Jews:
Could one reasonably consider that one person's fame is another person's infamy, and vice versa, and that if you can't have one, you should at least try to have the other? If so, the conservatives and the liberals of any small group or ethnicity so inclined could thereby retain aspects of their cultural identity while commanding the world stage, for good or ill, to an extent disproportionate to their population. May a similar dynamic apply to most smaller or surrounded cultures that desire to preserve a separate heritage?
***
How would an economy find diversionary, productive, or worthwhile things for people to do and to keep them out of prison, once their waking hours are no longer baby sat in front of drones of indoctrination? How would society pretend to disburse money for their support in ways that are commensurate with their general merit or contribution?
Shall government employ battalions of fresco painters and roadside gardeners, to beautify the countryside? Shall charities seek millions of volunteers to sit inside auditoriums watching TV broadcasts 12 hours a day, to facilitate the scientific study of effects of extended immobility, looking to medical and interplanetary applications? Should exercise, sports, and theater parks be built, and competitions sponsored, to keep people mobile and toned up? Should free continuing colleges be encouraged, to keep people informed about events, politics, history, philosophy, science, and technology? Should government pay people to continue their educations as they deem best?
Should people be trusted generally and privately to find worthwhile pursuits for themselves for their extra hours? Or should government seek bids from corporatists and contractors, sort of like private prison farms, to avail appropriate facilities, training, and pursuits?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Eighty years ago, I suspect most Americans believed there was an American culture and that it was worth preserving. Now, Progs tend not even to consider that our Constitution is worth preserving. An interesting article in the most recent edition of the National Review discusses “Darwin’s Constitution.” It discusses how Progs have come to believe that: “… there is one constant: the application of intelligence as a progressive ideal and method.” In other words, for many Progs, the notion of a constitutional system of checks and balances is “quaint.” This is because they consider that there is no fundamental human spirit, will, or propensity that needs enduring checks and balances.
I may find Progs’ notion about unfolding Information more palatable, were it expressed with due respect for a sponsoring Source of Consciousness (God?), such as in a formulation like this: “there is one constant: the empathetic respect for the expression of free will in each perspective of consciousness, which facilitates moral ideals.”
As a Conservative, I would substitute a notion of responsible “Consciousness” for Progressives’ notion of immaterial storing and fluxing of “Information.” Progs seem to believe in a dumb, material source of laws and equations, of which humanity is only a random, mathematically-based representation that happens to have capacity for understanding some equations that are derivable in respect of nothing more than material Information. But I believe in a conscious Source of unfolding expression. That Source is of immutable essence, yet has capacity for infinite expression. Insofar as each of us functions as a perspective of IT, there is dignity in the unfolding of each of our perspectives.
Post a Comment