I prefer to leave discussion about whether or not God exists, alone. I wish everyone else would. Who is to say yes or no?
Who? There is much to know and discover about being human. There is more insight on nothingness than there is about God.
I can choose everything, from meaning and purpose to ethics. I can draw on all that was ever recorded and think about. I can tell you about my heart and soul without relying on anything but my humanity. I can tell you what I believe the aspirations of humanity should be based on what my and others humanity is. I can make art and poetry, philosophy and food. I can grow things and wash my clothes.
That is my heart; it is large enough to contain anything at all.
I appreciate any help from any where and I appreciate any struggle and wisdom. I know a lot about pain, I do not seek it, I do not run away from it. I have not been able to 'work' for fifteen years but I always have something to do. That is human.
I know that there is a perception of something else. I believe that is exactly what it is and I adore that. I do not quite worship that; I don't have to, it is just there, I can rely on that. It helps me worship thinking and that inspires me to stay alive. It is my consciousness. It makes me human.
I am just a suburban kid in blue jeans, I always was and always will be. I have converted to myself.
I also prefer to construct my own ethics and if it coincides with other previously composed briefs, O.K., no bad. I prefer to be the author of my own meaning and purpose in life rather than think that it has been delivered to me as the result of, who knows what? Also, since I have a project, my actions describe my essence, that is my soul.
My place in my society may make me a Democrat but it does not define my place in the world filled with other people. I have a radical notion of my subjectivity, my consciousness and that impels me to reconcile that with the fact that there are other people. My answer to that is Democracy, an evolutionary step. It follows that my version of freedom is not one that says that I have the right to do whatever I want. This is a conservative construct that makes no sense whatsoever, except as a war cry.
As I asses conservatism as a state of mind that influences politics, all that I see is a mindless quest for political dominance even over their own side. As a result, I see changing positions and the hypocrisy of ever changing absolute values depending on who the king of the hill is. I see the presence of a devolution that has no end. That Republicans and some Democrats have allen sway to this is a political problem but the solution is spiritual.
If MLK were alive and he was a spokesman for human rights and not an elected official fighting a partisan war, would you consider him a leader that you would follow or your chosen brand of politician? Who do you think the progressive would be? Wouldn't MLK be in the same dilemma with his vote? As a Kossack, where would your loyalty lie? After civil rights legislation was passed, MLK switched from racially based rights to advocating for universal human and economic rights. His church based, color based coalition balked.
Conservatism is the exact opposite of the state of mind that people refer to as progressivism.
A progressive is not necessarily a partisan, I a am Democrat by default because it has usually sided with human rights, at least rhetorically. I do not believe my political party can be progressive. That is an apolitical project that outlines morality, progress, human rights and social justice. It is a peaceful struggle, not a political war. Political parties engage in war, granted that in the U.S., it is a rhetorical war where the right has unlimited rhetorical weapons because they can make things up. People of the Left are offended by this, people on the right see this as heroic because they are willing to use ay means possible to defeat the enemy.
Why does the Democratic Party establishment composed of strategists, pundits and party functionaries persist in waging a partisan war rather than an evolutionary struggle? Because they can raise "campaign" funds to support their culture. Look at the disagreements between parties, this narrative is a staple of news pundits, party pundits, party strategists and party apparatchiks of all stripes. It reinforces the notion of the war between political parties.
It is up to us, as usual, the "consumers" of politics to look for who it is that agrees rather than the disagreements that are used to sensationalize the news and opinions. Both parties agree that the other party is immoral and bad. They go to great lengths to do this and that results in campaign donations. This money supports the cultures of the political parties. Even the candidates are captive to this.
Do they encourage voters to vote for them by plowing that money back to communities in order to gain credibility and loyalty? No, it goes to the professional wrestlers fighting a scripted phony match. Oh, it takes some awesome intellectual athleticism but it is still a show.
Is this a conspiracy? No. Is this a business, a racket actually,I think yes.
That gets to what I am asking. What is the real goal on this partisan blog? Partisanship or human progress?
Here are some of the reasons given for why I have been called naive. "Oh, they have the money. Oh, they have legions of dedicated morons. Oh, the corporate marketing of everything has turned this into a slavish consumerist society defined by marketing." This construct of what really is reality is as good as a firing squad only you are the one pulling the trigger on yourself as long as you your knowledge of facts and willingness to discount the power of your values and your imagination is your reality. You did not lose your heart in San Francisco, you lost it at WalMart, at the BP station, at Home Depot, BankAmerica, CVS, Aetna, The DNC and with Verizon. (Insert the name of your choice)
Where are the straw men and the false equivalencies? I think that these represent real people who never take responsibility for their actions and dispense rule sand conditions through 'help desks'' and spokespeople. I believe that the equivalencies are real.
If you do not, you are welcome to your opinion. I will not look down on you, please do not look down on me. For those of you who are itching to tell me that I am wrong; don't.
Money can be made irrelevant. Corporate marketing can be made irrelevant. The only caveat is that you have to believe that you can make a difference by working as hard on human rights and social justice as you do the losing enterprise of partisan politics. Politics no longer serves a noble task for society namely as an interface between candidates and citizens.
That is lost because now it is an interface between fundraisers and voters. The political part are part of the establishment right. The Democratic Party resurrects this shibboleth of terrifying Republicans for selfish gain. Any grassroots efforts that mimics this strategy is doomed. Democrats fighting a war with conservatives is not much different than the Democratic Party fighting a war with grassroots Democrats who espouse a more progressive attitude and are waging an opportunistic grudge match.
I do not want to destroy conservatism because it is such a nihilistic enterprise that any war victory over them will be a pyrrhic one. Discrediting conservatism back to its place in the academic library, overseen by some kyphotic, nose picker is my wish. To be easily refuted on the basis of logic alone, is its just fate. I want it to occupy the smallest, irrelevant mental space.
Life is what you make it, welcome to the real world, what comes around goes around; what is your story?