Equality Imperatives for thinking people -Orwell

"The only inevitable thing about simple equality arguments is that they are shallow and unusustainable .  So the only inevitable thing about simple equality arguments is that they don't last long before people see through them . That;s why the  perpetrators seek to  rush this legislation through. 

No word has got old Westerners into more trouble than the ideal of equality. No word has or is likely to run riot with a audience of us armchair experts (in our internet age ) than this powerful and useful idea because the ideal is a super simple and punchy  one . The popularity of a simple idea needs no explanation to those who think deeply.
No idea better symbolizes the pedantic blinkered view of the natural order than this one . Not that nature is simple; Its beyond simplicity to uncanny . Unity in diversity is possible, but talk of making all things equal is to ignore diversity completely - in both product and function.  The modern western myth of legislating equality is thereby theoretically and practically unworkable.
While we are not alone in being tempted by this myth , our generation does not have the experience to know when and where the word works. George Orwell was no dill,  but we have become dull to his warnings on the word use .The greatest evil is still done in the name of misnaming this best intention . Equality is a  good word  to use in the right place ,
So why is the ideal so well held amongst us ?
Clearly this idea originates in the West from at least as far back as the Bible where God asserts His care for all his creation equally, We are , according to the good book,  all created equal .The God of the Bible GOB says its in "his DNA for men " even if we  don't wanna accept it in ours. What makes us unequal in life is , if you take a fantastic view of life , our doing;  either its what we do to ourselves or to others .   So there is a case that we have gone wrong in not accepting the latter bit of our freedom ; our freedom to set things right --That bit of biblical doctrine on personal responsibility is often left out of  modern Western dialogue between men ;God too has a bigger picture of how to hold equality and diversity together than we do . In providing for people He called into the desert he provided equally for the people so that those who had much had enough, while those who only collected a little had enough also( manna) .Take it or leave it its a faith thing expounded right through the book - GOB is no man's debtor .  God maybe the best mathematician in the Universe but he doesn't insist on always using the actuary's two columns ( there being a strong array if you think about it ) GOB doesn't insist that mere 2 column maths should rule when it comes to giving equal potential for satisfaction for his creatures, His gifts , according to those who trust him,are perfect .
. Maybe the consensus amongst many men is evidence that the Devil has no good ideas of his own and so has to distort the good and better concepts of the created order.....


George Orwell  was not an ignorant man. His writing, unlike that of journos of our generation,  was informed by harsh war experience of the human dilemma. Most pointedly, he came to realize that the focus on equality was an example in his own time of good intention producing great evil. Too easy

Equality - whatever happened to diversity

I don't see how any sane person can vote to change the definition of MARRIAGE when its clearly trying to change the substance of what it has meant for centuries and clearly cross culturally . This is just another overly ambititous, almost tyranical, claim by reactionaries who as Chesterton said over 100 years ago about his Fabian friends ; they don't want democracy to mean a parliament or a republic , but just want what they haven't got . What do they want ? Do they know ?" An improved sense of their status"? So much for depth and sustainability if its a feeling or even thats where its coming from !

Our society. like science, is only functional if we maintain definitions that mean something. This whole effort to simplify will only confuse and restrict as the feminist movement did before it . No longer will we feel free to have the full conversation about diversity because unity is the extremely dumb and constricting determinant .As the catholic paper points out "Only the conjugal view accounts for both facts." We could add "all the facts " needed to be considered here ; adoption , surrogacy, ideal marriage , disfunctional marriage , and civil marriage in an austrailian, christian or muslim context .

God help this country if we are no longer allowed our God given right to call things what we wanna call em =define things .

God help the government with their difficult decision about what civil marriage means if some smart arse legislation not only tells them how to do it , but doesn't help them find any clearer way of talking to it ; This is smartarse legislation that not only tries to tell people what love is, it but also wants to say what words we should use about all the different types of relationships existing . What will be a family for taxation purposes in ten years time ? .This is only one question for this very weak week in our history . Born Equal and equal before the law - but they are religiuos concepts ( see Neiman) This idea of equality contrasts with natures striving to maintain cooperation in diversity - equality is not a concept derived by deduction , peerreview or physiological or genetic drivers I pity the man . Looking for identity but expecting the driver behind to know where its all going

Guilt - just another area of confusion

Tony Delroy (ABC radio evenings) normally makes for interesting radio , allowing lots of time to cover the territory -relaxed informative . Last nights program on "guilt" with the clinical psychologist  Susan scared me -none of the people on the warm side of the microphone were prepared to get to the bottom of it .    So much for intelligent radio

1. "Its one of a number of bad feelings" -So instead of subdividing them we allowed all sorts of bad feelings to be  lumped together into one . Clearly this diversion prevented proper medicine being applied to anger , false guilt , denial and obfuscation-- the realities so rarely recognised - the very serious and substantial  issue of sin and offence . It clearly too reinforced the nonsense that we are happier if we ignore or deny the reality of the sin ? No wonder our children are in trouble --- they have so little basis for understanding " whats wrong "  
2. Both presenters were willing to allow denial on the subject  and try to wash away any substance to its positive role ( Susan ) . Moist callers were happy to smooth over .... but not all 
3. False guilt is not something to be dismissed......soem listeners would have got no help from this hiding 
4. The last caller was a symbol of the danger of just talking about it ( the only solution identified by moderns for the last few decades is talk --) Confession may have set the process of reconcialiation in train 20 years either with a different result ( Closer recognition of their weaknesses) 
5. Not once did either party talk to the issue of the moral values and how both false and true guilt are developed form them . If they had ,,,,at least the listeners would have had something more than ducking and weaving so evident in their  dealing with these issues
   
   It is not hard to see why Muslim families are more effective  than modern families because whatever you think of their moral values they at least have them
   
   Tony Delroy and others - talk about this properly . Our children need to to hear soemone other that poor lady confess to unresolved guilt over sexual matters . Half the girls in the country need more than your careless crap on the subject .
   
   Too bad if you have to ditch the progressives ( you know themn are they really?) rubbish about us being in some sort of progressive sexual revolution .
   
   Your choice----- to either represent us or to ignore us . To face guilt or ignore it !

How did we ever get to be so reactive ?

Simple - we have allowed ourselves to be confused .
Instead of no devil and no angel in the picture and on our shoulder ,   we only have our own dataset to rely on .

Frankly, with all the signals from physio , mind and video the central processing unit  is  confused .Stalled


There is something to be said for seeing how we got into this mess in the first place .
The Parliament today want to but up barriers against violent people ; they don't quite get that we use to be far more effective in reducing physical assault by putting up barriers against verbal assault .

Here is just one connection we have lost in the last 30 years . The connection between verbal and physical violence.


In our law ,verbal assault is similiar to physical assault because one is often a precursor to the other . Woosy leaders everywhere who do not understand or operate in a proactive manner.

More here http://ondewolf.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/jumping-at-shadows.html    

Why don't we learn the basics? - like how to cook good food

While this issue is clearly one that is relevant to this thread , I have posted a response here .  The issue goes to the heart of the ongoing failures in our education system and more deeply--- the pedantic way we approach thinking about real life and living .

Dominion or Domination

We should all know there is a difference between the two D's but many are still confused enough to call one the other.  Christine Milne, in an irrational outburst at Tony Abbotts statements this week,  like many in the audience,  doesn't realise she's confusing two ideas and perpetuating a complete nonsense. Sadly she's not the only one who thinks they are logical about cutting edge conservation when they fail to study these matters , and their origins and practical implications fully.
 It's true, of course that dominion can be taken clearly to give licence to domination , but that's the full context ; are we complaining that men have a choice to be careless ignorant and arrogant? How clever do we expect governments to be? You can't have dignity and freedom if you aren't allowed the opportunity to sin . Many of the Greens(party) seem to think they will get the peasants to stop sinning-presumably  by giving even more power to the bureau .We all know the Greens  attitude to regulation reduction ------because of their theology .
The leader of the Greens is not alone in this because, like all the old reactionaries , they have sat on any good discussion on the myths and unworkable doctrines that the Green religions have perpetuated . (for eg ; that equality means we all should own the same ; that ownership is sort of "to be discouraged" ; their failure to promote diversity which implies that it " right and proper for diversity of capital investment to be encouraged" ; their ever so predictable default position " that nature can't be touched."  Too easy , too ideological  incarcerated
 The Greens, in the face of the reality of diversity and interconnectedness they don't fully understand prefer the easy road of "doing nothing" and advocating their predictable " no touch" policies. All too easy for a difficult beast.  If you can't touch Nature, can you care for it? Why have a Carbon Tax if we are not allowed" to touch "
The book of Genesis has been dismissed as irrelevant  but it is the authority of this idea of dominion, so its best to study it properly and fully. Not only is Genesis the origin ( in our culture at least) of the idea of dominion as an imperative and right of every man and woman  ( Genesis also portrays the paradox by talking to realities of abuse ) this neither positive or negative concept  is perpetuated consistently through this awefully boring ( to some) bit of foundational story telling /doctrine for Western Commonwealth discipline.   Its served us very well -- till we lost sight of it .
Bertrand Russell could see some paradoxes like D&D are never resolved ideologically but are resolved, as they were for thousands of years premarxist in our culture. just because you don't understand the logic behind something doesn't mean the logic is not there or that we shouldn't use experience to teach us limits and realities ( Russell's point)
The Marxists of course thought they knew a better way but its been proved shallow ,wrong in both theory and practice. So why is any thinking person still allowing some old pedantic and shallow remnants of their logic a voice?
There is no point in the reactionaries seeking to defend the empty rhetoric of anti dominion talk . They are living in the past and playing games with words and ideas they don't even understand.
When they have any common sense, even reactionaries who aren't behaving like children teach their children to have dominion over their bedrooms and toys . Copyright  Emperors Academy  10th March 2014

Pedants paradigms run out of steam

Q&A ABCTV last night . Greer doesn't like marriage cause it doesn't work for her , Dan isn't convinced by anything but thinks a bunch of stats will do it ( The typical excuse of someone who can't and won't make up their mind is someone who talks stats ) and Hanna gets married because " its the done thing to do".( How reactionary in action ) If these selfies and their stale old reactionary doctrines were dangerous ideas,  its only because they were some years ago- when they were teenagers??. Young women prefer a burka to following the frustrated and tired old diatribe against church and men or whatever ( "what I think is wrong") of Germaine. How come The ABC don't see this - blinkered not dangerous ideas  , threatened not threatening ; sensing the disease but in denial, lest they find they have had the disease for decades.
The real revolutionary who still drives revivals and an  ongoing sense of liberal democracy in the West , thankfully, got a mention . ABCTV are as agents for the pregressives not alone in not saying too much about the good things that have gone before but to mention he leader on the others side - taboo  .ABCTV do the same thing to Jesus as Islam does - puts him in the old hat basket ( category error of course created by your worldview)  
Some of our kids do think . They might not think broadly enough to switch channels to half full but they know the ABC preach utopia but teach dsytopia.  Few in our education devolution culture have found their way back to  a glimpse of the real world which is neither-- ecomia . Young people observe the disconnect  between the depession in the real world adult painted world and its  trumped upoptimsim of the positivsist on the TV  They see that  the children that are in charge and they see grown adults as children because the children in charge have never grown up - to see the big picture , the good that's possible ;that everything is not as bad as a young tennager might be xepecetd to think ( but not a mature man)Utopia might be real if they had  to both have a job and the commitment that protects mother and child , they can safely reject its simplicities ( juvenile or infantile was Hitchens word) .  After all the B&W label ( first question ) didn't work because the real world is both  B &W AND technicolour . Bigger than one side or any side. 
These tired old fanatics in charge  should know that while they only believe in things they can see , they may be missing out on a lot thats happening . They should know that if they really want to talk dangerous ideas the radical revolutionary who was killed by the  political forces of his day just might make his presence known - scary........ He did .
To be really radical you have to be ----not be line but on the edge . The centre may appear safe but it no place for those who think - Its comfortable being in the centre... like sheep , you can see both sides of the argument ( but only from a pedants non dialectic standpoint )but you have no real view and be quite unmoved over which  of the Hitchen brothers is right ( Are they standing on the edge of territory worth fighting for and whose claims are best supported by the landscape beyond ? .)