Mankind's destiny seems to be to take the measure of all that is measurable. Mankind's delusion seems to be to reduce the obviously Immeasurable to the merely measurable. Mankind's faith will eventually become to appreciate the Immeasurable ... intuitively, empathetically, metaphorically, and morally, without needing to try to reduce it. Mankind has evolved through societies of spirit-medicine men, gatherers, hunters, livestock keepers, farmers, technologists, traders, bankers, and corporatists. Leaders have ruled through clergy, raiders, land-based aristocrats with personal armies, banker-based despots with national armies, and now ... international corporation-based NWO elitists with access to computer-age, internet-monitoring dossiers and WMD information. Each step along the unfolding sequence has entailed much questioning of the previous step. The duration of each step has been cut short by each succeeding step by at least half.
.
Along the way, human ingenuity has been pent up by authoritative stages of clergymen, noblemen, slavers, and repressers. As it became safer to question such repressers, enlightenment sprang forth. Out sprang the renaissance, reformation, industrial age, and now the information age. The pace of enlightenment and dissemination of information and technology has become breath-taking. Unmonitored individuals have become able to be threats to states. This danger is not welcomed by those who have become invested in the establishment, who have consolidated wealth and influence. Now, they stage Rino-Dino circuses to ally political operatives bent on erasing national borders and moral boundaries, while inviting the masses with cheap bribes in order to put them safely away in stocks.
.
Thus, enlightenment became confused with habits of questioning, even ridiculing, of previous moral authorities. Now, even foundations for republics are ridiculed and reviled. As stated by Kyle Becker, in today's article at A,erican Thinker, The Triumph of the State, "Men do not seek out punishment for achievement, but they will take the road of least resistance to failure if subsidized by the state -- and particularly if cheered on the entire way by the anti-competitive elites who cynically and gleefully wield a monopoly of coercion."
.
Now, every infantile ridiculer feels invited to believe he's some kind of renaissance man, while having all the enlightenment of a jealous cow. Thus is paved the way for New Doperspeak, where it's thought to be moral to be amoral, virtuous to be selfish, progressive to acculturate entitlement-mindedness, good to be covetous, and bad to respect the reconciling spirit of The Immeasurable beyond the confining gates of churches. For newly enlightened infants of the Left, what is immeasurable must not exist. However, their axiom proves too much and ends up devouring itself. We are finally beginning to apprehend that all that is manifest, empirical, measurable existence may be nothing more than a burp out of an empty set, a bubble from a "nothing-something" that is simply Immeasurable, yet exists. Because IT exists, IT only seems irrelevant to qualitative concerns when IT is ignored. When IT comes to concerns of morality that cannot be derived simply from the measurable, IT becomes infinitely and perpetually relevant. IT is heard in the still quiet voice of intuitive good faith and empathetic good will.
.
Yet, there remains great accultured momentum behind the now habituated and hubristic pretense of being enlightened merely by questioning, and especially by reviling, the very existence of an Immeasurable reconciler for moral guidance, and most especially by substituting oneself for God. It was right that mankind should question the authority of mere mortals pretending to speak authoritatively for God or the Immeasurable aspects of Reality. Of God, mortals should speak in terms of belief, intuitive good faith, empathetic good will, and receptive appreciation. However, there obviously abides an active and Immeasurable Source, of which it is hubristically ignorant and absurd to claim to be morally irrelevant or measurably disproved. Rather, IT is the spiritual foundation for guiding feedback in the unfolding of human decency and discourse. To ignore IT, to revile IT, to drive IT from the public square, is to harness oneself as livestock for the use and abuse of the most cynical and depraved. Indeed, that depravity has now sunk the American Republic.
8 comments:
I believe common sense, intuition, and the limits of empiricism and math point to a conscious Holism that finds purpose in appreciating and guiding qualitative feedback through our various perspectives. IOW, IT is not a dumb, inanimate, pre-set. Rather, there abides appreciative, reconciling, feedback among the Holism and IT's particular expressions. You can call it guided evolution if you like. I don't see any good reason to believe such a qualitative, infinite, perpetual, and conscious Being much cares whether we refer to IT as male, female, androgenous, God, Jehovah, YHWH, Vishnu, IT, or some dogmatic, sectarian version of mythologized, metaphorical specifics and literalisms. The very reason I capitalized both letters of IT was to signal IT's capacities for being unique, sourceful, conscious, unifying, and reconciling. My purpose was like in the Story of Pi: to make you believe in God. I haven't much cared what specific name or aspirated compression of air one may use to reflect on God. Nor do I think insisting on such a thing outside of one's chosen sect is particularly helpful for assimilating common appreciation of a reconciling, empathetic Being that has availed us with all manner of symbols, metaphors, signs, and significations for coming together in good faith and good will to appreciate our common connection with that Being. I do believe the essence of IT's moral message was summarized in Jesus' expression of the Great Commandment and the Golden Rule. I also think the Islamic interpretation of a god who glories in burning heathens and keeping them alive in order to revel in their punishment, while regulating every last minutiae of our existence, is an abominable conception of deluded psychopaths. I think a key to appreciating God abides in this test: What does it take to guide the unfolding of a civilization that will engage in decent, free, and dignified communications among its members and its Guide? The spiritual, free-will aspect of the test is what makes it both complex and meaningful. The subjugation of human liberty to despotic force and collectivism is the antithesis of IT's purpose. What Islamists fail to appreciate is that it's not "religion" when you only pretend to believe in something on pain of being reviled or stoned as an apostate.
I certainly agree that it's important to learn from hard consequences. However, it's often near impossible in a collectivist state. This is because: (1) the collective shelters the hard consequences; (2) the Incompetent Miserable love the companionship of more of the Incompetent Miserable (there are many people who do not really want to get helped out of a hole because they have become conditioned to love living in the hole and will avidly return to the hole as soon as you get out of their way ... unless you want to devote your life to living there with them while vainly trying to pull them out)(this is called the Great Society War on Poverty, which wound up being a war to impose poverty); (3) there are "enterprising" people who become skilled and rich in farming the Incompetent Miserable (they advertise to the naive, the elderly, and the mentally handicapped). The consequence for many is that living the life of a loser, doper, deviant, anarchic destroyer of social norms and assimilating traditions comes to have its own kind of charm, so that anyone who tries to entice them out of such a mindset will be reviled as some kind of "phobe." Indeed, I suspect many such people prefer to raise their children to be like themselves, rather than to become independently competent (i.e., horrors, like conservatives). Indeed, in a collectivist state, a conservative parent who tries to teach his child to learn from hard consequences may soon be viewed as an abuser. Sheltered conservatives often do not fully apprehend how many people pine for depravity and abhor responsible decency. The Incompetent Miserable want a permanent way out, and they want everyone else to pay for the trip. I don't think we can prevail merely by trying to let these people learn from hard consequences. Many of them (felons and welfare dependents) should have had their voting rights forfeited. If decent society is not to be pulled into a hole for a millenium, it may be necessary to separate from collectivist losers and let them dig their own nirvana. Maybe the cost of extended welfare should be neutering. You can't fix some kinds of stupid.
Life is a struggle. There abides a Reconciler. Life is meaningful. Your fellow pilgrim is worthy of appropriate respect. Be empathetic, but do not tolerate your destruction by those who want to reduce and farm you as their cattle, rather than to respect you as a child of God. To me, that is the essence of the Judeo-Christian message. It is classically liberal in that it conserves human decency and liberty. What is the opposition? It is illiberalism dressed in collective egalitarianism, masquerading as feeling your pain. It is led by those who are perfectly willing to slice off the heads of millions who will not consent to being collectivized as mind-surrendering cattle (all for the use of elites posturing as messengers of God or scientific agents of Gaia). To take the destruction of Judeo-Christian values as being "moral" does not lead to liberalism. It leads to a choice between dehumanization and holocaust. In extreme cases, that is precisely what the opposition wants.
Every leader will tend to be drawn to plan for the sustainable growth and population of his followers. That effect will be synergized, whether or not leaders actually conspire towards it. The logos of nature conspires towards that effect, whether or not the artificial logos of mankind does. That effect can be advanced by assimilating citizens under a common ethos that respects individual freedom and dignity, even as it also, through charities, gives expression to empathy for the plight of the downtrodden. That way does not confuse spiritual charity with governmental confiscation of other people's money or property. Another way is to rout spiritual charity from the public square, thus to monopolize power through governance run by elitists, who then consolidate control over all means for establishing credit and trust. Thus, a corrupt elite greases its idiot followers. That is, Agenda 21.
.
The effect of routing spiritual charity from the public square is to restore a default condition: elitists ruling masses through fluxing hierarchies of secular institutions. For the masses, the dignity of a free and independent middle class is a rarity that is easily lost, absent constant vigilance. Once an elite class consolidates control and safely insulates itself from the turmoil of the masses, to rule, it need only keep the pot of society stirred in constant division and hub-bub. So long as consolidated wealth can insulate itself, let the hub-bub tax mere income, howsoever it will. Let the masses quarrel over who earned what. When a cynic enriches himself by targeting his advertising to the most inexperienced, gullible, and feeble, let him say he earned it. When the government taxes in order to provide a safety net for the miserably fleeced, whether they be young or stupid or handicapped or infirm, let the middle class say a progressive proportion should be paid by the cynics who profited by preying on those for whom decent society must now provide a safety net. To keep the lazy and stupid dependent on division, let them say they are not responsible, because only the collective, through government, can be responsible. Let them assert entitlement to be pleasured with food, shelter, drugs, and sex. Thus consolidated, elitists need only hedge here and there in order to keep the quarrel and division going, thus to rule.
.
History shows a way out, for a middle class to grasp its freedom and dignity from being stolen by collectivists working for pleasure-blinded, godless elitists. That way is in inculcating common acceptance of a spiritual, moral Reconciler, who confers moral rights and individual freedom and responsibility, superior to the government of any corrupt and cynical elitist or messenger for false pleasures. America is foundering because we have lost that way, swamped as we are by a demographic of pleasure-blinded Libs and useful idiots. Modern Libs of all persuasions believe in nothing bigger than mind blowing sex and drugs. Those with money want freedom to blow their own minds; those without money want governmental entitlement to blow-checks. The Lib version of equality, liberty, and mind-blowing nirvana, blowing in the wind.
.
When thinking of collectivists, it's hard not to think of upturned snot noses. Collectivists of all stripes need critical review. Individuals should be accorded the benefit of the doubt, the dignity, of being considered as unhyphenated individuals. Even when intentions are good, the road to perdition is still well paved by those who incline to believe that institutionally and collectively forced schemes of classification and redistribution are somehow equivalent to charity. I can understand how the good effects of spirituality must be availed to evolve over time. Yet, consider: Why is it that so many nations whose peoples are deeply influenced by religions, such as catholicism, continue to be mired in corruption and poverty? On one hand, ministering to the most impoverished is often left to the same institutions, so that good institutions ought not be blamed for the impoverished to whom they minister. On the other hand, I wonder why guiding the impovershed out of their squalar and ignorance seems to take so long. What are the counter influences for preserving codependency, poverty, and even corruption? Why would the majority among members of ANY decent system of religious belief have helped to elect Obama, as radical a collectivizer as I have ever seen? If Reality is the Word, the Logos, then may we not better learn how to listen to it? Is not the purpose of the Will to life to connect moral purposefulness with Reality? If so, when movements and religions wall themselves away from secular moral issues of the ages, what relevant good are they? Are there not at least as many secular as spiritual signs that the logos and conservation of nature, taken as a holism, are necessarily and morally connected with the murmurings and logos of life? I think we fall prey to demagoguery all the faster as we renounce that there is any legitimate connection between spiritual receptivity and secular purposefulness. Having lost faith in moral guidance, we come merely to choose among homies, gangs, and marauders, and then have gall to blame God for the hell we create on earth. The Jews. The Whities. The angry white men. The ... whatever. People need to own up to their own lost connections, rather than sacrificing all goats of convenience to such a point as to sacrifice individual decency and dignity.
If a conceptual scheme began with golf, and adherents from there attempted to to explain a system of manners, mores, and relations to reality and eternity that was intended as if it should go beyond golf, then I would think voluntary adherence to such a scheme could be fairly considered to constitute a practice of religion. (Forced adherence may constitute despotism.) Notions about the fundamental reality of science seem often to lead to religious-like urgings, as if everyone should be urged to believe that a particular model of physics based on nothing more than vibrations upon vibrations out of an empty set should be considered as sufficient in itself to substitute for all other models for belief sets. As if schools "should" teach that there abides no reconciler of "shoulds." As if schools should be entitled to tax our resources in order to force everyone to participate in teaching that evolution cannot be guided by a unifying reconciler of feedback. As if meditative receptivity to higher reconciling guidance were merely a primitive, irrational, discreditable practice. As if robotic cyborgs plugged into a collectivizing net were the highest form of social evolution, such that individualism and humanity should be filtered out.
When one extrapolates from a particular observation to try to conceptualize it as a model for a way of thinking about the whole of the reality of consciousness, as if everyone should be recommended to follow that model, then I think one is practicing religion. There is no objective, physical, empirical, quantitative basis for saying everyone "should" behave according to a certain model of political or moral correctness. For "good religion," the basis seems to abide only with an intuitive, empathetic quality of conscious good faith and good will. If "God" is meant to refer to a reconciling source of common empathy, then I think such belief sets, where they cannot be reduced to pure logic, math, or empiricism, are fundamentally religious. I think all systems of thought about reconciling manners and mores implicate an idea of God, even when the word "God" is not used. In that light, the commies who strut and pretend to be atheists are not. Rather, they are religious zealots, intolerant of anyone else's freedom of thought or speech. Pis be upon them.
Regarding testing for constitutionality based on whether a provision serves "a rational public purpose": For the use of legislators, judges, and people of good faith, good will, and good sense, who desire beyond their selfish skins, who want to establish and preserve decent society that avails reasonable freedom and dignity, such a formulation can be meaningful. In the use of self-indulgent, wormy people, such a formulation becomes only a basis for confusing weak minds, for leading them into snares for destroying social decency, thus harnessing the masses to easy use as beasts for serving elites. The words have little meaning in themselves, except perhaps as they are understood by decent versus wormy society. Fodder for worms always seek to objectify formulations that are necessarily subjective. But such objectivity as there is will only occur to decent society. False, wormy societies, seeking to objectify everything in such legalistic formulations, will only fill the void in themselves with piles upon piles of legalistic rubbish. The Constitution was meant for a decent people, not a wormy one that dis-assimilates among self-indulgent gangs of multi culti.
Re: "His body is vigorous. His mind is childish. His soul has been almost completely neglected."
Everyone goes through infancy. Infants need mentoring. Everyone needs to bond to an exemplar. Those lost boys who did not receive good parenting hope and pray to find redemption in some collective, for they are traumatized against any faith that otherwise might sustain them. The most likely collective is the state. The same lost boys who question everything their parents ever said learn with their collectivized peers not to question "Uncle Joe." Those who run collectives such as the state are always looking for useful idiots. In exchange for doing the work of a no-questions-asked brute, the state has lots of opportunities and rewards. Those who did not have good parents for teaching them how to be responsible, independent citizens have no concept by which to value the parenting of those who did have good parents. They have no brakes to slow them from venting simple rage and vengeance. When they unite with a collective whose strings are pulled by sociopaths, the world trembles. And they love that. However, there is a counterpoint to the problem, which is this: Those who have had good parenting often have little concept of the rage and sociopathy that infest so many statist minds. Commies and Nazis tend to think the politics of the other are wrong, one being enlightened and the other being fascist. For bystanders who view the results of their work, it's hard to detect much of a difference. Either way, a vigorous vengeful child is a vigorous vengeful child. Precisely the kind of people Obamanauts seek to recruit and reward. When decent society is rounded up against the wall, these people will not save the day.
Post a Comment