Sunday, October 02, 2016

Leadership vs Rulership

Leadership exists entirely in the realm of free will. You are a leader only to the extent that people willingly follow you because they respect you and are inspired by you. Rulership exists outside the realm of free will. You are a ruler when you enforce rules on the unwilling. If you are in a position of authority, to enforce rules and create rules, you should always strive to implement them more as a leader and less as a ruler.

Saturday, September 10, 2016

The Mallet Rule

There is a very basic moral principle in life when dealing with grievances with others – the Mallet Rule.  The Mallet Rule says that for every grievance that you have with another there is a proverbial toolbox at your disposal with mallets ranging from very small all the way up through hammers to a large sledge hammer.

Whenever you have a concern with another, you have a moral obligation to use the smallest mallet needed to get results, using the most polite, discreet and considerate means possible to effectively address your grievance.  After having done this, if the problem is not corrected, you should escalate to a larger mallet but only one just large enough needed to bring attention to the problem, and so on until you find the right size mallet needed for the job.  The Mallet Rule says that it is unethical to ever use a larger mallet than what is needed, to cause potential damage to relationships and reputations when it is out of proportion to the force needed to resolve the problem. 

The Mallet Rule is an extension of the Golden Rule: do not do unto others what you would not want done to you.  

Saturday, August 20, 2016

The Declaration and the Constitution

A proper understanding of both the values and value of the United States of America rests on the understanding that the Declaration of Independence is the founding document equal in authority to the Constitution and should be considered part of the Constitution's preamble, and should be used to interpret the Constitution as the Constitution should be used to interpret the Declaration.

As the Declaration declared the Man's authority to dissolve his bonds with Government (King George III), the Constitution declared the establishment of Government by We The People by that same authority.  As the Declaration declared our, the People's, rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, the Constitution clarified those rights in the Bill of Rights.  As the Declaration declared a right to Liberty, and as the Constitution was established for the Common Good, a proper definition of Liberty that honor's both the Declaration and Constitution is this: License to exercise our duty to the Common Good.  

The common theme between both these documents is that authority is not granted on a whim but comes from a source with the authority to grant authority.   Authority to give power to the Government comes from the People, and the People's authority comes from the Creator.  Man does not have the authority to grant himself this power any more than Government has the authority to grant itself power. 

Nature/Creation cannot itself experience happiness and is therefore not qualified to establish happiness as an end of itself or to grant such a right to Man.  Only a Creator who operated in a universe where Happiness was an a pre-existent component of the fabric of reality -- who conceived Man first and foremost for His own Happiness who then created Man as a being in flesh to instantiate Happiness -- would have the authority to endow man with the Moral Patent of the Declaration: the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Man's own Happiness.  Only such Creator would have the authority to grant the Moral Patent to Man such that Man would have the authority to grant or remove power from Government.

Since this Creator is a self-evident truth of the Declaration, laws established to acknowledge this Creator are not are not "laws made with respect to Religion", which by definition is that based on Faith and not which is self-evident.  All laws are based in one or another moral universe governed by one or another moral authority.  The Creator --as defined and revealed in the Declaration --is the moral authority and the Creator's moral universe -- as defined and revealed in the Declaration--- is the moral universe by which laws should be judged as being Constitutional.

Hermeutical Arcanism

Hermeutical Arcanism: Relying on arcane details of the ancient world-- including connotations of words in their original language and and/or on ancient cultural realities and practices not specifically mentioned and/or elaborated on in Scripture --to interpret the meaning of Scripture, in contra to using the Bible as it has been translated into a non-original language, to arrive at a theology that depends on an understanding of Scripture that is not available to the reader of a translated Bible.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Aphorism based on Proverbs 17:21

Clarity comes from the wise, not from the merely educated.

Monday, June 20, 2016

A Couple More Aphorisms

Being a successful problem preempter is superior to being a busy problem solver

It is not true that the effort being creative in one area of your life will detract from being creative in another area.  Creativity is not a zero-sum game.  The more things you are creative in, the more creative you will be in those things.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Cultural Marxism and the Worship of Gaia

Primalism is the belief that nature is the ultimate truth and that our primal desires were designed by nature as good and should be allowed to operate as un-impeded as possible. What a different moral system calls a “base” desire --as a desire that comes from a corrupt nature needing redemption and inferior to other higher desires-- is considered a “primal” desire, and therefore more original and more authentic to our true, natural selves.

Cultural Marxism (CM) is a form of Primalism that seeks to advance the expression of our primal nature not by trying to “return to nature” to live as stone-age people but as modern, urban people. Cultural Marxists believe that the wisdom of primal nature is the “will to life” and also the “will to progress”, the Gaia force of nature expressed in collective human id that drives the progress of history toward ever greater cultural and technological advancement. Progress requires a continuous cultural revolution whereby an ever increasing variety of people’s expressions of primal desire are allowed to co-exist with other expressions of primal desire in society. Any power that any group or person that has over another is a recipe for corruption and must be aggressively managed so that primal desires can co-exist with minimal damage. Cultural groups that traditionally had more power in history need to continually cede power to less traditionally powerful groups. By showing "moral deference" to the less powerful groups the traditionally more power group shows "moral deference" to the over-arching trend of history.

A non-CM moral system would say that there are moral absolutes that transcend history. A Cultural Marxist might acknowledge that those ideas had had some limited value for the time when they existed, but that they must be put aside for a more enlightened moral fluidity for the current and future age. Cultural Marxists see our time as the "end of history" as the end of human conflict caused by pre-CM ideas that dominated humanity. CM Enlightened individuals are those who show moral deference to Gaia by continually crowd-sourcing their moral thought to a fluid collective.

The CM collective goes by many different names: the “cool”, the “times”, the “emerging concensus”. When a Cultural Marxist says “who’s to say” they are saying that no individual is wise-enough to assert a claim to having a personal rational or moral thought that is contrary to the fluid collective’s discernment of the wisdom of Gaia and the direction that Gaia is headed in any given cultural era of time. A certain degree of personal mental softness and uncertainty is encouraged for each person to cultivate so that they are morally soft and supple enough to follow the collective. / Political Correctness is the social and linguistic expression of CM. Leftism is the legal and political expression of CM. Post-Modernism is the epistemology of CM, the philosophical instrument to undermine truth claims of other belief systems.

There are those in the judiciary of our day and age who believe that by making judicial decisions according to this CM view of the world, they are ensuring that they are landing on the right side of history. Far enough in the future they will be remembered as those who made “laws with respect to religion”, a religion that was not understood as a religion in 2016, but understood by a future generation who will be able to look back on CM with a wise and knowing sadness on the fashionable foolishness taken seriously that it once was.

Wednesday, March 02, 2016

Aphorism of the Day 03-02-16

The profundity of the essential difference between men and women is proportional to the intensity of sexual attraction.