.
Too often, we invent false formulas for confusing ourselves into severing our connections with common sense. These false bases can never adequately inspire or fulfill us, and, when followed to their absurd conclusions, always lead to bitter fruit. If we are not to lose assimilating common sense, there needs to be a spiritual connection built on intuition and empathy, of a kind which cannot be entirely justified in mere empiricism. To appreciate moral issues always necessitates that they be connected back to first principles, not via pure empiricism, but via intuition and empathy that is receptive to the holistic field that defines us and avails us our parameters of freedom and dignity. The knowitall mindset that ignores that lesson of history is what is dissolving America.
.
.
I would be surprised if the good influence of sacred spiritual authority could be proven empirically. After all, it's spiritual. What I mean is that faithless deceivers can abuse believers, and have done so throughout the ages. IOW, I suspect the indulgence selling Popes, Marjoes, and Jim Jones of the world., i.e., the agents of evil, render empirical efforts too inherently simplistic to help. Indeed, even death and anguish are part of the tool kit for how social evolution is guided. We have common sense qualitative tools of good faith. We can judge intentions by intuitively and empathetically appreciating acts of feedback. Acts are significations, logos. They have meaning in context, not in simplistic, single dimensional analysis. Common sense suggests social assimilation of humble respect for a Reconciler who leads us more by example than by force is needed to lead us to a more decent society. I doubt the issue can be resolved empirically. There are too many factors, many of them being qualitative. No doubt, statisticans can pick facts and variables to serve whatever interests may hire them. In the end, however, it will come down to the common sense of each good faith observer. One crosses the bridge of San Luis Rey with faith in a higher principle of reconciliation, or one does not.
.
I doubt cultures, nations, or tribes can be ranked objectively by any mortal in terms of which is best and which is worst. They can be ranked by which averages to express the highest versus lowest number of episodes of violence per 100,000. And they can be ranked along various other single or even multi dimensional scales. However, we have no logical way to objectively quantify the entire flux of all dimensions in order to say which kind of society is best or worst, especially since the very definition of each identifiable society is itself in perpetual flux. (You never step into the same society twice.) Along the way, some will be eating and some will be being eaten. There is no stable, perpetual, objective set of moral laws that applies perpetually to each and all.
.
Even so, within the unfolding context, there abides expression and communication of meaningfulness and worthwhile pursuit of fulfillment. Such contextual communication of meaningfulness abides with the measurable aspects of changing significations, i.e., Logos. By (appreciating the flow of) their acts (within a context of changing feedback) shall ye know them. And that is the connection by which I would intuit and believe, not prove, a test for evaluating social "progress." This is the test: What is needed to establish, sustain, and avail the meaningful COLLECTIVE assimilation of a system of mores that will facilitate the unfolding expression of decent human freedom and dignity among INDIVIDUALS? Fortunately or unfortunately, that is a test that is largely subjective to each person, whether of good will or bad will. Even so, it is a test for which we Pilgrims have a Reconciling Guide.
.
A 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. 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 feedback to guide its service towards the unfolding direction of the Reconciling Field, i.e., how the SINGULARITY may transcend the collectivity and individuality.
.
9 comments:
A collective that tries to become its own independent set of particulars, independent of God and the cosmos, that thus tries to substitute itself for God, makes itself irrelevant to God and substitutes Borg for God. Too often, we invent false formulas for confusing ourselves into severing our connections with common sense. These false bases can never adequately inspire or fulfill us, and, when followed to their absurd conclusions, always lead to bitter fruit. If we are not to lose assimilating common sense, there needs to be a spiritual connection built on intuition and empathy, of a kind which cannot be entirely justified in mere empiricism. To appreciate moral issues always necessitates that they be connected back to first principles, not via pure empiricism, but via intuition and empathy that is receptive to the holistic field that defines us and avails us our parameters of freedom and dignity. By empathy, I don't mean in the cheap libertine sense. That sense would make "empathy" a dirty word. I mean in the sense of respecting one's place among others similar to oneself, under God. This is the test to which empathy should be applied: What does it take to sustain a republic that moderates human freedom and dignity in a way that encourages decent respect for our Maker?
Progs never want to recognize the deleterious effects of their coarsening of the culture: the glorification of violence and degradation in the news, movies, music, and rap; the raw, reinforcing message that is conveyed in certain code words, that can only be spoken by people of privileged pigmentation. The usage of such words by any others is now made a clarion ratonalization for racial or tribal fatwa. Hate speech is sanctioned in the very law, for marking and dividing classes of strutting, self-righteous poseurs. This is a culture that teaches people to divide and treat one another as mere pleasure trinkets, rather than as dignities valued by reconciling God. Those are the ill effects of the dis-assimilation of common decency, modesty, and unentitled humility before God. As so many people are led to promote their needs and urges above God, it should come as little surprise that they learn to consider vile and extravagant urges as immediate needs that entitle them to reduce other people to trinkets, useful only to satisfy immediate urges. This degradation tends to poison bullies and victims alike. The elites who run Progs already have WMD. That is, they have infested and taken over every significant institution of social persuasion and force. Perhaps the last item in their Agenda to consolidate power is to nullify the Second Amendment. When that happens, Progs, you will be fitted with your own cow bells. The solution is not in making more laws for degraded people to ignore whenever they think they can get away with it. Whenever possible, the solution is to inspire, not to force, an assimilating and humble respect for a common Reconciler. However, force is also part of that solution, to this extent: A decent person must be vigilantly prepared to forcibly resist those whose goal is to force him to tolerate his own destruction. A decent person cannot afford to tolerate those who will not tolerate him, who mean to eliminate or enslave him. Decency cannot prevail by tolerating that which means to destroy decency. This means that every person of dignity has a God given right to bear arms against an otherwise consolidating evil.
Machines don't bond. They are programmed. Video games constantly reinforce an idea that people are things, trinkets, tallys. Players who only play video games can become alienated tallymen. You can't alter a programmed machine via "laws" that are alien to its circuitboard. People who are bonded or who can bond are amenable of having behavior modified via laws that become part of their operating mores. That necessitates bonding the laws as part of the mores. Just legislating laws into the aether may feel good, but it has little effect. Respect for a law needs to be assimilated into shared cultural mores. Dividing Americans into hyphenated and disconnected tribes does not bode for assimilating cultural toleration or common mores. It bodes for disconnected ghettos of druggies, amoral victimizers, entitlement mongers, responsibility avoiders, game bangers, and goat seekers. As things stand, MSM is the tool for making responsible workers into goats, i.e., the ones charged by losers with having "made them do it." The most unarmed, tolerant, and trusting people are made easy game for the most armed, intolerant, disassimilated and alienated. Once the general populace is disarmed, can new forms of gnarly gladiator stadiums for the entertainment of proudly-souless elite owners of MSM be far behind?
Who is more dangerous to decent society: the addicts who live under overpasses, or the apologists for re-normalizing, mainstreaming, and mainlining every kind of deviant behavior? These apologists become "experts-in-deviancy" because many are themselves deviants. Experts in deviancy are controlling how society addresses its deviants. So, we are ruled under "criminal lawyers" and "deviant psychologists." It seems the psychiatric and teaching professions have been harnessed to serve a common goal: to make society more tolerant of all that is intolerant of decent society. Those who wish to rule society as a mere material thing have no spiritual or qualitative compass by which to recognize or define decency or normality. They do not want a society that can assimilate to resist their hold. When a behavior is presently abnormal, or abnormal to sustainable decency, they have only to question how to "progress" to a society where it would not be abnormal.
To be "Progressive" is to recognize that there is no moral progress. (sarc) Nothing is abnormal! because, after all, evolution is not guided. There is no constraining feedback, no moral Reconciler. Things and behaviors "just are." So there is nothing abnormal about a Collective that promotes its parasites to rule its producing hosts. For the times, they are a collecting. Well, allrighty then! So there's nothing abnormal or wrong about producers re-changing "the times," to withdraw from and nullify the parasitic society. After all, a culture that cannot even recognize right from wrong, decent from indecent, and normal from grotesque cannot long stand. The fascist, parasitic Left knows this in its bones. Decent people need to learn it in their hearts.
In the midst of objectivist destruction, one may pause to ask what is guided about evolution? What is the qualitative purpose of apprehension and appreciation, feedback and reconciliation, consciousness and material signification, yin and yang, between the holistic field and the summing of its particles? Why do we and the holism suffer? Why do we abide or want to communicate? Within the "eternal present," can the consciousness of which our geometrical forms and bodies are only temporal avatars of expression ever stop abiding? Meaningful expressionism seems to be reconciled, to abide in what we cooperate and participate with God to produce. We can produce and communicate astonishing joy as well as seemingly bottomless horror. Much has to do with taking responsibility for adoption of point of view and interpretation of context. Worlds seem to settle or shift around points of view that habituate to seek them. We can apprehend the scream of Adam's crisis of consciousness, or we can appreciate the potentiality of the spirit that availed his expression. We can humbly participate with God to pursue civilization that accords decent expression of human freedom and dignity, or we can alienate ourselves in wildernesses that normalize collective indifference, as if objective indifference could lead to "scientific utopia." Much depends on non-linear qualities of indestructible spirit versus corruptible flesh. Heaven abides as a qualitative state of mind, not a quantitative place. In Skywalker terms, there presently abides in America a contemptible disturbance in the state of the Field: Nazi agents of collectivization are ravaging, harvesting depravity. This is no time to dis-arm.
Mortals conceptualize ("think") in respect of relationships, so we don't know any thing-in-itself. We entertain ourselves with models, metaphors, parables, and sacred stories for how to think about ultimate concepts. We often try to remove ourselves from the Holism and then look back and try to confine IT to some description we can relate to. Problem is, each time we remove ourselves, the remainder that we are trying to look back on is not then and there the Holism. Thus, perhaps no model is other than of fluxing value in understanding the unfolding cosmos of vibrations within vibrations, forms within forms, and maths within maths. EVEN SO, models, concepts, and measurables in respect of them, are what avail our significations (communications). Every choice one makes entails judgment. Even to try to not make a choice (or judgment) entails a kind of choice. To say one should not judge a way of thinking (concept) about Jehovah seems like saying one should not think about Jehovah. As if all that need or should be communicated about Jehovah has already been written in a book which is only to be understood and interpreted by proper priests, mullahs, and religious businessmen. As if the world itself were not the book of Jehovah, measurably signified out as Logos. As if everyone who happened not to be availed of a proper book or priestly instruction had no means by which to intuit significations of Jehovah. As if receptivity to moral insight, intutition, and empathy in respect of the here and now (eternal present) were irrelevant to God or salvation. However, if that were one's concept and "judgment," I would find little reason to believe it should be mine, or that it must be God's,
God "is"; God need not "pass." I am trying to make relevant sense of the relationship. And yes, I don't see how to make relevant sense for me to appreciate without factoring "me." One who presumes to be able to relate to God without relating a perspective seems, to me, to be perhaps presuming more power and authority than he has.
Well, I suspect many believing philosophers do tend to consider that God is mind, not limited to substance. If God had no mind to appreciate, love, or change, or if this apprehension and love were beyond our kin, then I don't see how mouthing such words as God or Love would amount to other than noise (or perhaps music, once accustomed to certain kinds of noise). I seem able to receive, intuit, empathize about God as a kind of field of consciousness (mind). When one coneptualizes God as some aspect that is irrelevant to "mind" or consciousness, then I think one tends to confine God as some kind of feel-good label for indifferent, deified Nature (pagan Gaia). That seems a lot like what is done by those "hollow souls" that wish (for only God knows what "moral" reason) to raise nature, unguided evolution, and science above all.
As to "God doesn't have a gender," I think I'm comfortable with that. At least, it does not seem to be for me to presume whether God abides as male, female, flux, both, or neither. As to being the Creator of the universe, I suppose it depends on how you define universe. If you define universe as the measurable phase that unfolds within our nowness of being, I can find a way to agree. If you define the universe as a Holism that encompasses God, then I seem to have no way to reason or comprehend how God would create him/her/itself. Since I don't find that path to be available to my pursuit of moral meaningfulness, I don't much occupy myself with it.
Re: "I can only imagine what God "is". I choose to imagine that God is the source of what we call - souls." AMEN!
Calling out a militia to protect schools might have been do-able before the demographic toppled the electorate with collectivist outcasts from other states. Still, it would be interesting to see a red state try it out, as an honest experiment. But don't be surprised when true-believing stockholm captives try to undermine the experiment. How? By setting up difficult situations and then just happening to have "journalists" on hand to document the results, cherry-picking only the bad results for "news." It's important to deploy techniques such as the author describes. Just be aware of the extreme level of corruption of the funding, motivation, and leadership of the innocent-acting, wise-ass opposition. The opposition cannot be trusted because it has replaced humble trust in God with absolute trust in the collective. How wonderful it would be to see their own invective hurled against Dims in the manner as shown by Tommy Lee Jones in the now playing movie, Lincoln.
Post a Comment