Signs that the Great Awakening may be too late: Signs of The Borg -- how many of these have come to pass?
1) Divide and rule, bread and circuses, eartags and monitoring, networks tightening into spider traps, entire societies following paths to cultural suicide;
2) International corporatist control of government programs for regulating all major social institutions: banking, currency, religion, medicine, family, academia, media, regulators, politicians, courts, internet, mass spectator sports, interpreters of history, and science consortiums;
3) Discrediting of traditions for promoting decent regard for privacy and modesty;
4) Weakening of traditional expressions of respect for independent identities;
5) Promoting of political correctness to the extent of banning of ideas and words that threaten competition among international corporatist hegemonists;
6) Accelerating of organizations of minority axis in order to weaken, level, or replace every tradition and institution that has heretofore rewarded individual independence;
7) Promoting of doped out hedonism, common lack of shame, and collapse of mind into communal heap;
8) Increasing of means for psychological monitoring, profiling, and collapsing of individual will;
9) Pushing of freedom of expression and enterprise into ever more regulated corners;
10) Manipulating of cultural purposes, interests, and fads;
11) Manipulating of math and science to convince weak minds of masses that what has been decreed by now prevailing powers is for the moral best, even necessary to save the planet;
12) Inducing distrust of privacy of individuals whose interests are not well known or controlled;
13) Corporate inducing of members of lower class into debt slavery, then enticing them to try to escape by spreading wealth, the cost of which is to be sloughed onto the middle class, to reduce the influence of all its independent minded persons;
14) Severing of lines for moral representation, connection, foresight, and intuitive empathy among the great middle class;
15) Weakening of capacity for vision regarding relationships of feedback with the higher field of consciousness;
16) Infestation of sects that promote total submission and subjugation of all minds of the middle class;
17) Dividing the military in the ranks, while selecting for its upper echelon among those who are most sychophantic to international corporatism;
18) Replacing of conscious will of individuals with natural selection among heart-of-darkness corporate zombies;
19) Replacing the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule with humanist fidelity inculcated for the planet and the superior wisdom of its corporate managers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Regarding social suicide generously gifted to America by her corps of humanist profs, consider: What is the average age at which Americans now marry or have children? How many children do they have, compared with imported Muslims and illegal "immigrants?" How much debt do we now pour onto our children, before they even begin their first real job? How much do we facilitate debt that is not dischargeable in the name of getting b.s. educations? How many years will they labor to become free of that debt? During that time, how much corporate and bling advertising will they be exposed to, shaping them to believe they must incur unsustainable debt all their lives to acquire the next shiny new thing or app? How low will their wages fall, as they compete with labor from less free societies? Given the demise of churches, what institution stiffens their backbones to resist such insults?
Regarding "I earned it": Have international moguls, by turning our educators' minds to mush, earned the ownership or right to use "higher education" to reduce Americans to debt slaves, to seduce or force Americans to compete with third world labor, in effect, to import third world laborers, to enrich second and third world countries that are run by despots, who themselves are moguls or run by moguls, to undermine the freedom of middle class Americans? In terms of undermining America with governmental despotism, how is the effect much different from simply opening our southern border? In the name of higher education, free trade, and acceptance of NWO mind mush, have international corporatists merited the "right" to reduce America and the American middle class to second or third world despotism? Is this what American vets earned for us? Regarding a babel of confused humanist, libertarian philosophy, see [en.wikipedia.org].
Apart from, or encompassed within, the holism of which we all find ourselves, which we mortals "measure" only in practical conceit, the only "real" things are relations between considerers and things considered. There is no Higgs boson or ultimate particular building block in itself, but only relationships, subject to the mathematical parameters regarding their information-transmitting manifestations and potentials which they happen to share. That is, the only "objective" thing about their subjective reality consists in how they are numbered within a controlling algorithm which they happen to share.
To think there is anything else, apart from the capacity of the holism to sponsor such continuously transitional relationships, that is in itself "real" in to engage in Naive Realism (physicalism). For mortals, the ultimate mystery pertains to how and why the holism so sponsors. That is a mystery we can respect, but not solve -- at least not mathematically or empirically.
So how "should" we respect that mystery, as we go about our daily lives? Well, we cannot know, but we can intuit and empathize. So my question to you is: Why "should" your starting point, i.e., Naive Realism, be any more favored (or considered more scientific or less religious) than any other intuited starting point, such as Intuited Idealism (mindism, respecting relationships among intercommunicating perspectives of a single field of consciousness, i.e., "God")?
Regarding use of terms: If ought is not derivable from is, is consciousness derivable from (or subordinate to) is? If so, what is consciousness? If one views free, conscious will as only rationalized illusion, is that also how one should view morality? Should one's concept of morality respect a notion of free will? If so, do consciousness and free will apply to lower levels of consciousness? Should one view morality as simply the upshot of whichever among competing animals happens to have the biggest gun, the most convincing mouthpiece, the fastest means to fool or buy the most votes, or the strategy most adept at natural survival and replication?
Is physics artifactual or derivative of consciousness, or is consciousness derivative of physics? Is morality derivative of our interconnection in consciousness or of our interconnection in physics? Apart from fluxing feedback between the whole of the field of consciousness and its particular perspectives, how else may one field of consciousness avail and reconcile the experience of perspectives of itself?
What if one substitutes for morality with “that which is intuited to be most conducive to the sustenance of a society of free thinking pursuers of meaningful fulfillment”: might that facilitate more reasoned communication of appropriate strategies? Should we facilitate free investigation by those most interested in leading society in such pursuit? How?
If you and your cohort convinced yourselves you had “non-religiously” derived ought from is, would you in any case shrink from force or seduction (or banning spiritual talk from the public square) in order to overpower the will of all who opposed? Should God? Are you confident enough in your position to effect it by force of all means necessary? Should elites, kings, despots, and totalitarians be so confident? How many humanists should be secret admirers of Allah the Zombie Collector? Should any concept of morality justify gross repression of free will?
Whatever one's choice, can one demonstrate a non-religious, connective logic for a justifying proof? Can one, in bivalent logic, derive an algorithm that will unfailingly produce wins in competitions of rock, paper, scissors among competing perspectives of consciousness? Is there a trivalent spiritual or meta aspect to moral empathy? Or is moral empathy entirely a product that is reduced from objective, physical, bivalent functions? Are these bivalent functions themselves reducible to bivalent functions, or must they operate in continuous subordinance to a non-bivalent sponsor? Must a scientific reductionist show genes to be "consciously" selfish or field-altruistic?
Re: "when one is prone to assume that only a deity is responsible for morality"
Well, I do not assume such a thing. Rather, I agree that morality is an upshot of feedback in empathies among holistic and particular perspectives of consciousness. IOW, to my thinking, even God changes his/her mind in particular situations based on feedback in empathies. IOW, the key is in a superior relationship, i.e., one of feedback within a field of consciousness. The key to morality is not in a preset or one sided unfoldment, imho. Yet, if morality is not to be trivially subjective to one's selfish conceits, it must be "partially or qualitatively objectified" in respect of some field that is shared. When we come to reason together, we come in respect that there abides a common basis for reasoning.
Re: "humanism (like any ideology) takes it on faith that the material universe exists and that such is the foundation upon which we perceive experience and derive our inherent and intuitive models of morality"
Well, humanism assumes physicalism to be the case, and any higher source of consciousness to be superfluous.
I would say that idealism takes consciousness to be the case, and takes any higher source of consciousness, such as physicalism, to be superfluous. (By "superfluous," I remain fully in accord with the practical value of empirical and mathematical adducement. I simply mean such practicality is wholly consistent with an Idealistic model.)
You say physicsdidit, I say goddidit. Neither one of us can measure or replicate how it was done.
I will revist the issue when you explain the quality of consciousness, find the Higgs boson, and present the fountain of youth.
Meantime, my model accomodates science while allowing morality to be reality based.
Your model, to my light, makes morality trivial. That is its danger.
From A.T. --
Re: "Capitalism is the system that upholds liberty"
Partly, but not quite. In an analysis of sets, there is considerable overlap. But not all capitalist systems necessarily sponsor high regard for liberty. China is blending capitalism and communalism. I wish that were merely a transitional stage, but I suspect China intends otherwise. That is not the goal I admire.
Similarly, there is considerable overlap in notions of free trade and liberty. However, not so much when free trade becomes cover for selling America out, to cause it to be replaced by communal and authoritarian cultures.
Why would America allow herself to be so debauched? Well, follow the momentum of the money.
Note: We could have the benefits of free trade by favoring trade with cultures that favor liberty, more so than favoring trade with cultures that do not. But we are not doing that? Why? Cui bono?
Compare the financial wherewithal of the average American household at the end of Jimmy Carter's term with the average wherewithal now. If we're better off, why do young Americans tend to consider themselves unable to marry or have children without accepting a considerable decline in standard of living? Something is rotten.
Mexico is us, if we don't impose better supervision over our adolescent adults. Liberty cannot be preserved for incorrigible adolescents who never grew up and do not care about liberty or individual responsibility. The best that can be done is to avoid letting them destroy the wider society. We could do that, humanely, by condemning some land in California, surrounded by a desert, with no private access allowed. Instead of taxing citizens through the nose to finance the imprisonment of third time illegals, embezzlers, thieves, and criminal addicts of sex, dope, and alcohol, put ankle bracelets on them to monitor their wherabouts and then ship them to the California enclave. Provision them with cell phones of very limited connectivity, barracks, water, MRE's, pink underwear, and minimal medical supplies. Divide the enclave into different compounds, based on age, sex, proclivity to violence, and physical and mental handicap. Leave an option for a voluntary, open compound, where all manner of depravities short of murder and mayhem are permitted, to allow inhabitants to off, dope, abuse, and medicate themselves right out of their minds if they so choose. Deputize trustees and dispensers of medical marijuana. Then let the inhabitants build their own version of Shangra La, complete with on site cemetaries and facilities for medical marijuana. Avail them a right to be relocated to mainstream social facilities upon signing an appropriate social contract, wherein they agree to undertake a course to try to grow up and contribute to responsible society. Since these adolescents are our intellectual superiors, they should be just fine, so this is a plan most humanists should be able to get behind. (s/o).
We need to retain ways for addressing situations that did not necessarily arise, but that simply abide. God abides; empathy in respect of God abides. Empathy, per se, may best be considered as neither good nor bad, but the actions and persons implementing it may be. Empathy as practiced may be bad. Empathy that falls short of respecting the person in whom it is invested as a morally responsible being is, as practiced, bad. That "falling short" can become endemic to an entire society. When it does, we wind up reducing the morally responsible middle class to tax slaves for armies of passive-aggressive professional victims and America haters. Thus, we become a morally insane, unsound, unsustainable society, at a tipping point. I can understand feelings of sympathy for the devil, but exercising empathy for evil should remain fundamentally loathsome for decent society. Seeds of social demise tend to be sown when scientists no longer apprehend the philosophical aspects and moral hazards of empathy, but imagine they can effect a complete replacement (such as based on an empirical analysis of mirror neurons).
Post a Comment