The basic world situation at the end of this first decade of the third millenium is still largely what it was 10 years ago. The conflict in the world, the dividing line, is still between the East and the West. This is as it has been since Achilles slew Hector and the Persian hordes smashed into the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae in an attempt to extinguish the Freedom of the Greeks.
The East today is led by Russia and China and their alliance based on mutual antipathy and fear of the United States. The United States is still the leader of the West out of necessity if not desire.
All of the distractions that some claim are the great threats of the age, namely terrorism and "climate change", are the hobgoblin of minds trained to think presently and not historically. Terrorism is not a war, it is the prelude to a war between nations including the cyberwar already raging between the US and China. "Climate change" is the earth-centered, man-centered theory that holds that Man is the center of the Earth and the Earth is the center of the Universe. It ignores the fact that climate is change. Climate change has been occuring on the Earth since the beginning. Climates have changed, are changing, and will change. A climate without change would not be a climate but stasis, an impossiblity in climatology. "Climate change" is earth-centered because it ignores the corresponding climate changes occuring presently throughout the solar system related to solar changes.
The theory of anthropomorphic climate change or global warming is a pathetic, desperate attempt to blame human activity for earth changes that have been occuring for eons and are occuring presently in a commensurate fashion on other planetary bodies within our solar system. It is an effort to fulfill a political agenda backed by politicized science to advance and justify the regulation of human activity on a global scale. This attempt will fail.
So we return to the basic conflict in the world today of East versus West. This conflict is rooted in the basic differences in our conception of Man's relationship to his fellow Man (and woman). The Western conception of Man's relationship to Man is based on the mutually shared conception of the primacy of Reason in everyday relationships. This is clarified in the legal concept of the "reasonable person" as stipulated in Western jurisprudence.
In the East Reason is viewed as largely antithetical to freedom. As Dostoyevsky writes in "Notes From the Underground", should a man not have a right to conceive that 2+2=5?? In the East free will includes the will to evade reason, to move beyond or below reason, depending on your view. In the West, we generally see no conflict between Reason and free will. Free Will is in fact related to Reason in two ways. The first is that Man has the freedom to pursue knowledge through Reason, and second that Reason exists within each person allowing us to exercise freedom. Through shared Reason we are linked to the cosmos and each other and yet are still individuals by the path we choose to pursue Reason, to pursue our eudynomic bliss, to pursue our happiness.
This view of the harmony of Unity and individual existence that permeates Western culture is viewed as fantastic fantasy in the East. It is convenient individualistic tripe, from the perspective of the East. The East's view is that a choice must be made between Unity and the individual, between Unity and Freedom. This often leads to a choice between a subsuming Statism and a nihilisitic, destructive, atomistc individualism.
Look for the conflict between East and West to intensify in 2010 as many of the distractions fade into irrelevancy.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
More Marx
Marx's belief that Capitalism would bifurcate into a two-tiered hierarchy of owners and workers proved to have not been the case. Marx tried to prove the scientific certainty of this proposition in his great work "Das Kapital" in 1867. But certainly by the 1920s Max Weber's brilliant works on the Capitalist economy made it clear that Capitalist competition had actually divided the economy into a myriad of classes and classificatrions that were far more complex than a simple owner/worker paradigm.
Goethe
One of Goethe's ideas was that art is not only a reflection of the artist, it is also a reflection of the circumstances of the world that the artist inhabits. True art seeks to interpret and describe the world surrounding the human being from the perspective of and filtered through that being. Therefore, a piece of art blends the individual and the collective. It is a view of the soul of the creator as altered by the collective. The state of that soul is a statement, as well, of the state of the health of the collective.
Modernism expands
The attempt to synthesize art into a single form we saw in Wagner. However we saw this more stridently in philosophy and psychology. Marx tried to create a synthesized history blending economics, sociology, politics and Hegelian dialectics. He turned these dialectics on their head however. Hegel believed that ideas shaped the world. Marx believed the world shaped ideas.
Freud tried to create a scientific psychology in which history and the past affect the mind of the individual in the present.
Freud tried to create a scientific psychology in which history and the past affect the mind of the individual in the present.
Modern Art
A general trend in modern art has been the retreat from the tangible world. One might suppose this was influenced by Freud's "discovery" of the subconscious. Ironically, modern art has also been characterized by the attempt to amalgamate all art into one formal expression, which might be seen as a way to make it coincide more with real, tangible life.
The trend away from tangibility we see in music in the divergence from harmony that was seen in the music of Arthur Schoenburg and Igor Stravinsky. We see this same revolt against tangibility in the abandonment of the ballet form of dance and the rise of free form dance in the 1910s and 1920s led by the incomparable Isadora Duncan.
We most especially see the modern trend in painting with the rise of the impressionist school in France. This was led by Manet and Monet inthe late 19th century.
The trend away from tangibility we see in music in the divergence from harmony that was seen in the music of Arthur Schoenburg and Igor Stravinsky. We see this same revolt against tangibility in the abandonment of the ballet form of dance and the rise of free form dance in the 1910s and 1920s led by the incomparable Isadora Duncan.
We most especially see the modern trend in painting with the rise of the impressionist school in France. This was led by Manet and Monet inthe late 19th century.
Verdi and Wagner
The world of opera of the 19th century was dominated by Richard Wagner and Giuseppe Verdi. Verdi was an Italian born in 1813 and dying in 1901. Wagner, also born in 1813, lived until 1882. Verdi's operas were much more practical and worldly than were Wagner's. They dealt with events in history or literature. They represented a peculialrly Italian practicality where beauty and brilliance are sought, but there is a recognition that they will never be attained and that there is a certain absurdity in the attempt.
That absurdity was Wagner's universalistic attempt to transcend art and create Art in the general sense. He attempted to synthesize all the fine arts of music, architecture, voice, and dance into a whole artistic expression. At the risk of generalizing, this was a quintessentially Germanic quixotic grandiosity bordering on pompousity. The genius of Wagner is that he very nearly succeeded in the attempt. Verdi always was disgusted by Wagnerian arrogance, as he saw it.
That absurdity was Wagner's universalistic attempt to transcend art and create Art in the general sense. He attempted to synthesize all the fine arts of music, architecture, voice, and dance into a whole artistic expression. At the risk of generalizing, this was a quintessentially Germanic quixotic grandiosity bordering on pompousity. The genius of Wagner is that he very nearly succeeded in the attempt. Verdi always was disgusted by Wagnerian arrogance, as he saw it.
The Journey
The idea of the jorney or pilgrimmage has been an ongoing theme in Western literature. It appears in Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales" depicting pilgrims travelling to visit the shrine of Thomas a Beckett. The journey appears again in Boccaccio's "Decameron", ten stories about pilgrims escaping plague ridden cities. It is linked with the idea of growth and progress. Dante's Divine Comedia is another example of such literature. For a modern film version of the journey see the incredibly brilliant 2008 movie "The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada" directed by Tommy Lee Jones.
Brunelleschi II
The architecture of Brunelleschi was really the type of Roman architecture inherited from Italy by the colonial American states. It was Roman suffused with later Italian styles. It shows how art can literally leap across hundreds of years of history having been seemingly lost until rediscovered by creative minds of later generations. Monticello is an example of Brunelleschi's type of architecture.
Brunelleschi
Architecture was also revived during the Renaissance. The initiator of the revival of the great principles of the Roman architect Vitruvius was Fillippo Brunelleschi. He lived from 1377 to 1446, a native of Florence, as with so many of the Renaissance greats. Brunelleschi's great masterpiece was the completion of the cathedral dome in Florence. This was a rival in greatness to Hadrian's Pantheon in Rome 1400 years before. The cathedral in Florence revived the art of dome building that had been lost after the fall of Rome in the West.
Da Vinci and Michelangelo
The 15th century was the great age of achievement in the Renaissance of Italian art. The most notable geniuses of this period were Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci. Leonardo lived from 1452 to 1519 and Michelangelo from 1475 to 1564. Da Vinci's art was characterized more for quality than quantity. He was a sporadic genius whose great work was the "Mona Lisa."
Michelangelo was a prolific eclectic artist producing enormous quantities of sculptures and painting characterized by supreme creativity and genius. His most famous work was the painting of the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel.
Da Vinci and Michelangelo were the vanguard of a movement of artistic genius the proved that the individual, given the means and the freedom, could achieve a level of vision and beauty thought previously reserved only for the ancients. Before the Renaissance the idea was prevalent that civilization was still declining from the time of the Roman Empire. The great achievements of the Renaissance were visual proof that Man, while not perfectable, was truly a noble being.
Michelangelo was a prolific eclectic artist producing enormous quantities of sculptures and painting characterized by supreme creativity and genius. His most famous work was the painting of the ceiling of the Sistene Chapel.
Da Vinci and Michelangelo were the vanguard of a movement of artistic genius the proved that the individual, given the means and the freedom, could achieve a level of vision and beauty thought previously reserved only for the ancients. Before the Renaissance the idea was prevalent that civilization was still declining from the time of the Roman Empire. The great achievements of the Renaissance were visual proof that Man, while not perfectable, was truly a noble being.
Greece
Greece invented the prose style of writing. Before that it was common to write poetry. However, writing to convey a message, to represent a reality either physically or mentally, had not been invented before the ancient Greeks. Herodotus, the first historian of about 450 BC, was also one of the first prose writers.
This invention of prose, coupled with a related increase in literacy, must have had a liberating effect on the common man. To be able to read and write well is to be able to think well. One can then use discernment and judgement. This use of discernment and judgement by the common citizen is essential for the proliferation and maintanence of participatory government. These two qualities added to courage makes up the Free Citizen.
This invention of prose, coupled with a related increase in literacy, must have had a liberating effect on the common man. To be able to read and write well is to be able to think well. One can then use discernment and judgement. This use of discernment and judgement by the common citizen is essential for the proliferation and maintanence of participatory government. These two qualities added to courage makes up the Free Citizen.
Ancient Egypt
It is interesting that in ancient Egypt images and words were often conjoined with one another. Hierglyphs were picture-words usually used to represent certain sounds. The proportional grid used to form Egyptian art to ensure uniformity of design derived from those proportions used to write hierglyphs. Therefore, for the ancients, there was no sharp dividing line between the image and the word.
There is no division or difference in textual learning and visual learning. A deficiency in one leads to a lack in the other, even if one is more developed. A picture might say a thousand words, but a word can conjure up a thousand pictures.
There is no division or difference in textual learning and visual learning. A deficiency in one leads to a lack in the other, even if one is more developed. A picture might say a thousand words, but a word can conjure up a thousand pictures.
Monotheism
One of the most important creations, revelations or discoveries was that of monotheism. It began with the most historical of peoples, the Jews. One cannot, however, resist the temptation to imagine that the Jews originally came to monotheism from the monotheistic ideas of Pharaoh Akhenaton, "the heretic Pharaoh, who introduced the world's first monotheistic religion around 1350 BC. The experiment was short lived but extremely impactful at the time.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Journal entry June 30,2009
The genius of the American political system of government was that it never tried to settle the great debate among citizens. To be an American one simply had to agree that everyone had the right to debate and that the government was the guarantor of Liberty under law. The government was there to assure the continuence of the flow of the great river of debate, not to enforce its will to gain a result. A great tragedy of the last 100 years of so is that the federal government , especially in economics, has attempted to settle the great debate about economics around what may be called "corporatism." This is the idea that all levels of society must be smoothed over and amalgamated so as to make greater and greater centralization possible. It favors the strong over the vulnerable and the big over the nimble.
The wedding of vast corporate wealth to largely unchecked federal power solidifies into time and space a governing system which is highly undemocratic, largely unrepresentative, and always and completely unjust. The dispensing of enormous federal contracts to corporations and the construction of vast beauracratic systems called entitlements have ceded our government to someone else. The legislature has become a meek, miniscule emasculated little speck between the corporate lobbyists who trek to Washington to write the bills and the nameless, faceless, employees of the leviathan of boards and agencies that infest the body politic and practically become unelected legislators through their interpretation of laws and writing of regulations for bills the size of phone books full of details that will effect thew lives of thousands or millions. Is this not undemocratic, unrepresentative??
Many large corporations become dependent on federal or state contracts to the point that they become arms of the government that hires them and conduits by which that government can exert power and influence. The "private" firms become not "public" firms, designed for the general welfare, but public/private sources of largess, patronage and corruption for the governing class in Washington.
Vast entitlement programs funnel revenues to particular groups of people without having to endure the legislative process of appropriating money. Money is in effect appropriated one time by congress for all the time the program exists. Theoretically the program can be ended by legislative democratic means. However, practically, on the level that politics operates, the programs become so large over time that their abolition would mean the collapse of an entire system, be it of health care, retirement insurance or the like. So the systems are undemocratic in their nature in that to oppose them sets one up as the advocate of collapse and chaos.
Therefore the vastness of these programs perpetuates them. In a democratic society nothing should ever be perpetual except Liberty, Justice and the enduring spirit of the People in their political capacity. The increasing centralization and corporatism of our government runs counter to this trinity of democratic virtues.
Many large corporations become dependent on federal or state contracts to the point that they become arms of the government that hires them and conduits by which that government can exert power and influence. The "private" firms become not "public" firms, designed for the general welfare, but public/private sources of largess, patronage and corruption for the governing class in Washington.
Vast entitlement programs funnel revenues to particular groups of people without having to endure the legislative process of appropriating money. Money is in effect appropriated one time by congress for all the time the program exists. Theoretically the program can be ended by legislative democratic means. However, practically, on the level that politics operates, the programs become so large over time that their abolition would mean the collapse of an entire system, be it of health care, retirement insurance or the like. So the systems are undemocratic in their nature in that to oppose them sets one up as the advocate of collapse and chaos.
Therefore the vastness of these programs perpetuates them. In a democratic society nothing should ever be perpetual except Liberty, Justice and the enduring spirit of the People in their political capacity. The increasing centralization and corporatism of our government runs counter to this trinity of democratic virtues.
Journal entry April 29,2009
One of the chief fallacies of our age is that we live in an age of science. Science today is used by both the Left and the Right to promulgate half-truths and falsehoods that advance their political agendas. The Right finds the few scientists who greatly question Darwinian evolution and use that to promote their ideas. The Left ignores the many scientists who question man-made global warming in order to advance a political agenda of centraliztion cloaked as enviromentalism.
Science is too often willing to prostitute itself to political patrons to gain public funding.
Science is too often willing to prostitute itself to political patrons to gain public funding.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
James Madison Weighs In
"Those who ratified the constitution conceived that this is not an indefinite government deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed in the specified powers, but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers which explain and define the general terms."
2nd congress, 1st session 1792
"The Federal Government has been hitherto limited to specified powers, by the greatest champions for latitude in expounding these powers. If not only the means, but the objects, are unlimited, the parchment had better be thrown into the fire at once."
Madison to Edmund Pendleton, Feb. 21, 1792.
2nd congress, 1st session 1792
"The Federal Government has been hitherto limited to specified powers, by the greatest champions for latitude in expounding these powers. If not only the means, but the objects, are unlimited, the parchment had better be thrown into the fire at once."
Madison to Edmund Pendleton, Feb. 21, 1792.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
From My Journal XVIII (On Multiple Sclerosis)
The basic nature of the disease is that T-cells called lymphocites begin attacking a certain protein within the mylan, or coating, of the nerves of the brain stem and spinal column. It is unclear whether the cells are attacking the brain itself or rather that they recognize, correctly or incorrectly, an infection in the brain.
Antibodies, made by another immune system cell called a B-cell, also attack the brain stem. This creates an enormous amount of the anti-body Gammaglobulin in the spinal fluid within the spinal column.
(from August 30,2009)
(From August 31, 2009)
So the question regarding MS has always been, why do the T-cells attack different proteins, mainly MBT, within the mylan coating of the nerves at the brain stem, called axons. Why do white blood cells seep into the brain? Why does the brain produce its own antibodies in gammaglobulin and send it down the spinal column?
The electrical impulses from the brain actually move down the mylan sheath of the axons. The electrical charge is sped up, in a healthy person, by jumping from one nodule in the mylan to the next, thus not having to move through the entire length of the axon. In MS patients a specially produced t-cell attacks protein, usually MBT, in the mylan on the nodules. This renders the electrical impulses from the brain quite impaired..
MS attacks occur when the white blood cells begin a new effort to attack the brain. These attacks usually effect the optic nerve and can last 4-6 weeks. There shorter episodes of MS than can last only minutes or hours and are brought on by the defective axons themselves and the impaired electricity.
So what is going on here? Is it a viral infection in the brain or an autoimmune response causing this? No MS virus has ever been isolated by a researcher. But abscence of proof is not proof of abscence. In other words, are the t-cells reacting to a real threat within the brain or are they simply defective cells that are falsely detecting a threat in the brain? Could there be a problem in the Thymus gland where t-cells are made?? Is there a "civil war" happening in the body where the brain is sending out gammaglobulin with antibodies to fight the invading t-cells??
Antibodies, made by another immune system cell called a B-cell, also attack the brain stem. This creates an enormous amount of the anti-body Gammaglobulin in the spinal fluid within the spinal column.
(from August 30,2009)
(From August 31, 2009)
So the question regarding MS has always been, why do the T-cells attack different proteins, mainly MBT, within the mylan coating of the nerves at the brain stem, called axons. Why do white blood cells seep into the brain? Why does the brain produce its own antibodies in gammaglobulin and send it down the spinal column?
The electrical impulses from the brain actually move down the mylan sheath of the axons. The electrical charge is sped up, in a healthy person, by jumping from one nodule in the mylan to the next, thus not having to move through the entire length of the axon. In MS patients a specially produced t-cell attacks protein, usually MBT, in the mylan on the nodules. This renders the electrical impulses from the brain quite impaired..
MS attacks occur when the white blood cells begin a new effort to attack the brain. These attacks usually effect the optic nerve and can last 4-6 weeks. There shorter episodes of MS than can last only minutes or hours and are brought on by the defective axons themselves and the impaired electricity.
So what is going on here? Is it a viral infection in the brain or an autoimmune response causing this? No MS virus has ever been isolated by a researcher. But abscence of proof is not proof of abscence. In other words, are the t-cells reacting to a real threat within the brain or are they simply defective cells that are falsely detecting a threat in the brain? Could there be a problem in the Thymus gland where t-cells are made?? Is there a "civil war" happening in the body where the brain is sending out gammaglobulin with antibodies to fight the invading t-cells??
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Writing
I have been thinking about why so many people today, especially the young, are such poor writers. Perhaps it is that communication between the mind and the soul has been diminished. This inner conversation with oneself, which is the essential element of thinking, has been crowded out of our lives by constant talking, game playing, texting and the like activities we do every day.
The soul is the great mentor of the mind. One's individual soul exists outside the body and informs and animates the mind. It is in this way that the mind is a reflection of the soul. When the mind is severed from the soul by all the distractions we allow into our lives, one's individual being, the spirit, is diminished.
All great writing is a conversation between one's mind and one's soul. Both inform each other although the soul is the more alive and aware of the two. Great writers must be individualists because writing is the statement of the one. (the trend in schools to teach "group writing" is an atrocity and an abhorrence to me. I don't even know what "group writing" is) It takes directness and boldness to write well.
It is directness and boldness that are the essential tools for the writer. It is the conversation in one's head that the directness emerges from. Another word for this is lucidity of thought. It is the strength of the soul that animates and directs the conversation from whence the boldness comes from. It is one's vocabulary that gives one the ability to focus that directness and boldness toward a particular end. The vocabulary of the average teen today is a shambling mishmash of half phrases and words with no thought behind them. Sometimes it makes me cry when I listen in on a conversation among teens, especially the boys.
We must restore the conversation in our own heads in order to be great writers again.
John.
The soul is the great mentor of the mind. One's individual soul exists outside the body and informs and animates the mind. It is in this way that the mind is a reflection of the soul. When the mind is severed from the soul by all the distractions we allow into our lives, one's individual being, the spirit, is diminished.
All great writing is a conversation between one's mind and one's soul. Both inform each other although the soul is the more alive and aware of the two. Great writers must be individualists because writing is the statement of the one. (the trend in schools to teach "group writing" is an atrocity and an abhorrence to me. I don't even know what "group writing" is) It takes directness and boldness to write well.
It is directness and boldness that are the essential tools for the writer. It is the conversation in one's head that the directness emerges from. Another word for this is lucidity of thought. It is the strength of the soul that animates and directs the conversation from whence the boldness comes from. It is one's vocabulary that gives one the ability to focus that directness and boldness toward a particular end. The vocabulary of the average teen today is a shambling mishmash of half phrases and words with no thought behind them. Sometimes it makes me cry when I listen in on a conversation among teens, especially the boys.
We must restore the conversation in our own heads in order to be great writers again.
John.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
From My Journal (XVII)
Thursday, July 9, 2009: The Constitution is not simply the document written in 1787. It is the whole fabric of traditions, practices, and liberties that have been developed in fits and starts since Jamestown in 1607.
The Rights of Americans were not abstractions thought of by minds. The American Rights were the necessary tools to function in the American frontier society as it developed over 200 years. Individual Rights are not separate from the practice of citizenship. They are absolutely necessary to sustain any semblance of a society. In such a society the citizenry is a branch of the government, the most important, root branch.
When the citizenry is prevented, or worse refuses to exercise this role, the nation and society stagnate. The source of our troubles today is not a lack of rights. We stagnate due to our lack of the exercise of our rights because of accepted ignorance and a mass culture antithetical to learning and in many ways to thought itself.
The public indulges in frivolous inanities while the society stagnates.
The Rights of Americans were not abstractions thought of by minds. The American Rights were the necessary tools to function in the American frontier society as it developed over 200 years. Individual Rights are not separate from the practice of citizenship. They are absolutely necessary to sustain any semblance of a society. In such a society the citizenry is a branch of the government, the most important, root branch.
When the citizenry is prevented, or worse refuses to exercise this role, the nation and society stagnate. The source of our troubles today is not a lack of rights. We stagnate due to our lack of the exercise of our rights because of accepted ignorance and a mass culture antithetical to learning and in many ways to thought itself.
The public indulges in frivolous inanities while the society stagnates.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
From My Journal (XVI)
Tuesday, June 23, 2009:
In Iran the protests and riots have dramatically subsided. The West and the protesters believed that communicating news by twitter.com and taking pictures with cell phones would be able to take the place of a revolutionary cadre and the dissemination of actual ideas.
The revolt forgot that it is not the ability to communicate or the form of communication that is used that is important. In revolution, one must communicate revolutionary ideas; by twitter, by mouth, by paper or however. IT IS THE CONTENT OF COMMUNICATIONS THAT IS IMPORTANT, NOT THE FORM. The revolt seems to have believed that simply by describing the situation in short sentences, as twitter makes necessary, that they could bring down a totalitarian apparatus.
Like so many naive young people, the Iranians were enamored by their technology, believing it to be the source of their power. No. The source of their power was their ideas. The lack of it was the lack of the same.
The irony is that the form of communication used, twitter, is a pathectically self-limiting technology forcing language and therefore ideas into an uninspiring witch's brew of barely literate contortions of language. What young people fail to realize is that the internet is far more a source of disinformation than of information, much less real wisdom or knowledge.
The fact that so many have chosen twitter as their primary means of communication says something about their lack of respect for the content of their communication.
In Iran the protests and riots have dramatically subsided. The West and the protesters believed that communicating news by twitter.com and taking pictures with cell phones would be able to take the place of a revolutionary cadre and the dissemination of actual ideas.
The revolt forgot that it is not the ability to communicate or the form of communication that is used that is important. In revolution, one must communicate revolutionary ideas; by twitter, by mouth, by paper or however. IT IS THE CONTENT OF COMMUNICATIONS THAT IS IMPORTANT, NOT THE FORM. The revolt seems to have believed that simply by describing the situation in short sentences, as twitter makes necessary, that they could bring down a totalitarian apparatus.
Like so many naive young people, the Iranians were enamored by their technology, believing it to be the source of their power. No. The source of their power was their ideas. The lack of it was the lack of the same.
The irony is that the form of communication used, twitter, is a pathectically self-limiting technology forcing language and therefore ideas into an uninspiring witch's brew of barely literate contortions of language. What young people fail to realize is that the internet is far more a source of disinformation than of information, much less real wisdom or knowledge.
The fact that so many have chosen twitter as their primary means of communication says something about their lack of respect for the content of their communication.
From My Journal (XV)
Wednesday, April 22, 2009:
A person possessing a sceptical outlook is always in danger of becoming cynical and is usually accused of glorifying a Utopian past or fantasy to which he compares life's present difficulties and shortcomings. Sceptics are also accused of seeing their own faults and foisting them upon the outside world.
As a sceptic, I admit that these criticisms are generally true. Cynicism is a trap I fall into when I believe that both sides in a debate have agreed on the parameters of their debate before they begin. It is a rigged game, so to speak. I do believe, generally, that the American citizen of the past was better informed, a better reader, and recognized his or her responsibility as a citizen far more than today. So to a large degree I do glorify the past.
My faults also frustrate me; my moral and personal failings, the limits of my mind, my laziness and slothfulness. I recognize in them a universality pertaining to all human beings. Beware those who see no wickedness in themselves. It is they who will not suppress it, contain it, and mitigate it because they will see it as good. They view themselves as good and so anything from themselves must be good. Those who commit evil acts always view them as good.
Therefore I am sceptical of those wo claim hauty and jaunty confidence in the future. There is a hubris in the land today that thrives on both Left and Right. This hubris threatens the political, economic and social order of the nation.
A person possessing a sceptical outlook is always in danger of becoming cynical and is usually accused of glorifying a Utopian past or fantasy to which he compares life's present difficulties and shortcomings. Sceptics are also accused of seeing their own faults and foisting them upon the outside world.
As a sceptic, I admit that these criticisms are generally true. Cynicism is a trap I fall into when I believe that both sides in a debate have agreed on the parameters of their debate before they begin. It is a rigged game, so to speak. I do believe, generally, that the American citizen of the past was better informed, a better reader, and recognized his or her responsibility as a citizen far more than today. So to a large degree I do glorify the past.
My faults also frustrate me; my moral and personal failings, the limits of my mind, my laziness and slothfulness. I recognize in them a universality pertaining to all human beings. Beware those who see no wickedness in themselves. It is they who will not suppress it, contain it, and mitigate it because they will see it as good. They view themselves as good and so anything from themselves must be good. Those who commit evil acts always view them as good.
Therefore I am sceptical of those wo claim hauty and jaunty confidence in the future. There is a hubris in the land today that thrives on both Left and Right. This hubris threatens the political, economic and social order of the nation.
Monday, June 22, 2009
From My Journal (XIV)
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Of course, the siren song of the Unitary State is calling to us to give us economic security at the sacrifice of our Liberty. Just as it was a founding principle to separate church and State, it was also considered essential to separate State from any authority to make laws favorable to particular interests. When the State makes such laws, like those favoring a bank or auto company, it has ceased to govern generally for the People in their political capacity and becomes instead the agent of particular interests. Authority becomes protection to the highest bidder, the richest and the biggest. Government becomes only another faction, on the side of some, and therefore opposing others. Instead of earning the loyalty of all through equal protection of the laws, it buys the subservience and acquiesance of the powerful and earns the enmity and scorn of the small and the proud who wish to keep their liberty and their dignity. Instead of being the arbiter, government becomes the interpolator, thus fissuring society instead of unifying it.
This is the national tragedy unfolding before our eyes. The Unitary State has chosen its friends and thereby made its enemies. Henceforth, loyalty will be demanded from the government but not earned by equal protection of law. The government is now in the habit of adhering to one group or faction within the society as opposed to gently and firmly standing aside and making general law as stipulated by artice 1 section 8 of the constitution.
I can think of no greater threat to the poor or the miidle class as it will not be they to whom the governing class distributes its largesse. The shrinking of the middle will accelerate, the unity of our nation imperiled. We must return to a separtion of state and specific interests, just we have a separtion of state and specific religions. The governemnt ceases to govern when it rewards some and therefore punishes others. Unless this ceases, it will not only be our economy in peril but our liberty and our unity.
Of course, the siren song of the Unitary State is calling to us to give us economic security at the sacrifice of our Liberty. Just as it was a founding principle to separate church and State, it was also considered essential to separate State from any authority to make laws favorable to particular interests. When the State makes such laws, like those favoring a bank or auto company, it has ceased to govern generally for the People in their political capacity and becomes instead the agent of particular interests. Authority becomes protection to the highest bidder, the richest and the biggest. Government becomes only another faction, on the side of some, and therefore opposing others. Instead of earning the loyalty of all through equal protection of the laws, it buys the subservience and acquiesance of the powerful and earns the enmity and scorn of the small and the proud who wish to keep their liberty and their dignity. Instead of being the arbiter, government becomes the interpolator, thus fissuring society instead of unifying it.
This is the national tragedy unfolding before our eyes. The Unitary State has chosen its friends and thereby made its enemies. Henceforth, loyalty will be demanded from the government but not earned by equal protection of law. The government is now in the habit of adhering to one group or faction within the society as opposed to gently and firmly standing aside and making general law as stipulated by artice 1 section 8 of the constitution.
I can think of no greater threat to the poor or the miidle class as it will not be they to whom the governing class distributes its largesse. The shrinking of the middle will accelerate, the unity of our nation imperiled. We must return to a separtion of state and specific interests, just we have a separtion of state and specific religions. The governemnt ceases to govern when it rewards some and therefore punishes others. Unless this ceases, it will not only be our economy in peril but our liberty and our unity.
From My Journal (XIII)
The transition of the Roman world from Pagainism to Christianity between 270 and 325 was the most momentous period in the history of the West. The State was the spirit of Paganism, religion was the spirit of Christianity. Constantine combined Christianity into the political order to bolster the State against chaos. Church and State, from Diocletian and Constantine until the French Revolution in 1789 had an uneasy truce punctuated by hostility.
The US was the first nation in history to seperate religion and the State. This was done to protect religion from the State. It encouraged a vast number of faiths to bloom. No one sect could dominate because none were protected or destroyed by the State. This created a unique brand of American Patriotism in which loyalty is felt not to the State, religion, or government, but to the "Nation." The Nation is the People in their political capacity.
It is this unique kind of nationalism, loyalty to the nation, the People, and the Constitution as a reflection of the Liberty of the People, that is the quiet strength that has unified the country through the divisions of class, region, race and creed. The unity is not enforced by a particular religion. The unity is derived from the diversity of religions and each individual's belief in his own creed and right to hold that creed as expressed in the National Creed. Freedom of Religion as guaranteed by its separation from the State strengthens the nation as it allows religion to animate the souls of each individual without interferecne from the State.
This is why it is not the State that is the source of soverignty but the People in there political capacity. It is not a strong state that welds our unity or guarantees our Liberty. It is a strong nation within which a multiplicity of religions, beliefs and states can flourish.
We are, and ever shall be, the United States, not the United State. A unitary State would threaten not only our religious Liberty buy all of our Liberties and our unity that is buttressed by them.
The US was the first nation in history to seperate religion and the State. This was done to protect religion from the State. It encouraged a vast number of faiths to bloom. No one sect could dominate because none were protected or destroyed by the State. This created a unique brand of American Patriotism in which loyalty is felt not to the State, religion, or government, but to the "Nation." The Nation is the People in their political capacity.
It is this unique kind of nationalism, loyalty to the nation, the People, and the Constitution as a reflection of the Liberty of the People, that is the quiet strength that has unified the country through the divisions of class, region, race and creed. The unity is not enforced by a particular religion. The unity is derived from the diversity of religions and each individual's belief in his own creed and right to hold that creed as expressed in the National Creed. Freedom of Religion as guaranteed by its separation from the State strengthens the nation as it allows religion to animate the souls of each individual without interferecne from the State.
This is why it is not the State that is the source of soverignty but the People in there political capacity. It is not a strong state that welds our unity or guarantees our Liberty. It is a strong nation within which a multiplicity of religions, beliefs and states can flourish.
We are, and ever shall be, the United States, not the United State. A unitary State would threaten not only our religious Liberty buy all of our Liberties and our unity that is buttressed by them.
From My Journal (XII)
Friday, September 26, 2008:
The situation with Iran is deteriorating. The Bush administration has almost certainly been putting pressure on Israel to not strike for fear of the economic consequences.
The situation with Iran is deteriorating. The Bush administration has almost certainly been putting pressure on Israel to not strike for fear of the economic consequences.
Friday, June 19, 2009
From My Journal (XI)
Wednesday, June 17,2009:
The people in the political capacity are the source of sovereignty in the US. The founders did not view the states as sovereign, contrary to modern Conservatives. The founders did not view the federal government as the source of sovereignty, contrary to the modern Left.
The People of the several states were one People forged in war. This unity and sovereignty forged by the recent Revolution and almost 200 years of shared history were the reasons that it was not each state that was sovereign but the People as Americans in their political capacity were the source of sovereignty. It was not the federal government that was the source of sovereignty because it was the People, acting in their political capacity who ratified the Constitution, with the understanding of future amendments. They did so, not through a federal Congress or the state legislatures, but through specific conventions in each state. These conventions, although state-bases, did not represent the state government's acceptance of the Constitution. They represented the People of that state as Americans acknowledging or disavowing, as in the case of RI and NC, their unity with the rest of one American People.
This is the great secret of the unity and greatness of our country. Ultimately the source of sovereignty for both the federal governments and the state governments lie not in themselves but in the American People, acting in their political capacity through the clause in the constitution authorizing state constitutional conventions.
The founders did not abolish state governments in the Constitution, as some wanted, to create a Unitary State. They had not authority to do this because the states already existed and the People had not ratified the Constitution. This would have been to presume the will of the People. After the People ratified, then those states had no authority to abolish or disregard the Constitution.
So, from the beginning, both the powers of the federal government and the states relationship to the federal government was instituted and regulated by the People acting in their political capacity. This remains so today.
The federal government does not have power over the states. The states do not have power over the federal government. The People, acting in their political capacity are the source of sovereignty for all governments, state and federal, in the United States of America.
The people in the political capacity are the source of sovereignty in the US. The founders did not view the states as sovereign, contrary to modern Conservatives. The founders did not view the federal government as the source of sovereignty, contrary to the modern Left.
The People of the several states were one People forged in war. This unity and sovereignty forged by the recent Revolution and almost 200 years of shared history were the reasons that it was not each state that was sovereign but the People as Americans in their political capacity were the source of sovereignty. It was not the federal government that was the source of sovereignty because it was the People, acting in their political capacity who ratified the Constitution, with the understanding of future amendments. They did so, not through a federal Congress or the state legislatures, but through specific conventions in each state. These conventions, although state-bases, did not represent the state government's acceptance of the Constitution. They represented the People of that state as Americans acknowledging or disavowing, as in the case of RI and NC, their unity with the rest of one American People.
This is the great secret of the unity and greatness of our country. Ultimately the source of sovereignty for both the federal governments and the state governments lie not in themselves but in the American People, acting in their political capacity through the clause in the constitution authorizing state constitutional conventions.
The founders did not abolish state governments in the Constitution, as some wanted, to create a Unitary State. They had not authority to do this because the states already existed and the People had not ratified the Constitution. This would have been to presume the will of the People. After the People ratified, then those states had no authority to abolish or disregard the Constitution.
So, from the beginning, both the powers of the federal government and the states relationship to the federal government was instituted and regulated by the People acting in their political capacity. This remains so today.
The federal government does not have power over the states. The states do not have power over the federal government. The People, acting in their political capacity are the source of sovereignty for all governments, state and federal, in the United States of America.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
From My Journal (X)
Monday, March 2, 2009:
The situation in Korea is becoming more tense. South Korea recently said that war is imminent. North Korea is threatening to test a new missile. Talks are being held at the DMZ.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009:
Obama recently sent a letter to Russian President Medvedev. He stated that the US would abandon plans for a missile defense in Eastern Europe if Russia will pressure Iran to stop its nuclear program. This is too late in that Russia is already helping and continues to help Iran build the necessary reactor for a nuclear program.
The situation in Korea is becoming more tense. South Korea recently said that war is imminent. North Korea is threatening to test a new missile. Talks are being held at the DMZ.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009:
Obama recently sent a letter to Russian President Medvedev. He stated that the US would abandon plans for a missile defense in Eastern Europe if Russia will pressure Iran to stop its nuclear program. This is too late in that Russia is already helping and continues to help Iran build the necessary reactor for a nuclear program.
From My Journal (IX)
Saturday, December 20, 2008:
History is not primarily about the past, it is about the future. History is an analysis of the thoughts and actions of human beings. The patterns we find in history are not "laws of history." They are not determinants of future human action. However, the patterns are illuminating of ourselves as a species; how we as a species tend to act under similar circumstances. It is the circumstances, however, that are shaped by individuals.
For instance, the economic crisis was brought on by individuals making decisions for themselves. The economic crisis is a particular circumstance under which politicians tend to fall back on statist solutions to problems. It is inconceivable to many on the Left that past state actions may have brought on the crisis. As most politicians of both parties today are to the Left, it is predictable that the State in the coming years will expand dramatically. This will have grave implications for human liberties, civil rights, private property and privacy rights and the economy.
History is not primarily about the past, it is about the future. History is an analysis of the thoughts and actions of human beings. The patterns we find in history are not "laws of history." They are not determinants of future human action. However, the patterns are illuminating of ourselves as a species; how we as a species tend to act under similar circumstances. It is the circumstances, however, that are shaped by individuals.
For instance, the economic crisis was brought on by individuals making decisions for themselves. The economic crisis is a particular circumstance under which politicians tend to fall back on statist solutions to problems. It is inconceivable to many on the Left that past state actions may have brought on the crisis. As most politicians of both parties today are to the Left, it is predictable that the State in the coming years will expand dramatically. This will have grave implications for human liberties, civil rights, private property and privacy rights and the economy.
From My Journal (VIII)
Thursday, December 18, 2008:
One of the misguided ideas of the multitude presently afoot in the US is that whatever is permitted constitutionally is good for the federal government to pursue. The interstate commerce clause has been interpreted as permitting the Congress wide latitude in its various plenitude of diarrhea of laws. However, simply the fact that a law is not forbidden constitutionally does not mean that the law is in congruence with the interests of the nation. And as it harms the nation, so it ultimately harms the Constitution that is dependent for its existence on the nation; the People, acting in their political capacity.
One of the misguided ideas of the multitude presently afoot in the US is that whatever is permitted constitutionally is good for the federal government to pursue. The interstate commerce clause has been interpreted as permitting the Congress wide latitude in its various plenitude of diarrhea of laws. However, simply the fact that a law is not forbidden constitutionally does not mean that the law is in congruence with the interests of the nation. And as it harms the nation, so it ultimately harms the Constitution that is dependent for its existence on the nation; the People, acting in their political capacity.
From My Journal (VII)
Sunday, June 14, 2009:
The ability to communicate technologically has increased enormously in the last fifty years. The human ability to express himself verbally and through writing has decreased in a nearly identical amount in the same time.
The problem has formed because there has developed the same ability to rapidly communicate through pictures. Humans are regressively moving back to their early roots of pictorial communication. The ability to communicate through verbal conversation and especially the written word is tragically and ominously collapsing.
The ability to communicate technologically has increased enormously in the last fifty years. The human ability to express himself verbally and through writing has decreased in a nearly identical amount in the same time.
The problem has formed because there has developed the same ability to rapidly communicate through pictures. Humans are regressively moving back to their early roots of pictorial communication. The ability to communicate through verbal conversation and especially the written word is tragically and ominously collapsing.
From My Journal (VI)
Thursday, June 4, 2009:
Mom's bedridden predicament is proof that the soul exists. If the soul exists, God exists. Mom's body, for all intents and purposes, died 20 years ago. If human life was predominantly corporeal , Mom's life would have ended years ago. But life is not simply body. Life is Spirit, Mind and Soul. The soul animates the mind and spirit. Mom' s continued perseverance is illustrative of this. The soul can bring mind, even to a tired and damaged brain. The mind can bring spirit to a powerful and willing soul.
Mom's bedridden predicament is proof that the soul exists. If the soul exists, God exists. Mom's body, for all intents and purposes, died 20 years ago. If human life was predominantly corporeal , Mom's life would have ended years ago. But life is not simply body. Life is Spirit, Mind and Soul. The soul animates the mind and spirit. Mom' s continued perseverance is illustrative of this. The soul can bring mind, even to a tired and damaged brain. The mind can bring spirit to a powerful and willing soul.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
from my journal (V)
Friday, April 17, 2009: The concept that Greece brought us Liberty and Rome brought us order is a valid one. However, Liberty has always depended upon order. Liberty is Freedom in the personal context in both the economic and political forms. Without order, a political and economic structure in which to exercise Liberty is impossible.
Order, by definition, depends upon the Rule of Law. Order without Law would not be order but the whim of the powerful. The Rule of Law, however, IS NOT independent of human agency. It is human will which must bring forth and create the Law justly and human will that must enforce it. When this willingness to stand for, judge, and enforce the Law subsides, as I believe it is today, "the Rule of Law" becomes a phrase that the cowardly cower under.
Humans must make, judge, and enforce the Law; this is the first and necessary act of civilization. It takes a profound self-awareness, self-confidence and COURAGE to come forth and begin this process. When the Rule of Law is established it pounds chaos into order. That order allows Liberty to grow both political and economically. From these two branches spring forth countless types of societies and economies.
Law and Order are the prerequisite for Civilization.
Order, by definition, depends upon the Rule of Law. Order without Law would not be order but the whim of the powerful. The Rule of Law, however, IS NOT independent of human agency. It is human will which must bring forth and create the Law justly and human will that must enforce it. When this willingness to stand for, judge, and enforce the Law subsides, as I believe it is today, "the Rule of Law" becomes a phrase that the cowardly cower under.
Humans must make, judge, and enforce the Law; this is the first and necessary act of civilization. It takes a profound self-awareness, self-confidence and COURAGE to come forth and begin this process. When the Rule of Law is established it pounds chaos into order. That order allows Liberty to grow both political and economically. From these two branches spring forth countless types of societies and economies.
Law and Order are the prerequisite for Civilization.
from my jornal (IV)
Tuesday, April 21, 2009: It is interesting how animals, especially cats, are so fascinated by human beings. They are particularly interested and curious about the human hand and fingers. They seem to recognize a certain dignity in Man as a species and as individuals that we don't often recognize in ourselves. The human mind is the most complex object ever discovered in the Universe.
It is a shame we cannot often recognize or grasp the divinity within us.
It is a shame we cannot often recognize or grasp the divinity within us.
from my journal (III)
Thursday, November 13, 2008: Today is my 36th birthday. It always provides me with a great deal of melancholy as I have never accomplished anything in life of significance or even minor import. I am now closer to 40 than 30 and most certainly closer to death than birth.
from my Journal (II)
Sunday, March 29, 2009: The chairman of GM has been forced to resign by the executive branch of the federal government. What authority this branch has to do this legally is unclear.
It seems that the whole notion of authority, both of its power and its majesty, has been undermined by those whose job it is to wield it. In the first sense it has been diminished by the profligacy and inconstancy of its use. In the second sense it has been reduced by that very profligacy and by an increased meanness and baseness in the People of this country. The profligacy and increasingly rude manners of the People feed on one another.
The restoration of self-government in the political sense can only be restored by a return to self-governance by individuals regarding their own habits, lives and souls. Barring such a restoration it is clear that American Liberty will necessarily cease. Let us pray the cessation will be slow so that we will have time to arrest it.
The first step is to recognize these problems in order to solve them.
It seems that the whole notion of authority, both of its power and its majesty, has been undermined by those whose job it is to wield it. In the first sense it has been diminished by the profligacy and inconstancy of its use. In the second sense it has been reduced by that very profligacy and by an increased meanness and baseness in the People of this country. The profligacy and increasingly rude manners of the People feed on one another.
The restoration of self-government in the political sense can only be restored by a return to self-governance by individuals regarding their own habits, lives and souls. Barring such a restoration it is clear that American Liberty will necessarily cease. Let us pray the cessation will be slow so that we will have time to arrest it.
The first step is to recognize these problems in order to solve them.
from my journal
Tuesday, April 14, 2009: We are living in an age of growing barbarism. Not the caricature of uneducated half-brutes crossing the Rhine, but a barbarization of the elites through lethargy of mind.
In their origin farms and towns went together, complimenting each other. This was the origin of the city-state. The "barbarians" were the plunderers of this civilization who thought they could pillage, rape and plunder with abandon having no conception of what right they had to destroy what they had no part in creating. They were intelligent in the arts of war and lazy and slothful in the arts of peace, civilization and law. Ultimately civilization and its advantages tamed the barbarians.
However, barbarism lives in embryo within every civilization: the idea that force and physical power transcend rights and laws. In the words of the modern poly sci professor: :"politics is about POWER!!" The lazy of mind can live within civilization but they seethe and dream of its destruction. These are the Utopians and their ideas so prevalent in today's culture. I know of whom I speak because I am one of these barbarians. Most of these new barbarians are of a certain intellectual elite but not geniuses. They are generally one or two steps below that. They are brilliant but lack creativity and ethical standards that would serve to harness their thought to beauty and right conduct. In their blindness they desire destruction in order that they will gain from this the energy that they lack to build the world they dream of.
What we, the barbarians, cannot conceive is that in our zeal to "change the world" we forget that the world is filled with others, different from ourselves, who will not consent to their worlds being changed. This is why Utopian ideas breed strife and war. They run into the reality of the diversification of human thought and culture that civilization itself has fostered. This is the source of the our hatred of civilization. We dream of a unified Mankind under our tutelage. Civilization diversifies Man and leads to multiple differences that manifest themselves in multiple civilizations.
"One world, no borders" is possible only by the reduction of Man into a barbarous, atavistic, atomistic mass ready to be harnessed to the yoke of despotic tyranny.
In their origin farms and towns went together, complimenting each other. This was the origin of the city-state. The "barbarians" were the plunderers of this civilization who thought they could pillage, rape and plunder with abandon having no conception of what right they had to destroy what they had no part in creating. They were intelligent in the arts of war and lazy and slothful in the arts of peace, civilization and law. Ultimately civilization and its advantages tamed the barbarians.
However, barbarism lives in embryo within every civilization: the idea that force and physical power transcend rights and laws. In the words of the modern poly sci professor: :"politics is about POWER!!" The lazy of mind can live within civilization but they seethe and dream of its destruction. These are the Utopians and their ideas so prevalent in today's culture. I know of whom I speak because I am one of these barbarians. Most of these new barbarians are of a certain intellectual elite but not geniuses. They are generally one or two steps below that. They are brilliant but lack creativity and ethical standards that would serve to harness their thought to beauty and right conduct. In their blindness they desire destruction in order that they will gain from this the energy that they lack to build the world they dream of.
What we, the barbarians, cannot conceive is that in our zeal to "change the world" we forget that the world is filled with others, different from ourselves, who will not consent to their worlds being changed. This is why Utopian ideas breed strife and war. They run into the reality of the diversification of human thought and culture that civilization itself has fostered. This is the source of the our hatred of civilization. We dream of a unified Mankind under our tutelage. Civilization diversifies Man and leads to multiple differences that manifest themselves in multiple civilizations.
"One world, no borders" is possible only by the reduction of Man into a barbarous, atavistic, atomistic mass ready to be harnessed to the yoke of despotic tyranny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)