Something new.

I'm in Winona, which is unexpected and awesome, but it's 2:30 and I'm not quite what could be called tired. There are issues running through my head that I've been wanting to try to explain to somebody for the last God-knows-how-long, and I feel like I should start to get them out. I don't know if I'll actually post this, but if I do, those few people who I know occasionally read this tend to be among the group I trust to know me this well, as well as to think and talk with me about these things. Also, I generally trust you to not think I'm crazy.

First thing first:
What's up with the traditional view of heroism in our society? With a few exceptions from actual history, it seems like the notion of heroism (at least of the more adventurous variety) is inexorably linked with violence. Call me crazy, but this strikes me as a bad thing for a few reasons.

For one, when you spend so much time being told that problems can be solved through direct confrontation, improper expectations are built; expectations in which helping people becomes less important than solving their problems. I don't think I've fallen completely into that trap (or, at least, I like to think I recognize it when I do), but it's there, and I know I'm not the only one.

The second worry is more personal. Maybe it's just the fact that so much of my worldview is wrapped so strongly in the escapist media that's been such an important part of my upbringing...but every time I think of adventure - which, due to said overexposure, I occasionally look at as a necessity for happiness as opposed to contentment - it always winds up being linked with physical conflict. Even though my own experience shows elation in mere exploration and great sorrow in causing pain; there's this part of me in which longs for some sense of physical confrontation; that longs for a palpable, tangible source of evil that can actually be stopped by humanities oldest and least effective method of problem solving. The sheer number of people I know who "joke" about anxiously awaiting a zombie apocalypse makes me feel like I'm not alone here, either.

I think that this is the real allure, and the real danger, here. The path of Cain comes so naturally to us that we'd all love to think that, ultimately, it will at some point be the right one, even though we all know that deep down it never will be. History shows us time and time again that the only way to really bring about change is by adherence to the great commandments given us by Christ: to love God with all our heart, mind, and strength, and to love our neighbor as ourself. It's a damnable shame that it's such a hard calling to adhere to (pseudo-pun pseudo-intended).

Second mini-rant picks up near where that left off:
The Golden Rule seriously needs to be rephrased. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is meant to embody the basic tenets of "Love your neighbor as yourself"...but it seems to me that it fails miserably. I started having this conversation with a couple of my roommates the other day, but one of them wouldn't hear it, simply because he was so used to relating the first as being equivalent to the second. I think the linguists and semantic nuts among you will agree with me that it's not.

The Golden Rule is, by its very phrasing, self centered. It asks you to think of how you feel, or believe you would feel given a certain circumstance. Well, guess what, that other person isn't you, and at least 50 percent of the time, what makes you feel better probably isn't gonna do the trick for another person. The great commandment is, by its nature, focused on the other person. We are to love them to the same extent we love ourselves. It says nothing of the manner, just the amount because Christ, being, you know, omniscient, understands that the manner must vary. By its nature, Love has to be expressed differently between different people; certainly there are universal acts that can be used to express it, but if I'm truly trying to show my love to my mother and my father, I can't treat them identically. That would be not only inconsiderate, but it would be dehumanizing them by ignoring their individuality. How then, in choosing to treat everybody as we would like to be treated, can we follow the Golden Rule as traditionally told, and retain a respect for the humanity and individuality of all? We can't.

My initial response is to say that the Golden Rule should read "Treat others as they would have you treat them"...but that leaves elephant-sized gaps for people who are disturbed or depressed to justify or encourage mistreatment. So, I don't know what we can really use as an entirely secular rephrasing of the Golden Rule, but we seriously need one, or else we'll never advance beyond this cultural overemphasis on "how I feel". Any ideas, fellow postmodern linguists in the audience?

I had one more thing to rant on, but I seem to have forgotten it, so I'll leave it at this for now. If this generates some discussion, either just with me or through comments, or whatever, maybe I'll make writing out these sorts of rants and ramblings a greater priority.