If it ends after the first time
In the year 2021, ring-shaped hyperspace gateways (also referred to as "astral gates") were constructed across the solar system, allowing easy interplanetary travel. Unfortunately, the gate network contained a fatal instability that was ignored by the contractors who built the system. The instability grew until a gateway near Earth exploded, releasing a powerful burst of energy that cracked the Moon. In a cataclysmic disaster referred to as "The Gate Accident", meteoric debris from the devastated Moon rained down on the planet, destroying much of Earth's surface. The death toll was by far the most catastrophic in recorded history; around 4.7 billion lives were lost in the initial incident alone. Decades later, debris from the disaster still falls on Earth with the same frequency as rainstorms ("rock showers" are a part of daily weather forecasts), forcing those remaining on Earth to live mostly underground.
It is in the year 2071, with the advent of space travel, the bounty system of the Old West has been reinstated by the government to help curb the growing crime levels. Bounty hunters are encouraged to capture criminals and return them (alive and relatively unharmed) to the authorities for monetary rewards.
This is where we find the cast of Cowboy Bebop, perhaps the greatest Animated series ever produced.
It has been said, by Louis Lamour, that there are only a limited number of stories to be told. It is in the setting, and in the characterization then that an Author sells their story. I've outlined the setting, and so I will now proceed to the cast, and close with the questions they ask us to consider.
ED: Every team needs its Computer Hack, and this is the role that she fulfills. She is as brilliant, as she is mad. In a revealing episode, she plays a single chess game, with the designer of the Gate System, the infamous Chess-Master, for three weeks. When we finally meet her father, (She is a teen-age orphan) he is the one man able to defeat Spike in battle. He is, of course, on a quest to restore Order to Chaos, by making a topographical map of the Earth. An Impossible task, since it changes with every asteroid storm.
Faye Valentine: A survivor of the Gate accident. She has been awakened from cryogenic stasis, after 54 years in a coma. As such, she is on a quest to discover who she really is, since she has no memory of her past life. A habitual gambler, she is in a never ending cycle of debt.
Spike Spiegel: A former member of the Red Dragon Crime Syndicate, he demonstrates fluidity in motion. A master of Martial Arts, and pilot, he is like the Ocean, flowing to and fro within the ebb and tide of the moment, until with a burst of finality, he crashes like a wave on the beach, destroying all resistance in his path. He is considered the most relentless Cowboy in the Galaxy, he always gets his man. For this reason, he serves as the teams point-man. Yet, the passion that drives him, is also his fatal flaw.
Jet Black: Someone has to look after this team of misfits. The Bebop is his Spacecraft, he supplies the food, he buys the fuel. A constant provider, he is a former Police detective, and uses his bureaucratic knowledge to find the inside information. And yet, it is his strength, we find that is also his weakness. In the episode, Ganymede Elegy, he chases after a bounty on his one true loves current boyfriend. As the episode draws to its climax, they have their final confrontation. She tells him "You were always there for me, you did everything for me. You would never let me make my own mistakes, thats why I left. Jet answers, "I could let you go, what then, you'll be on the run. Other bounty hunters will come, and they will find you. Turn yourself in, we can work through this, and when its over, you will be together again." They agree, and he gets them off on self-defense. As the episode ends, he tosses his one keepsake of her, an old watch into the ocean, and walks away.
Questions
Faye Valentine shows us that every life is a closed book. She asks us, in the end, do we even know ourselves?
Spike asks us if we are forever chained to our past? Do we live in a saga of episodes, that brings us at last to the confrontation of self, that shows us our greatest fears? Is it in this that we are at last reborn?Jet teaches us the value of friendship and loyalty. He asks us, is it in this that we find love?
Ed shows us the path of enlightenment. She lives completely in the moment, and for this, she alone is free. Is this madness, or wisdom?
Tuesday
The Words of the Prophets
Angels and Demons dancing in my head
Lunatics and monsters underneath my bed
Media messiahs preying on my fears
Pop culture prophets playing in my ears
These words an anthem it would seem to the times we live in. A time of fear, a time of hope, a time of reason, a time of illusion.
About a two years ago, I first started focusing on the role of informationism in modern society. I concluded that the over-all goal of this movement is in the process through which information is organized, in how it is obtained, and finally, how the relevance of what is important is determined.
While I think this is an important starting premise, I wanted to take some time to look into some of the more psychological aspects of this movement. Perhaps the most evident transformation of society, has been the increasing alienation of the individual. I'd also like to take some to discuss the U-Tube phenomena, and finally explore how Informationism has impacted the political sphere.
As many here, I grew up with computers, however, the real impact of this phenomena didn't occur until I was in my twenties. I would consider 1995 to be the true dawn of the information era, as it coincides with the release of Windows 95 A few years later, like many of my friends, I was captivated by the release of Everquest, and immersed myself in the culture of MMORPG's. Suddenly, new lingo's were founded, an entire World was created, with even a unique economic system that mirrored the complexities of the real world. And as the world looked in amazement, the virtual world became as real as the outside world.
Recently, the Washington Post saw this trend continue, as Women became increasingly involved in the online community.The report found that 86 percent of women ages 18 to 29 were online, compared with 80 percent of men in the same age group. Among African Americans, 60 percent of women are online, compared with 50 percent of men.
Some argue that this is not alienation.
Pew Internet writes
At any rate it appears that our culture is being transformed by the dawn of informationism. Perhaps the center piece of this transformation has been U-Tube. While researching the impact of this on culture, I found dozens of articles written by kool-aid drinking zombies, in the name of the great culture war. I didn't bother to read them. Instead, I found this article by Mark Pesce
This at last brings me to the question of how informationism has impacted the political process.
One of the first observations I made in regards to informationism, is that it was walking down the same dark path of neo-conservatism. It had been hi-jacked by post-modernism, which ultimately holds that there is no truth. When I look at the popular media, I cannot help but be appalled by its deciet. When I look at the entire culture war, its entire framework is to find an absurd and possibly disturbing story, and then to pretend that this is the rule, and to define the liberal movement as such. Every year, we hear about the siege on Christmas, and yet what is the real story. Two people in an office somewhere have a long-going dispute, and so they start suing each other over a Christmas Tree. Well, that does it, the battle lines are drawn, and theres no going back. It's a war now. Relax people, its not that big a deal. However, when a few media giants control all information, it becomes the culture war. However, the online community has its own set of rules, and through the efforts of moderators, people learn that despite a few differences, that in the end, they really share more in common than in what seperates them.
Now, in some cases, this has led to a sense of group-think, and that has led to dire consequences, however, over time, things have a way of balancing out. Yet more importantly, once people stop yelling, and start talking, there is an instant source of infinite information at their fingertips.
Suddenly, we can all hear the latest debate, or the latest speech. Suddenly we can look over policy differences, and share our collective ideas upon them. As a result, the media messiahs have lost there power. The demons they use to frighten us into submission become transpearant, and it is the people that become the prophets of the era.
Advances in information have always advanced democracy and freedom. That is why the events here become real, they have a power that will not be denied. For it is here, and not in the empty rhetoric of paid media spokesmen, promoting the agendas that finance their extravagent lifestyles, that we will at last find the true power of the people.
Lunatics and monsters underneath my bed
Media messiahs preying on my fears
Pop culture prophets playing in my ears
These words an anthem it would seem to the times we live in. A time of fear, a time of hope, a time of reason, a time of illusion.
About a two years ago, I first started focusing on the role of informationism in modern society. I concluded that the over-all goal of this movement is in the process through which information is organized, in how it is obtained, and finally, how the relevance of what is important is determined.
While I think this is an important starting premise, I wanted to take some time to look into some of the more psychological aspects of this movement. Perhaps the most evident transformation of society, has been the increasing alienation of the individual. I'd also like to take some to discuss the U-Tube phenomena, and finally explore how Informationism has impacted the political sphere.
As many here, I grew up with computers, however, the real impact of this phenomena didn't occur until I was in my twenties. I would consider 1995 to be the true dawn of the information era, as it coincides with the release of Windows 95 A few years later, like many of my friends, I was captivated by the release of Everquest, and immersed myself in the culture of MMORPG's. Suddenly, new lingo's were founded, an entire World was created, with even a unique economic system that mirrored the complexities of the real world. And as the world looked in amazement, the virtual world became as real as the outside world.
Recently, the Washington Post saw this trend continue, as Women became increasingly involved in the online community.The report found that 86 percent of women ages 18 to 29 were online, compared with 80 percent of men in the same age group. Among African Americans, 60 percent of women are online, compared with 50 percent of men.
Some argue that this is not alienation.
Pew Internet writes
The Internet has the opposite of an isolating effect on most users. They report
that email has helped them improve their key social relations and expand their
social networks. In general, Internet users have more robust social lives than
non-users and the most fervent Internet users are the ones who more frequently
say email use has improved their bonds with relatives. Millions have used the
Internet to rekindle relationships and locate long-lost friends. The surge of
women online in early 2000 is reshaping the Internet. Most Internet users say
the Internet makes them feel more connected to family and friends, and they use
online communication tools to stay in touch. But email is not the only killer
app; users enjoy a myriad online activities.
At any rate it appears that our culture is being transformed by the dawn of informationism. Perhaps the center piece of this transformation has been U-Tube. While researching the impact of this on culture, I found dozens of articles written by kool-aid drinking zombies, in the name of the great culture war. I didn't bother to read them. Instead, I found this article by Mark Pesce
Meanwhile, on his laptop, he's viewing a whole series of YouTube videos
that he's received from his friends; they've found these videos in their own
wanderings, and immediately forwarded them along, knowing that he'll enjoy them.
He views them, and laughs, he forwards them along to other friends, who will
laugh, and forward them along to other friends, and so on. Sharing is an
essential quality of all of the media this fifteen year-old has ever known. In
his eyes, if it can't be shared, a piece of media loses most of its value. If it
can't be forwarded along, it's broken.
For this fifteen year-old, the concept of a broadcast network no longer
exists. Television programmes might be watched as they're broadcast over the
airwaves, but more likely they're spooled off of a digital video recorder, or
downloaded from the torrent and watched where and when he chooses. The broadcast network has been replaced by the social network of his friends, all of whom are constantly sharing the newest, coolest things with one another. The current hot
item might be something that was created at great expense for a mass audience,
but the relationship between a hot piece of media and its meaningfulness for a
microaudience is purely coincidental. All the marketing dollars in the world can
foster some brand awareness, but no amount of money will inspire that fifteen
year old to forward something along - because his social standing hangs in the
balance. If he passes along something lame, he'll lose social standing with his
peers. This factors into every decision he makes, from the brand of runners he
wears, to the television series he chooses to watch. Because of the
hyperabundance of media - something he takes as a given, not as an incredibly
recent development - all of his media decisions are weighed against the values
and tastes of his social network, rather than against a scarcity of
choices."
This at last brings me to the question of how informationism has impacted the political process.
One of the first observations I made in regards to informationism, is that it was walking down the same dark path of neo-conservatism. It had been hi-jacked by post-modernism, which ultimately holds that there is no truth. When I look at the popular media, I cannot help but be appalled by its deciet. When I look at the entire culture war, its entire framework is to find an absurd and possibly disturbing story, and then to pretend that this is the rule, and to define the liberal movement as such. Every year, we hear about the siege on Christmas, and yet what is the real story. Two people in an office somewhere have a long-going dispute, and so they start suing each other over a Christmas Tree. Well, that does it, the battle lines are drawn, and theres no going back. It's a war now. Relax people, its not that big a deal. However, when a few media giants control all information, it becomes the culture war. However, the online community has its own set of rules, and through the efforts of moderators, people learn that despite a few differences, that in the end, they really share more in common than in what seperates them.
Now, in some cases, this has led to a sense of group-think, and that has led to dire consequences, however, over time, things have a way of balancing out. Yet more importantly, once people stop yelling, and start talking, there is an instant source of infinite information at their fingertips.
Suddenly, we can all hear the latest debate, or the latest speech. Suddenly we can look over policy differences, and share our collective ideas upon them. As a result, the media messiahs have lost there power. The demons they use to frighten us into submission become transpearant, and it is the people that become the prophets of the era.
Advances in information have always advanced democracy and freedom. That is why the events here become real, they have a power that will not be denied. For it is here, and not in the empty rhetoric of paid media spokesmen, promoting the agendas that finance their extravagent lifestyles, that we will at last find the true power of the people.
The Spirit of Martin Luther King
Wed Apr 04, 2008
It rained today in Memphis. Perhaps that is fitting. I remember the story told to me not long ago by a friend. He told me of a day, 40 years ago, when he was child. he told me that he rode his bicycle home through the streets of Memphis. And what he remembered most, is that the clouds had never been so dark. It is the mystery of the storm. Raindrops fall, tears from the sky. Tears sometimes of sorrow, and at other times Tears of joy. And yet always, these tears serve to cleanse the land, and to heal its many wounds.
Mouse: I've been sent here to guide you through the spirit world. It is a place of power, and great wisdom, and yet also a world of great peril. Take heed what message you find here, and take that with you. I warn you though, leave all else as you find it, lest peril follow you home.
Chief Sealth: Yonder sky has wept tears of compassion on our fathers for centuries untold, and which, to us, looks eternal, may change. Today it is fair, tomorrow it may be overcast with clouds. My words are like the stars that never set.
Martin Luther King: there are three dimensions of any complete life to which we can fitly give the words of this text: length, breadth, and height. Now the length of life as we shall use it here is the inward concern for one’s own welfare. In other words, it is that inward concern that causes one to push forward, to achieve his own goals and ambitions. The breadth of life as we shall use it here is the outward concern for the welfare of others. And the height of life is the upward reach for God. Now you got to have all three of these to have a complete life.
Chief Sealth: Your religion was written on tablets of stone by the iron finger of an angry God, lest you might forget it. The red man could never remember nor comprehend it. Our religion is the traditions of our ancestors, the dreams of our old men, given them by the great Spirit, and the visions of our sachems, and is written in the hearts of our people.
Martin Luther King: Now a lot of people have neglected this third dimension. And you know, the interesting thing is a lot of people neglect it and don’t even know they are neglecting it. They just get involved in other things. And you know, there are two kinds of atheism. Atheism is the theory that there is no God. Now one kind is a theoretical kind, where somebody just sits down and starts thinking about it, and they come to a conclusion that there is no God. The other kind is a practical atheism, and that kind goes out of living as if there is no God. And you know there are a lot of people who affirm the existence of God with their lips, and they deny his existence with their lives.
Chief Sealth: When our young men grow angry at some real or imaginary wrong, and disfigure their faces with black paint, their hearts, also, are disfigured and turn black, and then their cruelty is relentless and knows no bounds, and our old men are not able to restrain them.
Martin Luther King: That's always the problem with a little violence. You know what happened the other day, and the press dealt only with the window-breaking. I read the articles. They very seldom got around to mentioning the fact that one thousand, three hundred sanitation workers were on strike, and that Memphis is not being fair to them, and that Mayor Loeb is in dire need of a doctor. They didn't get around to that.
Chief Sealth: True it is, that revenge, with our young braves, is considered gain, even at the cost of their own lives, but old men who stay at home in times of war, and old women, who have sons to lose, know better.
Martin Luther King: The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate....Returning violence for violence multiples violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Chief Sealth: We will ponder your proposition, and when we have decided we will tell you. But should we accept it, I here and now make this the first condition: That we will not be denied the privilege, without molestation, of visiting at will the graves of our ancestors and friends. Every part of this country is sacred to my people. Every hill-side, every valley, every plain and grove has been hallowed by some fond memory or some sad experience of my tribe. Even the rocks that seem to lie dumb as they swelter in the sun along the silent seashore in solemn grandeur thrill with memories of past events connected with the fate of my people, and the very dust under your feet responds more lovingly to our footsteps than to yours, because it is the ashes of our ancestors, and our bare feet are conscious of the sympathetic touch, for the soil is rich with the life of our kindred. Martin
Luther King: Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.
Chief Sealth: The noble braves, and fond mothers, and glad-hearted maidens, and the little children who lived and rejoiced here, and whose very names are now forgotten, still love these solitudes, and their deep fastnesses at eventide grow shadowy with the presence of dusky spirits. And when the last red man shall have perished from the earth and his memory among white men shall have become a myth, these shores shall swarm with the invisible dead of my tribe, and when your children's children shall think themselves alone in the field, the store, the shop, upon the highway or in the silence of the woods they will not be alone. In all the earth there is no place dedicated to solitude. At night, when the streets of your cities and villages shall be silent and you think them deserted, they will throng with the returning hosts that once filled and still love this beautiful land. The white man will never be alone. Let him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not altogether powerless.
Martin Luther King: I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsom and jetsom in the river of life unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.
It rained today in Memphis. Perhaps that is fitting. I remember the story told to me not long ago by a friend. He told me of a day, 40 years ago, when he was child. he told me that he rode his bicycle home through the streets of Memphis. And what he remembered most, is that the clouds had never been so dark. It is the mystery of the storm. Raindrops fall, tears from the sky. Tears sometimes of sorrow, and at other times Tears of joy. And yet always, these tears serve to cleanse the land, and to heal its many wounds.
Mouse: I've been sent here to guide you through the spirit world. It is a place of power, and great wisdom, and yet also a world of great peril. Take heed what message you find here, and take that with you. I warn you though, leave all else as you find it, lest peril follow you home.
Chief Sealth: Yonder sky has wept tears of compassion on our fathers for centuries untold, and which, to us, looks eternal, may change. Today it is fair, tomorrow it may be overcast with clouds. My words are like the stars that never set.
Martin Luther King: there are three dimensions of any complete life to which we can fitly give the words of this text: length, breadth, and height. Now the length of life as we shall use it here is the inward concern for one’s own welfare. In other words, it is that inward concern that causes one to push forward, to achieve his own goals and ambitions. The breadth of life as we shall use it here is the outward concern for the welfare of others. And the height of life is the upward reach for God. Now you got to have all three of these to have a complete life.
Chief Sealth: Your religion was written on tablets of stone by the iron finger of an angry God, lest you might forget it. The red man could never remember nor comprehend it. Our religion is the traditions of our ancestors, the dreams of our old men, given them by the great Spirit, and the visions of our sachems, and is written in the hearts of our people.
Martin Luther King: Now a lot of people have neglected this third dimension. And you know, the interesting thing is a lot of people neglect it and don’t even know they are neglecting it. They just get involved in other things. And you know, there are two kinds of atheism. Atheism is the theory that there is no God. Now one kind is a theoretical kind, where somebody just sits down and starts thinking about it, and they come to a conclusion that there is no God. The other kind is a practical atheism, and that kind goes out of living as if there is no God. And you know there are a lot of people who affirm the existence of God with their lips, and they deny his existence with their lives.
Chief Sealth: When our young men grow angry at some real or imaginary wrong, and disfigure their faces with black paint, their hearts, also, are disfigured and turn black, and then their cruelty is relentless and knows no bounds, and our old men are not able to restrain them.
Martin Luther King: That's always the problem with a little violence. You know what happened the other day, and the press dealt only with the window-breaking. I read the articles. They very seldom got around to mentioning the fact that one thousand, three hundred sanitation workers were on strike, and that Memphis is not being fair to them, and that Mayor Loeb is in dire need of a doctor. They didn't get around to that.
Chief Sealth: True it is, that revenge, with our young braves, is considered gain, even at the cost of their own lives, but old men who stay at home in times of war, and old women, who have sons to lose, know better.
Martin Luther King: The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate....Returning violence for violence multiples violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Chief Sealth: We will ponder your proposition, and when we have decided we will tell you. But should we accept it, I here and now make this the first condition: That we will not be denied the privilege, without molestation, of visiting at will the graves of our ancestors and friends. Every part of this country is sacred to my people. Every hill-side, every valley, every plain and grove has been hallowed by some fond memory or some sad experience of my tribe. Even the rocks that seem to lie dumb as they swelter in the sun along the silent seashore in solemn grandeur thrill with memories of past events connected with the fate of my people, and the very dust under your feet responds more lovingly to our footsteps than to yours, because it is the ashes of our ancestors, and our bare feet are conscious of the sympathetic touch, for the soil is rich with the life of our kindred. Martin
Luther King: Here is the true meaning and value of compassion and nonviolence, when it helps us to see the enemy's point of view, to hear his questions, to know his assessment of ourselves. For from his view we may indeed see the basic weaknesses of our own condition, and if we are mature, we may learn and grow and profit from the wisdom of the brothers who are called the opposition.
Chief Sealth: The noble braves, and fond mothers, and glad-hearted maidens, and the little children who lived and rejoiced here, and whose very names are now forgotten, still love these solitudes, and their deep fastnesses at eventide grow shadowy with the presence of dusky spirits. And when the last red man shall have perished from the earth and his memory among white men shall have become a myth, these shores shall swarm with the invisible dead of my tribe, and when your children's children shall think themselves alone in the field, the store, the shop, upon the highway or in the silence of the woods they will not be alone. In all the earth there is no place dedicated to solitude. At night, when the streets of your cities and villages shall be silent and you think them deserted, they will throng with the returning hosts that once filled and still love this beautiful land. The white man will never be alone. Let him be just and deal kindly with my people, for the dead are not altogether powerless.
Martin Luther King: I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsom and jetsom in the river of life unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.
The World's Top Ten Books
There is nothing new under the Sun. And so, it could be said, that if people bothered to read the old books, then there would be nothing for new writer's to do. However, this is not the case, and even were it so, Hermeneutics would argue that at the least, writer's through the ages would always have the task at hand of interpreting what has been written and handed down through the ages to the perspective of a new generation. However, the question at hand, is of the ten greatest books that have been handed down through the ages?
How then are we to determine this? By it's prose, it's content? I would suggest that it is through it's impact on the whole of society, both to it's generation, and those following. Hemingway, once suggested of Shakespeare, that all eyes point in the same direction, it is genius that steps to where all others point. So this is will be the guide to determine the greatest books of all time.
1) The Book The Qur'an often refers to the People of the Book, which is why I have chosen this name. Included in this would be the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur-an. I am sure this will be entirely unsatisfactory to many people, who will refute one, and accept another. That is precisely why I have combined them. They together form the Belief system of the Religions of the West, and as such, their Histories, and impact on human society are inexorably linked.
2) The I-Ching The Book of Changes can be traced back to about 2800 B.C. to the legendary Fu Xi. As such it can be seen as the most fundamental Text of Taoism, influencing the Three great Wise-men of the East; Lao-Tzu, Buddha, and Confucius. Together, this forms the basis of Eastern Mysticism, or what is sometimes referred to as Synchronicity. The fundamental belief that things are linked because they share common spiritual energy
3) The Dialogues of Plato It has been said that all of western philosophy is derived from Plato. There is much truth to this. When the philosopher divided thought into the divisions of the world of perception and that of the world of the absolute idea, everything changed. These were not actually new ideas in themselves, these divisions can be seen in the writings of Heraclitus, who argued that the only truth is in change, and Parmenides who argued that the Universe is a constant without change. Thousands of years later, Kant divided these realms into what is considered Apriori and Aposteri knowledge, which would form the basic divisions of Idealism and Empiricism.
I considered adding Aristotle as an entry unto it's own, for taking a more methodical approach to his encyclopedia of human knowledge, however, he was ultimately chained to Plato's precept that knowledge was only attainable in the realm of ideas. A footnote should also be added to Diogenes Laertius for his careful preservation of the Pre-Socratic philosophers.
4) The Travels of Marco Polo This might be the most controversial book on the list. As far as historical documents are concerned, it is of less relevance than classics such as Plutarch's Lives, and The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbons. However, as I have stated in my introduction, this is not a list derived from content, rather it is from the impact of the book on society. Marco Polo challenged the conventional thinking of Western Civilization. people began to question what they knew, and the dogma of the church, and began to search for new meaning in the course of Human Events as the result of this narrative of the events that shaped this Journey.
5) CopernicusThe first great insult of mankind. A generation following Marco Polo, Ockham led the transformation of western thought by challenging the concept of singularity and the universal. As such he suggested that a single instance of fire, was not the conception of fire. This was largely condemned as heretical thought. While the plague put a hindrance on things, it was not long after that Copernicus used Occam's razor to defy Ptolemy, by suggesting astronomy would make much more sense if the Sun were at the center of the Solar System.
6) The Origin of the Species Charles Darwin slides into the top ten with the second great insult of mankind. The theory of evolution. His book, written in 1859, sold out the very day of its publication. It has been expanded widely into sociological concepts since then, however, it should be noted that it was Herbert Spencer who coined the term Survival of the Fittest.
7) The Writings of Sigmund Freud The Third Great Insult of Mankind. The suggestion that the individual is not even the master of the conscious mind. Over the course of his writings, Freud separated the mind into three integrated systems, the Id, the Ego, and the Super-Ego. Through his exploration of Psychoanalysis the first major steps were taken into the field of psychology. His work was later expanded upon by his student, Carl Jung, who explored the collective unconsciousness, which was largely adopted in theory by Joseph Campbell, and also the concept of personality types, which is commonly utilized by the Myer-Briggs Typology Test.
8) The Federalist Papers The United States Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. Not to say that it is the greatest Constitution ever written, (I couldn't name a better one, however, I don't exclude the possibility) rather, it marked the beginning of the Great Experiment. A Government by the People, of the People, for the People. In many ways, as such, when the writer's of the constitution wrote a series of papers in it's defense, they borrowed ideas from many sources, from the liberalism of John Locke, to the arguments presented by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations.
9) The Special/General Theory of Relativity Einstein's classic theory has formed the cornerstone of modern physics. Much of the work was actually done centuries before, by Newton in 1666. There has been much criticism of Einsteins work, particularly in his failure to produce a unified fields theory. In recent years, the mantle has largely been taken up by Stephen Hawking.
10) Principia Mathemeticia Through-out time, one of the greatest dilemmas to knowledge has been in regards to the question of meta-physics. How can we know if an argument is based on solid logic, as opposed to subtle shifts of language and emphasis? This was the question that Russell and Whitehead at last found a solution to.
How then are we to determine this? By it's prose, it's content? I would suggest that it is through it's impact on the whole of society, both to it's generation, and those following. Hemingway, once suggested of Shakespeare, that all eyes point in the same direction, it is genius that steps to where all others point. So this is will be the guide to determine the greatest books of all time.
1) The Book The Qur'an often refers to the People of the Book, which is why I have chosen this name. Included in this would be the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur-an. I am sure this will be entirely unsatisfactory to many people, who will refute one, and accept another. That is precisely why I have combined them. They together form the Belief system of the Religions of the West, and as such, their Histories, and impact on human society are inexorably linked.
2) The I-Ching The Book of Changes can be traced back to about 2800 B.C. to the legendary Fu Xi. As such it can be seen as the most fundamental Text of Taoism, influencing the Three great Wise-men of the East; Lao-Tzu, Buddha, and Confucius. Together, this forms the basis of Eastern Mysticism, or what is sometimes referred to as Synchronicity. The fundamental belief that things are linked because they share common spiritual energy
3) The Dialogues of Plato It has been said that all of western philosophy is derived from Plato. There is much truth to this. When the philosopher divided thought into the divisions of the world of perception and that of the world of the absolute idea, everything changed. These were not actually new ideas in themselves, these divisions can be seen in the writings of Heraclitus, who argued that the only truth is in change, and Parmenides who argued that the Universe is a constant without change. Thousands of years later, Kant divided these realms into what is considered Apriori and Aposteri knowledge, which would form the basic divisions of Idealism and Empiricism.
I considered adding Aristotle as an entry unto it's own, for taking a more methodical approach to his encyclopedia of human knowledge, however, he was ultimately chained to Plato's precept that knowledge was only attainable in the realm of ideas. A footnote should also be added to Diogenes Laertius for his careful preservation of the Pre-Socratic philosophers.
4) The Travels of Marco Polo This might be the most controversial book on the list. As far as historical documents are concerned, it is of less relevance than classics such as Plutarch's Lives, and The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbons. However, as I have stated in my introduction, this is not a list derived from content, rather it is from the impact of the book on society. Marco Polo challenged the conventional thinking of Western Civilization. people began to question what they knew, and the dogma of the church, and began to search for new meaning in the course of Human Events as the result of this narrative of the events that shaped this Journey.
5) CopernicusThe first great insult of mankind. A generation following Marco Polo, Ockham led the transformation of western thought by challenging the concept of singularity and the universal. As such he suggested that a single instance of fire, was not the conception of fire. This was largely condemned as heretical thought. While the plague put a hindrance on things, it was not long after that Copernicus used Occam's razor to defy Ptolemy, by suggesting astronomy would make much more sense if the Sun were at the center of the Solar System.
6) The Origin of the Species Charles Darwin slides into the top ten with the second great insult of mankind. The theory of evolution. His book, written in 1859, sold out the very day of its publication. It has been expanded widely into sociological concepts since then, however, it should be noted that it was Herbert Spencer who coined the term Survival of the Fittest.
7) The Writings of Sigmund Freud The Third Great Insult of Mankind. The suggestion that the individual is not even the master of the conscious mind. Over the course of his writings, Freud separated the mind into three integrated systems, the Id, the Ego, and the Super-Ego. Through his exploration of Psychoanalysis the first major steps were taken into the field of psychology. His work was later expanded upon by his student, Carl Jung, who explored the collective unconsciousness, which was largely adopted in theory by Joseph Campbell, and also the concept of personality types, which is commonly utilized by the Myer-Briggs Typology Test.
8) The Federalist Papers The United States Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. Not to say that it is the greatest Constitution ever written, (I couldn't name a better one, however, I don't exclude the possibility) rather, it marked the beginning of the Great Experiment. A Government by the People, of the People, for the People. In many ways, as such, when the writer's of the constitution wrote a series of papers in it's defense, they borrowed ideas from many sources, from the liberalism of John Locke, to the arguments presented by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations.
9) The Special/General Theory of Relativity Einstein's classic theory has formed the cornerstone of modern physics. Much of the work was actually done centuries before, by Newton in 1666. There has been much criticism of Einsteins work, particularly in his failure to produce a unified fields theory. In recent years, the mantle has largely been taken up by Stephen Hawking.
10) Principia Mathemeticia Through-out time, one of the greatest dilemmas to knowledge has been in regards to the question of meta-physics. How can we know if an argument is based on solid logic, as opposed to subtle shifts of language and emphasis? This was the question that Russell and Whitehead at last found a solution to.
I've never been to Heaven
But I've been to Oklahoma
While there, on the side of the road, by the Crosses of Nazarene, I picked up a hitch-hiker. I told him of my travels, and that I was living the Great American Novel.
We talked, and we talked about some of the painful experiences that I had lived through. As we spoke, I felt somehow the presence of God surround me. And a simple message was spoken to me.
There are a lot of children out there that are suffering, and they are in pain. And I try to help them, and I try to guide them, because I care for them
While there, on the side of the road, by the Crosses of Nazarene, I picked up a hitch-hiker. I told him of my travels, and that I was living the Great American Novel.
We talked, and we talked about some of the painful experiences that I had lived through. As we spoke, I felt somehow the presence of God surround me. And a simple message was spoken to me.
There are a lot of children out there that are suffering, and they are in pain. And I try to help them, and I try to guide them, because I care for them
A LIBERAL DECALOGUE
By Bertrand Russell
Perhaps the essence of the Liberal outlook could be summed up in a new decalogue, not intended to replace the old one but only to supplement it. The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:
1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness."
"A Liberal Decalogue" is from The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 3: 1944-1969, pp. 71-2.
Perhaps the essence of the Liberal outlook could be summed up in a new decalogue, not intended to replace the old one but only to supplement it. The Ten Commandments that, as a teacher, I should wish to promulgate, might be set forth as follows:
1. Do not feel absolutely certain of anything.
2. Do not think it worth while to proceed by concealing evidence, for the evidence is sure to come to light.
3. Never try to discourage thinking for you are sure to succeed.
4. When you meet with opposition, even if it should be from your husband or your children, endeavor to overcome it by argument and not by authority, for a victory dependent upon authority is unreal and illusory.
5. Have no respect for the authority of others, for there are always contrary authorities to be found.
6. Do not use power to suppress opinions you think pernicious, for if you do the opinions will suppress you.
7. Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
8. Find more pleasure in intelligent dissent than in passive agreement, for, if you value intelligence as you should, the former implies a deeper agreement than the latter.
9. Be scrupulously truthful, even if the truth is inconvenient, for it is more inconvenient when you try to conceal it.
10. Do not feel envious of the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise, for only a fool will think that it is happiness."
"A Liberal Decalogue" is from The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 3: 1944-1969, pp. 71-2.
The Fallacies of Neo-Conservatism
Perhaps the most important exchange in the latest republican debate occured between Ron Paul, and Rudy Giuliani.
Ron Paul said "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting."
To which Rudy Giuliani replied "That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11"
In defense, Ron Paul said "I believe the CIA is correct when it warns us about blowback. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and their taking the hostages was the reaction. This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our risk. They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there."
To this Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA's team of bin Laden specialists for years, agreed with Paul's statements:
"I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because 'we’re over there,' basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate."
In response, a petition was initiated to counter the Republican national commitee attempt sponsored by Saul Anuzis to ban Ron paul from further Gop presidential debates.
This latest development while fascinating in that it illustrates the importance of the newest trend in philosophy, which I refer to as Informationism, and its impact upon free speech and ideology, brings us at last to the original focus of the topic at hand, the fallacies of Neo-Conservatism.
Bertrand Russell, co-author of the Principia Mathematica suggests that the criteria for analyzing a philosophy should follow three basic criteria.
A general evaluation of the Neo-Conservative position regarding the War on terror would follow that these people are crazy, they are evil. They have been fighting wars for over 1400 years, and they want to kill us because we are free.
Furthermore, if anyone questions this position, as I witnessed firsthand in response to my post Soccer Mom's in Baghdad they are called delusional, naive and Anti-American.
One of the more recent issues to be addressed in the media was the Don Imus incident. One of the important side issues was that it captured the essence of neo-conservatism at work. The people that lobbied pressure at the advertisers to dismiss Imus were immediatly refered to as "nail-biters". The conservative talk show host made appeals to the freedom of speech, and said that now their jobs were in jeopardy, and this was taking away from their right to the freedom of expression. Then they placed the blame for this on the blog-community, as being unedited. And further, as giving this issue a life of its own, that was disproportionate to the actual offense.
As the events unfolded, Hannity, the top yellow journalist in the industry, engaged in a series of debates with the Reverend Al Sharpton. As I watched the final debate, which was given an entire hour, in the first segment, after being accused of hypocrasy, Sharpton made a simple compromise. I will agree to any name that you wish to call me, the worse the better. Now may we move on to the important issues at hand?
Hannity would have none of it. After a half an hour of rhetoric, and emotive attacks riddled with logical fallacies, one could detect the frustration in Sharptons eyes. When given any chance to speak, he clearly controlled the debate on issues, and so he was silenced, censored by sensationalism.
A short time later Hannity addressed the issue of global warming. To this issue he stated that Leonardo Dicaprio and Al Gore were hypocrites because they had private jets. Sound familiar? The answer to both global warming and racism identical? I would have thought that they were entirely different issues?
And again, when Ron Paul challenged the general neo-conservative position in the last republican debate, the issue of censorship was raised, as it was with Rosie Odonnell.
So how is it that a platform that supports the right of a shock-jock to make derogatory comments as the exercise of free speech, finds itself so quick to suppress the ideas of others, through ridicule, and the manipulation of logical fallacies, for merely disagreeing with their position?
The third criteria is the question as to whether the philisophical is agreeable? At this point it is important to differentiate the between the philosophy of conservative libertarianism and neo-conservatism.
Conservative Libertarianism is largely a blend of innovation as the product of competition, as expressed by Adam Smith. The view that the actions of man in the state of nature are bound by the self-evident laws of nature, which thus imply that within reasonable limits, individuals are free to pursue their own Life, health, Liberty, and possesions, as expressed by the social contract of John Locke. And finnaly the conservation of motion as defined by Spencer.
To this philosophy, I find myself in agreement with Spencer, in that the conservation of motion is largely consistent with the two fundamental building blocks of science, Occams Razor, and Universalism. In regards to Locke, I find his arguments from an ethical view to be largely consistent with the theological propositions asserted by the Apostle paul in Romans 2:14-15 As to the arguments of Adam smith, I do not think that they adequately address the question of economic crisis, and so I lean towards Keynesian Economic theory and the Nash Equilibrium as more adequate policies. (This is why I am ultimately a liberal, despite my conservative tendancies)
In contrast the Neo-conservative platform is a post-modernist philosophy that utilizes the Hegelian dialectic to divide people so that it can pursue its ultimate agenda which is the nihilistic philosophy of Nietzsche, as expressed in the doctrine, the Will to Power. In this critique of society, mankind is in a constant struggle for supremacy, for the powerful destroy the weak. Therefore, in order to live, one must maintain a position of power, to relinquish this power is to bring about the inevitable destruction of ones own position.
To this end, as the neo-conservative manipulates the conservative libertarian to give rise to the illusion that its agenda is constitutional and republican in nature, it manipulates the church with wedge issues such as abortion, and homosexuality to give it the appearence of being Judeo-Christian. Since its doctrine supports that "the people" are prone to a herd mentality, this is justified as following a superior virtue.
The ultimate fallacy, however of the neo-conservative is not however in its logic, nor is it in its premise. The folly is that the Alpha-Dog mentality of neo-conservatism is self defeating.
Empires are rarely destroyed by external forces, rather, like the body, they decay from within, due to the injustice of time. From an Orwellian model a society could be said to be composed of three social and economic spheres. That of the working man, of the middle-class comprised of merchants, and professional tradesman, and finnaly the elite or aristocracy within the society. In order to remain as the elite, there must be the premise that the elite are of superior quality to the common man, and hence worthy of their status. This leads to a growing alienation and division amongst the people, which leads to an "us and them" mentality, and a state of factionalism. This process can be seen today in the increasing tensions between the Left and the Right wing positions of the United States. It is at this point that an Empire becomes vulnerable to external forces.
Yet there is hope for our world, it has been handed down to us through the generations, and it is found within the lessons and stories contained within our scriptures.
By turning the other cheek, by seeking spiritual richness instead of material gain, by being first a servant, and leading through example, we can change the world. Yet it is an act of faith, and it requires courage, the courage to take the road least travelled.
Ron Paul said "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East [for years]. I think [Ronald] Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. Right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that is bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting."
To which Rudy Giuliani replied "That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11"
In defense, Ron Paul said "I believe the CIA is correct when it warns us about blowback. We overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and their taking the hostages was the reaction. This dynamic persists and we ignore it at our risk. They’re not attacking us because we’re rich and free, they’re attacking us because we’re over there."
To this Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA's team of bin Laden specialists for years, agreed with Paul's statements:
"I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because 'we’re over there,' basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate."
In response, a petition was initiated to counter the Republican national commitee attempt sponsored by Saul Anuzis to ban Ron paul from further Gop presidential debates.
This latest development while fascinating in that it illustrates the importance of the newest trend in philosophy, which I refer to as Informationism, and its impact upon free speech and ideology, brings us at last to the original focus of the topic at hand, the fallacies of Neo-Conservatism.
Bertrand Russell, co-author of the Principia Mathematica suggests that the criteria for analyzing a philosophy should follow three basic criteria.
- Is the statement logically valid?
- Is the statement consistent with the general concepts of the entire body of work within the philosophy?
- Is the philosophy agreeable?
A general evaluation of the Neo-Conservative position regarding the War on terror would follow that these people are crazy, they are evil. They have been fighting wars for over 1400 years, and they want to kill us because we are free.
Furthermore, if anyone questions this position, as I witnessed firsthand in response to my post Soccer Mom's in Baghdad they are called delusional, naive and Anti-American.
- The first fallacy inherit to this position is the Fallacy of Converse accident, when we apply a principle that is true to a particuliar case to a great run of cases. When we say "they", we have not defined who they are. In general "they" would refer to Islamic Jihadists who employ terrorist attacks. However the dialogue of the neo-Conservative has a tendancy to invoke the image of all the followers of Islam as being part of this group. Further the statement "us" implies that we are the intended target. In reality, terrorism, while it does target innocent civilians, is in protest to the institutions that are promoted by our society. the Terrorist attacks of 9-11 for instance targetted the World Trade Center and the WhiteHouse, not shopping malls and Churches.
- The second fallacy of the Neo-Conservative position is the Argument ad Hominem, Abusive. It is the attempt to disparage the character of the opponent. This takes shape in two forms. The Islam is referred to as evil and crazy in an attempt to dehumanize the enemy. Further, any who challenge the position of the neo-Conservative is ridiculed as being delusional, and naive. Other examples of this is in Hannity's favorite catch phrase, hypocrasy. These premises are irrelavent, however they persuade by the psychological process of transference. When the attitude of disapproval toward a person is evoked, the field of emotional disapproval may be extended to include disagreement with the assertions that person makes.
- The argument ad Hominem Circumstantial. This is the irrelavent connection between the beliefs held and the circumstance of those holding it that gives rise to the mistake. An opponent ought to accept (or reject) some conclusion merely because of that persons employment, or nationality, or other circumstances. This is to say that it is anti-american to oppose the war, or that Ron Paul cannot be a conservative republican, and speak out against the war.
- False Cause. The nature of the connection between cause and effect- and how we can determine whether such a connection is present or absent are central problems of inductive logic and scientific method. For instance, in the U.S. we enjoy a great amount of freedom and prosperity. This however, is not sufficient evidence to link a causality between Terrorism and freedom. Many countries in the world have a good deal more freedom than is found in the Middle-East, for instance Canada, Australia, Switzerland, the Netherlands, ect. If the U.S was targetted for it's freedom, then why not these countries?
- ad Misericordiam, or the threat of force, is a subtle ploy of the Neo-Conservative position. The basic utilization of the argument is if we don't fight in Iraq, the terrorist's will follow us back home. So the argument doesn't actually make a direct appeal to force as a measure of persuasion, it instead asserts the threat of violence from a second party if we do not follow thier direction. In any case the appeal to force is the abandonment of reason.
One of the more recent issues to be addressed in the media was the Don Imus incident. One of the important side issues was that it captured the essence of neo-conservatism at work. The people that lobbied pressure at the advertisers to dismiss Imus were immediatly refered to as "nail-biters". The conservative talk show host made appeals to the freedom of speech, and said that now their jobs were in jeopardy, and this was taking away from their right to the freedom of expression. Then they placed the blame for this on the blog-community, as being unedited. And further, as giving this issue a life of its own, that was disproportionate to the actual offense.
As the events unfolded, Hannity, the top yellow journalist in the industry, engaged in a series of debates with the Reverend Al Sharpton. As I watched the final debate, which was given an entire hour, in the first segment, after being accused of hypocrasy, Sharpton made a simple compromise. I will agree to any name that you wish to call me, the worse the better. Now may we move on to the important issues at hand?
Hannity would have none of it. After a half an hour of rhetoric, and emotive attacks riddled with logical fallacies, one could detect the frustration in Sharptons eyes. When given any chance to speak, he clearly controlled the debate on issues, and so he was silenced, censored by sensationalism.
A short time later Hannity addressed the issue of global warming. To this issue he stated that Leonardo Dicaprio and Al Gore were hypocrites because they had private jets. Sound familiar? The answer to both global warming and racism identical? I would have thought that they were entirely different issues?
And again, when Ron Paul challenged the general neo-conservative position in the last republican debate, the issue of censorship was raised, as it was with Rosie Odonnell.
So how is it that a platform that supports the right of a shock-jock to make derogatory comments as the exercise of free speech, finds itself so quick to suppress the ideas of others, through ridicule, and the manipulation of logical fallacies, for merely disagreeing with their position?
The third criteria is the question as to whether the philisophical is agreeable? At this point it is important to differentiate the between the philosophy of conservative libertarianism and neo-conservatism.
Conservative Libertarianism is largely a blend of innovation as the product of competition, as expressed by Adam Smith. The view that the actions of man in the state of nature are bound by the self-evident laws of nature, which thus imply that within reasonable limits, individuals are free to pursue their own Life, health, Liberty, and possesions, as expressed by the social contract of John Locke. And finnaly the conservation of motion as defined by Spencer.
To this philosophy, I find myself in agreement with Spencer, in that the conservation of motion is largely consistent with the two fundamental building blocks of science, Occams Razor, and Universalism. In regards to Locke, I find his arguments from an ethical view to be largely consistent with the theological propositions asserted by the Apostle paul in Romans 2:14-15 As to the arguments of Adam smith, I do not think that they adequately address the question of economic crisis, and so I lean towards Keynesian Economic theory and the Nash Equilibrium as more adequate policies. (This is why I am ultimately a liberal, despite my conservative tendancies)
In contrast the Neo-conservative platform is a post-modernist philosophy that utilizes the Hegelian dialectic to divide people so that it can pursue its ultimate agenda which is the nihilistic philosophy of Nietzsche, as expressed in the doctrine, the Will to Power. In this critique of society, mankind is in a constant struggle for supremacy, for the powerful destroy the weak. Therefore, in order to live, one must maintain a position of power, to relinquish this power is to bring about the inevitable destruction of ones own position.
To this end, as the neo-conservative manipulates the conservative libertarian to give rise to the illusion that its agenda is constitutional and republican in nature, it manipulates the church with wedge issues such as abortion, and homosexuality to give it the appearence of being Judeo-Christian. Since its doctrine supports that "the people" are prone to a herd mentality, this is justified as following a superior virtue.
The ultimate fallacy, however of the neo-conservative is not however in its logic, nor is it in its premise. The folly is that the Alpha-Dog mentality of neo-conservatism is self defeating.
Empires are rarely destroyed by external forces, rather, like the body, they decay from within, due to the injustice of time. From an Orwellian model a society could be said to be composed of three social and economic spheres. That of the working man, of the middle-class comprised of merchants, and professional tradesman, and finnaly the elite or aristocracy within the society. In order to remain as the elite, there must be the premise that the elite are of superior quality to the common man, and hence worthy of their status. This leads to a growing alienation and division amongst the people, which leads to an "us and them" mentality, and a state of factionalism. This process can be seen today in the increasing tensions between the Left and the Right wing positions of the United States. It is at this point that an Empire becomes vulnerable to external forces.
Yet there is hope for our world, it has been handed down to us through the generations, and it is found within the lessons and stories contained within our scriptures.
By turning the other cheek, by seeking spiritual richness instead of material gain, by being first a servant, and leading through example, we can change the world. Yet it is an act of faith, and it requires courage, the courage to take the road least travelled.
Why Democracies Fail
I'd like to answer my critics before they accuse me of being an "American Hater." The United States Constitution is one of the most important political and legal documents ever written. It was visionary in that it is adaptive to the changing times, and further it implements strategies that provide an elaborate set of checks and balances that have preserved Freedom in America for over two centuries. An indepth analysis as to why this is, at this time, is out of the scope of the topic at hand.
Nations transitioning to Democracy generally face four fundamental challenges in the promotion of Human rights.
- The challenge to integrate minorities and address horizontial inequality between ethnic groups or geographic regions.
- The arbitrary exercise of power. When elite groups act as if they are above the law, or when elected representatives arbitrarily remove judges, civil servants and others, faith in Democracy weakens.
- Neglecting to address the economic dimension of Human Rights.
- Failing to deal adequately with the legacy of an authoritarian past can lead to a recurrence of violence and the reversal of Democratic rule.
While there are many challenges to an emerging Democracy, the ultimate goal is too not return to an authoritarian regime. And to this end, civil society organizations cannot by themselves provide all the answers. Reasonable progress requires a political framework conducive to Human Rights, and there is far more to that framework than democratic elections.
The way forward is a four part agenda for creating an Inclusive Democracy.
Protecting the rights of minorities and addressing Horizontal inequalities. These typically translate into discrimination and marginalization for minority groups. The lack of belonging spurs alienation from the political and economic system controlled by the majority.
- Incorporating minority groups requires a more enlightened view of sharing economic and political recourses than a simple majoritorian Democracy.
- Widening Participation and Expression. A precondition for building an Inclusive Democracy is ensuring the right to elect representatives. Another key element in deepening inclusive Democracies is a legal framework that protects the right to participation and free expression. Civil society orginizations and open media are vital for monitoring violations of rights. People's participation in local institutions including school boards is as important a feature in Democracy as free elections.
- Implementing the Seperation of powers. When elected leaders behave like military rulers, arbitary power undermines a basic principle of Democracy, violating the checks and balances at the heart of Democratic Government.
- Incorporating Human Rights into Economic Policy. These rights imply that economic policy must be open and transparent, allowing debate on the options and conferring the authority for the final decision on elected representatives.
The following guide was in reference to the Human Development report 2000, published for the UNDP. So it would appear that Sen. Jim Webb was accurate in his assesment after the State of the Union address.
“The president took us into this war recklessly,” Webb states, “We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable — and predicted — disarray that has followed.”
Soccer Mom's in Baghdad
A Sustainable Peace
The war of ideas can only maintain victory if it can address the needs of the people. When a ten year old child is faced with poverty and neglect, they learn to hate.
When hate is offered a fight, it unleashes its fury.
A sustainable peace can only be maintained by preserving the family unit. This requires that the basic needs of the family are met. As long as the needs of the mother are neglected in favor of violence, there will be war.
What is needed to fight the war on terror, is an army of social workers.
Send in CPS, L&I and unemployment services. See that the power is maintained, that sanitation and fresh water supplies are available. That the land is kept fertile, and not destroyed by erosion, and famine. Stop the silent exploitation of woman and children.
These are the issues that need to be addressed to build a sustainable peace.
1) The immediate crisis is in Darfur. The U.S. must lean on the U.N. and Sudan to allow the 20,000 member peacekeeping force to secure the area. That we have allowed this genocide to occur at the same time we have fought our war in Iraq is a disgrace.
2) We must open dialogue with the educated Islamic community. At large, the Islamic community is comprised of moderates that do not support militant actions. If given the chance to voice their beliefs, we will find that we have more in common than we tend to believe. For instance, I think it reasonable that most Islamic Mother’s love their children. That is a great place to start.
3) We must step back and focus on where the modern conflict begins. That would be the Colonial movement of the renaissance era. The drastic turning point is the period of decolonialism, following World War II and the formation of the U.N. Taking this a step further, the progression of Cold War politics leads directly into the current crisis of the Middle East.
4) We must address the needs of the people. When you have some of the wealthiest people in the world living side by side with some of the most impoverished people in the world, there is a tendency towards violence. When a child has been displaced, and is living in a refuge camp, they want a way out. If that way is to join militant group, that is the decision that many will take.
5) Efforts must be taken to provide fresh water resources, proper sanitation, medicine made available, the conservation of the soil maintained, or in many cases healed, and the people fed. Power must be provided, security maintained, the rights of woman and children secured, employment made readily available, at reasonable wages, and education provided.
To be a great king requires an ordered kingdom, an ordered kingdom requires and ordered family, an ordered family requires an ordered mind, and ordered mind requires an ordered spirit.
Confucius
The war of ideas can only maintain victory if it can address the needs of the people. When a ten year old child is faced with poverty and neglect, they learn to hate.
When hate is offered a fight, it unleashes its fury.
A sustainable peace can only be maintained by preserving the family unit. This requires that the basic needs of the family are met. As long as the needs of the mother are neglected in favor of violence, there will be war.
What is needed to fight the war on terror, is an army of social workers.
Send in CPS, L&I and unemployment services. See that the power is maintained, that sanitation and fresh water supplies are available. That the land is kept fertile, and not destroyed by erosion, and famine. Stop the silent exploitation of woman and children.
These are the issues that need to be addressed to build a sustainable peace.
1) The immediate crisis is in Darfur. The U.S. must lean on the U.N. and Sudan to allow the 20,000 member peacekeeping force to secure the area. That we have allowed this genocide to occur at the same time we have fought our war in Iraq is a disgrace.
2) We must open dialogue with the educated Islamic community. At large, the Islamic community is comprised of moderates that do not support militant actions. If given the chance to voice their beliefs, we will find that we have more in common than we tend to believe. For instance, I think it reasonable that most Islamic Mother’s love their children. That is a great place to start.
3) We must step back and focus on where the modern conflict begins. That would be the Colonial movement of the renaissance era. The drastic turning point is the period of decolonialism, following World War II and the formation of the U.N. Taking this a step further, the progression of Cold War politics leads directly into the current crisis of the Middle East.
4) We must address the needs of the people. When you have some of the wealthiest people in the world living side by side with some of the most impoverished people in the world, there is a tendency towards violence. When a child has been displaced, and is living in a refuge camp, they want a way out. If that way is to join militant group, that is the decision that many will take.
5) Efforts must be taken to provide fresh water resources, proper sanitation, medicine made available, the conservation of the soil maintained, or in many cases healed, and the people fed. Power must be provided, security maintained, the rights of woman and children secured, employment made readily available, at reasonable wages, and education provided.
To be a great king requires an ordered kingdom, an ordered kingdom requires and ordered family, an ordered family requires an ordered mind, and ordered mind requires an ordered spirit.
Confucius
The Mystic Power of Science
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Long ago, Marco Polo asked Kublai Khan if he would be interested in converting to the Catholic faith. The Khan answered, he would consider it, however, he had many wise men in his court who could perform great acts of mystic power. If he were to convert, and not be able to duplicate these acts, he would lose the esteem of the court, and thus, in all probability his basis for power. For this reason he declined to convert.
This same tendancy seems prevalent in Western society. The faith, however is placed into the most reasonable of things. The television brings powerful images into our homes. Cars, and jet planes move us about our daily routines, with the greatest of ease. With a few simple clicks of a button, we toss our food in a box, and when the microwave dings, we eat. All very reasonable things, that leads to the undeniable conclusion of the mystic power of science.
The combination of power, and wonder has always impressed mankind. We want to be in control of things. We want reasonable explanations. Science has brought this about, so it is only natural, that we have learned to rely on its truth.
By no means, would I suggest the abandonment of science, after-all, I have been a Sci-Fi geek since I can remember. However, I would call for a reflection of the human spirit.
Many times I have been told, I'll believe in God, when the almighty walks down to Earth, and reveals themselves to me.
This is very reasonable. After-all, one can see the miracles of science on a daily basis. Only a mad-man would call it mystical. Like-wise only a mad-man would claim to have witnessed God, because science could not prove such a claim.
This, to me, is the danger that modern man faces in this perilous hour of history. We think to reason through everything. The power is in our own hand, and nothing can change that.
Then why do we fight wars?
Is conflict the nature of all things? Was Nietzsche correct in his vision of nihilism? Have all the gods truly died, cut down by our steely knives? Is the will to survive not enough, and the true nature of things the will to power? The struggle to dominate, to overcome, to destroy those things weaker than ourselves?
If this is true, then what hope is there for our tiny insignifigant blue-green planet, hiding in the western spiral arm of the Galaxy?
Will Science find the way to a human Utopia, capable of withstanding the trials of time?
Long ago, Marco Polo asked Kublai Khan if he would be interested in converting to the Catholic faith. The Khan answered, he would consider it, however, he had many wise men in his court who could perform great acts of mystic power. If he were to convert, and not be able to duplicate these acts, he would lose the esteem of the court, and thus, in all probability his basis for power. For this reason he declined to convert.
This same tendancy seems prevalent in Western society. The faith, however is placed into the most reasonable of things. The television brings powerful images into our homes. Cars, and jet planes move us about our daily routines, with the greatest of ease. With a few simple clicks of a button, we toss our food in a box, and when the microwave dings, we eat. All very reasonable things, that leads to the undeniable conclusion of the mystic power of science.
The combination of power, and wonder has always impressed mankind. We want to be in control of things. We want reasonable explanations. Science has brought this about, so it is only natural, that we have learned to rely on its truth.
By no means, would I suggest the abandonment of science, after-all, I have been a Sci-Fi geek since I can remember. However, I would call for a reflection of the human spirit.
Many times I have been told, I'll believe in God, when the almighty walks down to Earth, and reveals themselves to me.
This is very reasonable. After-all, one can see the miracles of science on a daily basis. Only a mad-man would call it mystical. Like-wise only a mad-man would claim to have witnessed God, because science could not prove such a claim.
This, to me, is the danger that modern man faces in this perilous hour of history. We think to reason through everything. The power is in our own hand, and nothing can change that.
Then why do we fight wars?
Is conflict the nature of all things? Was Nietzsche correct in his vision of nihilism? Have all the gods truly died, cut down by our steely knives? Is the will to survive not enough, and the true nature of things the will to power? The struggle to dominate, to overcome, to destroy those things weaker than ourselves?
If this is true, then what hope is there for our tiny insignifigant blue-green planet, hiding in the western spiral arm of the Galaxy?
Will Science find the way to a human Utopia, capable of withstanding the trials of time?
Monday
Is Bill Maher Rational?
In his latest show, during the rules segment, Bill Maher stated "So, for myself and the other 15-20% of Americans who the majority call "non-believers," but who I call "rationalists," here is our religious test for office: if you believe in Judgment Day, I have to seriously question your judgment." Then Maher went on to define this position as "You're either a rationalist or you're not. And the good news is, a recent poll found 20% of adults under 30 say they are rationalists and have figured out that Santa Claus and Jesus are really the same guy."
While being a masterful comic, and hinting at half truths, Is Bill Mahers view rational?
I suppose we could start our journey from the stage of the theatre of the absurd. It is quite obviouse from a historical and a mythological view that Santa Claus and Jesus Christ are seperate entities. Hence we have our first distortion of logic, however it would appear that the statement was a metaphore. In this case we have actually created the symbology in Maher's view That Santa Claus is false, and that the belief in the divinity of Christ is false, and hence that they are related in this fashion.
Now while this is one view, there is another view, that will become more important as we continue. The spirit of Christmas is represented by Santa Claus, while our redemption is symbolized by Jesus Christ. As symbols, both statements evoke imagry to this extent, and so this statement is equally true with the first, which leads us back to Maher's comparison. While many reject Santa Claus as a literal entity, there is an acceptance nonetheless to the metaphorical essence of Santa Claus. The same comparison can be made to Christ.
At this point, an interesting connection can be drawn. Santa Claus, from a mythological view, visits our homes, delevering presents, or a lump of coal on the birthday of Christ. That is an remarkable parallel to the judgement day. And it is an important one.
Symbols exist because they tap into a universal consciousness. As such, many symbols, particularly ones coresponding to date relevance, have parallel signifigance. Hence, that there is a relationship between the symbology of Christ and Santa Claus is of no surprise.
While the mythological comparisons between Christ and Santa Claus are fascinating, it is time to look into the crux of the metaphysical delimna. This is the question of rationality and mysticism. At this point I should define these two viewpoints.
Rationality is based on the concept of causality, which is to say that things are related because of cause and effect.
Mysticism is based on the concept of synchronicity, which is to say that things are related because they share the same spiritual energy.
Now I would suggest that both are equally true.
The problem is that causality is percieved, while synchronicity is experienced. Hence it is easy to prove causality, while synchronicity is unprovable. Again, this statement is a half-truth. In reality, causality is equally unpovable. For cause and effect to be an absolute truth, it must always be true, and in the world of experience, there is only the probability that a cause will lead to an effect, because the world of experience is in constant flux. This is why things ultimately break down. There is always a monkey in the wrench.
And this is the crisis of rationality. As a carpenter I have been told to set a row of nails down every six inches, and it is not possible. One nail is 5 and 3/4 inches, the next 6 and 1/4. All within tolerance, and yet not precise. Such is the way with all things. The blue-print is precise, because it is designed on a-priori principle, where-as the reality is otherwise.
To this extent, we can say mathematics is as true to the world, as the world is true to mathematics.
And this is the problem with religion, and likewise, it is the problem with Maher's argument against religion. These arguments are based off of rationality. And it is to this end that I prefer spirituality to religion. For the flaw of religion, is in esscence the flaw of humanity.
It is Human nature to believe that which can be percieved. To this extent, we can hold the Bible in our hands. If we scratch the surface we can see the question of the divinity of Christ. That creates the obviouse question as to the acceptance or the non-acceptance of Christ as divine. For that matter, we can look at the Quran and find arguements as to why Christ is not divine. What is fascinating, is that both arguments are mirror images of one another. Both saying completely opposite views as to the divinity of Christ, and yet at the same time in agreement to the basic premise that Christ is the word of God.
Words are decieving, and yet a word is transpearant. And this becomes important, In the beginning was the word, not the words.
Religions define themselves through words, spirituality defines itself through the word, a single instance, in which all is made clear. It is the sound of one hand clapping.
And yet we hear all this clamor, this non-sensical debate as to whether Christ is divine, or not, as our defintion of religion, and our acceptance into paradise.
It doesn't matter. In fact, getting lost in the debate takes us further away from the truth.
And this is the crisis of rationality. There is no way to reason our way to God. Why? because, by rationality there is no truth. To be rational, one cannot either accept, or dismiss God, and this is the flaw in Maher's argument. He suggests that the dismissal of Christ as divine, is rational.
This view is as irrational as the view of religion that he suggests is irrational.
While being a masterful comic, and hinting at half truths, Is Bill Mahers view rational?
I suppose we could start our journey from the stage of the theatre of the absurd. It is quite obviouse from a historical and a mythological view that Santa Claus and Jesus Christ are seperate entities. Hence we have our first distortion of logic, however it would appear that the statement was a metaphore. In this case we have actually created the symbology in Maher's view That Santa Claus is false, and that the belief in the divinity of Christ is false, and hence that they are related in this fashion.
Now while this is one view, there is another view, that will become more important as we continue. The spirit of Christmas is represented by Santa Claus, while our redemption is symbolized by Jesus Christ. As symbols, both statements evoke imagry to this extent, and so this statement is equally true with the first, which leads us back to Maher's comparison. While many reject Santa Claus as a literal entity, there is an acceptance nonetheless to the metaphorical essence of Santa Claus. The same comparison can be made to Christ.
At this point, an interesting connection can be drawn. Santa Claus, from a mythological view, visits our homes, delevering presents, or a lump of coal on the birthday of Christ. That is an remarkable parallel to the judgement day. And it is an important one.
Symbols exist because they tap into a universal consciousness. As such, many symbols, particularly ones coresponding to date relevance, have parallel signifigance. Hence, that there is a relationship between the symbology of Christ and Santa Claus is of no surprise.
While the mythological comparisons between Christ and Santa Claus are fascinating, it is time to look into the crux of the metaphysical delimna. This is the question of rationality and mysticism. At this point I should define these two viewpoints.
Rationality is based on the concept of causality, which is to say that things are related because of cause and effect.
Mysticism is based on the concept of synchronicity, which is to say that things are related because they share the same spiritual energy.
Now I would suggest that both are equally true.
The problem is that causality is percieved, while synchronicity is experienced. Hence it is easy to prove causality, while synchronicity is unprovable. Again, this statement is a half-truth. In reality, causality is equally unpovable. For cause and effect to be an absolute truth, it must always be true, and in the world of experience, there is only the probability that a cause will lead to an effect, because the world of experience is in constant flux. This is why things ultimately break down. There is always a monkey in the wrench.
And this is the crisis of rationality. As a carpenter I have been told to set a row of nails down every six inches, and it is not possible. One nail is 5 and 3/4 inches, the next 6 and 1/4. All within tolerance, and yet not precise. Such is the way with all things. The blue-print is precise, because it is designed on a-priori principle, where-as the reality is otherwise.
To this extent, we can say mathematics is as true to the world, as the world is true to mathematics.
And this is the problem with religion, and likewise, it is the problem with Maher's argument against religion. These arguments are based off of rationality. And it is to this end that I prefer spirituality to religion. For the flaw of religion, is in esscence the flaw of humanity.
It is Human nature to believe that which can be percieved. To this extent, we can hold the Bible in our hands. If we scratch the surface we can see the question of the divinity of Christ. That creates the obviouse question as to the acceptance or the non-acceptance of Christ as divine. For that matter, we can look at the Quran and find arguements as to why Christ is not divine. What is fascinating, is that both arguments are mirror images of one another. Both saying completely opposite views as to the divinity of Christ, and yet at the same time in agreement to the basic premise that Christ is the word of God.
Words are decieving, and yet a word is transpearant. And this becomes important, In the beginning was the word, not the words.
Religions define themselves through words, spirituality defines itself through the word, a single instance, in which all is made clear. It is the sound of one hand clapping.
And yet we hear all this clamor, this non-sensical debate as to whether Christ is divine, or not, as our defintion of religion, and our acceptance into paradise.
It doesn't matter. In fact, getting lost in the debate takes us further away from the truth.
And this is the crisis of rationality. There is no way to reason our way to God. Why? because, by rationality there is no truth. To be rational, one cannot either accept, or dismiss God, and this is the flaw in Maher's argument. He suggests that the dismissal of Christ as divine, is rational.
This view is as irrational as the view of religion that he suggests is irrational.
Are You happy?
Soon we must all face the choice between what is right, and what is easy.
There is a general tendancy to simplify the world we live in, because the complexity of the overall dynamic of human society is overwhelming. If we can move to a single premise as a starting point, then that would probably be that Freewill is an absolute. Despite our many differences, and despite varying degrees of Freedom and Liberty found throughout the world, at some basic level every individual is endowed with the sense of self as independent from the world in which they live.
Yet even this premise is a simplification, for the self is immediatly compromised by the many roles in which the individual finds themselves in the transitioning of society. At one time, a son or daughter, the next moment the guise of Mother or Father, and then as Grandparent. These roles while exclusive to each other, may be found in an individual simultaneously, as well as the role of commuter, employee, consumer, and so forth. It is through this that the sense of self is transfered to many senses of self.
At the next level the sense of many selves finds itself in interaction with the outside world by the necessity of life itself. In order to survive, there is the need to gather the basic resources to sustain life. Through this interaction, both cooperative and competitive, alliances are formed with the outside world, which lend to the sense of tribalism.
As society progresses in its ever widening circles we find cultural identities such as nationality, religion, minority demographics, political parties, families, corporations and so forth. Yet these sociological identities are ultimately comprised of individuals, and as such they manifest the strengths and the weaknesses inherit to the individuals they represent.
To evaluate then the inner-nature of man from a Bibical sense, the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 1
29
They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips
30
and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.
31
They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32
Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
From a pschycological sense one need only to look at the writings of Sigmund Freud.
The human pshyce is split herein to three basic levels, the Id, or the pleasure principle, the Ego, or the Reality principle (defined as what is ordinarily called problem solving or thinking) and the Super-Ego, which is the moral or judicial branch of the personality.
When removed from the subjective sense of self and placed into the objective state of society, we see that the primary impulse of a community is to satisfy the pleasure principle, and yet to do this requires a course of action. This process leads to the formation of an ideology to justify the action so as to satisfy the needs of the inner-child.
It is for this reason that we say that torture is justified if it saves lives. The conscience is herebye justified that it has served the greater good, the ego satisfied that its course of action is logical in obtaining its end through logical means, and the Id satisfied that it has punished its oppressor.
Now in fairness, while my criticism was made in regards to the right, it is equally true of the Left. I for one do not consider myself immune from the follies of mankind. There are many things I have done that I regret. In this I would only justify with the knowledge that no-one holds a monopoly on truth, superior virtue, or the concept of right and wrong. (Including myself)
This at last brings me to the question of Happiness. As a utilitarian I hold that good is what promotes the most happiness to society abroad, evil is what promotes misery and despair to society.
In reference to this, I have been challenged on my support of Freud. The general criticism that his writings are perverse. To this I agree, because the human mind is perverse. Hence the conclusion that how can good promote happiness, if humanity is perverse by nature?
This is a good question, however it is based on a misunderstanding of happiness.
From a platonic sense there is the illusion of happiness, and the reality of happiness. For instance while smoking might give someone a tempory sense of satisfaction, in the long run it is harmful to the individual, both from a health perspective, and financially. hence the conclusion that smoking does not in fact promote happiness.
From a more pragmatic sense, this rational could be said to justify war if it is in defense of the weak and the innocent. The problem with this rational is that it does not calculate the perpetual cycle of violence that is facilitated by the state of war. Even if all goes well in our current war with Iraq, and we leave the region with a stable government, will this stop the next war? The United States has been in a state of war almost every 20 years since its inception. No victory has changed that, so it is safe to assume by our track record, that we will soon enter another war. To this end, diplomacy serves the greater happiness than war.
Today we face important issues as a nation. The War on Terror, Immigration Reform, Poverty, Medical insurance, Dollar hemegony, a sky-rocketing Defecit, Crime, our Education system, and so forth.
It is time that we as a society start working together to solve these important issues in such a way so as to provide stability to our nation, and our world to promote this concept of the greatest happiness or good.
There is a general tendancy to simplify the world we live in, because the complexity of the overall dynamic of human society is overwhelming. If we can move to a single premise as a starting point, then that would probably be that Freewill is an absolute. Despite our many differences, and despite varying degrees of Freedom and Liberty found throughout the world, at some basic level every individual is endowed with the sense of self as independent from the world in which they live.
Yet even this premise is a simplification, for the self is immediatly compromised by the many roles in which the individual finds themselves in the transitioning of society. At one time, a son or daughter, the next moment the guise of Mother or Father, and then as Grandparent. These roles while exclusive to each other, may be found in an individual simultaneously, as well as the role of commuter, employee, consumer, and so forth. It is through this that the sense of self is transfered to many senses of self.
At the next level the sense of many selves finds itself in interaction with the outside world by the necessity of life itself. In order to survive, there is the need to gather the basic resources to sustain life. Through this interaction, both cooperative and competitive, alliances are formed with the outside world, which lend to the sense of tribalism.
As society progresses in its ever widening circles we find cultural identities such as nationality, religion, minority demographics, political parties, families, corporations and so forth. Yet these sociological identities are ultimately comprised of individuals, and as such they manifest the strengths and the weaknesses inherit to the individuals they represent.
To evaluate then the inner-nature of man from a Bibical sense, the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 1
29
They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips
30
and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.
31
They are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32
Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
From a pschycological sense one need only to look at the writings of Sigmund Freud.
The human pshyce is split herein to three basic levels, the Id, or the pleasure principle, the Ego, or the Reality principle (defined as what is ordinarily called problem solving or thinking) and the Super-Ego, which is the moral or judicial branch of the personality.
When removed from the subjective sense of self and placed into the objective state of society, we see that the primary impulse of a community is to satisfy the pleasure principle, and yet to do this requires a course of action. This process leads to the formation of an ideology to justify the action so as to satisfy the needs of the inner-child.
It is for this reason that we say that torture is justified if it saves lives. The conscience is herebye justified that it has served the greater good, the ego satisfied that its course of action is logical in obtaining its end through logical means, and the Id satisfied that it has punished its oppressor.
Now in fairness, while my criticism was made in regards to the right, it is equally true of the Left. I for one do not consider myself immune from the follies of mankind. There are many things I have done that I regret. In this I would only justify with the knowledge that no-one holds a monopoly on truth, superior virtue, or the concept of right and wrong. (Including myself)
This at last brings me to the question of Happiness. As a utilitarian I hold that good is what promotes the most happiness to society abroad, evil is what promotes misery and despair to society.
In reference to this, I have been challenged on my support of Freud. The general criticism that his writings are perverse. To this I agree, because the human mind is perverse. Hence the conclusion that how can good promote happiness, if humanity is perverse by nature?
This is a good question, however it is based on a misunderstanding of happiness.
From a platonic sense there is the illusion of happiness, and the reality of happiness. For instance while smoking might give someone a tempory sense of satisfaction, in the long run it is harmful to the individual, both from a health perspective, and financially. hence the conclusion that smoking does not in fact promote happiness.
From a more pragmatic sense, this rational could be said to justify war if it is in defense of the weak and the innocent. The problem with this rational is that it does not calculate the perpetual cycle of violence that is facilitated by the state of war. Even if all goes well in our current war with Iraq, and we leave the region with a stable government, will this stop the next war? The United States has been in a state of war almost every 20 years since its inception. No victory has changed that, so it is safe to assume by our track record, that we will soon enter another war. To this end, diplomacy serves the greater happiness than war.
Today we face important issues as a nation. The War on Terror, Immigration Reform, Poverty, Medical insurance, Dollar hemegony, a sky-rocketing Defecit, Crime, our Education system, and so forth.
It is time that we as a society start working together to solve these important issues in such a way so as to provide stability to our nation, and our world to promote this concept of the greatest happiness or good.
And the Meek Shall Inherit the Earth
I just renewed my domain name for the next five years, which marks my first year of publication. Increasingly I find myself to be asked to help voice the opinions of different causes. Today I found myself asked to help promote one website that is very important to me, when I read atop the message board the words "Help us spread the word". And a request to add a link to different myspace accounts.
Well, I don't actually have a myspace account, however I do have other sights I frequent....
This has been an issue I have wrestled with for some time, because I respect the privacy of my friends, yet at the same time I know our message must be spread.
You see for years many of us suffered in silence. There was no where to turn. The internet changed all of that. We had a place at last where we could speak without endangering ourselves to the casual barbs of shame and ridicule.
And it is here that the underground was formed, and we began to reach out to each other from all around the world. Together we found that we had nothing to be ashamed of.
So over the past year, I've talked to your children, and we've shared our secrets, ours fears,and our dreams. And I've discovered that your children have far more courage and wisdom than you might know.
Together, we have learned that our problems have been kept inhouse for far to long, and it is for this reason the violence continues.
It is time for our stories to be heard, and to be discussed, in our churches, our schools, and our media. To be discussed by our leaders, in the halls of the Senate, and the House of Representatives. And taken at last before the eyes of the President.
For it is in our love for one another, our compassion, and our courage that we we have found our dignity.
We have found the Courage to break the Silence.
Have You?
After Silence
Well, I don't actually have a myspace account, however I do have other sights I frequent....
This has been an issue I have wrestled with for some time, because I respect the privacy of my friends, yet at the same time I know our message must be spread.
You see for years many of us suffered in silence. There was no where to turn. The internet changed all of that. We had a place at last where we could speak without endangering ourselves to the casual barbs of shame and ridicule.
And it is here that the underground was formed, and we began to reach out to each other from all around the world. Together we found that we had nothing to be ashamed of.
So over the past year, I've talked to your children, and we've shared our secrets, ours fears,and our dreams. And I've discovered that your children have far more courage and wisdom than you might know.
Together, we have learned that our problems have been kept inhouse for far to long, and it is for this reason the violence continues.
It is time for our stories to be heard, and to be discussed, in our churches, our schools, and our media. To be discussed by our leaders, in the halls of the Senate, and the House of Representatives. And taken at last before the eyes of the President.
For it is in our love for one another, our compassion, and our courage that we we have found our dignity.
We have found the Courage to break the Silence.
Have You?
After Silence
The Christmas Truce 1914
Though World War I had been raging for only four months, it was already proving to be one of the bloodiest wars in history. Soldiers on both sides were trapped in trenches, exposed to the cold and wet winter weather, covered in mud, and extremely careful of sniper shots. Machines guns had proven their worth in war, bringing new meaning to the word "slaughter."
In a place where bloodshed was nearly commonplace and mud and the enemy were fought with equal vigor, something surprising occurred on the front for Christmas in 1914. The men who lay shivering in the trenches embraced the Christmas spirit. In one of the truest acts of goodwill toward men, soldiers from both sides in the southern portion of the Ypres Salient set aside their weapons and hatred, if only temporarily, and met in No Man's Land.
We shook hands, wished each other a Merry Xmas, and were soon conversing as if we had known each other for years. We were in front of their wire entanglements and surrounded by Germans - Fritz and I in the centre talking, and Fritz occasionally translating to his friends what I was saying.
We stood inside the circle like streetcorner orators.
Soon most of our company ('A' Company), hearing that I and some others had gone out, followed us . . . What a sight - little groups of Germans and British extending almost the length of our front! Out of the darkness we could hear laughter and see lighted matches, a German lighting a Scotchman's cigarette and vice versa, exchanging cigarettes and souvenirs. Where they couldn't talk the language they were making themselves understood by signs, and everyone seemed to be getting on nicely. Here we were laughing and chatting to men whom only a few hours before we were trying to kill!
Some of those who went out to meet the enemy in the middle of No Man's Land on Christmas Eve or on Christmas Day negotiated a truce: we won't fire if you won't fire. Some ended the truce at midnight on Christmas night, some extended it until New Year's Day.
One of the main reasons Christmas truces were negotiated was in order to bury the dead. Though some had died recently, there were corpses out in No Man's Land that had been there for several months. Along with the revelry that celebrated Christmas was the sad and somber job of burying their fallen comrades. On Christmas day, British and German soldiers appeared on No Man's Land and sorted through the bodies. In just a few rare instances, joint services were held for both the British and German dead.
Yet many soldiers enjoyed meeting the un-seen enemy and were surprised to discover that they were more alike than he had thought. They talked, shared pictures, exchanged items such as buttons for food stuffs. An extreme example of the fraternization was a soccer game played in the middle of No Man's Land between the Bedfordshire Regiment and the Germans. A member of the Bedfordshire Regiment produced a ball and the large group of soldiers played until the ball was deflated when it hit a barbed wire entanglement.
This strange and unofficial truce lasted for several days, much to the dismay of the commanding officers. This amazing showing of Christmas cheer was never again repeated and as World War I progressed, the story of Christmas 1914 at the front became something of a legend.
The Rush Limbaugh Gauntlet
Truth carries with it a terrible responsibility. It is easy to condemn an argument in ignorance.
To fight the war of ideas, one must understand the nature of the battle. Currently the champion of the conservative platform is Rush Limbaugh. Over the years he has convinced the people that...
1. Reaganomics is the conservative platform
2. Liberals don't have ideas
3. The term liberal is an insult
4. That conservatives have an idea
5. The government should be run like a business
Ironic, I found this quote from Limbaugh in his latest propoganda... "You know, I've always told you, when somebody says something about you, and you scream the loudest, that's the indication, "man, they must have hit gold, must have hit the bull's eye with the criticism." The Clinton administration and all of its members have tried for years now to build a legacy where one does not exist. "
Does anyone see an idea there?
To understand the method of the conservative debate, one need only look at the modern philisophical view of Post-Modernism.
This leads to the question, what is post-modernism? At present, it is a form of radical empiricism, which is to say that if all knowledge is a posteri, or that which can be obtained from the senses; and if in experience, all things are subject to change; then there can be no truth. This argument, first popularized by David Hume in his work “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding” (1748) has been utilized by the post-modernist in the argument that any anthropological study of society is by necessity influenced by the culture of the anthropologist, and hence a distortion.
This argument is usually advanced through the inherently self-conflicting methodology of decontextualization. (If as the post modernist suggest, methodology is counter-productive to understanding how things work)
The process of decontextualization is that of finding the exception in a given generality, and then pushing that exception to the point the entire work appears absurd. To defend the ground of the post-modernist, the general rule is to never accept or reject a statement, as this would in turn be a statement that one could attack. Other key concepts to decontextualization include using non-familiar terms within a text to make it appear obscure, to write statements open to broad interpretation, and of course, to never allow anyone to clarify the statements of the person making the decontextualization argument.
The best defense against this form of debate is logical analysis.If the person making the debate is resorting to insults, then point out that this is a logical fallacy. Furthermore, refuse to let them speak for you, if they insist on distorting the idea you are trying to make, point out that this distortion is actually the argument that they have made, and that they are defending and promoting this view, not yourself. Finally, if they claim to have an idea, make sure that they state the idea, and then decontextualize the idea, do not however resort to insulting thier integrity, that is a logical fallacy.
The other side of this is the use of visualization and imagry in language. Freedom for instance is a powerful word, Though to be honest, I'm not sure exactly what the conservative platform means by this term, or democracy
To fight the war of ideas, one must understand the nature of the battle. Currently the champion of the conservative platform is Rush Limbaugh. Over the years he has convinced the people that...
1. Reaganomics is the conservative platform
2. Liberals don't have ideas
3. The term liberal is an insult
4. That conservatives have an idea
5. The government should be run like a business
Ironic, I found this quote from Limbaugh in his latest propoganda... "You know, I've always told you, when somebody says something about you, and you scream the loudest, that's the indication, "man, they must have hit gold, must have hit the bull's eye with the criticism." The Clinton administration and all of its members have tried for years now to build a legacy where one does not exist. "
Does anyone see an idea there?
To understand the method of the conservative debate, one need only look at the modern philisophical view of Post-Modernism.
This leads to the question, what is post-modernism? At present, it is a form of radical empiricism, which is to say that if all knowledge is a posteri, or that which can be obtained from the senses; and if in experience, all things are subject to change; then there can be no truth. This argument, first popularized by David Hume in his work “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding” (1748) has been utilized by the post-modernist in the argument that any anthropological study of society is by necessity influenced by the culture of the anthropologist, and hence a distortion.
This argument is usually advanced through the inherently self-conflicting methodology of decontextualization. (If as the post modernist suggest, methodology is counter-productive to understanding how things work)
The process of decontextualization is that of finding the exception in a given generality, and then pushing that exception to the point the entire work appears absurd. To defend the ground of the post-modernist, the general rule is to never accept or reject a statement, as this would in turn be a statement that one could attack. Other key concepts to decontextualization include using non-familiar terms within a text to make it appear obscure, to write statements open to broad interpretation, and of course, to never allow anyone to clarify the statements of the person making the decontextualization argument.
The best defense against this form of debate is logical analysis.If the person making the debate is resorting to insults, then point out that this is a logical fallacy. Furthermore, refuse to let them speak for you, if they insist on distorting the idea you are trying to make, point out that this distortion is actually the argument that they have made, and that they are defending and promoting this view, not yourself. Finally, if they claim to have an idea, make sure that they state the idea, and then decontextualize the idea, do not however resort to insulting thier integrity, that is a logical fallacy.
The other side of this is the use of visualization and imagry in language. Freedom for instance is a powerful word, Though to be honest, I'm not sure exactly what the conservative platform means by this term, or democracy
Didacts and Narpets
Wednesday, June 21,
It is surprising how the infinite Sea of Time has a way of catching up on one. Hardly percievable in the moment, the wheels turn round and round, till at last it is as though it had never changed.
It is the lesson of time, if we travel far enough we find ourselves, at last, at the very place we started.
It is the lesson of time, if we travel far enough we find ourselves, at last, at the very place we started.
Synchronicity vs Rationality
In the western schools of thought, the basic premise follows that a series is connected due to causality. This is to say, that cause and effect are inter-related.
For instance, at the moment, I am listening to Bobby Magee, as performed by Janis Joplin, because it is being played on the songlist in the same room as I am presently in.
In contrast, in Eastern Mysticism, things are related because they share the same phsycic energy. This is called Synchronicity.
So taking our prior example, I could say that I listened to Bobby Magee, because Janis Joplin shared the same Phsycic energy as the song, and so her performance captured its essence in pure form, and was thus established as a classic, that in the moment shared the same synchronistic energy with the article that I was writing.
Thanks for the jam Syd
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Down the wire, the news of the day, is the death of co-founder for Pink Floyd, Syd Barret.
From Pipers at the Gates of Dawn
I know a mouse
Who hasn't got a house,
I don't know why
I call him Gerald
He's getting very old
But he's a good mouse
Your the Kinda Girl
That fits into my world
I'll give you anything, everything
If you want thing
From Pipers at the Gates of Dawn
I know a mouse
Who hasn't got a house,
I don't know why
I call him Gerald
He's getting very old
But he's a good mouse
Your the Kinda Girl
That fits into my world
I'll give you anything, everything
If you want thing
The Question of Freedom?
July 4, 2006
There is perhaps no word, so powerful, and yet equally enigmatic. Everyone has their own meaning for this concept. Is it the the right to religion, to speech, to pursue ones dreams, or even more basic? Perhaps as follows the debate of ecclesiastics, the question of freedom is simply the ability to choose right from wrong.
To add to the dilemma, every answer brings up a new round of questions. What is freedom of speech? Does the same freedom for a peacetime press apply to that in times of war?
Some people in America today suggest that the military personnal that leaked the information to the New York times reporter about some of our methods to track Al Quada through financial records should be executed for treason.
This leads to the crux of the matter.
If we take our final definition, as perhaps the most inclusive, that is freedom is the ability to choose right from wrong, then we must assume that some people will choose wrong.
From this assumption, to protect freedom, then a free society must have the ability to protect itself from the tyranny of man. For this reason we have laws. It is through the enforcement of these laws that justice is dictated.
For this reason, freedom is problematic.
In a free society, where-in lies the authority to dictate law. To take the principles of the American experiment, we would say that authority lies in the mandate of the people.
This is a heavy burden, that must always be carefully examined, lest it lead astray. Take note from the French Revolution. The riegn of terror ended with the execution of thousands. All to protect the republic.
Today we celebrate as a nation, the 230th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence. While it is a time of celebration, it is also a time for reflection.
As a nation we set off with lofty ambitions, the great experiment it has been called. Can a society of free men, perserve these self-evident rights?
"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
We live today in a brave new world. The dangers we face as a society, are very real. The threat of war, the threat of terror, the rapid shifts of our economy, and our technology, impacts our society on every front.
There is a dream that is America. It is a fragile dream, and yet it is vibrant, and full of youthful energy and vigor.
Today it is time to take a simple step. To pledge, that for the next year, we will preserve our freedom, once more, as we have 229 times before.
There is perhaps no word, so powerful, and yet equally enigmatic. Everyone has their own meaning for this concept. Is it the the right to religion, to speech, to pursue ones dreams, or even more basic? Perhaps as follows the debate of ecclesiastics, the question of freedom is simply the ability to choose right from wrong.
To add to the dilemma, every answer brings up a new round of questions. What is freedom of speech? Does the same freedom for a peacetime press apply to that in times of war?
Some people in America today suggest that the military personnal that leaked the information to the New York times reporter about some of our methods to track Al Quada through financial records should be executed for treason.
This leads to the crux of the matter.
If we take our final definition, as perhaps the most inclusive, that is freedom is the ability to choose right from wrong, then we must assume that some people will choose wrong.
From this assumption, to protect freedom, then a free society must have the ability to protect itself from the tyranny of man. For this reason we have laws. It is through the enforcement of these laws that justice is dictated.
For this reason, freedom is problematic.
In a free society, where-in lies the authority to dictate law. To take the principles of the American experiment, we would say that authority lies in the mandate of the people.
This is a heavy burden, that must always be carefully examined, lest it lead astray. Take note from the French Revolution. The riegn of terror ended with the execution of thousands. All to protect the republic.
Today we celebrate as a nation, the 230th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence. While it is a time of celebration, it is also a time for reflection.
As a nation we set off with lofty ambitions, the great experiment it has been called. Can a society of free men, perserve these self-evident rights?
"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
We live today in a brave new world. The dangers we face as a society, are very real. The threat of war, the threat of terror, the rapid shifts of our economy, and our technology, impacts our society on every front.
There is a dream that is America. It is a fragile dream, and yet it is vibrant, and full of youthful energy and vigor.
Today it is time to take a simple step. To pledge, that for the next year, we will preserve our freedom, once more, as we have 229 times before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)