Quote: “The problem in Europe is not a lunatic fringe but a lunatic mainstream ever more estranged from its voters”.
This time it was Mark Steyn who got me going with the above succinct ending to one of his articles in MACLEANS (thank God there are still some readable publications in Canada) see http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/06/18/why-the-fascists-are-winning-in-europe.
This is a tell-tale article concerning the European parliamentary mess resulting from its last election, (just a bit more of a mangle than in North-America) – and one could venture to refer to it politely as “the effluent of democracy finally hits the proverbial fan”.
And still we continue to natter about politics or bury our heads in the sand, (similar to sleepwalking) – when it should be obvious that democracy cannot resolve intricate problems, i.e. according to the law that ‘a problem cannot be resolved with the same consciousness as that which created it in the first place’. So in essence it is a phantom problem, i.e. it doesn’t exist on its own accord and is entirely due to notions that evolved fiction-like out of the partisan state. Root issues used to be dealt with by tribal councils, but when such councils are succeeded or superseded by bureaucratic state functionaries under partisan voter guidelines, unresolved conflict is the natural consequence. We just delude ourselves by the thought that our various internal struggles for control have a more essential basis - when in fact it all boils down to unresolvable conflicts due to system hemorrhage. Sadly, democracy – at least as we know it – is dysfunctional !
Such a statement will be followed immediately by the shout “how can you attack a self-evident truth?” This outcry will first be trumpeted by the media which is beholden to the system, and secondly followed by the voter who is used to the existing paradigm and is just not ready to even consider a possible alternative. And all this while we have an unimaginably successful western country as a positive example for just such an alternative, in fact the country with one of the longest lasting continuous governmental system in modern history – Switzerland! This country has a non-adversarial decentralized governmental structure and the political parties have little power as the country is mostly guided by the highly influential professional associations that function in a similar manner to the old guilds. This is a country with one of the highest standards of living, a country who since its inception has never fought a war, a country that many people tend to vacation in – and yet it is talked about by very few people in a political context.
Why is that ? I don’t have the exact answer to that question, but it is surely rooted in our psychological avoidance nature, perhaps nurtured by our political class. But there comes a time – or sooner or later there will come a time – when we can no longer afford to neglect our own madness and/or the madness of our self-centered politicians (aka lawyers). But in order to start the inquiry we need a committed group of individuals willing to assist their country to climb out of its morass – not in order to create a revolution, but in order to be ready with a new structure to be put in place if and when the inevitable revolution will take place.
Those of you who are familiar with the science of System Dynamics, (as taught at MIT and several other universities), will no doubt be familiar with the underlying principles of natural system change and to those my thoughts will not be entirely strange – to everyone else I shall ask for forgiveness, either for having shattered their illusions or for having prematurely awakened them from their somnambulistic state.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Highway robbery …..
At least that is what David Warren calls the Federal Government’s bailout plan for GM and Chrysler – and blaming our gutless Conservative Party as the primary culprit -see http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/
Well, if it were only that simple! I have no dispute with David’s essential assumption, although calling it “highway robbery” is incorrect because such action would require the intention to do just that (either openly or surreptitiously) while the intention is here to save the jobs of the employees – however misguided the whole concept may be. (No doubt David has a point with respect to the many MPs covering their behinds by supporting this plan – this being a natural outcome of psychological default in a voter democracy – as can also be seen in the behaviour of liberal politicians in the EU with respect to the modern demographic pressures from Islamist constituencies. But I think that this is more of an assisting nature rather then the primary cause).
No specific group can be blamed for the direction our government is so unwisely embarking on in this case, particularly as we are just walking in the footsteps of our big neighbour to the south (not that this alone would give it greater legitimacy but it underlines the tremendous pressures that are at work within our so-called democratic system).
And that brings me again to my favourite subject – the malfunction or our governmental system per se. It is here the problem lies. If our elected guardians were not beholden to the voters and in fact were not beholden to any specific parties we may not be in this mess to begin with but most certainly would not have been tempted or cajoled into such a ridiculous bailout plan. If our guardians were instead appointed from the country’s professional guilds they might have had a completely different outlook on our economic as well as our political affairs – nor could they have been exposed to undue pressure from voting constituencies.
Now that I have stated my point, however briefly, I have no illusion that any changes in this direction are afoot nor that they could be officially promoted at this time in our political development, underdevelopment or misdevelopment. In order for such ideas of guild government to even surface it will require major catalysts of a different order and also no doubt a further disintegration of our system would need take place - the phoenix only rises from the ashes and while we are well on that way I would not hold my breath for such remedies in the immediate future.
At least that is what David Warren calls the Federal Government’s bailout plan for GM and Chrysler – and blaming our gutless Conservative Party as the primary culprit -see http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/
Well, if it were only that simple! I have no dispute with David’s essential assumption, although calling it “highway robbery” is incorrect because such action would require the intention to do just that (either openly or surreptitiously) while the intention is here to save the jobs of the employees – however misguided the whole concept may be. (No doubt David has a point with respect to the many MPs covering their behinds by supporting this plan – this being a natural outcome of psychological default in a voter democracy – as can also be seen in the behaviour of liberal politicians in the EU with respect to the modern demographic pressures from Islamist constituencies. But I think that this is more of an assisting nature rather then the primary cause).
No specific group can be blamed for the direction our government is so unwisely embarking on in this case, particularly as we are just walking in the footsteps of our big neighbour to the south (not that this alone would give it greater legitimacy but it underlines the tremendous pressures that are at work within our so-called democratic system).
And that brings me again to my favourite subject – the malfunction or our governmental system per se. It is here the problem lies. If our elected guardians were not beholden to the voters and in fact were not beholden to any specific parties we may not be in this mess to begin with but most certainly would not have been tempted or cajoled into such a ridiculous bailout plan. If our guardians were instead appointed from the country’s professional guilds they might have had a completely different outlook on our economic as well as our political affairs – nor could they have been exposed to undue pressure from voting constituencies.
Now that I have stated my point, however briefly, I have no illusion that any changes in this direction are afoot nor that they could be officially promoted at this time in our political development, underdevelopment or misdevelopment. In order for such ideas of guild government to even surface it will require major catalysts of a different order and also no doubt a further disintegration of our system would need take place - the phoenix only rises from the ashes and while we are well on that way I would not hold my breath for such remedies in the immediate future.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Our flawed political assumptions (March 4th) - continued
Let’s give this a whirl to get us out of our comfort zones – particularly interesting for those of us who go through life with an agenda as to what’s wrong with this or other aspect of modern life and how we could do away with it by means of some activist motion or other; or better still whose fault it is and who ought to be blamed for it, etc.
The original brief may be useful in reviewing our own assumptions (which I believe are just that, i.e. assumptions ! Although we often go about thinking about these as if they were our very own heuristically arrived truths and therefore ought to be self-evident – and so they are ! …. but only until somebody questions us about their logic – at that point we go into a frenzied sequence of emotional justifications, etc all of which amount to …. ah well, you know what I mean - assumptions and opinions being the cheapest commodity around).
The purpose here is not so much to deny the fact that there are many areas of life that could do with some improvement (as this obviously has always been the case) but to clarify that most institutions or paradigms come out of a context of societal modalities that had their origin in something else and simply became part and parcel of society’s protective engagement with the vagaries of life (i.e. mostly fear based protection against the unknown).
And this of course brings us to Henry Higgins’ exclamation in “My Fair Lady” when he says “Why is thinking never even tried …..” (although this was said jestingly with reference to the so-called “weaker” sex , it would equally apply to just about everyone).
This modern struggle where everyone becomes their own Don Quixote fighting windmills (with or without the benefit of one’s own Sancho Panza to take up some of the burden) is destiny's consequence of having engaged in rebellion and for which we now have to pay the price in the school of psychological hard knocks – that’s the positive benefit of a negative action. (Or as it has ever been philosophically paraphrased “out of bad comes good”, e.g. when the Mafia’s off-springs turn their inherited structures into sociologically legitimate businesses, similar in fact to the off-springs of the robber barons of old who became the later governing aristocracy, etc).
Of course collectively that’s the only way a society will ever proceed, however, the painful part is having to observe the process in individuals, knowing that it is at least potentially possible to surrender one’s rebellion in exchange for the acquisition of guided instruction from a philosophical formula - that’s why the oracle of ancient Greece had declared Socrates the wisest of men – and why ? Only because he always maintained (or most likely feigned) his ignorance in the face of everyone else having “an opinion” (see here our above “assumptions”).
Let’s give this a whirl to get us out of our comfort zones – particularly interesting for those of us who go through life with an agenda as to what’s wrong with this or other aspect of modern life and how we could do away with it by means of some activist motion or other; or better still whose fault it is and who ought to be blamed for it, etc.
The original brief may be useful in reviewing our own assumptions (which I believe are just that, i.e. assumptions ! Although we often go about thinking about these as if they were our very own heuristically arrived truths and therefore ought to be self-evident – and so they are ! …. but only until somebody questions us about their logic – at that point we go into a frenzied sequence of emotional justifications, etc all of which amount to …. ah well, you know what I mean - assumptions and opinions being the cheapest commodity around).
The purpose here is not so much to deny the fact that there are many areas of life that could do with some improvement (as this obviously has always been the case) but to clarify that most institutions or paradigms come out of a context of societal modalities that had their origin in something else and simply became part and parcel of society’s protective engagement with the vagaries of life (i.e. mostly fear based protection against the unknown).
And this of course brings us to Henry Higgins’ exclamation in “My Fair Lady” when he says “Why is thinking never even tried …..” (although this was said jestingly with reference to the so-called “weaker” sex , it would equally apply to just about everyone).
This modern struggle where everyone becomes their own Don Quixote fighting windmills (with or without the benefit of one’s own Sancho Panza to take up some of the burden) is destiny's consequence of having engaged in rebellion and for which we now have to pay the price in the school of psychological hard knocks – that’s the positive benefit of a negative action. (Or as it has ever been philosophically paraphrased “out of bad comes good”, e.g. when the Mafia’s off-springs turn their inherited structures into sociologically legitimate businesses, similar in fact to the off-springs of the robber barons of old who became the later governing aristocracy, etc).
Of course collectively that’s the only way a society will ever proceed, however, the painful part is having to observe the process in individuals, knowing that it is at least potentially possible to surrender one’s rebellion in exchange for the acquisition of guided instruction from a philosophical formula - that’s why the oracle of ancient Greece had declared Socrates the wisest of men – and why ? Only because he always maintained (or most likely feigned) his ignorance in the face of everyone else having “an opinion” (see here our above “assumptions”).
Saturday, March 28, 2009
And now for a “Hurray” to David Warren !
Having just given a plug to Ezra Levant (via Mark Steyn) it is now my pleasure to do likewise for another very worthwhile writer that some of you are familiar with - not that he needs it. You can access David Warren’s article Slippery slope on his website at http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/.
It is not the first time I am supporting David on this location (and it probably will not be the last time) but his present thoughts contained therein are especially appreciated as I finally feel vindicated, having myself predicted these outcomes a few years ago, as some of you know – only to be decried as an ultra-conservative fear monger.
As a species it seems, we are collectively wired for resisting the obvious – I still haven’t figured out what it is specifically that causes this dilemma, which ultimately and inevitably leads to social disintegration, revolution and then a new run at the spiral of upward societal achievement. Of course I do not pretend to understand the underlying principles of this trend – but thank heaven neither does anyone else. However, since it is also self-evident that some people are smarter than others – and they could and are consistently ferreted out from within the various professional groups which are part and parcel of and give meaning to our daily existence – why is it that we have allowed our country to be run by politicians (mostly lawyers to boot – not that I have anything personally against them, after all ‘some of my best friends’ fall into this group; ok, so the word ‘best’ may here be somewhat excessive) under the disguise of democracy and freedom ?
I invite your contributions to these thoughts – if you’re Swiss you don’t qualify as you would have an unfair advantage.
Having just given a plug to Ezra Levant (via Mark Steyn) it is now my pleasure to do likewise for another very worthwhile writer that some of you are familiar with - not that he needs it. You can access David Warren’s article Slippery slope on his website at http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/.
It is not the first time I am supporting David on this location (and it probably will not be the last time) but his present thoughts contained therein are especially appreciated as I finally feel vindicated, having myself predicted these outcomes a few years ago, as some of you know – only to be decried as an ultra-conservative fear monger.
As a species it seems, we are collectively wired for resisting the obvious – I still haven’t figured out what it is specifically that causes this dilemma, which ultimately and inevitably leads to social disintegration, revolution and then a new run at the spiral of upward societal achievement. Of course I do not pretend to understand the underlying principles of this trend – but thank heaven neither does anyone else. However, since it is also self-evident that some people are smarter than others – and they could and are consistently ferreted out from within the various professional groups which are part and parcel of and give meaning to our daily existence – why is it that we have allowed our country to be run by politicians (mostly lawyers to boot – not that I have anything personally against them, after all ‘some of my best friends’ fall into this group; ok, so the word ‘best’ may here be somewhat excessive) under the disguise of democracy and freedom ?
I invite your contributions to these thoughts – if you’re Swiss you don’t qualify as you would have an unfair advantage.
A well deserved plug for Ezra Levant
“Shaken and stirred” is a MUST READ article by Mark Steyn endorsing Ezra Levant’s best-selling book Shakedown at http://www.steynonline.com/content/blogsection/14/128
And, although very unusual for that paper, you will see The Globe and Mail giving it top marks as well. – It is about time that some of us sleepwalking Canadian citizens wake up to what is (and has been) going on by means of uncalled-for censorship and harassment by the various federal and provincial HRCs.
Take a look and stand up to be counted defending your rights and freedoms.
“Shaken and stirred” is a MUST READ article by Mark Steyn endorsing Ezra Levant’s best-selling book Shakedown at http://www.steynonline.com/content/blogsection/14/128
And, although very unusual for that paper, you will see The Globe and Mail giving it top marks as well. – It is about time that some of us sleepwalking Canadian citizens wake up to what is (and has been) going on by means of uncalled-for censorship and harassment by the various federal and provincial HRCs.
Take a look and stand up to be counted defending your rights and freedoms.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Towards a functioning Republican Government
Before I'm off taking a short winter break I had better rush off the thoughts for your consideration. They are by necessity in an embryonic state and require the further input from the other participants in this project – and are here offered only as a starting point or a directional catalyst.
In order to define what such a government could be, we would first need to be convinced that what we experience now is dysfunctional and as such is in need of change. But the next question that arises is what makes it dysfunctional and what would constitute a functional government ?
Perhaps we could agree that the main source of dysfunction is the structure of competition between opposition parties, which in essence is also illogical.
A government’s purpose is to make the ways of the people smooth by means of laws and to protect its citizens from internal and external aggression. As such government ought to primarily reflect a cosmic order it would therefore also be hierarchical rather than egalitarian which is also typical of most natural constituent groups and species. The problem of the hierarchical governments of the past (aristocracy, oligarchy, not to speak of fascism, communism, etc) was in their disregard of natural law and a focus on self-serving ideologies.
Next we would want to protect the citizens from any undue overlording of governmental institutions – and this would best be protected by a parliamentary assembly of responsible citizens appointed by the very many professional interest groups such as are existing in daily life (somewhat similar to the governmental structures of Switzerland – we may call them modern guilds, e.g. mechanical industries, academia, health services, chemical industries, transportation, communications, tourism, etc) rather than the presently artificially created parties around isolated and usually competitive arbitrary political concepts (liberals, conservatives, socialists, sessionists, etc).
We would also further need to protect the average citizen from exploitation by the guilds by means of a mandatory elective format within the guilds as well as within regional (and/or municipal) representation.
While we are on the subject of elections – the presently egalitarian system has proven its illogical inefficiency by neglecting the fact of different human development in the areas of intelligence and responsibility – therefore it should be no surprise that the present format is catering to the lowest common denominator, i.e. the weakest link in the system. Instead, a country would want as high an order of functional intelligence as possible at the governing levels and thus voting qualifications would seem inevitably necessary. As to who or which group would lay out the corresponding criteria in as just a manner as possible, it would seem that this were then best decided by the guild administrators (elected or appointed) – this is not written in stone, and as of this moment is at best a road under construction.
With all these efforts we have to bear in mind that whatever will be the outcome of our deliberations, it will require a long uphill struggle – always cognizant of the need of ultimately stating our thoughts in inoffensive terminology and while still having to anticipate resistance from the political establishments of all presently elected politicians. This will most likely be the case for as long as we would need to persist within the presently given political environment – and it will therefore be unlikely that our ideas will sufficiently penetrate to reach critical mass prior to the collapse of our present systems (due to political or economic disintegration - the latter having no doubt recently commenced).
Of course, another alternative for the introduction of such a system as herein advocated would be a successful military take-over of a positive and temporary nature, which only rarely has been able to maintain a stable government in the long run in modern history – Turkey's Attaturk having been the only exception and it is itself now in a state of disintegration on account of a newly introduced democratic opening which allowes the fanatical Islamic segments to make its distructive inroads.
And so it would seem better to start with something rather than nothing – and I invite my friends and associates to step up to the plate and assist in this challenging endeavour. Seeing that the goal is far off into the future we had better get started right away – and as some of you may here recall the words of an unknown author ….”that labour is the lot of man ….. in vain, if the hand be not prompt to execute the design” and ….. “persistence is necessary to establish perfection, that the rude material receives its fine polish but by repeated efforts alone, that nothing short of indefatigable exertion will induce the habit of virtue, enlighten the mind and render the soul pure” ….
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Good thoughts about Bill Buckley
While I think Mark Steyn did an outstanding job reviewing the life of Bill Buckley at the occasion of the first anniversary of his death http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1837/30 - in the last sentence Mark again succumbed to the dreary never ending acceptance that there will be winners and losers in this battle when in fact the more likely outcome will be that there will only be losers – that’s us, who allowed ourselves to be lured into this equation by the prevailing thought of this fading age.
No one suspected that it’s all a mirage in favor of the politicians – when will we ever learn ? And if we are to follow Mark Steyn along his path we never will – not to speak of the even worse line-up on the left. So you’re saying why bother at all since everything’s going down the tube ?
Well that’s exactly my point – the powerful forces of the new paradigm will only be able to make themselves heard after the demise of our antiquated systems when the phoenix is ready for launch – in the mean time friends, let’s give a hand of applause to Mark – as disguise for the lesser evil – which at least will assure a gentler landing when the time has come.
Am I being obtuse ? You’re damn right I am ! – Just nobody tell me “I know exactly what you mean” but in case you think that you know, keep it to yourself till next we have a chance to share a glass or two.
While I think Mark Steyn did an outstanding job reviewing the life of Bill Buckley at the occasion of the first anniversary of his death http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1837/30 - in the last sentence Mark again succumbed to the dreary never ending acceptance that there will be winners and losers in this battle when in fact the more likely outcome will be that there will only be losers – that’s us, who allowed ourselves to be lured into this equation by the prevailing thought of this fading age.
No one suspected that it’s all a mirage in favor of the politicians – when will we ever learn ? And if we are to follow Mark Steyn along his path we never will – not to speak of the even worse line-up on the left. So you’re saying why bother at all since everything’s going down the tube ?
Well that’s exactly my point – the powerful forces of the new paradigm will only be able to make themselves heard after the demise of our antiquated systems when the phoenix is ready for launch – in the mean time friends, let’s give a hand of applause to Mark – as disguise for the lesser evil – which at least will assure a gentler landing when the time has come.
Am I being obtuse ? You’re damn right I am ! – Just nobody tell me “I know exactly what you mean” but in case you think that you know, keep it to yourself till next we have a chance to share a glass or two.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Our flawed political assumptions
As I propose this subject to be part of our discussion when next we meet – it would perhaps be useful to have some more or less well known quotations at hand, which I believe we could all more or less agree with. I have listed them as follows:
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Winston Churchill
There is no such thing as a good tax.
Winston Churchill
There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion.
Winston Churchill
Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace and those who could make a good peace would never have won the war.
Winston Churchill
When the war of the giants is over the wars of the pygmies will begin.
Winston Churchill
When you are winning a war almost everything that happens can be claimed to be right and wise.
Winston Churchill
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.
Winston Churchill
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Winston Churchill
Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
John Adams
Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated.
G. K. Chesterton
Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.
Henry Louis Mencken
Democracy consists of choosing your dictators after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear.
Unknown Author
Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.
Oscar Wilde
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Thomas Jefferson
Having such thoughts expressed over time these question still arise:
“Why and how then did we get into this mess ?”
“Is there a chance for renewal ?”
In line with these thoughts I forward the possibility that it has to do with collective conditioning (not much different from brain washing – and we’d wish this word would have been taken literally) and the willy-nilly submission to political jargon and essentially not very effective terminology, e.g. “conservative”, “liberal”, etc. I am not suggesting that we don’t know what these words mean or that under the given circumstances they don’t serve their purpose, except that they force us to apply the choice of the lesser evil.
The media could rightfully be considered the chief villains in the democracy ensnarement process, hand in glove in their manipulation with the rapacious and opportunistic class called ‘politicians’ (see also Churchill’s quote respecting the spending of 5 minutes with the average voter).
However, essentially the above terms don’t have any purposeful meaning, by that I would like to say they don’t relate to an essential human endeavour of daily life and seem to be strictly used in terms of a political of sociological context, As example, we don’t go about our daily activities, such as shopping, working, traveling, etc under the thought of “liberal shopping”, “conservative working”, “liberal swimming”, etc.. Therefore we need to consider how we can eliminate them from our reference points – to begin with as a purely personal engagement, then when critical mass will have been reached, it will automatically become part of the collective new paradigm (but let’s not hold our breath).
Aside from the obvious benefit (or perhaps not so obvious), it will certainly eliminate the stress level of conversations of a political nature, as we will no longer be squeezed into any sense of moral righteousness (although we may still need to exercise our responsibilities to cast our support for the lesser evil – but at least we will be doing this “unemotionally” and within a clear
frame of reference.
Now this of course leads to our debased form of government based on unsubstantiated claims for democracy – frequently many of us will use Churchill’s well-known quotation in this context regarding democracy being the worst form of government except for all the rest. The latter quotation is however, out of context, as Churchill also had a few negative words to say on this matter – and he was after all a politician within the given system.
But our inquiry ought to lead us ahead into the preliminary formulation for a new Republic (not quite as utopian as Plato’s ideal, but nevertheless, one that is more relevant to the everyday issues of most people. When we realize that as a consequence of the before mentioned political jargon we inherited the political party system (it could also have been the other way around, but this does not matter for the purposes of our engagement) which thrusts groups of people and their constituencies into fierce and often frenzied competition around political ideas that have little relation to daily life. The parties essentially encourage allegiance to abstract isolated ideas that have little relevance to daily life and all of us get enthralled by and conditioned into this madness.
So, again I propose for discussion something along the Swiss system – which is more or less akin to a ‘government by guilds’ rather than by parties, where the people don’t so much elect individuals to power but express their thoughts through a never ending referendum process of daily life – for the lack of a better word it is a ‘participatory democracy’ rather than an elected one. (I am mentioning Switzerland only as a form of reference and not necessarily as an example).
As we all know, life in general is hierarchical (as is Freemasonry) so why should our governmental process be any different – an efficient functionality simply requires hierarchy and the democratic process is in this sense counter productive. The founding fathers of the US had never intended to create a democracy, however, even they overlooked to provide safeguards for such to occur.
But the primary purpose of our discussion ought here to be that “honourable men, of free birth, ….” engage in this inquiry for their own conscious evolution and for making them more efficient in their daily lives. As I am publishing this on my blog site, I should like to mention that of course, ‘honourable men’ is an inclusive term, and I look forward to hearing in due course also from many ‘honourable ladies’”.
As I propose this subject to be part of our discussion when next we meet – it would perhaps be useful to have some more or less well known quotations at hand, which I believe we could all more or less agree with. I have listed them as follows:
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Winston Churchill
There is no such thing as a good tax.
Winston Churchill
There is no such thing as public opinion. There is only published opinion.
Winston Churchill
Those who can win a war well can rarely make a good peace and those who could make a good peace would never have won the war.
Winston Churchill
When the war of the giants is over the wars of the pygmies will begin.
Winston Churchill
When you are winning a war almost everything that happens can be claimed to be right and wise.
Winston Churchill
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.
Winston Churchill
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Winston Churchill
Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.
John Adams
Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated.
G. K. Chesterton
Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.
Henry Louis Mencken
Democracy consists of choosing your dictators after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear.
Unknown Author
Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people.
Oscar Wilde
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
Thomas Jefferson
Having such thoughts expressed over time these question still arise:
“Why and how then did we get into this mess ?”
“Is there a chance for renewal ?”
In line with these thoughts I forward the possibility that it has to do with collective conditioning (not much different from brain washing – and we’d wish this word would have been taken literally) and the willy-nilly submission to political jargon and essentially not very effective terminology, e.g. “conservative”, “liberal”, etc. I am not suggesting that we don’t know what these words mean or that under the given circumstances they don’t serve their purpose, except that they force us to apply the choice of the lesser evil.
The media could rightfully be considered the chief villains in the democracy ensnarement process, hand in glove in their manipulation with the rapacious and opportunistic class called ‘politicians’ (see also Churchill’s quote respecting the spending of 5 minutes with the average voter).
However, essentially the above terms don’t have any purposeful meaning, by that I would like to say they don’t relate to an essential human endeavour of daily life and seem to be strictly used in terms of a political of sociological context, As example, we don’t go about our daily activities, such as shopping, working, traveling, etc under the thought of “liberal shopping”, “conservative working”, “liberal swimming”, etc.. Therefore we need to consider how we can eliminate them from our reference points – to begin with as a purely personal engagement, then when critical mass will have been reached, it will automatically become part of the collective new paradigm (but let’s not hold our breath).
Aside from the obvious benefit (or perhaps not so obvious), it will certainly eliminate the stress level of conversations of a political nature, as we will no longer be squeezed into any sense of moral righteousness (although we may still need to exercise our responsibilities to cast our support for the lesser evil – but at least we will be doing this “unemotionally” and within a clear
frame of reference.
Now this of course leads to our debased form of government based on unsubstantiated claims for democracy – frequently many of us will use Churchill’s well-known quotation in this context regarding democracy being the worst form of government except for all the rest. The latter quotation is however, out of context, as Churchill also had a few negative words to say on this matter – and he was after all a politician within the given system.
But our inquiry ought to lead us ahead into the preliminary formulation for a new Republic (not quite as utopian as Plato’s ideal, but nevertheless, one that is more relevant to the everyday issues of most people. When we realize that as a consequence of the before mentioned political jargon we inherited the political party system (it could also have been the other way around, but this does not matter for the purposes of our engagement) which thrusts groups of people and their constituencies into fierce and often frenzied competition around political ideas that have little relation to daily life. The parties essentially encourage allegiance to abstract isolated ideas that have little relevance to daily life and all of us get enthralled by and conditioned into this madness.
So, again I propose for discussion something along the Swiss system – which is more or less akin to a ‘government by guilds’ rather than by parties, where the people don’t so much elect individuals to power but express their thoughts through a never ending referendum process of daily life – for the lack of a better word it is a ‘participatory democracy’ rather than an elected one. (I am mentioning Switzerland only as a form of reference and not necessarily as an example).
As we all know, life in general is hierarchical (as is Freemasonry) so why should our governmental process be any different – an efficient functionality simply requires hierarchy and the democratic process is in this sense counter productive. The founding fathers of the US had never intended to create a democracy, however, even they overlooked to provide safeguards for such to occur.
But the primary purpose of our discussion ought here to be that “honourable men, of free birth, ….” engage in this inquiry for their own conscious evolution and for making them more efficient in their daily lives. As I am publishing this on my blog site, I should like to mention that of course, ‘honourable men’ is an inclusive term, and I look forward to hearing in due course also from many ‘honourable ladies’”.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Jack Coulter wrote in: "Peter, some time ago I came across an article of yours on Logic - I believe it had linked this to a metaphysical context. In spite of its compelling reasoning, I recall that I was unable (or unwilling) at that time to deal with the intended implications. I am now going through an intense period of questioning several of my seemingly outworn assumptions and I would like to know if it were possible for you to run that article again ? - Perhaps other readers may appreciate it as well". - Glad to oblige, Jack - some minor line shifts may be inevitable as this article would be retrieved from another system:
Logic - Our Ultimate Saviour
Some comments, for the support of only those who are desirous and willing (but may be untrained or unprepared), and who may wish to investigate more deeply the essential "Question of Existence". *
Has not everyone, at one time or another, pondered the questions “Who am I?” and “Why am I?”, as well as many other basic questions? In fact, the German philosopher Martin Heidegger wrote a book on this subject with the underlying question “Why is there Something, rather than Nothing?”
If you are a happy-go-lucky person who has fortunately not experienced much pain in his or her life, this question is probably not something that will be of interest to you. If you are a religious person you might say and believe, “God created me, together with the universe, and I therefore have no need of investigating anything else,” and so you will fall into that category of those who believe they have inherited the answers. If this should apply to you and regardless of how you may think of yourself in this connection, you would nonetheless be fostering what modern psychology refers to as “Avoidance”, a form of psychological escapism which can be shrouded in pseudo-intellectual aphorisms, sounding superficially impressive, but in the final analysis somewhat devoid of Logic, and consequently lacking in Wisdom.
In fact, it will not be of interest to you even if you are in great pain, unless - and this is the key to the whole matter - you are ready to take another look at life and yourself and are prepared – at least intellectually to start with - to “walk to the tune of a different drummer”. In other words, only when you are psychologically pre-disposed will you find relevance in these thoughts. If so, then this could indeed be of great help and may lead you to a speedier transition through an initial phase toward spiritual well-being.
In order to answer those earlier basic questions satisfactorily we need to be assured that all our conclusions are able to stand the test of Logic.
So, Let’s Begin….
As a forethought I should like to mention that in essence there can be no Beginning and no Ending – only an eternal coming and going, an eternal interweaving of manifestations – simply the grand Beingness of all there is (and is not). So the following commentary refers to an individual process in time and space (e.g. as our Universe, etc)
1 – First we ought to let thoughts come to us respecting the situation before a Beginning (a it were) - the Void - Darkness - Nothingness - Boundless - Infinity - Parabrahman/Mulaprakriti. Next we have to consider our world as we experience it; in other words, Existence. Rational thinking tells us that even this must be subordinated to “Cause and Effect”. Thus, Existence must have a cause, and this cause cannot be in Nothingness, which, by definition, is total absence of matter. Out of nothing comes only nothing. Instead, it would better be referred to as a “No-Thingness”.
2 – So now we have a causeless Cause – which nevertheless can only have emanated from the Boundless. It is this Cause which most civilizations call "Life", "Essence", the "Force", "God", "Allah", "Brahma", the "Father", the "Positive", the "First Logos", and other descriptive names. It too, without being dual, has an automatic cooperative counterpart, the "Negative", the "Second Logos", the "Mother", "Maya", "Substance", "Vishnu", "Holy Spirit", and other names.
3 – Out of this comes “Manifestation”, “Creation”, “Light”, “Emergence”, “Existence”, "Phenomena", "Love", the "Son", the "Christ", "Shiva", Duality, the Relative, the Many, Time, Precision, Ratio. - "In the Beginning ... was the Word" - Logos - from which the word Logic is derived.
Leaving “chance” aside, as it explains nothing and is only another escape, we must further use our Logic on the road to synthesis to try to determine the most likely assumptions. It is always better to start with something rather than nothing, and even if this something leads to error, then we will learn from this error – so it is logically a better alternative.
One may therefore assume that anything which is relatively precise, such as the movements of the planets or the positioning of crystals within a rock as well as their own precision, must have an intelligent design as its origin, binding it to the unknown Boundless, which in turn has engendered the Creative Force – the “One About Whom Naught Can Be Said”, and about which any speculation is fruitless. Thus, Logic points the way to the proposition that there must be some transition from the Boundless/Infinity to the Absolute and to the Relative – some Force or Energy which had Intelligence to work with precision – and it is this Force which is commonly and very generally referred to as God, Allah, Jehovah, the Demiurgos, the One, et al.
While we cannot presuppose any characteristics about this Force we are logically, albeit tentatively, drawn to assume that it has superior intelligence, so that it could commence Manifestation with absolute precision, and, judging from its fruits and eternal persistence, that it is a form of essential Love, using this term in its broadest sense and avoiding any narrow personalization such as “God loves me”.
In the Relative
Under any circumstance, a superior intelligence cannot allow chance or accident to enter into its formula of precision, while it busies itself creating fundamental laws of nature. It therefore stands to reason that anything in existence is in Essence precise and purposeful, and that, of course, includes all human beings, at least in their spiritual (mind) matrix, which some refer to as “Soul”.
By this manner of thinking, once the Spirit - newly reborn as the Soul (although not exclusive to human beings) - leaves the Essence, Aether, Ether, “Paradise” (which has become, by this philosophy, a sort of holding tank) and commences its existence in the “Relative”, much may go astray in its earthly trajectory. It may temporarily even lose its path during immersion into “Matter”, ending up against a wall of “Materialism”, or imperfection. When it can no longer become more compact, at the nadir of its orbit, meaning more imperfect, the turn-around commences, which is its saving grace, as “Evolution” out of “Matter” begins and all is drawn back on the upward path to the Essence, often called “Nirvana”. This road back provides for an alignment of the essential ingredients of perfection, and is constituted over an almost infinite length of time through a practically endless series of material re-birth and re-death cycles.
It is noteworthy to mention that in the foregoing process Evolution should apply to everything in the Cosmos – from stars and planets to mineral, vegetable, and animal matter – as well as to the human kingdom and beyond – in accordance with the law of “as above, so below”. This leads inevitable to the conclusion that in the final analysis we are God (of course in essence only – whilst being gods-in-the making in the Relative. This thought is by necessity very abstract and can only be intuited at best and it has been said that we exist in a “symbolic Universe” – “in Him, in whom we live and move and have our being” – this was not only part of Plato’s Logic, but also of Albert Einstein’s and many others).
Since polarity is characterized by opposites it stands to reason that we would have a vast array of differentiation, from the lowest or densest frequency, oscillation, vibration, to the highest precision or least material frequency. The highest frequency is habitually referred to as “good”, (perfect), and the lowest one as “evil” (imperfect). However, we must remember that they are in essence “One”, and that leads inevitably to the ongoing and quite endless debate as to whether there is a God and, if so, what His/Her/Its purpose is. Again, based on Logic we must choose the most likely conclusion that the Universe must have a loving, purposeful design and that our mission is to demystify it whilst abiding by the laws of nature.
All original religious scriptures are based on this assumption and have used the laws of nature to detail appropriate guidelines for human behavior, called “moral rectitude”. The differences between religious interpretations are either due to local cultural differences, or are simply a folly of mankind as it succumbs to its lower mental and emotional frequencies and allows unqualified or illogical expressions to corrupt the essential wisdom of its original leaders. This is what also causes the decay and subsequent reappearance of new, (old), spiritual teachings over stretches of thousands of years.
Our Individual Incarnations as seen from a Logical Perspective
(This section is excerpted from Sunrise Magazine – Aug./Sept. 98 issue)
“All this leads to the question “Where does our basic character come from?”
“Atheists and some agnostics would answer, from a purely materialistic standpoint, that character is determined by the genes we inherit from our parents. If asked why we have the parents we do have and what determines which genes are active and which are recessive, they would answer in a single word: chance. But this explains nothing; it implies in fact there is no explanation - things just happen to be the way they are. Efforts to reduce the wonders of life and mind to random physico-chemical interactions are grossly inadequate and unsatisfactory.
“A second possibility is that there is a God, a divine being, who creates a human soul for each newborn child. If God gives us our character and decides the circumstances of our birth, he would also bear a major responsibility for all the subsequent events of our lives. It would mean that people suffer because it’s God’s will that they should suffer. A being capable of such cruelty and injustice would surely be a senseless fiend rather than a “god”. An extreme version of this position (no longer dared to be publicly used) can be found in the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith (3.6.016) which states: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death.” Hardly an inspiring doctrine!
“A third possibility, and the most logical, (reasonable), is reincarnation. According to this view, our essence, (souls, if you wish), as well as the essences of everything else, are reborn on earth again and again, and in each life we reap what we have sown in previous lives and sow seeds that we shall harvest in future lives, until such time when our evolution is completed and we function again, (this time consciously), as part of our Divine essence. There is no such thing as chance, but rather cause and effect, (or “karma” in South Asian terminology), whereby the consequences of all our thoughts and deeds ultimately rebound upon ourselves, either in this life or in a future life. When a Monad (Essence) returns to incarnation, it is drawn by affinity to the parents who can provide it with the body and environment best fitted to the tendencies it already possesses. So rather than inheriting our characteristics from our parents, we actually inherit them through our parents from ourselves – from our own past.”
Postulate for Living
While the general religions of the world in their present form can be (and no doubt are) a very decayed expression of their original teachings as well as a separative influence, it is nevertheless better to have a societal tool for the teaching of the young than nothing at all. The thrust of life itself will then make all reasonably intelligent individuals (and that does not necessarily signify higher IQ’s), find their own way between various pairs of opposites, (“Be ye therefore a lamp onto your own feet” as Buddha is said to have advised).
The followers of exaggerated or corrupt forms of religion often behave in a similar, if not worse, manner than people of no religion or no spiritual identification, i.e. they are equally on the lowest rung of polarity – Jacob’s ladder. If good and evil were not two sides of the same coin we would never be able to distinguish the difference between light and dark, day and night.
Shining a lamp onto your own feet means searching for the ancient wisdom which has once again been made available to the public, and is accessible in most libraries, as well through many philosophical organizations dedicated to the enhancement of all areas of our lives. Health, nutrition, exercise, and meditation are all part of that curriculum, and are presently facilitating the gradual replacement of worn-out religious, economic and political ideologies.
According to Victor Hugo,
“There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come”.
(End)
*Author's Note:
It may be of interest to the reader to know how I personally came to arrive at my present convictions (which are always on the road of construction and further evolution):
Having been born into the Catholic religion I was nevertheless fortunate to be spared from much definite indoctrination and more or less enjoyed my youthful church life as a pleasant cultural environment. As I arrived in North-America - and I use this larger geographic description very specifically - I gradually lost any religious adherence, and generally accepted myself to be an agnostic, as my speculations could no longer allow a continued imposition of some unrealistic dogma to hold sway over me with the priestly injunction that I simply had to have faith.
For that matter I could have had faith in any irrational command, (and as history has shown people do, from Nazism to Communism to any other "ism" of choice, often with the most dire of consequences) - atheism falling into the same category - so the only choice left as an escape was to live as an agnostic (which admittedly is vague and essentially open to change).
At around the age of 40, (supposedly the point of the famous mid-life crisis), I found myself dissatisfied with almost anything and everything - even though I was earning a very substantial income at the time - and I started to question the validity of everything and life itself - perhaps just short of a depression. When my dysfunctional marriage had finally run its course I gradually came into contact with many new individuals, some of which expressed a conviction in reincarnation, a concept which was new to me, at least as an essential personal ingredient.
I started to read on the subject and, while at first suspicious of just another religious invention, I became quickly aware of how much this doctrine is connected with Plato's essential Logic and all else in the universe - from Astrology, Palmistry, Iridology to the Ancient Wisdom Teachings. These foundations are still firmly rooted in the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism and in the Hindu Advaita (as expressed in the teachings of the Indian sage Sankarachara), and were - as it turns out - also part of the ancient Egyptian teachings as well as those of Plato, Pythagoras and others.. They also formed part of the scholarship of the Master Jesus as transmitted to his disciples, carrying on to become part of the early Christian theology and ‘Gnosis’. Thereafter - after the first few 100 years – with the establishment of papal power, Christianity gradually deteriorated, as most religions do, and the theory of Reincarnation was finally eliminated during the last Council of Constantinople on the insistence of the emperor Justinian - the Pope not even having been present.
In modern times these teachings gradually started to resurface in Western culture, first during the 19th century with the transcendentalists - Emerson, Thoreau, etc – and they later gained greater perspective within the Theosophical Teachings (Helena Petrova Blavatsky or for short H.P.B.) and later Lucis Trust (Alice Bailey) which in the early 20th century culminated with the Liberal Catholic Church, Anthroposophy (Rudolf Steiner), Edgar Cayce (A.R.E.), and the Unity movement with its Unity School of Christianity. (There are also many other worthwhile institutions, too numerous to mention in this context).
Suggested reading resources:
“The Golden Thread” by Natalie N. Bank,
published by Lucis Publishing Co., NY.
“Everyone is Right” by Roland Peterson
published by De Vorss & Co. CA
“The Science of Being and the Art of Living”
by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
published by MIU Press
Logic - Our Ultimate Saviour
Some comments, for the support of only those who are desirous and willing (but may be untrained or unprepared), and who may wish to investigate more deeply the essential "Question of Existence". *
Has not everyone, at one time or another, pondered the questions “Who am I?” and “Why am I?”, as well as many other basic questions? In fact, the German philosopher Martin Heidegger wrote a book on this subject with the underlying question “Why is there Something, rather than Nothing?”
If you are a happy-go-lucky person who has fortunately not experienced much pain in his or her life, this question is probably not something that will be of interest to you. If you are a religious person you might say and believe, “God created me, together with the universe, and I therefore have no need of investigating anything else,” and so you will fall into that category of those who believe they have inherited the answers. If this should apply to you and regardless of how you may think of yourself in this connection, you would nonetheless be fostering what modern psychology refers to as “Avoidance”, a form of psychological escapism which can be shrouded in pseudo-intellectual aphorisms, sounding superficially impressive, but in the final analysis somewhat devoid of Logic, and consequently lacking in Wisdom.
In fact, it will not be of interest to you even if you are in great pain, unless - and this is the key to the whole matter - you are ready to take another look at life and yourself and are prepared – at least intellectually to start with - to “walk to the tune of a different drummer”. In other words, only when you are psychologically pre-disposed will you find relevance in these thoughts. If so, then this could indeed be of great help and may lead you to a speedier transition through an initial phase toward spiritual well-being.
In order to answer those earlier basic questions satisfactorily we need to be assured that all our conclusions are able to stand the test of Logic.
So, Let’s Begin….
As a forethought I should like to mention that in essence there can be no Beginning and no Ending – only an eternal coming and going, an eternal interweaving of manifestations – simply the grand Beingness of all there is (and is not). So the following commentary refers to an individual process in time and space (e.g. as our Universe, etc)
1 – First we ought to let thoughts come to us respecting the situation before a Beginning (a it were) - the Void - Darkness - Nothingness - Boundless - Infinity - Parabrahman/Mulaprakriti. Next we have to consider our world as we experience it; in other words, Existence. Rational thinking tells us that even this must be subordinated to “Cause and Effect”. Thus, Existence must have a cause, and this cause cannot be in Nothingness, which, by definition, is total absence of matter. Out of nothing comes only nothing. Instead, it would better be referred to as a “No-Thingness”.
2 – So now we have a causeless Cause – which nevertheless can only have emanated from the Boundless. It is this Cause which most civilizations call "Life", "Essence", the "Force", "God", "Allah", "Brahma", the "Father", the "Positive", the "First Logos", and other descriptive names. It too, without being dual, has an automatic cooperative counterpart, the "Negative", the "Second Logos", the "Mother", "Maya", "Substance", "Vishnu", "Holy Spirit", and other names.
3 – Out of this comes “Manifestation”, “Creation”, “Light”, “Emergence”, “Existence”, "Phenomena", "Love", the "Son", the "Christ", "Shiva", Duality, the Relative, the Many, Time, Precision, Ratio. - "In the Beginning ... was the Word" - Logos - from which the word Logic is derived.
Leaving “chance” aside, as it explains nothing and is only another escape, we must further use our Logic on the road to synthesis to try to determine the most likely assumptions. It is always better to start with something rather than nothing, and even if this something leads to error, then we will learn from this error – so it is logically a better alternative.
One may therefore assume that anything which is relatively precise, such as the movements of the planets or the positioning of crystals within a rock as well as their own precision, must have an intelligent design as its origin, binding it to the unknown Boundless, which in turn has engendered the Creative Force – the “One About Whom Naught Can Be Said”, and about which any speculation is fruitless. Thus, Logic points the way to the proposition that there must be some transition from the Boundless/Infinity to the Absolute and to the Relative – some Force or Energy which had Intelligence to work with precision – and it is this Force which is commonly and very generally referred to as God, Allah, Jehovah, the Demiurgos, the One, et al.
While we cannot presuppose any characteristics about this Force we are logically, albeit tentatively, drawn to assume that it has superior intelligence, so that it could commence Manifestation with absolute precision, and, judging from its fruits and eternal persistence, that it is a form of essential Love, using this term in its broadest sense and avoiding any narrow personalization such as “God loves me”.
In the Relative
Under any circumstance, a superior intelligence cannot allow chance or accident to enter into its formula of precision, while it busies itself creating fundamental laws of nature. It therefore stands to reason that anything in existence is in Essence precise and purposeful, and that, of course, includes all human beings, at least in their spiritual (mind) matrix, which some refer to as “Soul”.
By this manner of thinking, once the Spirit - newly reborn as the Soul (although not exclusive to human beings) - leaves the Essence, Aether, Ether, “Paradise” (which has become, by this philosophy, a sort of holding tank) and commences its existence in the “Relative”, much may go astray in its earthly trajectory. It may temporarily even lose its path during immersion into “Matter”, ending up against a wall of “Materialism”, or imperfection. When it can no longer become more compact, at the nadir of its orbit, meaning more imperfect, the turn-around commences, which is its saving grace, as “Evolution” out of “Matter” begins and all is drawn back on the upward path to the Essence, often called “Nirvana”. This road back provides for an alignment of the essential ingredients of perfection, and is constituted over an almost infinite length of time through a practically endless series of material re-birth and re-death cycles.
It is noteworthy to mention that in the foregoing process Evolution should apply to everything in the Cosmos – from stars and planets to mineral, vegetable, and animal matter – as well as to the human kingdom and beyond – in accordance with the law of “as above, so below”. This leads inevitable to the conclusion that in the final analysis we are God (of course in essence only – whilst being gods-in-the making in the Relative. This thought is by necessity very abstract and can only be intuited at best and it has been said that we exist in a “symbolic Universe” – “in Him, in whom we live and move and have our being” – this was not only part of Plato’s Logic, but also of Albert Einstein’s and many others).
Since polarity is characterized by opposites it stands to reason that we would have a vast array of differentiation, from the lowest or densest frequency, oscillation, vibration, to the highest precision or least material frequency. The highest frequency is habitually referred to as “good”, (perfect), and the lowest one as “evil” (imperfect). However, we must remember that they are in essence “One”, and that leads inevitably to the ongoing and quite endless debate as to whether there is a God and, if so, what His/Her/Its purpose is. Again, based on Logic we must choose the most likely conclusion that the Universe must have a loving, purposeful design and that our mission is to demystify it whilst abiding by the laws of nature.
All original religious scriptures are based on this assumption and have used the laws of nature to detail appropriate guidelines for human behavior, called “moral rectitude”. The differences between religious interpretations are either due to local cultural differences, or are simply a folly of mankind as it succumbs to its lower mental and emotional frequencies and allows unqualified or illogical expressions to corrupt the essential wisdom of its original leaders. This is what also causes the decay and subsequent reappearance of new, (old), spiritual teachings over stretches of thousands of years.
Our Individual Incarnations as seen from a Logical Perspective
(This section is excerpted from Sunrise Magazine – Aug./Sept. 98 issue)
“All this leads to the question “Where does our basic character come from?”
“Atheists and some agnostics would answer, from a purely materialistic standpoint, that character is determined by the genes we inherit from our parents. If asked why we have the parents we do have and what determines which genes are active and which are recessive, they would answer in a single word: chance. But this explains nothing; it implies in fact there is no explanation - things just happen to be the way they are. Efforts to reduce the wonders of life and mind to random physico-chemical interactions are grossly inadequate and unsatisfactory.
“A second possibility is that there is a God, a divine being, who creates a human soul for each newborn child. If God gives us our character and decides the circumstances of our birth, he would also bear a major responsibility for all the subsequent events of our lives. It would mean that people suffer because it’s God’s will that they should suffer. A being capable of such cruelty and injustice would surely be a senseless fiend rather than a “god”. An extreme version of this position (no longer dared to be publicly used) can be found in the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith (3.6.016) which states: “By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life and others foreordained to everlasting death.” Hardly an inspiring doctrine!
“A third possibility, and the most logical, (reasonable), is reincarnation. According to this view, our essence, (souls, if you wish), as well as the essences of everything else, are reborn on earth again and again, and in each life we reap what we have sown in previous lives and sow seeds that we shall harvest in future lives, until such time when our evolution is completed and we function again, (this time consciously), as part of our Divine essence. There is no such thing as chance, but rather cause and effect, (or “karma” in South Asian terminology), whereby the consequences of all our thoughts and deeds ultimately rebound upon ourselves, either in this life or in a future life. When a Monad (Essence) returns to incarnation, it is drawn by affinity to the parents who can provide it with the body and environment best fitted to the tendencies it already possesses. So rather than inheriting our characteristics from our parents, we actually inherit them through our parents from ourselves – from our own past.”
Postulate for Living
While the general religions of the world in their present form can be (and no doubt are) a very decayed expression of their original teachings as well as a separative influence, it is nevertheless better to have a societal tool for the teaching of the young than nothing at all. The thrust of life itself will then make all reasonably intelligent individuals (and that does not necessarily signify higher IQ’s), find their own way between various pairs of opposites, (“Be ye therefore a lamp onto your own feet” as Buddha is said to have advised).
The followers of exaggerated or corrupt forms of religion often behave in a similar, if not worse, manner than people of no religion or no spiritual identification, i.e. they are equally on the lowest rung of polarity – Jacob’s ladder. If good and evil were not two sides of the same coin we would never be able to distinguish the difference between light and dark, day and night.
Shining a lamp onto your own feet means searching for the ancient wisdom which has once again been made available to the public, and is accessible in most libraries, as well through many philosophical organizations dedicated to the enhancement of all areas of our lives. Health, nutrition, exercise, and meditation are all part of that curriculum, and are presently facilitating the gradual replacement of worn-out religious, economic and political ideologies.
According to Victor Hugo,
“There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come”.
(End)
*Author's Note:
It may be of interest to the reader to know how I personally came to arrive at my present convictions (which are always on the road of construction and further evolution):
Having been born into the Catholic religion I was nevertheless fortunate to be spared from much definite indoctrination and more or less enjoyed my youthful church life as a pleasant cultural environment. As I arrived in North-America - and I use this larger geographic description very specifically - I gradually lost any religious adherence, and generally accepted myself to be an agnostic, as my speculations could no longer allow a continued imposition of some unrealistic dogma to hold sway over me with the priestly injunction that I simply had to have faith.
For that matter I could have had faith in any irrational command, (and as history has shown people do, from Nazism to Communism to any other "ism" of choice, often with the most dire of consequences) - atheism falling into the same category - so the only choice left as an escape was to live as an agnostic (which admittedly is vague and essentially open to change).
At around the age of 40, (supposedly the point of the famous mid-life crisis), I found myself dissatisfied with almost anything and everything - even though I was earning a very substantial income at the time - and I started to question the validity of everything and life itself - perhaps just short of a depression. When my dysfunctional marriage had finally run its course I gradually came into contact with many new individuals, some of which expressed a conviction in reincarnation, a concept which was new to me, at least as an essential personal ingredient.
I started to read on the subject and, while at first suspicious of just another religious invention, I became quickly aware of how much this doctrine is connected with Plato's essential Logic and all else in the universe - from Astrology, Palmistry, Iridology to the Ancient Wisdom Teachings. These foundations are still firmly rooted in the teachings of Mahayana Buddhism and in the Hindu Advaita (as expressed in the teachings of the Indian sage Sankarachara), and were - as it turns out - also part of the ancient Egyptian teachings as well as those of Plato, Pythagoras and others.. They also formed part of the scholarship of the Master Jesus as transmitted to his disciples, carrying on to become part of the early Christian theology and ‘Gnosis’. Thereafter - after the first few 100 years – with the establishment of papal power, Christianity gradually deteriorated, as most religions do, and the theory of Reincarnation was finally eliminated during the last Council of Constantinople on the insistence of the emperor Justinian - the Pope not even having been present.
In modern times these teachings gradually started to resurface in Western culture, first during the 19th century with the transcendentalists - Emerson, Thoreau, etc – and they later gained greater perspective within the Theosophical Teachings (Helena Petrova Blavatsky or for short H.P.B.) and later Lucis Trust (Alice Bailey) which in the early 20th century culminated with the Liberal Catholic Church, Anthroposophy (Rudolf Steiner), Edgar Cayce (A.R.E.), and the Unity movement with its Unity School of Christianity. (There are also many other worthwhile institutions, too numerous to mention in this context).
Suggested reading resources:
“The Golden Thread” by Natalie N. Bank,
published by Lucis Publishing Co., NY.
“Everyone is Right” by Roland Peterson
published by De Vorss & Co. CA
“The Science of Being and the Art of Living”
by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
published by MIU Press
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Enjoying David Warren
This morning I can highly recommend you to read David Warren’s last two articles for “The Ottawa Citizen” – easiest accessible on his site at www.davidwarrenonline.com.
They are of quite a different nature, the one titled “Why I defy” is most profound and important for those of us who are concerned – and to those who should be – about the social intrusion of Darwinism into our life. – The other one is a generous as well as critical obituary of “Scott Symon” in which Warren shows us his sheer humanity, a side of his which we don't often get to see.
Rush to get to it – and enjoy!
This morning I can highly recommend you to read David Warren’s last two articles for “The Ottawa Citizen” – easiest accessible on his site at www.davidwarrenonline.com.
They are of quite a different nature, the one titled “Why I defy” is most profound and important for those of us who are concerned – and to those who should be – about the social intrusion of Darwinism into our life. – The other one is a generous as well as critical obituary of “Scott Symon” in which Warren shows us his sheer humanity, a side of his which we don't often get to see.
Rush to get to it – and enjoy!
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Stop the world, I wanna get off ...
Well, the above lead song from a musical of many years ago and Mark Steyn's article of today is about all that's on my defeatest mind this morning - yes, you've read correctly, this eternal optimist has turned defeatest, if only for this morning - Mark on the other hand lives up to his usual description as an alarmist http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1808/26/ and how I'd wish we had many more of him to shake us out of our somnambulance.
But as we don't - nor do I see a silver lining, allow me this morning to wallow in this moody song of years ago with a glass of schnapps or two - yes even this early in the morning - but don't be concerned, I'll be back tomorrow morning with my sword blazing - will I be then the only modern Don Quichote while the rest of you will have already become part of the saddest social landscape of our times ?
Oh, but I forget - we have after all our federal and provincial HRCs to keep us protected - so I guess there really isn't anything to be concerned about, right ?
Gotcha !
Well, the above lead song from a musical of many years ago and Mark Steyn's article of today is about all that's on my defeatest mind this morning - yes, you've read correctly, this eternal optimist has turned defeatest, if only for this morning - Mark on the other hand lives up to his usual description as an alarmist http://www.steynonline.com/content/view/1808/26/ and how I'd wish we had many more of him to shake us out of our somnambulance.
But as we don't - nor do I see a silver lining, allow me this morning to wallow in this moody song of years ago with a glass of schnapps or two - yes even this early in the morning - but don't be concerned, I'll be back tomorrow morning with my sword blazing - will I be then the only modern Don Quichote while the rest of you will have already become part of the saddest social landscape of our times ?
Oh, but I forget - we have after all our federal and provincial HRCs to keep us protected - so I guess there really isn't anything to be concerned about, right ?
Gotcha !
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Condensed thoughts on “the lesser evil”
(Applicable to politics, the economy, ecology, health and wellness, capital and labour, etc)
According to Hegelian dialectics all propositions (thesis) will inevitably arouse an automatic opposition (antithesis) and this creates the need for a resolution (synthesis). While modalities for conflict resolution do indeed exist they are not readily available at any one moment and therefore in the absence of same the following assumptions would seem to constitute a reasonable structure to avoid (if not evade) unnecessary emotional or partisan criticism and allow for discussions in an environment of cooperation.
1 – I believe that all discussions ought to be based on a philosophical as well as a pragmatic premise (rather than on arbitrary utopian wishes, personal likes or dislikes – as for instance with wishes for absolute justice, equality, etc).
2 – We could start with a philosophical premise based on the inherited wisdom through the ages as given to humanity through the great thinkers of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and many others as well as a review of humanity’s history.
3 – It is furthermore assumed that humanity (in general as well as individually) is a combination of good and evil of various degrees; nobody is perfect and everyone makes mistakes, including all government leaders, etc. (of course, some more than others). Therefore, I generally have a disdain for politicians, even it they seem to be part of a presently necessary evil.
4 – Mankind’s consciousness is evolving ever so very slowly over millennia and any attempt for quick improvement through governmental actions or political pressure groups has rarely been very helpful (if at all). Most so-called world improvers (in German sociological terms referred to as “Weltverbesserer”) or their activist methods have led to disaster while in the mean time only enhancing their own psychological need for greed and power. As the old saying goes “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
5 – Improvements in the consciousness of individuals or groups have only come through individual efforts and not by blaming or criticizing others (in or out of government) – as Karl Jung already stated that governments are the reflection of the general consciousness (or sub-consciousness), in other words, we get the government we deserve.
6 – Mankind still being primarily selfish in nature, any attempt to curb this trend through political agenda only leads to the diversion of goods and services to other equally selfish individuals.
7 – Taking this into consideration the laws of the various countries at the moment serve the best way possible and as minimum protection.
8 – Absolute justice and equality is an illusion and so we are therefore encouraged to always deal with relative (imperfect) situations, i.e. “support of the lesser evil” – in this context we need to curtail our conscious and subconscious likes or dislikes and gently work with the psychological given.
________________________________
Having stated the above basis points – you will therefore note that I am not very fond of criticism or negativity in general, however, not wanting to be a mere bystander or complainer, I will go to the defense of anyone upholding similar principles to the best of their abilities – and will disagree and even commit to warfare (if unavoidable or deemed necessary) in the defense of the “lesser evil”. By supporting this lesser evil we deal with the reality at hand, while anything that is not as yet in the compass of a possible future and ungrounded in some or more of the above assumptions is idle self-indulgence and void of responsibility. – This will ultimately have the benefit to soften the impact of the inevitable harsh transformation or destruction in the long run.
While I believe that the institutions of our society (both liberal and conservative) are presently in great turmoil and indeed in need of drastic overhaul (due to human intransigence, corruption and decadence, etc this is unlikely to happen in the short run) or – if this is not going to happen – more drastic and perhaps violent upheavals will take place (a more likely outcome indeed). Thereafter the phoenix can and will rise again.
This lesser evil is presently visibly by the efforts of
a – the conservative groups in the area of politics, business, arts, etc.
b – the liberal groups in the areas of ecology, health and wellness, etc.
We also have to become aware to which extent some institutions have become corrupted over time (no point to get excited over this as it is simply part of human nature – therefore we need to refrain from “blaming” certain groups or individuals as the happenings are simply an outgrowth of society’s deformations in general), e.g. as only some examples of failure due to inherent opposition or competition (rather than cooperation) I would here like to mention:
a – on the conservative side it is the failure of our large scale industrial, commercial and financial sectors.
b – while on the liberal side it is in the lack of insight in academia, the labour unions, and the politics of liberal/socialist groups in the media and government.
________________________________
Further input and feedback on subject matter would be welcomed.
(Applicable to politics, the economy, ecology, health and wellness, capital and labour, etc)
According to Hegelian dialectics all propositions (thesis) will inevitably arouse an automatic opposition (antithesis) and this creates the need for a resolution (synthesis). While modalities for conflict resolution do indeed exist they are not readily available at any one moment and therefore in the absence of same the following assumptions would seem to constitute a reasonable structure to avoid (if not evade) unnecessary emotional or partisan criticism and allow for discussions in an environment of cooperation.
1 – I believe that all discussions ought to be based on a philosophical as well as a pragmatic premise (rather than on arbitrary utopian wishes, personal likes or dislikes – as for instance with wishes for absolute justice, equality, etc).
2 – We could start with a philosophical premise based on the inherited wisdom through the ages as given to humanity through the great thinkers of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and many others as well as a review of humanity’s history.
3 – It is furthermore assumed that humanity (in general as well as individually) is a combination of good and evil of various degrees; nobody is perfect and everyone makes mistakes, including all government leaders, etc. (of course, some more than others). Therefore, I generally have a disdain for politicians, even it they seem to be part of a presently necessary evil.
4 – Mankind’s consciousness is evolving ever so very slowly over millennia and any attempt for quick improvement through governmental actions or political pressure groups has rarely been very helpful (if at all). Most so-called world improvers (in German sociological terms referred to as “Weltverbesserer”) or their activist methods have led to disaster while in the mean time only enhancing their own psychological need for greed and power. As the old saying goes “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
5 – Improvements in the consciousness of individuals or groups have only come through individual efforts and not by blaming or criticizing others (in or out of government) – as Karl Jung already stated that governments are the reflection of the general consciousness (or sub-consciousness), in other words, we get the government we deserve.
6 – Mankind still being primarily selfish in nature, any attempt to curb this trend through political agenda only leads to the diversion of goods and services to other equally selfish individuals.
7 – Taking this into consideration the laws of the various countries at the moment serve the best way possible and as minimum protection.
8 – Absolute justice and equality is an illusion and so we are therefore encouraged to always deal with relative (imperfect) situations, i.e. “support of the lesser evil” – in this context we need to curtail our conscious and subconscious likes or dislikes and gently work with the psychological given.
________________________________
Having stated the above basis points – you will therefore note that I am not very fond of criticism or negativity in general, however, not wanting to be a mere bystander or complainer, I will go to the defense of anyone upholding similar principles to the best of their abilities – and will disagree and even commit to warfare (if unavoidable or deemed necessary) in the defense of the “lesser evil”. By supporting this lesser evil we deal with the reality at hand, while anything that is not as yet in the compass of a possible future and ungrounded in some or more of the above assumptions is idle self-indulgence and void of responsibility. – This will ultimately have the benefit to soften the impact of the inevitable harsh transformation or destruction in the long run.
While I believe that the institutions of our society (both liberal and conservative) are presently in great turmoil and indeed in need of drastic overhaul (due to human intransigence, corruption and decadence, etc this is unlikely to happen in the short run) or – if this is not going to happen – more drastic and perhaps violent upheavals will take place (a more likely outcome indeed). Thereafter the phoenix can and will rise again.
This lesser evil is presently visibly by the efforts of
a – the conservative groups in the area of politics, business, arts, etc.
b – the liberal groups in the areas of ecology, health and wellness, etc.
We also have to become aware to which extent some institutions have become corrupted over time (no point to get excited over this as it is simply part of human nature – therefore we need to refrain from “blaming” certain groups or individuals as the happenings are simply an outgrowth of society’s deformations in general), e.g. as only some examples of failure due to inherent opposition or competition (rather than cooperation) I would here like to mention:
a – on the conservative side it is the failure of our large scale industrial, commercial and financial sectors.
b – while on the liberal side it is in the lack of insight in academia, the labour unions, and the politics of liberal/socialist groups in the media and government.
________________________________
Further input and feedback on subject matter would be welcomed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
