All I know is that I don't not know nothing.

Politics is funny to me. It doesn't take a lot of effort to realize that what you thought yesterday isn't necessarily what you think now even when yesterday you thought that you would always think that way, so tomorrow you probably won't think the way you do today. Yet, everyone is so sure they know what's right for themselves and everyone else. I think that the biggest proof that someone isn't sure of what they claim to believe is stubbornness. How better can one try to convince oneself of correct conclusions than to ignore all other perspectives and react hostilely to new ideas.

Even in situations where there is an Ultimate Truth (not politics), few people are honest enough with themselves and/or focused enough on legitimate self mastery to want to find out what it is. Most people don't want to discover truth; they want to discover that they knew the truth all along. just like nobody wants you to be completely honest with them; they only want you to be completely honest about the good things you say about them. It's worth secretly being wrong today to avoid openly admitting you were wrong yesterday, especially if your stubbornness allows that secret to keep even you in the dark.

We're so afraid of being (or having been) wrong that instead of pursuing what's right, we'd rather convince ourselves that we were never wrong in the first place. We're so busy trying to persuade ourselves that we're right, that it seems the only defense we have against opposing opinions is to rile ourselves up in the polarized, irrational, mob mentality: that anyone who thinks differently is stupid or evil. If all of that is based on your initial thought that you've been working so hard to convince yourself is right (that was probably imposed on you by circumstance), then people just like you in different situations are probably thinking you are just as evil and stupid as you think they are. Think of school and sports rivalries. What are those based on if not thoughtless, random affiliation. What about Road Rage? How can getting angry at someone you don't even know improve your situation with them. When people get angry at you and think you're stupid, does that make you want to think they're right and justified in any act of aggression toward you? The more you hate, the more you become like those you hate so much. The more you think about it, the more you know. Do you want to?

Quaestiones Disputatio

I got in an argument recently that was extremely frustrating. It wasn't even in person. not even on the phone. it was online, for goodness' sake! I think that's what bothered me to begin with. It's hard enough to communicate what you really feel when you're looking at the person and they can hear you and respond immediately. But that's still not the frustrating part. No matter how logical and honest my answers and explanations were, this person continued to accuse me of things that either weren't true, or obviously misunderstood. Even after clarification and interpretation of intentions, no progress was made, in fact, it was more regressive than anything (who's going backward?). I realized that resolution was not this person's motive; it was justification. There was no intention of understanding the other side, and I got caught up in it too! I felt silly for even getting involved in it and started to see my own selfish intentions to "win" the argument (for sake of score keeping and one-up-manship, I'm pretty sure I won, anyway), so i decided to just leave it be. It was easy to see that no good would come of continuing, even if I was right.

Isn't that usually the case with arguments? Can you ever think of a time when you won an argument and then felt like you achieved what you were arguing for? I can think of a lot of arguments I at least think I won, but I never felt good about it afterward because the "loser" never admits to losing. In arguments where even the smallest part of my motivation is to win the argument, I never feel satisfied unless the person with whom I argued also acknowledges my victory. In the spirit of competition there is always a loser. Even when merely self proclaimed, there is seldom a winner. In the rare occasion that one wins an argument to the acknowledgment of everyone involved, what moral justification is there in self gratification? How can you ever feel good for bringing someone else down? You can't be motivated to win an argument without also being motivated to make your opponent lose. It is impossible to morally build yourself up while breaking others down.

When Jesus Commands the Nephites not to have disputations among them about the doctrines he gave, I don't think he's telling them not to talk about or even question them. I think he's commanding them (and us) not to argue about it. As I pointed out, argument seems to be more of a form of competition than truth seeking. I think sometimes we get confused in our attempts to be honest, too. Honesty isn't just saying facts. Half the truth is often a great lie. Oftentimes, our arguments are exactly that: half the truth, because we don't know enough to give all of it. I think honesty is saying, to the best of our ability, what is ultimately beneficial for the people we're talking to. Nothing that isn't motivated by love falls under that category. Saying kind truths is probably the closest to truth we are able to speak. What if our conversations were only focussed on establishing truth and honestly saying kind things to each other? I think there would be a lot fewer negative things to not talk about.

"Always love! Hate will get you every time.
Always love! Even when you want to fight."
-Nada Surf: Always Love

Love's Labour's Lost

I think people are forgetting how to love. Sometimes it feels like the only worth I have to people, even those I consider my good friends, is based on my achievements, accomplishments, and academic or monetary potential. This is what I like to call "friendship credentials". What's worse is I find myself qualifying my friends (or potential friends) the same way. It's an easy way to evaluate whether someone can be beneficial to you as a friend. As if people were assets, or objects, or possessions. How dehumanizing! That's not love! Friends aren't positions that can just be replaced like a burnt-out lightbulb! People are people for heaven's sake! Love is more than actions. It's more than words, however cliché that is. It's a spiritual unity, however silly that sounds. Whatever is spiritual is eternal!

We live in a compatibility focused world. People have to be "compatible" with us to deserve our time and attention, I guess. Nobody thinks about what they need to do to be compatible themselves. Whatever it takes to escape personal responsibility. If I don't get along with someone, it's obviously their fault. Right? We are commanded to love everyone. I don't think that means that we're commanded to just distantly be fond of humans. Jesus Christ doesn't love me because I happen to fall under the same genus. He also doesn't love me based on my credentials (thank goodness). There's something more. What is it that he knows about me that lets him love me perfectly? Well that's just it: He doesn't just "know about" me, he knows me! With a little bit of thought about who we really are, it's easy to understand that we are something more than we give ourselves credit for. Are we able to see that in each other. Wouldn't that be the ultimate compatibility? Who isn't compatible with someone who feels personally responsible and motivated to really know you enough to really love you regardless of your credentials? I sure hope I am. Is there anyone who doesn't deserve that from me? can I be compatible with anyone? Anyone who has that same motivation, at least. In that case, any other deterrent can't be anything but superficial. I want to be the type of person who can be a friend with anyone, not just a replaceable friend, not a place holder.