Posted on 09/24/2003 11:25:56 PM PDT by betty boop
Thus Spake Hank Kerchief
Think I should change my screen name to Zarathustra?
(I guess not. I really don't like Nietzsche.) Hank
I'll start out with the way I ended the other.
I know if you thought for one second any of your views or practices would harm another or were in any a way compromise with evil, you would immediately drop them. I know you believe you veiws are totally benevolent (and totally correct, of course, or you wouldn't hold them).
But, they are mistaken. Every failed society in the history of the world has been the result of trying to implement some variety of the views you hold.
Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung, [were] idealists....
This is news to me, Hank. There is a distinction to note between an idealist and an ideologue. These men were the latter, plus brutal, vicious dictators, the very spawn of Hell.
Of course they were evil, but they did not gain power by promoting themselves as evil. They did not say, "put us in power and we will be brutal, vicious dictators who will turn your world into a hell." No, they promised peace, prosperity, equality, and, except for Pol Pot, these were the ideals these leaders held and believed their ideologuies and policies would actually fulfill, at least in the beginning of their careers.
This is not what "balance" is!
You flatly repudiated, "an extreme preoccupation with the discrete, individual self," and said, "balance is needed." If strict individualism by itself is unbalanced, it must be balanced by some form of collectivism.
I made some more comments about liberty, but do not think they were edifying enough to repeat. This only I'll say, if I cannot feed myself and free myself, than I am no value to myself or to any other individual in society. Only if I am independent enough to live without a society, do I have a moral right to be part of a society.
Hank
That's surprizing, your Post 155 reads like a will to power type thing. No offense intended, I actually like Nietzsche even though I disagree w/ him 100%.
I did enjoy your comments on "real" numbers. I've always been fascinated by i, not simply because the number makes no sense and yet is indispensible, but also because of it's mirrored relationship to "I". Could it be JUST an English thing?
When Moses asked the burning bush "Who are you" and the bush says "I am" it seems to me that God said all we need to know about Him and at the same time provided to us the ultimate goal; that is to move towards "I" such as He is and not merely the impossible, imaginary i that we all unfortunately happen to be (even those who will it otherwise).
Hank, this statement is a nonsequitur: The conclusion does not follow from the premise. In my view, "strict individualism," or "unbalanced individualism," leads to personal and social disorder. When conditions of disorder on a mass scale obtain historically, as they did in ancient Athens, and as they arguably do now, inevitably the tyrant steps in on the pretext of "restoring order." If conditions are bad enough, the populace (in its disorder) may actually welcome the tyrant. But not all tyrants are collectivists.
How can it possibly do that. Remember, a strict individualist is self-sufficient and never uses coercion against anyone else. Tell me how that leads to personal and social disorder.
Hank
I can agree a bit more with your expanded explanation: a Spiritual joining rather than physical.
But fading fast!
I've always been fascinated by i, not simply because the number makes no sense ...
Oh, but it does make sense. I know "i" stands for imagninary (although in electronics they use "j" for the same concept), but it is not imaginary, it is just a way of getting around a limitation of mathematics. A lot of mathematics is like that. That is really what the whole of the Calculus is about, though most mathematicians would be scandalized by that suggestion. At least this is true for derivatives, I havn't thought enough about integrals to be sure, but suspect its true because differentiation is just anti-integration.
I do not understand your I/i illusion to the burning bush. Human beings are not imaginary, but God might be.
Hank
But fading fast!
Yes! With obvious results.
Hank
Because the concept isn't capacious enough to describe human existence. Your definition seems to hold that self-sufficiency and nonagression are the prime characteristics of human being.
Well. Anyone with eyes can tell you, this is hardly the case in practical reality.
And then, you and I both complain when these exemplary and hoped-for conditions do not hold. As they quite usually do not, these days.
Hank, there's more I'd like to say here, but I really do have to go make dinner now. But I'll be back.
God, on the other hand is immortal, eternal and infinite. When God said "I am" it was a sublime, succinct factual statement of monumental consequence. The very existence of His being changes all things forever. He is the reason for all of this.
Conversely, when man says "I am" it reflects a temporary state of being, an existence transitory and subject to the smallest whim of fate, Nietzsche and Hank notwithstanding. He, man, is the i of that equation, the imaginary threadbare patch that barely reconciles a collection of disparate conflicting realities; the known and the unknown, being and non-being, id and ego, good and evil. Absurdus infinitas.
Man oscillates between these poles, never resting; seldom secure. My answer to bb's most excellent question, arrived at via this unusual path, was simply going to be; Man is Motion. And my implied question is; motion to what end?
i moving towards I.
Well then, I shouldn't worry much about what I believe or do, for how could it matter to a twinkle of light?
Does it matter what I believe? Does it matter what I do? Why?
Hank
I won't respond until you've had a chance to provide your whole answer. Remember, the question is how the self-sufficient individualist who never uses coercion against another is the cause of personal and social disorder. (By the way, Jesus and Paul [after his conversion] were both self-sufficient individualists who never used coercion against anyone, [those trouble-makers].
Enjoy your supper. (I'm in New England, the evenin' meal is always suppa'.) Hank
I'm, glad you asked. Man's motion can be directed. God the Father has established the goal, Jesus Christ has laid out the path. If we walk w/ Christ our oscillations become eccentric about positive poles; life, good, being, etc.
This is necessarily a conscious, deliberate decision. And it requires effort on our part. The more the effort the closer we move towards becoming eternal. What greater purpose can there be?
Obviously not everyone sees it this way. Many have chosen to make no decision or have consciously disavowed the eternal. What can they be thinking?
Purpose for what? What's the objective. A purpose implies an objective. What does one want or need to be eternal for?
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.