The Greatest Purpose Principal

I’ve previously proposed that there is no need to spend energy wandering through space and time with intentions of self-discovery. Self-discovery is, in my estimation, an aimless pursuit. The “self,” if there is such a thing, lies somewhere between our clothes, haircuts, tattoos, and the environment we are surrounded by. If our ideas of ourselves are almost entirely constructed, but there is, at least I hope, a deeply rooted “self” to be fortified (not discovered), then where is the beloved journey of self-discovery and purposeful pursuit?

            First, we must differentiate between determinism and purpose. While there is a purpose within determinism, you can neither fulfill it (the act of fulfilling requires agency) or obstruct it, it is only actionable through staying alive and requires no agency.  Purpose does not presuppose a deterministic existence, but a deterministic existence requires purpose because each sentient being can be boiled down to their biological (whether it be genetic or environmental) purpose. We know, for example, that each organism in an ecosystem serves many distinct ecological functions in the whole of the ecosystem and tend to act as such with little or no deviation. Because humans have such capacity for environmental alterations, it is challenging to differentiate what is biologically innate and what is societally constructible. It is my observation that we either quantify actions, such as the birthing and nurturing capacity primarily associated with females, as accordant with natural law by default or in accordance with societal construction by default. Of course, defaulting to one or the other discounts any potential agency and responsibility for an outcome as a consequence of agency. Therefore, I contend that humans act both intentionally and deterministically; our actions are a culmination of both biological and societal construction, but only to the point of a heightened-potential for influence on a decision.

As for how our free-will acts on our purpose, we can navigate this question by defining what a secular purpose might look like at its most profound:

            First, shed the conception of purpose as an enigmatic, profound, and impactful individual career purpose. Not every purpose within our human ecosystem, either biological or constructed, will manifest in your career; second, consider what you do now—once again, not as a career, but habitually. Consider your eating, sleeping, hygeinic, exercise, interactive, and intellectual routines as the best observable accounts of who you are and what you do; thirdly, consider everything you do as universal and applicable to everything that you physically perceive and the majority of everything that you cannot perceive. In other words, when you make your bed in the morning, you can physically see that your bed is made. The order that you, through agency, have applied to your life is perceivable to you and whoever else may see your orderly bed, but the psychological ripples created in the process of your willful productivity exponentiate indirectly and universally in ways that may be imperceivable by you.

            Abstaining from the metaphysical, this is the most evident purpose to be uncovered, and it is neglected regularly on many fronts.

            In this sense, we are born with a purpose, our actions affect it, and our actions provide potential outcomes with varying levels of desirability. Whether we positively or negatively impact ourselves and therefore those we interact with is our purpose. Our purpose within our society is as instrumental as each musician’s role in an orchestra. There is an element of freedom to deviate from order, but to deviate too far is to fail at fulfillment of your greatest potential purpose and risk excising yourself from the orchestra. We operate within our human ecosystem to the beat of a metronome, no different than the plants and animals of the forest.

            Consider a stream. It flows only in one direction. Of course, a stream has no agency, but it an be acted upon. If the stream is dammed, for example, its direction dictated by nature, or purpose of greatest value, is altered by a competing act of nature. If it is dammed to the extent that fish can no longer swim to their spawning grounds, it is fulfilling a purpose still, but not its greatest potential purpose as determined by natural law. In the case of the human purpose, our agency can often dam our greatest potential purpose.

            So, to the question of whether we are born with the purpose or we develop into our purpose, the answer is the former, with the caveat that we may fail at fulfilling our greatest potential purpose. We may be born with a biological purpose and forfeit it. This does not mean that we no longer have purpose, it just means that our purpose, or role, is of no value to us and we prefer to enact on another, less meaningful purpose. Therefore, there is a highest potential purpose for the individual within a community and every action or lack of action detracts from fulfillment of the potential; thus, leaving the purpose to be fulfilled by another agent or not at all.  

            As with any philosophical conundrum, whether we are born with a specific purpose or we discover our purpose is a small dilemma with large implications. If, for example, we deny entirely that there is a superior role for individuals to fulfill within a functioning society, we invite all the instruments to solo at once. This is a piece with little listening value. Even in Jazz, there must be an element of conformity in deviations. It is best to construct when and how the deviations will occur to maintain something listenable. So also, is our role within a society. When we trivialize roles that genders, body types, personality types, and innate talents play within society, we risk trivializing values which helped to construct benevolent societies in the first place.

We do not entirely need to alter our innate qualities to create environments without conflict. Conflicting philosophies, theologies, and purposes fulfill a greater purpose, even beyond that of a peaceful society. Recognition of someone’s innate qualities may, whether they like it or not, thrust them into a purpose they did not intend. But our intentions for our own purpose are not all that enact on the purpose we fulfill. If your intention is to be an astronaut but you are born with little intelligence or ability to act competently under pressure, your purpose might be janitorial work at NASA.

As harsh as that sounds, it goes to show how little of our potential is a product of our agency. What we do, what we say, what we value, and who we surround ourselves with, matters immensely. We may be born with a profound purpose, but pursue a lesser purpose.

So, if our greatest potential purpose is inherent and if there is a risk of either fulfilling it or succumbing to a lesser purpose, how can we go about discovering our purpose? Firstly, look at ourselves honestly and stop complaining about what you do not have. If you are not highly intelligent but are large and brutishly strong, do not try to become an outstanding intellectual. This does not mean that you cannot attempt to overcome inherited challenges, it means that you were born with a specific skillset that you can ride to the top of an adjoining hierarchy should you pursue it fervently. It does not mean that your skills and lack of skills define everything you do; it means do not habitually envy what others have and you do not. Striving to overcome challenges and failing or succeeding is the best way to measure what our talents are, but do not be sunken by your lack of inherent value as opposed to another. If everyone was an intellectual, we would have a whole society of ideas and very little of them would come to fruition.

This brings me full-circle: that we do have a purposeful role to fulfill, we do not always attain its end, we spend far too much time seeking or admiring purpose and not enough time fortifying it. What causes talent to manifest within an individual is not a necessary point to reason. Pondering what utopian societal conditions might create equality potentially propels us to attempt to create an environment that births total equal opportunity and equally valuable purpose from person-to-person. This is impossible. Instead, it should be our intention to nurture the good qualities and strengthen the bad within each of us so that we may provide the most useful version of ourselves to ourselves; and with that, value to others; and with that, a profound greatest purpose.

The Devil You Know: the State of the Church or the Church of the State?

It must be noted that the word ‘church’ can be used to define either a singular institution of faith or all carriers of the faith itself. It can be used to mean “a place I go to profess my faith,” or it can be used to mean “the faith we hold.” For the purpose of this article, we will be discussing ‘church’ as the state of a faith (in this case Christianity) versus the state of the institution. The distinction is minor, but with the many various forms of Christianity, it can be challenging to hold accountable the Catholic church and the United Church of Christ simultaneously accounting for their considerable deviations from biblical teachings. The Churches will not be specifically discussed, instead it is all those who claim the doctrine of the Christian faith (The Old and New Testaments.)

How long do we have to flip through the news stations to hear a story about our president sleeping with a porn star and paying to keep her quiet? With a story like this, two things are happening: left-leaning news and entertainment enhance the flavor by giving it more air-time than it deserves; right-leaning media and, since there are very few outspoken right-wing entertainers, conservative supporters point their fingers at the bias of the left-leaning news media and liberal politicians who historically have done the same thing. "It's a distraction from the real issues," they might say. On one hand, left wing atheists cry “hypocrisy from the religious right!”, and on the opposite hand the religious right hypocritically backs clearly immoral politicians and business owners because “at least they don’t suck-up to these snowflakes on the left.”

            How is this a Christian nation?

            “In God We Trust” is on our currency. When we say the pledge of allegiance, we have the audacity to say, “one nation under God.” Which God are we serving? Are we serving the God of the republic? Are we serving the God of the Tea Party? Is this the same God who told Peter “He who lives by the sword must die by the sword”? Is this the same God who said “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Render unto God what is God’s”? Is this the same God who said “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ houses and for show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely."?

            These are not kind words for those who claim the law of the Abrahamic God. If you are looking for a God that values narcissistic, hypocritic, self-serving, judgmental, money-grubbing, shameless, earthly, egotistical, adulterous and unrepentant false Christians, don’t open the New Testament; you will not find that God. The God you will find meets very little of the criteria of the Republican Party, which claims this God most outspokenly.

             It can be made an easy task to point our fingers at the opposition who do not believe in the God of the Jews and say “this is a Christian nation. If you don’t like it, get out.” If you believe in Biblical sin, it isn’t hard to find someone who doesn’t and point out their sins. But we know those who do not believe will not follow. It isn’t our job to force them to; it is our job to follow and lead the willing. This is no easy task when the majority of “Christians” in this nation will throw their core doctrinal values to the wind as soon as some orange haired gorilla  promises to build a retaining wall and lower taxes. If you believe in Jesus with your tongue but not your feet, don’t expect someone who does not believe in Jesus to act in accordance with your doctrinal values. Don’t claim to live in a Christian nation when the churches are hardly even Christian.

            The truth is, there is no room for Christianity in our state. There is no room socially, there is no room economically, and there is no room internationally. Jesus was not a warrior. Jesus had no interest in condemnation for non-believers. They condemn themselves. Jesus and his followers were hardly materialistic, yet we live among the most material and economically driven nations in the world. We have more military bases around the world than any other country—and it isn’t even close.

           How are we a Christian nation?

           I am not claiming that the United States would be better-off to abandon its global materialism and accept foreign malevolence, but I am saying this: if you think you are a Christian and claim to follow the gospels, if you think the United States is Christian, if you think any form of your government is Christian, then you might think about reading Matthew through Revelation. Jesus does not spend a lot of time talking about nationalism, governmental law, foreign policy, or enforcing Jewish Law on Gentiles. Jesus was quite opposite of any recent major American politicians—and it isn’t even close.

           Unfortunately, God is dying, much like Nietzsche predicted. But it isn’t non-believers that killed him; it is believers. It's the Devil we know... I cannot fathom why anyone who doesn’t believe in a Christ would start believing if they looked at the examples of modern or historical Christians or “Christian nations.” The reason to keep the church separate from the state is not because the church should not be in the state, it is because the inevitable folly of man cannot be left out of the church. We cannot, in good faith, continue to claim our righteousness as reasoning for our political convictions. It is not our convictions that suffer but our righteousness. Humans are made to evolve, and so does the state, but if a state coincides with the church then the church too would evolve alongside the state. If the churches evolve, and I would argue the churches met their folly upon their creation, then righteousness and law begin to merge. As soon as biblical virtue evolves with modern moral norms, its importance dies.

            An atheist would find no harm in the devaluation of many Christian ethics, nor should they, they do not believe it. But if you claim it as your belief, you are then also accountable for upholding the belief and challenging those who falsely claim your belief. If you claim to be a believer but do not challenge divisive and immoral behavior within the church and within your supposed representatives, you are complicit in the killing of your God. This damage is irreparable and, if you believe it, you will stand trial. If this bothers you, consider these options: change your political support habits or don’t claim the Christian belief.  

            It is true, this nation has built some Christian values into its philosophy, but the values of material wealth, moral liberalism, and sexual exploitation have paved the way for a nation that is far more interested in its subjective welbeing than serving the most-high God. It’s hard to imagine Donald Trump and Jesus of Nazareth agreeing on much. Every time we accept the immorality of our peers within the church we deny God, and this is not to be taken lightly. It doesn’t mean you cannot challenge the sins of the opposition in defense of your faith, and it does not mean you cannot love your country as well; what it means is what and who we back matters. What it means is when you submit the church to the will of the immoral state you render unto Caesar what is Gods. The leaders we stand by publicly and what moral laws we are comfortable parting ways with in favor of our cognitive dissonance will be held against us.

But, you know… only if you believe that sort of thing.

“You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not faith alone.” James 2: 20-24

Little White Lies: A Compilation of Identities

Our character’s name is Max. Max wears a Cincinatti Reds baseball cap backwards. The cap rests on top of Max’s spiked crop-cut. Max wears a grey polo one size too large and a pair of kaki-pants two sizes too wide. Max is not outspoken, but has a soft and feminine voice with a tinge of urban masculinity. Max is a male, born a female.

Our character reminds me of a poster on the wall in my ninth grade teen leadership class which read “Be Yourself!” Many hours in this class I stared at this poster wondering what the implications could have been if we lived in a world where everyone was unapolligetically themselves. Would this be a desirable world? Would we “coexist” as simply as a bumper sticker spread across the rear window of your neighbors Toyota Prius would lead you to believe? Would the driver of the raised Ford F-350 with the confederate flag gliding through the thick summer air have any objections to everyone being themselves?

These questions may seem like rhetoricals, but they are not. Every person we see carries the wieght of their identity, hopes either outwardly or inwardly to be accepted by those around them, and is in a constant state of identity reckoning. But what is most curious about our idenity, as we percieve it to be, is that we construct it almost entirely.

Generally speaking, when we shop for clothes, get a haircut, buy a car, buy a house, or choose a sexual partner, either consiously or subconsiously we choose what we choose based on an idea of who we are, what use these things are to us, and how we are portrayed by these things to the others. We are rarely who we actually are. In reality, we construct ourselves from the bottom up with hopes of finding the perfect accent to how we feel about ourselves within a given period on the timeline of our lives. Max, at the age of nineteen, wakes up in the morning, puts on a grey collared shirt and kaki pants, puts a Cincinatti Reds hat on, and goes about the day. But Max is not a Cincinatti Reds player, Max is not the grey polo, the kaki pants, the $120 Jordans, nor is Max a boy. When it is all stripped away, Max, just like you and I, is just another consious meatball floating through space hoping to be something to someone or themeselves. Max has an idea of who Max is, but it is in constant evolution and is not to be taken without a pinch of salt.

Lets be clear, when it’s said “be yourself,” it is more than what we think of ourselves and what we choose as material representatives that define us, it is the content of our character. In a country deeply stricken by the virus of identity politics, (both right and left wings) it’s hard to know for sure if it is our beliefs that define our character, or if it is our actions. The “things” we use to portray who we are, weather it be tattoes, cars, or distinct fashion choices, act more on our beliefs than our beliefs act on them. The clothes you wear very minimally alter your character, and I would argue nearly always negatively. What gender you interpret yourself to be, what sexuality you are, what your skin color is, how much you love weed, or what sports team you represent are not representaions of who you are, you are representations for them.

Unfortunately, as I said before, your character can be altered by these things. “Power works both in us and through us” as my philosophy instructor would say. If that is the case, the influences around us are not so different from the things we use to influence others about ourselves. In this case, we should all be victim to our surroundings and our notions given to us about us. But simply existing in an atmosphere, if free-will exists, is not wholly enough to influence our decisions.

The danger of identity politics is the claim that our identity, whether it be our own percieved identity or the identity of our group, is who we are. I would argue we are much more than our appearance, we are far greater than our ubringing, and we always have a choice. If that  is the truth, then you are accountable for who you are. You cannot use your upringing or self-interpretation as an excuse for your shallow character. Instead of taking people at their word for who they are, take them at face value. If we take people at face value, we might see that they value, often narcassistically, representing themselves more than they value the content of their decisions. If your actions best represent how you identify yourself, which is often very far from who we are naturally, then your actions are in peril of being self-serving and shallow. You don’t need clothes, tattoos, or green hair to be you, you already are you. What defines you is your impact, your desire for purpose, and how you act on your purpose.

I heard a quote from Oprah Whinfrey once that said something along the lines of “find your truth.” It’s a widely propegated idea that we should always be in search for what is true to us and self-discovery. However, who we are when we are born is true. What we do and how we are perieved is true. We don’t have to search for our truth because truth doesn’t need us. We habitually tell ourselves little white lies about who we truly are, but we were truly who we are before we had any understanding that we were anything at all. Stop trying to invent yourself. Stop trying to invent your truth. The one thing we don’t have to do in life, yet still waste our time trying to do, is find ourselves. Take your clothes off, shut your mouth, and look in the mirror. That’s who you are. Accept it, put your clothes back on so we don’t have to see you naked, and go be great.

“There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things that come out of him, those are they that defile the man” Mark 7:15