our goals and live the age old dream of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Laws are created to help guide us and to keep us from tearing each other apart. Laws are all that bind us in this way. As animalistic as we can be, laws must be created and maintained. It would be wonderful is we could always control ourselves and act as disciplined, rational beings all the time but that's impossible. We feel and we have desires. Sometimes, we're going to lose our sense of order and decency and last out. An absence of laws would mean anarchy and, in all likelihood, the destruction of ourselves as a species.

Law and order are our practical solutions to problems of basic animal behavior. Now it's necessary to consider the beyond, namely the idea of a God or Prime Mover, as Aristotle believed. Since Day 1 of human society, man has strived to understand the world around him. Ancient civilizations built ziggurats, the ancient form of churches, and put them in the center of towns as a foundation of whatever city and society used them. Since Day 1, we've reasoned and speculated on the idea of a God, something beyond, a higher power that we are subject to, a basis for behavior that goes beyond our rules and laws for each other. The idea of divine law, codified mostly by the different religions, is this representation. We have rules to keep us from killing each other but is that it? Do we have a greater purpose? It's easy to pick on religion and many people in our society (and we know who they are) have a field day with attacking religious people as simpletons and morons across the board. I feel that this misses the point. It is our very ABILITY to create religious ideologies that makes us special. Those that believe try to live according to those beliefs. Why? Not because of anything practical but because of POSSIBILITIES. In this way, we are truly being intellectually creative. Often crude, such as in the simple belief of a heaven or hell, but we're thinking of something that could be and that's vital. We're working our minds and we're trying to define and develop a soul, even if only rudimentarily.

I honestly have tried to just present the usual arguments and perceptions of how we as humans try to explain and justify our behaviors as a means of setting up my premise (I apologize if I've been overly wordy.) Now comes my argument of the possibility that the higher mind definition of ethics can largely, if not completely, be thrown out. This argument also rejects animal behaviors. There's nothing truly ethical about animal behaviors IMO because they take no effort to accomplish. Though we all do them at times, animal behaviors are instinctive and cheap. They're hardwired into us and involve no evolutionary process whatsoever. So, if ethics isn't driven by our higher mind or our animal passions, what is it driven by or is it even something we can disregard altogether?

My perspective comes from a mentally ill one. I'm bipolar and have had severe bouts of psychosis, very severe hallucinations and delusions at various times in my life. Driven by a hypersensitive idea of moral obligation, I have strived for much of my life to behave in a way that is a credit to myself and my community, to try to help mankind in as many ways as I can. As any bipolar person can tell you, at times it becomes incredibly difficult to control behaviors, be they high or low. We take medication to try and control symptoms. However, there are times when we're overwhelmed and will act out, occasionally driven by our delusions and hallucinations. This doesn't usually involve violence but will occasionally lead to violence against the self or others, usually for a reason considered valid by the mentally ill person. To put it bluntly, it's "crazy," not evil though it seems evil.

I'm a big fan of "spirit in which it's intended" as a moral compass. If we mean well yet do evil, we can't be blamed in a moral sense because we didn't intend for anything bad to happen. This is a common moral rule that humans have lived by, at least to some extent, for a long time. In an ethical sense, therefore, because mentally ill people are human and this is an argument of the complete human experience, ethics cannot be completely defined by effect. Violence, destruction and death cannot always be viewed as unethical because there are those that commit violence UNDER THE DELUSION that they are not doing evil. Some philosophers, like Sartre, argue that there are, essentially, no excuses for what is considered bad behavior. As a bipolar person, I do not present excuses. I present REASONS.

My conclusion is that ethics are not for human beings as biological creatures because we are flawed by nature and our behaviors are occasionally, also very flawed without evil intent. We sometimes do damage and not even know it. However, ethics IS a subject for the pure intellect, one that is capable of reason and thought on a very high level. In that way, ethics is an intellectual past time, one that we spend our time thinking about in the romantic hope that, one day, we will be able to live up to the standards we set. Like any ideology, it's based on POTENTIAL and a loose ethical set of standards often keeps us from destroying each other. I'm comfortable with intellect being linked to a spiritual sense because what is spirit but we concoct as being important and timeless, the same as ethics? It's not in our best interests to kill each other, unless we consider it necessary (moral?) in a war capacity. Our humanity leads us to these disasters all too frequently. The thought and the hope of the CONCEPT of ethics as a set of ideas, does us credit as creatures with the ability to think. We have potential. If we can ever learn to practice what we think, we'll have as close to comprehensive peace as possible, the very definition of morality. Will we grow in an intellectual sense and meet our concepts and dreams halfway or de-evolve back into mindless animals bent on killing each other? Time will tell. Some have attained, and will attain, such intellectual enlightenment. Sadly, I don't like our chances much as an overall society.

One stanza poem to a special girl

The other girls, in large amount, are as pretty as can be.
And even if it doesn't count, you're still beautiful to me.

5th Grade - Welcome to Hell - Part II

I've never recovered emotionally. The fear that I felt everyday still floods me like a hurricane when I think of it. Every second of everyday was terror. When was the insult or attack going to come? It became impossible to have a positive attitude. I imagine WWI soldiers didn't feel overly positive in their trenches everyday but at least they had each other. The worst times were on the bus in the morning, where I often had someone already sitting in a seat move to the edge to keep me from sitting down. "Don't you know you're social garbage, fucker?" was what the move said every time. In class, I was at least a little safe, though I dreaded the classes where the bullies were close to me because they liked whispering insults to each other about me. The breaks in the hall between classes were horrible because I was vulnerable. There were occasional insults and the occasional physical attack at me. I remember the fear and am reliving it even as I'm typing this now. Break outside was another terror because of vulnerability. Girls would be disgusted if I came by. The boys would throw a football to me because they could gang up and tackle me on the ice cold turf. People would kick me out of their lunch room tables until I had to eat by myself or insult me as I sat there. One girl, supposedly the nicest one in school, attacked me in gym class and almost tore my shirt off. Stunned, I just sat down on the bleachers with my head in my hands. The gym teacher did nothing. It was like they were all in it together. Another time we played dodgeball. One of my bullies crossed the line, tapped me on the shoulder and threw a dodgeball in my face when I turned around. Everyone laughed. I laughed, too. Doesn't everyone laugh at the joke? Emotionally, this was devastating and I am still suffering today. I tried to fit in many times, basically a Stockholm Syndrome kind of thing. Then there were the attempts try and mitigate the damage. My Mom was my emotional support and I tried to learn things from her about what they were saying. I tried to learn jokes to impress them. My family told me it was my fault because I got upset at the insults. They were trying to help. They didn't know they were giving the bullies a free pass. My mother told me to try laughing myself. So there was me being bullied and I laughed at getting hurt. I've since felt and learned the dysfunction in my family and how crappy their advice was. Finally, after coming home on the verge of tears many times, Mom just told me to go punch one of them in the nose. As a Catholic kid, their previous advice had been to turn the other cheek. Now I'm supposed to hit someone! I wasn't like that at the time. It took me years of abuse before I got the point where I would fight if I had to. That wasn't me then at all. Everyday after school and before the next day became my heaven. That's when I tried to be happy. As the time came closer for sleep, I'd check the clock every five minutes. I tried to live every second of my life in those hours before I had to get beaten up again the next day. The shame and guilt and fear and embarrassment and depression and feelings of utter worthlessness return when I relive these memories. I have to get to the point where they don't destroy me anymore. I have to get to the point where that traumatized little boy feels safe and happy and worthwhile again.

5th Grade - Welcome to Hell - Part 1

I did the set up a bit to let you know a bit of who I was. I was also a Catholic, and a decent sized believer, at that age and grew up in Catholic school. I had had no social problems in Kentucky and had several friends. Now it gets very tough for me. I have wanted to journal about this for a long time but I haven't been able to face the pain for any length of time. I don't literally remember the first day of school. I remember that first term. The weather was freezing, much worse than anything we'd had in Kentucky. I'm not sure if it was early chemical problems but I remember feeling depressed for the first time in my life. At school, the kids hated me. I suppose I was the picture of being uncool. It was a classic case of doing everything differently than they did. I made jokes which made people laugh at me. People hated my voice, hated my walk, hated my expressions. I rapidly became a social pariah, the bottom of the totem pole. There was only one kid more unpopular than me. Sad to say, I was glad of it. It gave me a chance to insult someone, to be part of the group. Of course, now I look back at it and loathe myself for that kind of behavior. That was my reality. I was not a good person. I was an emotionally floundering, socially desperate person. Girls would laugh at me because they considered me some yokel joke. I was minimized. There was an instance where they did something called "Secret Santa" in Wisconsin. People would draw lots in pairs and gave each other Christmas cards. The girl that got me said: "Not him!" in disgust when she drew me. This was in front of her girlfriends. This wasn't a funny, teasing thing. This just sent a message that I was garbage. I was a social leper. Being near me was like being forced to hug a skunk. The boys would make fun of me because I didn't know all the sexual slang terms. I was a Catholic school kid. What the hell did I know? You know the sensitive young person in the slasher films that has the cruel trick played on him by the "cool" kids? That was me. And if I saw any of those poeple again now, it would be very hard for me not to break their bones.

My Apocalypse - Age 10 - The Move

When I was 10, my family and I moved from Louisville, KY, to just outside Milwaukee, WI. At that age, I didn't understand, in a social sense, what moving from one part of the country to another meant. My Dad got transferred and asked my sister and I if we wanted to go. My parents wanted to go and it was a done deal so we agreed, of course. My sister Shannon was two years older and I think the move hurt her more than me. I had friends but the lure of moving to Milwaukee, namely because of the Brewers, became tremendous. We were huge baseball fans and had been frequent attendees to Louisville Redbird minor league games so the thought of having a local major league team to see was very exciting. The Brewers had been to their first World Series the year before (and lost to Louisville's offiliate, St. Louis, who we were cheering for. The idea of players and a town associated with beer was a major turn off for me but they were a major league team. We were the kind of family that didn't cheer for a team or city like Milwaukee yet we were on our way. I must also admit that we considered ourselves "Southern." I had no idea about the Civil War at that time but my family was a Dukes of Hazzard, Hee Haw kind of family though I also loved shows like Knight Rider, Sanford and Son and pretty much anything on TV. I was a culture sponge at a very young age. So it's 1983 and we move to Wisconsin in the summer.

Stalker's blood?

This is a very difficult post I feel I need to write so don't hate me. I need to get it into the open. I have OCD and Bipolar Disorder. As a symptom of my bipolar, I have what is called "erotomania." This is a delusion that someone I want very much to be in love with me is in love with me. It often takes the form of a "celebrity crush," where I can easily delude myself that the person really loves me via destiny or cosmic karma or some such crap. It's usually wishful thinking but I have deluded myself that certain people of higher social status in my reality are in love with me when that is not the case. Combine erotomania with an obsessive mentality and that leads to a potentially very dangerous mix as I can become fixated and angry. I can then adopt a "So she thinks she's better than me?!" attitude towards someone who either barely knows me or doesn't know me. I'm a lover. I'm not an angry, crazy obsessive but I can be that way. I'm always gauging my motives to prevent such a thing from becoming dangerous but I can be creepy and wear out my welcome, I suppose. I could engage in "stalker behavior" and not always be consciously aware of it. This can be a sick expression of "love," a dark side of delusion, anger, fear and personal emotional vapidness. I hope this post will help me (and you) understand my deep, deep need for love and how a disordered brain can darkly twist a treasured goal into an all-around nightmare. Thank you. Don't hate me. Please.

The Mentally Ill Code: How to treat each other

I wanted to call this something cool and profound like Manifesto or Commandment to show how smart I am but that's overdoing it. This is a classic IN MY OPINION post. IMO this is how mentally ill people should treat each other. My experience is being bipolar and OCD and chatting with many mentally ill people, both online and in the real world, as well as mental health professionals.

1. No mentally ill person is greater or better than another. We're all equal.

This doesn't have to do with wellness. In this context, "better" means thinking you're superior. There is no caste system in the mentally ill community. I've talked with people before (and I've felt this myself) that think people with less severe mental illnesses than others are somehow superior, more "normal," and thus more like the masses. I've heard "I'm not as bad as that schizophrenic guy. I just have depression" before. My family, especially my mother and aunt, are and have been very much hung up on social status. When I was diagnosed with depression in 1992, I felt that that was going to lower me in the eyes of society. Why? Because I had a bigoted view of the mentally ill as lower life forms. I still considered myself perfectly normal and not mentally ill. I was able to function some on this denial. Then I was diagnosed bipolar and it devastated me. Now, I was going to be forced to take a lower status as a persecuted minority. See how big a jerk I was when I was considered "normal?" and thought I was at a superior level of health? We don't do that in the mentally ill community. A depressed person isn't superior to a schizophrenic person just because their illness isn't as severe.

2. Mentally ill people communicate with each other.
There's great importance in our community on sharing our thoughts and feelings with each other. Often, that means sharing what kind of day we've had or asking for support because we've had a tough time lately. We share our stories and our time with each other to show that we're not alone in our suffering. Part of my thinking on making this blog post has to do with someone that's a supposed mentally ill person who is a public mental health advocate. I've asked this person what his/her illness is and I've shared a few details of mine. No response. I tried again a few more times. No response. Now either this person feels he/she is too good for our community or is just a phony in terms of mental illness. We don't have to share everything with each other. In fact, as people with different social, political, religious, etc views, we don't have to share much at all. What we do need to share is just a little bit with each other. If another mentally ill person asks you about your illness, you should answer, even if only giving the barest details. This is a community mentality. I know some reading this will say this person has the right to not tell me jack and that is true. However, we don't live in a perfect world and our own social groupings do matter. Mentally ill people don't rebuff each other.

3. Mentally ill people support each other no matter what.

My meaning in this is that we unconditionally support each other on matters of mental illness and mental health. If one in our community commits an act of violence, it doesn't mean that we support that action. If a person in our community believes Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is evil, that doesn't mean we have to support them in that belief. What it means is that, on matters of mental health, on symptoms, on episodes, etc, we support and help each other in trying to get and stay healthy, offer moral support in each other's fight and feel compassion for each other in our sufferings. I'll use an eternal symbol, Hitler, as an example. I, and most everyone else, deplore is beliefs and actions. However, if it's revealed he was bipolar, I would have compassion for his suffering from that illness as I know what it can do. If he were alive, I would support him in getting help and feeling better. No, this wouldn't give aid and comfort to a monster. It would be providing advice that he work on his mental and emotional health and that our community is there if he needs us. This would have clearly been a win-win if he'd had these things taken care of early in his life. That's what I mean by support. Support each other to attack illness and give each other strength and support to carry on with life and pursue happiness.

Those are the three major facets of behavior that I and my friends in the mentally ill community should strive for. If I think of more, I'll add them to the list as "amendments." And, as stated earlier, these are my opinions. We have a social grouping and need to acknowledge and live with it.

My Resume Article for The Onion.

This is just a wise ass Onion style story about American Pharaoh winning the Belmont last year. It's a year old but I liked the concept. Pardon the lack of paragraphs but the damn thing wouldn't let me do it.

HEADLINE:

"AMERICA BREATHES SIGH OF RELIEF NOW THAT GOD DAMNED HORSE THING IS OVER."

America's Triple Crown drought ended this past Saturday when American Pharaoh won the Belmont Stakes by a commanding 5 1/2 lengths, becoming the nation's first Triple Crown winner since 1977 when Affirmed took
the title.

"Thank fucking God," said Montana sports fan Gabe McInerney. "All we've heard on ESPN the last month and every June for the last 38 fucking years is how America hasn't had a damn horse that could win three races in a row. Is it a man that does anything? No. It's a fucking HORSE! Are we starved for national heroes so bad that we have to pay attention to and worship a damn brainless glue factory reject? I live in flippin' Montana! What the hell do I care about horse racing? All I can say is "Thank God our "national nightmare" is over. Thank fucking God."

Reaction from the horse's trainer, Bob Baffert, was more subdued.

"We've always had high hopes for American Pharaoh. He has terrific bloodlines and we've always had a strong belief he could win the Triple Crown. It's just a great feeling having a Triple Crown winner again after all these years!"

When told of Baffert's comments, Mr. McInerney offered: "Well, of course, he's fucking happy! How much fucking money does that guy make from all that shit? He's a flippin' millionaire that's probably on his yacht in the French Riviera right now while I have to fix my damn siding so my walls don't crumble to
pieces this winter."

Mr. McInerney then cupped his hands and said loudly: "Hey, Baffert! Here's what you can do with your damn horse!" before slapping his bottom with his right hand.

Baffert has stated plans for running American Pharaoh in the upcoming Haskell Invitational.

"We're just so happy he was able to give America what it so desperately wanted. A Triple Crown winner.”

Mentally ill people and nature: Are we supposed to lose?

One definition of nature is "The natural forces that control what happens in the world." As we humans are part of nature, that means us, too. Sadly illness, if we conclude genetics plays a large role in creating, is also natural. It may be considered "bad nature" (like cancer cells) but it's still nature. As a bipolar person, this makes me think of several things. To sum up a tough idea, are we bipolar people (and those afflicted with other mental illnesses destined to lose/fail in life?

People with the strongest genetics can be described as those with the least genetic potential for problems. You can't start a fire if there's no kindling. These people may not be talented to any great degree but they'll have the best chance of survival and, thus, evolving simply because they'll have no ill health in their way and, if you're not sick, you'll eventually get lucky even if you're not talented. "Every dog gets a bone" is the expression.

I will now state my views on we in the mentally ill community and the "normals," people with genes that will not naturally produce illness. I'm aware that I'm generalizing and do not speak for all mentally ill people, nor is my societal outlook for mentally ill people optimistic. It is quite pessimistic. It is also a bit stark but I will proceed and eventually get to more positive comments. The "normals" (a term I heard used by a mentally ill person I used to know) run society. Mentally ill people aren't allowed to become president. Most mentally ill people (I know from experience) will have a near impossible time working the kind of laborious jobs necessary to move the world. We won't be 9 to 5 ship builders or welders or plumbers or electricians. We can perhaps work these jobs part-time so there is hope for optimism in that regard. However, most of us will not be able to stand the grind for long periods of time. It's too hard core functional and stressful to believe otherwise. Most of us can contribute to society in small doses. Others can avoid becoming a financial burden on others by becoming inspirational to others. We can listen and provide counseling, the "I empathize" part of emotional life. Even if we don't (can't) do something Earth shattering, maybe we can provide a helpful service to others that will do great things. This alone is reason to keep trying with people. Without knowing it, we just might be an indirect part of something extraordinary.

Just a few personal experiences now. I always sensed, even when young, that functioning in life would be a difficult thing for me to achieve. I actually always had it in the back of my mind that I would commit suicide when I was 18 as I just knew, deep down, I would fall apart when HS was over. Fortunately, the suicide didn't happen but the breakdown did, in spite of my throwing everything I could against my growing bipolar disorder. This was a terrible time for me because I was stuck. I had always succeeded in my youth both academically and athletically. It was go time in college and I was up to the challenge. However, without knowing it, I was programmed for failure. I wanted to be possibly be a politician because I legitimately wanted to help people. Bipolar disorder slammed that door shut. Who wants a crazy man as their representative? No, that door was shut. It was a loss. A political career, due to my genetic nature, was a no go. Unlike the "normals," I was excluded, not because of me but because of my genes, something I got from my parents. No amount of positive attitude would change the chemical. I was horribly depressed, despite taking anti-depressants, skipped class and slept frequently just to feel regular. I never was like this in HS but I was in college. Bipolar disorder made sure I was lost, made sure I would lose the life I wanted.

I had a terrible nightmare the night before I'm writing this. I was trying to get into a car driven by people I wanted desperately to be with but I was left behind. I would grab at the car and those on it, I would grab hold with my arms but my grip was broken and it sped away. In a movie like Raiders of the Lost Ark, I was one of the soldiers that fell off the truck Indy was driving. As he sped into the rest of the movie and his eventual victory, I was one of the ones that had to deal with not being able to see the rest of the film. I was then forced to deal with other people left behind. The nightmare was the loss, missing the bus of happiness, not being allowed into heaven, left behind in hell on Earth. And it was REAL! It was an abstract reality of my life. It became obvious to me in my sleep that I would always be left behind. I would always be in a nightmarish place. I can control my sense of self and peace when I am awake. What chance to I have when I'm asleep?

I will now end on a positive note. We may be "destined" to lose by our genetic makeup (and let's be honest. It's 90% nature, 10% nurture) but that doesn't mean we will be. Some of us will conquer our illnesses enough to have a contributing place in the world and the happiness that comes with it. We have survived to this in our lives on guile, cleverness, and toughness. We survive. We live because we're hardy and hopeful that tomorrow could be a better day than today. We try to focus on our skills and talents. Many people with mental illnesses are more creative than others and we often express that gift. Due to the pain we have experienced, we often feel more empathy than others. These things may not show tangible, material results but can still be important nonetheless. Yes, we can advise others who may reach the brass ring we are seemingly denied and, maybe, just maybe, some of us will manage to grab that brass ring, too.

Captain America: Civil War: Stark vs. Cap analysis

The Avengers schism is driven by Tony Stark's emotions and intentions vs. Cap's reason and character. As the final fight shows, the schism is really all about those two. Stark is driven by emotion, namely his guilt over Sakovia which, quite frankly, is his fault because he inadvertently created Ultron. Like a drunk needing alcohol to numb his guilt, Tony needs the Accords. They're his path to relief from the guilt, the CONSCIENTIOUS guilt he feels. He's one of the good guys and his path is NOT wrong. It's the right path. It's just the right path for Tony Stark. Cap sees things clearly. He's the reasoner. That's his strength. He knows about governments and how the Avengers would be used, understands that they've caused way more good than harm and aren't responsible for certain things (like the Chitauri.) Stark is *beep* up. He's irrational and driven by his massive ego and emotional issues. Like a narcissistic father, his way is the right way and all the rest need to do that. And, to be honest, it IS a right way. The great thing is that Cap's way is ALSO right. Neither side is wrong. That's why the complexity is fantastic and it creates such a strong emotional feeling because we CARE about these characters (and that is vitally important.) Cap knows the moral character of the Avengers because he sees it in himself. He knows he can be trusted to do the right thing and that the others will try to do the right thing as well. His is righteousness by intent. They're the good guys because they CHOOSE to do good things. In that way, the good choose to do good and they, being the Avengers, have the power to do the most good in the practical world. Being led by manipulative politicians? A disaster waiting to happen. That both sides clearly have a moral point yet are still on opposite ends of the compass is what is fascinating. We want them to resolve their differences but Stark and Cap, while still caring about each other at the end, are still doing what is best for them. That means Tony is on the side of current law. Cap is the outlaw.

A wrong headed left wing view of the mentally ill.

This is just a short post. People with more left wing values (I consider myself left wing but a moderate left winger) see humans and the human potential as positive. Humans are generally good people, even if only down deep. Remove impediments and the true human character will shine through. This clashes with a more right wing ideology that life is nasty, brutish and short, people are inherently sinful and law needs to be in place to protect us from each other. To a left winger, if people are good, what explains bad behavior? It can't be evil because people are good. Therefore, it has to be a perversion or distortion of mind aka mental illness. A person WOULD be good, would not commit acts considered evil, if there brain wasn't all messed up. This is way too simplistic. Serial killers are often not mentally ill yet commit evil acts. Thus, evil and mental illness are not synonymous. Just saying that a person being bad is crazy is often not true. And who wants to be wrong? Only the ignorant and the fearful and the, dare I say, evil?

Poem - She's Distant

She's distant. Her side denied, I reach, I try.
I send my music. I send my poems. I touch her
hair but grasp air at home, alone. My fingers stretch,
grope with empty hope. Why do I try?

I can't have what I yearn for, can't stop the pain
when I learn more and get the message again and again.
What is wrong in my head?

A major blow, I know it's so as I pine
intent with no danger of threat, a warm, wavy crest
floods my body, my sex, my chest. I sigh, I cry for I
can't stop my lust, can't end it, can't say goodbye.

But she's distant, a lost cause though I love her so.
I feel her warmth and know I can't let myself let go
though she will never know who I am, how I feel. How could
she know when it will never be real?

I imagine it all. Maybe there's a chance she could find humor in,
be smitten with, something I am, a loving, caring, giving man...no.
There's despair for she's right there but, alas, it cannot, could
not ever come to pass. She's right there. She's distant.

The non-medicated mentally ill: An argument by a bipolar man

As a bipolar person with Bipolar 1, I've learned the hard way how important the proper medications are. I have nothing but respect for mentally ill people that face their illnesses and take their medication to try to deal with it. That said, I hate crazy. I hate craziness. There is nothing redeeming about craziness. When people are extremely symptomatic, their usefulness to themselves and others drops greatly. They can become unmanageable, disruptive and potentially dangerous. They suffer horribly. This is just fact. As a person with a mental illness, I'm very torn on how to feel about people with full blown illnesses who refuse to acknowledge or treat their illness. I feel like I do the right thing. I admit to my illness and treat it. I pity those that don't take their meds and are symptomatic. I resent those that somehow manage to be successful WITHOUT taking their meds. I consider profiting by being mentally ill to be immoral and sad. People shouldn't be rewarded for being "crazy." They shouldn't be detracted from either. It's a tough issue for me. If a mentally ill person can be successful while being full blown crazy and, perhaps, irresponsible for not taking meds they know the need, is that a bad thing? What would that kind of mentally ill person be doing otherwise? If they're successful AND happy not being medicated, is that a bad thing? Like I wrote, I resent that because I suffer for my sanity. However, though I'm writing a book, I'm not materially successful at the moment. I've tried to be materially successful but it hasn't happened yet. Could I be successful if I stopped taking my meds? No. I've tried that and failed. I don't mean to sound insensitive though I probably do. I'm not talking about mentally ill people that suffer in anonymity. I'm also not talking about mentally ill people that don't know or understand that they have an illness. I guess I look at mental illness as an addiction. It's a disease, it's not what people want but it's what people have to deal with. Not getting treatment for mental illness is like not getting treatment for addiction. As a bipolar person, I don't think I'm stigmatizing myself and others. People with mental illnesses need to take their meds. For better or worse, I don't have much patience for those that don't comply. We're talking reality. The only way to make a situation better is if people with mental illness issues take their meds. If not, they should be forced to. This is only absolute if the illness is severe and won't improve without meds. Such is the case in my situation and it is a bitter pill to swallow (both literally and figuratively.) It's been a very difficult road for me to accept that I'll always need to take medication. That's the way it is with Bipolar 1. Cancer often can't be treated effectively without chemo. I see mental illness the same way. I hate it and I want it gone. I don't want the mentally ill gone. I want mental illness gone.

Celebrity culture is Un-American Oligarchy

Is there an organization I can join that attacks "celebrity culture" for what it is, a small, powerful, insanely famous cult that reeks of royal-ism? Celebrities are like members of the King and Queen's court. The very few have power, even if they have done nothing to earn it, simply because they are elevated by many followers and/or are children of already famous people. The more these "chosen" people act out, misbehave, and otherwise make themselves ridiculous, the better. As Mel Brooks said: "It's good to be the king." To be the King or a member of the King's court. By having a celebrity culture, one in which we elevate movie and TV stars to god like status, we're creating social inequality as surely as rich people lord themselves over poor people. We all face this in school growing up, where we feel we have to be a celebrity in order to count. We have to be famous, even infamous. We count if people know us. Those are the rules. Even serial killers take this stance. They want to be known for that they do. They want to be famous. I suppose that makes them celebrities and, in the warped minds of many, more important than the ordinary, responsible citizen. Celebrities have a staggering amount of influence often completely out of proportion to their true societal worth. Millions of people pay attention to Kardashians but not doctors, teachers or even (gasp) their parents. This is a major problem not just in this country but worldwide. In a national sense, I can't think of anything that's more ingrained in American culture that's so aggressively Un-American. We have the power to treat each other as equals. All we have to do is choose to do so. 99.999% of people won't read this or care about a post like this. Why? They'd much rather watch a Kardashian.

Thank you to all who have been checking out my blog!!

Couldn't be more honored to have you take time out of your lives to read some of the things I've written. Eyes and minds give words life.

Cosmic order and justice - An in depth look

A definition of cosmic order can be reasoned. If there is order in the universe and order equals justice (because how can order equal injustice?), then things are just when they are orderly. Therefore, injustice can be defined as disorder. This makes sense in a human capacity because disorder often leads to violence, which is easily reasoned as unjust. However, the realities of the human condition make the idea of cosmic order a tough one to reason through. Everything in the universe is subject to the laws of science and cosmic order, if we're analyzing cosmic order as reality (analyzing it as fantasy is a useless exercise.) Humans, being part of scientific reality, are thus part of and subject to, cosmic order. The next thought step reasons that, if cosmic order, being universal, achieves order through scientific reality in most cases independent of the human experience (such as planets, stars, etc)m then we must conclude that everything happens for a logical reason as it is illogical to believe that scientific reality is illogical. If there is cosmic order and if cosmic order equals cosmic justice, then everything happens as it should happen. The chink in the armor of this idea is the violent, often unspeakable evils that happen in society, be they mass genocides or serial murders or babies dying of disease. How can everything happen for a reason, how can things work out as they should, when there are so many tragedies in the world? Does violently murdered baby "deserve" it's death? Do historical genocides happen because they need to happen? An argument for cosmic order, meaning the idea that everything, in the end, has a logical, understandable "bottom line" is contradictory to ideas of human compassion and decency. There can be no sense of justice and order in what is humanely indefensible. There can be no sense in the non-sensible. The pain of human reality is the variable factor. Pain is usually horrible and order and justice, being harmonious concepts, cannot be synonymous with pain unless it's literally "no pain, no gain," the idea that pain is a process towards harmony and happiness. Pain then is just a step in the evolutionary ladder on the way to peace. So what about the pain of human tragedy? The only humane thought process here is faith based. If cosmic order is to be believed, we can only have faith that violence and horror somehow make sense, even if we can't reason that it does. Such faith is only meant for the inner thought process or in blogs like this one because, to debate it in society, especially in our current politically correct climate, is unrealistic. If we try to argue that babies being raped and killed make some sort of sense, we'd be socially condemned and such condemnation isn't harmonious, unless we see such debate as being pain inducing, the kind of pain that leads to peace. In that way, political correctness is a de-evolved concept because debate, one of the major processes of human development, is severely limited. Logical humans wouldn't risk becoming social outcasts because that directly affects the human need for survival. Social condemnation lead to isolation which leads to death. If we're isolated, we can't have the human contact we need, we won't have a job and no means to support ourselves. If we're to believe in cosmic order and justice, we must have the courage to press on with our thoughts and our debates, even in the face of social condemnation or we will grow weak and fallow as thinkers.

"Dragons" represent male sexuality

As a symbol throughout history, the dragon represents male sexuality and, specifically, the religious idea that male sexuality is something evil to be overcome. The dragon's "wings" are the man's testicles, the neck is the penis and the "fire" associated with dragons is semen. Because the dragon represents a negative view of a man's sexuality, the fire, the semen, is viewed as damaging, destructive and deadly, something to be avoided (ejaculation) as religious views in the past condemned the lustful nature of sexuality.

Gun background checks threaten to further dehumanize and alienate the mentally ill

Firstly, I'll just say that I'm for background checks and limiting gun violence as much as possible. This view is one of humanity and I do the best I can to be a human being. However, with the social lean of a "mentally ill" bipolar person, I often view politics through that crucible. As a member of what I consider a socially outcast and often persecuted group, I analyze the current and ubiquitous gun debates with a detached, intellectual thought process but I, like mainstream people, feel such issues, as well. Gun control vs. gun rights, left wing vs. right wing, is obviously one of the most passionate, contentious subjects in our country (and I'm sure in many parts of the world.) This issue is fascinating for one major reason and that's because it's one of the very few issues that cause Democrats to "let down their hair" AKA say what they really feel. We all know what conservatives feel as they've hated and stereotyped people with mental illnesses forever.

All that said, here are the views of both sides: Conservatives quote the second amendment to defend their gun love/addiction/perverted sexual fetish. To these people, to crack down on certain guns means to take away all their guns. This is foolish and false, of course, but it's how they feel. Their mantra is "guns don't kill people, people kill people." This view is one of intent. That it leaves out the obvious problem of gun accidents which are caused by guns and not people killing people is irrelevant to their argument. Their desire is to choose guns over people. What sets them at ease is that the people they're choosing guns over are the "whackos." THEY'RE the ones that are the problem. Background check those people and all is right as rain. So who gets scapegoated? People like me that have bipolar disorder and, if you also have a mental issue, you're being scapegoated, too. Can't take any guns out of the hands of "real Americans" and can't blame guns so blame the whackos. I grew up with conservatives. This is how they feel.

Now liberals. I posted several months ago about how comments by Charles and Amy Schumer stereotyped mentally ill people as being the primary cause of gun violence. This narrow view, no doubt spoken by Amy Schumer with the strong encouragement of her liberal relative, can largely be excused because she's a celebrity popularity butt kisser and wants to get on the mainstream left wing celebrity bandwagon by calling press conferences and saying things. Democrats care SO MUCH about this issue (nothing wrong with that) that they're willing to leave politically correct territory. Their view? Guns kill people. I suppose they think people kill people too but their focus is on the weapons, themselves. Get rid of the guns and all is well. It's naive and impossible to politic for as guns have existed for hundreds of years and no doubt always will. The message is passionate, repetitious, and perpetual. However, Democrats, as shown by Charles and Amy Schumer and President Obama and others are also into background checks (they're on the lookout for right wing crazies) and treatment for the mentally ill.

Here is my take on that last point, which makes me VERY MAD! As a person with a mental issue, I've gone through incredible suffering. I don't own a weapon, don't want to and have never tried to. I work all the time at staying sane and take powerful medications that make me heavy and anesthetized for certain periods. I, like all others battling such problems, fight it everyday. Why do Democrats want people to get mental health treatment? On this issue, it's not because of concern or compassion. It's to take the guns out of the hands of the "crazies." To me, the comments of Amy Schumer with her grinning goon of a relative by her side conclusively prove that (and I don't want it to be so.) Democrats feel like blacks and gays are their family and friends. As members of persecuted American groups, I also feel kinship with such people. HOWEVER, it's clear that, to Democrats on the issue of gun control, the "crazies" are to be scapegoated by them as well. "Mental health treatment" not because it helps us but because it will cut down on gun violence in their eyes. Left wing ideology preaches that people are innately good. What makes them evil is when they go insane. It's ignorant because many sane people choose evil (as strange as that seems.) Therefore, when evil is done, it's the "crazies." Drug them up and keep them down and away. It hurts my feelings anytime I get that vibe from Democrats because they're supposed to be the "rainbow party" that accepts everyone. Do they have friends with mental illnesses? Are people with mental illnesses a color on their rainbow? Are we?

The struggle to limit access to certain weapons is the contentious point between the two sides and where they both get stuck. Democrats want to eliminate as many dangerous weapons as possible. Conservatives think that AK-47s and other overkill guns are vitally important to making sure Barack Obama doesn't come to their neighborhoods with red Communist tanks or some such nonsense that they truly believe. At the latest shootout, both sides express their views, butt heads a little then cool off to be dormant until the next bit of gun violence comes to our attention (a nearly everyday event in today's world of extreme social media.) Who gets treated like second class (at best) citizens? We do. People with "mental issues." We're discussed like Americans used to talk about blacks. We're not people. We're an issue to be debated and we have no say in the matter. Background checks will undoubtedly exclude people with mental illnesses from owning weapons. Who will make that decision? Democrats and Republicans jointly (so long as the "crazies" pursued aren't traditionally right wing "crazies.") What will the cutoff be? Blacks used to be considered 3/5 of a person. Will people with anxiety disorders be allowed guns? What about people with depression? Well, I'm bipolar and they're all a bunch of psychos so our fearless leaders will exclude me, right?

As I stated earlier, I have never owned a gun and don't want to. I don't need one. I'm not afraid of non-existent gun toting Commies in America knocking on my door to shoot me. The second amendment was very important when the colonists were fighting against British soldiers in their backyards. Does any American really need an arsenal of assault weapons to feel happy and safe?

My last comment is that I'm keenly aware that people with mental illnesses are responsible for some gun violence. Sadly, mental illnesses can so greatly affect people's brains that wonderful, well meaning people sometimes grab nearby weapons and go shoot up a shopping mall. It happens. Mass shootings are often the result of people in the grip of delusions and hallucinations. I'm certainly not advocating putting weapons in the hands of all or people who can be dangerous to themselves or others. My point is that it's a REPRESENTATION issue. I guarantee guys like Charles Schumer don't consult NAMI or other such groups on issues like this (however, I could be wrong on that.) After Amy Schumer's "Dude! I'm a celebrity!" comments, I sent an angry E-mail to his website expressing my feelings. Unsurprisingly, I got no reply. Carrie Fisher (who I think is great) is bipolar. If she sent an E-mail, he would call a press conference to talk about how great it is. The average citizen with mental issues? Excluded. Our opinions don't count on the issue of gun control. This is strange because background checks will effect us the most. Are Democrats and Republicans rendering us invisible as people and as Americans? I will leave that up to you to decide. Thanks for reading this far! You must be a masochist like me.