Tea Party Movement:
Like the Tea Party Movement, all systems of social values are much like organisms. Some will evolve, survive, flourish, and surpass, and others will be fleeting and unsustainable. America’s values system is being so thoroughly multi-cultured and divided that it may soon be rendered unreliable, unworthy, uncompetitive, un-assimilative, and unsustainable. In losing gluing values, we are inviting those organizations of perspectives of consciousness that are happy to rule losers.
As in “six degrees of Kevin Bacon,” consciousness constantly and continuously seeks to reorganize, reshape, and re-experience unfolding perspectives. Consciousness, in its empathies, is always interconnected in fluxing and overlapping layers, levels, and corporate hierarchies – independent of states and nations. In its centers of power, consciousness is “moving on” from America as we have known it.
This is not especially a good thing. Better would be for Americans to coordinate their founders’ vision of respect for each individual’s self-evident freedom of conscience and enterprise, in ways that would more likely help us remain superior to alternative visions.
Among hellish alternatives are included visions that humanity should be made to consist of abject creatures whose minds are thoroughly subjugated to ruling cliques’ snake oil salesmanship regarding despotic Allah or Big Gov Commune. Washington D.C. and other political power centers have become rife with bi-political crooks who have insinuated themselves into networks of hierarchical power by being utterly disposed to confabulating and selling big lies. The greater the emotional embrace of the big lie, the better the signal to the brokers who promote its rulers. Those with greatest proficiency for dishonest acting recognize and promote one another.
Consciousness may prefer more honest empathies among perspectives, but it needs our agencies. In that, Americans have for too long been either blind or awol. In “scientific” hubris, we too complacently forget that no mortal perspective of consciousness is automatically free of great evil. No degree of corruption in D.C. surprises me anymore. I suspect the FBI already has grounds to arrest both Holder and Obama. Good luck waiting on that.
****
We have greased a culture that conditions us to produce and elect addicts and pickpockets rather than stewards. At core, what ails us is a sickness of values, about which we are in denial. We are so deep in denial that most folks (libs, pro-choicers, libertarians, sex and drug liberators, and purely fiscal conservatives) just want to shunt values voters aside, as irrelevant. Well, values voters are inconvenient, but they are not irrelevant. What? We expect to entitle short term pleasures and then expect the electorate that gets addicted to being bribed with such pleasures to the point of sacrificing all else to suddenly get responsible and vote for sustainable government? Kidding, right? What's that smell? Oh, yeah. The country. It's burning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Regarding praying for our country: It strikes me that there pertains a quasi-Heisenberg principle of empirical uncertainty regarding the power of prayer (or enhanced group consciousness). That is, each subjective prayer for trying to demonstrate the objective efficacy of prayer will necessarily intrude subjectivity into the attempt to avail the objective proof. It is thus unavoidable that the efficacy of prayer (or of raising consciousness?) must remain intuitive. Simply put, it is contradictory and nonsensical to expect to demonstrate physical efficacy for purely subjective prayer. However, there will always be those objectivists among us who must persist in single-minded search for scientific holy grail: empirical proof of the basis of subjective will. For such “Brights,” appreciation of the purely intuitive will remain forever problematic. Unfortunately, such Brights will also try to undermine any assimilative religious tradition by importing multi-culti calculated for dissolving and decimating all spiritually gluing foundations for moral suasion. This leads me to wonder: what sort of America do they imagine they are defending?
Term limits are a way of protecting the political voice of the middle class. This is important. We don't want oligopolists devising ways to perpetuate their power at the expense of an honest and competitive market place. Similarly, we don't want power dealers devising networks that perpetuate their power apart from the interests of the general citizenry.
We now have a situation in Congress such that the will of the people is ignored, even when that will is held by 65 to 80 percent of the population. Why? Because existing power dealers have built a power network that looks out for itself, not for the country. The power network tries to convince us that what is best for itself is what is best for we rubes of the rest of the country.
The idea behind term limits is not just about replacing individuals. It's also about periodically turning over entire, sclerotic, faux-elitist, power networks. This is to help keep the Constitution supreme over any misstepping network of temporary power holders. Now is hardly the time to rationalize continued weakening of the middle class.
From A.T. --
I intuit and fervently believe that there is "something to prayer," something to being receptive to higher consciousness (God), and I believe IT finds and communicates receptivity in non-material ways. This knots materialists' minds and drives them bonkers(!), since they seem to have been conditioned to have lost most of their capacity to appreciate that anything could be, whose cause and effect cannot be reduced to measurable explanation and material modeling.
Whatever happens in Congress, we faithful conservatives will continue to conserve, keep faith with, and pray for, America's, and the world's, best potential. What I don't believe is that our best potential is defined by how we spread material wealth, as opposed to how we communicate empathetic concern and respect. Matter is more like a means for storing information, as opposed to a means for actually, consciously experiencing the communication of information (i.e., "good news"). Unfortunately, our elites are so concerned with defending their material possessions and their positions within their organizations that they often forget some of us actually believe there are "things" that are more important. Things like not cannibalizing and selling out America.
Present resources and options are always limited. This applies also to health care. One way or another, scarce resources have to be allocated. I see three main scenarios. First, in an economy that does not avail insurance, your access to health care would depend on your ability to pay. Second, in an economy that does avail insurance, you may have more health care depending on your prescience for buying insurance of a kind that would cover it. In either case, assuming health care was an affordable option, the decision whether to undergo it would be based on consideration of both objective and subjective factors, during consultation between patient, doctor, and close relatives. But in the third scenario, under a socialistic economy for health care, the care may not be available unless allocated by bureaucrats, basing "efficient decisions" on objective criteria, with no particularly wise correlation between the qualifying criteria and why it was chosen.
Regardless of which of the three scenarios is applicable, there will be unfairness. Indeed, life itself is fundamentally unfair, and no amount of government will make it otherwise. No amount of government can force people to intend subjective kindness or fairness.
Indeed, government is generally expected to act indifferently, objectively, and without subjective favoritism. To the extent governmental finance through taxation crowds out optons for making charitable allocations, hospitals may become more like robot repair facilities and less like facilities for projecting subjective caring, i.e., warmth, merit, and fairness. In spreading wealth, health care, and material with more objective (indifferent) EQUALITY, we end up spreading it with less subjective caring for FAIRNESS.
I'm not confident that a pigeon-holing bureaucracy is the best kind of institution for facilitating fairness. Regardless, how much of the vaunted savings from central governmental efficiencies will be lost to legal appeals against bureaucratic arbitrariness?
Post a Comment