Who would you be?

I have always thought that I was pretty good about just being me. Often, when folks approach and remark on how much I have changed since they had seen me last , I feel a bit of shock.  Then again, I kind of figure that they must have missed Act II, Scene 2 . (or they never came back after intermission ) I do hate being typecast anyway.

Right ? Wrong ! Right?

In the process of maintaining a blog and in the reading of blogs maintained by others I get to express my  views, beliefs, dreams and nightmares ,  real or imagined, and experience the varied talents of many different artists who hail from countries around the world and who adhere to religious and ethnic beliefs foreign to me. I find this opportunity to be both enlightening and humbling. When an author chooses to imagine the boundaries of his particular society, then expand the parameters of his written work, I get to glimpse one of the individual minds that populate this “blogosphere.” At times I read composed thoughts that I recognize as “normal”, at other times I read stories that either pall my sensibilities or delight my senses with mental images wonderously and delightfully “abnormal”. I find the differences between the two generally to be based on the perception of reality and what “real” means to me. During the course of my reading I have realized that even the “facts”of living change depending on factors such as socio-economic background, religious-political affiliations, personal-familial ties and the importance each individual places upon the various aspects of his/her own life. Thus the “facts ” of even one, single, persons life are widely variable and when multiplied  several billion times , the ideas of “normal” and “factual” reveal themselves to be merely conceptual idioms of what I might believe to be “truth”. All of the preceding commentary leads me to certain conclusions and questions. The conclusions are mine and most likely subject to change so please allow me to address a question; a question I believe to have more relevance to the import of human coexistence than “facts” or “norms.” How do I determine the differences between “right” and “wrong” as pertains to the human race?

At this point in time I really wish for the existence of a formula, one that I could plug  “facts” and “norms” and “realities” into and , after completing a few predetermined actions, the “rights” would drop into a column on one side of the equation and “wrongs” would drop into a column on the other.[ I also wish that pigs could fly so that I might be entertained for as long as it took for me to get used to them, but I digress.] I think that the first step to be taken in determining “right” should be taken in the direction of, “what are the ramifications of a particular action in regard to the least common denominator.” Do the results of this action determine a positive impact to the majority of those affected? Are these results consistent over time ? How will the adaptation of this “right” affect the “norms” and “facts” of the greatest possible society?  Where have all these questions come from and how can I as an individual determine the proper answers for all of mankind ?

I seem to have suffered an epiphany. Suddenly I seem to realize that the entire output of a single mind does not carry much leverage in determining what would be the best course of action for the human race to take in determining such basic things as what is right for all, or what is wrong for all. It seems to me now that I must rely on the consciences’ of the masses to determine what is best for those within the norms of their various societies and situations.  I think that I should probably learn to take others opinions and thoughts of these serious matters with a grain of salt, and a sense of the variety that exists in this world! Maybe I could determine the best of and for folks by finding the common grounds that lay in their minds and falls into the space between what I consider to be right or wrong !                 Then again, maybe not.