Takes one to know one

it takes one to know one. this is why the crowd is better than self-selected idealogues at 'knowing' the 'whole truth', which is the only truth worth its salt in the end.

the crowd can resonate with all facets of a thing. by crowd i do not mean mob. i mean multiplicity itself. the multiple approaches the whole. many pixels can be any image. i think this is why obama is such a compelling candidate. he has mass appeal because he is expansive. that is, he is resonant with many people. he can relate to many types of people because he has a bit of each of their truth. he has logic, charisma, heart, pragmatism, humility, confidence, eloquence, rhythm, poetry, athleticism, calmness, vulnerability, feminine, masculine, ideology, openness etc. so, each person sees those parts of themselves in him and they naturally feel connected to him. pixels of many different colors find themselves reflected in his multiplicity.

this is the genius of general election and democracy in general: though this will be forever argued, I am coming to believe that many heads are better than one. and many heads and hearts are better than many heads. and many hearts, souls, heads, hands, feet and voices are better still. it's a massively complex algorithm of awareness whose output is a free choice, an X in this or that box, a VOTE! And for all the heartache of the past 8 years, at this critical juncture it has brought us a leader of the deepest heart and widest mind.

what i am saying here relates to the atheist versus 'religulous' thing going on. atheists are self-selected for a scientific literalism. the religulous are self-selected for a scriptural literalism. literalism is, perhaps, nothing more than being 'too sure' of the truth. each of these camps is too darn sure.

in the stem cell issue, their opposing sureties come into stark relief. the atheist is sure that a stem cell is not life. the religulous is sure that it is. i am not sure at all. as jim morrison once said 'i straddle the fence, and my balls hurt'.

you see, there is much to suggest that a stem cell is a life in its ability for spontaneity in becoming any type of living cell. there is also, however, no way to prove this, least of all scripturally. there is also perhaps a humility to leaving things the way they are and not 'playing god' in manipulating such nascency. perhaps. it might be one of those things you just don't F with-- an 'ends don't justify the means' sort of situation.

there is of course also much to be said for using stem cells in a utilitarian way to heal people. but wouldn't it be too brash to suggest that this is the obvious answer? wouldn't it be too insensitive and downright disrespectfully arrogant not to acknowledge the sacred liminal territory this science aims to tread? to play god in too nonchalant a manner comes close to affirming that might makes right- that scientific power should always be acted on. i would suggest a grey area here.

we are too darn literal! meaning is metaphorical as much as literal. when people talk about stem cells being or not being human life, they are being too darn literal. when people talk about the bible as the only holy book, they are being too literal. one of the many beauties of the human mind is the ability to see parallels in meaning. to unite apparent opposites on the level of shared deeper meaning is what the metaphorical mind can do, but the literal mind cannot.