REGARDING HISTORICAL DETERMINACY AND DIALECTIC MATERIALISM:
Suppose Consciousness abides innately, and forever interfunctions with the organizing of Information. In that case, there may be no privileged or best form of information or pursuit of preferences. Against such a case, it seems unworthy to say anything is an abomination. Rather, all seems to depend on the context of an unfoldment of interfunctioning perspectives of purposefulness. There seems not to be much that I can confidently judge to be absolutely wrong or eternally bad. So, am I charged or competent only to intuit or apprehend that which seems best for the sustenance of a decently unfolding civilization?
However, even "civilization" seems too confining for many purposes. After all, the place of our earth within the cosmos is ridiculously tiny. It is not for me to judge that all perspectives of consciousness should be raised at least to the class of a proletariat, or that a proletariat class should then enforce a demand that it be made free by being made equal to all others. Obviously, many gradations, levels, qualities, and species of consciousness abide and interfunction on our shared earth. It would seem rididulous to try to require, or to proclaim that the "progress of history requires," that all expressions of the human form --- regardless of how differentially, physically, sensorily, or mentally talented or challenged --- must in all respects be availed with equal economic and political capacity and potential. Equally obvious is that no member of a class desires that the freedom of himself or his class should effectively or formally be subjugated to arbitrary whims of any others.
Once humanity apprehends the often murderous folly of trying to make all equal, and apprehends that there may not abide any permanent, ultimate, god-given or naturally-provable commandments or "rights of man," to what formulation of philosophy may or should one then turn, to reasonably guide one's pursuit of happiness and regard for moral principle?
Should the question be: How should each perspective of consciousness intuit that institutions and forms should best be organized, in respect of quantities and qualities of levels and classes of consciousness, in order to facilitate the always changing, synchronizing, and often cacaphonous unfoldments to the various purposes and experiences of the reconciling Source of Consciousness from whose fount we all spring in common? In other words, what classes of consciousness should abide: below the level of awareness of self; at a low level of awareness of self; at a sacrificial level of awareness; at a slave level; at an independent level; at a selfish level; at a despotic level; at a level of empathy for holistic unfoldment; at a blighted level of intuition of, or humility before, a higher power; at an enlightened level of apprehension of higher purposefulness? If such a composite is The Question, then it may admit of no answer, but perhaps only vague homilies: Respect the higher power; be receptive to its guidance; be humble enough to have faith, even as you doubt your capacity to clearly apprehend IT's purposes; seek to communicate and convey a decent and meaningful vision of IT. Not least of all: Transmit and preserve information regarding a culture, society, country, and civilization that appreciates that a higher Consciousness seeks communion with each unfolding expression of its variety of perspectives. Do not allow such a culture to be subjugated, dumbed equally down to, or swallowed into, lower levels of idiocy.
*******
If one needs a faith in historical determinacy, make it this one:
- That a Singular-Source-of-All avails perspectives of Itself to identify with, and imbue into, various signs and expressions of forms, which we come to call parameters of nature, physics, substance, matter, energy, body, brain;
- That such perspectives come to apprehend one another as interfunctioning observers;
- That such interfunctioning associates to become habits, grooves, routines, signs, laws of physics, and reliable Information;
- That such perspectives are guided to evolve towards beings and perspectives with whom the Source can commune, to entertain unfoldments of worth, meaning, and purposefulness;
- That the Source seeks to evolve beings that can intuit, appreciate, and commune back;
- That such evolution necessitates interfunctioning among various levels and classes of non-human, sub-human, and human consciousness;
- That not all forms and classes of consciousness can simultaneoulsy achieve an equal or same level of intuition, empathy, or appreciation of one another or of the character of Consciousness, generally;
- That various members of various classes of consciousness will apprehend different purposes and different strategies for pursuing them;
- That power is necessarily and differentially distributed throughout various levels of biodiversity and civilization;
- That such power will be variously rationalized by different self-interested groups;
- That some groups (princes and priests) will justify their power based on claims of natural or god-given right, talismen,or special training or insight;
- That such rationalizations, as they enlist technological superiority, will claim empirical proof of the justness of their rule;
- That such rationalizations --- as they enlist superiority in means of communication, extension of credit, trading beyond borders, mesmerizing of faith, broadcasting of trust, and pretense of education and entertainment --- will claim market-based proof of the justness of their rule;
- That such rationalizations, as they attract the most corrupt while sleeps the most trusting, will consolidate lines of crony-capitalistic control over institutions and persons of political governance;
- That such crony capitalism will restore the middle and lower classes to a position of political powerlessness and economic servitude;
- That such crony capitalism will at first feign to be benign and to intend well as to the medical, physical, mental, and economic well being of those who are expelled from its privileges;
- That merit will become irrelevant to social or political promotion of well being, leading to moral hazard for all lines of crony capitalism;
- That higher courage, empathy, and cause will attract and unite various contenders for reform or revolution;
- That higher Consciousness will synchronize and guide all;
- That I know not what civilization will look like in a hundred years, but that I stand on faith in higher consciousness, beyond materialism. We have "progressed" to see society organized for being ruled under the religious charismatic, the feudal noble, the state bureaucrat, and the crony capitalist. Shall we ever see society ruled under the philosophically-empathetic, morally-enlightened, merit-rewarding, liberty-loving republican?
Simply put, there is no absolute, materially determined, higher moral principle or march of history that will require a new civilization to reign in freedom for the masses based on a redistribution of wealth, property, and matter. Rather, our future will assimilate not in respect of materially-determining objectivism, but in respect of an upshot of a confluence of interfunctioning perspectives of morally-empathetic, subjective Will. To teach that ... is to learn it ... is to help make it so!
******************
Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche: One study of Nietzsche defines his fully developed concept of the will to power as "the element from which derive both the quantitative difference of related forces and the quality that devolves into each force in this relation" revealing the will to power as "the principle of the synthesis of forces.
My Comment: I would sooner adduce to a "will to appreciate," for consciousness to entertain and occupy itself through the sponsoring of a sort of feedback among and between the holism and its aggregate of particular perspectives or musings among possibilities.
Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism: Perspectivism is the philosophical view developed by Friedrich Nietzsche that all ideations take place from particular perspectives. This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This implies that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.
My Comment: Validity is in flux, depending on fluxing synchronization of apprehensions of the holism and its perspectivistic parts, arising in respect of digital like feedback from their interfunctioning within degrees of availed freedom. When an observer heats or pushes a thing, quantitatively, outside its degrees of permissible freedom, it becomes, to such observer, something qualitatively different, which must then be measured, if at all, in relation to a new standard or metric. From the niche that limits the degrees of freedom availed to my perspective, I am unable to measure or predict the quality of that which may come hereafter. Still, I may speculate, perhaps intuit, sometimes foresee.
**********
Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism: Stephen Jay Gould shared similar views regarding a heuristic role for dialectical materialism. He wrote "Dialectical thinking should be taken more seriously by Western scholars, not discarded because some nations of the second world have constructed a cardboard version as an official political doctrine." Further
when presented as guidelines for a philosophy of change, not as dogmatic percepts true by fiat, the three classical laws of dialectics embody a holistic vision that views change as interaction among components of complete systems, and sees the components themselves not as a priori entities, but as both products and inputs to the system. Thus, the law of "interpenetrating opposites" records the inextricable interdependence of components: the "transformation of quantity to quality" defends a systems-based view of change that translates incremental inputs into alterations of state; and the "negation of negation" describes the direction given to history because complex systems cannot revert exactly to previous states.
*********
Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber:
In a dystopian critique of rationalisation, Weber notes that modern society is a product of an individualistic drive of the Reformation, yet at the same time, the society created in this process is less and less welcoming of individualism.
In particular, the Protestant ethic (or more specifically, Calvinist ethic) motivated the believers to work hard, be successful in business and reinvest their profits in further development rather than frivolous pleasures.
This Weber called the "spirit of capitalism": it was the Protestant religious ideology that was behind – and inevitably lead to – the capitalist economic system. This theory is often viewed as a reversal of Marx's thesis that the economic "base" of society determines all other aspects of it.
Confucianism's goal was "a cultured status position", while Puritanism's goal was to create individuals who are "tools of God".
The Indian caste system made it very difficult for individuals to advance in the society beyond their caste. Activity, including economic activity, was seen as unimportant in the context of the advancement of the soul.
Weber noted that some aspects of Christianity sought to conquer and change the world, rather than withdraw from its imperfections.
Weber noted that Judaism not only fathered Christianity and Islam, but was crucial to the rise of the modern Occidental state; Judaism's influence was as important as Hellenistic and Roman cultures.
********
Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic: Becker and Wossmann at the University of Munich provide an alternate theory, stating that the literacy gap between Protestants (as a result of the Reformation) and Catholics sufficiently explains the economic gaps.
********
Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Durkheim:
Social facts can be material (physical objects) or immaterial (meanings, sentiments, etc.). The latter cannot be seen or touched, but they are external and coercive, and as such, they become real, gain "facticity". Physical objects can represent both material and immaterial social facts; for example a flag is a physical social fact that often has various immaterial social facts (the meaning and importance of the flag) attached to it.
Collective consciousness produces the society and holds it together, and at the same time individuals produce collective consciousness through their interactions.
********
My Comment: No doubt, ascertaining "social facts" as they are commonly interpreted is vital to assimilating and inspiring the social will to move formal laws and customary mores towards an unfolding vision of moral purposefulness. For that purpose, the method of scientific empiricism must be employed. Even so, prime leaders of a social movement should never forget that "facts" they collect and interpret are easily twisted, qualitatively. Thus, responsibility for analyzing the place of facts within an unfolding field of moral choices can hardly be limited to a pure collection of "objective facts." A leader who would be more than a robot needs to be educated beyond the forced squaring of data into round holes. A human being works to become both an empirical scientist and a moral philosopher. A decent civilization must not expel all its functionaries and scientists who would also be human philosophers.
********
Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer:
In nature one form of life must always prey upon another. However, human consciousness holds an awareness of, and sympathy for, the will of other beings to live. An ethical human strives to escape from this contradiction so far as possible.
Ethics themselves proceed from the need to respect the wish of other beings to exist as one does towards oneself.
Mankind had to choose to create the moral structures of civilization: the world-view must derive from the life-view, not vice-versa. Respect for life, overcoming coarser impulses and hollow doctrines, leads the individual to live in the service of other people and of every living creature.
"Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace."
*********
Many thinkers who often seem to line up on different sides of various questions seem on eventual analysis to be drawing distinctions that make little difference. Camus advocated absurdity, yet seemed also to advocate that we "should" rise, heroically, above it. Nietzsche advocated nihilism, yet advocated that an ubermrnsch "should" make his own way. Marx advocated historical determinacy, yet his historical determinacy was based on his ideal of freedom from want for the masses. To the extent his notions would result in ever greater regulatory intrusion by government, it may be only a necessary truism that more regulation is required the greater the organization of information and the greater the desire to deploy technological capabilities for using and communicating it. Likely, all realized that, when nothing is an abomination, everything is permissible, we become what we permit, and, if we desire to communicate to society any meaningful direction, we have no choice but to shape and bend institutions in order to disperse incentives as if some things were, at least by us or our leaders, in present context, desireable or abominable. Thus, we unavoidably shape ourselves towards becoming what we choose to find to be authentic or admirable. This seems to be our moral, existential condition, and, for all we know, it may be similar to God's condition.
*********
PURSUIT OF MORAL HAZARD: In the entrails of historical determinism, Marx smelled a coming birth of freedom from want, to arise for the proletariat from the redistribution of property of the bourgeoisie. Unfortunately, what Marx's nose mistook for science-riven freedom for the masses was an agglomerating of entanglements of international rule under corporate owners of the means of rule, i.e., crony capitalists and criminal thugs fronting political deceivers, i.e., international Chinese capitalists masquerading as guides for the path to communism. So, we wake to find property of the bourgeoisie not being redistributed to the proletariat, but to crony capitalists. Marx claimed to be applying science-based dialectic-materialism, but instead founded a new system of international metaphysics, masquerading as fact-based human secularism. While proclaiming the death of God, did Marx really intend to "dictate how we should become free?" Hubris led Marx to try to tell God and metaphysics what they are bound to do, in order to convert metaphysical intuitions into his personal science. In the wake of this conceit, untold millions not only perished, but perished in despair. Now that Marx's crusade against private property of individual workers and small business has pushed most of mankind into a tightly regulated, worldwide fiefdom for a spider web of crony capitalists, many begin to ask whether Marx's faith in the progress of historical determinism was faith in freedom or in servitude. Birthers of the world, science has ordained that you must amble through the logic gates of the benevolent front men of those who know best. The old captains of industry were pauperizing expropriaters, but historical determinism has now decreed that the crony owners of those captains have become your new and predestined benefactors. To receive your just reward, subjugate and submit! Peace and prosperity! Mmm mmm mmm.
*********
Suppose Consciousness abides innately, and forever interfunctions with the organizing of Information. In that case, there may be no privileged or best form of information or pursuit of preferences. Against such a case, it seems unworthy to say anything is an abomination. Rather, all seems to depend on the context of an unfoldment of interfunctioning perspectives of purposefulness. There seems not to be much that I can confidently judge to be absolutely wrong or eternally bad. So, am I charged or competent only to intuit or apprehend that which seems best for the sustenance of a decently unfolding civilization?
However, even "civilization" seems too confining for many purposes. After all, the place of our earth within the cosmos is ridiculously tiny. It is not for me to judge that all perspectives of consciousness should be raised at least to the class of a proletariat, or that a proletariat class should then enforce a demand that it be made free by being made equal to all others. Obviously, many gradations, levels, qualities, and species of consciousness abide and interfunction on our shared earth. It would seem rididulous to try to require, or to proclaim that the "progress of history requires," that all expressions of the human form --- regardless of how differentially, physically, sensorily, or mentally talented or challenged --- must in all respects be availed with equal economic and political capacity and potential. Equally obvious is that no member of a class desires that the freedom of himself or his class should effectively or formally be subjugated to arbitrary whims of any others.
Once humanity apprehends the often murderous folly of trying to make all equal, and apprehends that there may not abide any permanent, ultimate, god-given or naturally-provable commandments or "rights of man," to what formulation of philosophy may or should one then turn, to reasonably guide one's pursuit of happiness and regard for moral principle?
Should the question be: How should each perspective of consciousness intuit that institutions and forms should best be organized, in respect of quantities and qualities of levels and classes of consciousness, in order to facilitate the always changing, synchronizing, and often cacaphonous unfoldments to the various purposes and experiences of the reconciling Source of Consciousness from whose fount we all spring in common? In other words, what classes of consciousness should abide: below the level of awareness of self; at a low level of awareness of self; at a sacrificial level of awareness; at a slave level; at an independent level; at a selfish level; at a despotic level; at a level of empathy for holistic unfoldment; at a blighted level of intuition of, or humility before, a higher power; at an enlightened level of apprehension of higher purposefulness? If such a composite is The Question, then it may admit of no answer, but perhaps only vague homilies: Respect the higher power; be receptive to its guidance; be humble enough to have faith, even as you doubt your capacity to clearly apprehend IT's purposes; seek to communicate and convey a decent and meaningful vision of IT. Not least of all: Transmit and preserve information regarding a culture, society, country, and civilization that appreciates that a higher Consciousness seeks communion with each unfolding expression of its variety of perspectives. Do not allow such a culture to be subjugated, dumbed equally down to, or swallowed into, lower levels of idiocy.
*******
If one needs a faith in historical determinacy, make it this one:
- That a Singular-Source-of-All avails perspectives of Itself to identify with, and imbue into, various signs and expressions of forms, which we come to call parameters of nature, physics, substance, matter, energy, body, brain;
- That such perspectives come to apprehend one another as interfunctioning observers;
- That such interfunctioning associates to become habits, grooves, routines, signs, laws of physics, and reliable Information;
- That such perspectives are guided to evolve towards beings and perspectives with whom the Source can commune, to entertain unfoldments of worth, meaning, and purposefulness;
- That the Source seeks to evolve beings that can intuit, appreciate, and commune back;
- That such evolution necessitates interfunctioning among various levels and classes of non-human, sub-human, and human consciousness;
- That not all forms and classes of consciousness can simultaneoulsy achieve an equal or same level of intuition, empathy, or appreciation of one another or of the character of Consciousness, generally;
- That various members of various classes of consciousness will apprehend different purposes and different strategies for pursuing them;
- That power is necessarily and differentially distributed throughout various levels of biodiversity and civilization;
- That such power will be variously rationalized by different self-interested groups;
- That some groups (princes and priests) will justify their power based on claims of natural or god-given right, talismen,or special training or insight;
- That such rationalizations, as they enlist technological superiority, will claim empirical proof of the justness of their rule;
- That such rationalizations --- as they enlist superiority in means of communication, extension of credit, trading beyond borders, mesmerizing of faith, broadcasting of trust, and pretense of education and entertainment --- will claim market-based proof of the justness of their rule;
- That such rationalizations, as they attract the most corrupt while sleeps the most trusting, will consolidate lines of crony-capitalistic control over institutions and persons of political governance;
- That such crony capitalism will restore the middle and lower classes to a position of political powerlessness and economic servitude;
- That such crony capitalism will at first feign to be benign and to intend well as to the medical, physical, mental, and economic well being of those who are expelled from its privileges;
- That merit will become irrelevant to social or political promotion of well being, leading to moral hazard for all lines of crony capitalism;
- That higher courage, empathy, and cause will attract and unite various contenders for reform or revolution;
- That higher Consciousness will synchronize and guide all;
- That I know not what civilization will look like in a hundred years, but that I stand on faith in higher consciousness, beyond materialism. We have "progressed" to see society organized for being ruled under the religious charismatic, the feudal noble, the state bureaucrat, and the crony capitalist. Shall we ever see society ruled under the philosophically-empathetic, morally-enlightened, merit-rewarding, liberty-loving republican?
Simply put, there is no absolute, materially determined, higher moral principle or march of history that will require a new civilization to reign in freedom for the masses based on a redistribution of wealth, property, and matter. Rather, our future will assimilate not in respect of materially-determining objectivism, but in respect of an upshot of a confluence of interfunctioning perspectives of morally-empathetic, subjective Will. To teach that ... is to learn it ... is to help make it so!
******************
Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche: One study of Nietzsche defines his fully developed concept of the will to power as "the element from which derive both the quantitative difference of related forces and the quality that devolves into each force in this relation" revealing the will to power as "the principle of the synthesis of forces.
My Comment: I would sooner adduce to a "will to appreciate," for consciousness to entertain and occupy itself through the sponsoring of a sort of feedback among and between the holism and its aggregate of particular perspectives or musings among possibilities.
Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism: Perspectivism is the philosophical view developed by Friedrich Nietzsche that all ideations take place from particular perspectives. This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This implies that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.
My Comment: Validity is in flux, depending on fluxing synchronization of apprehensions of the holism and its perspectivistic parts, arising in respect of digital like feedback from their interfunctioning within degrees of availed freedom. When an observer heats or pushes a thing, quantitatively, outside its degrees of permissible freedom, it becomes, to such observer, something qualitatively different, which must then be measured, if at all, in relation to a new standard or metric. From the niche that limits the degrees of freedom availed to my perspective, I am unable to measure or predict the quality of that which may come hereafter. Still, I may speculate, perhaps intuit, sometimes foresee.
**********
Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism: Stephen Jay Gould shared similar views regarding a heuristic role for dialectical materialism. He wrote "Dialectical thinking should be taken more seriously by Western scholars, not discarded because some nations of the second world have constructed a cardboard version as an official political doctrine." Further
when presented as guidelines for a philosophy of change, not as dogmatic percepts true by fiat, the three classical laws of dialectics embody a holistic vision that views change as interaction among components of complete systems, and sees the components themselves not as a priori entities, but as both products and inputs to the system. Thus, the law of "interpenetrating opposites" records the inextricable interdependence of components: the "transformation of quantity to quality" defends a systems-based view of change that translates incremental inputs into alterations of state; and the "negation of negation" describes the direction given to history because complex systems cannot revert exactly to previous states.
*********
Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber:
In a dystopian critique of rationalisation, Weber notes that modern society is a product of an individualistic drive of the Reformation, yet at the same time, the society created in this process is less and less welcoming of individualism.
In particular, the Protestant ethic (or more specifically, Calvinist ethic) motivated the believers to work hard, be successful in business and reinvest their profits in further development rather than frivolous pleasures.
This Weber called the "spirit of capitalism": it was the Protestant religious ideology that was behind – and inevitably lead to – the capitalist economic system. This theory is often viewed as a reversal of Marx's thesis that the economic "base" of society determines all other aspects of it.
Confucianism's goal was "a cultured status position", while Puritanism's goal was to create individuals who are "tools of God".
The Indian caste system made it very difficult for individuals to advance in the society beyond their caste. Activity, including economic activity, was seen as unimportant in the context of the advancement of the soul.
Weber noted that some aspects of Christianity sought to conquer and change the world, rather than withdraw from its imperfections.
Weber noted that Judaism not only fathered Christianity and Islam, but was crucial to the rise of the modern Occidental state; Judaism's influence was as important as Hellenistic and Roman cultures.
********
Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_work_ethic: Becker and Wossmann at the University of Munich provide an alternate theory, stating that the literacy gap between Protestants (as a result of the Reformation) and Catholics sufficiently explains the economic gaps.
********
Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Durkheim:
Social facts can be material (physical objects) or immaterial (meanings, sentiments, etc.). The latter cannot be seen or touched, but they are external and coercive, and as such, they become real, gain "facticity". Physical objects can represent both material and immaterial social facts; for example a flag is a physical social fact that often has various immaterial social facts (the meaning and importance of the flag) attached to it.
Collective consciousness produces the society and holds it together, and at the same time individuals produce collective consciousness through their interactions.
********
My Comment: No doubt, ascertaining "social facts" as they are commonly interpreted is vital to assimilating and inspiring the social will to move formal laws and customary mores towards an unfolding vision of moral purposefulness. For that purpose, the method of scientific empiricism must be employed. Even so, prime leaders of a social movement should never forget that "facts" they collect and interpret are easily twisted, qualitatively. Thus, responsibility for analyzing the place of facts within an unfolding field of moral choices can hardly be limited to a pure collection of "objective facts." A leader who would be more than a robot needs to be educated beyond the forced squaring of data into round holes. A human being works to become both an empirical scientist and a moral philosopher. A decent civilization must not expel all its functionaries and scientists who would also be human philosophers.
********
Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweitzer:
In nature one form of life must always prey upon another. However, human consciousness holds an awareness of, and sympathy for, the will of other beings to live. An ethical human strives to escape from this contradiction so far as possible.
Ethics themselves proceed from the need to respect the wish of other beings to exist as one does towards oneself.
Mankind had to choose to create the moral structures of civilization: the world-view must derive from the life-view, not vice-versa. Respect for life, overcoming coarser impulses and hollow doctrines, leads the individual to live in the service of other people and of every living creature.
"Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace."
*********
Many thinkers who often seem to line up on different sides of various questions seem on eventual analysis to be drawing distinctions that make little difference. Camus advocated absurdity, yet seemed also to advocate that we "should" rise, heroically, above it. Nietzsche advocated nihilism, yet advocated that an ubermrnsch "should" make his own way. Marx advocated historical determinacy, yet his historical determinacy was based on his ideal of freedom from want for the masses. To the extent his notions would result in ever greater regulatory intrusion by government, it may be only a necessary truism that more regulation is required the greater the organization of information and the greater the desire to deploy technological capabilities for using and communicating it. Likely, all realized that, when nothing is an abomination, everything is permissible, we become what we permit, and, if we desire to communicate to society any meaningful direction, we have no choice but to shape and bend institutions in order to disperse incentives as if some things were, at least by us or our leaders, in present context, desireable or abominable. Thus, we unavoidably shape ourselves towards becoming what we choose to find to be authentic or admirable. This seems to be our moral, existential condition, and, for all we know, it may be similar to God's condition.
*********
PURSUIT OF MORAL HAZARD: In the entrails of historical determinism, Marx smelled a coming birth of freedom from want, to arise for the proletariat from the redistribution of property of the bourgeoisie. Unfortunately, what Marx's nose mistook for science-riven freedom for the masses was an agglomerating of entanglements of international rule under corporate owners of the means of rule, i.e., crony capitalists and criminal thugs fronting political deceivers, i.e., international Chinese capitalists masquerading as guides for the path to communism. So, we wake to find property of the bourgeoisie not being redistributed to the proletariat, but to crony capitalists. Marx claimed to be applying science-based dialectic-materialism, but instead founded a new system of international metaphysics, masquerading as fact-based human secularism. While proclaiming the death of God, did Marx really intend to "dictate how we should become free?" Hubris led Marx to try to tell God and metaphysics what they are bound to do, in order to convert metaphysical intuitions into his personal science. In the wake of this conceit, untold millions not only perished, but perished in despair. Now that Marx's crusade against private property of individual workers and small business has pushed most of mankind into a tightly regulated, worldwide fiefdom for a spider web of crony capitalists, many begin to ask whether Marx's faith in the progress of historical determinism was faith in freedom or in servitude. Birthers of the world, science has ordained that you must amble through the logic gates of the benevolent front men of those who know best. The old captains of industry were pauperizing expropriaters, but historical determinism has now decreed that the crony owners of those captains have become your new and predestined benefactors. To receive your just reward, subjugate and submit! Peace and prosperity! Mmm mmm mmm.
*********
1 comment:
Eventually, sustainable trade necessitates that we produce something more than paper, so that we actually have something to trade. This problem will not be solved by pursuing more government make work, making more regulations, creatively leveraging more securities, conferring more entitlements, issuing more welfare checks, or printing more money. Eventually, we're going to have to allow, and tell, Americans to get back to work. That won't happen with Obama.
Post a Comment