.
LOVE V. PURPOSEFUL EMPATHY: It makes little sense to say God is love. Not in the sense of tolerating everything. If God tolerated everything, then spiritual guidance would be nonsensical. If evolution is guided, it is via spiritual feedback from the holistic field to its variously expressed particulars. If that Field is morally relevant, then it is qualitatively discriminatory in its unfolding, reconciling appreciation. For purposes of spiritual guidance, it makes moral sense to conceptualize God as purposeful empathetic feedback, not as omni-tolerance. Omnitolerance makes no moral sense when it advocates that the good and competent should allow themselves to be swept away by the unprincipled and incompetent. Technology temporarily allows much of the world, out of locales of overabundant compassion, to carry the hormonally prisoned and morally handicapped to such an extent that they have "unionized." As useful stooges, they now control voting majorities, as well as every institution of social significance --- including most churches. After all, a majority of Catholics voted for the Chief of the Incompetents, Obama. And the Unitarian Church seems to have filled a niche to become spiritual headquarters for inculcating moral zombies with some absurd notion that the world is morally obliged not only to accomodate, but to entitle enrich and service the most blinkered, who give no thought beyond basest hormonal urges with regard to the family values it takes to establish and preserve a society of decent human freedom and dignity. It's not God who is marginalized. Rather, this millenium is a highly transitional one. The unprincipled and incompetent are allowed to rise only as catalysts for transition to more mature appreciation of the spirituality of the Cosmos. The unfolding pursuit of fulfilling moral competence continues. God is guiding empathy, not omnitolerant love.
.
WHY SEX? Sex entails contemporaneous feedback communication of an intimate aspect. As such, it is not uncommon as a means for propagating genes beyond the death of the parent organism. However, why does sexual reproduction seem to be more prevalent than asexual reproduction? Why are selective mating rituals more common than indiscriminate snake ballings? Such questions tend to baffle those who believe evolution is unguided. Why would nature favor sexual versus asexual reproduction? I suspect The answer is less in non-purposeful evolution than in purposeful spiritual evolution. The reason nature seems to favor sexual reproduction may not be found in purely purposeless evolution. It may be that sex serves as a logos, a way to communicate significance in reconciliations. Reproduction via sexual bondings often depends on communication of cooperative appreciation. It avails partners who are incomplete or deficient with respect to their niches to seek partners who may complement and complete their genetic deficiencies. It promotes social understanding by facilitating intimate communications. Over time, it may help separate honesty from flattery. May there abide a kind of meta guidance, that wants marriage to consist in a sexual relationship between one man and one woman? Such a social strategy would seem to promote a best possible distribution of happy communication within a population. It would promote a most compensatory assortment of genetic complementation. Individualy discriminatory sex tends to discourage reproduction of genes and traits that are situationally undesireable or incompetent to their niches. Non-discriminatory sex tends to produce ghettos filled with fatherless children. That is a strategy for substituting the State for the family as the prime institution for inculcating the values of the next generation.
LOVE V. PURPOSEFUL EMPATHY: It makes little sense to say God is love. Not in the sense of tolerating everything. If God tolerated everything, then spiritual guidance would be nonsensical. If evolution is guided, it is via spiritual feedback from the holistic field to its variously expressed particulars. If that Field is morally relevant, then it is qualitatively discriminatory in its unfolding, reconciling appreciation. For purposes of spiritual guidance, it makes moral sense to conceptualize God as purposeful empathetic feedback, not as omni-tolerance. Omnitolerance makes no moral sense when it advocates that the good and competent should allow themselves to be swept away by the unprincipled and incompetent. Technology temporarily allows much of the world, out of locales of overabundant compassion, to carry the hormonally prisoned and morally handicapped to such an extent that they have "unionized." As useful stooges, they now control voting majorities, as well as every institution of social significance --- including most churches. After all, a majority of Catholics voted for the Chief of the Incompetents, Obama. And the Unitarian Church seems to have filled a niche to become spiritual headquarters for inculcating moral zombies with some absurd notion that the world is morally obliged not only to accomodate, but to entitle enrich and service the most blinkered, who give no thought beyond basest hormonal urges with regard to the family values it takes to establish and preserve a society of decent human freedom and dignity. It's not God who is marginalized. Rather, this millenium is a highly transitional one. The unprincipled and incompetent are allowed to rise only as catalysts for transition to more mature appreciation of the spirituality of the Cosmos. The unfolding pursuit of fulfilling moral competence continues. God is guiding empathy, not omnitolerant love.
.
WHY SEX? Sex entails contemporaneous feedback communication of an intimate aspect. As such, it is not uncommon as a means for propagating genes beyond the death of the parent organism. However, why does sexual reproduction seem to be more prevalent than asexual reproduction? Why are selective mating rituals more common than indiscriminate snake ballings? Such questions tend to baffle those who believe evolution is unguided. Why would nature favor sexual versus asexual reproduction? I suspect The answer is less in non-purposeful evolution than in purposeful spiritual evolution. The reason nature seems to favor sexual reproduction may not be found in purely purposeless evolution. It may be that sex serves as a logos, a way to communicate significance in reconciliations. Reproduction via sexual bondings often depends on communication of cooperative appreciation. It avails partners who are incomplete or deficient with respect to their niches to seek partners who may complement and complete their genetic deficiencies. It promotes social understanding by facilitating intimate communications. Over time, it may help separate honesty from flattery. May there abide a kind of meta guidance, that wants marriage to consist in a sexual relationship between one man and one woman? Such a social strategy would seem to promote a best possible distribution of happy communication within a population. It would promote a most compensatory assortment of genetic complementation. Individualy discriminatory sex tends to discourage reproduction of genes and traits that are situationally undesireable or incompetent to their niches. Non-discriminatory sex tends to produce ghettos filled with fatherless children. That is a strategy for substituting the State for the family as the prime institution for inculcating the values of the next generation.
.
PROBLEM: Absent social re-weighting (tax credits?), would marriage credits not tend to overfavor the competent elderly at the expense of the un-established youth?
.
************
.
BORGDOM, while pretending to be sufficient in itself, would learn little about the external environment that supports its definition. To learn about that, it would need to send out relatively independent, competent feelers and scouts, able to defend, compete, cooperate, participate, and sense opportunity in relation to the cosmos that unfolds around, as opposed merely to within. It would need to facilitate empathetic appreciation for, and intuitive understanding of, the encompassing, wider, defining environment that is both cooperatively enticing and competitively hostile. A Collective that tried to become its own independent set of particulars, independent of God and the cosmos, that thus tried to substitute itself for God, would make itself irrelevant to God and merely transient to the cosmos.
.
.
************
.
BORGDOM, while pretending to be sufficient in itself, would learn little about the external environment that supports its definition. To learn about that, it would need to send out relatively independent, competent feelers and scouts, able to defend, compete, cooperate, participate, and sense opportunity in relation to the cosmos that unfolds around, as opposed merely to within. It would need to facilitate empathetic appreciation for, and intuitive understanding of, the encompassing, wider, defining environment that is both cooperatively enticing and competitively hostile. A Collective that tried to become its own independent set of particulars, independent of God and the cosmos, that thus tried to substitute itself for God, would make itself irrelevant to God and merely transient to the cosmos.
.
In that sense, I use the word "EMPATHY" to relate to feelings that connect the interior and exterior, to experience the exterior as if it were interior, and to experience the interior as if if were exterior, to appreciate the connection between the seemingly unconnected. I use the word "INTUITION" to relate to how empathies are understood and rationalized with Logos (words, signs, and measured significations). Intuitive appreciation of empathies relates to how a conscious point of view reconciles itself with its contextual field of consciousness, i.e., how it reconciles quantitative significations and signs with qualitatively unfolding mores and purposes, i.e., how it under-stands subjective "ought" from objective "is," i.e., how it receives and interprets feedback to guide its service towards the unfolding direction of the Reconciling Field, i.e., how the SINGULARITY may transcend the collectivity and the individuality. In factoring Empathy, I would ask: how may the Reconciler be changing; when may hard knocks be more empathetic than smoothing the way; when will training to be tough be better than seeing to comfort; what is the desired ideal or end or Singularity; what would the Reconciler want; is it a system that facilitates decent communication, cooperation, and competition among relatively INDEPENDENT human beings, superior to other beings; or is it a system that facilitates decent communication, cooperation, and competition among relatively CO-DEPENDENT human beings within a collective republic that is based on sustainable checks and balances; or is it some SINGULARITY that transcends individuality and collectivity? I am more concerned with empathy for Truth, God, Country, and Family, more so than empathy for fellow gang members.
.
The object of empathy is understanding. The object of sympathy is the other person’s well being. Sympathy relates to pity, while empathy relates to understanding and connection. Empathy relates to apprehending how every seemingly independent particular perspective of consciousness is a perspectivistic iteration of the same quality or holism of consciousness. Empathy seeks to appreciate what it may be like to be another person, not to justify him, but to judge how he should best be incented, perhaps either to sustain a republic of independents or a republic of co-dependents. Empathy is not concerned with judging the immortal souls of persons, but with judging behaviors sponsored by persons. It factors judgment, rather than hidebound and inflexible rules that are inappropriate to situations that call for judgmental flexibility. To me, empathy should relate to what it takes to preserve a republic (a collective of relatively independent citizens under law) that accords decent human (individual) freedom and dignity (self responsibility for grown ups). Empathy entails receptive responsiveness to reconciling, responsible, adult feedback. It entails complex reconciliation of, and identification and bonding with, competing facts and cooperating aspirations
10 comments:
Why would anyone just assume that truing the vote should be branded as racist? Is it not (weasel-y) mouch (Mouch was a crony corporatist in Atlas Shrugged) more self evident to any reasonable thinker that failing to true the vote invites gross corruption? Why does Kellogg fund this? How does it benefit? What does Kellogg, or any other Regime Crony, stand to gain from acting in concert with those who want to corrupt the vote? It seems likely that these people: (1) know enough not to convey their true purposes via emails; (2) have a secure grip around the necks of those who have access to ways for sifting such emails; (3) communicate nefarious ends only in secure wolf lairs; and/or (4) have so compromised such a majority of the public that no undercover investigator would be able to expose the big lie to any practical political effect. The audacity of the crony corporatist collectivist morlochs (CCCM) has become astonishing. Conspiracy? What conspiracy? (Laughed the Nazis, as they lined their victims up against the wall.) Move along.
******
You know, I keep trying to point out how the crony corporatists and collectivists are united. Yet, so many keep espousing that nothing, nothing, nothing need or should be done to reduce or control the wealth accumulated by corporatists that can be put to use for freely buying and selling the republic and corrupting its trust backed politicians and currency. Helloooo.
The cost of doing business is to pay the local representatives of the Chicago Mob, Bilderbergers, whatever. And no one is free to buck or leave this Orwellian system. So, none but the "best" of the (cream?) crony cynics and godless corrupters can float to the top. Insofar as every measurable "thing" is nothing more than organized information, the Bilderberger-Google-Patriot Act bank of information will of course function as a niche for enticing and shaping mutant packs of predators best designed to exploit that bank of dossiers on everyone. Do not expect the Internet to save us! Decent society can either watch the transformation in fascinated impotence, or it can anticipate and appropriately arm itself. Meanwhile, agents of mutants will demand "empirical proof" of the conspiracy of intimidation. That is, they will demand objective proof of subjectively enforced social intimidation. (And while we're elevating empirical proof over decent, intuitive, common sense, I'd like a citation to prove they're actually human. And when they give that, I'd like a follow up citation to prove the first citation wasn't itself just pulled out of a previous citation, that itself was pulled out of a void. The Regime is as "transparent" as a hollow soul.)
Re: “the rights come from mankind” — Well, where do these ”rights of mankind” come from? You may be fundamentally confused: mistaking religion with God; mistaking secular enforcement with moral rights; mistaking arbitrary executive fiat (legalism) with philosophical rights. Mankind did not lay the groundwork, or decree a right to such groundwork, as was needed for designing your birth, point of view, or cosmic context. For that, you can look only to a common cosmic Source, which has continued with us all along an unfolding path of interested feedback. Those who buck at the authority of religion don’t need religion to approach the idea of moral rights as conferred by that Source. Religion only provides acculturated metaphors for communicating about that Source. That can be helpful for providing a common logos for assimilating and sustaining a society. Even a social outcast, however, could devise words for conveying the idea of moral rights as conferred by that Source. For that, one only needs intuitive receptivity to common sense and decent human empathy. What sense could it make to refer to any inalienable moral right, if it could be taken upon mere fiat of executive order? Moral rights come from one’s inherent dignity as a perspective of a reconciling Source. Others will respect such rights only insofar as they sense their dignity is somehow connected with yours. These so called measurable “secular rights” you indict are mere bubbles of whims out of otherwise nothingness. You won't prove moral rights with mere empiricism. And you certainly won't empirically or objectively "prove" inalienable rights with mere man made law (not even with the faux law of Ivy-degraded ideas about some egg-headed, philosophical, "social contract" (i.e., niche for feeding mutant wolf packs in sheep's clothing).
There are also minorities comprised of takers, reconquistas, felons, and louts who want more in terms of security and wealth than what they have earned. They have learned how to band together in order to parasite and pirate. To reach out to them and give them what they want would amount to further legitimizing of banditry. It would amount to erasing America's borders and incentives to individual production. It would be like a giraffe reaching out by allowing itself to be sucked dry by ticks. I recognize that ticks have little means by which to be expected to do other than to suck. However, the giraffe that volunteers for the sucking is sticking its neck into a one way demise. That is a strategy for a nation that aspires to become a carcass. The only hope is to find a way to de-tick. That is, don't let ticks vote. Somehow, it is necessary that fewer among those who are opposed to a free society should be allowed to vote in a society that wants to remain free. No one who is uneducated in how a free society operates should be allowed to vote. Just don't expect ticks to vote for such a measure. Regardless of feelings of metrowomen and femimen, we cannot expect a campaign that brings the existential contest to light to avoid inciting considerable social turmoil. The longer the contest is papered over in the patter of politesse, the more forceful the eventual purge among the vulgarians. The responsibility for America's demise is not just in America's women. It is also in those American men and femiprofs who have feminized an entire culture, so that too many little boys now want to be girls. Except these little boys want to be supported without having to work, even at home.
Aldous Huxley expected governors and elites would soon figure out how to make their subjects ENJOY servitude. If so, it's not that subjects "deserve" their governors; it's that crony governors, via corrupt accumulations of connections and wealth, acquire means to make subjects "deserve" what they get. Still, there is some hope for decency, in that, appreciate it or not, we are all connected and reconciled. When governors impose too much evil on subjects, the imposition has a way of bommeranging back. What goes around comes around. Those who facilitate despotism soon find themselves also living under it. The crown does not rest easily on he who would be Big Brother. When we, as individuals, assimilate to better intuit and apprehend the empathetic connector between every perspective of the one reconciling field of consciousness, then we will individually "deserve" (and get) a better quality of freedom. What I hope arises is a party that represents Conservers of Liberty. I hope the mask comes off Rinos and Dinos. I hope Rinos do begin trying to out-Santa the Dims. That way, they will sink all the quicker into well "deserved" irrelevance. At that point, Americans who formerly looked to the main parties for decent representation may come like a tsumani to a new party that actually is principled and god-respecting.
Rip the mask off the wizard! The Constitution was meant for a moral people. It can sustain no other. Once the people disassimilate, hyphenate, and entitlemate, "law" under any constitution will reduce to nothing more than prancing pretense for keeping the natives en-serfed. We are now a nation whose majority consists of unprincipled, pleasure-addled, addict-homies. You can no more argue Constitution to such heathens than you can argue God. We're no longer a nation. We're a crock. People of good faith, good will, sustainable principles, and no desire to trade enserfment for baubles or condoms or marijuana need to come together. We need a Conservative Party. Rinos are laying the groundwork for reaching out, to out-Santa the Dims. We have to let the Rinos go. Let them fall. Establish a Conservative Party. If no other choice presents, establish a separate nation.
I hope the people entrusted with law making authority have vision enough to consider carefully: What is to be the centering principle in respect of which the next generation of society should be raised and organized? Should children primarily be raised in nuclear families by parents? Or should a different centering principle be substituted, so that children will primarily be raised by a state-enforcing agency or community-organizing bureaucracy? Should children no longer be central to the state's interest in incenting marriage?
.
I am aware of deconstructive, death-by-a-thousand-cuts rationalizations of the gay marriage crowd. They have the "in your face nya nya" down pretty good. What I don't think they have is the least vision. Nor, for that matter, do I believe they care in the least about vision. They are too caught up in gratifications and knowitall entitlement-thinking to have gained much vision about what it takes to establish and preserve a society that can avail decent human freedom and dignity. A person needs to be "really smart" to lack so much in common sense. Really, how well has the village-raising-concept worked in the black, hispanic, gay, doper, and entitlement-minded communities? Regardless of such people's wealth or lack of it, mainly what I have seen among them tends to be hollow, empty lives, with deep holes in their souls ... prancing about pretending to be happy with gratification-addictions and rootlessness. Having chosen paths that lead to depression and despair, they will hardly notice as they are turned into serfs for state elites.
.
Parents raising children are central to human freedom and dignity. How many nations have achieved widespread freedom and dignity for their citizens? How many of them have very long sustained freedom and dignity while ruling marriage irrelevant or meaningless and failing to control immigration? Re-defining marriage so it becomes meaningless is suicidal surrender of human liberty to state collectivization. If there is one central idea that is needed to sustain a free society, it abides in respect for free parents raising children. BTW, many of those children will be among those defending the peter-panners of neverland who whine about how "unfair" and "unequal" it is that "breeders" (parents) should get any special tax breaks. America is already sunk in debt and bad demographics. Now, the gay crowd wants to do a triple tap, to make sure America stays dead. So what do we have? Conditioning elementary age children to learn how normal gay marriage is. Next, no doubt moving on to give extra credit for reporting on experiments. These souls are empty. Nothing but deep, hollow wants, devoid of vision and common sense, but quick to argue patent absurdities while showing NO capacity for making and defending moral distinctions. What can I say? Obama won. In this stench, I can hardly expect our Supreme Court to defend even the MOST FUNDAMENTAL of principles of human freedom and dignity. No, elites will en-serf, gays will gay, and lawyers will "prove" how a man cohabiting with a man is "equal" to marriage. At this point, I want Rinos to Rino. Let them sink. The faster the better.
The majority of American citizens under 30 come from minority families. Many of those minority families are not responsible workers. The minorities who have responsible jobs will more likely vote for conservatives. But many among minorities are dregs and illegals, raising children who will become irresponsible dregs. Those are Obama's voters. I don't say anyone has a civic duty to parent children. But I wonder why the responsible young citizens who have jobs are tending less and less to get married, have children, and raise responsible citizens? Have they given up on America? Has it become so hard to support all the illegals, welfare families, and dopers that honest, decent, working, self-respecting people simply cannot afford to have children without sacrificing their capacity to raise them well? If so, and it seems to be the case, THEN WHY IN THE HELL should government not have a reasonable interest in preserving the institution of marriage and incenting the raising of children? WHY CAN NO ONE FRANKLY DESCRIBE THE INDECENT MINDSET THAT IS HIRING DREGS TO VOTE TO DIVIDE AND DEHUMANIZE US IN ORDER TO SACRIFICE SELF-DETERMINING FREEDOM IN TRADE FOR STATE DEPENDENCY IN EVERY ASPECT OF OUR LIVES?
Agreed. But promoting Islam is secondary, as also is promoting Socialism. They are mere promotional fronts for the behind the scenes attraction: The farming by favored homies of subjugated, brainwashed inferiors. For their own good, of course. Every responsible, working, freedom-minded citizen is now a Whitey (time out for two minute hate). Among real Americans, we're all Whities now. I only hope enough decent people learn that before every independent thinker is lined up in front of some wall.
"Evolution," in the sense of growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing, has been around since the 1660's. Darwin preferred the words "descent with modification," in part because evolution connoted an idea of progress with which he did not agree. Basic reasoning suggests that "surival of the fittest" is not especially clear, bounded, or scientifically useful. It's more like an after the fact label. That is, whatever happens is labeled as "fittest for the circumstances." Sort of like the panglossian notion that was so ridiculed by Voltaire, that the world is always the best (or fittest) of all possible worlds. Perhaps men used to ask whether women had souls. I have to ask: Do Progs really think?
Post a Comment