Tag: ignorance

Prehension.

If only people were more concerned with learning the truth than being right. It is uncomfortable, dare I say painful, to navigate into unfamiliar waters. You bump and skid and fumble in the murky unknown, moving ever so slowly and grasping ever so gently for something to guide you. This is where understanding begins to blossom.

I detest using language with sweeping generalities like ‘the majority of people’, but I’ll say it. The majority of people are more concerned with being right than being correct (correct in the sense that the focus of the intellect should be to reveal and expound upon truth, not defend pride). No ones senses are any better equipped at feeling out the world than another. Every human experience is valuable. Each person’s input contributes to the larger picture, the ethereal essence we swim through called life.

It is terribly difficult to live along side people who are uncompromising, and incorrect. They would rather form gross prejudices and have the world cater to narrow belief systems them venture into uncomfortable compromise. Learning from someone, especially someone who’s background is quite contrary to yours, is not only disorienting, it is threatening. You open yourself up to vulnerabilities. You arsenal of knowledge is useless in this foreign land. You are at the mercy of time and humiliation (humility should be practiced anyway).

Over time, after you’ve felt your way around the new sanctuary of perspicacity, you begin to make yourself at home. You begin to trust your senses and use the footings and tools previously overlooked. This is when understanding is garnered. Let others hurl insults from their fortified and familiar bunkers, filled with the stench of stale familiarity. They take no risks so they never breath the fresh zephyrs trailing after pursuit. Instead they become entrenched in their defenses, fastening themselves to the most hackneyed ground.

Sad, sad, world. If we would only unhinge from our precious securities, cast off the trammels holding us down, we would see a world beyond our narrow apertures as we explore the vast wilderness of imagination.

You must be willing to endure the humiliating pains of blindness before true insight is gained. anyway.

Home-makers.

I don’t like this question- or my answer- too much. It’s hard to differentiate between the environmental and genetic contributors. Females rear children. This is not a gender stereo-type, this is a genetic fact. In a society filled with avarice and cupidity its no wonder women are abandoning their roles as the homemaker to pursue lifestyles that demand more. There is a warped perception of successful living. Half the world lives on two dollars a day, that’s less than $750 a year. In America, the average annual income per capita is over $35,000. Is this necessary? The average child per household has been declining ever since the industrial revolution. Women are physically made to birth, breast feed, and emotionally nurture their children. This is true from a physical as well as psychological position. Continuing this trend throughout the children’s adolescent years solidifies the typical behavior woman adhere to throughout the rest of their life. Considering it a stereotype is a misnomer. It’s a fact of life that most women reject in modern society. Tilling the fields, raising cattle and the likes are suited for individuals, men, where their offspring are not wholly dependent upon them. Women have a duty to be home with the children. No matter how much a male wants to breastfeed his children, or give them a mother’s loving emotionally support, it’s not realistic, healthy or pragmatic to replace this figure.
The role of women as a home maker was established in their DNA- outlying cases aside. As far as how it’s being perpetuated throughout society today? Religion, specifically the doctrine of Christianity in our society, perpetuates these notions. Penned several thousand years ago, one might say it outdates the current times, but we were the same genetic people several thousand years ago that we are today. We were the same genetically even two thousand or one thousand or five hundred years ago. In the span of a few centuries we’ve taken our genetic code and its practical out-working’s of a successful family system and tossed them out the window in order to justify our self-indulgence.
Is it any wonder why we have a male dominated business world? Who raises the children? If the mothers are there to breast-feed and emotionally raise their children, who is? Strangers in daycares dowsing infants with concocted formulas? Who is teaching children their moral and ethical values? Strange school systems designed to program future industry employees? We’ll have to wait to see how this manifests itself in our society. Is it a matter of competency or resilience? This I would never argue. Women are just as capable. The issue is of the raising a healthy family. As long as raising a healthy family is at the forefront of society and concerns, the ‘stereo-type’ of mother’s being home-makers will continue to perpetuate.
Maybe I’m biased but this is a quaint subject I’d like to explore and understand more thoroughly.