BEST OF POSSIBLE WORLDS: To my intuition, there is no "best consciousness," nor any best material world. As to that which consciousness may experience, if there abides a "best," it seems to abide as illusion, beyond our grasp in mere materialism. To while our time, we pursue fulfillment, such pursuit being signified in our material arts, with which we identify our interests, even to the point of imbuing our perspectives of consciousness, our very identities of selfhood. In our pursuits, our sense of satisfaction often depends more on orientation or attitude in respect of consciousness, than on mastery of materialism.
CONSCIOUNESS ABIDES: To my sense, morality abides in the vein of a wish or a pursuit, advanced subject to a meta and innate empathy among perspectives of a unifying consciousness, not necessarily based in love, but based in some level of intuition that the consciousness of each of us is partaken of by one and the same holistic reconciler. At some level, consciousness itself is not moral, but simply abides, not particular, but unifying, not in itself determining, but not predetermined.
DECENTLY CIVILIZING MORALITY: Here, I am not concerned with morality in the sense of sins that darken souls (whatever souls may be). Rather, I am concerned with morality in the sense of how meaningfulnes may be guided to unfold to the expression and communication of innate empathies of decent or better civilization. To my sense, the reality of morality abides derivative of consciousness, and not as an objective or empirical materiality. Materialism only avails means for constructing and signing conventions, which come to be associated with our expressions of morality. It is as misdirected to think that morality abides only in the grace of saving Gaia as it is to think that God has ever been made limited solely to flesh, or, as Voltaire pierced, that this material world should be the best of all possible.
TOWARDS A BEST SYSTEM OF LAW: Thus, ask: If God has not shown able to avail a best possible world, why should we conceit to have potential to avail a best possible civilization? While in law school, I became distracted from what the law is, towards a mirage of what I thought the law should be. Since, I have reconciled that the land of what the law should best be simply does not exist --- not even in potentiality. One may pursue one's garden of good, but shall not, of one's own devices, image, much less achieve, the perfection of heaven.
HAPPINESS IS ONLY PURSUED: Because humanity evolves, likewise, that which is fulfilling evolves. One may pursue happiness, and pursue decent, sustainable, surpassable civilization, and pursue meaningfulness and fulfillment for humanity. One's consciousness cannot very far know or foresee, beyond the unfolding dance of feedback with the present, that which would best fulfill it. I suspect: That which would best fulfill consciousness simply cannot be known to exist. I suspect that "the best" one's consciousness can do is to avail intuition and insight enough to appreciate and facilitate unfolding opportunities for the experiencing of empathy. I suspect that "the best" does not consist in knowable or empirically material confabulations, but in a quality of empathetic apprehension of unfolding relationships among perspectives of consciousness.
BRIDGING MORALITY TO CIVILIZATION: Apart from general deference in respect of an innate reconciler of consciousness, any meaningfulness --- in particular, material respects --- may not abide in a concept of "morality." Instead, that which passes for "moral" may be bridged, in matters of social inculcation and assimilation, to conventional purposes (perhaps even instructed by agents of states, churches, and special interests as being identified with the unfolding wishes of God), such as the sustenance of that which facilitates a particular vision of decent civilization for the general self expression of its denizens. A sociopath who deems himself the essence of his state, world, or club, to seek his special fulfillment, may incline to that which monopolizes his selfish interests, including, when necessary, skill to beguile associates. One who seeks neither to beguile nor to be beguiled will leave the perfect moral reconciliation of the logic, interests, and materials of others -- if such reconciliation there be --- to God.
UTOPIANS AND ANARCHISTS: Thus, I tire of communitarian, socialistic, utopian, fantasy, beguiling worlds of the admirers of Cloward, Piven, and Alinsky. I deem it not bloody likely that El Dorado should arise from the ashes of anarchists. I loathe Islamists and Anarchists, who always auger despair and hardship. Absent a state of war, I see little point in trying to destroy (or "fundamentally change") an assimilated culture. Rather, I prefer that each culture's propensities be guided towards the empathetically fulfilling. My cautions are: Enjoy the feedback dance; make recommendations that are relevant to present unfolding context; don't fail to appreciate the present while searching for a non-existent particle or perfection of materialism; find qualities of meaning in unfolding communications of mutual empathies and interests; accept that the fluxing signposts for communicating our interests and empathies proceed in part via the cannibalization of organically organized materialism; respect a holistic reconciler of variously synchronizing, unfolding perspectives of consciousness; be humble enough to seek fulfillment without expecting that you must obtain it, and be wise enough to not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
CONDONING IDIOCY OF UTOPIANS, ISLAMISTS, AND ANARCHISTS: In effect, the illiberal NYT condones idiocy by blaming idiocy's expression of savagery on those who confront it. Apparently, the way to educate the idiotic, per the NYT, is to humor idiocy. A more rational person may think that the way to perpetuate, even embolden, idiocy is to humor it. Ask an historian: Has the tolerant humoring of idiocy by the Left given us a safer or better world? Does the sold out Left even know idiocy when it is on parade before it? When in the land of idiots, are we best advised to keep our heads down and our minds blank, to do as idiots do? Perhaps that depends on whether you intend the garden you cultivate to extend only to your illiberal self preservation versus a better state of being for your progeny. The NYT has become Cunegund, grown ugly from too much time in the Sun.
PRACTICAL PURSUITS: That said, what do I sense, regarding those changes that should be pursued in respect of the general good? I sense that decent society needs a guiding re-assimilation, whereby gangsterism is discredited --- both the confidence-gaming gangsterism of unionizing thugs and the gangsterism of oligarchic, crony, socially disloyal capitalists. Decent society needs to assimilate respect regarding an urgent need for reasonably shared sacrifice. Mores fundamental to decent society and the family unit need to be reestablished, so that less enforcement will be needed or allowed by those who control or most benefit from big government.
PRESENTLY AND URGENTLY NEEDED SHARED SACRIFICE: To rein in crony capitalists and reduce their temptation and influence regarding the body politic, there needs to be a general redistribution of crony derived wealth. In main, this could be accomplished with a progressive consumption tax. To rein in the corrupt and ignorant panderers to crony capitalists, there needs to be a severe and proportionate reduction of government and social security pensions --- subject to means-test limits.
CONSCIOUNESS ABIDES: To my sense, morality abides in the vein of a wish or a pursuit, advanced subject to a meta and innate empathy among perspectives of a unifying consciousness, not necessarily based in love, but based in some level of intuition that the consciousness of each of us is partaken of by one and the same holistic reconciler. At some level, consciousness itself is not moral, but simply abides, not particular, but unifying, not in itself determining, but not predetermined.
DECENTLY CIVILIZING MORALITY: Here, I am not concerned with morality in the sense of sins that darken souls (whatever souls may be). Rather, I am concerned with morality in the sense of how meaningfulnes may be guided to unfold to the expression and communication of innate empathies of decent or better civilization. To my sense, the reality of morality abides derivative of consciousness, and not as an objective or empirical materiality. Materialism only avails means for constructing and signing conventions, which come to be associated with our expressions of morality. It is as misdirected to think that morality abides only in the grace of saving Gaia as it is to think that God has ever been made limited solely to flesh, or, as Voltaire pierced, that this material world should be the best of all possible.
TOWARDS A BEST SYSTEM OF LAW: Thus, ask: If God has not shown able to avail a best possible world, why should we conceit to have potential to avail a best possible civilization? While in law school, I became distracted from what the law is, towards a mirage of what I thought the law should be. Since, I have reconciled that the land of what the law should best be simply does not exist --- not even in potentiality. One may pursue one's garden of good, but shall not, of one's own devices, image, much less achieve, the perfection of heaven.
HAPPINESS IS ONLY PURSUED: Because humanity evolves, likewise, that which is fulfilling evolves. One may pursue happiness, and pursue decent, sustainable, surpassable civilization, and pursue meaningfulness and fulfillment for humanity. One's consciousness cannot very far know or foresee, beyond the unfolding dance of feedback with the present, that which would best fulfill it. I suspect: That which would best fulfill consciousness simply cannot be known to exist. I suspect that "the best" one's consciousness can do is to avail intuition and insight enough to appreciate and facilitate unfolding opportunities for the experiencing of empathy. I suspect that "the best" does not consist in knowable or empirically material confabulations, but in a quality of empathetic apprehension of unfolding relationships among perspectives of consciousness.
BRIDGING MORALITY TO CIVILIZATION: Apart from general deference in respect of an innate reconciler of consciousness, any meaningfulness --- in particular, material respects --- may not abide in a concept of "morality." Instead, that which passes for "moral" may be bridged, in matters of social inculcation and assimilation, to conventional purposes (perhaps even instructed by agents of states, churches, and special interests as being identified with the unfolding wishes of God), such as the sustenance of that which facilitates a particular vision of decent civilization for the general self expression of its denizens. A sociopath who deems himself the essence of his state, world, or club, to seek his special fulfillment, may incline to that which monopolizes his selfish interests, including, when necessary, skill to beguile associates. One who seeks neither to beguile nor to be beguiled will leave the perfect moral reconciliation of the logic, interests, and materials of others -- if such reconciliation there be --- to God.
UTOPIANS AND ANARCHISTS: Thus, I tire of communitarian, socialistic, utopian, fantasy, beguiling worlds of the admirers of Cloward, Piven, and Alinsky. I deem it not bloody likely that El Dorado should arise from the ashes of anarchists. I loathe Islamists and Anarchists, who always auger despair and hardship. Absent a state of war, I see little point in trying to destroy (or "fundamentally change") an assimilated culture. Rather, I prefer that each culture's propensities be guided towards the empathetically fulfilling. My cautions are: Enjoy the feedback dance; make recommendations that are relevant to present unfolding context; don't fail to appreciate the present while searching for a non-existent particle or perfection of materialism; find qualities of meaning in unfolding communications of mutual empathies and interests; accept that the fluxing signposts for communicating our interests and empathies proceed in part via the cannibalization of organically organized materialism; respect a holistic reconciler of variously synchronizing, unfolding perspectives of consciousness; be humble enough to seek fulfillment without expecting that you must obtain it, and be wise enough to not make the perfect the enemy of the good.
CONDONING IDIOCY OF UTOPIANS, ISLAMISTS, AND ANARCHISTS: In effect, the illiberal NYT condones idiocy by blaming idiocy's expression of savagery on those who confront it. Apparently, the way to educate the idiotic, per the NYT, is to humor idiocy. A more rational person may think that the way to perpetuate, even embolden, idiocy is to humor it. Ask an historian: Has the tolerant humoring of idiocy by the Left given us a safer or better world? Does the sold out Left even know idiocy when it is on parade before it? When in the land of idiots, are we best advised to keep our heads down and our minds blank, to do as idiots do? Perhaps that depends on whether you intend the garden you cultivate to extend only to your illiberal self preservation versus a better state of being for your progeny. The NYT has become Cunegund, grown ugly from too much time in the Sun.
PRACTICAL PURSUITS: That said, what do I sense, regarding those changes that should be pursued in respect of the general good? I sense that decent society needs a guiding re-assimilation, whereby gangsterism is discredited --- both the confidence-gaming gangsterism of unionizing thugs and the gangsterism of oligarchic, crony, socially disloyal capitalists. Decent society needs to assimilate respect regarding an urgent need for reasonably shared sacrifice. Mores fundamental to decent society and the family unit need to be reestablished, so that less enforcement will be needed or allowed by those who control or most benefit from big government.
PRESENTLY AND URGENTLY NEEDED SHARED SACRIFICE: To rein in crony capitalists and reduce their temptation and influence regarding the body politic, there needs to be a general redistribution of crony derived wealth. In main, this could be accomplished with a progressive consumption tax. To rein in the corrupt and ignorant panderers to crony capitalists, there needs to be a severe and proportionate reduction of government and social security pensions --- subject to means-test limits.
DISCREDITING THE UNIONISM OF LOOTING, CRONY CAPITALISTS: Oligarchs tend easily to position themselves to benefit disproportionately from: community resources; influence over politicians; capacity to buy votes from the corrupt and the ignorant; capacity to pull strings to weaken and divide the body politic; capacity to benefit by undermining or obliging the body politic; capacity to push clean up costs onto the body politic; capacity to enlist fellow thugs; capacity to evade prosecution; capacity to deplete the ocean, despoil the water, pollute the air, disquiet the peace, and to charge admission to contrived spectacles and contested controversies; and capacity to sell power to unscrupulous foreigners, to the development of a NWO, disloyal to country, disloyal to humanity.
THINK: To accumulate such capacities and advantages, then to say "we earned our wealth," as a common man plows his field or invents his devices, is laughable, as a wolf pirouetting in a pink tutu. In such light, ask: Who is attempting a "fundamental change" of America, and why? To attack only the gangsterism of union thugs is to abandon the field to sociopathic crony capitalists of no special loyalty to God, moral philosophy, country, or fellow human being. America urgently needs political representation for ordinary Americans who wish neither to rule nor be ruled. Otherwise, the ideal of America will soon meet its practical end.
THINK: To accumulate such capacities and advantages, then to say "we earned our wealth," as a common man plows his field or invents his devices, is laughable, as a wolf pirouetting in a pink tutu. In such light, ask: Who is attempting a "fundamental change" of America, and why? To attack only the gangsterism of union thugs is to abandon the field to sociopathic crony capitalists of no special loyalty to God, moral philosophy, country, or fellow human being. America urgently needs political representation for ordinary Americans who wish neither to rule nor be ruled. Otherwise, the ideal of America will soon meet its practical end.
3 comments:
To entice more and more people to become dependent upon government benefits is to make investments in government more and more enticing to those who have means to buy government and its politicians. The only way to restore America to government by the people is to reduce dependency on government, so that those who can afford to buy government cannot use it as a Trojan Horse to reestablish lordship over a neo class of peons. To line up to take handouts from the Mafia is to become owned by the Mafia.
Voltaire: "It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."
Obvious Randian Fallacies: To suggest, in light of experience, that man is primarily a rational creature is silly. To say that man should be primarily a rational creature is ridiculous. (How much of wine, dance, sex, or fun is rational? Should man aspire to the existence of a programmed computer?) To say that the morality of free markets is interchangeable with rational self interest is wrong. Everyone sees, we do not get free markets when the wealthy engage their self-interest; rather, we get crony capitalism. To say that one ought not apply different rules to others than to oneself has a short and nice ring, but is adverse to reality. Who does not apply different rules to others, depending not only on abilities, but also depending on whether it can be gotten away with, and whether there abides a fleeting advantage of the moment? To implicate that one's present ego is one's supreme guide contradicts Rand's own life. Did not Rand work hard to ensure that her philosophy would continue to be taught, long after demise of her mortal ego? Was it consistent with ego and reason when Ellis Wyatt blew up his oilfield, rather than surrender to government control --- or was it emotional release?
What should be the way forward for America, to sift sense from Randians (ego promoters), Rationalists (logic promoters), and Romantics (emotion promoters)? How can or should we bring synthesis to ego, logic, and emotion, so that we do not merely talk past one another? When will Randians recognize the religious like quest of their so called "atheistic" founder? When will Rationalists recognize the extent of their illogical attachment to a pretense of indifference ("caring indifference")? When will Romantics recognize that the "noble savage" was not noble, and that our material world is not the best of all possible material worlds? Maybe, when Randians become emotionally religious in their objectivist quest, they will begin to think in terms of what is necessary, morally, in order to preserve a decent civilization. (Hint: a foundation for family values, individual freedom, and community decency.)
Post a Comment