New blog, new site

I seem to have inadvertently nuked my own blog by cutting and pasting something from an email.

If you want to keep following my eschatological musings, you can follow me here!

http://shockwavesofhistory.blogspot.com/

Some responses

I've been away for a while, and I haven't had a chance to respond to some of these interesting posts. So, let me take them, in order of the most recent:
3bauer said this:
your concern for the right of people to be fat, smoke,to not wear helmets on motorcycles is disengenous when you then condemn those who consciously choose to end their own lives with the assistance of a doctor. You have no problem with people commiting suicide unconsciously via high risk behaviors. you prefer decisions made by unconcious "nature" to conscious "man". This is a false dichotomy. Humans are natural (with many levels of consciousness)and any human-made object is as natural as any beehive. evolution (the theory of which is, itself, still evolving) can not be stopped and it can not be predicted. there are too many moving parts. Lewis and your comments on his theory focus on projections of your own fears. This choice of focus is up to you.

My position would only be "disingenuous" if indulging in risky behavior (for whatever reason), were the moral equivalent of committing suicide. 3bauer, you assume this to be true without demonstrating it, and I don't think it can be demonstrated. It's also difficult to base an argument on what you call "unconscious suicide." Suicide is, by any understanding, a conscious decision to end one's life, at a certain time, by a certain means. There are those who "drink themselves to death," or die of obesity, but this is radically different from putting a razor to the wrist, or a bullet through the brain. Those who die from from the accumulated affects of risky behaviors may hate life, but they have not chosen to end it. The argument is complicated by the fact that many people indulge in risky behaviors precisely because they love life, and they think that drinking, smoking, and eating fatty foods are pleasurable acts. Lewis was among these, as was one of the jolliest people in history, G.K. Chesterton. The adage "eat, drink, and be merry" invites us to enjoy a life that we know to be of limited duration--not as a means to end it because it's so unbearable. So, unless a distinction can be made between downing a gallon of whiskey for express purpose of ending life as soon as possible, and having a few drinks with your friends, you really can't make a blanket statement that assumes risky behaviour equals suicide. To extend the logic of your argument, if we can admit that life itself involves risks, living itself is suicidal.
My philosophical standpoint has nothing to do with submitting to "decisions made by unconscious nature." It has everything to do with operating in accordance with what Lewis calls Tao, and what I would specify perhaps, as "God's will," as difficult as that may ever be to identify. According to this philosophical position, our lives are not our sovereign legal property, but rather a gift, and we are responsible to the gift giver (certainly not an unconscious nature) for the way we conduct them, and for the terms on which they end.
The theology I hold to would say nature is fallen, as is the human species--both are waiting for the fulfillment of a redemption whose chief act has already been accomplished. Death is a mistake, and its apparent victory is only temporary--this is why we can embrace the parodox (and embracing paradox is by no means the same thing as "being disingenuous") that the person who truly loves life is always willing to lose it, and that suffering can make us better. We have to hold onto life with all the resources at our disposal, yet also be willing to give it up. This is a far cry from saying, "I will avoid suffering by deliberately ending my life with a lethal injection," and it is galaxies away from having a State assume the role of god saying who gets to live. In other words, I am not God, and neither is the State. As for "my fears," I would say that I do have some anxieties about the possibilities of the State assuming the role of master over who gets to live and who doesn't, as well as anxieties about a culture of death that grooms us to accept this particular role of the State by encouraging us to think that we are accidents of some process of evolution that refuses to be defined.

Which brings us to 3bauer's next point when he or she responded to my comment"
"We're marching backward on the evolutionary scale of political economy."

By saying

This statement shows a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution. There is no backwards/forwards movement along a linear scale. evolution is just what happens. it does not have a goal.

I don't think this comment necessarily shows my knowledge of evolution to be deficient, and I don't think it is. I have not said that evolution (and there are many different kinds of evolutionary theories) has a "goal." It is a process, and there are informing determinants in any process of evolution (biological, economic, rational, spiritual) and evolving entities move from one state to another. Whether or not this movement is progressive and linear or horizontal and rhizomatic is largely a question of the historical context in which it is articulated. The grand theories of biological evolution that dominate our consciousness today are steeped in nineteenth century notions of material progress, and the attempts by modern imperialists, statebuilders, capitalists, and Innovating social engineers and eugenicists to link their own grand theories of social control to "progressive science" are unambiguously linear, as is the latest and greatest non-definition of history and evolution that NOW says--"oh, there is no goal, it's all random." If it's all random, how on earth do you define satisfaction? Why bother? Those of us who become conditioned to say "it's all just what happens" are especially easy prey, I think, for those who want to turn the world into an efficiency machine, because they have no arguments against such things as the takeover of human society by large corporation, large governments, or a large "health care" systems. If evolution is "just what happens," where is the freedom of the human subject? I should add that I was joking anyway--since I'm highly suspicious of the concept of material progress and I don't believe in randomness, I was actually being ironic when I made the above comment--here's the irony, lest it be missed twice: we are being run by people who believe in the enlightenment notion of progress--people who profess to want more jobs, more growth, more strength, better education, more material satisfaction. We are getting less and less of these things, and may be poised for a major economic catastrophe. What do you do when a civilization based on material progress is no longer materially progressing? You can either redefine progress as disaster, in which case our leaders will keep telling us, despite all evidence to the contrary, how wonderful we have it, or you can say "well, it was never really about linear progress--we're just living in a continuum of time and space in which a series of things just happen." In the latter case, you are at the whim of those in charge of the system, because in a disordered world, power is the only thing that will matter. Since one of these two philosophical scenarios are likely to dominate the future, it seems that a person better 1) be in power or be willing to scrounge for what power he or she can get or, 2) completely renounce all power and be ready for anything.

Another person asked what a single payer system is and why is it bad? In the context of the current debate on health care it refers to one institutional entity administering and funding the all of the nation's medical services and transactions--specifically, the government. It's relatively bad (if you disagree with it) because it represents the elimination of private health insurance providers, HMOs, and the ability of private hospitals, clinics, caregivers, etc., to manage their own services and financing agreements. If the government were to take over health care, IT, not your doctor, would establish what treatments are available, and whether or not you can avail yourselves of them. Those who are opposing the Health Care bill now are worried that the so-called "Public Option" for health care will either become mandatory for all Americans, or will destroy the ability of private insurance providers to compete for business--meaning that Primera Blue Cross, for example, which you may now have (and like), will not be able to get a contract for health care with your employer because your employer, in the interest of cutting its costs, will give its employees the public option. Then you'll belong to a government health plan that may be a whole lot cheaper, but could drastically limit your options and access to the health care you may want. Those people wealthy enough to buy their own health care (the happily uninsured) are also opposed, because as citizens, they will either be forced onto a government plan, or their favorite doctors will be driven out of practice, because they can no longer compete with doctors who are on the government system. Isn't it interesting that nobody is talking about Government Legal Care? The lawyers who run our country seem to have no problem turning doctors into civil servants, but I wonder how much traction a movement to nationalize legal services would gain in Congress!

LAST--somebody asked what I think about Ron Paul. I would say that he's the only politician in the country who seems to understand that the operations of the Federal Reserve Board, and the prison of public debt into which our banking system has forced all of us is this country's fundamental economic and political problem. I guess I'd vote for him if he were ever nominated--the best that can probably happen is that his ideas are coopted by the Republicans--I don't see this happening because I don't think Republicans are any better, as a party, than the Democrats. None of our public servants except Ron Paul, and possibly Dennis Kucinich seem to care about this problem.

Great Moments in Innovator Health Care

According to this article, a woman from Oregon, that most progressive of states, has been told that the cancer drugs she needs aren't covered by the Oregon Health Plan. As an alternative, she has been offered choices ranging between hospice care or doctor-assisted suicide. Well, if that ain't a sweet deal, I don't know what is.
The critics of President Obama's healthcare plan are saying that it's ultimately going to provide limited options, poor treatment ,and rationed healthcare. The proponents of the plan are calling the critics of the plan Nazis and terrorists. Oh, okay. It's not like these Nazis and terrorists have any evidence of what the future might hold. Lousy fearmongers.
We can call it the YOOLDD option: "You're out of luck, drop dead."
In terms of Innovator policy-making, though, this is an excellent trial balloon. The statistics showing that most people use the vast majority of their health care in the last year or two of life are overwhelming. The new stars of the healthcare management profession will be those people who are able to use actuarial tables and nationalized health records to pinpoint that moment when citizens will become an enormous drain on the system--meaning that rather than wait until we have to tell a person that a specific treatment can't be covered, we just say--"you're 73 now--we can't afford your next two years of life." Instead of having retirement parties, we'll have assisted-suicide life celebration festivals. We could save billions.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12857

Wow, how dumb do they think we are??

This is a response to the recent buzz over the discovery of old videos in which the president, as a candidate, disturbingly but not all suprisingly explains his long term plan to get rid of private health insurance. The videos appeared on Breitbart.com and the Drudge report, and something called naked emperor news. One of the videos is here

http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/

Here's another:
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-id-like-to-see-a-single-payer-health-care-plan/

They are what they are--and he is what he is. The White House response was eerily condescending to people who understand this, but no doubt comforting to people who really think he doesn't want single-payer national health insurance. Here's what they released--suggesting that the people posting these videos are giving a false, one-sided view of the aims of this policy. The PR official suggests that maybe people haven't seen THESE videos (of the president promising not to eliminate private insurance). Well of COURSE we've seen him promise that it's not going to be a takeover of health care!--that's what's getting blabbed every night on the news for the last month, that's what that stupid "ABC from the White House" special was about, that's the pitch, that's the misinformation, and that's the one-sided view. The minute you catch these---humans---on public revelations of what their goals really are, they say they're being misrepresented. No--they are not being misrepresented. They are, for better or worse, socialists. The political formation of Obama and his lackeys is nothing but socialist. Can we deal with the facts? It would be far less of an insult to everybody to just say--"look we really think this country would be better off as a socialist republic." Let's have THAT debate. This ridiculous stealth attack is already infuriating people, and their only response is to cry "foul." Why don't they just address the charges? Here's the drivel they put out instead:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25779.html

Good grief.

Why do we love Big State?

Among the most baffling things of pre-eschatonic life on earth is the mad love affair that self-defined "liberals" have with the Big State. I know the argument goes like this: pure freedom in the hands of the wily, the dishonest, and the unethical can lead to widespread injustice, therefore the government has to play some regulatory role. OK, fine. We also live in something like a democracy, so we like to equate "the government" with "the people."
We don't seem to ponder what has happened. Wily, dishonest, and unethical people can easily take power in a government--indeed they have (and I'm not talking about since 2008, or 2000, or 1980--this is a common pattern of all governments, even the so-called democratic ones. Power brings power-seeking people to the surface, and people who seek power are never your friends).
We live in an age of such technology and educational potential that we absolutely do NOT need a humongous government in Washington telling us what to do. There is NO reason that a local community, in 2009, cannot regulate itself, "green" itself, police itself, educate itself, etc. The information is all there. Yet, what is the current regime seeking to do? It wants to send more politically empowered agents ("organizers") into the local communities to help enact top down policies; it puts out a dizzying number of top down policies on a weekly basis; it wants to set salary ceilings, take over car companies, take over health care--oh, sorry, provide a "public option"--dictate what light bulbs we buy---this is the worst of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries rolled into one. The only thing a big government can do that a local community cannot do is win a war--yet defense is the only government function generally despised by progressives--I know why "the government" is not really trying to point out and enhance our true potential as free, locally operating citizens--it would undercut the power of the small number of people controlling it). What I don't get is why the intellectual community and the mass media think the Big State is so great. The Big State is passe. Large central states have done their historical duty--now they need to GO.
Real leadership, parenting, stewardship, mentorship and the healthy development that derives from it is based on real education and real emancipation. Modern progressives have coopted the vocabulary and created propaganda and social control, calling it education and emancipation. It's a lie--it's the opposite of what it's supposed to be, and yet, it could so easily be the real thing. We're marching backward on the evolutionary scale of political economy.

At our core

Thanks Anonymous--I think you're right, and I would submit that the thing that ultimately makes us defy the Innovators (even if only by exercising care and compassion for others) will be that thing that the Innovators will target--and it's something not subject to human innovation. Remembering 1984, Winston's humanity is ultimately destroyed once "they" find out how to destroy it. The theological argument would be that what we possess at our very core is actually God given--it's part of Tao itself. I think Lewis would agree with you too--The Narnia Chronicles and the Space Trilogy each end with a triumph over the Innovator-types--but the triumph does not take place without supernatural intervention.
Abolition of Man is interesting because he takes great pains to keep religion out of the argument, although it certainly hovers about the periphery

The Abolition of Man, Ch. 3 The Abolition of Man: What Man's conquest over Nature really means

The "last generation" [Lewis supposes it might be the 100th century A.D., I'll put my money on the 21st] will see Man's final "domination" over nature, and it will take place in a world in which "a few hundreds of men" will rule "billions upon billions of men." Continuing in his previous vein, he says that each new power won by Man over nature will bring new powers of Man over Man.

"The final stage is come when Man, by eugenics, by pre-natal conditioning, and by an education and propaganda based on a perfect applied psychology, has obtained full control over himself. Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to Man (59)."

At this point, Lewis says, the "battle will be won. . .(b)ut who, precisely, will have won it(59)?"

It will certainly appear that Innovators will have won.

". . . (T)he manmoulders of the new age will be armed with the powers of an omnicompetent state and an irresistible scientific technique: we shall get at last a race of conditioners who really can cut out all posterity in what shape they please (60)."

I tend to agree that the political hijacking of science and education will create an irresistible means of conditioning the masses--the totalitarian states of the twentieth century have all attempted to do this. Arguably, the great theocracies of history have also done this--the Medieval Church and contemporary radical Islam , invested with political sovereignty in their various domains, set parameters around knowledge and take control of the way it is disseminated. Once you see the means in place, you have to take a careful look at the what the ends are--you also have to ask where the concept of Freedom fits in to the particular scheme--this is a topic that will take Lewis back to the Tao. For me, among the many red flags flying in any incipient totalitarianism, is the definition of personhood. I wonder if any cohort of Innovators, fully empowered, will allow the world to reach a population of "billions and billions of men."

We live in an age in which abortion is politically defined only in terms of "freedom of choice" for the mother (which inevitably becomes largely a social determined definition--can I work, can I go to school, can I afford the lifestyle I want, etc.) The question of the personhood of the fetus, so important to the moral dimension of this debate is essentially ignored in the modern courts. We also are moving steadily in the direction of widening doctor-assisted suicide, and creating a rhetoric in which self-offing is, paradoxically, considered a heroic means of self-empowerment. We are moving in the direction of profiling the health characteristics of the unborn so that parents can abort a child if it turns out to be afflicted with potential mental handicaps, physical handicaps, brown eyes, or anything else defined as "icky" for excellence-seeking parents.

Lately we have begun seriously targeting fat people as we have already targeted smokers, and people who don't wear motorcycle helmets as enemies of decency who drive up the cost of health insurance (which will of course become a MAJOR problem once the government is paying for all of this).

We won't ever get to "billions of billions" of people. As awful as this is to say, I have no doubt that whatever gang of enlightened totalitarians is in charge of the world when the economy goes the way it must (and it won't be long from now), will begin offering such brilliant insights as this made public: "Gosh, the real problem with health care, and housing, and quality education, and clean water, and hunger, and joblessness (and all the other crap that we've decided to turn over to the goverment) is that there are just too many people!

This will cause the public to ponder carefully and soberly the idea that some of us are going to have to go. The private closed-door conversations (which have actually been happening since the 1970s, thank you Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller) will be like this: "The most aggressive one-child and no-child policies aren't going to fix this, and there aren't nearly enough self-absorbed old sick people who want to kill themselves. It's good to have enslaved masses and everything, but this is just ridiculous."

At this point, religious people will be the only ones screaming for the value of life as if they had a true moral obligation to do so--everybody else will see the pragmatic wisdom of making the "tough choices." I guess that means the religious people will be the ones to go! I mean, once all the fat people and smokers have been taken care of. Fat religious smokers would be in deep doo doo. Lewis himself would have been toast.