I’m just sitting here this Saturday evening (and now early Sunday morning) thinking about a whole number of topics but the one that is really on my mind is Karma. I have no doubt that by the time this post is complete we’ll have witnessed a long, potentially rambling, writing experience that either has no discernible point or a post that unlocks the mysteries of of the metaphysical and philosophical universes.

A number of events I’ve witnessed in recent memory have me once again wondering about the concept of Karma. On a very basic level does what go around come around?

Let us discuss these two scenarios:

The First…

You have a man who has, for the most part, acted in a self serving manner. While very successful in business he was so at the expense of others. Maybe his success was even due to questionable or illegal means. In his later years in life, after amassing a large fortune, he decides to act as a philanthropist and gives a large portion of his fortune away, or he possibly leaves his fortune to his family.  Finally, after living a long life he dies.

The Second…

You have a man who has, for the most part, acted in a self serving manner. While very successful in business he was so at the expense of others. Maybe his success was even due to questionable or illegal means. In his later years in life, after amassing a large fortune, he wakes up one day to find that his is just days away from bankruptcy.  A sudden change market conditions wiped out the majority of his financial estate. He is virtually ruined after a life of success and he dies a broken man.

If the concept of Karma is true, how can we account for the two scenarios?  If both men were equally ruthless, equally self serving, how can one end up a “successful” man and the other broken?

As religions and spiritual seekers have adopted the concept, Karma has come to mean a number of things for a number of people. Some will say that an evil act will give you “bad karma” and to expect something negative to happen to you in return  Others will say Karma is an energy force that you can “tune” yourself into, and you can take steps to avoid negative consequences by meditating; however, taking the basic definition of Karma provides us with the view that the the concept is a cycle of cause and effect.

If one takes the very basic view, there is no doubt – Karma, or cause and effect – is a reality. If you do x the consequences will be y. Taking the scenarios of our two men what if our first was calculated in his actions, he thought potential outcomes of his decisions and had plans in place for whatever may come. Each plan with an acceptable level of risk and reward. The second man did not put much thought into his decisions, he simply continued moving forward without understanding how his decisions impacted the world around him.

Now, let’s say this is the late 19th Century or early 20th Century where severe economic recession or depressions took place on a frequent basis. Our first man did not have the full trust the economic advisors around him and managed his investments as he felt appropriate. He researched, he planned and understood the impact his decisions may have.  The second man simply let others manage his business.  While being informed of changing market conditions he didn’t have an active role in saying what should happen, where is investments should move, and how he was going to manage the economic storm.

In both cases it is easy to see why both men ended up where they did thanks to cause and effect. But what about other situations?  What about Karma in the sends of “Good” or “Bad” luck?  During a conversation with my W she pointed out a concept I didn’t previous take into consideration when thinking about the subject – intent.

If Karma is more than cause and effect, and it is truly some force that is manifested by the universe on some level, what if something else plays into the determining factor of ones Karma.  What if the intent of the individual is included?

For example, I undertake some action with nothing but the best of intentions but, as a result of my actions, a large number of people end up feeling some negative results. If my intent was positive and the results was negative would I have ‘bad’ Karma?

While an interesting thought, it is a thought we’ll leave unexplored at this point as the experiment can easily unfold into a lost, unfocused, discussion.

Does intent play into the concept of Karma, no clue. I have no doubt that cause and effect plays into life, from the most basic personal decision to complex business scenarios. The one who has the ability to understand the impact of their decision on themselves and the world around them is, in my opinion, more likely to have a ’successful’ life. They are likely to have ‘good’ Karma. The individual who acts in a self serving manner without understanding the impact on the world is one who will end up facing more difficulty in life.

The scenario used above describes the Robber Barrons of the late 19th century.  If Karma was simply a “do good, then good comes your way” type event there is no way these men would have ever had success in life. They were often ruthless, and in many cases acting in ways that were less than ethical. These were very successful men who built fortunes on the backs of slaves, poor and the less fortunate and did so with the original intent of only looking out for themselves.  While history forgot a number of the industrialists that saw their mass fortunes wiped away by miscalculations and poor choices, the men who understood the impact of their decisions ended up surviving the test of time.

So, if Karma is simply cause and effect and understanding the relationship between the two, then yes, I do believe.

My grandfather was an a member of “The Greatest Generation”. A principled man who, despite a number of shortcomings, always managed to do the right thing – even in the face of his mortality.

Age, experience and his “stay the hell out of my way” personality help him accumulate bits of wisdom and knowledge over time, knowledge he was going to dispense regardless of what you wanted to hear. One comment he consistently utilized was “you can pick your friends but you cannot pick your family.”

In the days of my youth those were simply empty words.  I never believed in that saying.

If your sister did something so disturbing, so bothersome, that an intense anger grew to a borderline hatred you could just stop talking to her. Sure, you didn’t pick her to originally be in the family but you sure as hell picked her not to be in your family moving forward.

Age, experience and my own “trailblazer” personality finally helped me understand what my grandfather was trying to say.

This isn’t about who you’ve chosen as your friends, nor is it’s about the woman happens to be your sister.  No. My grandfather, I believe, was saying you cannot pick who is going to care for you.

He was saying that you can have friendships you’ve cultivated over time, and you have your sister that has known you from birth, but you cannot determine who is going to love you, care for you and unconditionally support you.

You can pick who you love but you cannot pick who loves you.

I may simply be looking back on my grandfather with a fond nostalgia. Maybe he was just a cranky old man who happened to “do the right thing” by chance, not choice.  Maybe his bit of wisdom was a way to rationalize a lifetime of stress, and maybe he was just saying “shut up and don’t argue with your sister at the kitchen table”.

With the lack of any solid evidence of him being a whack job, I’ll stick with the belief that he was a principled, wise man who was trying to educate the those around him.  Also, I will continue to be grateful for all of those who love and support me, regardless of how they’ve come into my life… because, remember, you can pick your friends but you cannot pick your family.

The concept of objectivity, and the execution of objectivity, in theory, should be easy to grasp. Reality, it seems, tends to get in the way of theory. Over the last two weeks I’ve had the chance to engage in a number of highly abstract, intellectually alluring discussions about “skeptics” and the ability to remain objective while defending/debating a belief.

As this stream of conscious continues to evolve a number of terms will be used and I want to establish the definitions upfront in order to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding:

• Skeptic – disbelieving: doubting the truth of something
• Faith – a belief in something for which there is no proof, or something desired, and is expected to occur
• Religion – system of beliefs, including belief in the existence of at least one of the following: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being
• Objectivity – judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

Skeptics and Faith/Religion

Skeptics consistently make one major cases against god and religion:

No empirical data exists that actually proves the existence of god; therefore the actions based in religious practices are moot.

People strong with religious views tend to counter:

Religions world wide make claims, and support the claims by saying the Bible/ Koran/ Torah is the word/teachings of god and, therefore must be right.

One can see the problem with this discussion right away. Essentially, two people are comparing apples to BMWs – the underlying justification by each party is based off of diametrically different standards and, in no way, can be compared. A skeptic is looking for scientific data, a person of religion is arguing from personal perspective, from a belief that may not/cannot be documented in zeros and ones.

Not having the ability to convince the other person that his or her worldview is “true” frustration and emotions have the ability to play into the argument thereby removing ones ability to truly be objective – that is to say without the influence of emotions or personal prejudice – and the argument becomes a zero-sum situation. Both parties win, both parties lose.

Skeptics and Science

One wouldn’t expect a skeptic to have an issue with science, but there are fields within the scientific community that a skeptic would question, specifically parapsychology. The basic claim is that parapsychology should not be even considered a science due to the lack of empirical data and the inability to replicate experiments/situations.

A major foundation for science is the Scientific Method… I know that sounds obvious but I’m amazed at how many people do not understand this point. The Scientific Method uses systematic methods for the investigation of the natural world, which include designing controlled experiments, gathering data, and developing and testing hypotheses.

To boil it down, if an experiment can be replicated and the results continually match (reliability), a hypothesis can be verified. Skeptics have significant issues with the parapsychology field due to the lack of replication in experiments, as well as measureable data. This, in the mind of a skeptic, is ground enough to eliminate Parapsychology as a science.

A Parapsychologist would argue a number of points, the major being that a lack of statistically significant data and evidence does not indicate the lack of existence. Possible reasons for holding such a view include skeptics being unwilling to entertain competing views or one cannot statistically record/predict singular events (like one person claiming to have an out of body experience).

Much like in the case of religion, time and time again each party becomes emotionally involved in the defense of their position, leaving objectivity to become clouded and reason victim of emotion.

Skeptics and Personal Experience

How can you combat a personal experience?

No, I don’t ask this question to be difficult… I’m quite serious.

How can a skeptic say that and individual 100% did not experience a situation or event. Using the example above, if a person claims to have had an out of body experience, how can a skeptic say that were wrong? There is very little room to say a person was wrong… or is there?

A skeptic will almost immediately point to a scientific cause for the experience, in this case, say… a chemical interaction in the brain that triggered the individual to believe he or she was outside of the body.

Interestingly, while scientific evidence does exist showing OoBEs to be a product of the brain, to the best of my knowledge it is not conclusive. So, again, how can a skeptic combat personal experience?

The only reasonable way to do so would prove that such an experience could not happen. Otherwise, much like ever other case above, emotion will cloud the mix and objectivity will be lost on both sides.

So… What about objectivity?

It seems to me, when faced with two choices, people tend to pick the choice that equates to the least change in their belief system. If only one choice exists, the second choice is by default “no change”. That said, the introduction of evidence challenging ones belief vs. a belief one has held the majority of ones life will, most likely, lead to a person picking the belief that does not change their view of the world.

Why?

Change = Fear = Emotion -> Loss of Objectivity

It doesn’t matter who you are or what you believe in, if you do not view information with objectivity you have no way to successfully – based on all available evidence – come to a conclusion on a subject. The loss of objectivity means options are immediately limited. This is why I have a problem with Skeptics AND Faith/Religion.

While not perfect in my ability to have objectivity, I do a fair job at removing the emotion from situations during the debate of facts. It seems to be that people who claim to be dedicated skeptics or dedicated religious believers automatically dismiss other possible realities in the face of persuasive evidence based of their beliefs.

Call it “faith” or call it “evidence”, it still, ultimately, comes down to a personal world view and either camp automatically dismissing evidence due to their inability to understand a situation. I’ve seen both camps of thought state “Show me, and then I will believe it”. As a result, I’ve seen both camps continue to deny information even after proof was obtained.

It is truly rare to find believer of anything who is willing to question their worldview. After all we are just psychotic primates who over time developed the ability to reason, but the reality life comes down our ability to moderate. Be religious but be skeptical. Have a core set of beliefs but be willing to change. Be willing to believe something obscure but honestly question the subject before altering your world view.

Just because it is in a book doesn’t make it true, and just because it hasn’t been proven doesn’t mean it is false.

I recently had two conversations that spawned, what I felt to be, a rather interesting question – with the economies of the world facing a rapidly severe decline in stability, what unseen or unexpected events will be triggered as a result?

From the few moments I spend pondering the issue, the following questions started to roll around in my head:

• Will there be more children put up for adoption, and will the birthrate rise or decline?
• Is crime going to see a statistically significant rise?
• How many people will turn to religion for solace and comfort, if so what world religion will see the growth in their congregation?
• Will drug and alcohol abuse rise?
• How will mental illness be impacted, if at all?
• Will eating habits change due mirror the economic climate?
• Are suicide rates going to rise?

I have a strong feeling research already exists on this very topic.  As the economic conditions are considerably more severe than anyone had expected, it would be very interesting to see the information plays out. But what about the political/economical intervention that has taken place in hopes of softening the economic downturn, what unintended consequences will be experienced as a result?

Will…

• the population of lower class society grow in rank?
• global governments be able to pay off their deficits?
• inflation grab hold of the world because of  the massive amounts of money being thrown into the system?
• regulation tighten so much that business becomes difficult to conduct?
• scientific and technological advances slow due to a potential lack of government funding?

People of the world are frightened by the events that continues to unfold. The governments of Iceland and Latvia already faced their fate due to their actions (or lack of actions), they disintegrated into the pages of history.  Others may face the same face as unintended consequences ripple throughout the collective consciousness.

While there is no way to predict the future, it doesn’t hurt to prepare for possible realities by simply spending a few moments developing a strategy for what may come. If there ever was a time to start asking “what will this impact?”, with regards to your actions and the actions of your government, now is it.  If you do so, remember this question and answer

When did Noah build the ark?  

Before the rain.

Why is it individuals turn to god when things are the darkest for them?

Often times one can hear comments like “god will see me through” when faced with a difficult challenge, or when things get overly burdensome people will try to negotiate with god as if faith and religion are some sort of commodity that can be bartered for. You know the types who suddenly speak out loud when the tornado is bearing down on them and say “god, you get me out of this and I’ll never masturbate again” or some such nonsense that is unrealistic and is a promise the person never intends to keep anyway.

In both cases it seems as if an individual’s faith is a thing that is utilized when only they need it. That is not to say people of faith, ones who live a life dedicated to their beliefs, don’t act in such a manner, it just seems as if individuals who are not as dedicated, who are not as in touch with their spiritual side, act that way more than anyone else.

Another characteristic I’ve noticed about the individuals willing to turn to go in the hardest moments in life is that these individuals are the brazen; type A personalities that believe they can do anything without the help of others. The “watch me juggle chain saws, rewrite the Declaration of Independence (better than the founding fathers) and solve the worlds dependence on Oil all before bed time” type.

I am not criticizing these personality types, nor am I getting all preachy saying that God is the answer to all problems but we as people need to realize that, sometimes, things are simply out of our control. Call it God, call it faith, call it lazy but on a “big picture” scale we have virtually no say in the matter.

Instead of turning to god at the last second realize that we truly have minimal over our lives – we have influence. We can influence our lives by exposing ourselves to minimal danger (e.g. – not living on the side of a volcano, eating healthy, not driving drunk) but, really, nature will decide if the tornado is going to rip our house apart, our body will decide if we get cancer, some drunk driver may have made the decision if we live or die…

I point out the Type A / Barter personality as the ones who seem most likely to turn to God in the “last second of the game” because it is this personality that has the hardest time letting go, who has the hardest time believing that there is something greater than themselves, and maybe that is why they turn to God when the chips are down. Maybe that is when they realize they cannot control all…

Show of hands – how many people saw the movie “Gone Baby Gone”?  Judging by the box office tally ($20M) not too many.  This is Ben Affleck’s first major directing effort and he shows maturity with his craft that seasoned directors with decades of experience struggle to achieve.  The movie is quite good but this isn’t a movie review, it’s a philosophical question.

If one does something wrong yet his or her actions result in a positive and selfless outcome is it ok? Do the ends justify the means? For example, if you had the ability to travel back to Austria in 1905 would you kill the young, disillusioned, artists by the name of Adolf Hitler when you ran into him on the street?  You know this single act would save millions of people from untold suffering and death yet you would have to compromise ever fiber of your being in order to do so, would you do it?

My version of the question asked is extreme in order to simply point out how much of an impact this question truly has. Can you compromise your beliefs, your views, who you are, in order to do something deemed immoral and wrong… but ultimately, maybe, the right thing to do?

Think about it – really think about it – and come back and post in the comment section.  I would like to grow this one into a discussion.

I’ll end this post with a saying: Right and wrong are just words, what matters is what you do.