OOOOOOOf...
Heart of Darkness and the theory of objectivism....
wow, what a combo.
The conforms of society doom us. Whether one is to succeed above a fellow human or to to find the pure way, the same is true; everyone will cast you out for doing so successfully.
I am not one of great achievement, but I know it when I see it. if you live your own life according to your bicycle powered tamale cart, maintain a superiority through the trade of a milliner, or write words that make mortals swoon; the top of your game is why I love you.
Just do what you love, and do it well. I will be the one who is happy for your success over mine, cuz you do it right.
Whether you are a killer or a savior, or just one who makes it by; if you do what you love, whatever higher power you call to will answer, and say, "Hell Yeah!"
When I get all headache-y, is when double standards apply. Like if one proposed a universal picture by ignoring or damning the majority. Much in the vein of C&R, it seems silly that just because of a particular post-Greecian, monotheistic, non-Islamic viewpoint of mentality is a study of the individual or group mind should conform and only reference material that supports its preconceived conclusions, while at the same time ignores/ dispels/ condemns any theological or historical sociological notions that may - at the very least - question its assumptions.
Seriously? As Dylan said, "And the names of heroes I was made to memorize, with guns in their hands and god on their side."
But what if like in any NFL game, both teams have the same god on their side? Sorry, one of my favorite rhetorical questions...
So both C&R espoused the idea that if you execute a task to a superlative degree, those that cannot match that same result will (in essence) be envious, and as a result condemn you for your success...
Okay. not an incorrect conclusion, but both are moored in a civilization that had yet to realize it's interplay and connection in a larger system. Which still does not negate that previous observation, but the age of envy has progressed to the point that a descending argument to the social norm is labeled as an illness rather than a critical evaluation.
Why is it that in a global society, or just in the melting-pot of the USA, only an opinion phrased and framed by a particularly narrow world view is acceptable? Harken back to the current discourse of gun ownership and the political argument that only the non-mentally ill should be aloud a license to purchase a firearm. Not only does this fail to address the fact that in most of the last dozen plus mass shootings the firearms used were not licensed to the user, but it also fails to address the definition of mental illness, but even more baseline and critical; the concept of health and mental illness is unfairly rooted in an antiquated, increasingly rejected theology. Seriously, take into account the sociological history of modern psychology. Just about all of that field's "founders" were raised and/ or rooted in the Christian dogma. Is there not an argument that their religious backgrounds may have influenced their scientific/ objective conclusions considering the significance of the concept of "sin" in their sociological upbringing? Where are the Hindu, or Buddhist or non-secular philosophical undercurrents in this increasingly global diagnostic paradigm?
Is this just neo-racism or something more Orwell-ian? Or is it not that intelligent of a design - just pure laziness of thought and policy? A growing number of youth are apparently looking for more logical answers that a benign supreme being's will as the answers to life's bigger and more difficult questions, so isn't it about time we start applying an unbiased (or at least non-religious) historically query to our institutions of labeling and society?
Just a thought.
I'll get back.
Cheers.
Heart of Darkness and the theory of objectivism....
wow, what a combo.
The conforms of society doom us. Whether one is to succeed above a fellow human or to to find the pure way, the same is true; everyone will cast you out for doing so successfully.
I am not one of great achievement, but I know it when I see it. if you live your own life according to your bicycle powered tamale cart, maintain a superiority through the trade of a milliner, or write words that make mortals swoon; the top of your game is why I love you.
Just do what you love, and do it well. I will be the one who is happy for your success over mine, cuz you do it right.
Whether you are a killer or a savior, or just one who makes it by; if you do what you love, whatever higher power you call to will answer, and say, "Hell Yeah!"
When I get all headache-y, is when double standards apply. Like if one proposed a universal picture by ignoring or damning the majority. Much in the vein of C&R, it seems silly that just because of a particular post-Greecian, monotheistic, non-Islamic viewpoint of mentality is a study of the individual or group mind should conform and only reference material that supports its preconceived conclusions, while at the same time ignores/ dispels/ condemns any theological or historical sociological notions that may - at the very least - question its assumptions.
Seriously? As Dylan said, "And the names of heroes I was made to memorize, with guns in their hands and god on their side."
But what if like in any NFL game, both teams have the same god on their side? Sorry, one of my favorite rhetorical questions...
So both C&R espoused the idea that if you execute a task to a superlative degree, those that cannot match that same result will (in essence) be envious, and as a result condemn you for your success...
Okay. not an incorrect conclusion, but both are moored in a civilization that had yet to realize it's interplay and connection in a larger system. Which still does not negate that previous observation, but the age of envy has progressed to the point that a descending argument to the social norm is labeled as an illness rather than a critical evaluation.
Why is it that in a global society, or just in the melting-pot of the USA, only an opinion phrased and framed by a particularly narrow world view is acceptable? Harken back to the current discourse of gun ownership and the political argument that only the non-mentally ill should be aloud a license to purchase a firearm. Not only does this fail to address the fact that in most of the last dozen plus mass shootings the firearms used were not licensed to the user, but it also fails to address the definition of mental illness, but even more baseline and critical; the concept of health and mental illness is unfairly rooted in an antiquated, increasingly rejected theology. Seriously, take into account the sociological history of modern psychology. Just about all of that field's "founders" were raised and/ or rooted in the Christian dogma. Is there not an argument that their religious backgrounds may have influenced their scientific/ objective conclusions considering the significance of the concept of "sin" in their sociological upbringing? Where are the Hindu, or Buddhist or non-secular philosophical undercurrents in this increasingly global diagnostic paradigm?
Is this just neo-racism or something more Orwell-ian? Or is it not that intelligent of a design - just pure laziness of thought and policy? A growing number of youth are apparently looking for more logical answers that a benign supreme being's will as the answers to life's bigger and more difficult questions, so isn't it about time we start applying an unbiased (or at least non-religious) historically query to our institutions of labeling and society?
Just a thought.
I'll get back.
Cheers.
No comments:
Post a Comment