What I Noticed in Passing….
Being Human can surely be an awfully messy business! We’ve so many examples of inspired action and selfless leadership that surely we’ve no need to wonder off course for want of an example. Yet we continue to propagate examples of our rather curious approach to reconciling the illusions of difference and the chaos that ensues. The other day I had to “put down” a beloved pet and in the process of doing so I was drawn in to a rather curious observation which, as it turns out, is more of a query than anything else. Trust me, there is a connection to all of this.
I’ve been told that a dogs presence of mind, their consciousness, is strictly limited to the here and now, no linger regrets and no fear over what is to come – they live only in the moment. And yet, here am I thinking about this delightful animal, his life cut short by the sudden appearance and veracious appetite of a disease that in a remarkably short period of time brought his “here and now” to an end. No, this is not to be a eulogy, only a bit of context for what follows though I confess, holding this lifeless body in my arms, I was provoked to wonder: Would my dog wonder why I was saddened? If not, is it due to the fact that he lacks the context of what constitutes sadness or even more, is it that I do not possess the perspective of what it means – from the perspective of a dog – to have no context of what we humans identify and/or experience as an emotion or state of sadness?
For me, there are two distinctly incongruent issues at hand and I’ve concluded these possess a remarkable parallel to the devolution of our national ideal. I suspect this exercise might be a bit of a mind-twist but please do stick with me for a moment or two as I attempt to bring the ends together, I believe you’ll appreciate the resolution. So then, consider the following two inquires:
- Is it reasonable to expect that on can reconcile or understand the perspective of another without a reference (foundation) which both entities can identify? And,
- Is it possible to reconcile differences in an environment where there are no common references (foundations) but only infinite variations which are purely discretionary?
Consolidating these simple observations in to a cogent format I’m compelled to conclude that without a common reference, a common understanding or a common ideal, nearly any ambitions can become common and nearly any impulse can be deemed reasonable. Seems, perhaps, a bit arcane? Well then, let’s look at few contemporary observations:
- Partisan Politics – to political opposites both claiming to represent the “common ideal”.
- Statism – the notion of central or dominant government authority claiming to be the defender of individual liberty.
- Globalism – the concept of economic development thru disabling economic independence.
- Fiat Economic Theory – the faux idolatry of wealth/economic expansion through exponential debt accumulation. The best way to illustrate this is by simply directing you to consider programs such as “TARP”, “Bailouts” and “Entitlement” programs.
- Judicial Autocracy – the ascension of the created (the judiciary) now supreme to the rule of the creator (the people) producing the vacuum of constitutional anarchy.
- Progressive Secularism – the evolution of thought promulgating the ideal of a common acceptance and adoption of narcissistic norms.
- Collective Distribution – Union/Collective Bargaining and/or Political Usury which promotes liberal equality yet prohibits the choice of freedom as one of the available options.
- Destructive Immigration – A policy promoting an agenda whereby a nations lifeblood, it citizenry, evolves to its highest form through the process of integrating disintegration.
The core issue of our common plight is the greater risk that we define the conflict as being between two competing ideologies when in fact it is only the philosophy that suggest a solution lies in either of these competing ideologies that is the real problem!
When I think of what the American Politician has done to this nations unlimited potential, I can’t help but recall a wonderful piece of poetry written by the Persian Poet Merza Ghalib; I believe it paint a rather striking portrait!
“When a pickpocket sees a saint, all he sees are his pockets.”
As well, Alexander de Tocqueville’s own words offer a uniquely linear connection between outcome and its root cause which is pure symmetry – a common connection to a common ideal.
“Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
So long as this Nation and its people tolerate and endorse division and disintegration as its common ideal, there will never be a unifying resolution. There is no reconciling differences which posses, at their core, irreconcilable ambitions and I believe that the upcoming election will only serve to further expose and enforce the fundamental truth of this statement.
I’m reminded of the Founding Fathers of this Nation who, though each of different minds, did converged upon a common ideal. We will, in our time, need to do no less.
In the domain of what we hold to be true, there are no ambiguities and there is no vacuous imagery. There is, ONLY, the certainty of this simple and profound truth:
“Man must be Free for Independence to be at Liberty to be Expressed.”
Curtis C. Greco, Founder
