γνῶθι σεαυτόν
"Know Thyself"
The first words of advice given to any person entering the temple of the oracle at Delphi.
Before any true growth may take place, before any purpose can be fulfilled, before anyone may be taken seriously, one must know himself.
Certainly an even greater, more potent division than saved-unsaved or Kingdom of God v. Kingdom of Man, the separation between those who have truly and clearly faced themselves, with all wounds and deficiencies in tow, and those who have not ventured into the depths of the soul, with it's many and storied aspects, defines two very different approaches to life and two very different outcomes.
I have determined that it is the difference between those that I will trust and those that I will not. In the words of John Eldredge, "I don't trust a man who hasn't suffered; I don't let a man get close to me who hasn't faced his wound."
Those who find it sufficient to see thier wounds. . . see their deep, ingrained troubles. . . those that were probably given to them, a prize of heritage. . . and turn around as if they might be buried in a grave next to those inevitably abandoned hopes and experiences of bygone days, are cowards. They will never affect this world positively.
My Grandfather did this. He was a good man, a Methodist minister. He did countless good for his communities, his region, the poor and destitute, etc. To my knowledge, he never faced his wounds. He never faced his father. I cannot accept that all of the good he did in service balances out the 7 divorces, 7 affairs that he and his children went through. I cannot say, with full belief, that he affected this world positively.
I don't want to be like that.
I want to go more into the soul. What makes me who I am? Is it my fault? Does it matter? Aaron's opinoin: Whether nature or nurture, we are who we are because of other people. We are given freewill and may adapt, change, reposition, but who we are, the issues we deal with, is a result of other people's actions, personalities, genes, etc.
The only fault of mine would be to be that coward who turns around at the site of such overwhelming baggage. (why is it overwhelming? Because it was created by the multitudes and burdens only one man. . . )
Aaron's opinoin: There are those who do see their problems and understand them implicitly, yet find meaning in the blame. "If it is not my fault, I do not have to worry about it." WRONG. We must carry our baggage, there is no escape. The blame doesn't matter. The baggage does.
I have heard far too many sermons preaching that Jesus will take your baggage and your burdens and lighten the load. THAT'S NONSENSE!!!!! Jesus never, EVER promised to make your problems disappear. IF HE DID, HE WAS WRONG. Guilt, maybe. Temptation and sin, maybe. Worry and discouragement, maybe. Self-esteem problems, maybe. . . for now. Your deep-seeded wounds and baggage. . . the kind of stuff that affects your personality and every action. . . NO. The baggage matters, THE WOUNDS MATTER!!
In closing, deal with your shit or leave me alone (excuse the french.) I don't ask that everyone be perfectly healed and on their way, but only that we all be in the process of discovering, addressing, healing or making use of our wounds.
Love,
The Mother F'n Revolution
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The Unspeakable Words, Part I
The following piece is something I cooked up the other day. It is incomplete, as I hope to delve into the list of words that I shall compile and reasons why they should not be used if one is to hope for effective communication regarding religion and a life including God.
As I develop my personal approach to religion and the study thereof, the inconsistency and inadequacy of words has become an increasingly obnoxious obstacle to expression and more importantly communication.
My respect and passion both for classic thought and culture and for the science of words leaves me with a very classical interpretation of words based primarily on their root forms and historical purposes (as I may know those to be). Thus, the word ‘exclusive’ to me indicates primarily a predisposition to exclusion.
That is to say that an exclusive entity is one that does not accept or recognize people, members, customers, etc. based on a certain set of criteria (i.e. certain churches neglecting people with tattoos or piercings).
However, the more common associations to this word might include special or glamorous qualities. These are positive connotations possibly stemming from such contemporary uses as modern marketing suggestions which, ironically, aim to convince regular people of their potential to be included in extravagant or elite lifestyles (such as an exclusive resort or restaurant which, although typically catering to a certain demographic based on clear criteria is not in actuality closed to people not meeting those criteria. A middle class individual can get into an "exclusive" resort or restaurant provided she is willing and able to pay the fee).
I have struggled extensively with such issues of semantic miscommunication of ideas. In my experiences, one might be in the midst of a fantastic conversation on the mysteries and even glories of God but by simply speaking the words “salvation”, “personal savior”, “church”, or “sin”, the connection and influence one may have built with a fellow seeker will instantaneously be lost. Such words, in a post-evangelical movement America are automatic circuit breakers in the electrical current that is God-seeking conversation.
And so, just as language itself evolves to better enable successive generations to communicate effectively, so too must our religious vocabulary evolve.
This process, similar to that natural process observed by Charles Darwin, is twofold.
First, most words (that is, all words not covered by the second part below) must adapt. Just as all species adapt to their ever-changing environment, so too must we redefine the meaning and uses of words as our society’s experience with these words alters the interpretations of ideas defined through them.
Second, words that are no longer useful or able to exist as they presently exist in their current environment must face extinction if unable to suitably adapt. I have, as a result, resolved to cease the use of such circuit-breaking words as are described above.
To be continued. . .
Love,
The newly-devolved Revolution
As I develop my personal approach to religion and the study thereof, the inconsistency and inadequacy of words has become an increasingly obnoxious obstacle to expression and more importantly communication.
My respect and passion both for classic thought and culture and for the science of words leaves me with a very classical interpretation of words based primarily on their root forms and historical purposes (as I may know those to be). Thus, the word ‘exclusive’ to me indicates primarily a predisposition to exclusion.
That is to say that an exclusive entity is one that does not accept or recognize people, members, customers, etc. based on a certain set of criteria (i.e. certain churches neglecting people with tattoos or piercings).
However, the more common associations to this word might include special or glamorous qualities. These are positive connotations possibly stemming from such contemporary uses as modern marketing suggestions which, ironically, aim to convince regular people of their potential to be included in extravagant or elite lifestyles (such as an exclusive resort or restaurant which, although typically catering to a certain demographic based on clear criteria is not in actuality closed to people not meeting those criteria. A middle class individual can get into an "exclusive" resort or restaurant provided she is willing and able to pay the fee).
I have struggled extensively with such issues of semantic miscommunication of ideas. In my experiences, one might be in the midst of a fantastic conversation on the mysteries and even glories of God but by simply speaking the words “salvation”, “personal savior”, “church”, or “sin”, the connection and influence one may have built with a fellow seeker will instantaneously be lost. Such words, in a post-evangelical movement America are automatic circuit breakers in the electrical current that is God-seeking conversation.
And so, just as language itself evolves to better enable successive generations to communicate effectively, so too must our religious vocabulary evolve.
This process, similar to that natural process observed by Charles Darwin, is twofold.
First, most words (that is, all words not covered by the second part below) must adapt. Just as all species adapt to their ever-changing environment, so too must we redefine the meaning and uses of words as our society’s experience with these words alters the interpretations of ideas defined through them.
Second, words that are no longer useful or able to exist as they presently exist in their current environment must face extinction if unable to suitably adapt. I have, as a result, resolved to cease the use of such circuit-breaking words as are described above.
To be continued. . .
Love,
The newly-devolved Revolution
Avid Blogging - A Not So New Year's Revolution. . . I Mean Resolution
Originally posted 03/06/08 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
I hate that it is this way, but my life so frequently ebbs and flows with the coming and going of seasons. For this reason, I hate winter. In the months of January and February, it seems like everyone around me (and myself) gets so cranky. This makes for bad Aarons. Good news, though. . . we're now in the month of March.And with that has come a much freer, happier attitude and general disposition. I'm excited about God and about my life and about the various relationships that I enjoy and will cultivate.Why is it so? Why do we have to live in a constant state of give and take, ebb and flow, ups and downs, mountains and valleys? Why is it always a tug of war between good and evil, productive and lazy?!?!?Religions have fought this by establishing routines. By creating the habit of praying five times a day, Muslims (theoretically) ensure that they will never stray too far. By participating in the daily office (again, theoretically), monks hope to maintain a steady, Godly disposition.Maybe I haven't found the right thing, but this doesn't seem to work for me. Even when I have successfully implemented habit, ritual, routine into my life, I find that my intentions, interpretations and the way in which I engage the routine shift over time. What was a spiritually engaging habbit becomes a duty or requirement. No longer do I seek the presence of God. . . I now do it because to not do it would be blatant ignorance of God. It's an avoidance of negative rather than a pursuit of positive. The benefit goes away. Jews might tell me to continue doing it anyway, that it's not about my benefit. They're probably right, but isn't religion about coping with/overcoming our imperfections rather than expounding them? It would seem that a ritual that ceases to be effective, spiritually, is not being effective within my religion.Here's to learning and experiencing and finding out more about stuff that we would all know if only our education system were more adequate,The Revolution
I hate that it is this way, but my life so frequently ebbs and flows with the coming and going of seasons. For this reason, I hate winter. In the months of January and February, it seems like everyone around me (and myself) gets so cranky. This makes for bad Aarons. Good news, though. . . we're now in the month of March.And with that has come a much freer, happier attitude and general disposition. I'm excited about God and about my life and about the various relationships that I enjoy and will cultivate.Why is it so? Why do we have to live in a constant state of give and take, ebb and flow, ups and downs, mountains and valleys? Why is it always a tug of war between good and evil, productive and lazy?!?!?Religions have fought this by establishing routines. By creating the habit of praying five times a day, Muslims (theoretically) ensure that they will never stray too far. By participating in the daily office (again, theoretically), monks hope to maintain a steady, Godly disposition.Maybe I haven't found the right thing, but this doesn't seem to work for me. Even when I have successfully implemented habit, ritual, routine into my life, I find that my intentions, interpretations and the way in which I engage the routine shift over time. What was a spiritually engaging habbit becomes a duty or requirement. No longer do I seek the presence of God. . . I now do it because to not do it would be blatant ignorance of God. It's an avoidance of negative rather than a pursuit of positive. The benefit goes away. Jews might tell me to continue doing it anyway, that it's not about my benefit. They're probably right, but isn't religion about coping with/overcoming our imperfections rather than expounding them? It would seem that a ritual that ceases to be effective, spiritually, is not being effective within my religion.Here's to learning and experiencing and finding out more about stuff that we would all know if only our education system were more adequate,The Revolution
The Evolution of Religion. . .
Originally posted 01/23/08 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
The Bishops and high priests of the neo-darwinist-atheism circles are proclaiming that religion is a survival tool of cavemen and that as the human race continues to evolve, religion will no longer be necessary for survival. Therefore, it will soon be eliminated. This of course implies that they are bloody brilliant, indeed maybe even super-human, having already evolved past the homeo sapien species and into homeo dickheadian.But, I can't say they are altogether wrong in their critique of our most prevalent, organised religions. It seems to me (and many others) that the authors present in the bible and the quran dealt with a specific few issues. There is the weakness of man, nature of God, relationship of God to man, death, community, family, eternity and time and all of creation's subjection to it, and the dual nature of the world...good v. evil.Let me begin to address the latter by saying that I find it awfully convenient that "the evil one" appears almost out of nowhere in the New Testament of the bible. Where he (or his presumed likeness) does appear in the Old Testament, it is either under another name, form, or altogether sketchy circumstances (i.e. - in Job where God and the devil are almost good buddies - maybe even one, schizo entity...certainly not the devil of the N.T. at any rate)To me, from a historical standpoint, this points to a need among early Christians to adress the effects that an immediate and intimidating opponent (social, political, personal, professional, spiritual etc.) can have on every day life. Namely, the Romans. I'm out of my expertise (do i have an expertise?), but it seems to me that the development of the evil one as a separate and distinct entity, wholly opposed to God is a reflection of the common man's fear of the Republic. The Romans in the middle east would have been a great threat and source of great fear. If you think the neo-lib hippies are bad, imagine them with all the political, military, social, economic and spiritual influence that the Roman's imposed upon occupied territories.This theology continued into the middle ages where territorial rivalries grew ever stronger as power fluxed back and forth. The purpose of a doctrine of good v. evil was still necessary. It was therefore built upon by years and years of Catholic dogma drawn from the aforementioned sketchy references of the Old Testament (the morning star falling....how, in God's name, did this become the basis of an elaborate story such as that of the fall of Satan?????!!!!)Today, however, I question the necessity of a concept of a "kingdom of evil."With the dawn of a "global society", there are no immediate threats on our personal, spiritual lives. While there may still be risk and threats of violence out of many entities such as Iran, Afghanistan, Palistine or Al Quaida, they are not true threats in the sense that the Roman's were able to dictate and severely alter the ability of a common man to live freely.Without making this too awfully long, let me finish by saying that I think that this notion of good v. evil which is upheld by all major religions can serve no purpose today but to support the hatred and violence, name-calling (axis of evil anyone?) and brutal slayings of war that we see going on in the name of "good" over "evil"So, in the adaption of a religion to modern society, one ought to consider the origins of the ideas of good and evil. How satan came about. What he represents. . . in the context of the bible, in the dogma of the various churches and as a symbol of evil. What is embodied in the term evil as used in both the bible and modern religion. Is there a better way of taking care of the problem of being nice to people?It's time to stop thinking in the black and white terms of good v. evil. Final word: my pastor, last Sunday, used a verse (from Galations, I think) about a small amount of yeast affecting the entire loaf of bread. In his sermon, this was used to urge us not to have secular friends. That's silly. But the verse has great meaning here. All of us have a little evil within us. . . we're human. We all have that amount of yeast that will affect the entire loaf. We're all evil (10's on a scale of 10 if this yeast story is to be applied)...we're all good (inasmuch as we're able to be). Stop categorizing each other. Like I said, it's this division (created and upheld by philosophies/theologies and doctrines) that enables the hatred and physical violence that we've all experienced and probably have taken part in.Love,The Revolution
The Bishops and high priests of the neo-darwinist-atheism circles are proclaiming that religion is a survival tool of cavemen and that as the human race continues to evolve, religion will no longer be necessary for survival. Therefore, it will soon be eliminated. This of course implies that they are bloody brilliant, indeed maybe even super-human, having already evolved past the homeo sapien species and into homeo dickheadian.But, I can't say they are altogether wrong in their critique of our most prevalent, organised religions. It seems to me (and many others) that the authors present in the bible and the quran dealt with a specific few issues. There is the weakness of man, nature of God, relationship of God to man, death, community, family, eternity and time and all of creation's subjection to it, and the dual nature of the world...good v. evil.Let me begin to address the latter by saying that I find it awfully convenient that "the evil one" appears almost out of nowhere in the New Testament of the bible. Where he (or his presumed likeness) does appear in the Old Testament, it is either under another name, form, or altogether sketchy circumstances (i.e. - in Job where God and the devil are almost good buddies - maybe even one, schizo entity...certainly not the devil of the N.T. at any rate)To me, from a historical standpoint, this points to a need among early Christians to adress the effects that an immediate and intimidating opponent (social, political, personal, professional, spiritual etc.) can have on every day life. Namely, the Romans. I'm out of my expertise (do i have an expertise?), but it seems to me that the development of the evil one as a separate and distinct entity, wholly opposed to God is a reflection of the common man's fear of the Republic. The Romans in the middle east would have been a great threat and source of great fear. If you think the neo-lib hippies are bad, imagine them with all the political, military, social, economic and spiritual influence that the Roman's imposed upon occupied territories.This theology continued into the middle ages where territorial rivalries grew ever stronger as power fluxed back and forth. The purpose of a doctrine of good v. evil was still necessary. It was therefore built upon by years and years of Catholic dogma drawn from the aforementioned sketchy references of the Old Testament (the morning star falling....how, in God's name, did this become the basis of an elaborate story such as that of the fall of Satan?????!!!!)Today, however, I question the necessity of a concept of a "kingdom of evil."With the dawn of a "global society", there are no immediate threats on our personal, spiritual lives. While there may still be risk and threats of violence out of many entities such as Iran, Afghanistan, Palistine or Al Quaida, they are not true threats in the sense that the Roman's were able to dictate and severely alter the ability of a common man to live freely.Without making this too awfully long, let me finish by saying that I think that this notion of good v. evil which is upheld by all major religions can serve no purpose today but to support the hatred and violence, name-calling (axis of evil anyone?) and brutal slayings of war that we see going on in the name of "good" over "evil"So, in the adaption of a religion to modern society, one ought to consider the origins of the ideas of good and evil. How satan came about. What he represents. . . in the context of the bible, in the dogma of the various churches and as a symbol of evil. What is embodied in the term evil as used in both the bible and modern religion. Is there a better way of taking care of the problem of being nice to people?It's time to stop thinking in the black and white terms of good v. evil. Final word: my pastor, last Sunday, used a verse (from Galations, I think) about a small amount of yeast affecting the entire loaf of bread. In his sermon, this was used to urge us not to have secular friends. That's silly. But the verse has great meaning here. All of us have a little evil within us. . . we're human. We all have that amount of yeast that will affect the entire loaf. We're all evil (10's on a scale of 10 if this yeast story is to be applied)...we're all good (inasmuch as we're able to be). Stop categorizing each other. Like I said, it's this division (created and upheld by philosophies/theologies and doctrines) that enables the hatred and physical violence that we've all experienced and probably have taken part in.Love,The Revolution
The Price of Freedom?
Originally Posted 10/06/07 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
So, time for a real blog.Time to rebuild this revolution!!What is the price of freedom?Our ancestors' and friends' and current soldiers' and former soldiers' lives and the sanity of most of the vietnam vets (you know, the ones who haven't shaved since they came home, and the ones like the dude who smells funny and comes into barnes and noble wearing a hat that says someting to the effect of "Vietnam Vets Against Bush!") Is that really the price of freedom???NO!This is the price of freedom:$78 for a lisence plate to have the FREEDOM to drive a car$15 for a use tax to have the FREEDOM to drive a car (it would have been 60 if i hadn't lied a little bit50$ish for a title transfer to have the FREEDOM to own a car$30 a tank for the FREEDOM to drive a car (including around $.20/gal for the FREEDOM to drive on roads...not that I dont agree with this one)$80 for the FREEDOM to leave the countryA couple thousand dollars in income taxes every year for the FREEDOM to live in this country and draw income legallyAround $600 for the FREEDOM to own real estate property (and that's low)And the list goes onIt's oppression, I tell ya! That I am unable to leave the country until I pay nigh $100.00. That's truly not freedom. What if I was poor and decided that I no longer agreed with the politics/ethics/operation/etc. of this country. I would have no choice but to toil here, in a society that I cannot, in good concience, participate in. What if I were homeless and Hillary were to be elected. I'd have to live under her regime because I couldn't scrounge up such an exorbitant fee. So, FREEDOM, has become a priviledge granted only to those who are priviledged enough to be able to afford it. Now I realize that in some cases, one could argue that you are paying these taxes for the priviledge and that, in fact, you're free not to pay those taxes. But what choice is that??? This is ridiculous. I'm moving to Switzerland....and yes, I just might use the word priviledge some more.
So, time for a real blog.Time to rebuild this revolution!!What is the price of freedom?Our ancestors' and friends' and current soldiers' and former soldiers' lives and the sanity of most of the vietnam vets (you know, the ones who haven't shaved since they came home, and the ones like the dude who smells funny and comes into barnes and noble wearing a hat that says someting to the effect of "Vietnam Vets Against Bush!") Is that really the price of freedom???NO!This is the price of freedom:$78 for a lisence plate to have the FREEDOM to drive a car$15 for a use tax to have the FREEDOM to drive a car (it would have been 60 if i hadn't lied a little bit50$ish for a title transfer to have the FREEDOM to own a car$30 a tank for the FREEDOM to drive a car (including around $.20/gal for the FREEDOM to drive on roads...not that I dont agree with this one)$80 for the FREEDOM to leave the countryA couple thousand dollars in income taxes every year for the FREEDOM to live in this country and draw income legallyAround $600 for the FREEDOM to own real estate property (and that's low)And the list goes onIt's oppression, I tell ya! That I am unable to leave the country until I pay nigh $100.00. That's truly not freedom. What if I was poor and decided that I no longer agreed with the politics/ethics/operation/etc. of this country. I would have no choice but to toil here, in a society that I cannot, in good concience, participate in. What if I were homeless and Hillary were to be elected. I'd have to live under her regime because I couldn't scrounge up such an exorbitant fee. So, FREEDOM, has become a priviledge granted only to those who are priviledged enough to be able to afford it. Now I realize that in some cases, one could argue that you are paying these taxes for the priviledge and that, in fact, you're free not to pay those taxes. But what choice is that??? This is ridiculous. I'm moving to Switzerland....and yes, I just might use the word priviledge some more.
Idolotrous heresy
Originally Posted 07/14/07 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
If you take a look at my friends, you'll see one named "Jesus". If you go to that page and examine Jesus's blog, you'll find an issue that I don't often devote enough thought to. Idolotry. Now, I don't want to get to preaching on my soap box or anything, but here's the thing....if I wear a cross or adorn myself with a cross, I expect to be judged. The cross, as a symbol, has become associated with all things Christian. Unfortunately, among many people I would encounter, these things would be viewed in a very negative light. There is a serious problem with this. By identifying myself as a Christian, it should not be assumed that I subscribe to the malicious and exclusive b.s. that the cross has come to symbolize. So, what am I getting at? I'm trying to say that this symbol, this idol, is the root of this judgement. Without it, people are left to judge me by my actions/words/myspace profile. Further, I find a profound beauty in the rigid devotion of the islaamic religion to restrict graven or pictoral images representing God. Granted that they perhaps go a little too far, but such restrictions clearly foster a profound sense of the superiority and omnipotence of God. All reason that I can access and even the bible point directly to the fact that man-made images scar the face of God.Of course, this post is a further example of my hypocrisy as I clearly have a picture of "Jesus" as my profile pic. But I think it's funny, so it's okay. Although, it could be argued that since Jesus is destroying the cross, this image, in fact, is a portrayal of my argument here. Which is both ironic and hypocritical...so I'll burn. So, in summation: Restricting God (or religion) to a man-made idol, image, symbol or doctrine is just that....a restriction of all that God (or religion) should be in both the individual's life and that of the civilization.
If you take a look at my friends, you'll see one named "Jesus". If you go to that page and examine Jesus's blog, you'll find an issue that I don't often devote enough thought to. Idolotry. Now, I don't want to get to preaching on my soap box or anything, but here's the thing....if I wear a cross or adorn myself with a cross, I expect to be judged. The cross, as a symbol, has become associated with all things Christian. Unfortunately, among many people I would encounter, these things would be viewed in a very negative light. There is a serious problem with this. By identifying myself as a Christian, it should not be assumed that I subscribe to the malicious and exclusive b.s. that the cross has come to symbolize. So, what am I getting at? I'm trying to say that this symbol, this idol, is the root of this judgement. Without it, people are left to judge me by my actions/words/myspace profile. Further, I find a profound beauty in the rigid devotion of the islaamic religion to restrict graven or pictoral images representing God. Granted that they perhaps go a little too far, but such restrictions clearly foster a profound sense of the superiority and omnipotence of God. All reason that I can access and even the bible point directly to the fact that man-made images scar the face of God.Of course, this post is a further example of my hypocrisy as I clearly have a picture of "Jesus" as my profile pic. But I think it's funny, so it's okay. Although, it could be argued that since Jesus is destroying the cross, this image, in fact, is a portrayal of my argument here. Which is both ironic and hypocritical...so I'll burn. So, in summation: Restricting God (or religion) to a man-made idol, image, symbol or doctrine is just that....a restriction of all that God (or religion) should be in both the individual's life and that of the civilization.
Definition of a "Retard"
Originally Posted 07/14/07 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
General rule 1: Anybody who upstarts an institution and names it after him/herself is a retard.
Richard Dawkins is a retard
Eckhart Tolle is a retard
Pat Robertson is a retard
Now I suppose this isn't universally true because Bill and Melinda Gates would then be retards, and while perhaps Billy G is at the root of many evil things, he is no retard. So...Generally speaking, anyone who behaves in a manner that upsets me or detracts in a significant way from that which is good in humanity is a retard.Thankyou and that is all.
Love,The Revolution
P.S. If you are mentally retarded, handicapped or disabled or if you are family or friend of such an individual...I'm obviously not talking about you so don't get all huffy or you'll run the risk of retard-ness as well.
General rule 1: Anybody who upstarts an institution and names it after him/herself is a retard.
Richard Dawkins is a retard
Eckhart Tolle is a retard
Pat Robertson is a retard
Now I suppose this isn't universally true because Bill and Melinda Gates would then be retards, and while perhaps Billy G is at the root of many evil things, he is no retard. So...Generally speaking, anyone who behaves in a manner that upsets me or detracts in a significant way from that which is good in humanity is a retard.Thankyou and that is all.
Love,The Revolution
P.S. If you are mentally retarded, handicapped or disabled or if you are family or friend of such an individual...I'm obviously not talking about you so don't get all huffy or you'll run the risk of retard-ness as well.
Why I Secretly Like Hippies
Originally Posted 07/03/07 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
One of the most profound ideas that I took away from my overpriced college education is the "marketplace of ideas". The gist is that if everyone is allowed to speak their ideas on any given issue, the retards on both sides will eventually be shown for who they are and in fact will balance each other out so that the best possible solution, stance, etc. may come to the forefront. It's a beautiful system by which the extreme left and the extreme right (the two most outspoken "groups") are not only the loudest but also the most insignificant in the end. Second, I was thinking today as I watched Charlie Rose, about the Bush Presidency. In truth, he's done some fairly decent things in the last month or so (attempted bilateral immigration with Ted Kennedy of all people, reached out to Putin which shows a general recognition of the idiocy of his bully diplomacy that has until now been utilized and now commuting not pardoning Libby which I believe shows that he made an ethical stand in forcing Libby to admit guilt) These three things, whether we like him or not and regardless of the other world-crushing mistakes he's made, symbolize three fairly ethical and compassionate decisions/causes. All this goes to say that our country has been in some serious turmoil before (the last half of the 19th century for example) Yes, our congress is absolutely ridiculous (what consequential reform have they passed in the last 4 years - and htis includes the new democratic house) and yes, our foreign policy is preposterous and yes our economy is a lie, but it could be worse and keeping in mind the whole marketplace of ideas theory, these are just the bad things, there are also good things and I had some sort of enlightened moment of happiness today that things will turn out alright But the best thing about it is, it has to stay a secret. If everyone knew that things will turn out alright, they'd stop making such a stinking fuss over everything and then we'd have no hippies and then we'd have no fundamentalist John Hagee lovers and then we'd have no marketplace of ideas and then we'd have no true solutions or conclussions to the issues taxing society. So. . . long live the hippies and the rednecks and may the revolution benefit from their downfall. Amen.
One of the most profound ideas that I took away from my overpriced college education is the "marketplace of ideas". The gist is that if everyone is allowed to speak their ideas on any given issue, the retards on both sides will eventually be shown for who they are and in fact will balance each other out so that the best possible solution, stance, etc. may come to the forefront. It's a beautiful system by which the extreme left and the extreme right (the two most outspoken "groups") are not only the loudest but also the most insignificant in the end. Second, I was thinking today as I watched Charlie Rose, about the Bush Presidency. In truth, he's done some fairly decent things in the last month or so (attempted bilateral immigration with Ted Kennedy of all people, reached out to Putin which shows a general recognition of the idiocy of his bully diplomacy that has until now been utilized and now commuting not pardoning Libby which I believe shows that he made an ethical stand in forcing Libby to admit guilt) These three things, whether we like him or not and regardless of the other world-crushing mistakes he's made, symbolize three fairly ethical and compassionate decisions/causes. All this goes to say that our country has been in some serious turmoil before (the last half of the 19th century for example) Yes, our congress is absolutely ridiculous (what consequential reform have they passed in the last 4 years - and htis includes the new democratic house) and yes, our foreign policy is preposterous and yes our economy is a lie, but it could be worse and keeping in mind the whole marketplace of ideas theory, these are just the bad things, there are also good things and I had some sort of enlightened moment of happiness today that things will turn out alright But the best thing about it is, it has to stay a secret. If everyone knew that things will turn out alright, they'd stop making such a stinking fuss over everything and then we'd have no hippies and then we'd have no fundamentalist John Hagee lovers and then we'd have no marketplace of ideas and then we'd have no true solutions or conclussions to the issues taxing society. So. . . long live the hippies and the rednecks and may the revolution benefit from their downfall. Amen.
Caveman Religion
Originally posted 06/24/07 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
Sorry, but I couldn't let this one wait for another day. And by writing the following, I hope nobody is truly offended...It's not that I don't think science is great, because I do. I even side with Mr. Darwin and friends on the whole evolution thing (well about 70% of it anyway....not so much on the trans-speciation - I think I made up that word, I hope everyone knows that I refer to the gaps between species...i.e. chimps to human, lizard to dinosaur, etc. - but the adaptation and mutative genes thing is right on)Anyway, it kills me to see Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Harris, Mr. Kandel and others rant about how primitive any religion is...continuing to call it a development of cavemen (which it was) but using such truth to imply that human advancement requires the dissolution of religion. This is ridiculous. I say this primarily because, as a student of religion, I see distinct patterns in the message that these great scientists are putting out there. Indeed, their message mirrors the structures and formulas that we have identified in human mythology. What they are doing in decrying religion is building up their own counter-religion that while stemming from science is itself a mythology and soon will be a religion complete with doctrine, tradition, scripture, liturgy and the whole nine yards...even faith in beliefs that cannot necessarily be proven as fact....
Sorry, but I couldn't let this one wait for another day. And by writing the following, I hope nobody is truly offended...It's not that I don't think science is great, because I do. I even side with Mr. Darwin and friends on the whole evolution thing (well about 70% of it anyway....not so much on the trans-speciation - I think I made up that word, I hope everyone knows that I refer to the gaps between species...i.e. chimps to human, lizard to dinosaur, etc. - but the adaptation and mutative genes thing is right on)Anyway, it kills me to see Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Harris, Mr. Kandel and others rant about how primitive any religion is...continuing to call it a development of cavemen (which it was) but using such truth to imply that human advancement requires the dissolution of religion. This is ridiculous. I say this primarily because, as a student of religion, I see distinct patterns in the message that these great scientists are putting out there. Indeed, their message mirrors the structures and formulas that we have identified in human mythology. What they are doing in decrying religion is building up their own counter-religion that while stemming from science is itself a mythology and soon will be a religion complete with doctrine, tradition, scripture, liturgy and the whole nine yards...even faith in beliefs that cannot necessarily be proven as fact....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
