The Little Girl Who Wanted to Replace God:
The Source of Beingness consists of an essence which expresses an aspect that is qualitatively different from the material universe which it sources. The “Source sources;” that is, God is both a noun and a verb. That qualitative difference makes it meaningless to speculate about what material may have “caused” God to materialize. God can be conceptualized as consisting with a meta aspect that is beyond the limits of material perspective or empiricism.
Given that we postulate a first sequential entry (“Big Bang”) of the identity that is our material universe, our notion of science or material based empiricism provides no assistance for measuring or sequencing that which came before that which appears to us as space-time occupied by “our” material universe.
It is oft said that we are the stuff of stars. Fair enough, as far as that goes. But what is the stuff of stars? Ultimately, is it not intuitive that there is a Source of stuff that is “beyond stuff?” If so, does it have a qualitative aspect that allows it to resonate, participate with, or be empathetic with us, whatever we are, whatever consciousness of identity is? If IT could source the universe, why suppose IT does not participate with us?
Material, cause-based reasoning can hardly answer such questions, nor answer the probability or provability of any “theory.”
So, for choosing that which we “should do,” what are we left with? Some are left with an intuition of a meta identity or consciousness of which each of us is only a perspective, which desires or supports that each of us should be duly empathetic and respectful of the other, and which desires that we should seek to promote and defend civilization that is sustainable to such purposes. (Sounds close to mainstream Judeo-Christian values.)
So, for such purposes, which ideal of government is best suited: An ideal of (1) a collectivized population, forced under color of law imposed by elites, or an ideal of (2) representative governance, under which decent, experienced, and wise adults, guided by faith, empathy, and charity, seek to promote good will among each generation of mankind?
Between those two ideals, what should be done by government (elite oligarchists and their bureaucrats), and what should be done by individuals (decent people free to choose their representatives)? Is not ideal number 1 compatible with worship of matter (faux moral rationalization based on material empiricism, as if “the greatest material good for the greatest number” were actually measurable!), while ideal number 2 is compatible with worship of God? What lines and standards of decency, if any, will be assimilated or respected by one who idealizes number 1? That is the choice Whittaker Chambers struggled with: Man or God; Communist dictate or representative freedom?
Once dictate is chosen or rationalized, so the trump is always that which the elite hierarchy “knows” to be best, then how can a non-elite’s life have any substantial or comparative value? Indeed, how could the lives of even 20 million non-elites be worth slowing a Stalin, Mao, Fuhrer, Fidel, or Dear Leader? Indeed, how could “character” be reduced to empirical, material measure, without turning the concept of character into an upside down obscenity?
Once someone, such as Obama, deems himself wise, good, and anointed enough to justify his headlong, headstrong forcing of his “moral” regime on as much of Western Civilization as possible, what is his true “character,” if not an obscenity? What is the “character” of Islamic dhimminization and forced mind reduction, if not an obscene outrage against the human mind and spirit? What is the “character” of our Dino and Rino Progs who fail to put a stop to a continuing course of insults and Obamanations by our Marxist Muslim Imposter in Chief, who has not the least clue nor appreciation for what it means to be an American?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
From A.T. -- rudy c, rightly and sarcastically said, "OK, let's let the FCC regulate the internet, I mean really."
I get your point. I would add that the problem is not one of lack of legal regulation. The problem is one of lack of respect for faiths and traditions for assimilating moral values. A society needs an intangible net to cohere -- a net based either on controlling laws or voluntarily accepted mores. To diminish mores is to suck laws into the vacuum. We cannot get to smaller government without increasing the role for assimilating, sustainable mores.
I see another article about Alan Greenspan. Isn't he an "Objectivist Libertarian"? In lacking faith in cohering social values, thus necessitating an accelerating drift towards collectivist, totalitarian control, how is a Libertarian so different from a Liberal or Libertine?
Immigrant socialists from minority cultures often blindly assume they can milk the American dream even as they retain the cultural values that precluded their countries of origin from every achieving it. Libertines blindly assume they can engraft a culture of unrestrained pleasure permissiveness on an America that grew out of conservative social values, without destroying the American Idea. Combined, economic and social libertines are destroying America before our eyes. They are burning, and do not even notice.
Conservatives will not put out this fire with legislation. It will take a restoration of faith.
From A.T. -- Angle can parry Reid and say to Obama's defenders: "Are you not troubled that he's obviously hiding quite a lot? Have you seen his grades? Any legal analysis he's written? Do you think he's been transparent to Americans about his background? Are you comfortable that (insofar as you failed to do your job) we were shown little of import about Obama before the election? Did you find, or were you shown, anything in Obama's written record to suggest that that he would sue a State to prohibit it from securing its border with Mexico? Did you find, or were you shown, anything in Obama's written record to suggest that that he would nationalize GM and shakedown businesses to load up funds that could be used for political slush? Did you expect Obama would fire an IG who blew the fraud whistle against political cronies? Are you insinuating that Americans should not be troubled by Obama's cone of opaqueness?
Post a Comment