Wednesday, March 28, 2012

BONDING THE SPIRITUAL AND THE GLANDULAR

BONDING THE SPIRITUAL AND THE GLANDULAR:
.
I very much doubt that people are born as racists. Rather, they attach at birth to inclinations for being acculturated to acquire habits of appreciation and favoritism. That which they continue to appreciate tends to become that which eventually manifests into expression. That which manifests to their experience then directs, defines, and limits the cone for that which continues to unfold to their experience. Race is only a sub-category among a myriad of aspects (nation, genetic affiliation, tribe, gender, custom, fashion, trade, union, corporation, hobby, addictions, tattoos, etc, etc.) for which appreciations are acculturated.
.
It is unavoidable that people will seek to profit or advantage themselves by appealing to others to soften of harden their habits of appreciation for varying ways of distinguishing their friends and opponents. Such process is not evil in itself, but is simply the way of flesh. The process only becomes handmaiden to evil when it is set against a defined good. For example, one might choose to intuit or define “good” as consisting in the seeking of civilization that is checked and balanced for broadly facilitating sustainable human freedom of expression and enterprise. Upon such a foundation, one can sensibly discuss merit, responsibility, fairness, and evil. Thus, evil would consist in setting civilization on a path for empowering institutions bent on the demolition of human freedom and dignity. (If you think such would not be evil, simply consider how you would like to live in such a society, as a subject serf who had no hope or freedom for changing it.)
.
Once profit centers come to be invested in corporate institutions that benefit by populist preying on gullible and cheaply-bribed followers, the road to ruin will not be diverted, except with strong medicine. Once established corporations have under their control all significant institutions of banking, media, academia, churches, regulatory power, and international alliances, then there is little medicine left for overcoming the push to serfdom and ruin. Yet, strong medicine remains innate. It is meta, spiritual medicine. It abides in the innate spiritual dignity and meta-empathy of each perspective of consciousness. Once society is duped to ridicule and revile that medicine, there would be little left to check the most base of narrow, gland-based, profit-centered abuses. Once profitable, there would be nothing to check incitements to fornicate, vomit, and defecate in the streets – with children and animals alike. The end of the populism of Crassus, Caesar, Soros, Clodius, and Obama.
.
Religions and spiritual traditions, to put flesh and significance on communications in respect of meta and moral empathies, often employ the language of metaphors. How else could perspectives of consciousness communicate regarding the non-measurable qualities of moral significance, except with figures of speech that relate to interactions among quantitative bodies, flesh, and matter? How else can qualities of morality be inspired and discussed, except with metaphors and figures of speech? Yet, atheists and pure scientists tend to focus only on proving the metaphors are not measurably or literally coextensive with meta, moral truths. Then, they assume such proves the lack of all value in traditional forms of speech concerning moral interests. So, we have atheists raving and ridiculing, while pretending to be “objective.” Lol. All along, they are mainly patting themselves on the back for noticing that qualitative non-measurables cannot be quantitatively measured. They have proved a tautology! What geniuses!
.
I wish this were only funny. However, this looney, know-it-all, faux-objectivism that seeks to replace spiritual based morality with some “scientifically based measure of well being” also leads to tragic consequences for decent civilization. Ask: But for meta, fundamental respect for human freedom, dignity, and empathy, what do so-called purely objective scientists have to offer in respect of the issues of most importance to civilization? What moral wisdom do they have to pour out for our courts, social clubs, and theaters? Well, they have the “reasoning power” to justify doing in the road whatever the hell they like, so long as the collectivist authority that substitutes for individual responsibility does not veto it. Not only has civilization been pushed to a point of needing strong medicine, it is simultaneously confronted by know-it-all, gland-drunken dunderheads who contribute all they can to impede any medicine. They mean to tear down civilization and replace it with Caesar and his scientific administrators of social well being — as if that were “progress.”
.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Learn from Roman cronyism and Cicero. Take police non-diligence in Zimmerman's situation. If it was primarily driven in respect of connections of his family to the courthouse, then such non-diligence was Not primarily driven by racism. Rather, it was primarily driven by Cronyism, of which racism is merely a sub-variety. However, to stand ready to counter sporadic cronyism with mass, unionized, racist cronyism IS racist! Indeed, it is pre-organized, pre-meditated racism ... laying in wait for opportunity to spring its trap. In this way, Dems pre-organize collectives, unions, and victim-mongers. Thus they extract doo-dads for followers, while siphoning millions to themselves. Still, they're manipulated by pros, who shovel billions out back doors. Pros of populism become skilled in organizing and inciting masses and communities to erase boundaries of decency and to surrender individual responsibility to the hollow soul of the international, collective beast. The collective beast is thus tamed to amoral lusts of the most sociopathic and narcissistic of despots.

Plebe-Dems rely on populism among masses; Patrician-Repubs rely on money and cynical power lust. This is an old, repetitive pattern. Soros is simply the new maxi-Crassus, while Obama is the mini-Caeser. The game played by Crassus-Soros and Caeser-Obama doesn't stop short of everyone kneeling at their feet, as serfs. In effect, Dems --- especially the Black community --- are used as the tip of the spear for demolishing individual liberty, merit, and responsibility. There is to be "freedom" from all moral restraints, for everyone to reach for every lust --- subject only to the veto of the reigning despot.

Within this box of Pandora's, there is strong hope. It consists of an innate, spiritual quality, which utterly defies scientific quantification. However, humanity tends not to reach for it until placed in utmost extremity. That is where we soon find ourselves. To reduce rampant cronyism to decent good faith, we first need to re-learn a few things about good faith. Things populists, atheists, and know-it-all-scientists-of-morality have utterly despised and degraded. Which is the road to vomit, fornication, and defecation in the middle of main street ... with children and animals.

Anonymous said...

"Things are a lot better objectively"
Yes, depending on how one defines "things," one can show, objective to such definition, that we have more. We live longer, we often tend to have less fear of local catastrophes, and we presently have convenient access to many products. We are also more interdependent and susceptible to rule under populist demagogues. I'm not so sure that so many feel their lives are more meaningful or less spiritually isolated.

"the idea that faith is a solution"
Well, that's not quite my idea. Nor do I believe faith is a "solution." Rather, I think faith of some kind is unavoidable, and I think faith that the qualitative is entirely reducible to the quantitative and that science can show elites how they should prescribe our values, independent of qualities of faith, is fundamentally indecent, collectivizing, and misguided. I think extreme faith in purely quantitative science leads to disassimilation of civilization that can defend individual freedom of expression and enterprise. I think facts on the ground are rapidly demonstrating that. As to religion, I don't advocate a "return" to religious dogma. I simply advocate respect for a Source that facilitates empathetic regard for human freedom and dignity. I suspect even atheists of good will and good faith tend to want that. Perhaps the only significant difference relates to the character of conscious appreciation for qualities beyond countable stuff., i.e., intuition of a spiritually inspiring connection in empathies among receptive perspectives of consciousness. As to that spiritual component, even Sam Harris seems to pause before entirely discounting that.

Anonymous said...

Ordinary people will often try to alter their limbic responses to make them consistent with their facial fronts, as by meditating, praying, or sacrificing, in order to relax and prepare themselves to face dangerous trials with less fear of limbic sweat or cowardice. Such may be facilitated by religious praying and spiritual meditating. Such is subject to evil and abuse, as when inter-players short circuit their meditations and empathies, not in respect of an encompassing moral source, but by conflating their own desires and grandiose senses of self with God. This becomes all the easier when one receives certification as a religious authority. For example, Caesar, while consumed with desire to overreach achievements of Alexander the Great, in time became Pontifex Maximus, Imperator, Consul, was conferred permanent tribunician powers, made himself Prefect of the Morals, and was appointed dictator for life. When he wished to convey a position of authority, he came to have little difficulty summoning will to coordinate the force of his limbic body language with his verbal commands. It is well to fear and anticipate those who show able to convince themselves that they should have divine destiny as a minor deity or messenger of God, superior to all extant mortals. Likewise, with regard to issues of social well being, it is well to fear and anticipate those who convince themselves they are uniquely qualified to revile, ridicule, and revenge all notions, in respect of God, that assert superiority in claims of spiritual or scientific wisdom. An elitist who claims authority to dictate mores would be similarly dangerous, whether instructed by a religious Torquemada or a scientific Dawkins.

Anonymous said...

"Things are a lot better objectively"
Yes, depending on how one defines "things," one can show, objective to such definition, that we have more. We live longer, we often tend to have less fear of local catastrophes, and we presently have convenient access to many products. We are also more interdependent and susceptible to rule under populist demagogues. I'm not so sure that so many feel their lives are more meaningful or less spiritually isolated.

"the idea that faith is a solution"
Well, that's not quite my idea. Nor do I believe faith is a "solution." Rather, I think faith of some kind is unavoidable, and I think faith that the qualitative is entirely reducible to the quantitative and that science can show elites how they should prescribe our values, independent of qualities of faith, is fundamentally indecent, collectivizing, and misguided. I think extreme faith in purely quantitative science leads to disassimilation of civilization that can defend individual freedom of expression and enterprise. (Indeed, quantitativist reducers tend to believe "freedom" is a rather meaningless term. Meaningless as they think it is, I suspect they will rather miss it when it is taken.) I think facts on the ground are rapidly demonstrating cultural and moral disassimilation. As to religion, I don't advocate a "return" to religious dogma. I simply advocate respect for a Source that facilitates empathetic regard for human freedom and dignity. I suspect even atheists of good will and good faith tend to want that. Perhaps the only significant difference relates to the character of conscious appreciation for qualities beyond countable stuff., i.e., intuition of a spiritually inspiring connection in empathies among receptive perspectives of consciousness. As to that spiritual component, even Sam Harris seems to pause before entirely discounting that.

Anonymous said...

Everyone does cronyism. Racism is just a more collectivist, sub-variety of cronyism. Racism depends on marking and freezing an opposing group target (example: Whities). Like crony unionism, racism depends on collectives and herd think. By definition, anyone who sells out his individuality to herd think is a loser, a non-entity, a component of the Borg. The human problem relates to how best to civilize cronyism, i.e., how to keep it within decent channels, i.e., how to broadly facilitate and sustain freedom of expression and enterprise. That's not done by bending the rule of law to the rule of those who like to prance about in front of mobs. The most vile mobs are the ones that are the most ignorant, illiterate, and easily bribed. Who are they? They are the ghetto-ized, the illegals, the dopers, the felons, and the spiritually hollow and lacking in human empathy (except for the collective, and then only insofar as the collective can give doo-dads). They are the types who were attracted by Clodius and Caesar for the purpose of "fundamentally changing" the first Roman Republic. IOW, they are Democrats (and those who hedge politics both ways). And they have bred past the magic point of 51 percent of the electorate. The spectacle that will unfold after they induce fundamental change will be depraved beyond comprehension.

Anonymous said...

Yes, we're all being herded into a NWO of no principles, no higher values, no individuating vision. Just collectivized appetites and glands, of no more significance than a fast spreading culture of bacteria, bowing under the microscope of Head Scientist. The new utopian land of the "New Brights." Shut up and take your daily weed.

Anonymous said...

If purely quantitative “reasoning” (apart from conscious, living intuition of the qualitative) should be our only and trumping guide, ask: What “reason” should explicate why there is or should be evolution for facilitating any conscious self, merely to deceive same self? For what purely quantitative reason should consciousness “just happen” initially to be set up to compete in giving expression to various forms in order to advantage self deceit within any species? To say such “just happens” is merely to assume the only or dominant explanation is competition among forms of purely unguided happenstance. Does a hindsight rationalization that stuff “just happens” really prove anything? Can such an assumption account for all that can or should be accounted for among mortal perspectives of consciousness, for all proper purposes and all perspectives and contexts? Does trumping reason necessitate that we should accept that inanimate and meaningless substance is the superior and only reality, and that our propensities to imagine otherwise with regard to qualitative existents (such as conscious will) are mere inferior delusions of self? Depending upon purpose, contextual frame, and point of view, cannot an equally viable philosophy be just as well constructed (and with no practical impediment to science) by modeling conscious will as the superior trump and substance as the inferior delusion? Is that not at least equally suggested by intuition, math, life, and philosophy? Should not one orient one’s belief model depending upon effectiveness to legitimate purpose at hand?