SOURCE OF RIGHTS

SOURCE OF RIGHTS:

I suspect most Collectivists do not consider God to have any relation to a flow of "rights" – whether from God through King to people or from God through people to public servants. That is, unless by "God" one means a state of nature and evolution that is purely secondary to the law of tooth and claw, such that the Lion King and his cohorts are always supreme -- political parties be damned. In that respect, elections among collectivists are only a temporary charade, while power is consolidated within the single party syndicate of the state-of-nature, historical-necessity, dialectic-materialists. The only role for the bourgeoisie and the proles is to try to bet on (“pro-pink”) the right tooth-and-claw contender within the single party. That is, the "right" of power contenders is to collectivize, and the "right" of the people at large is to be collectivized. Under aristocratic rule, at least there was lip service to God. Under modern collectivism, the rulers deign that they are Gods (aka "elites"), such that no lip service is requisite.


From A.T. -- @Desert Wheeze, re: “What is this hang-up on the physical vessel of our souls?”

Good point! Another way of looking at it is to consider that physics, however it unfolds or evolves, may constitute a bookmark for the logos or means for continuity in communication among those aspects of consciousness which are beyond physics. If so, of course physics is measurably consistent! Were it not, how else could we communicate?

However, those who wish to believe that evolution found in physics is the “be all end all” seem to be suggesting there are true and best answers to what we “should” do (or legislate) in matters of specific details (such as in moral instruction for school children), for which they believe agents of the State can find and provide objective answers, through logic and/or empiricism. Apparently, only those intuitions, interests, and empathies that can be rationalized to some silly materialist formulation are worthy of moral respect.

Apparently, single-minded (zombiefied?) “objectivists” would suggest that elite “reasoners” can actually find, derive, and prove those answers which are “best” for the rest of us (at least, for those of us who are able to follow). So, if we of the collective fail to follow the justness and rightness of elites’ “proofs,” they imply we are lacking in sufficient mental adeptness. Finding us lacking, they believe we should simply shut up and obey Big Brother’s elites -- or be brought into obedience, per Bill Maher, kicking and screaming, if necessary. But I say, until they inspire and convince me, in respect of the “better angels of my nature,” I decline to believe that they have the best approach to moral issues. That, I suspect, is the unbridgeable chasm between Independents and Collectivist Statists.

*****

SOURCE OF SOMETHINGNESS:

There is something supernatural or magical about the notion of “thingness” having arisen out of “nothingness”; there is Something that is beyond the ken of our empirical comprehension. Warily apart from that Something -- which is implicit in every thingness and beingness -- each of us tries to assert his perspective of Will, leveraging whatever means and principles we may. Yet, none of us has a lever by which to move the universe. Somehow, we intuit purposefulness, i.e., that we “should” be about doing things. Beyond intuition, we do not really much know the character of the Something-Source. Even so, we seek basis for communicating among others about that which we should be doing. Not comprehending the Source, we often test or seek substitute rationalizations. So, we come to hope to find answers about the Source by being receptive to other than the Source, even though such other is always incomplete and often corrupt.


We know we have moral purpose, i.e., we must make choices, even though we have no accurate, empirical means by which to measure our moral gain or loss. So, should we invent a substitute God, one that we can in some ways measure, and then rationalize moral codes around it? Should such God sponsor “the greatest good for the greatest number?” Problem is, one hardly needs a three digit IQ to apprehend how vague that is, or how corrupt it soon becomes to feign otherwise.

Fundamentally, we can choose between two political approaches to the problem of how best to seek civilized assimilation and governance: First, we can choose to trust to assimilate and come together in empathetic respect of each conscious perspective of the meta-Something. So doing, we may find that we become less in need of detailed supervision by busybody “elites.” Second, we can ridicule and abandon thoughts about the meta-Something and instead invest our faith in elite practitioners (Nomenklatura?) of “objective” dialectic materialism and science, to teach us (the collective) “proper” mores and politics.

At bottom, history is about an unfolding confrontation between (1) Individualists who respect a meta Guide versus (2) Groupies who respect collectivizers and being collectivized. At bottom, adherents of both approaches are “religious.” Those scientists who imagine humanity can do “better” without a notion of God tend to be among apologists for Nomenklatura. After all, what’s their alternative? Would collectivizing despots by any other name smell as sweet?

Re: "... purpose and value in an ultimately meaningful universe."

An interesting debate among biologists relates to whether and how evolution may proceed through individuals versus collectives. F. A. Hayek made some perhaps analogous observations about how moral notions unfold or evolve, depending on whether a society is oriented more towards respect for individuals versus collectives. Effects of evolution may be magnified when they occur at points among individuals or collectives that are laden with power to redirect the history that follows.

Is evolution really only random, or is it necessarily laden with factors of choice? When may that determination depend more on one's purpose and worldview than on universal fact? The "truthiness" of our standard model in physics would necessarily come up incomplete were it to try to incorporate a theory of morality and the four fundamental forces into one unifying theory. The "truthiness" of our religious models comes up incomplete when they try to force metaphysical ideas into literal, scientific service in that part of our world that we measurably relate to as physics.

We need means to appreciate what delineates the consciousness of morality apart from the domain of physics. I doubt those delineations can be reconciled by mortals in one domain, either in metaphysics or in science. I believe it is fraud secondary to God-envy for any scientist, evolutionist, or elitist to presume himself best equipped to intrude upon the rest of we collectives to try to forcibly specify the "truly best" and most detailed minutiae of legalisms posing as moral principles derivative of "science."

Re: Evolution of Information and Purposefulness:

Does Information evolve? To what extent may Information from our histories, cultures, designs, and choices evolve and be carried forward, to be represented in our currently availed materials, forms, genes, and consciousness? To a free thinker, is it not valid to discredit scientists and elites when they presume knowledge or authority to ordain the moral philosophy which is “most correct or best” in respect of how Information, culture, and civilization “should” be carried forward? For example, do not appeals to Darwinism seem inappropriate for recommending a civilizing system of law? Yet, merely discrediting big-brother elitism is hardly enough. This is because one does not defeat something with nothing. One needs to investigate and espouse alternative philosophy.

If moral philosophy does not evolve or “progress” to be explicable in purely objective logic or measureable math, then by what wisdom or intuition may one reasonably espouse independent or alternative means to the collective, for the pursuit of civilizing happiness? Is it not obvious that moral wisdom cannot reasonably be based or communicated entirely in science or measurements, nor by ambiguous metaphysical literalisms or shamans? So, how can moral wisdom that is pertinent to its times be reasonably felt, communicated, carried forward, and “evolved?”

Is there some kind of direct, intuitive, empathetic receptivity to a shared higher Identity, which is built into each perspective of consciousness, needing only to be called upon in good will and good faith? To the extent we let ourselves be receptive to such Source, do we tend to recognize that which is worthwhile and that which is not … as we sense and experience it? Becoming thus receptive, do the logos, symbols, sacred stories, and figures of speech needed to communicate good will and good faith then tend to follow, measured more in consciousness than in math? Perhaps, what is most sacred is receptivity to the Source. For that, the parables are secondary, are they not? In making moral, social, and political choices, does not each principled perspective of consciousness need most fundamentally to ascertain or follow a most coherent moral and political philosophy, and then fashion or interpret religious parables and legal models as secondary?

Evolution, as mortals conceptualize it, is fact in the trivial sense that things evolve. Big whump! The question is: Do things evolve purely at (1) random, (2) design, (3) physical predetermination, or (4) some combination thereof? Is there any way, from our limited and particular perspective of the whole, “to prove” or reliably say which of the four is true? On such a large issue, forget navel-gazing scientists. Ask: Since we are discussing proof, as in logical or mathematical proof, what do logicians and mathematicians say about that? I suspect we cannot know. I suspect we can usefully model and conceptualize. However, the usefulness for which we do so will depend on our purpose and context of view and reference. When our purpose is to reason together about civilizing choices we “should” make with regard to resources availed us, show me, prove to me, how it is that “science” is more reliable or more “truthy.” So far, on moral issues, I see children babbling; play acting as if they were “moral scientists.” After all, isn’t that sort of “dress up” what little elite tots who “know best” most love to do? Mummy and Daddy are so impressed!