tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post116066624282093479..comments2024-03-28T20:04:20.286-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: The Psychophysics of Falling and the Dialectic of Nihilism (9.30.08)Gagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger40125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160862984343122782006-10-14T14:56:00.000-07:002006-10-14T14:56:00.000-07:00Van,America is an unusual exception to this fact w...Van,<BR/>America is an unusual exception to this fact which Zakaria writes about, one which he accounts for. So I actually wasn't speaking of America, but of most other countries that have made a transition from various forms of dictatorships to democratic forms of government. The American experience is unique in this regard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160842206825005592006-10-14T09:10:00.000-07:002006-10-14T09:10:00.000-07:00Rob said... "Yet many, many atheists are Libertari...Rob said... <BR/><BR/>"Yet many, many atheists are Libertarians, and hard-core ones at that." and the smarter ones are Objectivists ;-).<BR/><BR/>" So, while I may think individual men are "fallen" in some sense, I don't think humanity is fallen in any way." curious about what you'd think of my comments on Gagdads Post for tomorrow (Time Travel!)<BR/><BR/>"Without freedom, there can be no improvement in either individual humans or human nature. Only free and open societies have the possibility to move our thinking forward. " With you all the way on that, however J.S. Mill I've got a number of reservations about. There are many statements of his, that taken out of context are very telling, insightful and seeming wise, but within the context of his overall Utilitarian philosophy, I think he is very corrosive to the foundations of Liberty.<BR/><BR/><BR/>tsebring said... <BR/>"While there are many conservative atheists and liberal Christians, the role of religion in determining one's outlook can't be ignored. " But if there can be liberal and conservative Atheists and Christians, it doesn't seem that their religious belief have THAT much impact on their conceptions of liberty, political or spiritual.<BR/><BR/>"The converted believer has the advantage of having discovered the Higher Truth for himself, not from Sunday School" Here I think that you're getting closer to the mark, since the conscious choice of a religion or philosophy is going to necessarily be a more thoroughly considered decision, it's ramifications more taking into consideration.<BR/><BR/>" Personality. Though this factor is very shaky as a real political litmus test, it can't be ignored either. I believe that the Type A personality, being more authoritative and simplistic, tends toward the conservative, while the type B, being more laid-back and complexity-loving, tends toward the liberal." This is where I think that Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" is so apt. He uses the evaluation of the Constrained and Unconstrained Vision as determining which side a person is going to lean towards. When I first read it, I was annoyed that he used the term Vision instead of Philosophy, but what he's talking about is a pre-philosophical cast of thought that is primarily focused on either outcomes (leans left) or processes (leans right) in that the constrained believe that Human Nature (not actions but the framework for them) is fixed and not to be monkeyed around with. They believe that people have a natural ability for greatness and depravity, and Virtues must be taught and developed and Laws defined to maintain the ability to achieve liberty both within and without.<BR/><BR/>Those with the Unconstrained Vision, don't feel constrained by any belief in Human Nature as something that is fixed, but believe instead that it is malleable and indeed if put in the right circumstances and environment the people will automatically and naturally improve (Joseph?) - not surprisingly, they tend towards determinism. But a thief who hasn't the opportunity or present inclination to steal is still intellectually and spiritually a thief.<BR/><BR/>Being blown into an acceptable course of behavior by prevailing winds of events is NOT equivalent to choosing, plotting and steering your course because you see it to be the Right course to take. And that is why without the liberty to evaluate and choose your beliefs and actions, while you may be set in pleasant circumstances, you will not understand liberty, or be in any meaningful way, Free.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160829320263950482006-10-14T05:35:00.000-07:002006-10-14T05:35:00.000-07:00Joseph said..."There is a kind of minimum average ...Joseph said..."There is a kind of minimum average income level required in a population in order for democracy to begin to thrive.What is needed, as a fundament, before that minimum can be met, is some level of security and stability. We tend to take that part for granted, but in countries where life is much more hand to mouth, security and stability are far more of a concern. Liberty as we understand it, is only a value for those who can afford it."<BR/><BR/>To put it politely, Bollocks. Check your North American History, the colonies (with the brief exception of the Pilgrims, who quickly corrected themselves) had liberty and democracy from the first settlement on, and they had neither a minimum income, nor security. Same with the Pioneers. Doesn't hold water, never has - but as fine folks such as FDR realized, it's a great tool of a line for Demagoging with.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160778255342200242006-10-13T15:24:00.000-07:002006-10-13T15:24:00.000-07:00..."In countries where life is much more hand to m......"In countries where life is much more hand to mouth, security and stability are far more of a concern. Liberty as we understand it, is only a value for those who can afford it"<BR/><BR/>Very true, when you are speaking of outward liberty vs inward, and I believe you do make that distinction. However, when a corrupt or Marxist government hoards all of the foreign aid and institutes crushing Marxist land reforms that force people off their lands (like Mugabe), or when liberals in the developed world enact protectionist laws, the people will never have a chance to reach that point where they can go beyond hand to mouth security and strive for true liberty. Security is often a suffocating blanket by which people are kept dependent on the government or foreign aid, and never allowed to reach their potential as humans. Only free enterprise can lead to true liberty. The UN has to get some balls and put pressure on tyrannies that crush liberty, but not much chance of that, I guess. <BR/><BR/>And yes, inner liberty, such as Paul had, can be had even when outward liberty is lacking. Read Angus Kinnear's "Against the Tide", the biography of Chinese preacher Watchman Nee, for a good example.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160776779638924172006-10-13T14:59:00.000-07:002006-10-13T14:59:00.000-07:00Rob,Interesting points that you make; I certainly ...Rob,<BR/>Interesting points that you make; I certainly agree that the true purpose of liberty is to be enabled to maximize our potential as humans, both for ourselves and for our fellow man. As for the elements that form one's political outlook, I think that they consist primarily of the following:<BR/><BR/>1. Religious belief. While there are many conservative atheists and liberal Christians, the role of religion in determining one's outlook can't be ignored. This is particularly true of those who are converted as adults, rather than raised religious. The converted believer has the advantage of having discovered the Higher Truth for himself, not from Sunday School; therefore, that Truth works it way deeper into both his conscious and uncounscious being, eventually factoring into his worldview and his decisions. Such a person, concerned with the Big Picture, as Bob has stated, tends toward conservatism. The atheist, if he does not work very hard at forming some kind of unifying truth to live by, will do either of two things: he will latch on to whatever truth seems to fit his circumstances or his state of mind at the time, so truth to him will pretty much change like the tides, or he will slide into the nihilism that Bob is talking about, where he believes in nothing and everything, and anything goes. Either way, that kind of relationship to truth would tend to make one a liberal. I have been on both sides, and this pretty much was the paradigm for my own journey. <BR/><BR/>2. Early Life Experiences. Snowonpine spoke of the role of early life experience as a determining factor for one's politics. That can't be ignored, either. If you grow up in a comfortable, affuent home with both parents (nothing wrong with that), and you pretty much don't lack for most of your life, you may tend towards conservatism, while if you grow up in a poor, dysfunctional home in a crime-ridden neighborhood, or a war-torn, poverty-ridden Third World country, you may tend towards liberalism. Of course many poor folks become conservatives (Will Rogers,Walter Williams), and many affluent people become liberals (John Kerry), so I would say that early life experience as a factor is limited. <BR/><BR/>3. Later Life Experiences. By this I mean adult experiences like work, marriage, and raising kids, as well as negative life experiences that bring the suffering that I spoke of earlier. I tend to think that, in later life, this is the most powerful of the factors. Work and family, being experiences that produce maturity, tend to gravitate one towards conservatism, while being single, divorced, unemployed, chronically ill, or subject to other destabilizing events that for some produce resentment and bitterness can pull one towards liberalism (not everyone becomes bitter in these circumstances, which gets into personality; see below).<BR/><BR/>4. Personality. Though this factor is very shaky as a real political litmus test, it can't be ignored either. I believe that the Type A personality, being more authoritative and simplistic, tends toward the conservative, while the type B, being more laid-back and complexity-loving, tends toward the liberal. However, just to show you how limited that is, I'm a Type B, and I'm conservative (though I was liberal). Also, being happy vs being unhappy can play a role. For instance, a person consumed with bitterness and resentment, who does not deal well with life's stresses, can tend to be liberal, while a person who is fairly content with their life and fairly resilient can tend to be more conservative (with exceptions, of course).<BR/><BR/>5. Formative influences (Parents, teachers, peers, professors). I think this is the biggest one of all for most people, as least in their younger years. I have come to believe that the average person does not learn to fully think for themselves until their late 20's, hence the variability and the gullibility of most college-age folks in terms of politics. For most people, the Later Life Experiences tend to erase the influences of the significant others, but there are some that just can't break free of the parents' beliefs, for whatever reason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160775323655358962006-10-13T14:35:00.000-07:002006-10-13T14:35:00.000-07:00jw,fareed zakaria has a book out, "The Future of D...jw,<BR/>fareed zakaria has a book out, "The Future of Democracy" (I think), that speaks to the subject of economic issues and liberty. There is a kind of minimum average income level required in a population in order for democracy to begin to thrive. What is needed, as a fundament, before that minimum can be met, is some level of security and stability. We tend to take that part for granted, but in countries where life is much more hand to mouth, security and stability are far more of a concern. Liberty as we understand it, is only a value for those who can afford it. Spiritual liberty has always been available to any and all humans, as it is an inside value, completely undetermined by outward circumstances. One can be in prison, as St. Paul, for example, and possess absolute spiritual liberty. "The Truth will make you free".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160752585272900492006-10-13T08:16:00.000-07:002006-10-13T08:16:00.000-07:00One’s political philosophy, whether one acknowledg...<I>One’s political philosophy, whether one acknowledges it or not, is going to depend upon one’s conception of human nature.</I><BR/><BR/>I think this is an important observation. After that, however, I disagree a good deal. If I read you correctly (and there's a good chance I don't), it would seem that an atheist would almost by definition be a Liberal in the US political spectrum. Yet many, many atheists are Libertarians, and hard-core ones at that.<BR/><BR/>Part of this may lie in a somewhat more complex conception of human nature. I don't think much of the average human being I meet on the street. I tend to agree with Philip Wylie who in <I>Generation of Vipers</I> commented that, on average, men were dirty, ignorant, crude, slovenly, drunk and generally unpleasant and "a meat inspector would not pass him". On the other hand, I think the human race as a whole is quite inspirational. So, while I may think individual men are "fallen" in some sense, I don't think humanity is fallen in any way.<BR/><BR/>There is a simple truth about freedom and liberty that has nothing to do with religion or even spirituality. Our founding fathers knew this thing, but I think it was so deep down in their thinking that it didn't surface often (a bit later on, John Stuart Mill hit the nail on the head in <I>On Liberty</I>). Regardless of whether you think men fine and noble or flawed and ridiculous, there is no way for them ever to get any better unless they have the freedom and liberty to pursue betterment for themselves. Without freedom, there can be no improvement in either individual humans or human nature. Only free and open societies have the possibility to move our thinking forward. While liberty cannot be infinite if we are all to share the same planet, the more we can do to maximize it, the more opportunity we have for improvement.<BR/><BR/>I'm an atheist, but I would think this argument would hold even stronger for religious people. If you believe in God, you must assume that He had a reason for creating us. Surely, He expected us to make the most of ourselves, anything less would be a waste of His creative energy. We can only make the most of ourselves if we live in societies that allow us the freedom to do so. If our every thought and action is prescribed, we can never grow.<BR/><BR/>So, Atheist or Believer, all of this casts a strong doubt on nanny-state liberalism. To me, every persnickety limitation on my liberty (which includes a spectrum from restaurants being told how much transfat they can serve to the income tax) is a limitation on the aspirations of humanity. Some of these limitations may be necessary trade-offs, but it is a flaw to think of them only in light of their positive returns and not also in light of their limitations on our liberty. It seems to me that the only sane choice is to want the best for humanity and that can't be modern, petty, nanny-state liberalism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160744266438062192006-10-13T05:57:00.000-07:002006-10-13T05:57:00.000-07:00snowonpine said... "Many years ago I ran across a ...snowonpine said... <BR/>"Many years ago I ran across a formulation someone made giving the key difference between liberals and conservatives that ran something like this:"<BR/><BR/>Your summary sounds like Thomas Sowell's. If you haven't read it, his "A Conflict of Visions" is an excellent analysis of the mindset of liberals and conservatives, or as he prefers, the Unconstrained and the Constrained Visions of Human Nature.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160743934370052862006-10-13T05:52:00.000-07:002006-10-13T05:52:00.000-07:00JW said..."Personally, I think the centrist path i...JW said...<BR/>"Personally, I think the centrist path is the best: There are rightist concepts which are very good, the same goes for the left. To me, it is the mix which is crucial to a happy & healthy society."<BR/><BR/>Hopefully you're speaking more of an economic mix rather than an political/ethical mix, you know... a little savings & a little speculating vs. a little charity and a little beheading.<BR/><BR/>I think looking at people by socio-economic divisions is shaky at best, and only really tells their understanding about their understanding of higher concepts of financial investments are concerned. Someone who earns $100,000 a year and someone who earns $25,000 are essentially no different in any economic way other than the particulars of the trade they chose, or didn't choose. <BR/><BR/>There is just as wide a gulf between someone who earns $100,000 or less and someone who manages their money to earn $x00,000,000's a year. <BR/><BR/>But in either case, that tells you very little about what is truly valuable about them, their philosophical, ethical and spiritual understanding and values. I've met numerous Dirt bags and Gems fairly equally distributed across the socio-economic spectrum. Cunning and Wisdom a very different understandings, and I would prefer to slice my scale of humanity by that factor over any other.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160721286331789922006-10-12T23:34:00.000-07:002006-10-12T23:34:00.000-07:00BTW, I've only flown over Argghh but I have been t...<I>BTW, I've only flown over Argghh but I have been to Bleah and Gak.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, whadaya know? I too have been to San Francisco and Washington, DC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160718924772856992006-10-12T22:55:00.000-07:002006-10-12T22:55:00.000-07:00Great post, and the comments, by Jenny, Jimmy, Wil...Great post, and the comments, by Jenny, Jimmy, Will, Joan, Snowon, and just about all of the commenters with a name.<BR/>"Objective truth vs nihlism", sums it up nicely, Bob.<BR/>Liberty requires blood, sweat and tears, responsibility, and God Himself. <BR/>The only good fight is the constant fight for truth to prevail<BR/>Jimmy- "A womb with a view" is brilliant!<BR/>We are all offered that womb everyday, and just like yesterday, I turn down that temptation.<BR/>The womb isn't right, and it's a lie, an illusion.<BR/>That womb also requires a pagan sacrifice.<BR/>The womb is like a drug, and the only result is death.<BR/>Who would sell their own souls for the world (womb)?<BR/>The leftist regressives would,<BR/>and the would force everyone else to do the same, or die in the reeducation camp, or gulag.<BR/>The left are a cross between the Borg and the Reavers when they have power.<BR/>Apocalypse indeed.<BR/>No one truthully said that it would be easy...but we can restassured that what we fight for, is more than worth it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160712712498077742006-10-12T21:11:00.000-07:002006-10-12T21:11:00.000-07:00Gagdad said:"As a matter of fact, history will dem...Gagdad said:<BR/>"As a matter of fact, history will demonstrate the opposite--that human beings by and large find liberty to be repellant, and much prefer security."<BR/><BR/>Yes, one rather wise man once told me that what most people are seeking is a "womb with a view." I've always thought that was true and a very apt way to put it.<BR/><BR/>Anonymous said:<BR/>"There's no liberty here anyway; we should just forget that word."<BR/> <BR/>I just returned from a visit to Russia. I was told that in the Soviet days you had to be careful where you stood and where you walked. You could be shot for just standing in the wrong place. Or sent to Siberia for saying anything critical about the government. But they had security......a menial job and a tiny apartment for life. Only the elderly are longing for the old days now. <BR/><BR/>Unless we understand how precious the freedom and opportunities we have are, we might actually believe the myth that there is no liberty here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160711790515306182006-10-12T20:56:00.000-07:002006-10-12T20:56:00.000-07:00tsebring said..." Liberty demands responsibility a...tsebring said...<BR/>" Liberty demands responsibility and self-reliance."<BR/><BR/>Imagine Liberty without responsibility and self-reliance... what would that look like? Behaving irresponsibly, and relying on others or a trust fund to support you... would that be liberty? I don't think so, it'd be self indulgence and license. <BR/><BR/>Liberty not only demands responsibility and self-reliance, it is the state of living responsibly and with self-reliance, that we call Liberty.<BR/><BR/>As an illustration of it's opposite consider our annonymouse friend:<BR/><BR/>"What I don't want is to be placed in the midst of sprawling hive of humanity and told to "fend for myself." Yeah, like I would know how to live in this artificial hell. We made it, so now we had better damn well make it secure for everyone. There's no liberty here anyway; we should just forget that word. "<BR/><BR/>He's typical of those look for what they'll never find. Even given his incredibly stupid ideal of effortlessly living off the land and "Damn right I want something in return, so give me the liberal bill of rights" he'd find himself having wished for precisely the life that liberty will never inhabit.<BR/><BR/>And that is the flip side of what Gagdad posted about today, "But since “want” is literally infinite, this sets up the need for a government that is infinite in its powers. For as the adage goes, any time the government does something for you, it does something to you. Since it now proposes to do everything for you..." that not only will government do everything for you and to you, even given all you will get, by dint of getting it all, you will be completely lacking in liberty, and the ability to enjoy (in the manner of enjoyment that is consistent with Happiness) any of it at all.<BR/><BR/>To have it all and be incapable of having anything of value - that is the truly fallen state of nature.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160709528931367632006-10-12T20:18:00.000-07:002006-10-12T20:18:00.000-07:00snowonpine,Agreed; I believe as well that man's ab...snowonpine,<BR/>Agreed; I believe as well that man's ability to do good in and for himself or others simply does not exist, and never will,despite all the naive and do-good experimentation that would-be social engineers such as educators and psychologists (not you, Bob) have attempted, and all the utopian philosophies that those like Rousseau and L. Ron Hubbard have tried to drill into our brains. In allowing post-modernism and Marxism to convince us that there is nothing worth believing in, and that there is no supreme being, that we are our own gods, we have unleashed a process of de-evolution that will either turn us into androgynous androids like Commander Data, or Cro-Magnons who believe in "if it feels good, do it", depending on whether lifeless intellect or uncontrolled emotionalism rule the day. Either future is appallingly abysmal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160707898352368032006-10-12T19:51:00.000-07:002006-10-12T19:51:00.000-07:00Snowonpine - It seems to me that Treadwell, like M...Snowonpine - <BR/><BR/>It seems to me that Treadwell, like Michael Jackson, sought innocence via retreat into childhood - Treadwell was and Jackson is ridiculously, outlandishly childlike. This is a false innocence, of course. Is actually a form of neo-paganism, I think, in the same way the Islamofascists retreat into what they think of as a state of innocence that existed in pre-modern times. Innocence has to be won but only by plunging onward, forward.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160696854332536862006-10-12T16:47:00.000-07:002006-10-12T16:47:00.000-07:00I happen to think that the conservative view of hu...I happen to think that the conservative view of human nature mentioned in my earlier post is the accurate one and that ignoring this fact can lead to, well, look around. <BR/><BR/>As a collateral issue, I'm alway startled when I hear somebody-- usually a young person--say in response to a situation in their life that is not to their liking or has not gone as they wished it to, "that's not fair." I have never viewed life as being rigged in our favor so that it is fair. Teilhard de Chardin not to the contrary, Nature is indifferent to us. In human society, we can hold to certain beliefs, conduct ourselves in a certain way and still, there are no guarantees of success in our endeavors, especially given the workings of fate, random chance, luck or whatever you want to call it. <BR/><BR/>As I see it we can, however, maximize our chances of success by accepting reality as it is and making plans to deal with that reality. <BR/><BR/>As an example of what happens when you ignore reality, particularly the reality of Nature, I give you the story of Timothy Treadwell, the self-styled "Grizzly Man." <BR/><BR/>Timothy had failed as an actor, had drug problems, and, to listen to his ramblings on his self-made films, had some major sexual identity problems. So, what better thing to do that to hie off to the Alaskan wilderness to be an advocate for Grizzly bears.<BR/><BR/>Treadwell was untaught and thought that unpredictable, wild and notably grumpy Grizzlies were really "party animals" who he gave cutsey names to; he apparently saw these Grizzlies as just big people in shaggy clothes. His trademark, over several years of time with the bears, was to camp in their territory and get so close to them that he could touch them. This approach got both he and his girlfriend eaten by a grumpy "party animal." Looks like he didn't tread too well.snowonpinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15473699257588152564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160692729193235012006-10-12T15:38:00.000-07:002006-10-12T15:38:00.000-07:00Here's an old song by Kansas that sums it up prett...Here's an old song by Kansas that sums it up pretty well:<BR/><BR/>Can I tell you something<BR/>Got to tell you one thing<BR/>If you expect the freedom<BR/>That you says is yours<BR/>Show us you deserve it<BR/>Help us to preserve it<BR/>Or being free will just be<BR/>Words and nothing more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160692465318539902006-10-12T15:34:00.000-07:002006-10-12T15:34:00.000-07:00"I've only flown over Argghh but I have been to Bl...<I>"I've only flown over Argghh but I have been to Bleah and Gak."</I><BR/><BR/>Ah! A well-traveled and travailed gentleman. I've lived in the States of Fear, Boredom, and Awareness, and have been to Eastbourne, England. <BR/><BR/>Well, I've never been to Spain...but I've been to Oklahoma.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160692350871767832006-10-12T15:32:00.000-07:002006-10-12T15:32:00.000-07:00Bob,Your observations about liberalism being based...Bob,<BR/>Your observations about liberalism being based on a view of man that denies fallen nature, and of the preference of security over liberty are so right on! The liberal refuses to believe that man is a spiritually flawed being in need of Repair From Above, ignoring the fact that we have had 4000 years to "get it right" and have gotten no closer than we were then. Without God, our ability to live a just and loving existence is no better than that of a Cro-Magnon (which may explain the behavior at Columbia University). <BR/><BR/>As for security vs liberty, why in hell would someone prefer the former over the latter? I believe it is for these reasons:<BR/><BR/>1. Liberty is COSTLY. If you could ask any soldier from the Revolution, Civil War, or WWII, or any of the Russian Refuseniks, they would tell you this in no uncertain terms. Just as some of the Israelites were not wanting to give up their Egyptian slavery because of the pots of meat they got in between beatings, so some people are not willing to make the sacrifices neccesary to move from Security to Liberty due to the little perks of Security. <BR/><BR/>2. Liberty demands responsibility and self-reliance. To people that have been raised with a government IV tube in their arm, this is an alien concept. The idea of unplugging that tube frightens them. But ask any welfare mother who has gotten a job, graduated Community College, and now works for a decent living, and they will tell you that facing that fear and leaving the IV tube behind was the greatest thing that ever happened to them. <BR/><BR/>3. Liberty requires vigilance. Like the struggle to create it, the struggle to maintain it is costly. There are always, always, enemies from without and within wanting to take that liberty away, either by invasion or by legislation (or judicial fiat, the preferred liberal method).Again, some are just not willing to put forth the effort to defend it, or like Vidkun Quisling or Marshal Petain, find it easier to join the enemy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160691261199154212006-10-12T15:14:00.000-07:002006-10-12T15:14:00.000-07:00"No, the real fall happened in Sumeria circa 6000 ..."No, the real fall happened in Sumeria circa 6000 BC when we first started harvesting surplus grain and locking it up."<BR/><BR/>Actually I think it was more like 10,000 B.C.<BR/><BR/>"Yeah, I'm fallen. Agriculture and population have denied me my animal freedom."<BR/><BR/>Animals, by they their nature, are not and cannot be free. Only man can be free.<BR/><BR/>"no liberty here anyway; we should just forget that word."<BR/><BR/>Go tell a cop to fuck off and when you don't get your head kicked in, tell me there's no liberty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160690668997233042006-10-12T15:04:00.000-07:002006-10-12T15:04:00.000-07:00Anonymous,your post looks like a combination of cl...Anonymous,<BR/>your post looks like a combination of classic Rousseauist primitivism and blue collar throw-out-the-bums cynicism. Whether you like it or not, you are in the middle of this "sprawling hive of humanity" like the rest of us, and neither escaping to some National Forest to live off the land or just giving up and saying "they're all bums, throw em out" will change that. The reason we have been given the right to vote in this nation is so that we can turn our discontent into action, rather than just sit at home and complain or wish we were in Shangri-La. You don't like things out there; work to change them (just don't force your vision down our throats).<BR/><BR/>As for primitivism, I kind of like the fact that I can have surgery with anaesthesia, drive a car if I have to get somewhere 300 miles away, and express my thoughts on a computer screen. Technology rules!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160686521338729732006-10-12T13:55:00.000-07:002006-10-12T13:55:00.000-07:00Today's excellent blog regarding human nature and ...Today's excellent blog regarding human nature and radically different human beings ties right into what I've been listening to on my daily commute: G.K. Chesterton's wonderful "St. Francis of Assisi". Here was a convivial man who had everything a modern liberal could ask for - unearned social status and a likely future of ease and wealth. But unfortunate circumstance challenged him to fully confront and embrace his true fallenness, dismantling his personhood to the point of denying himself all rights and thereby gaining true liberty and brotherhood with all. His apparent paradoxical vertical behavior was so extreme that it did not frighten the hoi polloi as it discounted him as harmlessly eccentric, but it attracted enough visionary followers to subsequently cause the greatest earthquake the Catholic church had seen to date. His impact is still sending waves downstream today.<BR/><BR/>Although I believe that a fresh St. Francis would not be allowed even a small voice in today's global environment, there is yet one arena of hope - blogdom. So count me among the profoundly thankful that you exist and pen such riveting blogs with such clarity. I am so glad I stumbled across your beacon of light. Shine on Gagdad Bob!<BR/><BR/>"Don't change the world; change worlds." -St. Francis of AssisiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160685278026367462006-10-12T13:34:00.000-07:002006-10-12T13:34:00.000-07:00This post goes along with a realization I had at s...This post goes along with a realization I had at some point that suffering is another one of life's paradoxes and is not necessarily bad (although I sure hate it when I'm going through it personally). Sometimes when we think we're suffering we're not really - we just may not like whatever is causing our discomfort. Growing pains, like labor pains produce something. <BR/><BR/>And also blaming God for suffering is a crock, since most of the world's suffering is due to the actions of man. We cause our own suffering and then blame God. <BR/><BR/>WE say, if God is a loving and just God, how can he let all those people starve in Africa? But if you look at the truth of it - you have despots who are in it for the money and power who don't give a crap about the general population and more often than not getting their jollies by torturing them, and then rich liberals in the US and European politicians who back these kind of people and send them gobs of money which never make it to the people who really need it - and a lot of "charity" money going to fund genocide and jihad (altho that may be redundant) and even more suffering. And then consider it cool and "intellectual" to blame the US. But when the US does get involved, they turn around and accuse the US of interfering in sovereign nations. Disgusting.<BR/><BR/>Who can NOT believe in God. If there was no God with his hand on everything - we'd seriously implode with all our stupidity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160685037260485242006-10-12T13:30:00.000-07:002006-10-12T13:30:00.000-07:00Today’s blog relates to my question yesterday, esp...Today’s blog relates to my question yesterday, especially “The Government owes me…<B>an absence of fear, and full protection from my own bad decisions throughout life!</B>”<BR/><BR/>I commented to Eeevil Right Wing Nut yesterday about what I think is the fundamental <B>bad decision</B>:<BR/> <BR/>“I've wondered if the leftist doesn't feel acute guilt and shame deep in their subconscious for having <B>chosen to go it alone in the material world</B> i.e., having lost their Divine heritage so to speak. The result is the frantic, emotional ranting and dire forms of activism to placate the "hole" in their severed being. They would never admit it, their egos are far too energized to even begin to get in touch with that level of stillness, the memories of the <I>fall</I>, and the responsibility that it all entails. Oh well, I trust the truth will reveal itself to all at some point.”<BR/><BR/>It now makes more sense to me why the liberals want such an elaborate and controlling government – they must errantly think that it will really make them "whole" again…Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160683767876989122006-10-12T13:09:00.000-07:002006-10-12T13:09:00.000-07:00But it is the quintessence of a Faustian bargain, ...<I>But it is the quintessence of a Faustian bargain, in which you have traded God for government. You are now Horizontal Man</I><BR/>Or, you have the French mentality.Faustahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07282125634465210955noreply@blogger.com