Judas Serves:
Likely, what most bothers Spiritualists about Materialists’ usages of "evolution" is how jealously Materialists guard the notion, as if evolution-in-itself were their personal god. Perhaps this is revenge for all their lonely hours spent trying to reduce reality to their own deterministic math. But nothing about evolution is necessarily anti-spiritual, per se.
Consider: Survival of the "fittest to replicate" pertains to the evolution of living, conscious, and purpose-driven perspectives of being. Each local being cannot do aught but participate in contemporaneous, synchronous feedback with all others, to constantly, discretely, and continuously effect changes in the unfolding manifestation of system, planet, environment, and niche that helps to complete each of us. While the environment may reward what is "fittest," each being who is among the fittest determines which of its aspects it shall express or favor. And that feedback becomes part of the environment which rewards that which is fittest.
In other words, each of us participates in choices for the unfolding design of all that sustains us. Such unfolding of design choices would not occur but for feedback in the participation of beings who are, at some level, imbued with feedback of consciousness.
In other words, participation of purpose-driven consciousness is intimately and inextricably interwoven with the process whose effects we trivially label as "evolution." Surely, it is no sin against Materialists to term such aspect of the process as "spiritual" or "spiritually driven." Indeed, were it otherwise, why should Materialists care a whit whether Spiritualists "should" do anything, much less adopt a purely mechanistic view of our universe based on utter disregard for non-materialistic "shoulds"? After all, why should a Materialist, even one devoted to Marxist dialectic materialism, pretend to worry in any principled way about nuclear bombs, genocide, or distribution of opportunity or wealth?
Spiritualists tend to acknowledge the self-evidence that principled, purposeful design is at work. But what, if anything, is such designings’ encompassing or reconciling purpose? Is it even possible to be conscious and yet be utterly without some intuition or sense of purpose?
I believe a higher purpose relates to the unfolding of capacities for varying perspectives of being to communicate with one another in such civilized fashion as to entertain one another. If so, to advocate for submission of The Collective to mind slavery is to be foil for strengthening purpose by serving sin. After all, what else should foils be good for?
****
While free peoples have trustingly slept, a fundamentally evil and incoherent coalition has formed under an umbrella of faux "Liberal Progressivism." The coalition is comprised of various groups of dogmatically militant and impatient atheists, including: (1) scientific materialists, (2) economic (Marxist) dialectic materialists, and (3) pleasure-driven proponents of unlimited, immediate gratification. This unholy trinity has united to overturn essential civilizing traditions by abusing science, economics, and hedonism. It is now fired with nothing less than religious fervor to replace God with Big Government, asap. Further, because radical Islam is essentially the detailed rule of government under interpreters of what "god" deems to be good government, liberal-progressive rulers have united with Islamists in admiration of Big Gov for subjugating, by force and connivance, all Western expressions of individualism among those who are to be ruled. Worldwide, the freedom and dignity of ordinary people is more endangered now than it was in 1939.
"Government" has no more conscience by which to be "fair" than the Tooth Fairy. Government is only the armament of trust given to fallible rulers. But to entrust absolute power over one's liberty and industry to government is to surrender absolute power to fallible rulers, for whom absolute power invariably leads to their corruption, absolutely. We are in the midst of a time of madness, rushing to give government to drink from fire hoses, far more than government can decently swallow. In effect, we have turned our most important "fire departments" over to asylums for pyromaniacs, in a mad rush to reduce everything to the equality of ashes.
5 comments:
Conservatives tend mainly to be "against" (or "for" the opposite of) four things:
1) Militant atheism,
2) precipitous attacks on longstanding family-friendly traditions,
3) big government, and
4) globalistic affronts to national sovereignty.
Would that Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the psychopath of jihad, had read some of the work of clinical psychologist Robert W. Goodwin, in One Cosmos Under God.
Excerpts from the 2004 paperback edition of One Cosmos:
… Baile takes pains to elucidate the logic of human sacrifice … how it continues to play itself out in modern times … holocausts, jihads, “ethnic cleansing,” and other varieties of ritualized scapegoating.
… brutal breaking of the child’s will, resulted in “a ‘psychic numbing’ which created many adults whose primary responses to others were at best calculating indifference and at worst a misture of suspicion and hostility, tyranny and submission, alienation and rage.” *189
… culture is one of the things (like ego) that we need to adopt a critical attitude toward in order to transcend.
… I am suggesting that what culture should have as its end is the actualization of the human being as human being. And the bottom line is that some cultures are better than others at allowing humans to actualize their potential.
… To say that all cultures are not only good, but equally good, is no more valid than to suggest that all families are equally good with respect to the goal of creating health and happy children, a statement most of us know to be insupportable. And yet, the vast majority of anthropologists continue to say it.
… this is not the type of ignorance that is susceptible of being corrected by obtaining the facts ….
… the price we all pay to be “socially sane” is to share the bulk of our group-insanities.” *220
Our individuation from the cultural group mind represented an historical achievement of the first magnitude.
***
To my mind, being human entails much more than sustainable survivability of the sort apparently advocated by such collectivists as Obama and Hillary. Rather, being human also entails surpassage towards transcendence. That is, a decent culture should seek to foster civilization that is not merely sustainable, but also surpassable – for the actualization of its individual members. That is the purpose of moral evolution.
However, among most leftists, biologists, and academia, it is purported that no one culture “should” be conceptualized as any better or more exceptional than any other.
Well then, how do such leftists derive the “should” aspect of their formulation? It is obvious that the left is intent on killing and replacing America with multiculturalism. But why such killing should be permitted is a cultural murder mystery that would defy the mental powers of Hercule Poirot. Apparently, we should just as well tolerate cultures in our midst that prefer or practice pedophilia, polygamy, wife beating, honor killing, and infidel torture.
Indeed, for leftists, all such practices are more benign than any “intolerant” conceit of cultural superiority. Of course, leftists do not really denounce notions of cultural superiority, for they tend to condemn American culture as inferior, if not non-existent.
In effect, we traditional Americans have surrendered our governance, piece by piece, to incoherent juveniles who would take us back to the days, as “Gagdad Bob” quoted, of glorification “of collective intimidation, humilation, and thought control, with all its … potential for unhinged sadism, …. which elevates solidarity above truth.” *198
Now, we must take our governance back. Otherwise, the remarkable singularity of humanity’s individuation (from the cultural group mind and all its attendant horrors) will be but a blip on desperate history.
The kind of hate exhibited by the Fort Hood jihadist operates with mind parasites, which have evolved over eons to support successful memes for hijacking groupthink. This wilful indulgence of mind parasites is not the sort of ignorance you can reason with.
To deal with ignorance of this caliber, you have to contain it. You cannot afford to enrich it, support it, or import it. You have to weaken it and have the patience to teach a better meme for a long time. The methods of negotiation that the Obama administration would employ to bring Islamofascism under control are absolutely counterproductive because they display weakness to gangstyle groupthink, which is not based at all on negotiation about mores. What we have is one gang under thrall of mind parasites trying to "reason" with another gang under thrall of mind parasites. This reflects a national propensiy for having the insane negotiate with the un-sane (which may help explain America's quagmire for hardening rather than rehabilitating its classes of fascist criminals).
However, insanity will never be contained absent dedicated belief in a sense of wilful purpose. Belief that any one culture is more sane than any other is exactly the kind of belief that modern (i.e., un-sane) leftists, biologists, anthropologists, and apologists for multiculuralism rail against. So, what we have is one fascist, crazed culture based on absolutist religious repression, whose advocates fervently believe in its advancement, negotiating against a faux-enlightened flock of post modern fascist collectivists who have hardly any beliefs in purposefulness at all (apart from purposes that "Whitey must pay" and "America must be reduced").
Perhaps America's leftists have simply been so "traumatized" by overindulgent upbringing that they would rather replace America with anything, even, if it comes to it, the absolute oppression under Sharia law.
The singular Western achievement of respect for mental individuation is in grave danger of being snuffed out as a result of competing gangs of fascists, with members enslaved to un-sane mind parasites.
We need to cure ourselves of this un-sane notion that no one culture is any better than any other. Stand for nothing, fall for everything. America's latter day leftists, having been overindulged for so long, simply have no mature concept of just how awful a splat can result from surrendering to un-sane mind parasites.
Re: Theo-centrism vs. ego-centrism vs. utopia-centrism
Out of self definition or despair, one who most believes there is no purposefulness that is higher than that for serving his own perspective will tend most to contrive to leverage his power above all others, disdaining humility before any higher purpose or “God.”
Except to beguile, such people are incapable either of loyalty to country or of purpose for “saving the planet.” Rather than leading us to utopia, they mean to deface morality and devour the planet, as well as anyone who gets in the way of their bus. The utopian idiots they beguile remain useful only so long as they remain beguiled. That is, only so long as their minds remain numbed by big lies, such as: community force is freedom; more surrender to government means more freedom for all; to be pro-government is to be ego-centric; the commune is your family; and marriage is outmoded and property is theft.
Watch the protests among the students and leftists of California colleges. On one hand, they vote for a President dedicated to undermining the national economy in order to “save the planet.” On the other hand, they protest when the result translates into higher costs for services, such as tuition. No doubt, the militantly-atheistic left glories in its genius. Not.
I purport no expertise here, but I do wonder: Do Jews tend to feel more individually competent to be receptive to communing with God or a higher source of morality? If so, are they less likely to feign acceptance of whatever may pass for local, nonsensical, literalistic dogma? If so, that may hurt feelings, particularly among the low brow. And the low brow may be particularly upset if it appears that local Jews, sort of under a kind of survival of the smartest, tend to be more successful.
If I recall, Mark Twain wrote an interesting take about Jews. In his "analysis," Jews tend more readily to volunteer to defend their adopted countries than do those among the mainstream population.
In any event, the bigotry against Jews has always seemed to me to be low brow.
(Now I'll probably get "low brows" calling me biased.)
As to why American Jews and Catholics seem not particularly supportive of Israel, I don't get that. But without that vote, I doubt Obama would have been elected.
Post a Comment