PYTHON:
Regarding Corporatist Oligarchs of the Third Kind: (1) Some Oligarchs defend, (2) some produce, and (3) some loot, as by buying and selling political pawns, like commodities.
Ayn Rand abhorred looters, even corporate looters. Problem is, I have found nothing in her philosophy that avails effective means to stop, slow, or shame looters, especially international corporate looters. The only possibly effective means appears to be to promote an informed electorate. Problem is, the oligarchs run most of the means for informing the electorate. And information, to be made sense of, needs to be assimilated in respect of a worldview. But Rand’s philosophy did not avail a worldview that could be effective to counter oligarchic looters and their usefully indoctrinated idiots. Here meme was “reason” in the service of the ideal man. A more effective meme would be reasoned empathy (enlightened selfishness).
Were it more generally appreciated that every particular perspective is only an incomplete perspective in the service of one field of consciousness, that is, were we to restore respect for reasoned empathy, we may have a better chance to reclaim human freedom and dignity from the clutches of oligarchs of the third kind, i.e., oligarchs who are so depraved as to be disloyal to common human decency. Oligarchs reason just fine, but they reason almost exclusively about how to look out for themselves. In effect, the wire of empathy that connects them to the better part of humanity has been severed. They have not reasoned their way to this severance; they have rationalized the severance.
What I mean by “empathy” is capacity to apprehend, not measure, aspects of the beingness of one’s own mind, fluxing in the minds of others. Such empathy is not, per se, love of self or of others. Rather, it is respect for the exploratory purposefulness of a common mind, as it chooses to experience and express its dignity in the perspectives of oneself and of others. So stated, I consider reasoned empathy to be a more fundamental attribute of mindful will than reasoned materialism.
Empathy entails respect, not just for others, but for the common mind that freely expresses itself through perspectives of all expressions of consciousness, (not just of human beings), as well as of oneself. Empathy does not measure a precise cutoff between life and not-life. Rather, empathy apprehends a quality of connection among expressions of conscious will that is not precisely limited to mere circuits of material or bodily energy, but often suggests itself in moments of apparent deja vu, stunning coincidence, incredible insight, or burst of creativity – not so much as if one had saved oneself by one’s own merit and “reasoned” to such insights, but more as if one had received one's insights, gifted in association with the On High.
All perspectives of consciousness have capacity for empathy, but not all are faithful to, strongly receptive to, or confident of it. Key to empathy is respect for the regard by others of their own freedom and dignity, not mere exchange for (or base satisfaction of) the material and glandular wants of others. To accord “love” in response to bad habits and addictions of derelicts tends mainly to reinforce them to lifetimes of such bad habits.
To facilitate decent human civilization, a mores of empathy (“value for value”) ought not be restricted to a realm of material measure, but should be expanded to a realm of worthy respect. A decent civilization ought not pervert mores based on empathy by rationalizing beggings or lootings against independent individualists or by rationalizing forced conversions or submissions of non-members of gangs or sects of collectivists to thugish fascists or religious police.
Tragically, the only real bastion for defending decently civilizing, sustainable mores -- America -- is now beset – within and without, at all sides, secular and sectarian – by force minded collectivizers in unholy axis with useful idiots who have been conditioned to rationalize that they need to be collectivized. Thus, the breath of America is being constricted by a Python Axis that is financed by a depraved host of international, collectivizing oligarchs.
*******
Conservers of individual liberty have little hope to unwind this Python monster from the head down, as by recruiting counter funding in order to counter purchase our own whore politicians. Rather, the best way to unwind this monster is from the bottom of the tail – from the grass roots up. Since most entrenched institutions are now owned and operated for the interests of the international corporatist oligarchy, it will be a terrible struggle to unwind this Python and to restore America to an honored place, distinct from the worldwide collective. Yet, it is a struggle for which I intuit that our good will is aligned with that of the Field of Consciousness, common to all of us.
As to the Python (and its components – the international corporatist oligarchs who produce nothing and besmirch everything, who trade mainly in the buying and selling of political whoredom): It has no spirit-sustaining philosophy, no way to make its rationalizations decently sustainable, no way to prevent its members from imposing its tyranny and soul death on one another, and no way to avoid the death of a thousand addictions.
So long as we retain strength of will in respect of higher empathy, those who have collapsed to the depravity of international gangsterism will, at some point, be lead either to their own overdose or towards a better way. Until then, until pockets of resistance can gather inspiration and strength enough to sap and unwind the Python, we need to resist where we can and persevere where we must. Effective inspiration will prevail in due time. It is a terrible challenge to unwind the Python from America. It is beyond the pale to expect America to unwind the Python from the world. America can best serve the world by serving as a beacon for human freedom and dignity. For that, it is hardly of more import that Americans be liked than that producers be liked by persons satisfied to be bums.
Bottom line: So as not needlessly to have incited counterproductive misunderstanding between Christian Conservatives and Randian Objectivists, Ayn Rand, on hindsight, should have hearkened her Ideal Man to the value of Reasoned Empathy, instead of to a kind of reasoned materialism. In that way, the major part of her purpose would have been served, without stirring counterproductive mistrust among natural allies. Had she done so, it was not necessary for her to try to discredit or seek entirely to replace "Field of Consciously Reasoning Empathy" (God) with her notion of "Reasoning Mind of the Ideal Man." Both are incomplete concepts, neither map should be confused with the actual territory, and both are useful myths. The myths ("Field of Consciously Reasoning Empathy" and "Reasoning Mind of the Ideal Man") can and should be reconciled, to align for modeling the best motivations of thinking Christian Conservatives and thinking Objectivists.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Compare China’s looting methods with those of Soros, and consider the response under a John Galt meme. John Galt’s response to a world of whiny looters was to withdraw. One of his friend’s responded by impeding that world’s efforts to feel good about itself. Neither had an adequate response to looters who feel no need to feel good about contributing to society, who feel mainly or only a need to cannibalize or crush society. That is, Galt and friends had no response to looting oligarchs of the third kind – the kind who seek not to enlighten the world but to defile it, the kind of sociopaths who conflate enmity, deception, and soma with empathy, love, and purpose. Galt had no reasoned answer for, even though he would not have approved of, the meme of evil, i.e., elitist looters who produce nothing who compete to cannibalize the most.
Would not Soros and ilk drool to acquire the kind of elitist control China has over its moo cows? What is the principled difference between Chinese communists who control market forces at large and Soros like corporatists who feed by manipulating currencies? If there is a principled difference between the way Chinese elitists preserve their rule and the way Soros Progressives hope to establish theirs, it relate to this: Soros’ method has led moo cows to trade in their freedom in exchange for security in a way that has been less openly honest and more intelligently suited to easily lulled idiots of America. China had to mow down its thinkers, but it learned lessons. Elitist looters have now learned the lesson and brought them to America. The culture has now become so corrupted that even school children are being turned to believe that those who prefer liberty over security must be beaten at the polls by corrupting the polls. Check http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/kos_konspirators_try_to_rig_go.html.
The John Galt meme has been turned inside out, upside down, and put to use by corporatists who mainly loot, worldwide, and who mainly do not produce. That meme was interesting, but it has been so co-opted by corporatist looters as to have been rendered inadequate to preserve human freedom and dignity. With that meme, Ayn Rand incited needless misunderstanding between Christian Conservatives and Randian Objectivists. On hindsight, she should have hearkened her Ideal Man to the value of Reasoned Empathy, instead of to a kind of reasoned materialism. In that way, the major part of her purpose would have been served, without stirring counterproductive mistrust among numerous of her natural allies within the Christian tradition. It was not necessary for her to discredit or seek entirely to replace the "Field of Consciously Reasoning Empathy" (God) with her meme of the "Reasoning Mind of the Ideal Man." Both are incomplete maps, neither map should be confused with actual territory, and both can be useful myths. However, the meme that respects a "Field of Consciously Reasoning Empathy" as the higher Source for the "Reasoning Mind of the Ideal Man" could better reconcile the best motivations of thinking Christian Conservatives and thinking Objectivists. The path is not only in the power of naked reason, but in the power of reasoned clothed with empathy.
A Jung analogy concerning a recurring nightmare about a diaper soiled face would neglect to appreciate how, even as the Left fails, crass money looters (Soros, et al) will continue to fill trenches with new recruits, in order to further the continued reduction and cannibalistic sell off of America.
Yes, the ideals of the Left are a failure; no, the crassness behind them is not. The Left will simply continue to refill its ranks much as the Immortals filled the ranks of Persians at Thermopylae.
The Left will not fold merely because current members lack stamina. It will not fold until there is nothing left of America's carcass to sell out. You can't beat something with nothing. Unless the Tea Party endures as a cohesive force, the sell out of America will continue.
Regarding disgust: There are cultures that find little wrong with pedophelia, including same gender pedophelia. I guess, when their people come to America, their mode of diversity is too disgusting to be tolerated (even if they think that bigoted of us). I am heartened to learn that Nambla folk are not "true libertarians." It is good to learn that natural, social responsibility among American Libertarians entails respect for innocence of children. It's good to learn that at least some Libertarians would not condone selling dope to children, although I'm not clear whether those who would condone it would in some way be behaving inconsistently with the natural code of libertarianism. I assume there is no holy source of libertarian fatwas, for differentiating between true and false libertarianism when it comes to when and where children become fair game. Example: What about innocence of adults who have mastered menial jobs but who have minds or suggestibility of children? When is it legit for an ordinary Lib to lead them to share dope or sex? Didn't some well known Ivy prof teach "no harm, no foul" when it comes to sex with beasts? If Libs can get informed consent with beasts, why not with kids? Well, I certainly agree that would be disgusting, but I'm trying to follow the formula. I'm not confident that disgust is a disqualifier among all who profess to be Libertarians. After all, one culture's disgust is another's every day event.
As to no harm to anyone but oneself: The behaviors one indulges condition the wiring of one's brain. How one's brain is wired impacts one's capacity to avoid becoming a social predator.
I'm sympathetic to "small l" libertarianism. It seems the issue of marijuana use among consenting adults in their homes is not a worthwhile fight. I have no problem with state legislatures having authority to decide whether to honor same sex relationships as marriages. Where I have a problem is when libertarians profess some basis for a "big l" philosophy of Libertarianism. I'm not seeing how that works.
We could always have a march on Washington to protest the fascist nature of fiscal reality. After all, once you convince yourself, on faith, to justify believing 2 plus 2 is 5, that it is good to spread wealth based only on need in order to create more non-producers, what then can you not convince yourself, or lead others, to believe? Once we've locked arms to march over a cliff, then only an evil Conservative would say, "Hey! There's a cliff ahead!" Rand saw this before the late 1950's. We're coming to the final chapters of Atlas Shrugged. We've been told, and we keep being told, every step of the way ... yet on we march. The closer we get to the cliff, the more the panic and thus the more the momentum to rush the cliff. The greater the danger, the smaller the leadership becomes, and the more our true heroes get sullied. What can assimilate us to a change in course? Once an assimilated redirection shows to be impossible, to where does everyone who can withdraw? Once they withdraw, how much more does panic multiply? Without vision, a people perish.
Post a Comment