I woke up wishing I was still asleep. Where I had been drifting through the ethereal and universal buoyancy of my dreams, now the hot red laser lights of the alarming clock pierced through the darkness, shocking me back into the world of the finite. Early morning doldrums tethered me to that dirty mattress, and if it wasn't for the omnipresent craving for a morning cigarette I may not have had risen at all, but the temptation to ruin my body trumped that sense of lethergy and despair, so I rolled myself to the end of the mattress, and struggled to get up. I slipped on my pants, worked my feet into my shoes, limped up the stairs and entered the dismal grey morning air. I lit my cigarette, puffed and ejected a cloud a smoke, and like all other mornings, looked up to the sky in search of some answers.

I thought to myself that if all knowledge of matter and the material world is known to man by ones sense's, then what happens when the form of matter is so minuscule that our sense's cannot perceive it and therefore cannot conceive it. Did it not exist before man made a microscope powerful enough to view it? That seems silly. If all knowledge is derived from our sense experience (as the Empiricist believe) then if a woman gave birth to a monkey, and that monkey was developed and experienced the exact same as humans, would it be human? My answer is NO, because, as everyone knows, a monkey does not hold the same innate gifts as a human, and vice versa.

Now it could be said that a feral child, who in their formative years lives without human contact, is not a human in the same way as a child who is born and raised within the confines of civilized society. So society does mould a person, I don't think there is any doubt about that, but that doesn't mean the feral child is not human, it just means that many of the traits we consider human qualities are conditioned into us and not innate. Many of the laws of civilized society have been put into place for the good of the pack, and not necessarily for the individual. For instance, a person who goes off and dies in a war. Now if life is simply about survival, then why would one place ones self in danger knowing it could mean their demise, because society looks upon such instants as beneficent to the whole and therefore a noble quality.
I now view the human mind as a battle between the right and left hemispheres for dominance. Most humans are dominated by the left hemisphere and that's why most people are right handed (being that the left controls the right, and the right controls the left). When a baby is born it doesn't have a dominant hand, all babies are ambidexterous and have the same ability in both hands, therefore it's obvious that the dominant hand is conditioned in one at an early age. For many centuries, left handed people were forced to use their right, because the left has always been equated with representing something evil. Even more than that just observe how the two terms differ in use, "You are right." which connotates being correct, or "You left me." which invokes a sense of abandonment and lonesomeness. Being that humans are basically pack animals, to be alone or exiled has always been one of mans great fears.
Does this mean that man made up God for fear of being alone in the vastness of this space? I'm not one to try to answer that question with any sort of absolutism, all I know is that it's nice to imagine a benevolent deity guiding my thoughts and feelings, and that, for now, it's good enough for me. The Lord has never answered my queries with a resounding voice, but there have been many times when I've been pondering some anomaly when a subtle thought has entered into my consciousness and clearly illuminated my musing's. Whether one would consider that God or not it makes no difference to me.
Some people look at God as the agent of morality, I however do not because I see incongruities in the way different cultures view morality. To say one culture is 100% correct and another is dead wrong seems hypocritical, although I do think it wise to pick and choose. Some would say that such choices were made for man some three thousand years ago and that we don't have the right to pick what parts we like or that are easier for us, in modern society, to live our life by. I beg to differ. Think of the nations of this world that actually enforce the rules set by antiquity and I'll guarantee, to most people, they seem barbaric. There are many circumstances in the Bible where terrible punishments were inflicted upon sinners that we would now consider torturous. Modern Christians will tell you, that because of Christ, man now has a new covenant with God, but what they don't realize is that if God had to make a new covenant, it implies the old one way unsuccessful, and that God, who is believed to be perfect, made a mistake. Now I'm not judging God here, I'm simply stating the obvious and what I believe is that man deciphered the words of God incorrectly. I'm not stating that God made a mistake but ancient man was not intelligent enough to interpret a correct moral code. God gave man reason and logic and we better utilize them both.
My cigarette now nothing more than a stub, so I toss it into the firepit and return back into the house. I'm suppose to be out looking for work but for some reason I can't get off the couch. Dreaded scenarios of fake smiles and feigned hospitible expressions filter there way through my head. I can see the managers of this and that in all the same quasi-profession dress, looking for the same ideal candidate, using the same language, thinking the same thoughts,and they all seem as they all have just been put together on some assembly line in Detroit. They all say things like, "Were looking for someone who is a self-motivator, organized, has great idea's they're willing to share and can think outside the box to be part of out team.", but in truth they're looking for a carbon copy of a carbon copy who's great idea's are dim-witted regrugitated junk. But one must eat, so I better shower.