Coming closer to the end of one’s tenure in physical life leads that one to consider both past and future and the multiple meanings of both. There isn’t anything unique to that; millions of people who have gone before and who are in similar periods of contemplation have had such thoughts or are now contemplating what and how to face that transition. Then there are the thoughts of sadness for those who are prevented from the luxury of contemplation or who are not wise enough to seize the opportunity to contemplate their various lives.
Love is the spiritual force that drives our contemplations and our hopes that we might add something more that is positive to the world and to those we love. Why is that the motivation? Merely for kind memories after we’re gone? Or, is the existence – virtually universal – of love in the “hearts” of those who know us, now, or who remember us from years prior, but even, somehow, of love we have for children too young to know us, really. Love is more than a vapor that blows this way and that: it is like an abiding, surrounding fluid that is everywhere we look and think. One cannot wash it off.
It can be repelled with hatred, illustrating the force that is love and its strength and simultaneous fragility. Each of us has a responsibility – spiritually – to defend love from the nibbling intrusions of hate. Some become so fearful of the imputed power of hatred that they stop feeling, let alone expressing, love. Yet love is infinitely stronger. Religious explanations of love are somewhat confusing since most are complicated by political or financial power over populations. The confusion has become worse as scientific inquiry has appeared to disprove many religious tenets. This threat to religious infallibility has caused many branches of Judeo-Christianity to soften scripture and history so that modern social justice may be elevated to something religious. True Love is largely left behind. The frequent declaration of God’s love for each of us is disconnected, somewhat, from the universality of love and the earthly, daily battle with hate.
The best expression of love… and the best way to multiply love, is marriage and children. It is a simple, not quite infallible formula that has worked for millennia. It is a formula that, like changing water into wine, changes everything in the worlds of the husband, the wife and the souls entrusted to them as co-creators with God. Love expands in families.
Hatred, on the other hand, usually is not generated inside of families. It steals into families, perhaps because of drugs or alcohol, or because of some human vector that generates unrequited angers or, worse, self-hatred. It spreads. The wise society maintains a social – perhaps religious – infrastructure that can mitigate, if not resolve, familial dysfunction. It would strengthen everyone. It would assure that subsequent generations of citizens will be smarter than the last, and well-balanced and nurturing.
If unchecked, hatred becomes a means of judgement, both of acquaintances and friends or family. Like other addictions, it begins to look for reasons and justifications for itself. Soon, it’s pleasurable and satisfying. Those who don’t hate seem less wise than the one who is smart enough to hate those who deserve to be hated. In short order, correspondence is reduced to only the circle of co-haters – all enjoying the satisfaction of being more discerning than those who float along disregarding the hateful qualities of this or that person, or group, that are so obvious. Society, the civil, unregulated cooperation that reinforces everyone, can break down at this stage. The visible and invisible lines of hateful judgement create unbridgeable chasms that advance some at the expense and pain of others. There is no longer society… only an uneven police state in which most trust very few others.
The aging individual must choose, now, what his frame of mind will be when the hour comes to leave. Leaving immersed in hatred would seem to be the wrong “way” to face whatever comes next, and this should include self-hatred, possibly the most common form of hate. Hating oneself leads to a search for confirmation from others, perhaps from society, that the self-hating individual is correct in his outlook. If he is “confirmed” as a member of a properly hated group, he will then have found a mission to either spread the hate or better define it, or to find a way to correct the reasons or balance the reasons it is hated. Inevitably this “balance” is perceived as an economic one: forcing people who have nothing to do with why a group is hated today, though long dead, to pay reparations to others alive today, who have virtually nothing to do with the hated people, again, long departed. It is illogical in its conception and unfair in execution: a reward for hatred.
It appears that hatred is a personal matter, one that individuals can control or reverse. Historically, however, most starkly described in “1984,” hatred is a political tool. For many movements, for whom to hate is the sea-anchor that keeps them on course. It is part and parcel of psychological warfare where repetition and cross-citation becomes “truth,” not because it is true but, because it is believed. The same process works personally, creating self-hatred. It is all destructive: from simply feeling like a failure, to rejecting opportunities to triumph… to attempting suicide. “Satan” wins.
Some are unable to process love, which is one of the most difficult mental states to overcome. It is the enemy of self-worth or self-esteem. One should not prepare to die feeling this way.
Nor should a nation die in self-hatred. Good national “health” and a good future, depend upon knowledge of real history, good and bad, and accepting that the imperfections of humans have happened, are happening and will happen, and that we are willing to apply steps of improvement to how we act. Nationally, we can do better for ever larger numbers of people… if we believe in our ability to do so. Hating one another, or our nation, or ourselves, is the recipe for failure. Do we know better?
As a cruise ship plows forward, forcing water aside, waves are created, however short-lived, and they are real… impermanent, but real. Perhaps that is because they last for more than a moment. From windows forty feet above, with the sun shining against the ship and water, there appear light and dark patterns – like lace – flashing into and out of view, only “real” because I have perceived their ephemeral patterns. Engaging someone’s consciousness: is that essential for reality?
Someone sitting at another window could not perceive the same tracery despite its reality to me for a flash of time. It’s much the same as Love or Anger or Sadness or a dozen… no, ten-dozen other emotions, the reality part, at least. Usually they flit across one’s being like a shadow, gaining reality only if your consciousness grabs hold and commits mental energy to one.
Suddenly, from a flash of fear or loathing of someone’s odd difference from your own self you have made a decision – a choice – to hate the different one, even for a few moments… a feeling that is no longer fleeting, but real. If left private, shared with no one else, it is neither bad nor good. While it may affect your own physiology, quicken your breath and pulse, you may choose from evil. You may release the ill-feeling before it becomes a belief. Only belief can render such a flash real.
Funny thing, belief. We all suffer from it, it is how we live. Faith requires it and Hope is made of it. Faith, compounded of hundreds of stories – ideas, really, that can’t be replicated or proven, on the surface, can’t be tested to establish some sort of “proof” for the benefit of others who doubt is premises. It need not be put to any test for those who have it. Faith is trust and that means trust in A source of the idea, or in THE source of the idea.
We, humans, live in faith. It surrounds our beings, functions and beliefs. Much is made of religious faith in this day of militant, feral atheism. Religious faithful especially are denigrated for beliefs in “mumbo jumbo,” although these besmirchments apply almost exclusively to Christians and Jews. One never sees “protesters” opposed to Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists. There are some opponents to Mormons: mostly a quirk of Christian intolerance – the same that underlay many wars, even AMONG Christians, but no worse than sectarian conflicts elsewhere. It has never been settled whether tolerance, per se, is good or bad. Tolerance of what?
But, in terms of faith, itself, those who trust in the solidness of soil, rocks, wood or ice are no less faithful, however shallow that faith may be. After all, if doubt creeps in, one need simply pick up another rock and have his or her faith restored. However, “science” shows us that rocks and other “solid” things are comprised of atoms which are mostly empty space, each part of which is a mere vibration of energy. So, how is it enough of these supposed “atoms” can hold up the weight of others of its kind, plus the weight of us, our rocks, cars and houses?
Well, let’s not worry about such things. Thank God they do… ummm, I mean, thank goodness. Same thing.
We trust in a lot of life we can’t control – or understand – so why is trust in God so singularly questioned? Does His / Her possibility threaten us? Is it because God proclaimed rules that humans are “commanded” to follow? Rules for Good and Bad and Love and Life and Death? One of those rules, that EVERY human once had faith in, Is “Thou shalt not steal.” It’s a pretty good rule, too: easy to understand and without compromise.
We expect, for example, to be impacted by government – an expectation that is so often realized that it becomes a “matter of faith.” We know government is going to limit or coerce us in matters of stealing and, frankly, in almost every action we take. We have FAITH in government’s intrusiveness for it is proven to us a hundred times each day… or, a thousand times, if we open our eyes and ears. It’s part of our belief system – giving us faith in the likelihood that “our” government will impact us similarly tomorrow. There is every reason to believe so.
Admonishing us to not steal implies the existence of private, individual ownership of “things,” “items,” “money” and so forth. In our illuminated existences we like to consider “rights” as something we possess, as well. Maybe we do… possess rights. How so? By virtue of birth? Do our parents give us these amazing, non-substantial things… these rights? Perhaps on a certain birthday?
If they are “parents,” in fact, they provide necessities like food, clothing, shelter, a bed, one hopes. Do children then possess a “right” to these things? Or must such rights be “earned? If earned, at whose expense? “Our” government says, “At all of our expense. We, collectively, will guarantee availability of these necessities for the children in our country whether or not their parents are able to – or choose to – provide them.” The government, in effect, creates those “rights” as extensions of the “Right to Life.” Really?
How can the government do this when it has no means (money) to do so?
This same government does its damnedest to pay for and otherwise facilitate abortion, although the government, per se, has no money. It would seem that “our” government has chosen to steal a thing from the “abortee:” its Right to Life, at the same time stealing the money needed to inflict the abortion, from all of the rest of us. Thou shalt not steal must have severe compromise built into it… hmmph.
One could leap to the presumption that the TWO parents of the human working to be born, had not only some right to copulate but, instantaneously, the OBLIGATION to provide for the child of their union. Further, it would be more honest and fair if there were some punishment or sanction for creating a child while denying any of the coincident obligations. Do they have a “right” to create an obligation for all of us not involved in the procreation? By whose authority?
Birth may be induced within a week or two of due date; other forms of early delivery may be employed up to two MONTHS earlier. In some jurisdictions the proto-mother can elect to terminate that life for convenience’ sake… even to the time of natural birth. Indeed there are instances of babies surviving abortion who have then been “eased” from life after delivery or while their heads are still in the birth canal… on the whim of the mother. That doesn’t seem different from murder.
Wasn’t that live baby a U. S. citizen by virtue of being born on U. S. soil? Who has the right to steal its Right to Life? Who can grant such a right to steal? Thou shalt not steal.
Does not the brand-new U. S. citizen have unalienable rights under the Constitution? Rights like Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Was there some point… a single breath, perhaps, at which “we, the People…” invested “our” government with the power to take those rights away from a citizen? That’s a major theft, it seems Prudent to say. That baby owned those rights; they were stolen from him or her. Thou shalt not steal.
Our we-the-People-created government has not only assumed for itself the power to grant the right to murder one’s offspring, a U. S. citizen, for no reason, but also to steal the Right to Life from the recipient of the abortion process.
To sell the idea of child assassination as a net “good” requires a remarkable re-making of beliefs. The person / mother who is responsible for the life gestating within her, almost always sees her own life, and Right to it, as precious, if not sacred. In the course of her re-education she is brought to a belief about the new person for whom she is responsible, that is completely different: her baby has no rights and she has no obligation to defend either the baby or the rights. She must come to believe that the baby is anything but a baby: it’s a mass of cells, like a tumor; or, he or she is a parasite, invading mother’s physical sanctity and convenience. Well, if the re-education is thorough, the removal of the invading mass is “health care,” albeit for only one of the parties involved. At least the parasite has no name and can’t feel anything… the proto-assassin hopes.
Sadly, tragically, this is not the case after just a few weeks of gestation.
Imagine a company the business of which were the aborting of kittens or puppies – say, puppies. The mother dog’s guardian (one cannot “own” another life form we’re told) knows the bitch has allowed to be done to her what dogs do, doggy-style, and is exhibiting signs of pregnancy. The guardian, not wanting the expense of another dog/puppy, or puppies, decides to have some convenient “health-care” performed on the pregnant bitch and the unborn puppies excised… like parasites. “Planned Puppyhood” might then sell the fresh, wet-iced organs of the puppies to “science” for research.
A neighbor of the guardian tells her that she hasn’t noticed “Buttons” running around for a few days and asks if everything is okay… with the dog? “Oh, yes,” says guardian, “she was pregnant and I took her to “Planned Puppyhood” for an abortion; 3 pups were removed. She’ll be home by tonight. Thanks for asking.”
The neighbor recoils in shock. “How could you do such a thing?” she cries. You could have let Buttons give birth and brought the puppies to a shelter! There are places that will take them and find them good homes. Oh, gracious, I feel terrible! I would have taken them!” Neighbor is crying.
“Oh for Heaven’s sake,” exclaims the guardian. Having those puppies would have been more trouble than I could put up with. I just don’t have the time, with work and all. What’s done is done and things will be back to normal going forward. Calm down. I still love Buttons.”
Neighbor shares the tragedy with others and local news gets the story. Do you think PETA and hundreds of pet-lovers and veterinary assistants will be picketing the guardian? Signs will call her a murderer and puppy-hater. She did, after all, STEAL the right of the bitch to give birth to her puppies and nurse them. Thou shalt not steal.
Probably, Planned Puppyhood would never get a permit to open a new facility in guardian’s county: dogs don’t contribute millions of dollars to political campaigns… at least the smart ones don’t.
The facilitators of abortions, that is, proto-mothers (women don’t actually receive abortions, they participate, but the recipient of the abortion is the baby: the abortee, as it were) have developed a great faith in the new meanings of words they’ve been re-taught. The multiple aspects of Life and Humanity NOT being those things MUST BE TRUE. If they aren’t… OMG! Not that they intend the meaning of “OMG” literally, it’s a social media thing, the meaning of which has been stolen by vulgarity.
Apparently, “our” government has perfected stealing and, usually, when theft is the subject, money is the object, in most people’s minds. Some person steals your wallet and everything in it and they have not only your cash but your credit cards and identity. He or she could steal even your house as well as drain your bank account – stealing from your future. God forbid. Clearly there are multiple crimes possible and, let’s hope, “our” government will harshly sanction the thief in every case. After all, everyone recognizes the truth and justice of Thou shalt not steal. Just consider how firmly “our” governments deal with shoplifters after they steal from store-owners.
“That’s not a fair sarcasm,” some automatically say, “those people have insurance against theft.”
Sounds like a definition is being stolen right from under us: “stealing” isn’t stealing if the victim is wealthy, or insured, and not known face-to-face. No kidding? Thou shalt not steal.
Moreover, if “religious” people think that rule is sacred, having come from God – especially Jews or Christians – then to Hell with that. We’re not going to have religious doctrine shoved down our throats, it’s un-Constitutional. Now they’re stealing the meaning of “Constitution,” too. But, back to the money thing.
A truly clever group would want its theft of EVERYONE’S money… I mean, if they had a very damned good reason to pull that off, they would find a way to hide the theft and their hands in it from… well, everyone. To do that they’d have to steal some word definitions such as “Inflation.” Every public commenter, including the smart ones, say “inflation” when they mean “price increases.” Generally the “rate” they talk about is the rate of increase or decrease measured by the “CPI,” the Consumer Price Index. The true “CPI” is comprised of a market “basket” of things that consumers can’t avoid buying in the normal course of providing for themselves and their families. Our government has stolen the meaning of this measure.
The “basket” includes food, cleaning products, clothing, housing, energy, TV, phone and internet services, insurance, transportation, taxes and accounting, health care and medications, maintenance and household services, banking and credit services, education and child-care. There are more, but sustenance and advancement are possible from that list.
Everyone but the wealthy elite agonizes over rapid price increases for items in the market “basket.” It’s heard everywhere: “Eggs used to be 99 cents a dozen, now they’re $4.79!”
“Inflation is high,” someone replies. News commenters refer to the “rate” of inflation as the average rate of, say, 3 and ½% as proof that “our” president’s policies have “brought down” the rate of “inflation.” What a wonderful piece of work. All are misusing the term, “inflation.” By repeated, round-the-clock misuse, the meaning of inflation has been stolen. Here’s a little lesson:
Inflation means inflation of the money supply… simple. Inflation, by itself, doesn’t mean the increase in a price… of any thing. It does, however, REDUCE THE VALUE of all the dollars there are sloshing around the economy: one of the greatest thefts ever devised. Only governments can do that. Thou shalt not steal.
Inflation is a government policy. It’s not caused by changes in the weather or lunar cycles. Politicians decide to use inflation to their advantage, either to buy votes or to cover up errors they have made with other policies. “We, the people” are the last and least consideration when inflation is being contemplated. Any legislation that increases federal spending, cannot, by definition, “reduce” inflation. To say otherwise, perhaps by naming said legislation an “Inflation-Reduction Act,” is a complete lie, told by politicians to their constituents from whom they have just stolen monetary value of savings and pension plans and liquid cash assets. It is not only mendacious, but cruel. Thou shalt not steal.
But, why do prices go up after the government inflates the money supply? Supply and demand: the very essence of economics, trade, valuation of goods and services and, wait for it, TAXES! The insidious economics of “our” (federal) government results from constant “deficit spending:” spending more to operate the government than tax receipts and other revenues can cover, which sounds pretty stupid. But in order to do that, the government borrows the difference, virtually on a daily basis, for which it incurs an interest obligation – all done on “our” behalf.
That interest obligation is now greater than ONE TRILLION DOLLARS per year, and growing. Most of the money borrowed to fill annual “budget” gaps is basically air… (see: https://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2020/09/27/knife-edge-election/) … for which we pay real-money interest. It’s the theft that keeps on stealing. When your favorite politician sends you some re-election mail, be sure to send him or her a check, won’t you?
Inflation automatically, in a sense, causes reactionary DE-flationary effects, bringing balance back to the supply of dollars and the supply of goods and services to be purchased. The fastest adjustment is the higher price of things. Eventually, the price of labor also rises. All of these increases generate – wait for it – higher tax revenue! It’s a miracle! Or, it’s a policy… who’d have thought?
So, who can commit such a crime? Who benefits from this theft? Who can even DO the crime? “Our” government, that’s who. The rate of inflation IS high, BUT, and this isn’t good news, as a percentile increase, even the last FOUR presidents have been unable to increase the rate more than a total of 100%!
“Really? Where did it go?” one asks. Why, to the greatest deflationary mechanism ever invented: DEBT! It’s now over $35 Trillion!
“Whose debt is it?” you could rightly ask. Well, it’s YOURS, mine, all of ours. “How will we repay it?” could be the next logical question.
“We can’t unless we run surpluses in the federal budget for the next 50 years or so.”
“When will we do that?” Also a good question. Likely answer:
“Never. Our Reps and Senators will have to change their habits and, right now, their habit is to get re-elected and they have to buy a lot of votes.”
“So, it’s a debt that will never be repaid?”
“Yes. It’s indistinguishable from theft. In this case, the money has been stolen from generations into the future, to whom the thieves will never answer.” Thou shalt not steal.
Along the path of perpetual debt many meanings of words and principles have been stolen… and rights, as well. To maintain the lie of theft-as-debt, we are paying interest, which is a “current” obligation, competing with federal departments, like Defense, for limited resources, along with other key obligations comprised of horse-shit, chicken-shit and bull-shit, not to overlook the mountain of citizen and illegal welfare we feel compelled to pay.
Our “representatives” (a questionable term) have aided in this multi-generational embezzlement for decades, as it buys their votes, too. Aside from a handful in either House: a dozen in the Senate, perhaps thirty in the House of representatives – both parties have facilitated and voted for repeated deficit-spending packages, including “continuing resolutions” that merely continue rates of spending that exceed revenues… over and over and over. They lie, in other words; indeed, they fail to represent our interests TO or AGAINST the government, as directed by our Constitutional covenant. Instead they represent the government to us! They have stolen the term, “representative,” one of the worst of thefts. $35 Trillion. Thou shalt not steal.
Kidnapping is the most heinous of THEFTs and, if there are degrees of heinousness, kidnapping a child is a still greater level of evil. Yet, every weekday we willingly pass off our children to “public” education systems where ideological and unionized teachers and equally warped administrators divert children’s beliefs away from those of their parents. If a person’s beliefs are taken from him or her, it is a theft of the most personal property. Uniquely foul is the daily effort to make children question their own being: boys aren’t actually boys; girls not actually girls. For shame.
Such “teachers”… no, “educators,” are the worst thieves possible: willing to steal children’s selves. Ultimately, they are willing to perfect the theft by having kids be subjected to chemical sterilization and, if they can reach the nadir, surgical mutilation. In the process they may even get to rejoice the theft of the children from their parents, altogether. Oh, the glory! Once a thief… Thou shalt not steal.
Life is a philosophy, as is death, one could surmise. Another philosophical thread might be spun from the question of whether death and life are opposite one another. The observer of, say, a live frog and a dead one can readily note the obvious differences, most specifically that the live one is capable of independent action while the one considered dead, obviously is not… but, are the two states opposite one another? Given that death is the natural end of the limited period called life, it ought not be seen as the opposite of life.
Let’s jump up a level in our contemplations. Philosophy implies belief and wouldn’t exist without it. Truth being immutable and untethered to belief, the death of, say a frog, leaving a dead, stiff carcass, is subject to only one belief: the formerly live frog has ceased the stage we call “life” and now exists in a state we call “death.” There isn’t any room for conflicting descriptions of the change of condition or, for the rational, conflicting meanings of the change, as well. Humans, however, are immersed in a sea of philosophies and, in the presence of a large smattering of scientific knowledge, our philosophies are concentrated upon – if not entirely concerned with – life and death… of humans. We believe humans are unique for whatever reasons and philosophy enables our explaining those beliefs.
One might distill that fact into simpler terms: philosophies are based on how to create life, how to live and on how to die. Too simple? Let’s consider a few. The most widely known are religious, the fire that has forged most of our beliefs: marriage, rearing of offspring, educating them and launching them into marriage, conducting our personal lives, dealing with crime and anger and unfairness and injustice, meeting our obligations to others, and being honest and honorable and fulfilling our duties… and how to worship our creator and perhaps other gods. Every religious belief structure includes dietary and sexual laws, ways to punish and ways to exact revenge, as it were… or avoid it. Structures of belief.
There are philosophers who explain the meanings of our beliefs, of our lives, our emotions and our hatreds. They try to explain why religions are complete or incomplete, why life has meaning or it doesn’t; they rationalize failure, success, happiness and depression, loneliness, gregariousness, hygiene and filth. Philosophers have, and will again, endeavor to explain industry, work, laziness and entertainment… even complete nihilism and the need for suicide. In a way, they are all explanations or understandings (opinions) about creating, living and ending life… of humans, mainly.
Humans build things. There’s a philosophy about this need to construct more than is necessary for basic shelter and safety. Humans invent ways to grow more than enough food – then we eat it all. There are philosophers trying to explain why we eat more than we need, even if it hurts us. The same is true about alcohol, drugs, tobacco, coffee and chocolate. Why are these things so important to humans? How is it that we can abuse one another and even children? People try to think about and reason about, explain and understand these odd behaviors. What do they mean?
Much of religious thought / philosophy is about the end of life and the existence or absence of a soul living in the spiritual self of every human. The majority of humans alive today believe to some degree that there are rewards or punishments awaiting them after death. It feels Prudent to consider those possibilities. If we live a rotten life do we, should we, “get into” heaven the same as the most charitable and saintly people we know? Do non-religious people have a last minute choice to win or possibly earn a ticket to heavenly realms? How good a life must one live to be acceptable to get even a decent room in the many mansions of heaven?
Do we have to leave earth, or just life, to get to heaven? What if you aren’t good enough to take up residence in heaven? Do you remain stuck on earth somehow? Or are you wiped from creation, every record and memory, any act of love or anger toward others that you created while alive – just ‘poof’? Gone? The people who run heaven wash their hands of you? Maybe you are parked in a halfway village – or a one-third way or one-quarter way – until there is either a lull in new applications or one of the staff in heaven thinks you can be rehabilitated. These are philosophical questions because each is laden with meaning. For some.
It is possible to drift through, or fight through life without ever thinking of what your actions mean. Philosophically this seems like a sad outcome for years of living, and implies a certain sociopathy: complete disregard for others, something that has to be learned; no one is born that way. Some people, unfortunately, learn a rare but real philosophy of hatred or disregard for others, even in their families. These are they who have a high likelihood of incarceration and other interactions with government agencies. Those interactions, whether with social workers, foster care or special schools, fulfill the philosophies of others.
That is, a large fraction of society believe in government as a better source of decision-making than any family unit or parent. We can see a constant push from these types to remove children from parental influence at ever earlier ages. It reflects the philosophies of socialism which are also anti-religious. At the same time, there are smaller societies where communal child-raising has worked beautifully for centuries, only thanks to a culture supported by shared philosophies toward rights, wrongs and the stages of life. These beliefs are too rare in complex industrialized “societies” like ours. Here and there small “communes,” often religion-based, attempt to maintain cleaner and simpler cultures and child-raising is shared somewhat.
This can practically, and honestly, be done in the United States in only small, restrictive communities, because ever growing fractions of our “multicultural” nation do their best to be as different from our actual heritage and mores as possible. Parents relinquish control of their children for more than brief periods at great risk. Their teachers, counselors and coaches are increasingly likely to believe very different things about what children should believe , learn, memorize or think of the world, than what their parents believe. Those whose philosophy includes greater trust in government(s) than in individuals will tend to separate children intellectually – philosophically – from their parents. These are the ones whose guiding philosophy is that we cannot enjoy a true society until we all accept the “common good” ideals of socialism, and reject all the old ideas and ideals, including that pesky freedom we try to enjoy and pass on to our kids. Religions are an impediment for this type… unless the beliefs they espouse are destructive of the awful principles that formed the United States.
Try to find out the philosophies of your children’s teachers. If they don’t believe what you believe, why let them screw up your kids? Because the government says to?
There are a lot of money-related philosophies, too. Some of these – most of them, actually, are destructive of the lives of ordinary people: the kind that go to work and try to provide for their families and save for retirement. Most of the people who form the backbone of free-enterprise capitalism don’t have money philosophies. Money is simply a tool for negotiating life… which could be a philosophy, but isn’t worth the time. For the ultra-capitalists, worldwide bankers, central bankers, money isn’t money, it’s their lower-than-secular God. They worship the stuff.
Money is not the “root of all evil,” it is the love of money that has that effect. Those international, ultra-wealthy, celebrity and relatively hidden titans of finance, are among the most evil, amoral humans on the planet. The small-business entrepreneur who winds up wealthy is the example to emulate; the financial wizard who earns through speculation and trading and who controls multiple fortunes internationally, is not. While both may cause envy, you will have to forego your moral bases and patriotism to emulate the latter. Prudence is skeptical of entrepreneurs who become extremely wealthy because they are smart, but then decide that they are also wise. These same then try to sway governments or major institutions to follow the wealthy person’s philosophy on how life should be lived. The wisdom of history and heritage, they often deal with as impediments to the “better” or more efficient ways of life, education and freedom from which the oligarch is far removed and insulated by wealth.
There are philosophies of money and wealth that derive from the love of money. They are perceived as entitled control of others, and are divorced from the beautiful chaos of freedom.
Philosophies about human differences are key to civilization. Rarely do philosophies derived from ignorance of “others” include automatic trust or love. A philosophy of tolerance will erode natural distrust and lead to acceptance and then love and trust. One’s philosophy must include belief in a path toward acceptance – the alternative is mental barriers that devolve into hatred. Either philosophy must be taught to offspring.
Can we make laws that require belief in eventual acceptance? No, not successfully. But we can, by trusting citizens self-governed by largely shared philosophies, create a legal structure where acceptance is possible. Our Constitution is the best example of this structure. “e pluribus unum” is the clearest statement of the philosophy of acceptance: “from many, one (people or nation).” Recent failings of American constitutionalism have resulted from the intrusion of alternative philosophies into the fabric of liberty and responsibility, and from the denial of other philosophies, primarily religious.
We must remain vigilant.
Each of us will pass on, but not, Prudence’ philosophy says, like the stiff and lifeless frog. We have an obligation – one we accepted – to leave this plane of existence having lived, loved and served for the benefit of others and thus for the benefit of ourselves. A wise and Prudent soul once observed that “…you get to keep only what you give away.” Only our acts, loves, angers, hatreds go on with us to be judged. That’s a Prudent philosophy. The United States of America provides unmatched opportunities to live in ways of which we might be proud.
The start of a New Year may be a more significant spiritual event than any on liturgical calendars. As a genus, Humans are compelled to count days, organize seasons and lunar cycles, divide days into candle-time, observe celestial cycles and even build gigantic stone thingy-s associated with all of those times. Longest day, shortest day, equal days, feast days – they all become so very important. But, the most important of all… the one day that every one of us cares about, regardless of nationality, is the day, indeed the hour, minute and SECOND that we change the number we have rather arbitrarily assigned to the year-time division: New Years.
Every one of us that is aware of the change in annual numbering is equally compelled to make promises to ourselves – sometimes publicly – as to how we will comport ourselves in better ways in the “new” year. It’s a time for new personal and, in effect, spiritual beginnings. We collectively, but privately, intend to be “better” people… replace bad habits with good ones, go on a diet, give more to charity, maybe go to church more often, tell our significant others, more often, that we love them. Now, then, to whom are we speaking when we tell ourselves these promises?
Obviously we are attempting to communicate to a “self” that exists somewhere deeper? higher? than our cerebral cortex. Short-term memory is notorious for being… well, short. Our need at New Years is to imprint some new pattern of behavior – belief, really – on very long-term memory, and to do so quickly.
Belief is the key, and beliefs are spiritual, fundamentally. Does all of our consciousness exist in neurons, ganglia and synapses? Religions teach us, “No,” and even a little meditation can expose that our beliefs are held in a different level of mentality, and that maybe there is a spiritual component to the reflective human. However it works, it is unlikely that a smoker, for example, will relinquish his or her hold on the habit until he or she believes that he or she is a non-smoker who is simply entangled with tobacco. At that point dis-entanglement can begin; it won’t until then.
Or a druggie or a drinker, for other examples, must cement the belief in him- or her-self as a non-addict before commencing a true path toward cleansing that self of the entanglement with drugs of some kind. The same is true of any habit or practice that the resolute resolver can identify as needing change. The best news is that we need not wait for New Years’ morning to get started. There are lots of cycles that we attend to that form perfectly good times to start becoming better humans.
In Eastern traditions there exists a concept called “The Cosmic Clock.” It’s connected to other concepts related to the “Law” of “Karma:” As ye sow so shall (must) ye reap. There are many ways of stating this idea. “What goes around, comes around,” is one. Even westerners understand it. The Cosmic Clock starts the cycles of your life when you are born – that’s YOUR true “New Year.” In line with the concept of being tested in each lifetime, aiming toward self-perfection, you and the people around you start a series of tests upon your birth. Every year on your birthday you commence a new cycle of both testing and accomplishment, and by the end of that year you are obligated to place your accomplishments – your harvest: what you have “reaped” – on the spiritual altar of your “higher” self… the one you are trying to communicate with through New Years’ resolutions! These cycles come in groupings of 12: 12 hours, 12 months, 12 years.
It is in your thirteenth year that your own, personal karma begins to cycle into your life. That is the age of spiritual responsibility, as it were. Many cultures and spiritual paths recognize this timing with celebrations – or events, at least – marking the end of the first 12 years’ milestone, like a bar-mitzvah. In every year there will be 12 beginnings we call months; every day there are two beginnings – of 12-hour cycles; every 12 years of our lives there are major beginnings. Sometimes the kinds of tests this life will include come to 12-hour, 12-month and 12-year “peaks,” together, so to speak, and even comfortable Westerners can detect a point at which testing is severe, a point when “everything goes wrong” at once.
“Every cloud has a silver lining,” is a platitude that then applies. The lowest point is when there is the greatest opportunity for good, or improvement, or, we might say, Victory over that test. Karma instructs that the tests you failed to pass the first time (in this life or a previous one) will be presented again, providing the opportunity for personal victory. Trying to imprint a “resolution” is a response to the spiritual need to prepare yourself for tests your “higher” self knows are coming, and to remove weaknesses that will interfere with your victories. You might refer to the post of Christmas Eve for another aspect of this: http://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2017/12/24/the-religious-question/
So, New Years is a big party, presumably a celebration of all we accomplished in the spiritual year just ending. But, it is also commencement of a year/cycle in preparation for which we are resolved to “be better.” Pretty cool, thank goodness.
It’s all a matter of belief. We strive for truth, or, at least, we tell ourselves that truth is our highest aspiration. But truth among people is the subject of much argument, if not battle. Our beliefs tell our internal selves what is “true” and what is “false.” Likewise, we have internal judgments about who is trustworthy and who is not. Over thousands of years we have created deep belief structures that “work,” in a sense, to organize societies and to increase, however fitfully, general prosperity and defensive strength. Religion is often a significant basis for progress, but has just as often been a limiter, even to this day.
Prudence suggests that the Judeo-Christian ethical platform has been, ultimately, the most successful of historic belief structures, yet it is assaulted daily as “unscientific” since it accepts “truths” that cannot be proven or tested in a laboratory. When are unshakable beliefs imparted? How is it that some kids prefer gang membership while others become Eagle Scouts? Do we think it happens from a conversation with a 5-year old? From Sesame Street? Pre-school?
Speak to a pre-school teacher and she can describe the wide range of attitudes among 3-year olds, some quite destructive. Where did they form those personalities? Well, at home, obviously, but when? At age two and a half? Age two… or earlier? Somehow very young kids are “empatterned” such that anti-social actions, even pathological actions, are the automatic reactions to stimuli. When are those patterns implanted?
Our suspicion is that the process commences in the womb. Ask an expectant mother about the reactions of her pre-born baby and she can describe how her moods and feelings coincide with movements. When she is stressed and when she is calm and happy there are noticeable differences in the baby’s kicks and turns. Do we think the baby is completely inured to its environment until the moment of birth?
Imagine a baby in the last couple of months of gestation in a home where revenge is the common reaction of the parents – and others – to every slight or act of disrespect. Every source of irritation between husband and wife yields a reaction that the offended party must “get even” with, or get the better of, the offending party. The baby, innocently, will mature with a comfortable reaction toward opposition or disrespect that virtually requires that he or she obtain revenge against the offender. It is what he or she “believes.”
What a different path of human interaction that child will be on; what a different interpretation of what love and hate may be. Think about the “differently socialized” children you’ve known. By the time they enter kindergarten such children are already “marked” for special handling. By the time they are teenagers, some of these revenge-comfortable kids are gang members, either organized or in a company of local “bullies.”
Now, place these boys in a position to enthrall girls who grew up without rational father figures, never knowing how a man should treat a woman, respect her and care for her, along with their children. Such an, in effect, fatherless girl would perceive the feral sexual attentions of just as possibly fatherless boys, as true compassion. Now there are two ill-socialized children having their own children, who gestate and begin post-natal life amidst discord, resentment, poverty and, almost inevitably, vengefulness.
Is urban destruction like Ferguson, Missouri or Baltimore, Maryland at all surprising amidst populations that our own social policies have generated in far less than ideal pre-natal and post-natal family conditions? By foregoing social mores related to marriage and family and child-rearing, have we commenced a process of social disintegration? Most likely. Given this, where do we expect our dishonest politics to lead us?
Because individual power and status is the most vital of purposes for elected “representatives,” the misfortunes and dysfunctions of populations have become sources of political, personal, power. We could not have tolerated, and funded beyond reason, via hundreds of overlapping social-service agencies, social dysfunction for literal decades, unless those expenses served the purposes of Congress and others made powerful thereby. It is not possible to consider our history since the 1960’s and conclude that the trillions of dollars expended on basically failed welfare theories, resulted in failure and explosive government expansion, accidentally!
We are destroying the most successful form of social organization the world has seen, insofar as its basis is individual opportunity, freedom and growth without tyranny. Worse, we have brought ourselves to a political point where we are arguing and fighting about how FAST the Judeo-Christian heritage may be dissolved.
We are maintaining the propagation of new citizens who will not have the opportunity to grow in personal character and integrity. They will not enjoy two-parent, loving nuclear families, nor the reinforcing institutions of church and morality-based education.
We are racing not to the Brave New World, but the Craven.
