Interesting article on America's ideological recession

[oats]

Or spiritual recession, as it's dubbed here. I don't know how much of this I agree with at this point, still processing it tbh, but I'm curious to see what you guys think.




http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/op...racy.html?_r=0

@Agathocles the GOOD @dead man @Certain @El Pancake

[oats]

@Diode @dull boy @namix @Vulgar @big baby @Zenland
Just tagging people who I think can weigh in meaningfully/intelligently

[Zen]

Are you trying to say the rest of us are stupid?

[Fig]

The faith gave elites a sense of historic responsibility and helped them resist the money and corruption that always licked at the political system.

Oh, okay.

[big baby]

no wut oats FUK U AND FUK THIS ARTICLE

[dull boy]

This is an interestingly focused article, subject wise. It's some tip of the iceberg shit, but at least it's going in the right direction. The ideological wars fought during the 20th century aren't talked about enough, and we as a culture/society lose our place in history, leaving us aimless and unaware to real issues. Instead, we're too caught up in current affairs as surface material, with no focus on what they mean to the bigger picture.

[StarFaggot]

Oats @me and I will respond.

[veritas]

Obv media agenda is obv.

[oats]

Originally Posted by dull boy

This is an interestingly focused article, subject wise. It's some tip of the iceberg shit, but at least it's going in the right direction. The ideological wars fought during the 20th century aren't talked about enough, and we as a culture/society lose our place in history, leaving us aimless and unaware to real issues. Instead, we're too caught up in current affairs as surface material, with no focus on what they mean to the bigger picture.

That was my initial thought re: how this is a tip of the iceberg kind of article. It was really broad and made sweeping generalizations. I'm not sure how I feel about the central idea either, felt a little too close to a push towards colonization mentality ("we are the champions of democracy, spread it everywhere!"). But I think he's/you're right to point out how we lose ourselves in the fray of the short-term and don't see the large-scale movements of history.

@Fig though that sounds silly on the face, when you look at the original wealthy elite (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, etc) they behaved far differently than the modern elite AFTER they became exceedingly wealthy. Not to justify the means to their wealth in all instances, but the tended to feel a greater responsibility to society beyond philanthropy for the purpose of tax breaks, which is more common today. Plus, politicians were often in legislative opposition to big money (see: Teddy Roosevelt) and reigned in major monopolies and whatnot, whereas now politicians are legally in the pocketbooks of big money.

@Aero the Apex

[veritas]

This is all part of the plan to denounce Christ and accept the devil.

[NYCSPITZ]

This brings to mind an idea given by Jung in The Undiscovered Self. As Dull Boy astutely observed, he noted that the spiritual, cultural, and psychological trend of the centuries all tend to move together and follow the slow trend of history. The enemy changes but the end goal of fervent nationalism is the same. The difference is that when we were fighting nazi zombies and even COMMIES there was still some semblance of liberty. Now the bad guy image has shifted to the middle east, but increasingly draconian laws and constant violations of liberty force today's nationalists to become too friendly to authority and bureaucracy. The ideal of the founding fathers is diminishing but what great nation ever stood that long other than ROME?

Social ownership of the means of production fails due to class tension but also because of the inevitable tensions and egos to be found within the middle class. Plutocracy eventually fails because people like to be treated equally and the extreme end of the elite forcing their rule would create a totalitarian state. Theocracy fails, and this I think is key, because during the last two centuries advances in science have been mistaken for an advance in general human intelligence and some holy grail of reality that excludes the possibility of God, spirit, and compassion. This adulation of ego needs to be destroyed to a great extent before worthy change takes place. This can happen through several avenues: media, church, and school. Media has become a monopolized and consolidated propoganda tool for wealthy bankers to sow the seeds of mental disharmony, and control public opinions so that wars can be waged at a substantial profit. The only way this will change immediately is a revolution of some kind and even if the plutocrats are overthrown, who's to say the new leadership will even move toward a worthier goal?

Schools are basically liberal and or conservative indoctrination camps, places where people become corporatized and the last semester I took surveillance was EVERYWHERE compared to 0 cameras when I was there four or five years ago. Rent-a-cops that piss me off flaunt their authority and demand to see ID so that I can go to class. There needs to be a change in the tide of thinking toward compassion and awareness so that our collective greed is not damaging this planet economically, socially, spirtually. The problem with religious and atheists alike is that too many are unyielding in their views. To Christians there is the absurd notion that the world is 6,000 years old, Noahs ark actually happened and some lady got pregnant without getting fucked. My mom actually told me the other day that she thinks humans have been around for 6,000 years old. What the fuck? Then you have brilliant guys like Nietzsche and Hemingway who are sort of enamored with nothingness and what happens? One guy blows his brains out and the other goes ga ga sucking his thumb living with mommy for the last ten years of his life. You have to take into consideration not only the overarching tide of thought in these extreme cases but also personal experience like Hemingway witnessing a suicide at an indian camp early on in his life and becoming thus obsessed with death. We have to find a way to allow for religious tolerance, because unlike a relatively new invention such as education and media, it's a common urge shared by humanity irrespective of religious affiliation and that includes atheists and agnostic people. If religious people would just drop the ego and allow a singular worthy purpose to act as a galvanizing force, we could direct the efforts used by spiritual people to slander each other, transform it into a desire in the minds of the young for peace and order, and wars would be ended in a generation. Like Jung said the tides of change move slowly and unfortunately we SEEM to be moving away from this ideal but the age of Aquarius is here and I think there's a shift in consciousness that will allow for more compassion within our generation. People always say things like look at nature it's evil shit gets eaten alive all the time! But humans have the capacity for thought and we are only in the infancy of our development of this tool.

It is absurd for people like Michio Kaku to think they've almost solved the problems of the universe. My bros say "life is unfair just look at all these fat and ugly chicks, nobody wants to fuck them" but that's only their narrow perception. The human race is brand new, and it's not impossible for us in the future if we survive to be on some star wars type shit. Not saying we're gonna be throwing spirit bombs or wielding light sabers but shit like inter-galactic travel, teleportation and time travel will probably be made accessible as we advance. I think we have to set the ego aside and admit that there's a greater force out there that created us. We may even be the source looking in on itself in order to experience life like the beyonder in spider man comics. Whatever it is I think the answer lies here, with THOUGHT, which is inherently spirtual. Thoughts create action and actions create environments. Religious thought is highly charged thought. This type of thought and only this type of thought will change the tide of the times. Politics will also survive as long as humans are egotistic but the nature of THINKING ITSELF and its effect on reality is the key.

I'm gonna end this Oats by saying I just read your recent blog post. The written was dope but it said something like "waaaa I'm not a genius like I want to be boo hoo hoo my genius brother or something is smarter :(" Lol, come on son. You are a genius at the poem game and can easily be a genius at the novel game if you wanted to. If you believe you are always gonna be "just below the best" you will produce what you believe. Why do you think you respect dead man so much and have never beat him? Goethe had one of the highest IQs ever and I believe this is because of his connection to the universe/force/spirit. He said that whenever somebody definitely commits oneself to a definite aim, providence also moves and all manner of unforseen circumstances and events conspire to help him. This must be the case for humanity as an organism if it is to advance. We have to commit ourselves to the study of thought, and the true advancements are going to be made by men of compassion, working for the greater good. Ironically those will be the people who feel the most fulfilled. How many people have created wealth, fucked lots of hot women and had multi million dollar yachts only to feel empty and unfulfilled? A lot. Now let me end this gentle diatribe with a call to action: STUDY THE NATURE OF THOUGHT...

[King Ra.]

Amen.

[El Muffin]

GAH I FUCKA GOT DOWN SYNDROME SYSTEM OVERLOAD FUCKA GAHHHH


GAH SO NYC U SAY IF I THINK HAPPY THOUGHTS DOWN SYNDROME GO AWAY

OK I TRY




NOPE

STILL GOT DA DOWNS

FUCKA YO THEORY

LOL

I WIN

[Split]

" The next Nobel Peace Prize should not go to a human rights activist or an NGO founder. It should go to the thinker or leader who develops a model of constitutional theocracy giving Muslim countries a coherent way of recognizing yet limiting the authority of religious law and making it compatible with good governance. This would be a historic, though not necessarily democratic, achievement.

No sch prize will be given, of course, and not only because such thinkers and leaders are lacking. To recognize such an achievement would require abandoning the dogma that individual freedom is the only or even the highest political good in every historical circumstance, and accepting that trade-offs are inevitable. It would mean accepting that, if there is a road from serfdom to democracy, it will, in long stretches, be paved with non-democracy—as it was in the West."



Preach.

[Split]

Humanity will only be happy fighting for a cause. Keyword, fighting.

[NYCSPITZ]

word there will be stretches of peace tho and in the future maybe even entire solar systems and galaxies that are peaceful

[NYCSPITZ]

Originally Posted by Muff Diggity

GAH I FUCKA GOT DOWN SYNDROME SYSTEM OVERLOAD FUCKA GAHHHH


GAH SO NYC U SAY IF I THINK HAPPY THOUGHTS DOWN SYNDROME GO AWAY

OK I TRY




NOPE

STILL GOT DA DOWNS

FUCKA YO THEORY

LOL

I WIN

i can't cure ur downs dawg but I can make you HAPPY

[El Muffin]

Its ok. Imz a cured now

Thx for the vaccine

[oats]

Much like the original article, you juggled a lot of very large concepts, which makes it difficult to respond cohesively to it all. But for the most part I agree, at least as far as the general thesis that there needs to be more thoughtful harmony among differing/opposing mindsets. The irony being that there doesn't need to be as much conflict as there is, since very few things are inherently incompatible. But the human ego is a powerful force that lends itself to compartmentalizations of things; if you think A and I think B, then one of us is wrong. But even if that mutual exclusivity is true (and it often is), it misses the point that there is room for all these cogs to work towards a greater, shared goal. That is, to extend prosperity to all people fairly and equally for an improved mutual existence. We all live here, and we won't agree on the means, but progress is a pretty universal human ambition across all cultures and beliefs; I've yet to hear of a significant contingency of people who want to make life worse for themselves and others on principal.

Here's my example: I grew up In a very religious household, and as a result probably have more ammunition than most to oppose religious behavior. I don't personally prescribe to religion, it's not something I put much thought or value into, but I guess if pressed enough I have some pretty gray opinions (IE: I'm as uncertain god exists as I am that he doesn't). But, I truly appreciate the existence of religion, and have very little tolerance for people who don't, since usually I find them to be as narrow in their thinking as the people they disparage. What I mean is, why do people hate on religion? They're judgemental, ignorant, elitist, and at extremes militant and warmongering. I don't disagree, but none of those traits are uniquely religious. It's like how people tend stigmatize Americans as rude and ignorant - the rudest people I encountered while in brazil were Chilean. I don't go around like "fuck Chileans they're so rude," it's just THOSE Chileans were. Countries are big places with lots of variance between those who comprise them. Being an asshole is not uniquely American; they're everywhere. Same with religion. Some of the most genuine, honest, good people I've met are at my dad's church. People use religion as a vehicle for self-improvement and positive existence. I don't, but that's cool. I'm glad people want to better themselves, however they choose to go about it.

The problem is, of course, that there's the zero sum game mentality of we're right and you're wrong and we'll do whatever it takes to prove it, instead of capitulating the idea that other people exist and do things that works for them. Because with religion, there's an afterlife at stake, and you can't shake that kind of belief most of the time. But crusades, jihads, acts of violence etc, don't work toward anything productive. Nor do power struggles and plutocratic systems that exist within and outside of religious institutions. This is where I disagree somewhat with the article; we should spread democratic ideals, no doubt, but there should/will be cultural twists to them. Democracy in the Middle East won't be a McAmerica that you can just plant - they have their own customs to incorporate and, sometimes discard. If anything, the one all-pervading ideal that I hope spreads is the separation of church and state.

We should take our cues from nature. Ecosystems require biodiversity to work. Societies require dialogue and a willingness to listen, negotiate, and compromise, because this planet is a complex environment that technology is rapidly flattening into a shared living room for countries everywhere. And...wait for it...NO ONE HAS ALL THE ANSWERS! Brings to mind the whole "people who know are uncertain and people who don't know are certain" adage.


it's a common phenomenon to rebuke discussion and retreat to "well I have my opinions and you have yours and we're not gonna change each other's minds so leave it." That's not the scientific method at work, which I hold to be one of the finest, noblest ideologies man has ever arrived at. I don't get what it is about people nowadays that spurns changing your mind so vehemently; to me it's a perfectly natural, obviously healthy practice since nobody knows everything and information is constantly changing, but we tend to view it as a sign of weakness and stupidity. I teeter-totter between deep cynicism and naive hopefulness (Gemini). What you call the age if Aquarius, I call the internet. It's inevitable that things will get better because information can be disseminated so quickly, and people aren't geographically bound to ideologies anymore because of that. We're just figuring out how to use the internet to its full potential, cuz we still suck at it by in large.
@Agathocles the GOOD

[oats]

I'm gonna end this Oats by saying I just read your recent blog post. The written was dope but it said something like "waaaa I'm not a genius like I want to be boo hoo hoo my genius brother or something is smarter :(" Lol, come on son. You are a genius at the poem game and can easily be a genius at the novel game if you wanted to. If you believe you are always gonna be "just below the best" you will produce what you believe. Why do you think you respect dead man so much and have never beat him? Goethe had one of the highest IQs ever and I believe this is because of his connection to the universe/force/spirit. He said that whenever somebody definitely commits oneself to a definite aim, providence also moves and all manner of unforseen circumstances and events conspire to help him. This must be the case for humanity as an organism if it is to advance. We have to commit ourselves to the study of thought, and the true advancements are going to be made by men of compassion, working for the greater good. Ironically those will be the people who feel the most fulfilled. How many people have created wealth, fucked lots of hot women and had multi million dollar yachts only to feel empty and unfulfilled? A lot. Now let me end this gentle diatribe with a call to action: STUDY THE NATURE OF THOUGHT...

@Agathocles the GOOD

Lol I appreciate your vote of confidence, and for the record I've only battled black once and think I should have won. I also believe in myself and am certain that my path will fulfill me and I'll reach my goals in some capacity as long as I keep working; that verse (and writing verses in general) are my expressions of the vulnerabilities and insecurities I have, my way to put some light on them which I believe helps me overcome them and see them for what they really are. GEMINI BRO. I am disgustingly confident in my ability, but that also comes with the flip side of constant second guessing and disbelief. I feel you though, and believe that work rate is the one variable that is completely in your control. That's all I was saying - there are always people better/stronger/faster/smarter but they don't matter. As long as you work your ass off, you'll get the most of what you got, and that's all you can ask for.