Collective Spiritual Sickness:
Between the whole and its parts, there is a relationship that defies bivalent logic. That relationship leads us, in moral choices, to trivalent logic. There seems to be something mystical about threes: There is being (Jesus?), not being (Holy Ghost?), and state of becoming (God?). It is often not enough to reason that a thing either "is" or "is not." It may be in a state of becoming, sort of in an undecided flux. How it tips may depend on feedback. Which brings me to this: Whatever God may be, I find it difficult to imagine that God's will would seek merely to tolerate us, rather than to relate to us. Feedback.
Which brings me to this: How you value your existential relationship probably affects (a) whether you think government should be run by elite betters, simply to rule everyone else, regardless of feedback, or (b) whether you think government should facilitate a churning middle class, that can stand up, sass back, and make itself heard. If (a), Allah, Elite Scientists, and Big Brother probably hold the best God-fit for you. If (b), you will probably find spiritual value elsewise. If (a), you may think it good that power is comprehensively consolidated and centralized. If (b), you likely will be horrified the more the middle class is destroyed, the flatter management becomes, and the less that power is delegated to the levels at which it is most likely to facilitate cooperative feedback.
Presently, Congress has taken all authority to itself. I don't know of many Constitutional limitations that remain, that command more than lip service. So, why expect Congress ever to relinquish any authority? Having authority is what allows representatives to attract corporate buy in. So, we get corporate financing of candidates... so when they become representatives they can enact laws... that are written by corporatists... to favor the corporatists.
Which brings me to this: It is an ill spiritual wind that is shaping the attitudes and values with which we are being inculcated and educated. Predominately, those values are now the values favored by oligarchical collectivism, commanded by heavy-handed, top-down corporatists.
Prevailing spiritual beliefs affect us far more than we recognize. If we value individual freedom and dignity, the window of opportunity for a new awakening, to restore (a), to deflate Big Brother, is closing fast. It's our spirituality, or lack thereof, that is shaping the horror that is presently unfolding.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Tinkering is fine. Tinker here, get an unintended consequence there. Still, even if nothing else, just rousing people to do something alerts them that things are awry, that we need to come together. And that in itself may be quite a good thing. When existing law gets rotted, it's sometimes best to try a clean start.
That said, I think the heart of what is pushing and pulling America in a bad way is less about bad law than bad hearts (bad faith and bad inclinations) – which, not unlike water, always find the path of least resistance … no matter what the clever new laws we may write. A strong, spiritually based change in the hearts of our leaders could make all the difference! (So that they value us, rather than simply think they know what should best be crammed down our throats.)
If we can be blessed with a few more leaders of good character (Reagan?), much can be done! It is quite sad that Reagan turned over his stewardship to Bush the Progressive Elder. Where now are Reagan's acolytes? (Brewer? Palin?) Without leaders with character and vision, no mere legal checks will stop the trend. BTW: what held Americans together before the Constitution was written?
From A.T. -- Re – Impersonal, Artificially Designed, Live-able Communities (dystopias):
Well, is Orwell’s 1984 an end station, or is it to be only a way station to Huxley’s Brave New World? Imagine a world in which a self-sustaining (self-improving?), centralized network of pervasively machined measures meets out recreational sex and every other human need, save one: the need for expression of self as an independent identity. Of course, in a Brave New World: “Admitting to wanting to be an individual is shocking, horrifying, and embarrassing.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World.
Still, aside from embarrassment, breeding and drugs, how will the need for self to find expression be satisfied in a brave New World Order, except by devising ways to promote one’s power for prioritizing one’s demands within the artificial network? Were the totally machined network to become so ubiquitous as nearly to replace the biosphere, how could one express one’s freedom and dignity, except at the expense of others who have less power or influence within the system? That is, unless (unlikely?) the system consented to allow power to be expressed by tinkering with the system itself?
In effect, tinkering (benign?) with the machined planet would be a kind of expression of one’s power over everyone else. Everyone’s mind would need to be reprogrammed or inculcated so as to accept, even love, such changes. Freedom may come to consist only in how one is able to participate in effecting new technological and scientific “advances?”
Then, to preserve one’s place in the power-priority structure, how much would one be tempted, always, to ally with, or to sabotage, the positions of others, depending on advantages contemporaneously perceived? Would there necessarily arise among every two persons a love-hate relationship, arbitrated by fluxing balances of power?
Eventually, would all that animates every person be an impersonal need, either for drug-induced diversion or for expression of power? Or, would some higher, empathetic consciousness trump stupor and power? Will faith in Empathy (feedback?) lead us to resist an impersonal world in which a self-sustaining, self-improving, centralized network of pervasive machines meets out nearly every human need and diversion? Shall we work to keep networks of power separate, independent, redundant, competitive, and delegated to the lowest levels (States’ rights?) at which they can tend to facilitate and receive feedback in the reasonable expression of human freedom and dignity?
Note -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World: “Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture….”
“In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.”
“Brave New World Revisited is different in tone because of Huxley's evolving thought, as well as his conversion to Hindu Vedanta in the interim between the two books.”
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta:
“The goal of Vedanta is a state of self-realization or cosmic consciousness.”
“J. Robert Oppenheimer, theoretical physicist and director of the Manhattan Project, also was a professed Vedāntist.”
If Humanists, Christians, and Jews were to meet regularly to advocate that Muslims should be denied rights to vote, and to preach the destruction of all infidels, would such meetings be protected both as free assembly and speech and as free exercise of religion? If such constituted the free expression of political speech, would its advocacy at religious meeting places cost them any tax exemption status? Insofar as Sharia claims status both as secular law and as religious observance, is Islam the only religion that is exempt from Progs' "wall of separation?"
Sharia law seems a great stalking horse for Humanists' goal of foisting their greater wisdom upon the rest of us by undermining all other sources of traditional mores. I'm not quite sure that secular Jews won't abide by the notion that the enemy of my enemy is my (temporary) friend. Much may depend on whether secular Jews see Big Government as a greater friend than traditional America, or whether they see Islamic inroads as a greater threat to their goals than the continued influence of Christianity. IOW, are secular Jews as enamored with Big Law intrusiveness as Muslims?
In terms of soul, Liberalism is spiritual disorder. It rejects any higher meaning than the hive. In terms of brain, Liberalism is a strongly reinforced short circuit in an otherwise functioning brain organ. It is a fundamental disorder that hampers one from ever developing a decent moral philosophy that rises above shallow rationalizations for naked feelings tied to the collective grope. In terms of decent civilization, Liberalism is a viral menace whose object is to constrict freedom of thought within a tightly regimented collective. In terms of language, Liberalism is a lie. It is not liberal at all. It is an apology for a collectivizing ball of snakes. The only thing Liberalism liberates is the power of the government to turn you into a battery to power its machine.
Obama is a shadow. Unless thinking people get ready to vigorously defend America, the coming worldwide economic crisis will be used by an international cohort of elites to tighten their rule over a new world order of oligarchical collectivism. After that, there will be very little liberty to work your way out of the class you are born into, regardless of whatever wisdom or skills you may acquire over the years. That is, unless you show yourself to be a drug crazed fan (Hollywood wannabee) or willing tool (awe struck journalist) of Oligarchists, Nomenklatura, and Sharia law. No doubt, that sort of thing does have its appeal to various acolytes of low lifes among us.
In the Left's evil twist on meaning, human rights and social justice equate to submission to those who want to destroy human rights and social justice. What blessed peacemakers we have in the Left! (sarc)
Really, this game has lost all charm. We need ways to put evil in its place. When we can't demonize demons, we're playing at a disadvantage; one that may guarantee our demise. What is so wrong with calling a faux religious gang pact that advocates killing or reducing all non-members what it is: evil! There is positive and negative, and good will and bad will. Is there not such a thing as good intentions being led into frustrated, blind rage? Of course there is. What is radical Islam, if not simmering, blind rage? Does it not glory in inciting proponents in the blood of infidels? I'm not saying we must become blind in rage ourselves. But cannot we at least recognize evil when it leers directly at us? Why must we invite evil into our homes and prattle on about what rights it has? We already know it has rights! But why cannot we at least call it what it is? To not hurt evil's feelings, why must we pretend not to loathe it? In not believing in evil, in not believing in a right to call evil what it is, I fear we are coming not to believe in good, that we are coming even not to believe in meaning at all. Where is the meaning in gland driven addicts making common cause with primitive beheaders? Where is the meaning in replacing the family with the indifferent collective? Where is the meaning in enriching those who wish to enslave us? Where have we sunk, and what have we lost?
Post a Comment