(Click title above)
.
HIVE MIND CONTROL:
WE OF THE FORMERLY-FREE-WEST ARE FEEDING, ENRICHING AND RE-POPULATING THE HIVE-MIND-MONSTER THAT FEEDS ON HATE OF ISRAEL. AS WE BLAME ISRAEL FOR DEFENDING ITSELF, SO ALSO ARE WE SOWING OUR OWN DESTRUCTION. THUS DO WE SINK INTO HIVE MIND.
MIND SURRENDER: Suppose prevailing conditions tolerate a socially evolutionary detour for fostering the exposure of sentient creatures to such relentless and intense visions and sounds as would evoke and inculcate habits and patterns of mind and thought that are virulent, venomous, vile, and violent.
MIND HELL: The infantile and parasitic mentality thus gratified and sponsored would be nurtured and conditioned to degenerate into one of inter-loathing, non-cooperation, and irresponsibility.
MIND CHALLENGE: Suppose such parasites were then suddenly thrust into another social environment, i.e., one that demanded social respect, individual responsibility, and self reliance.
MIND CULLING: Would not such a thrust cull (or kill) many such parasites? Would not those not culled find ways to leverage talents to change and achieve self respect? Would not those not culled or changed likely become recognized as parasites among those who remained who were changed?
MIND ENGINEERING: Would not pressure mount to “re-engineer” mind habits of such parasites? Would not pressure arise to curtail their freedom of thought and expresson?
MIND INTERVENTION: How may or should responsible society recognize when freedom of expression becomes not absolute, but instead necessitates intervention or mind re-engineering?
MIND DICTATE: For minds fallen into depraved dependency, must forms of mind-dictate be prescribed? But how could such dictate be beneficient? How could such dictate wean proles or reprobates to responsible self reliance?
MIND LIMBO: Must some types of personalities and societies be excepted as simply being beyond near-term hope of reclamation to mind freedom? How may such exception be tested? How can any mortal be trusted to administer or interpret such testing?
MIND PRESERVATION: By whatever price achieved, once a society has achieved mind responsibility among the controlling majority of its citizens, how may it honor, defend, and preserve its spirit of individual freedom and dignity, so that it need not entrust any fascist system of bureaucracy to test to decide whom should or should not retain full citizenship?
MIND DANGER SIGNALS: How may a free society sense danger to mind freedom before danger has pulled it beyond the point of possible return?
What are some signals of danger to a society of free thinkers?
Try some of the following, as increasing sirens of decline and as business advertisements from prostitutes of media, academia, and politics:
1) Increasing calls for unearned bailouts, entitlements, and reparations;
2) loathing of traditional institutions of free society;
3) substitution of name-calling and slogan-shouts for rational debate;
4) celebrations of degeneracy and social irresponsibility;
5) surrender of electoral and political control to blocs of infantile, indoctrinated, inexperienced, irresponsible and corrupted voters; and
6) coordination of prostituted stamps of rationalized approval among all major outlets of news, education, and entertainment.
By such signs may ye know. Have not their sirens yet become near deafening?
MIND NEGLECT:
We who did not earn but only inherited our mind freedom have failed to guard it to our progeny.
We have allowed histories of our forebears to be corrupted to corrupt purposes. We failed to provide checks, balances, and institutions adequate to preserve defensible borders and to instill necessary respect for the price of freedom.
MIND CHOICES: Now we come soon to hard choices. The mind freedom of our nation has become gangrenous. Parts may have become beyond saving, even as they continue to infect the whole. Members of cultural ghettoes who have hardened to refuse to take responsibility to help themselves cannot by help soon be made free. Rather, it becomes necessary to withdraw, to establish defensible boundaries, and to refuse to feed or to encourage derelict cultures to re-populate. Soon, we may need to effect hard weedings, expulsions, and separations --- if we seek not to surrender minds to collectivist thought control.
MIND RESPECT: We must restore and preserve that which is worthwhile and which can be preserved. We must remember and honor our history for freedom. Else, our progeny, who did not earn freedom, have no hope to comprehend its god-like worth or price.
10 comments:
The Holistic WORD is Perspective of GOD; NATURE is God’s BOOK of Words from particular perspectives.
*******
Ultimately, all physical particles receive their “particleness” (mass) from a mass-transfer particle (“God-particle”), which itself appears to be not a mass, but a property or function of math.
Ultimately, all “causation” that manifests in apparent chronological sequencing is not derivatve of local physics or mass, but of a (“non-local”) agent or synchronizing property-of-appearance of mass transfer.
All apparent particles are “polarized” to act “on” each other, in synchronized concert, from non-localized distance.
Each synchronized, systemic sequence appears to be not the result of pre-determination, but either of some sort of (1) random action within pre-designed, permissible parameters or of some sort of (2) wilful choice-making within contemporaneously-designed permissible parameters.
At ultimate systemic level, our particular perspectives and meanings attributed to words such as “random,” “choice,” “conscious,” and “design” become fuzzy, non-precise, non-testable, beyond science, but more in the realm of intuitive appreciation.
Nevertheless, we humans experience apprehensions of perspectives of conscious choice-making, within parameters limited out of synchronizing respect for the choice-making of others. And, we each derive such power in respect of Something which completes us, which is superior to our reduction to mathematical logic, which, to some of us, seems accessible, which accessibility we may refer to in terms of faith or of direct empathy and intutition. In such respects, IT seems opposed to being “dead,” “dumb,” or “irrelevant.”
Why is this important? Because, IT at least suggests, and seems to implicate, a basis for empathetic, civilizing morality.
*******
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/obama_from_unitarian_to_libera_1.html:
A Theist ---
1) As a Unitarian, do you consider yourself an "atheist" or a "theist"?
2) Among your Unitarian cohorts, how would you estimate the percentage breakdown, between professing theists vs. atheists and agnostics?
3) Among those you listed as founders or famous Unitarians, what would the percentage breakdowns be?
I suspect the breakdown among modern Unitarians tends to sway markedly more towards secular humanists who are professing atheists or agnostics than in the days of our founders.
If I am right, you are mixing up apples and oranges on your lists.
If I am right, few of our Unitarian founders would have been so prone to encourage, tolerate, provide sanctuary for, and lobby to change laws to favor or promote the kinds of persons or ideas modern Unitarians seem so prone to want to arm with legalized favoritism or special protection, the will of the public be damned.
So, are you playing some sort of shell game, mixing apples and oranges?
I just want to learn whether modern Unitarians are now moving, under guise of organized religion, to undermine fundamentals I believe to be essential to preserving civil society.
Surely you do not suggest John Adams is on record for favoring gay marriage, abortion at will, replacement of the family unit with extensive state supervision, or taxpayer funded schooling to educate "brights" that god is an entirely superfluous concept?
More enlightenment, please.
*******
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/where_should_conservatives_dra.html:
jshuey ("Where I draw the line is when PFCs (Prevaricators for Christ) in the Army of God 1) lie about the origins of this nation, liberty, progress, et al, 2) attempt to coerce me to pay for their proselytizing on public (government) property and/or to impose their particular beliefs on me through politics and the legislative process, and 3) try to replace science with creation myths in public classrooms."):
1) "lie about the origins of this nation": Are you saying some other belief system or religion had more influence on the origin of this nation than Judaism and Christianity? Basis, please?
2) "attempt to coerce me to pay for their proselytizing": OK, how much have you been forced to pay --- specifically, in dollars and cents?
3) " impose their particular beliefs on me": How so? By opposing gay "marriage"? By supporting the family as the essential unit for civilizing assimilation and cohesion? By teaching historical derivations of moral codes, like the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule? By relating metaphors and parables to various contexts? By explaining historical derivations of words? By holding a sword over your head?
4) "try to replace science with creation myths": Is someone in your school teaching alchemy or black magic? Is someone precluding you from learning about science? Or from seeking treatment from medical doctors? Is someone suggesting moral issues are not resolvable solely through science? Horrors!
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/obama_from_unitarian_to_libera_1.html:
Elrod ---
"We had recently put up a rainbow-colored "Welcome" sign - the exact same sign that our church ...."
Well, please, there is nothing particularly special about that!
Most churches are welcoming.
The catch comes when some groups try to require secular law to favor them in ways not conducive to sustainable secular civilization.
Gays are welcome; just not to try to force feed jurisprudence or topple our system of checks and balances.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/where_should_conservatives_dra.html:
jshuey --- Diderot had it exactly right, "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
Thus spake the Priest of the Anti-Priests, as he condemned himself to be unfree.
In saying thus, Diderot had no more insight than those he condemned.
To read the lines of truth in one's pursuit, learn to pursue between the lines.
Don't throw out the lines of tradition unless you lack hope of insight to communicate between the lines.
Else you merely lead us to your own slave-infested delusions of literalistic freedom.
Man, there is no such thing as literal freedom.
Free your mind, as have millions of Jews, Christians, and other metaphor-tolerant religious traditions.
*******
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/where_should_conservatives_dra.html:
We may adopt many of the enemy's tactics, but must guard against becoming indistinguishable from the enemy.
Preserving one's essence depends upon preserving one's reliability as an exponent of civilizing beliefs and values.
One may hold beliefs in abeyance, but ought not trade in deceits --- qualifier--- without good reason.
One can remain clear about one's values, even as one concentrates resources where they seem most likely to do good.
We must not be shy about calling evil among evil's true believers to account.
We must not allow evil to divide us into quietude.
To not be disregarded, become learned with incisive explanations about why some things are evil, and why some evils may need for a while to be lived with, even if despised.
Given aptitude, one may continue to identify evil, even as one modulates one's descriptions.
Shine forth your lights! Disperse the Collectivist Mind Slaver!
*******
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/obama_from_unitarian_to_libera_1.html:
To A Theist:
I am not quite sure the Unitarians of bygone centuries are so comparable to those of today.
Today, there is so much more of hubris in science.
And, becoming proficient in modern scientific models requires so much more study, focus, and dedication.
The models of science are meant to be continuously tested and refined, to be made ever more empirically and predictively reliable. (Even though no mere model can ever completely explicate the whole that includes the model itself.)
Many empiricists become so one-tracked in their search for the perfect model that they seem to expect that religious models and metaphors should be subjected to the same sort of empirical testing.
But, we use "ground-up" empirical models to try to solve practical, technological, particular (thus incomplete) problems or tests.
And, we use "sky-down" religious models to try to intuit from the complete holism how we should choose to conduct ourselves, morally.
So, empirical models are designed to be tested in the laboratory of natural physics. But religious models are designed to be tested in the laboratory of mental intuition. Empirical models help us talk about how nature works. Religious models help us talk (in parables and traditional figures of speech) about how people should relate within a morally civilized society. The models are of two types, for two different purposes.
When a narrow-minded scientist ridicules a religious model for its untestability in nature, he is more ridiculing himself and his misplaced focus than the religious model.
Question: Given the misplaced focus about moral issues of so much of the modeling of MSM and modern academia, do you really think the character of UU as practiced among our founders is comparable to the extreme skepticism or to the UU as practiced today?
*******
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/obama_from_unitarian_to_libera_1.html:
The problem with UU is this: To tolerate everything is to tolerate one's own annihilation.
It is sort of like "1" tolerating "minus 1": the result, in terms of moral value, is zero.
To be so inclusive as to be unable to draw or stand for any defensible boundaries --- in borders, culture, social conventions, metaphorical traditions, or morality --- is to be unable to resist falling for everything.
Of UU's and libs, the question is always: For what cause do you actually have cajones to defend, if any?
Anyone who after age 4o tends not to impose the burden of proof against such liberalism must surely be deficient in intellect, experience ("innocents"), or empathy --- if not all three.
Young libs are socialistically tolerant in respect of lack of experience.
Old faux-libs are "socialistic" in respecting of cynically harvesting the young.
Youths and innocents, seeking to prove independence, run away from parents and responsible adults into the arms of faux-libs (i.e., farmers of humans).
Thus, we have faux-socialists harvesting innocent-socialists.
Collectivization is mind kool-aid, best enjoyed with bedside fables for children and innocents, to be served and read by wolves.
While Responsible Society shirks, while Western Libs and Faux-Libs imagine a holiday from history, unimaginable depravities lie breeding and brooding under the bedside.
History laughs an evil laugh at bedside "happily-ever-afters."
Comes a Quickening.
*******
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/12/so_thats_why_the_kgb_lost_the.html:
We have allowed markets to become monopolized to such an extent that a relative few power brokers bent on bursting the American bubble in order to achieve some sort of wider hegemony could easily panic America and the world.
Governmental regulation has only greased this surrender of power, not slowed it.
Should the Power Elites deem it advantageous to panic America towards a split, how could we stop it?
What power checks or defenses have we preserved that could counter them?
Socialism is not just for the masses.
It is also for those who have positioned themselves to rule the masses.
Most of us just take turns kissing up to Leftist Socialists vs. Blueblood Socialists.
But they are both ushering us towards the same Quickening.
Live like you mean to remain free; or else watch your country and your mind be enslaved --- inch by accelerating inch.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/where_should_conservatives_dra.html:
One cannot sensibly advocate tolerance for those who are intolerant of oneself.
Nor can one sensibly advocate mind freedom for some, while working to foreclose it to others.
I do not wish to force mind freedom on others, but only to force them not to deny mind freedom to all within the defensibly bordered protection of my country.
Bottom line: Slavery is and was evil.
You cannot wash it clean.
To try to wash slavery clean is to do evil.
Do not go there.
No matter one's race, gender, or creed, if one is with me on mind freedom, one is my fellow patriot, charged to preserve defensible borders for the light of mind freedom.
But do not confuse mind freedom with freedom to act beyond parameters of defensible civilization.
*******
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/americas_amazing_resilience_1.html:
Re: "There is no way out of this mess when the government thinks the answer to its self-created problem is more governance."
The same "brights" who think god can be replaced merely by adopting a secular vocabulary tend also to think production can be replaced merely by adopting governmental regulation. These brainiacs have simply received educations beyond their insights.
Were utopia really possible, no one would be admitted to college or awarded a college degree until they passed some sort of basic test that could show whether they actually knew sh*t from shinola. Any 10 bums from a random Salvation Army bed station would make better representatives than the top 10 we have running Congress.
*******
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/americas_amazing_resilience_1.html:
Justin ("when the American people issued a resounding rebuke to the last three decades of classist assaults on the poor"):
If you want to see classist assaults on the poor, study histories of the USSR and China.
You have been set up to be farmed.
America has been resilient in the past.
Now, wealth in media, academia, and political purchase are concentrated like never before, with few connections between us proles and our owners.
You think the new owners are looking out for you (as opposed to your delusions)?
Free your mind.
Else there is no resilience.
*******
BDS --- see http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/iraq_and_its_lessons_part_2_1.html.
Charles Manning ---
"if we are to avoid the cycle of killing as many humans and destroying as much property as it takes to beat one side or the other into submission, a cycle that repeats itself"
******
Well, are you a scientist? Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe evolution consists in morphology within parameters and guided by God?
All mortal and less than perfect things pass, die, and become "killed," changed, or replaced. We mortals experience such chronological sequences and cycles as "time," which is too stubborn for us to repeal.
In turns, some things and ideas can, will, and should be defeated or surpassed.
For example, a free society should not yield to a collectivist society.
To believe otherwise is but the first step for sinking into the collective.
And the collective will never survive the asteroids to visit the stars.
You can volunteer to go to the collective, even to try to redeem it to intelligent and free thought.
But as you go, I prefer a defensible gate.
And not to nourish the mindless collective.
That is, I prefer not to honor the imprisoned collective, but to honor Consciousness, freedom of expression, and tolerance that does not tolerate its own imprisonment or annihilation.
That which should be defeated should not be promoted or submitted to, but should be tolerated only insofar as it is tolerant.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/the_cost_of_provocation.html
Charles Manning ("Japan, Germany, Vietnam, the U.S.S.R., and the PRC are only the most recent examples of former implacable foes we now do business with peacefully, in some instances (such as the U.S.S.R. and the PRC) without even having a war first."):
Of Implacable Irrationalism:
Except for Bushido-inspired kamakazi-Japanese, there is little equivalency with the Islamic mindset for justifying the slaughter of "infidels." And Communist rationality looks to fulfillment in this world, not to a 70 virgin hereafter.
Our peaceful intentions, but for fortuitous circumstances, would hardly have overcome Japanese Bushido.
Mutual assured destruction is simply not a credible deterrent for a society bent on speeding the planet's way to apocalypse. So, the choice is stark: Establish defensible borders or submit to collectivism.
Until we throw off our so-called "rationals wishing to debate with irrationals," we will continue to fail to establish defensible borders. It is time to let Israel be Israel.
*******
“God” is what completes the calculus by which our otherwise chaotic conceptualizations are in common cohesion created and connected --- constantly, consecutively, continuously, consistently, and coherently. God is all that “squares our circles.”
That which God wants at any given locus of space-time, we have little choice but to want also. That which we adjudge temporally, God also may judge --- both in what we perceive to be time, and beyond.
Except in incomplete intuiton and empathetic respect of a “still small voice,” it remains beyond our spatially and temporally limited perspectives to judge whether any of our choices should merit repetition, were they ever again to be opportuned.
One on one, as on a small island, we may exhibit significant capacities for mutual empathy. As our numbers and tribes increase, our empathies become more given to formal filtering and social momentum. Thus do our tribes and cultures need defensible borders.
For an exemplar of a tribe, by himself, to venture unprotected within another tribe for the purpose of debating or insisting on points of mutual respect is to risk then and there being crushed on account of that tribe’s greater social momentum --- all the more so when that tribe is fundamentally conditioned to fearfully obey imprisoning orthodoxy.
Hive-mind orthodox faith may consist in so-called consensus-science, secular-humanism, collectivist-dictate, or fundamentalist-religion.
Our Internet may relax some fear of hive-mind, but only so long as the Internet is trusted not to facilitate monitoring by defenders of orthodoxy.
In our time, my belief is that human freedom of mind is intended to prevail against (i.e., not to join, but not necessarily to prevail over) less-human mind-collectivism.
As perspectives participating in God’s timeless wholeness, we carry seeds of eternity. However purposeful, we are but pawns to God’s timeless purposes. As proxies for God’s unfolding intendments, we remain mortally expendable.
If you sense purpose worth sacrifice and risk, beyond orthodox conditioning, pursue mind-enlightenment --- not mind-enslavement.
For those unable to "pull the trigger," History's holiday from hard choices is about to end.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/hope_after_hope_a_thought_expe.html:
Re: Virtual Nation
“Atticus: By restoring some aspirations to the culture... But if we need a more formal plan of action, we might look at the plan Jethro proposes in chapter 18 of Exodus -- a tier-like structure based on the number 10, whereby each group of ten selects a leader, who meets with ten other group leaders, and the leaders of ten such groups would meet, and so on as the organization grows. Theoretically we could end up with a council of ten representing 100,000,000 people. On the way, people with knowledge and ability in various areas have been identified. Proceedings, reports, and artistic contributions have been posted on the Web. At last the group is in a position to influence elections, not by media campaigns nor even by official endorsements, but just by a spreading of the knowledge of who the real leaders are.”
******
Years ago, in college, I pondered a similar notion, based on the odd number 5 (conducive to breaking ties).
The idea was that mere statutes can never be sufficiently complete, consistent, coherent, or immune to corrosive influences of change. So, punt to forms for organizing heirarchical and overlapping councils devoted to strengthening ties of mutual empathy, rather than illusions of precise statutes.
Interestingly, the Internet now avails such an organization, as a sort of virtual check (or virtual party, or Virtual Nation) on government, perhaps below the radar of formal legislators.
*******
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/is_religion_necessary.html:
“Self governance cannot function without morality. As morals decline, laws expand and freedoms necessarily contract.
….
As national morality declines, inducing governments and citizens to favor more laws, the less plausible our Constitutional system becomes.
….
This dilemma is systemic. Misuse of guns induces public fervor to violate the Second Amendment. Neglectful parents lead to laws that destroy the right to parental prerogatives in raising and educating children. Corrupt politicians provoke expression demolishing restrictions on speech and campaign donations. The immoral use of rights is a precursor to laws that infringe upon those rights.
….
The irony should not be lost that the Anti-Prop 8 groups, who call for "the exclusion of religious principle" from constitutions, are the very people demonstrating why it is necessary.”
*******
AMEN!
*******
But for “God” relevant to the here and now (not to 70 virgins in the hereafter in trade for desolating the here and now), I see no adequate substitute in play among secular moralists.
A here and now God avails an Absolute Moral Imperative by which to escape moral irresolution: Pursue empathy for the ongoing Source of the good.
But for such God, what absolute moral imperative or sustaining faith is offered by situational ethicists?
For secular believers in notions about “the multiverse landscape” and the “anthropic principle,” what is the driving purpose of their non-intuitive and un-evidenced faith of pretentious convenience, if not to reduce us to the “happy state” of morally indifferent zombies (happy faces on sticks)?
God does not define the good in mathematically legalistic precision. (Perhaps God also is in pursuit of the good --- sort of like we pursue, but do not quite catch, complete happiness.)
Unless, in some respect, we appreciate one another as incomplete, emerging expressions of “God” in perpetual pursuit of the good, how shall we, merely by rote conditioning or empirical example, raise consciousness for inspiring and guiding us towards anything other than the utopian absurd or the meaninglessly indifferent?
In history, what Unitary God of here and now relevance to mutual empathy among all has been fronted by believers to justify initiation of atrocities? (Notes: Biblical Hebrews were not equally empathetic to “the unchosen;” Christian Crusaders were not without provocation; Spanish Catholic Conquistadors believed in a multitude of Satanic demons that they believed had to be fought by waging against those who were possessed.)
On the other hand, what world view that ignores here and now relevance to mutual empathy has not aggressed to instigate atrocities? What secular or sectarian apology for master race, socialistic utopia, or ummah has declined to employ all manner of available and atrocious means for pursuing imaginary ends?
I recommend a book by David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion. It cuts easily through “scientific” pretensions about “the landscape” and the “anthropic principle” like the proverbial hot knife through soft butter --- if you enjoy that sort of thing.
Sometimes you feel like a buttered nut; sometimes you don’t. Berlinski’s got nuts. To me, he’s humorous; to the scientific faithful, he’s a self-admitted, agnostic (not atheistic) crank. But don’t just take the word of cosseted students of science; check him out. One thing he is not is unintelligent. Keep secular cosmologists in uneasy check --- and stitches!
*******
Shakespeare, perhaps regarding The Landscape:
“Why then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or
bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.”
http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/nothing-either-good-bad-but-thinking-makes
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/is_religion_necessary.html:
jshuey ("What you and other religious fanatics are denied by the 1st Amendment is your desire to impose your beliefs and practices on others."):
Well, I see nothing "fanatical" about coming together humbly to reason and discuss how we should seek in empathetic cooperation to appreciate God (i.e., "goodness"), being'ness, and one another.
Isn't that sort of cooperation what enlightened government is about? How is such discussion an "imposition"? How is it a constitutionally prohibited state establishment of religion?
Would you prefer that statist government consist instead in the force of those whose present positions happen to avail them with power by arbitrary legislation to intrude into every detail of life?
If you mean to say some forms of religion can be tyrannical (as can some forms or irreligion), I agree, of course.
If you mean to say all religion is harmful, fanatical, superfluous, or non-conducive to goodness, I do not agree, nor have I seen history or evidence to support such a militant position.
Rather, the weight of my experience and interpretation is to the contrary.
In any event, you have not addressed the key concern: How do you propose to avail a society that is without religious bonds with freedom uncluttered by absurdly intrusive, arbitrary, and counterproductive legalism?
Might you by harsh conditioning have become so biased against religion as to be constitutionally without capacity to appreciate how religion could ever serve any good or decent purpose?
Mind you, I don't purport to know what God is. I just do not see fanatical harm in enlightened, contextual discussions in respect of concepts or parables about God.
*******
Cara C ("by using reason to defend freedom and by prosecuting abusive behavior"):
Well, you indeed have much religious faith in reason and legalism!
If pure "reason," alone (without aid of faith or inspiration), can convincingly guide us to freedom and decent civilization, on whose side do you find "reason" on issues such as:
Statutory mandating of perfect equality in recognition of Gay marriage;
Statutory mandating of perfect equality in recognition of polygamous marriage;
Statutory mandating that no woman shall be denied her right at any time to abort her fetus;
...
or, for that matter, statutory mandating of anything?
How does incessant legalistic wrangling, litigation, and legislation about what is "reasonable" help make us more cooperatively free, as opposed to more selfishly destructive? Do you suppose judges are chosen to decide all issues based more on "reason" than on identification of self interests and political alliances?
Isn't a commandment to honor God in effect a commandment to behave reasonably? On what evidence do you so vainly expect to paint that lily of reason merely by appealing exclusively to some fount of reason higher than God?
*******
Lousi Wheeler ("The problem is that the Left have become a cult and they want to use the government to Establish their power to force us to obey them."):
Yes!
The left have become a cultish religion, but do not even recognize their own kool-aid!
Religion become so fanatically blind becomes doubly dangerous, imperiling the Nation and our Constitution.
Meta Logic:
IF MORAL REASON APPLIES, TO RAISE US ABOVE MORAL INDIFFERENCE:
If a vast existential void of "ambiguous nothingness" has always capacitated some Potentiality by which various universes, as many-splendored as needed, such as ours, by dimensional laws with which they are defined, may bring self-aware Consciousness into emergence, then what, if anything, may we reasonably intuit, infer, or test regarding any Source of such Potentiality?
If we should “REASONABLY” infer anything, how could it be reasonable not to infer a unifying moral purposefulness, superior to any particular expression of IT? Unless a moral position can be defended in mutual respect of some objective basis, superior to subjective selfishness, how can its defense reasonably be termed "reasonable" --- as opposed to selfishly contrived?
Alternatively, if there really is no basis for inferring moral purposefulness, then why should you bother to say I “should” cease trying to be receptive to IT?
Have you somehow discovered the holy scientific grail for otherwise instructing how, with consistent logic, to derive “ought” from “is”?
When we pursue or reference such Source of purposefulness, by what name should we address IT, if not “God”?
Should we infer that such God, having infinite time and mathematical landscapes by which to accomplish all possible things, has no need of self-aware intelligence beyond random assignments of Nature?
Or, should we infer that even Time does not exist, except derivative of such Source, so that such Source always operates in Its own form of Ultimate Nowness, beyond our comprehension?
If so, does it matter, apart from enhancement of figurative appreciation, whether we honor such Source as being, in non-overlapping magesteria, in ways beyond our complete comprehension and beyond our unambiguous logic: dumb yet intelligent, indifferent yet caring, and random yet designing?
For our humble purposes, is it not enough that IT is always in our intuition, mutual empathy, and nowness --- however incomplete we may be --- as our continuous Author and Source of inspiration?
If so, why in false pride refuse to call IT “God”? Why should you not tolerate that I refer to your “basis of moral reasoning” (if heartfelt) as God? You say tomato, I say tomahtoe. But we are both still religiously thankful when we eat. Why the fuss?
Let's get down to particulars. The particular at hand is: I don't want a lot of leftist or legalistic tomfoolery or fascistic, religiously-mandated ceremonialism. I prefer freedom. And I prefer neighbors I believe I can, in mutual empathy and respect, trust. For that, I am partial to the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule, although the language or tradition by which they are expressed is not, to me, of particular import. All else is figurative for situational application, flavored by traditions of mutual empathetic respect.
Mumble, mumble, huzzah.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/is_religion_necessary.html:
Big Opportunist:
Mortal, self-conscious observation does not just interpret a universe of potentializing waves as collapsing into intelligible perceptions of patterns of material particles. Rather, such observation also requires that its universe of physics be perceived as rotating about it. Such self-consciousness would never perceive an unambiguous void beyond the physics with which its self-interpretation is facilitated.
In The Beginning, before the physics by which our mortal interpretations have become sustained, there were patterns of mathematical algorithms, sequentially collapsing to the interpretive preservation of patterns of sub-conscious, non-awareness of differentiaton, being imagined only within a Superior Mind, conscious of its own “cracked symmetry.”
But for conscious interpretation --- whether by non-self-aware recorders of patterns or by self-aware observers --- there would be no pattern physics, Manifested as such. Rather, there would be only potential for the Emergence of a simultaneous, synchronizing dance of consciousness with its interpretation of “physics.”
And what facilitates and synchronizes this dance? “God.” What more can we say?
In respect of the beginning of the physics by which our parameters are defined, Something (God) was already facilitating the potential for sequentially interpreted patterns of physics, which we, in sequence, would later interpret.
In The Beginning, there was no big bang of physics-in-itself. Rather, there was a Big Opportunity for God, by God’s imagination, to animate patterns of interreactive algorithms of math, later to be translated and interpreted by mortal self-aware beings as “physics.” In the beginning, there was no “physical point.” Rather, there was mathematical insight.
Only in self-invested license of poetry do we interpret the beginning of the patterns that in common define and limit our permissible parameters as a “Big Bang of Physics.” In deeper reality, the poetic Big Bang was instead a Big Opportunity --- taken by a big, free, imaginative Mind … comprised of … we know not what.
Above physics is math. Above math is “Mind.” From IT, you may, in poetic denial, think to run. But, in reality, you cannot hide.
*******
Skooker ("I'm more concerned with preserving a 'clean' society."):
Well, you are likely young, and so that is only where you presently rest your shovel, against an infinite regress of awaiting, snow-covered driveways.
Why are you concerned with preserving a clean society?
After all, can one appreciate virtue without ever having empirically studied vice?
Regressing further, should we not be concerned with preserving a stable, sustainable, surpassable civilization of free thinkers?
But, if so, for what "reason" --- if not, ultimately, faith in the value of communities of responsible and free consciousness, i.e., faith beyond reason and beyond physics? And, what, at the "end of the regress," is "Source" of that faith, if not mere physics? Why deny that IT is Something?
Worry not. You seem to be on the right path. :)
*******
Richad A. Beldin:
"The choices we make will be judged as moral or immoral according as we prosper or fail."
And so, with what lamp post do you guide your choices in the present?
Can you beat something with nothing?
"Should" either God or Nature "want" us to enjoy the "heaven" of individual freedom within broad parameters or to suffer the "hell" of collective repression within tight chains?
Or does it just not matter to you?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/the_case_for_the_american_caus.html:
I am a ruling potato farmer, "educating" hot potato heads.
Tradition, history, and facts do not matter to my potato heads.
They have no regard for institutional memory.
All that matters is this week's educational water, being dispensed by myself and other potato farmers.
My potato heads know all the news they are fit to know.
Welcome to Hot Potato America.
*******
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/obama_from_unitarian_to_libera_1.html:
Minister,
You hid behind generalities and made very little effort to answer legitimate questions!
A minister should be able to console those needing consolation, without leading them to tolerate or succumb to evil.
No doubt, those prone to succumb to evil also seek consolation.
But, to invite, entertain, and minister to persons so tempted, one should be enlightened enough to discuss evil without becoming seduced by the devil (figuratively speaking).
What good is a doctrine that only espouses unlimited, universal tolerance, even of evil?
So, how does UU draw meaningful lines, to discourage or refuse to tolerate evil?
What clear, moral lines does UU draw?
How does UU nourish a healthy, viable, non-parasitic civilization?
How does UU reduce aid and comfort, solace and cover, to parasites of evil, seditious against civilizing freedom of expression and enterprise?
So far, UU supporters have here written only apologies for suckling universal tolerance of the intolerable.
Hardly the model of "reason," I would say!
OPEN SEASON FOR SOCIOPATHIC, SOCIALIST SWINDLERS:
Sociopaths --- often by having not otherwise been conditioned, churched, inspired, or taught --- become uninstilled with character for empathizing with their fellows and countrymen. Thus, they tend to be less constrained by niceties when it comes to competing to run large organizations and agencies. Once sociopaths, unhampered by customary niceties, rise to the top, they worry less about causing rot from the top down.
Various institutions may help inspire citizens to come together, to build firewalls against encroachments by sociopaths, by nurturing common empathies and civilizing interests. However, even such institutions are prone to becoming ruled or controlled by interests aligned with sociopaths.
Thus, sociopathic interests may spread, merge, and monopolize, eventually to control media, academia, governors, judges, police, corporations, and all major forums for indoctrinating, promulgating, and enforcing secular and sectarian ideologies comfortable to currently prevailing powers and dictate.
Thus, a society whose members lack experience, insight, or method for detecting and checking against becoming ruled by sociopaths falls quickly into hazard.
General society, to help opportune those who are reasonably competent to protect and pursue their dreams, even against tyrannies of power monopolizers, should nurture strong institutions for inspring and inculcating characters of self reliance, individual strength and dignity, collective social responsibility, and freedom of expression and of enterprise.
Neither civic (such as Boy Scouts), nor sectarian organizations (such as churches), should be discouraged from espousing how Spiritual Morality (or God) may favor general, institutional, civilizing, character-building forums and purposes.
Such organizations and forums, by bringing together persons of energy, independence, and social responsibility, can tend, with group custom and body language, to facilitate strong and empathetic purposefulness, much more so than could mere words written from a distance.
For facilitating and focusing individuals to appreciate their personal freedoms and collective responsibilities, what method could be superior to that of bringing persons together in deliberate, humble receptivity to a spiritual source of common inspiration?
For facilitating despair and the surrendering of individual responsibility to ad hoc, collective panic, what method could be better than WALLING OFF CHURCHES, while schooling people to look only to mechanics of legalism in order to address their concerns and to whip up their divisive interests and competing grievances?
UNNECESSARY COLLECTIVIZATION tends to consolidate power among swindlers. Thus, we should invest in collectivization (government) only when needed to enhance freedom to pursue individual fulfillment. We should encourage as much freedom as is reasonably sustainable, while discouraging constraints of collectivism. Thus, government should be limited to those legalisms that are actually helpful to sustain a society’s purposeful freedoms. Human minds should not be reduced to buzzing insects or to hive-man swindles.
From A.T.:
"In other words, if your political position is in the "progressive" minority, you, according to MSM and academia, no longer have the burden of proof to justify changing the status quo."
Well, business owners competing for diminishing dollars in a declining economy tend to feed on one another. To attract or corner interested buyers, media owners, like sharks that have to constantly swim to avoid sinking, become continuously driven to generate and feed on controversy, even when the controversy thus generated imperils the survival of their own home. But the epoch of shark MSM is drawing to a close. Their misplacement of the burden of proof has only drawn out their death agonies.
Post a Comment