On the issues...

Isn't education great!?

Everyone's an Activist

While it may not be apparent, I do make a conscious effort to be sensative to international news and various political issues which effect both the US and the world at large. I do try. Now, will the BBC or CNN be calling me up as a news analyst any time soon? Not likely. Just the other day, in an attempt to check up on the global buzz, I picked up the latest copy of The Economist, a moderately priced, world-savey news source out of London. There, on the cover, appeared a red-white-blue print semi-automatic handgun. The headline above read "America's Tragedy." Gripping, eh? Nough' said. I had to get it. So, I flipped immediately to the cover story and read. The writer's comments were, to my surprise, more discriptive than evaluative. He was quite fair to the public struggle between basic freedoms and gun control in American politics (as well as that at the cloak-and-daggar level). The opening page was, of course, a retelling of the brutal murders at Virginia Polytechnical Institute. With this, he then raised some important questions in a segue to the facts on civilian murders with fire-arms in the last 30 years, etc. At the end of the article, he nudged readers to re-evaluate their view of both sides of the aisle on the issue: Democrats and their short-lived vendetta against guns and hyper-sensative NRA members who react as if they were being completely disarmed each time someone even mentions the word gun. He then went on to make a not so subtle mockery of the Democrat's more recent exaltation of pro-gun candidates. Hardly atypical of a European writer.

What struck me most, though, was the persuasive force of the article without making an extreme, self-aggrandizing claim about gun control. I must say. Using the events in Blacksburg, VA as a springboard into his article was a rather engaging move. The oldest trick in the book: emotive appeal to raise crucial questions. In this case, however, he did not over-state what took place, nor did he have to. All he had to do was describe. Good. I hope we need no convincing. We must re-think gun politics. Documentaries such as 'Bowling for Columbine' and the like have previously created waves of activism, but politics based upon sensation tend to foster polarization rather than dialogue and tend also not to stick. The line between hyper-activism and fanaticism is blurry. I mean, who doesn't have a friend that was once a walking Michael Moore transcript? Mr. Moore and I agree that it's great to see people passionate about issues that effect both the greater populus and the margianalized. I just hope that the sensible doesn't get drowned in the sensational.

Look into my eyes (Rerun: 16 November 2006)

"Welcome, to the desert of the real," says Morpheus to newly-awoken friend Thomas Anderson in the film The Matrix. Anderson's skin is a blinding white hue, and all across his spine, head, and chest nodes arise out of his body, naked and exposed, to the surface. The nodes lead into his cranal cavity and central nervous system; they are signs of a world that once existed for Anderson, they are the result of a complex system of wiring and mechanical configuration which guided, perhaps even controlled, his brain waves and bodily functions since the moment of his birth. He has been used his entire life. The only value that Anderson took was proportionate to what he was able to produce for an energy-based, machine-lead infrastructure. "Why do my eyes hurt?" Anderson says as he attempts to focus his vision, distorted and blurred from decades of stasis. "Because you have never used them," is Morpheus' reply. "Because you have never used them."

You see, Mr. Anderson never before thought to question his life as a computer-hacking, 30 year-old teenager. Prior to this day, he was a testament to mediocre subsistance, and that presented no problems to the exent of his concern. Unknown to him, there was a rich stratum of meaning awaiting his moment of first wonder, a wealth pulsing with life that pre-dates his incarnation and will outlive him, although he will pass by it and be edept to enter into it. Anderson's story will be incorperated with that of this other world. His inclusion depends solely upon energy garnered from his own will's desire. The proper place for such a will can only be his soul, and that desire's bemouned destination, the other world. His new-found heart's desire leads him across the threshold of the now, into a reflective 'other' state, and back into the now with incredible perspective and insight. Mr. Anderson's mind is no longer under the guise of a mechanical, cyber-intelligence. He has discovered, by a friendly helping-hand, his own thoughts and autonomy. He is now able to take up his responsability as human person, Anderson embodies his own limited, interior state. He realizes that he is not, as the cyber-intelligence thinks befitting, a being for the proliferation of resources, but a being in and of himself. Freed from someone else's sick remedy for individual development, he can now live. "Welcome to the real world."

Not to scare you away. Those who have made it this far are brave. Stay with me here. I have been reflecting quite a bit the last couple of weeks, and much like Thomas Anderson, the position of man in this world, even in philosophical discourse intrigues me. Shall we share in a few thoughts? Good. Let's start with the simple notion that man is valuable. No one could refute this and be called a sane person. Everyone is here in agreement, all philosophies, all cultures, all religions. From Nietzsche to Ghandi, and back again. We all have an accord on this point. But, I ask, from where does this value come and in what does it consist? Because, this is the curcial point on which the axis of our contemporary world rotates. Is it, as so many people are like to say, an intrinsic value? That is, does man's worth exhibit itself in the sole fact that he is human person? That he loves, thinks, breathes, watches the sunset and sits in awe of it's beauty. Or, is it on the other hand, an inherent worth that comes about because of man's role in a greater scheme? I've been delving into philosophy for the last 5 years or so, and I've come to a place in my reflection, albeit perhaps humble and/or shallow, that many of the greater philosophies at work on planet earth today and in the past century threaten this notion of the intrinsic value of man:

Hegel's phenomenology of spirit envisions philosophy as a dialectical history that is, through different expressions of the human spirit, in a constant state of arriving at an answer. Man is thus an agent for bringing about the truth. Marx proposes that man takes on a dulled, deadened state when he is drawn by the necessity to survive. Work and fabrication are underlined in this philsophy. That is, man is judged by his part in the production of a worker's paradise, not in the mere fact that he is human. The various philosophies too in the background of modern science, e.g. logical positivism, image the value of man in some way as a result of his role as the discoverer of miniscule and unapparent realities, as the witness to a mathematically ordered world that shows no interest or meaning vis-á-vis person-based ethics. These philosophies are ultimately driven to master nature in an attempt to overcome it and reach toward perfection. But again, man is not worthy becuase he simply is. He is valuable in the event that he acts as aid in a cause. He has value according to what he does, what he produces, (inherent) not according to what he is (intrinsic). In Kant, too, the only intrinsic good is a good will willing. And, even though Kant is the last to speak of manipulation of person's towards an ideal end, humanity is again an agent of ethics, not a necessarily good being.

Case in point: The notion of inherent human value is widespread and commonplace today. This is a grave danger. Not only on a personal level with reguard to individual thought, etc. But, on a more ample scale. History shows that people easily become disposable and defaced if they are a cog in the wheel of a machine. It is worth it. The sacrifice is sufficient means to the ideal end. Am I saying that ideals are bad? Well, let's take into account that as Francis Schaeffer says "Ideas have legs" and to accompany his thought, ideals are a greater extent or degree of ideas, which can manipulate and gather people behind its lead. So, 'Ideals have bodyguards' should do. In addition, much of post-enlightenment culture today is urged by the notion that man is not enough as he is. He thus involves himself in the creation of a paridise. Nice things, surrounded by abundant beauty. A big house, gorgeous wife, luxury. What does one to to acquire this life? He must work and work and when he's finished work some more, providing that he hasn't old money. Man is much more than we make him out to be. We have become so wrapped-up in our own ends, that we never stop to find ourself on a passage through this life. We do not appreciate man for who he is, and thus we do not value him as person because we do not know man. Just take note of day-to-day life in modern, technological socities. We drive our cars constantly, we sit in front of computer screens, televisions, we sit on airplanes, we play video games, watch films, and heat our tv dinners up in the microwaves so we can keep going and don't waste time at the dinner table. All of this we take on at the expense of a glance in the eyes of the other. In this process, we have lost our sight and are at times unable to even see ourselves in the mirror. Coincidence? I think not.

Philosopher

Here we have it. Rejoice! Be glad! Today we celebrate the 50th post on this blog. What an appropriate find too. Here's a video fer ye.

Who woulda thunk it...?

We hear all about violent protests, hatred, attacks on other peoples, predjudice, suicide bombings, and xenophobia from pop media. There is no end to the amount of coverage that divisive people and events attract on a global scale. How often, however, do we even think to glance at the positive that may be taking place in our back yard, and even less seldom I imagine, how often to we think to support such occurances? I mean, who knew that interfaith meetings like this one between Muslims and Christians took place on easter?

Wikibenedict

Have I mentioned before that wikipedia.com is quite possibly the best thing ever? If not, then let it be known. I mean really. A great wealth of information is available today. The site isn't long-winded either. Most entries are managable and able to be read in a few minutes time. It makes me want to cry when I think that a wonderful resource like wikipedia is just sitting there, and not many use it. Where else can you read of Pope Benedict's statements about excessive work on a German TV station in August 2006, and then read Persian poetry all in the same fragment of an hour?

The Case Against Christ?

An Italian man claims that he was fed lies as a child. His Priest, says the man, brainwashed him with a fable, and he expects justice to be served.

The Freedom to be Free

"Freedom honors and unleashes human creativity -- and creativity determines the strength and wealth of nations." -George W. Bush, Nov. 2003.

Freedom. What a meaningful word! It opens up a wealth of significance for so many in the span of just two syllables. Free-dom. No word is used more often, I imagine, in the US political realm, and yet does our President know what he says when he makes such comments? Do we understand what he wants to tell us? Are we on the same page? It's not clear to me that we are. Does freedom lead us to allow for anything? Should we encourage human expression in any capacity? Let's say we take Bush out of the picture and explore the notion of creative freedom.

I've mentioned before my stance on human sensibilities. Everyone has a sore spot or two, just as everyone has prejudices which are liable to offend. This is a reality that we all must confess to be true at the risk of missing the boat to social progress. Where does that leave us with creative freedom? It is much easier for us to advocate freedom when it is we who do the offending than if the tables were to turn. Nevertheless, we cannot pick and choose when it comes to this basic freedom. As it turns out, one man's trash is another man's treasure. We should not, however, stoop to censorship if a man's treasure is trashed. Censorship does not achieve anything beyond the cultivation of fear and alienation. It is riddled with a lack of trust in society. If what Bush said on that fateful day has any weight, we ought to celebrate the human spirit. If you agree, are you prepared to face the results? One such consequence appears as follows: My Sweet Lord.

Ought the only governance of human expression be self-governance? Freedom. What a meaningful word indeed.