Recently, in class, I read a quote by Paul Butler from a '95 Yale law review article; he stated, "The fullness of time allows us to judge..." Then he went into his current judgments of past cases, based upon his current enlightened state by the supposed manifestation of a new and wonderful theory; the theory was an offspring of Critical Legal Theory. That may sound boring, it really isn't; but my point is not about either critical race or any other legal theory but rather about the foundational belief that we are as a culture could discover a more perfect way to live.
The word "progressive" impresses upon our minds a kind of journey to "the Good" or at least "the Better." Most Neo-Marxists would tell you that we are progressing to a new and better system of governance, or non-governance that will free us to be our good and wonderful selves, freed from the chains of oppressive, dust-dry, lifeless, morality. In contrast, the problem with being a "Conservative" is it, as Chesterton says, forces us into a stagnancy; a kind of hat tipping to current social ailments.
I think the answer is neither to be morally progressive nor morally conservative but morally regressive. There was this one guy who lived a couple of millennia ago who had some really great ideas. Really, if we were morally regressive, that is regressing chronologically to the standard that Christ laid out for us, or regressing internally to the law written on our hearts, given solidification and direction by God's Word; we would be doing the right kind of regressing.
I heard a technocrat* scientist on TV the other day saying they found a place in the Brain that fired a certain way when people saw pictures of a babies. In contrast when people saw ugly people their brains fired in a different way. They induced, by regional firing, people think Baby's are cute. From that premise they said, "Our brains recognize cuteness so... we can take care of Babies! we see babies as cute and want to take care of them."
I was like holy craaaaaaaaaaapppp......... They've Discovered cuteness!!! Yeaaaaa!!! Honey... Get in here..... they've discovered Babies are cute!!!! Finally, Cuteness is scientifically validated, we can now know it's real and it's morally ok to think babies are cute, get Leon out of the closet! Wooooo-hoooooooooooooooo!
Our moral behavior is not validated or invalidated by Science nor is it validated or invalidated by, as Professor Butler believes, the "fulness of time." Morality is based upon God's standard and although the technocrats rage against it and the progressives plot a vain thing, the God-Man who came for a visit still is the representation of that unchanging standard.
*Technocrat: The moral ruling class whose ideological validation comes not from a "religious" system of belief but from technological validation and or scientific discovery. (this is my first time trying to actually define this term; this is an approximation)
Psalm 2
1 Why do the nations conspire[a]and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth rise up
and the rulers band together
against the LORD and against his anointed, saying,
3 “Let us break their chains
and throw off their shackles.” 4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.
There are clear Biblical statements prohibiting such intentions of the heart. Jesus said if you want to become great be a servant and he may have said something about not punching people in the face. There is also an element of good biblical competition; Paul said he runs the race to win the prize. Paul also talks about training and not beating your fists at nothing.
So I am competitive, did I mention that? But something I get excited about is confrontation with someone huge, mammoth, nay even gargantuan. I recognize that I will likely loose, but there is a feeling of redemption in merely rising to the challenge. I wonder if that's how King David felt? "Man this Giant is about to crush me but I'm going to try and plunge one of these rocks into his skull as he's running toward me, and if I die everyone will think I'm awesome." I would think that.
So one of the pressures is to be the best or leave the game, let's say that's an inappropriate pressure but the other pressure is good; I want to do the best I can and try to kill this thing, I probably can't but I'll take a crazy, consistent, aggressive swing and hope that God backs me up. Here's hoping-
I met a guy today finishing up his doctoral dissertation in the field of psychology. He is studying how brain trauma is correlative to addictive behavior (Mike Tyson?). It was a fun short discussion I'm glad I didn't say anything too obnoxious as I later found out he (the future doc) had major brain trauma. But the conversation reminded me of a dialogue of sorts I had with myself (If you can call that a dialogue).
It went something like this.
(me) I'm sad.
(other me) Why?
(me) I think it's the chemicals.
(other me) Do tell.
(me) Well I think I have a chemical imbalance of some kind, I need some other chemicals to help the-out of balance chemicals re assert there prominence in the appropriate loab or hemisphere or what have you.
(other me) Huh?
(me) You get it? It's like... I get sad but now I know why. The chemicals!
(other me) Uhhh yea but...
(me) No wait, it's real I saw it on a commercial. There was this lady who was sad and then she took a pill and was less sad. There was even some authoritative jargon. Man I feel so much better knowing why!.
(other me) I'm still confused.
(me) Well other than the side affects it's simple. It's kinda like this, Why did the chicken cross the road?
(other me) I don't like where this is going.
(me) Because of the chemicals!
(other me) Yeah I know there are chemicals but what about the chickens desire? What about the chickens world-view? What about the natural law guiding the chicken? What about the chickens family or friends... or actions the chicken did or did not commit? What about the possibilites on the other side of the road, the possible wonder and majesty upon discovery of a new land? What aout how God designed the chicken or the triune mechanics of Body, Soul and chicken spirit* thrusting the chicken across the pavement? What about causation? What about...
(me)....Bro it's a chicken.
That's the short version of the conversation. But I was thinking about a more rudimentary understanding of sadness. For Example: You got sad because X or we know about sadness because of the corporeal manifestation of tears and correlating muscle contraction in a specified formation... frowny face. How silly would be this so called discovery of sadness? But accordingly we have a sense of knowledge based upon a biochemical manifestation that is properly scribed and cited in our prevailing medical journals. And hence have a feeling of superiority or control.
The soul whether manifested by skin and bones or chemical overtones will never be as simple as a logging of it's fleshly imprint. We wouldn't want it to be. We are not globs of flesh we are majestically designed and eternally significant. We will not be tricked by the technocrats of our day into thinking we are a box of bumbling atoms. We are fearfully and wonderfully made.
Note: I understand that some people (many of my friends included) take anti-depressants. And I'm all for medical breakthrough and medicine helping in the healing process. This is not a tirade against drugs but rather a recognition of our brokeness and the need for redemption in all areas of our lives conscience and sub-conscience. Let's not just suppress the cough if we have lung cancer, let's get healed. PS I don't think there's such a thing as a chicken spirit.*
Note 2: The chain of questioning can be never ending in regard to causation unless you allow by faith a stopping point. For example, Why do we get sad? Because of a chemical reaction. Why is that chemical manifestation present? Because of our genetic framework. Why is our genetic framework like that? Well... I think we needed it for pack preservation during our evolutionary status? Well why did that stick around but we lost wings? Well it's instinctual. But I thought instinctual elements were done automatically like birds flying south? Are you saying volitional decision making ability and instinct are the same? Yea. So Canadian Geese can just decide one day they don't want to fly south? Um I think we've lost track. We have lost track because we take questions of our nature to the logical end of design or origins because we are asking questions not just about features but the reason those features are and why they're there or better yet who put them there. And at the end of that chain is a faith statement by the Athiest and Christian.
Over the summer I read Benjamin Wiker's, 10 books every conservative must read. Although a trilogy, he considered the Lord of the rings to be classified as a book. He masterfully analyzed Tolkien's disdain for cities and love of the country as illustrated by the Shire versus Mordor. The Shire as we remember is a land of peace; citizens are connected to the earth and have a love of their land. Mordor in contrast was a black and twisted land where the orcs lived by the fuel of mere pleasure (the likely hood of eating a hobbit) and pain (hopefully not getting consumed by the all seeing eye).
I have been thinking, why do we like certain places and which are our favorite places? Tonight I couldn't sleep and as usual my mind was drifting into the land of strange Ideas. I thought about making a new aquaintence with someone from Arizona (which I did while waiting for the Shuttle). I thought about making fun of Arizona and then I thought to gain friendship points I should rather mock New Mexico. Most of us, at least those of us who live closely bordering another state often times think of the foreign state as inferior, and all of us think that way of New Jersey.
But why? What makes Washington so vastly different from Oregon? There are somewhat arbitrary State boundaries, but the land scape in many cases is quite similar. So do we love that there are slightly more of a kind of tree?
So if it's not the landscape is it the state legislative system? Or Tax code? Is it certain businesses and corporations that we prefer (either local or international)? Is it the way the pavement curves around a mountain as compared to a tunnel that might go through a mountain?
I agree with Wiker. We love a place because we love ... People. We love our family so we love our land and so we love our city and so we love or region etc. There is a very egocentric mordorian ethic that we would love a place for the egocentric-hedonistic benefits it provides us rather than
for a love of people.
Even the love for America is not manifested by a flag but by a person. The mordorian ethic is that we follow a leader for our benefit. But the Love ethic says we love our land for someone else rather than ourselves.
RANTdom topical thoughts for future elucidation.
Maybe in our world of technocracy we would be able to love our family without being connected to the same land?
Maybe we don't love our home land because we are frustrated with the people that inhabit it.
Maybe we think they have a lack of vision or the people have become complacent and have shunned creativity, exploration and progression. Well in that case your land needs you more than ever. I wonder if the creative leaders often leave out of frustration but then enter a larger system where there creativity smothered by hedonism rather than using thier God given ability to produce substantive change. When I say creative leaders I am not limiting this to painters, although they may be included but more specifically leaders who have creative, positive progressive ideas. (In or society conservatism and progressivism are not in tandem, but for the purposes of this discussion I am referring to any kind of positive change.)
There is also an element of loving a people for thier collective beliefs, because those beliefs are consistent with my own. But that should be secondary to the primary attachment of ones family and neighbor. And when do other inconsistent beliefs outweigh shared beliefs in love of people calculation?
Finally, the love of the Land of Israel is another element in this discussion; loving a place because it is God's landing strip? Or anyplace that illicits a specific memory of a previous (or future) occasion. Jacob anointed a rock in the dessert and called it Bethel meaning the House of God.... i'm done
I was thinking tonight about the biblical prohibitions of certain actions, i.e. inappropriate sexual activity, killing, lying etc. Our modern train of thought asks why are certain of these actions wrong (especially the sexual ones)?
The answer, or one of the answers is God likes certain physical actions and disproves of other actions. Jesus challenges us to love our neighbor as our self but not in a non-lucid sense but through specific actions like forgiving, supporting, helping. So there are clearly actions that God likes us doing well then there would be actions he would not like us doing. Since God is specific in the actions we take he likes, he would certianly be specific in actions he doesn't like.
Take sexuality as an example. 1 corinthians 7 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer.
So... Husbands and wives should have sex and have it often together in the bounds of marriage. Ok so there is a great example of a bit of fun Godly legislation so if God has specified actions, "bounds" on sexuality there should also be restrictive ones, as we are all aware of in the cases of adultary, sodomy and fornication.
God requires us to do very specific actions & to love and shuns very specific actions because they are not love-
There was something amazing about the Casey Anthony Case that wrapped up this last month and when something amazing happens I try to think about it. One of the facets that surprised me was the national attention given to this crime. The other, what came to be, as most of us believe even more shocking, the verdict.
Here are some questions I asked myself:
Why is this so upsetting?
Am I simply ignorant of judicial process?
When will someone shoot her on the street? (not that I think they should by the way)
Finally and most potently why do we (most of the people I am in relationship with) think she was guilty.
The answers to these questions led me to Materialism and our national denial of the soul. Let me explain;
100 years ago and for most of the history of time before the 20th cenctury there have been systems of government in, family, social, economic and certainly personal senses. In these systems whether making declarations about a verdict (judgement call) in 18th century England or making a vital personal decision circa 2BC, we as a people have depended on intuition. My definition of Intuition will be: Soul Knowledge, something I know or believe deeply regardless of a direct, laid out, logical process to affirm my beliefs.
Many of us believed by intuition the defendant in this case was (and is?) guilty. Our intuition tells us Mom's don't loose there daughters minutes let alone weeks and weeks without calling the Police, freaking out, breaking down, etc. Our intuition tells us something is wrong and immediately points guilt at the Mother.
Why does our intuition tell us that? Because we have had experience with Mothers our whole lives, we have had experience with children and relatives and relational causality and Most Importantly!!!! We have had experience with our own sins and the process of lying and trying to cover them up. We know how humans work better than anyone because we are fully human. Our intuition has been formed from a lifetime of real, valid experiences.
To Materialism!
So Materialism is the belief in exactly that, the material. Whatever is physical and touchable is real and valuable and whatever is not is of less value. So love, intuition, emotion, loyalty are all devalued at the expense of the, "real" the "scientific." Materialism says DNA evidence and fingerprinting are what solve cases and anything less is speculation. Essentially, since your intuition or perception might possibly be faulty you should throw it out for something perfect, hard, Sure... you guessed it Science. Science, something that is always right, we know they don't ever make mistakes because of those other worldly white lab coats.
So intuition and judgement are out and only DNA evidence is in? If that's the case and it seems to be more and more the case why is there a jury at all? We could just run our courts by computer process? I think some would be in favor of that, to give our power over to a machine rather than possibly send an innocent man to jail.
Funny thing about sending an innocent man to jail is our nation used to believe that there was something after this life and God would justify them. But if there's no God and No afterlife fear hinder makes justice impotent.
ANywayz my main point was that Intuition represents the soul and the denial of intuition shows the swing to an even more mechanistic society. Sounded better in my head <;)
Words Can't Describe
Nuff Said