Epistemological Responsibility and Authentic Faith
Carl talks about Epistemological Responsibility and how that relates to the justification of the Christian’s attack of everything that doesn’t involve the raising of hands by some degree.
Even outside of the context of the Christian’s faux reasoning for social oppression, I think this is a very interesting concept; that we all must take responsibility to align our cognitive thought processes, epiphanies and decisions with worldly rationale and find a balance between that and our irrational (but righteous) stances on the supernatural. (Also, the thought that observation and knowledge are just as mutable as the offspring thoughts to which they give birth – but won’t go into that here!).
This concept of Epistemological Responsibility has, like I said, somewhat occupied my general musings on stuff and junk recently. As such, like a good little blogger, I thought I should to apply it to the e-hyper domain space arena circus forum and make all you foolish minions listen to my whimsical whinings!
Perhaps a topical approach would be to look at the views boasted by different parts of society with regard to the attempted bombings of our planes recently by Islamic extremists. Also worth noting would be the resurrected ``gosh that bunch of naughty men really push my pickle!`` philosophy, the effect of which is called upon every now and again (by The Sun et al) to correspond with the indefinite sporadic intervals of horror these men choose to impart.
Firstly let’s take what is usually the simplest approach possible: the conservative. The Daily Mail seems to have the approach of ``everyone with a beard should be sent back to Muslimland and apologise for all of our social and economic faults of the past. Come one Come all, and let us pin our folly on the scape-Muslim!`` Sometimes, it’s easy to be caveman and be naïve and protective over our land and women and pride. Not always the best way, of course, but with all respect due to the commonwealth and beyond, I think there’s a plausible correlation between us having an empire and conservatism and us, as a nation, having neither.
The Telegraph and the FT talk about the financial and business implications of the marooned planes & people at the airport. Maybe the thoughts of these readers pursue only the capitalist goal, but I shouldn’t knock it. Capitalism is often heartless but it puts you in your job your clothes your house etc. Maybe the people who make the world go round sometimes need to dissociate themselves from this moral double take that our wee world seems to have temporarily employed at this attempted fundamentalist devastation. But that doesn’t mean humanitarianism is not important… this blog is about people being accountable for their thoughts, views and opinions, and these businessmen and capitalists are answerable to their shareholders, not Allah or the Human Rights Watch council, (well, with perhaps the occasional concession for the latter).
The Times and the BBC news seem to take the safe approach: political correctness. A few of the few virtues of political correctness are that you know if it came to it, political correctness always wins an argument of morals, you can’t get sued for it and you can convict other people’s morals to it with the inexorable edification of your own. This monster I call Polite Conceitedness is engulfing schools, public services, politics and businesses. It’s therefore not surprising that these two main heritage Media services of the very Great Britain adopt such a fluffy façade with regard to these poor minorities. (By the way, there’s nothing wrong with political correctness, it just bores me and frustrates me. I like to call a spade an `an anachronistic and antiquated farming device of low effectiveness with often unfeasible input to output ratio` - that is to say, finding the best in everything is overrated at best and dangerous at worst).
As for me. How do I align my thoughts? If I am really answerable to my conscious awareness, where do I stand with nine fella’s trying to destroy my country? Where do I stand with a reported army of a thousand soldiers (statistics courtesy of The Sun) woven into our society ready to explode themselves in the most savage fashion merely to see our distaste and suffering? Where do I stand with a religion whose texts breed hate and has subversive sects whose entire purpose for being is Western and economic annihilation? Personally – I could live without it.
But my thoughts don’t only find themselves bound to the white Christian Britain populous and the FTSE Index… God can’t show me what Authentic Faith is, for me to then let my undisciplined heart and mind condemn these men on the moral grounds governed by their mutually perpendicular society, in which I just happen to have been born.
I’m reminded of the chap in the Old Testament who wrestled with God until the morning because he wanted the blessing. The truth is, my Epistemological Responsibility should lie only with the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who loves Richard Reid as much as He loves me. I find myself wrestling against the sheer idiocy of loving these men and to avert my thoughts from the unloving and morally indulgent. In my daydreams, I should find myself washing the feet of these imprisoned men, not beating the dying daylights out of them. I should see them on the front page as people who stand before God as will I and feel the same condemnation of sins, not think ``well bend my banana if you’re going to heaven mate! Ay, Dad!?``
This feeling of suppressed hatred is not one that can be replaced by the PC brushing under the carpet of all but the best qualities of these people, rather it can only be authentically challenged by considering these men and their despicable actions circumspectly. I don’t believe there are mechanics behind love, but I think the semantics of the term `Loving in spite of… ` is an oxymoron in itself. I don’t love these men in a way that excludes their disagreeable morals. The fact is they make themselves into their principles and don’t see the two entities of what they call themselves and what they call righteous, as mutually exclusive.
Therefore, loving them despite of their values is in itself neglecting them because it neglects how they present themselves and how they would want to be received by others. That would be loving the idol you make of them. Like I said, I don’t think there are mechanics behind love, but I think Authentic love has the bold depth to stand up to someone and love them without needing to either ignore or love the dirty parts for the love to be indicative of love for that individual, but rather it finds a sincerity and liberalism that isn’t by default governed by the politically correct human rights constitute. This sort of love loves by simply saying `` I love you because I am like you, and God loves me``
That, is true responsibility.
Even outside of the context of the Christian’s faux reasoning for social oppression, I think this is a very interesting concept; that we all must take responsibility to align our cognitive thought processes, epiphanies and decisions with worldly rationale and find a balance between that and our irrational (but righteous) stances on the supernatural. (Also, the thought that observation and knowledge are just as mutable as the offspring thoughts to which they give birth – but won’t go into that here!).
This concept of Epistemological Responsibility has, like I said, somewhat occupied my general musings on stuff and junk recently. As such, like a good little blogger, I thought I should to apply it to the e-hyper domain space arena circus forum and make all you foolish minions listen to my whimsical whinings!
Perhaps a topical approach would be to look at the views boasted by different parts of society with regard to the attempted bombings of our planes recently by Islamic extremists. Also worth noting would be the resurrected ``gosh that bunch of naughty men really push my pickle!`` philosophy, the effect of which is called upon every now and again (by The Sun et al) to correspond with the indefinite sporadic intervals of horror these men choose to impart.
Firstly let’s take what is usually the simplest approach possible: the conservative. The Daily Mail seems to have the approach of ``everyone with a beard should be sent back to Muslimland and apologise for all of our social and economic faults of the past. Come one Come all, and let us pin our folly on the scape-Muslim!`` Sometimes, it’s easy to be caveman and be naïve and protective over our land and women and pride. Not always the best way, of course, but with all respect due to the commonwealth and beyond, I think there’s a plausible correlation between us having an empire and conservatism and us, as a nation, having neither.
The Telegraph and the FT talk about the financial and business implications of the marooned planes & people at the airport. Maybe the thoughts of these readers pursue only the capitalist goal, but I shouldn’t knock it. Capitalism is often heartless but it puts you in your job your clothes your house etc. Maybe the people who make the world go round sometimes need to dissociate themselves from this moral double take that our wee world seems to have temporarily employed at this attempted fundamentalist devastation. But that doesn’t mean humanitarianism is not important… this blog is about people being accountable for their thoughts, views and opinions, and these businessmen and capitalists are answerable to their shareholders, not Allah or the Human Rights Watch council, (well, with perhaps the occasional concession for the latter).
The Times and the BBC news seem to take the safe approach: political correctness. A few of the few virtues of political correctness are that you know if it came to it, political correctness always wins an argument of morals, you can’t get sued for it and you can convict other people’s morals to it with the inexorable edification of your own. This monster I call Polite Conceitedness is engulfing schools, public services, politics and businesses. It’s therefore not surprising that these two main heritage Media services of the very Great Britain adopt such a fluffy façade with regard to these poor minorities. (By the way, there’s nothing wrong with political correctness, it just bores me and frustrates me. I like to call a spade an `an anachronistic and antiquated farming device of low effectiveness with often unfeasible input to output ratio` - that is to say, finding the best in everything is overrated at best and dangerous at worst).
As for me. How do I align my thoughts? If I am really answerable to my conscious awareness, where do I stand with nine fella’s trying to destroy my country? Where do I stand with a reported army of a thousand soldiers (statistics courtesy of The Sun) woven into our society ready to explode themselves in the most savage fashion merely to see our distaste and suffering? Where do I stand with a religion whose texts breed hate and has subversive sects whose entire purpose for being is Western and economic annihilation? Personally – I could live without it.
But my thoughts don’t only find themselves bound to the white Christian Britain populous and the FTSE Index… God can’t show me what Authentic Faith is, for me to then let my undisciplined heart and mind condemn these men on the moral grounds governed by their mutually perpendicular society, in which I just happen to have been born.
I’m reminded of the chap in the Old Testament who wrestled with God until the morning because he wanted the blessing. The truth is, my Epistemological Responsibility should lie only with the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob who loves Richard Reid as much as He loves me. I find myself wrestling against the sheer idiocy of loving these men and to avert my thoughts from the unloving and morally indulgent. In my daydreams, I should find myself washing the feet of these imprisoned men, not beating the dying daylights out of them. I should see them on the front page as people who stand before God as will I and feel the same condemnation of sins, not think ``well bend my banana if you’re going to heaven mate! Ay, Dad!?``
This feeling of suppressed hatred is not one that can be replaced by the PC brushing under the carpet of all but the best qualities of these people, rather it can only be authentically challenged by considering these men and their despicable actions circumspectly. I don’t believe there are mechanics behind love, but I think the semantics of the term `Loving in spite of… ` is an oxymoron in itself. I don’t love these men in a way that excludes their disagreeable morals. The fact is they make themselves into their principles and don’t see the two entities of what they call themselves and what they call righteous, as mutually exclusive.
Therefore, loving them despite of their values is in itself neglecting them because it neglects how they present themselves and how they would want to be received by others. That would be loving the idol you make of them. Like I said, I don’t think there are mechanics behind love, but I think Authentic love has the bold depth to stand up to someone and love them without needing to either ignore or love the dirty parts for the love to be indicative of love for that individual, but rather it finds a sincerity and liberalism that isn’t by default governed by the politically correct human rights constitute. This sort of love loves by simply saying `` I love you because I am like you, and God loves me``
That, is true responsibility.
posted by Ben F. Foster Esq. (c) @ 4:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home