dagblog - Comments for "Open Thread: Which Issues or Political/Social Beliefs Have You Changed Your Mind About Over the Years?"

Yes, American Dreamer, mine

moat — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:47:41 +0000

Yes, American Dreamer, mine was a very obscure statement and you are very charitable to not simply dismiss it as nonsense. I have to stop making comments immediately before becoming unconscious or after being arrested for possessing a weapon. The following elaboration may also be obscure but at least for entirely different reasons.

Your question about what has changed and for what reasons got me thinking first about what has not changed. Before being educated enough to know hardly anything about the subject, I was fascinated by psychological language and how its categories draw such a sharp picture of what experience presents and what is happening in the moment. I remember seeing myself through this or that model with great enthusiasm, causing untold suffering upon those who happened to be around me at the time.

After a process of becoming liberally educated I came to understand that the wanton empiricism I had been indulging in was entangled in the more encompassing problem of what was knowledge and the grounds for any kind of language to talk about it. To avoid the silence that Cratylus came to, I learned we would have to talk first about how we would talk before making a lot of claims within a conversation.

In the history of philosophers, this condition was accepted as a reasonable point of departure until Kant became upset with Hume and his humorous observations about what we talk about when we talk about causes of things and events. Kant solved his problem with Hume by introducing a psychological ground that limited what should be talked about. When we refer to things being what they actually are, we are adding something to what has been given to us to perceive and organize as knowledge.

Hegel took this idea further and said we were subtracting elements from the phenomena to make it real for us. Hegel inverts all of the previous problems of philosophy into stages in our development. However true or false he may be in his point of view, the perspective is completely psychological. The grounds for our existence is our Desire and its negation. What we encounter as psychological thought (in the western tradition) since Hegel has either been a qualification of his perspective, a rebuttal, or some mixture of the two.

I realize that I am treating vast areas of discourse as quickly as a thief running through a back yard to grab a t-shirt off of someone else's clothes line. I do so only to quickly provide a background of sorts. I have long been interested in Kierkegaard as a rebuttal to Hegel. With the emphasis on what is happening to a single individual, the logic of how a "person in the world" came to be what they are is only another story measured against the problem of living. As Jimi Hendrix said: "I am the one to die when it is my time to die so i will live my life they way I want to."

What I am trying to say is different for me now that I am older is that I always thought previously that the personal as a rebuttal of the "system of the world" meant that we lived in shadows of the kind Baudrillard describes. I now don't believe he meant for us to give up so easily.

The logic of History is dead. The systems of the world are powerful and change is difficult. That doesn't make them necessary.

From my perspective, BOTH

Resistance — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 18:27:34 +0000

In reply to If it works for you,

From my perspective, BOTH ....religion and politics has become corrupted.

Pure worship has become adulterated because of politics.

One only has to look back in history, to see where pure worship lost its way .

Charlemagne comes to mind, The Nicene Council

Catholic, Protestants, Lutherans, etc POWER to RULE, and keep the masses confused.

Too many people wanted their "ears tickled" AND SAW AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENRICH THEMSELVES, so divisions and sects developed...... (political parties)

Instead of meeting Gods high standards of conduct, these adulterers pick and choose which laws they'll observe; then rationalize their FORM OF GODLY DEVOTION is acceptable.

SAYS WHO?

Gods principles didn't change, the people did.

CHRISTIANS LIVE BY PRINCIPLES…. The law covenant was removed when it was hung on the stake.

The Political system has many laws on the books, because it seeks to find ways, to circumvent the principles.

Hence those who enriched themselves say "Wall Street didn't break any laws"; but WE all know it did violate principles.

Nations ignore Godly principles, then find excuses or loop holes in the law to excuse their conduct.

Had the people, of all the Nations, clung to godly principles as the foundation of societal interactions, WE THE PEOPLE would have the Authority to challenge our leaders.

Telling World leaders “The Higher Authority over you; says this is the way”

Imagine people of principle, questioning and pointing out to their rulers. “Hey you leaders! are you doing the right thing, if you enact that law or you ignore Godly principles?

The people have become enslaved to the wrong Authority.

An authority that rejects Bible principles.

The people gave up a powerful hand or weapon in the battle, to reign in unprincipled men (leaders)

Why would we ever have wars; or bankers stealing from the treasury, or children out of wedlock, or poor folks; and so on and on, the woes that afflict mankind; if we had just listened to Bible counsel?

I blame our woes, on those, who don’t fear God.

When a Nation no longer fears God, why should their leaders lead, with godly principles.

Our leaders don't fear anything accept getting caught, and when caught there is no punishment.

“For whatever a man soweth; that is what he will reap”

They will suffer for their ignorance?

Have we not suffered enough, under a rulership, that ignores Godly truth and rebels against the HIGHER AUTHORITY ?

BTW ...So called Christian Churches that focus on individual sinners, distracts from the overall objective...... PEACE and SECURITY for all.

If it works for you,

Flavius — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:37:25 +0000

In reply to I have a similar saying "Your

If it works for you, fine.

Personally ,I moved left politically at the same time I chose to reject religion. Not cause and effect but the normal rationalization of positions as part of maturing.

In the case of politics substantially influenced by a course which involved deeply considering a number of key judicial decision ; with respect to religion forced by my rejecting the falsity (for me) of a religious marriage ceremony.

My activities don't provide

Flavius — Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:04:53 +0000

In reply to Had you perceived a

My activities don't provide me with opportunities to observe such a distinction if it does exist.

Some years ago a local community rooted bank gave me a loan which kept afloat my small business until I found a buyer. Dunno whether that would be true today..