PHIL -- SEE http://www-personal.umich.edu/~eandersn/
**************
T FOR TAT:
Well, I prefer reasoned discourse among reasoning people. However, when the discourse descends to name calling and indoctrinated dogma, I often return T for Tat. There often does not seem to be much point in attempting to reason against obvious indoctrination, scientific and philosophical and historical illiteracy, and un-insightful feelings. Really, which is the Party that appeals most to dopers, fiends, sex maniacs, pansexuals, incompetents, co-dependents, whiiners, wussies, feelings-massagers, and illegals? Why is that?
HITLER:
American Conservers of Liberty tend not to care whether new immigrants are green skinned with pink polka dots. They care about whether new immigrants will defend and contribute to the American Ideals as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
Ainos, on the other hand, want to call everyone that opposes a march towards re-enserfment under a supra-national elitist oligarchy by all kinds of hateful names. For that, they make scapegoats out of everyone that cautions them, "Now, now, you need to learn to take more responsibility for yourself."
Depending on what Ainos (Dinos and Rinos) are told to hate by their masters, they range from hating Whites, Males, and Christians. So they call them privileged, supremacists, bigots, racists, whatever. Their agenda is to get free stuff by demanding reparations. So, it somehow becomes racist in their minds for any targeted group to resist reparations being forced in order to turn the world more brown. So, racist is not knuckling under to Brown. Reenserfment is freedom. Self reliance is bad. Teaching assimilation for preserving an ideal of individual freedom and dignity is evil.
This Newthink is obviously not based in any way on science. It is based on oligarchs having learned how to raise and indoctrinate masses of sheeple by agitating feelings. It is this Orwellian Newspeak that is Hitlerian, Stalinesque, and Big Brotherish. If Dems want to see the hateful face of Hitlerian tactics, they often need only look in the mirror.
*************
You might be letting people-farmers farm your hate.
American Conservers of Liberty tend not to care whether new immigrants are green skinned with pink polka dots. They care about whether new immigrants will defend and contribute to the American Ideals as set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
Ainos, on the other hand, want to call everyone that opposes a march towards re-enserfment under a supra-national elitist oligarchy by all kinds of hateful names. For that, they make scapegoats out of everyone that cautions them, "Now, now, you need to learn to take more responsibility for yourself."
Depending on what Ainos (Dinos and Rinos) are told to hate by their masters, they range from hating Whites, Males, and Christians. So they call them privileged, supremacists, bigots, racists, whatever. Their agenda is to get free stuff by demanding reparations. So, it somehow becomes racist in their minds for any targeted group to resist reparations, being forced in order to turn the world more brown. Because, being single mindedly focused on turning the world more brown is somehow not racist.
So, racist is not knuckling under to Brown. Reenserfment is freedom. Self reliance is bad. Teaching assimilation for preserving an ideal of individual freedom and dignity is evil.
This Newthink is obviously not based in any way on science. It is based on oligarchs having learned how to raise and indoctrinate masses of sheeple by agitating feelings. It is this Orwellian Newspeak that is Hitlerian, Stalinesque, and Big Brotherish.
If Dems being used by Supra-Nationalists want to see the hateful face of Hitlerian tactics, they often need only look in the mirror.
************
The hearts of Schumer and Pelosi are captive to Deep Money. Their media and supporters spew hate and call it refutation of lies. They want not to secure the border with a physical barrier. They want not to secure the border by imposing ID requirements for voters, employees, or welfare recipients. They want not to dis-invite parents seeking to have anchor babies. They want not to stop chain migration. They want not to empower effective deportation or denial of entry. Rather, they want to make common cause with cultures that are alien and despising of American values. So, where is there any evidence that Schumer or Pelosi want to secure the border? They do not. They want to serve the Deep State, Deep Money, and Supra-nationalist Corporatists. The biggest lie is that they want to secure the border. Is lying to advance people-farming generally evil? Why, yes, I think it is.
*************
So, if you're feeling lucky, the question you have to ask yourself is, Did any of these people care about ordinary citizens in the least? Or, how many of your friends might they or their helpers line up against a wall and shoot, if thought helpful to the glory of The Precious Blinding Cause?
We've seen the scapegoating and the simple-minded and wild-eyed hatred of individuals of self-reliant competence. Much hatred against toxic-supremacist-privileged Whites, Males, Straights, Christians, Conservatives. Anyone not codependent on rule or promotion under supra-nationalist elites. Who doubts the hate is real? Will Nancy-More-Equal-Than-Others curb her carbon footprint private flying? Unlock her home? Adopt any sick refugees? Forego bribes from the Deep State? Admit her evil intentions?
The choice is between preserving the Representative Republic versus surrendering to the Supra-Nationalist Oligarchy. One side is backed by a decent concern for human freedom and dignity. The other side is backed by corrupt Deep Money. The cost for one side is eternal vigilance. The tribute exacted by the other is the worldwide sheeple farm. This cup will have to be spilled.
I think Trump would like effective, cheaper, guaranteed health care. I also think Dems are not willing to consider any such a thing so long as he is President. Their employer, the Deep State, deems it more important to deny Trump any success.
************
We probably have more in common. In brief, I am more a spiritualist than a secularist. Consciousness is consciousness. I like freedom for individuals to develop and pursue their own interests --- but not to the point of treating other people as farm animals. I do not want to be made equal to cows in a feed lot. I am not opposed to high taxation on lobbying. Or on organizations and foundations pretending to be charities. I do not like international corporatists funding division in order to farm sheeple by hedging among political parties --- buying and selling gov influence as it it were a marketable commodity.
Like Trump, I am neither a Dino nor a Rino. Personally, I would like for lobbying to be taxed out the yang yang, I want the republic defended from depredations of international corporatists and their hirelings and instigators.
I do not believe in benign elitist rule. I do not like elitist busybodiness. I do not like elitists' importing and indoctrinating masses of sheeple to be easily pulled around by the nose and to vote for the destruction of the republic.
The Swedish model is not really socialism. It is capitalism with high taxation and a generous social safety net. I am not opposed to that, provided it does not so impair the work incentive as to produce a banana republic. That model works in Sweden because it has a relatively homogeneous population. That will change if Swedes (and Canadians?) continue to import people from alien cultures faster than they are willing to assimilate to basic Swedish values. By the time they wake up, their nation will be gone.
I do not oppose immigration. I do oppose cultural Marxism and gov attempts to force equality in outcomes. In many cultures and nations, it may be that the identity politics of groups, races, and gangers is the only viable mode. I hate to see that coming to be the case in the USA. But that is what is at work in making white male Christians with jobs out to be the scapegoats to unite strange bedfellows among Islamists, anarchists, atheists, pansexuals, cultural Marxists, socialists, felons, malcontents, and self haters. It is hard to imagine why anyone should think much good could come of such a union, so united in racist hate.
I suspect radicals tend to be far more indoctrinated in grievance rationalizations than they are studied or insightful. I suspect that tends to make them easily triggered, instigated, and farmed. Except for concern for progeny, this would not bother me. Fortunately, I have good Harley medicine.
*******************
Some of us think of God as a name for the Reconciler of unfolding Beingness. We think Consciousness is fundamental to the unfolding expression of the cosmos. That Consciousness at some level is eternal and connecting. We intuit that connectiveness as relating to how empathy functions at some level, innately. We think appreciation of that can enhance decent civilization.
Some atheists do not think about this. Others militantly deny it. Some militantly try to substitute some other basis for nurturing appreciation and mores among people. Some militantly substitute their own selfish pleasuring. Especially those for whom deviant sexual activism comes to monopolize their lives.
Some want to evangelize and groom others into militant atheism. Many want to say they are as moral as anyone else. Even while they groom children and undermine the social cohesion of others. In effect, they substitute their carnal pleasuring for any higher mindedness or God. To make a religion out of subjugating and converting others to their self worship. This kind of militancy is what decent people loathe.
*************
LIFE V NON-LIFE:
I don't think desire resides "ïn" any substantive splat of cells. I don't think there is a clear objective line between life and non-life. Nor between Substance and Consciousness. I think there abides continuous flux.
As to the existentiality of General Consciousness: I don't objectively know. My basis for objective measuring seems to be tied to a math-based matrix (that defies complete explication) and to the locus for the unfolding that has been assigned for my identity in respect of it. I have no objective way to measure beyond the potential for that unfolding.
I do, in respect of my sense of beingness, subjectively intuit that my body is necessary to, but not equivalent to, "my" consciousness. My material, substantive, measurable body accompanies my conscious identity, but is not itself my identity. My body is an expression that correlates with and accompanies the expression of my consciousness. I do not think of Consciousness and Substance as a duality, but as a unifying flux.
Neither my body nor my consciousness are free of such relationship. Substance (the measurable cosmos) itself is not consciousness, but it is an expression that correlates and fluxes with consciousness. I doubt either Substance or Consciousness could abide without a relationship with the other.
You may be entertaining an overly anthropic notion of consciousness. I do not take Substance (or the human form) as itself being conscious, but as being indicative of an associative unfolding of Consciousness. I would not say that the metal of a robot were itself conscious, but that the unfolding organization of the metal is indicative of an association with Consciousness. I would take every expression of Substance as indicative of an association somewhere with some expression of Consciousness. IOW, I think the Turing Test asks the wrong question.
Regardless, the relationship that fluxes between Substance and Consciousness seems necessary for the expression and reconciliation of both. That reconciliation seems to account for feedback within the relational system.
We have no science that can entirely predict, control, or determine the exact path of that reconciliation. Yet, Something, system-wide, seems contemporaneously to reconcile and determine each particular unfolding among all possible unfoldments.
Apart from participation with the Flux, we are not independent agents of free will. So I have some difficulty relating to the idea that "It's them, not God."
ÏAE, what is the nature or character of that Something? Is IT holistic, encompassing, connecting, interpenetrating? I am unable objectively to determine.
Subjectively, my sense of beingness intuits an empathetic connection among perspectives of consciousness. I think coming together in good faith and good will in respect of that empathetic intuition can (not must, and not in every case) enhance decent civilization.
I think much evil is the consequence of pretenders, who farm other people for purely selfish reasons --- such as by pretending belief in some notion of good faith, good will, higher mindedness, or science-based moralism. They are the unprincipled opportunists that seek no consistent moral philosophy or theosophy. So they default to pleasure-addled, selfish hedonism. Even as masks slip, gangs and tribes of rotters pillage.
********************
I mean to refer to the ought-is problem. I agree with Hume, who doubted that moral ought can be scientifically derived from empirical is. However, atheists that want to claim to be as moral as anyone else need a moral standard apart from an idea of God. So they often seek to find moral philosophy through the science of nature.
In actuality, I think their pretense of moral objectivity tends simply to default to pleasure-addled selfishness and then to covering it with a patina of moral pretense. Scratch a militantly atheistic moral scientist and you will tend to find someone whose almost entire concern in life is to justify his gay or S-M goose-stepping lifestyle. The atheistic Freud: Sex and power.
I think there is a basis for moral empathy, but it is not found purely in science. I think it is found in the innate empathy among perspectives of consciousness. Innate, not merely emergent. The more we teach to deny that, the more perverse, corrupt, and abusive our society seems to become.
*************
It is evil, not virtuous or admirable, to seek power over others to abuse them for sexual pleasure. There are twisted people that think the opposite. They promote one another, in every institution. Even and especially unto organized religion. They have become pillars of social media, academia, moral scientism (fake), religion, (fake) charity, entertainment, banking, and law. They browbeat other people to see no evil in what they do.
As good people recede, this evil soon swarms everything and everywhere. It browbeats everyone into advocating that social fairness means equal distribution to everyone of the material pleasures associated with asserting power over the weak. Soon, this pleasure addled addiction will be extended to the gross grooming and abuse of children.
Absent a miraculous awakening, this will lead quickly to the monstrous subhumanizing of humanity. All the world will call good evil and evil good. This is the plan of elitist diktat, as the masses surrender their capacity for independent thought and responsibility.
We are connected in consciousness-feedback. We reap what we sow. When we deem what connects us to be indifferent to evil or approving to pleasure-addled abuse, we bring upon ourselves the wrath of that which connects our own Consciousness.
There is a better way. It is not in entitlement-minded, incompetent codependence. Or in churches promoting governmental regulation as the agency for charitable redistribution. It is in striving to become an independent agent of personal responsibility, and to raise one's progeny to become likewise. That is the path of virtue.
However, that is not the path now being taken by most people. Even the people that pretend to be role models. Or the delusionaries that expect to find morality in scientism. Or that advocate for ganging up to take other people's stuff to make entitlement-minded layabouts "more equal." It is especially not the path being taken by incompetent femimen and feminazis that want to marry the gov. Nope. It is very hard now to name any institution that is not filled with corrupti. I doubt there can be any awakening without a reckoning.
***********
Soon the elites farming us will deem it hate speech to advocate that a society or nation should seek to assimilate common values, purposes, and mores. The idea will be that disassimilation is "scientifically" preferable, because (non-sequitur) it promotes cultures other than the dominant culture.
The idea will also be that members of the dominant culture (identified by white skin color) will be prohibited from appropriating, adopting or assimilating the artifacts deemed by elite determiners of social fairness to belong to any other culture.
The consequences? One, the destruction of nations, and two, the deliberate hobbling of whole segments of society (such as based on whiteness of skin). Kurt Vonnegut foresaw this insanity when he wrote his short story about Harrision Bergeron.
The Stupid is growing stronger every day. Idiocracy -- it's a real thing.
******************
May that account to some extent for the so-called Flynn Effect? If I recall, the idea is that IQs today tend to have become considerably higher than for a hundred years ago. Maybe better nutrition and greater access to information play a role. But perhaps the biggest role is test consciousness, test practice, and teaching to the test. IAE, when it comes to common sense, I'm not seeing much nowadays. Especially among those that stay longest in college to study (become indoctrinated concerning) non-rigorous subjects. Modern snowflakes simply do not seem well fitted to the kind of individual responsibility and competence needed to sustain a representative republic. Some of the worst seem to become members of Congress. The stupid has become much stronger in them.
*************
If not for harvesting malcontents, group gangers, pervs, perps, dopers, addicts, felons, illegals, snowflakes, basement dwellers, and perpetual students, how could Dems ever elect such a cabbage patch? I wonder how often such people vote for Conservers of Individual Responsibility?
*************
Maybe you would agree that God names and myths tend to pretend more intimacy between mortal temporal perspectives and the eternal Source than what can be objectively warranted? After all, how can a mortal pretend to comprehend any ultimate, end times purpose for a Being that may be without beginning or end? How can we pretend to limit the house of the infinite?
We can sense, intuit, and experience a general empathy. In good faith and good will, we can try to be receptive to that. If God is pertinent to us, then that receptivity will have its ups and downs. The character of our receptivity will be affected by feedback.
Beyond that, I do not see how a mortal can pretend to prescribe or limit the Godhead.
That said, I can see how myths, artful fictions, and heroic stories can inspire people. But I do not think the meaning ascribed to such stories or interpretations can or should reasonably stay the same through all the ages.
The problem some people may have with the term God is that it carries connotations from heroic myths that, if applied literally, simply cannot in any consistent logic serve to objectively plug the infinite God into a confined, square hole.
I think it would help to reach beyond that, simply to be open to subjective experience, intuition, or general sense of beingness concerning the Reconciling Source. If we are limited perspectives of the General Consciousness, then it would seem that the General Consciousness, through us, is in some respect talking and reasoning with itself, but appreciated through myriad reconciling perspectives.
Maybe that is what empathy is about: Trying to appreciate a perspective of the General Consciousness as it is being communicated through another person.
**************
The choice is between preserving the Representative Republic versus surrendering to the Supra-Nationalist Oligarchy. One side is backed by a decent concern for human freedom and dignity. The other side is backed by corrupt Deep Money. The cost for one side is eternal vigilance. The tribute exacted by the other is the worldwide sheeple farm. This cup will have to be spilled.
I think Trump would like effective, cheaper, guaranteed health care. I also think Dems are not willing to consider any such a thing so long as he is President. Their employer, the Deep State, deems it more important to deny Trump any success.
************
We probably have more in common. In brief, I am more a spiritualist than a secularist. Consciousness is consciousness. I like freedom for individuals to develop and pursue their own interests --- but not to the point of treating other people as farm animals. I do not want to be made equal to cows in a feed lot. I am not opposed to high taxation on lobbying. Or on organizations and foundations pretending to be charities. I do not like international corporatists funding division in order to farm sheeple by hedging among political parties --- buying and selling gov influence as it it were a marketable commodity.
Like Trump, I am neither a Dino nor a Rino. Personally, I would like for lobbying to be taxed out the yang yang, I want the republic defended from depredations of international corporatists and their hirelings and instigators.
I do not believe in benign elitist rule. I do not like elitist busybodiness. I do not like elitists' importing and indoctrinating masses of sheeple to be easily pulled around by the nose and to vote for the destruction of the republic.
The Swedish model is not really socialism. It is capitalism with high taxation and a generous social safety net. I am not opposed to that, provided it does not so impair the work incentive as to produce a banana republic. That model works in Sweden because it has a relatively homogeneous population. That will change if Swedes (and Canadians?) continue to import people from alien cultures faster than they are willing to assimilate to basic Swedish values. By the time they wake up, their nation will be gone.
I do not oppose immigration. I do oppose cultural Marxism and gov attempts to force equality in outcomes. In many cultures and nations, it may be that the identity politics of groups, races, and gangers is the only viable mode. I hate to see that coming to be the case in the USA. But that is what is at work in making white male Christians with jobs out to be the scapegoats to unite strange bedfellows among Islamists, anarchists, atheists, pansexuals, cultural Marxists, socialists, felons, malcontents, and self haters. It is hard to imagine why anyone should think much good could come of such a union, so united in racist hate.
I suspect radicals tend to be far more indoctrinated in grievance rationalizations than they are studied or insightful. I suspect that tends to make them easily triggered, instigated, and farmed. Except for concern for progeny, this would not bother me. Fortunately, I have good Harley medicine.
*******************
Some of us think of God as a name for the Reconciler of unfolding Beingness. We think Consciousness is fundamental to the unfolding expression of the cosmos. That Consciousness at some level is eternal and connecting. We intuit that connectiveness as relating to how empathy functions at some level, innately. We think appreciation of that can enhance decent civilization.
Some atheists do not think about this. Others militantly deny it. Some militantly try to substitute some other basis for nurturing appreciation and mores among people. Some militantly substitute their own selfish pleasuring. Especially those for whom deviant sexual activism comes to monopolize their lives.
Some want to evangelize and groom others into militant atheism. Many want to say they are as moral as anyone else. Even while they groom children and undermine the social cohesion of others. In effect, they substitute their carnal pleasuring for any higher mindedness or God. To make a religion out of subjugating and converting others to their self worship. This kind of militancy is what decent people loathe.
*************
LIFE V NON-LIFE:
I don't think desire resides "ïn" any substantive splat of cells. I don't think there is a clear objective line between life and non-life. Nor between Substance and Consciousness. I think there abides continuous flux.
As to the existentiality of General Consciousness: I don't objectively know. My basis for objective measuring seems to be tied to a math-based matrix (that defies complete explication) and to the locus for the unfolding that has been assigned for my identity in respect of it. I have no objective way to measure beyond the potential for that unfolding.
I do, in respect of my sense of beingness, subjectively intuit that my body is necessary to, but not equivalent to, "my" consciousness. My material, substantive, measurable body accompanies my conscious identity, but is not itself my identity. My body is an expression that correlates with and accompanies the expression of my consciousness. I do not think of Consciousness and Substance as a duality, but as a unifying flux.
Neither my body nor my consciousness are free of such relationship. Substance (the measurable cosmos) itself is not consciousness, but it is an expression that correlates and fluxes with consciousness. I doubt either Substance or Consciousness could abide without a relationship with the other.
You may be entertaining an overly anthropic notion of consciousness. I do not take Substance (or the human form) as itself being conscious, but as being indicative of an associative unfolding of Consciousness. I would not say that the metal of a robot were itself conscious, but that the unfolding organization of the metal is indicative of an association with Consciousness. I would take every expression of Substance as indicative of an association somewhere with some expression of Consciousness. IOW, I think the Turing Test asks the wrong question.
Regardless, the relationship that fluxes between Substance and Consciousness seems necessary for the expression and reconciliation of both. That reconciliation seems to account for feedback within the relational system.
We have no science that can entirely predict, control, or determine the exact path of that reconciliation. Yet, Something, system-wide, seems contemporaneously to reconcile and determine each particular unfolding among all possible unfoldments.
Apart from participation with the Flux, we are not independent agents of free will. So I have some difficulty relating to the idea that "It's them, not God."
ÏAE, what is the nature or character of that Something? Is IT holistic, encompassing, connecting, interpenetrating? I am unable objectively to determine.
Subjectively, my sense of beingness intuits an empathetic connection among perspectives of consciousness. I think coming together in good faith and good will in respect of that empathetic intuition can (not must, and not in every case) enhance decent civilization.
I think much evil is the consequence of pretenders, who farm other people for purely selfish reasons --- such as by pretending belief in some notion of good faith, good will, higher mindedness, or science-based moralism. They are the unprincipled opportunists that seek no consistent moral philosophy or theosophy. So they default to pleasure-addled, selfish hedonism. Even as masks slip, gangs and tribes of rotters pillage.
********************
I mean to refer to the ought-is problem. I agree with Hume, who doubted that moral ought can be scientifically derived from empirical is. However, atheists that want to claim to be as moral as anyone else need a moral standard apart from an idea of God. So they often seek to find moral philosophy through the science of nature.
In actuality, I think their pretense of moral objectivity tends simply to default to pleasure-addled selfishness and then to covering it with a patina of moral pretense. Scratch a militantly atheistic moral scientist and you will tend to find someone whose almost entire concern in life is to justify his gay or S-M goose-stepping lifestyle. The atheistic Freud: Sex and power.
I think there is a basis for moral empathy, but it is not found purely in science. I think it is found in the innate empathy among perspectives of consciousness. Innate, not merely emergent. The more we teach to deny that, the more perverse, corrupt, and abusive our society seems to become.
*************
It is evil, not virtuous or admirable, to seek power over others to abuse them for sexual pleasure. There are twisted people that think the opposite. They promote one another, in every institution. Even and especially unto organized religion. They have become pillars of social media, academia, moral scientism (fake), religion, (fake) charity, entertainment, banking, and law. They browbeat other people to see no evil in what they do.
As good people recede, this evil soon swarms everything and everywhere. It browbeats everyone into advocating that social fairness means equal distribution to everyone of the material pleasures associated with asserting power over the weak. Soon, this pleasure addled addiction will be extended to the gross grooming and abuse of children.
Absent a miraculous awakening, this will lead quickly to the monstrous subhumanizing of humanity. All the world will call good evil and evil good. This is the plan of elitist diktat, as the masses surrender their capacity for independent thought and responsibility.
We are connected in consciousness-feedback. We reap what we sow. When we deem what connects us to be indifferent to evil or approving to pleasure-addled abuse, we bring upon ourselves the wrath of that which connects our own Consciousness.
There is a better way. It is not in entitlement-minded, incompetent codependence. Or in churches promoting governmental regulation as the agency for charitable redistribution. It is in striving to become an independent agent of personal responsibility, and to raise one's progeny to become likewise. That is the path of virtue.
However, that is not the path now being taken by most people. Even the people that pretend to be role models. Or the delusionaries that expect to find morality in scientism. Or that advocate for ganging up to take other people's stuff to make entitlement-minded layabouts "more equal." It is especially not the path being taken by incompetent femimen and feminazis that want to marry the gov. Nope. It is very hard now to name any institution that is not filled with corrupti. I doubt there can be any awakening without a reckoning.
***********
Soon the elites farming us will deem it hate speech to advocate that a society or nation should seek to assimilate common values, purposes, and mores. The idea will be that disassimilation is "scientifically" preferable, because (non-sequitur) it promotes cultures other than the dominant culture.
The idea will also be that members of the dominant culture (identified by white skin color) will be prohibited from appropriating, adopting or assimilating the artifacts deemed by elite determiners of social fairness to belong to any other culture.
The consequences? One, the destruction of nations, and two, the deliberate hobbling of whole segments of society (such as based on whiteness of skin). Kurt Vonnegut foresaw this insanity when he wrote his short story about Harrision Bergeron.
The Stupid is growing stronger every day. Idiocracy -- it's a real thing.
******************
May that account to some extent for the so-called Flynn Effect? If I recall, the idea is that IQs today tend to have become considerably higher than for a hundred years ago. Maybe better nutrition and greater access to information play a role. But perhaps the biggest role is test consciousness, test practice, and teaching to the test. IAE, when it comes to common sense, I'm not seeing much nowadays. Especially among those that stay longest in college to study (become indoctrinated concerning) non-rigorous subjects. Modern snowflakes simply do not seem well fitted to the kind of individual responsibility and competence needed to sustain a representative republic. Some of the worst seem to become members of Congress. The stupid has become much stronger in them.
*************
If not for harvesting malcontents, group gangers, pervs, perps, dopers, addicts, felons, illegals, snowflakes, basement dwellers, and perpetual students, how could Dems ever elect such a cabbage patch? I wonder how often such people vote for Conservers of Individual Responsibility?
*************
Maybe you would agree that God names and myths tend to pretend more intimacy between mortal temporal perspectives and the eternal Source than what can be objectively warranted? After all, how can a mortal pretend to comprehend any ultimate, end times purpose for a Being that may be without beginning or end? How can we pretend to limit the house of the infinite?
We can sense, intuit, and experience a general empathy. In good faith and good will, we can try to be receptive to that. If God is pertinent to us, then that receptivity will have its ups and downs. The character of our receptivity will be affected by feedback.
Beyond that, I do not see how a mortal can pretend to prescribe or limit the Godhead.
That said, I can see how myths, artful fictions, and heroic stories can inspire people. But I do not think the meaning ascribed to such stories or interpretations can or should reasonably stay the same through all the ages.
The problem some people may have with the term God is that it carries connotations from heroic myths that, if applied literally, simply cannot in any consistent logic serve to objectively plug the infinite God into a confined, square hole.
I think it would help to reach beyond that, simply to be open to subjective experience, intuition, or general sense of beingness concerning the Reconciling Source. If we are limited perspectives of the General Consciousness, then it would seem that the General Consciousness, through us, is in some respect talking and reasoning with itself, but appreciated through myriad reconciling perspectives.
Maybe that is what empathy is about: Trying to appreciate a perspective of the General Consciousness as it is being communicated through another person.
**************
No comments:
Post a Comment