Thursday, September 1, 2011

Materialism Drives

Idealism is fine, but temper it.  In any situation of political controversy, if you think first about what are the opportunities for getting riches, you will probably get a better sense of the players driving the news behind the scenes, and how the events will be driven.  Then you can better strike --- either to advance your ideals or to enhance your wealth.  The fact is, materialism drives us hard.


Anonymous said...

Our electorate has been suckered by cons shilling for international corporations, selling penny lick sugar highs. We have traded lousy jobs for low consumer prices; we have traded good jobs for cheap third world labor. After the sugar high, comes the crash. Obama is either the chief shill for international corporatists, or he is their number one sucker. In any event, he has passed the point of being able to change, without nailing himself to the point. The Story of O (and of every Dino and Rino) is a farcical tragedy for America.

Anonymous said...

@ Davo, I largely agree. Some intuit that Consciousness as inherent in the cosmos, for which they take "The Measurement Problem" as an indicator. I suspect one may just as well intuit that it is not the taking of a measurement by a perspective of consciousness that collapses and gives expression to the rest of the world. Rather, it is the holistic expressing of the rest of the world that collapses and avails each perspective of consciousness. That is, The Holism and each Perspective of it seem to be engaged in a quality of perpetual feedback, in a dance of "I sense you." I think all our work is deeply indebted to aspects of religious, spiritual, and mystical Faith. Every apparent form that avails expression to consciousness necessarily functions in respect of some reconciling Aspect ... which Itself can never be comprehended or mapped ... except in respect of limited perspectives ... which IT, in unlimited appetite, simply encompasses and consumes ... and therewith avails multiplications upon multiplications of new perspectives.

The perspectives we happen to share regarding forms of Substances do not define or limit the reality of the Potential that presents Substances before us. All our communicatons are related in respect of forms that we conceit to comprehend, but that are bubbles expressed by a synchronizing Agency that we cannot limit. As we tirelessly measure the relations of such forms as appear before us, we take it on Faith that our measures are "real," and that Reality is bound to "Laws," which Laws, however, concern only the expression of ourselves. Yet, from more holistic perspective, we tend to communicate only about the tiny slice of Potential that happens here and now to be expressing us. All our work is necessarily deeply indebted to some aspect of Faith concerning an interfunctioning Source, which we may qualitatively respect, but simply cannot quantitatively limit. Nor will IT consent to be ignored or replaced by mere worship of self.

Anonymous said...

From A.T. -- Re: "Contemporary belief is informed almost exclusively by contemporary evidences and opinions."

I would agree that, among the easily confused, contemporary belief is strongly influenced by the agendas, shell game semantics, and emotional contents of those persons and pleasures most admired or preferred. Among independent thinkers --- who seek beyond agendas, semantics, and emotions ---I suspect the scales are tipped more in respect of whether innate intuition and qualities of consciousness are thought to be at least as important to unfolding apprehensions of "reality" as apparent quantifications of substance. IOW, on whether unfolding participation with and in respect of a Creator is conceptualized to be as important as original Creation and immediate gratification of self. That which is accepted as "evidence" for guiding moral choices for a rational being is affected by whether one appreciates a role for both the qualitative and the quantitative, or whether one tends entirely to favor or discount the qualitatively spiritual (City of God) in preference to the quantitatively substantive (City of Self). It is because agendas, semantics, and emotions so easily twist so many people that it becomes important to meet mischaracterizing arguments on all levels --- including the level of the ad hominem appeal to great thinkers. If Darwin's thinking was more nuanced than atheists prefer, it becomes important to tell the tale of both cities, so as not to let atheists feign entirely to own Darwin.