Cycle of Doom

"Get right back on the horse" means that if you are learning to ride a horse and it throws you off that you should get right back on the horse. This teaches both you and the horse that eventually this will be mastered. A fall need not need define you.

When I fall it is for two reasons: there is something I want which naturally leads towards falling and the horse itself will throw me off.

The problem with the "get back on the horse" analogy is that both my desires and the comparative strength of the horse are hard wired... they are a part of our definition.

This leads to what Jackson's sermon called the cycle of doom: you try, fail, try harder, succeed for a while and then fail again (repeat to infinitude). This can lead to amazing accomplishments but never to peace, joy or success. For example, let's say my dad had been on the cycle of doom. As a young man he was a violent and wild father. He had some humbling experiences that taught him how horrible this could be so he tries to change. He does pretty good for a while but then loses his temper, hits the bottle and wakes up on the street. So he tries again and does a little better for a little while but then he loses his temper again and hits the bottle and maybe something else. This continues for forty or so years until near the end of the life he is a grizzled and humbled mountain man at AA who with pain and wisdom hard earned speaks of the effect of alcoholism. This old man is an amazing accomplishment and those who know only this part of his life say "What a great man."

My dad would never say this about himself because he knows his wisdom was built upon beaten sons and wives, abandoned children and self destruction that defies belief. The naive idealist would say "Oh but look at all the wisdom he has achieved and the good he has done! Was it not worth it?" I can say with some knowledge that my dad would give a friendly laugh like when he heard my teenage ideas but at his funeral all the people who knew him best were wounded by him. The tone of those who were his sons and wife was that of a terrible forgiveness born from grief and helplessness.

Imagine there was a president who through a lack of wisdom or experience did horrible horrible things which destroyed the lives of many people. But through his missteps the president became a better wiser person and at the end of his (or her) life did nothing but restitution. Would it undo the damage? Could his or her planted trees, children books read and moral lessons bring one dead son to life, heal the wounds?

The cycle of doom at it best produces toothless but wise old men and women who powerful but unwise men and women can safely ignore. And to tell the truth usually it does not even produce this. Most old people I know have a few teeth left and regret their age more than the lives they lived.

This is is why the best the secular position can offer is resignation. "That's the way it is." "It's the way of the world." "What can you do?" "Just get back on the horse."
...

The thing about learning to ride a horse is it is not something you actually do alone. You are never the first person who says "Get back on the horse."

The problem with the fall is that it resulted in two things I can not change: what I want and the strength of the horse. I might focus my desires so that I trade heroin for television and a prostitute for a wife (pick you addictions my dad said) but I can not change that I like to sit down and feel good or that sex is desirable.

The only way to escape the cycle of doom is help from someone who is not subject to it. Most world religions give fine, fine help to focus the cycle of doom to less destructiveness... until they mess up and kill a bunch of people and destroy families and communities burning the innocent and helpless alive for no reason at all.

The only escape is help from Someone who is not subject to the cycle of doom.

Heidiegger's last meaningful quote, at the end of his life, (and my favorite things about existentialism) was "Only a god could save us."

Entitlement

A political party is a somewhat random conglomeration of different interests that pretend to unite in order to share influence with each other. So let's say your key issue is the second amendment, the right to keep assault rifles. The NRA by itself certainly has some influence and political power in itself but when they are also backed by corporate deregulationists, small government advocates, pro-lifers, NAMBLA or whoever that lobby becomes more powerful. To be sure those lobbies may not care much about hunting or handguns but their passive inclusion grants a degree of extra legitimacy.

In "America The Book" the Daily Show writers mock this a little saying to someone thinking of running for office "do you support universal health care? Then you must also want a ban on assault weapons. Pro-limited government? Congratulations, you are also anti-abortion." (108) I can not help but imagine that a lot of these political alliances are arbitrary, what does government spending have to do with the abortion? Nothing except that all intelligent people think exactly as you do on this and all other subjects.

I've sensed a degree of antagonism or at least unease from the Libertarian branch of the Republican/conservatives I know who in particular do not favor the joining with social conservatives. There are varying reasons for this ranging from being a member of NAMBLA to anarchist tendencies. I will not be arguing for or against it, but was interested in making a some what logical connection between the politics of morality and government programs.

For my discussion I am distinguishing between Christianity and social conservatives. Of course it must be recognized that in American and most of Western civilization Social conservatives follow some variation of something like Christianity. But I distinguish the two based upon their stated objective:

Christianity's purpose is to declare God's message of redemption through Jesus Christ, equipping believers to do His will and caring for the needy.

The purpose of the social conservative is to enforce a set of moral rules, punishing transgressors and rewarding adherents but with the purpose of social harmony.

The two might sometimes join sides as Christianity does believe part of God's will is that we avoid sin and a social conservative might regard the church structure of Christianity as an expedient to their goals, but they are not the same. This can be seen in that their are Muslim, Confucian, Buddhist, Communist and all other kinds of social conservatives who are actually opposed to Christianity.

All of that to say why social conservatives are allied with fiscal conservatives! In particular when it comes to welfare and similar programs there is a logic between the two because one of the tenants of most social conservatives is the importance of hard work, earning one's own way and being a PRODUCTIVE member to society. When the government seeks to provide for the needs of some of the population it undermines the ideal that moral citizens ought to pay their own way. A fiscal conservative might not care how a welfare state will effect the character of society but a social conservative can scarcely be thought to think of anything else. So the two can be seen to share some common interests.

Poker is a game of odds and character

So I took Nate to play poker with the Outback guys and he said almost nothing the whole night and played maybe ten hands (and he slow played those ten) and he walked with maybe seventy bucks. That is a lot by our group standards.

So the first part about poker is simply knowing what the good hands are, knowing the odds. That is the easy part, a little math or a little experience and you are fine.

But the hard part for me is wanting to play every decent hand. There is something about an K/2 unsuited that says "this is your hand" and like a fool I play it. I joked once that the trick to paying poker is hating Satan. Satan says "play that hand" and so you have to say "I rebuke you Satan."

Kind of silly, but the point is that poker requires a degree of character. That is the kind of skill required, not simply the odds but the character that does not chase after every hand because "you never know."

Nate has that kind of character.

Ha ha if the game weren't some kind of spiritual exercise I wouldn't like it!