How We Reason And Self-Justify:
Perhaps Yogi Berra should remind us that if we plan to get somewhere, it helps if we have a notion of where we want to go. That way, we might better evaluate how effective is our present course. If we aspire to go where decent civilization can be conserved for availing freedom and dignity, i.e., to a society of enlightened, middle class, conservative citizens, then we should consider how our aspiration is affected by how we are growing, managing, inspiring, and conserving (1) social mores, (2) scientific skills, (3) government, (4) population (i.e., environment), and (5) free trade. That is, how best may we reason about, and relate to, five main ideas: God, Science, Government, Cultural Communication, and Enterprising Participation?
REGARDING REASON: How do we best reason? Is it with Subjective Care or with Objective Indifference? Consider the caring of God versus the indifference of Nature. Consider also Field to Particle — factor that whole-Fields-Of-Reference (F.O.R.) interrelate with particular-Points-Of-View (P.O.V.).
Does it not seem that a conscious Observer may choose how to proceed in either of two main respects, in order to interpret or measure each event that arises — as if each event arose (1) in respect of feedback competition and cooperation among Caring perspectives of consciousness, or (2) in respect of Indifferent chance and necessity in the mixing of fields and particles, which somehow (magically?) “physically-exist-in-themselves?”
Does it not seem Incomplete to consider that any event must arise purely in respect of only one or the other of such ways of conceptualizing? For every perceived event, in order to interpret a role for Providential Caring versus Natural Indifference, must not the Interpreting Observer first choose or be conscious of a purpose, i.e., Moral versus Scientific?
Is it not beyond our scientific prowess to completely merge a concept of field waves with particular particles (“wavicles”)? If so, why should we expect to completely merge concepts of subjective morality and objective science (“sci-more”), or concepts of God’s Caring and Nature’s Indifference (“care-indiff”)?
Conceptualize how it may be that events only appear to be objectively determined in a disinterested way that is ruled only by chance and necessity: Is that not what one would expect, if there is only one Holistic Mind-Field, which is making and coordinating all apparent choices, chances, and necessities? True, “science works.” But it works in respect that God is coordinated.
Of a decision one’s brain senses as if it were being made independent of any exterior Field: One’s perspective of independence in each episode of such choice-making is derivative. That is, each decision is made a split second before the brain even avails feedback to allow it to be conscious of the decision. So, what is the true “seat of consciousness?” Is “Mind” something beyond brain?
Imagine a Source of light which is covered by a lamp shade, in which numerous small holes have been pricked. The light is projected through each of the holes, so that each beam may appear to have been of a different source. Similarly, conceptualize that there is only one Choice-Maker. That is, our separate brains are not choice makers, but only mathematical, geometrically shaped forms or avatars for accumulating and feeding Information (and feelings) back to the Real Choice Maker. We enjoy illusory feelings of disparate participation in choice-making, and such feelings are, in feedback, felt by God. We are not God, but each of us is a particular expression of the thoughts and feelings of God.
Self-evidently, at least to my intuition of self, I am, among others, of such a particular expression of God through which God wishes to avail, experience, communicate, and learn feelings of individual freedom and dignity. So, I believe God is working to avail us a decently sustainable civilization — at least for a range within space-time.
Regarding a culture for idealizing decency versus corruption: Liberals and Libertarians seem often disposed to believe there is no harm in questioning and overturning nearly every cultural tradition, especially when it gets in the way of one’s immediate gratification. Yet, even many Liberals and Libertarians, no doubt, are aware of the coarsening of human culture. So, how is it that they are aware, yet argue there is no harm (i.e., “victimless crime”)? Is it from moral blindness or from moral wilfulness, i.e., contagion of evil (absence or necessarily incomplete progress of God’s insights)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Re: "Maybe then the rest of us sane people could live in peace."
Well, you sound a bit like a true pagan believer. But if belief in replacing Great Spirit with Big Gov is not pagan, I don't know what is. You got some kind of axiomatic, faith-based, secular sourcebook for imposing morals in order to run a country (or world?) based on pure logic and reason? Have you adduced a moral theory of everything that withstands rigorous logical analysis? If so, what a scientific godsend! Now, we can use it to forcibly defenestrate the moral thinking ("crap") of all the heathens. Onward, secular crusaders and jihadists! Ah, the smell of progress in the morning!
Anton said, "Nobody knows the Truth with a capital "t." People believe, but they do not know, and if they would admit this to themselves, they might be less likely to take offense at every criticism, or to silence dissent."
True, that. Yet, we have no choice but to make choices. For that, to facilitate decent cooperation, we come up with social "shoulds." How do we come up with the "shoulds"? Well, with myths, figures of speech, and sometimes prophetic (or claimed to be prophetic) inspiration. Some aspects of them may, for all we know, even be true.
I think we "should" seek to facilitate decent, sustainable civilization. I suspect that aspiration can be rationalized as just, based either in spirituality or in secular rationalization. The rub is, each of us, depending on culture and upbringing, probably nurtures different ideas about what is needed in order to facilitate decent, sustainable civilization. And there is another big rub: Much of the history of civilization consists in the history of ruling sociopaths. Disproportionately, societies tend to fall under the rule of the most ruthless and two-faced of sociopaths --- some of whom instigate new and ruthless religions, sometimes related to cults of personality.
However, the rule of secular communists is lesson in how to rationalize barbarity every bit as evil, if not more so, as any perpetuated by any religious movement.
For leading us to more decent civilization, Big Gov is not, in itself, calculated to be any better than Big Religion. Putting the squeeze on the bubble of Big Religion tends simply to inflate the bubble of Big Gov.
Regardless, the goal, to me, is how best to enhance civilization that facilitates freedom and dignity. I believe some kind of "God" has a role in that. But I don't much care whether others think about it in that way, so long as they at least recognize a transcendent goal for facilitating freedom and dignity and reducing the control of Big Ruling Sociopathy.
But notions about how we prefer the world to be do not much help us address how the world is. In respect of how the world is, I see Islam as much more prone to facilitate the rule of dangerous sociopaths than Judaism. And now, while some bemoan all religions and blame Israel, nukes are at the doorsteps of sociopaths. How is this helpful?
J,
I always enjoy your comments. You have interesting travel experiences.
About "J**k":
I am getting more confident about enforcing @@@ policies. However, I was taken aback regarding his third comment, because some Moderator evidently felt it was appropriate. I appreciate our moderators are a challenging and diverse group, so I hardly expect them all to agree with my interpretation of Conservatism.
Since J***'s comment was in response to a post I had made under "@@@," I was hesitant to "turn off the guy's microphone" --- especially if another Moderator thought it was fair reply. But it wasn't fair reply. It was just unsupported, anti-zionist flaming. I admit to curiosity about whether whoever had approved the comment might have been preparing to weigh in. Apparently not.
As to "Double Standard":
That terminology may be less than fitting. However, I will venture, frankly, that I have seen little about Islam that I would consider redeeming, and much to put my senses on alert. I have known a few aquaintances from Iran, but have never discussed religion with them. In 1972, in college, I had some well to do Iranian friends who really did not much like the Shah. However, they were perhaps too friendly to Westerners, so I often wonder what became of them once they returned home.
Given what is going on in the Middle East, it seems quite important to publish information about depravities done in the name of Islam, as well as information about the nature of some Islamic "justifications." That seems fair, even important ... even as I would consider unsupported disparagement of Jewish Zionism to merit deletion.
Personally, I am quicker to unfavorably judge an anti-jewish remark than an anti-islamic remark. While I would disfavor gratuitous insults to all Muslims, I would incline more to air heated expression of concern against Sharia creep. I incline to loathe the surrender of liberty and freedom of thought to the submission of Islam. Even so, lines for respecting the dignity of Muslims need to be recognized, however fuzzy they may be.
Re: "do you mean that we are not approving negative comments about islam?"
No.
I mean we are approving comments that indicate unease about Islam.
But I will need to watch for examples, to see whether such comments rise to an unfair level.
Bottom line:
Based on your concern, I will try to be sensitive to whether comments are being published that may approach what could be considered a level of "bashing" of Muslims.
I am not yet ready to say that they are, or, if they are, that they are beyond fair comment under the circumstances.
In any event, those who defend liberty and who are being aggressed against are entitled, in my philosophy, to defend themselves against agressors.
I don't consider this to indicate bigotry. I consider it as respecting a philosophy that favors human freedom and dignity over submission to brain-conditioning.
Descans wrote, "In my comment, I also observe that "Politics and morality, properly conceived, must be understood as an exercise in free will. How you choose to exercise free will is not an "objective" question."
*****
I do not believe the concern is resolved that simply. Yes, we enjoy a subjective feeling of free will, subject to objective parameters of moral, natural, and man-made law. The parameters, I believe, will be found to be mathematically objective. Conscious exercises within such parameters may be called subjective. Yes, we enjoy capacity to make choices. But feedback from our choices is judged --- by oneself, one's fellows, potentially by authorities of the law, and by God.
So against what standard is such feedback judged? How can the moral quality of an act or event be "judged" against a "standard" that is entirely subjective? Using such a standard, one may as well say "it is what it is."
I think there is a standard, which, in how it relates to us, I do not think is entirely either subjective or objective. My inexact formulation of it is: Be empathetic with one another in respect of Essential Higher Consciousness (aka, "God"). That is only my amalgam of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule (which are better stated by far greater intellects). However, such an amalgam may be more palatable to secular humanists.
When one judges a thing to be "good," just because one may not consciously be able to explicate the objective aspect or basis for the judgment does not mean that no such a basis exists. As one judges while trying to be intuitive and empathetic of the consciousness of God as it finds expression through the perspectives of others, it is no good for one to say there is no objective basis for such judgment merely because one, as mortal, lacks capacity to explicate it.
In my intuition, which I cannot prove empirically but which I believe is objectively valid, "God" seeks to guide us to a sustainable civiliation or fellowship among free-minded spirits. That is the "team" I choose. For those who prefer a team that views God as hating free-mindedness, or as being indifferent to free-mindedness, I "subjectively believe that they are objectively wrong." I do not consider such belief to be only subjective, nor do I consider it to be empirically proveable. Rather, the "proof" depends on vision within.
For whatever "proof" you wish to follow, I do not think you will be able to rigorously reduce it to one that is either entirely subjective or entirely objective*. But I do think you have no choice but to make choices. Choose carefully, for the quality of continuing meaningfulness of your existence may depend upon it.
****
*Those who are most devoted to "physics" may tend, naturally enough, to have become self-conditioned to interpret all information as if it were objectively reducible to interaction of ultimate "particles." Those who are more devoted to "consciousness" may tend, spiritually enough, to consider all information as being Essence-tially qualified within nothing more than a shared, parameter-limiting, higher Math. Some true-blue-believers may expect empirical testing for the "God Particle" will provide a purely "objective" answer. I am not of that school or team.
Both treason and bribery in high places have been going on for a long time. The pace for electing sociopaths is quickening. D.C. is a sewer. The FBI is now hostage to the control of an Attorney General who was advocate for pardoning terrorists against America. The rats in power know how to recognize and reward their own, and they know how to rip apart those who are not.
Go Ask Sarah, I think she knows. Feed your head, but with truth, not drugs and diversions. Compare http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hd0BcuwQ5bQ&feature=related.
The initiative, energy, and ju-jitsu of websites like A.T. and of Tea Party Organizers and Participants may be America's last best hope. It's no good to rely simply on moral outrage and the law. The law is now owned by a cohort of sewer rats. Conservers of Liberty must seek new ways to organize and become effective, or they will perish. Legitimate yet effective measures are still possible.
Imagine a Gangster who resolved to go against his gang in order to go straight with the public: How could he possibly resist the threats and blackmail? We have elected "Obama The Hut," and he is controlled by his Fronters. He knows he cannot possibly survive in politics unless he accedes to the rule of his Fronters. They have him, and America, in their vise. Obama cannot escape. But Conservers of Liberty still may. We have something they lost faith in: There is a Higher Sponsor of civilized communion. As Conservers of America return to That, there is no vise that can contain it.
Well, is Obama himself a passive-aggressive terrorist, bent on undermining American style liberty, in order to force abject, redistributive submission to the "deterministic logic" of an alliance of Mullahs with so-called elite scientists?
Look beyond the admittedly perilous and apparently inexorable acquisition of nuclear capabilities by apocalyptic, Islamic brutes. Look further, to how power has now been centralized for being expressed through "Obama-The-Hut-Front." Are not Obama's Fronters perilously close to acquiring power to foist their prophecies onto the rest of us, to make the worst of such contrived prophecies, i.e, the diminshment of America, self-fulfilling?
Consider the course such Fronters would take, were their goal to diminish America with nary a shot fired:
1) Accept inheritance of the gradual taking over of MSM and academia, and deploy it in order to propagate a cult of personality.
2) Accede to nuke acquisitions by Islamists; accede to jihadist acquisitions of nukes; accede to opening borders for infiltration of jihadist nuke-mules.
3) Undermine respectability of all things traditionally American.
4) Demoralize all domestic defenders of America; hogtie America's capacity to defend itself; arrange or accede to the release of battlefield combatants and terrorists.
5) Defund antimissile and space defense systems.
6) Demoralize allies.
7) Avail no let up on the conditioning of the weak-minded to conflate appeasement and notions of entitlement with security, strength, and justice.
Well, Connect-The-Dots. Then ask: Is Obama's representation of America mere pretense and effrontery, for deceiving us into inaction? When those who front Obama speak of reparations and redistributions, do you really think they have only economics in mind?
Might does not make right, but might is necessary for right. The might of Intolerant Determinists consists in their unwavering mind-conditioning for determining, enslaving, and exciting the fasces-collective Brute. The might of Conservers of Liberty consists in their shared faith and dedication to availing and releasing individual initiative and esprit for leveraging Freedom, knowledge, and insight. Against enlightened Freedom, the Brute has no chance. Against indulgent, pleasure-diverted Freedom, the infiltrating Brute has chance to a wicked degree.
Conservers of Liberty must get busy resisting, or get busy submitting.
Pilgrims came to America for freedom to practice their religion, not for economic security. Many Irish came to escape a nature-imposed rotten-potato famine. In more recent times, however, disproportionate numbers of immigrants have come in order to escape economic insecurity brought on as a result of corrupt and/or collectivist forms of land ownership or government. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejido. In Mexico: “The ejido system was introduced as an important component of the land reform program. The typical procedure for the establishment of an ejido involved the following steps: (1) landless farmers who leased lands from wealthy landlords would petition the federal government for the creation of an ejido in their general area; (2) the federal government would consult with the landlord; (3) the land would be expropriated from the landlords if the government approved the ejido; and (4) an ejido would be established and the original petitioners would be designated as ejidatarios with certain cultivation/use rights. Ejidatarios did not actually own the land, but were allowed to use their alloted parcels indefinitely as long as they did not fail to use the land for more than two years. They could even pass their rights on to their children.”
Having grown up under collectivist regimes, it is no surprise that many immigrants to America carry expectations that the government should continue to meet collectivist expectations. Once the proportion of collectivist-minded citizen-voters exceeds 50%, skids are greased ever after for politicians who are willing to demagogue voters with cheap promises. Such politicians will ensure that borders remain open for continuously refilling, as needed, a supply of easily-hoodwinked, ineptly-educated, corruptly-purchased, collectivist-minded, new immigrant voters. Further, airhead elites will have fodder for experimenting on how to make themselves feel relevant by forcing taxpayers to provide such security as such “elites” deem best for their new collectivist dependents.
Simply put, a middle class that is surrounded by collectivist-minded nations and which seeks to retain freedom and dignity for its general populace, which fails to insist that its politicians secure its borders, is committing cultural suicide.
Re: "What is the common thread that links Obama, Arafat, Carter, Gorbachev, Wilson, and Gore? All are planted firmly on the left of the political spectrum. "
****
More than that, all are firmly committed and skilled in attracting the loyalty of those who most fervently wish to be relieved of responsibility to think for themselves, as individuals. That is too hard; it is much easier simply to trust in whatever sociopath du jour seems most Christ-like in earnestness about feeling and taking on our pains and burdens.
So much mind weight is lifted simply by unburdening oneself to trust in the deceits of a chosen demagogue, such as "The Won"!
Most thinkers are mystified by the throngs who clamor to worship The Won. But Thinkers must learn it well, that the throngs are ruled largely not by their brains, but by their glands. Many are easily deceived, and sociopaths are willing to perform the service.
Individualists would rather take the harder path, to help the throngs learn to love learning to think for themselves.
The power of sociopaths lies in their mass appeal to collectivists. The power of individualists is in their capacity for leveraging knowledge. One seeks to herd sheep. The other seeks to empower soulmates of thoughtfulness. Question: Should humanity be considered as having been fashioned to be led about as animals, or to harness talent for thoughtfulness in order to commune with one another in respect of God?
From Appleseed's note: "Hayek had continued, "Equality before the law and material equality are, therefore, not only different, but in conflict with each other…” The goal of complete economic equality logically enjoins the means of complete state control, yet this means has never practically achieved that end."
This seems so obvious! It is a classic argument for why we ought not impose upon ourselves an imperfect idealization of the perfect in a way that makes it the unforgiving nemesis of the good. We simply are not suited to be our own gods or to make heaven on earth. The Left disparages God only to serve and be duped by a False Light that leads time and again to all manner of hideous depravities. Yet, adherents of Leftism seem never to turn away from sinister idolization of self. For a leftist, "equality" simply means solipsistic imposition of rule over all others, so that no other should ever be allowed to excel over him ... except by means of superior, mind-numbing, soul-subjugating, governmental force. For the Left, the goal of humanity is to surrender being human. It is mind suicide.
The Left's arguments that government should or must accord equal treatment in all respects to gay unions, as if they were traditional marriages, always seem to reduce to: (1) because "fair is fair"; and (2) because the Constitution requires equal treatment under the law, etc.
As to the second argument, I devote little time or space to it, because I became convinced long ago that the practiced deceit of the Left enables it to argue just about any outrageous interpretation of the Constitution imaginable. As to the first "argument," it leaves me cold.
I see no "unfairness" in a society wanting to avail special or extra incentive to those thought generally to be most willing or suitable for undertaking responsibility for raising each next generation. If it is not "unfair" for a society to discriminate between what its members sense for their culture and nation to be good and evil, then I see little reason why a society should not be entitled to discriminate by availing tax advantages for "married filing jointly," or by imposing taxes against all in order to support public education, even though not everyone has a child to be educated.
The effect of arguments for equal treatment in all respects for gay unions is insidious. Contemporaneous with demonstrations in support of such arguments, our society is witnessing sudden breakdowns in many traditional standards, as well pointed out and listed above by Twoiron. I suspect the dissipation of each individual tradition and standard is related to the sudden meltdown of standards in general, everywhere. And every melting standard seems to be excused by the Left based on nothing more than an argument that "fair is fair" --- with no more concern for long term social viability than one would expect from a toddler.
For moral guidance, America turned some 50 years ago away from sustainable philosophy to toddleresque wannas. Twoiron is right. We are long past due for a spiritual revival. "Science of government," "dialectic materialism," and promising "global climate calamities" as pretext for consolidating control are not going to save us. Hope for preserving what it means to be a human being is in regenerating the American spirit. Not in Obama's audacity for herding us all into the "fair equality" of collectivism.
There is something evil which, taken now to an extreme, unites many among both the lower proles and the higher elites: that is, their over nurtured sense of entitlement. In much of the middle class, however, the sense is of a distinctly different quality. That is, significant portions of the middle class look for higher meaning by looking within and above. They tend to associate in societies of individuals, rather than with societies of thieves or abusers.
Independent minded middle class folks have less need of insignia to mark their places within a regimented duck line. Rather, they long to facilitate individual freedom and dignity for all. However, that is not what the lower and higher economic classes have been churched or conditioned to want. What they most want is pleasure and power, and both tend to believe they are entitled to extract pleasure and power by milking the middle class for all it is worth. Indeed, the fringes, both left and tight, have become so adept at milking the middle class that the middle class, as any sort of mobile, independent minded society, is precipitously trending towards danger of being milked dry, into extinction.
Unfortunately, the middle class is slow to organize its capacity to leverage power. Yet, if it fails to do so, the end of human freedom and dignity, indeed “progress,” may soon be at hand. The formation of a political party for representing middle-class social-conservatives has become a moral imperative. A philosophy that honors liberty simply cannot be reconciled to philosophies that pardon thievery and usury. If social conservatives fail to organize, we shall revert to the customary law of fang and claw. At least, under that law, all will be equally “entitled.”
Regarding moral conservatives who would complain against religions: I expect they would do more good were they to meet fairly on ground of history, context, and teleology of purposefulness, rather than on ground for conceiting that there is no relevant Higher Source. Rather, recognize that something significant indeed does happen when two or more come together in appreciation of God: namely, each of us thereby acknowledges appreciation of the role of God in the lives of all of us. That elevates moral empathy to a level of consciousness, rendering each of us conscious avatars of God, and that is perhaps the essential ingredient and major facilitator for civilization.
Bottom line: Entitlement minded Dinos and Rinos are unwilling and unable, in their very cores, to represent social, moral conservatives. Rather, both seek to leverage and abuse government. The “small government” as espoused by Rinos is a government that would dissolve American borders, auction American infrastructure to the highest international, corporate bidders, reduce the middle class to sell their labor as serfs, end social mobility, and lead the world to an end of freedom, dignity, and perhaps independent-minded scientific progress. Rinos and Dinos are united for wanting to “represent” everyone else only in the sense of extorting, for no higher purpose than to aggrandize their shared sense of entitlement to pleasure and power.
We need small government, but we also would like to have smart government. That is, government that does no more than is necessary to preserve opportunity for people to enjoy representative governance. To get that, we need at least government enough to protect our borders and infrastructure and to preserve meaningful representation. But meaningful representation is lost once a mighty few come to own the media as well as our politicians. Liberty is endangered not only by the covetous left. It is also endangered by the avaricious, corporate elite. In Soros' case, he seems to be "bi-political." So long as he owns the ruling pols, I doubt he cares whether they are Dinos or Rinos.
The conservative middle class is not going to preserve meaningful representation or social mobility for independent thinkers merely by trusting to government or philosophical argumentation. Wary as we are to group-think, we will not survive against the organizing left or the insatiable avarice of corporate, oligarchic elites unless we get our act together. I would like to believe conservatives are beginning to realize this. But I often sense this is only wishful thinking.
Consider:
1) Bush’s wilful stupidity in refusing to enforce the border;
2) Powell’s wilful stupidity in believing it would be just fine to have a Muslim for an American president;
3) Rinos’ constant refrain in praise of free trade, even to the point of hocking America’s infrastructure; and
4) Dinos’ wilful enrichment of cultures that want America dead, by pig headedly refusing to allow development of American energy reserves.
Could American leadership be any worse? Could MSM pundits be any more clueless? Could the American electorate be any dumber?
Friends don’t let friends drive Dino … or Rino. We must forfeit Dino and Rino keys to the car. As things stand, Dinos and Rinos are simply too hopped up on dope or avarice to care. They are so blinded by pleasure and power that they simply cannot think beyond their privates, much less to any purpose for their progeny.
I am so tired of being passenger to drunks, careening along well beyond any sane speed limit.
Post a Comment