The Ethical Dogmatist
The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.
- Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
We The People Making US Loupey - US versus Them - A planksip Möbius
The Ethical Dogmatist
Inspired by Thomas Paine (1737-1809)'s quote, "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion". The titled responsion is a summary conviction of sorts with the crimes against society being everything Paine is not saying. All encompasing and inclusivive is what I see.
It is a dogma of sorts, but let's not ruminate on the downside of American politics or the efficacy of the ideals put forth by their founding fathers, there are many slippery slopes and I would rather keep our path virtuous. The starting point is a consensus of congratulations. For the most part, o sepi to poli, the idea of America, as envisioned by thinkers like Thomas Paine, is an impressive Republic. Expand on the innate greatness of America with your anchor point being the founding fathers.
Absolute Us versus Them
Inspired by Charles Caleb Colton (1780-1832)'s quote, "We hate some persons because we do not know them; and will not know them because we hate them.". The titled responsion is "Absolute Us versus Them". What follows is subject to revision, do you have any suggestions?
Loupey is a double entendre intended to accentuate, and maybe attenuation, the needles we hide and the heuristics we live by. The dichotomy is biological, not biblical. From outright liars to outliers this false dichotomy is a heuristic of sorts. From bad actors, t0 exceptional performers, and passive consumers the theme is both tragic and comedic. Goddammit, this shit show must go on!
US Versus Them
Inspired by José Saramago (1922-2010)'s quote, "The attitude of insolent haughtiness is characteristic of the relationships Americans form with what is alien to them, with others". The titled responsion plays off the US (as the entire world must do) in a us versus them mentallity, which isn't healthy to anyone.
As a global superpower, the responsibility of such a leader is to lead. The term itself is a remnant of the twentieth century and yet power plays persists. To equalize this power and "level the playing field", so to speak, a realignment of power may be necessary. I think this is happening naturally, the downside makes me thing of the gothic destruction of the Roman empire and the years of darkness and anti-civility of darkness that followed. Is this where we are headed?
Come on, no one takes the Bible literally!
Inspired by Bill Maher's quote, "I have a problem with people who take the Constitution loosely and the Bible literally." The titled responsion is "Come on, no one takes the Bible literally!" What follows is subject to revision, do you have any suggestions?
Well, that's the idea and enforcement mechanism of the belief function. It's like a verbal commitment to govern free thought and default to the collective group think. This could be a powerful machine with the right teleological force in front of humanity. Let's say that the world that we know it was at stake, our very democratic process was under threat and the liberties that our veterans have fought for are in jeopardy. In this case, would we galvanize under a Marshal plan, not unlike wartime? So why is climate change any different?
I would like to remind everyone about the fundamental and philosophical foundations of the word conservative. Conservative sensibilities are supposed to represent the ideology of preservation, conserving for times of need. The truism of saving for a rainy day is what I want you to consider. Contrast this against the reality of what the Conservative party typically represents in the world today. By way of example, I am going to use the United States and the Good Ole Boys club was otherwise known as the GOP. All I see is red, these are my political colours of choice, says the Republican. The way they a better society is first and foremost away from the Democrats, and their Liberal spending policies and ideal ideas. When it comes down to getting things down in the most practical and pragmatic way, the Conservative party is the one to get the job done.
Beyond the psychologizing I would like to introduce the role of religion, however, dysfunctional this is in the bigger picture. For example, if you consider the evangelic insistence of those who take the leap of faith and walk through life with their best friend Jesus Christ on the right side. Their pathway to prosperity is paved with the royal road of faith in the Saviour for Galilee. For me, this is a perversion of sorts and malignant to the message of conservation. Let me explain.
The Zealots were a political movement in 1st-century Second Temple Judaism which sought to incite the people of Judea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the Holy Land by force of arms, most notably during the First Jewish–Roman War (66–70). If I use the term zealot to refer to the large population of religiously compliant within and throughout the United States of America I am left thinking that the power they hold over our society is preventing us from moving in a unified direction and essentially incapacitating the conservative party from, well, conserving for the future.
The way I see it is that the conservative party should be synonymous with conservation and those that come to mind that should be leading this ideology are the likes of E.O. Wilson. The Liberal party, on the other hand, if we must insist on relying on an A and a B option, should represent the freedoms of, not only people but all sentient beings on the planet. This gives considerable overlap and yet the dialectic tension between what's right for the future generations versus what is needed right now. This is all the two parties should be about. IMHO.