A Triple Standard

I feel that representers of an ideal are always attempting to redefine an already redefined definition. A group claims to profess a different standard, a more archaic(or even more correct) version of a word or value and seeks to return it to its original state. Does it work though? Can we really regress to or refine an idea to how it used to be? Won't it ever and always be connected to what it is now or what would be what it was at that point? Whether the initial change or the new adjustment would be wicked or righteous or neutral or a combination of the above, groups seek to inject their viewpoint into the world and make their ideal the common or visible one. Who then judges which is the 'right' thing to do?

At a second angle, there is a phrase that stays with me. The winning side writes history. Simple as that. The winning side writes history. Perception of the past is a very twisted thing. Humans constantly lie knowingly or unwittingly, but the memory is an entirely unreliable tool for details. How then, if we cannot rely upon even our own memories, can we trust the accounts of others? There has to be a judgement of reason, of purpose, of desires to understand more fully the why. If we know why, we are more likely to perceive the bias or prejudice or nuances in a viewpoint or perspective. Yet still, all that we can do is work with what we have. In the world today, there is such a huge bombardment of distractions, unimportant nuisances and false information, that it is nearly impossible to know the truth of events that occur unless you are there. And even then, within a short passing of time, even you don't fully even know what is truth.

Yet how much do we depend on others to know what to do with our lives? We begin by being influenced by our parents. Then as our sphere of experience expands, others including siblings, friends, even strangers begin to change us and mold us through brief encounters, repeated contact and written words. It's not possible that an individual could be isolated in such a way as to be free of influence, nor could an infant or small child survive the early years of its life alone, but imagining it was possible, how would such a child act? Would it rely purely upon instinct, becoming an animal? Or is there some small part of us that would develop the characteristics that a society views as embodied in the 'ideal person' spontaneously? Or would such a child be something in between? It's difficult to know how much or how little, how good or how bad, how attractive or how disgusting, how intelligent or how illogical, how critical or how insignificant, without a standard to compare to. Ruling out immediate and natural needs and desires, it is only through our relationships with others that we can define ourselves.

Then how do find ourselves without first observing others? How much if any of us, of you, of me, is inborn and what pieces are taught, trained or indoctrinated? Does an affinity for one activity or another come from genetics, environment, childhood experiences, some prior cognizance, or a combination of the above?

For me, these are some reasons why I feel the need for a higher vantage point, a broader perspective, a more piercing eye. This is one reason why, my friends, I feel the need for a God, for prophets, for the influence of the Spirit of God in my life. This is one reason why I am religious. I do not believe that nations would exist, nor coexist without the influence of the standards that a faith in something greater or higher or beyond the palpable of this world promotes.