An unsurprising, unenlightened, and essentially generic statement by Xi... of the sort that almost no one would bother to disagree with... as its focus remains, as most others focus will... on "should" versus "why" and "how"... in presenting not "universal truths" but "universal expectations" of what "the right answer" should deliver in a result. He is not wrong in stating the obvious... in what "the right answer" not only should but would deliver if it were embraced.
But, of course, one cannot embrace the right answer... without having it... without even knowing the question.
So, hand-waving past all that... as all liars and charlatans do... ignoring a proper definition of the question in proclaiming "I am the right answer"...
We shall deliver what "should" result... without knowing why it should... or how it should... and do it by force... expecting force to substitute for what flows naturally enough without force from the right answer.
In addressing what should be delivered in result, while refusing to acknowledge that there is any question to ask that yields "the right answer" to questions of how, and why... it thus remains firmly grounded in the two dimensional world of materialism, focused on the outcome... while ignoring the proper path that must be followed to allow nothing in force but gravity to deliver the result that "should" occur... proceeds in denying that path even might or could exist, to justify its adoption of force... while ignoring whether ends and means are connected in a way that actually does makes sense... to connect the "should" with "how and why"...
What you get in result is another iteration among many such iterations... of 2 dimensional answers to 3 dimensional questions...
The cultural revolution sought error in the opposite... connecting its materialism to a pronouncement of "should" that was not wholly materialistic... but was wildly at odds with reality. It sought, rather than finding an answer more in tune with nature, to forcibly remake human thought and belief, to force conformity in dictat on nature itself as an outcome in "should"... eliminating belief in the self as a basic unit on which proper outcomes are measured, and social metrics are based. Rather than value and reward selflessness as heroic... it chose to demand that, and only that, from everyone... in everything... to make a heroic society... that could not even feed itself. The goal in practical terms was to create an entire society surrendering self, like Buddhist Monks... only without any guide in reason or in religion... all of whom depended on alms... leaving none to supply them. Rather than meet needs optimally... it tried to eliminate the expectation need "should" matter more than other things. Rather than encourage ability... it tried to demand its detachment from need, with the surrender of individual control over it... as "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" it ignored that the statement requires... detachment from reality and self interest in survival. "Ability" is not an independent variable in a two dimensional materialistic world... it cannot be divorced from self and made ubiquitous... rather than recognizing it an unique (and individual) asset to be conserved against need and applied against opportunity for reward. "Need" (whether than of individuals or central banks) similarly is an inherently bottomless pit of materialistic desire for taking more from less given. Wherever introduced, in whole or in part, in large measure or small share, It fundamentally fails in not connecting reason to reality...
Recognizing that as error, and ending the error... doesn't make the choice in alternative "the right answer"?
The right answer... still requires finding the question.
Capitalism, also, is a purely materialistic construct... and one that avoids the most obvious errors of Marxism... but does so by creating a class structure of haves and have nots, or of predators and prey, wolves and sheep... in which the use of force congealed as the power of government is again the primary tool applied in eliciting the compliance of the people... in a forced surrender of self interest... for "the greater good" still, but for "the greater good of some more than others", overtly, rather than as subterfuge.
As wholly materialistic, it does no better job of addressing the problem that one cannot embrace the right answer... without having it... and without even knowing the question.
All it does is substitute the fatuous Marxist diatribe against the nature of nature... with a more natural formulation of a social rule in "he who has the gold makes the rules". While that rule is well considered in understanding the role of gold in society, and its utility in inducing rather than forcing cooperation... and thus gaining in efficiency while creating less resistance... it is necessary it be generalized into recognition that force decides who has the gold.
Where communism defies the existence of a human spirit and the validity of philosophy in seeking to study, understand, and apply understanding in our daily lives... capitalism simply assumes the legacy of aristocracy and monarchy in the "divine right" declaring "God put us in charge"... to claim its superior alignment with morality by winning the support of religious leaders... rather than killing them.
And, there, full circle back to Mao, and "power grows out of the barrel of a gun"... a statement of the obvious most valued by those lacking ability to see it... which ends in my own formulation as :
There is no difference between communists and kings, other than who gets to be king.
All that says... is that of all the errors discussed above, all are of common origin in submission to coercion applied by two-dimensional thinkers as materialist overlords of one stripe or another... none of whom ask (permission) or answer "the right question"... Which is not denying that some kings are fools, others incompetent, and some rule either more wisely or less obviously than others. All being in error... is not requiring all are equally in error. There is a wide latitude for variation occurring within error... still not addressing "what could be" without error... given the right answer.,
The right answer... requires knowing the question ?
The right answer will be... more fully aligned with nature... and more fully aligned with and evocative of the better nature of the human spirit... rather than conjuring and celebrating its worst expressions ?
The essential in the reliance on force... is a proof of fundamental failure or error in being unconvincing...
That cannot be a justification for a pacifist eschewing of force... to surrender to it... as the above makes clear enough it is the willing use of force that is the source of power... used in forcing us into error... and it is always the first recourse of those who are most in error... as is true, of both... the Taliban... and the CCP... neither of whom rule by and with the consent of the governed...
The two dimensional thinkers stuck in materialistic constructs... "they" that convert people into property (of others, or of the state) and make people objects to control, or dispose of, at will... masking that feature as a part of, and a goal in the reality they impose, masking it more or less well, as by need. "They" are amoral beings... of limited capacity and vision... "They" are a proper reflection of our history... and that reflection shows us the worst of our nature... as society is designed to easily aggregate and abuse power... not limit it... nor aggregate any better aspects of our better nature without error in that first submission to force..
But, as thinkers, as humans, as leaders... "they" are knuckle-draggers...
"They" cannot be guides to a better future for humanity... only seeing particular error in "what is", with no rational vision of opportunity for improvement. [And, as per prior discussion, no ability to willingly adopt a better point of view, from which to add dimension, and gain a better, broader perspective...] So "they" can only act as guides to... imposition of stasis [Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.] or a a devolution into pessimism in an endless expectation of more of the same "nasty, brutish, and short"... "They" choose self-imposed limits containing no ability to allow them to envision any better future... as anything other than a "should be" that justifies their regressive use of force... always taking from or doing unto others, declaring that success... without understanding anything else.
A proper path forward... will begin, in better alignment with reality, from broader perspective, in non-two dimensional, non-materialistic formulations of "what is right"... as in what "should" be... That must begin with each person owning themselves, fully, and not being limited in choices or controlled by others... by hook or crook, in whole or in part. Begin with the individual as the basic unit in society, where each must be equally valued, with no limits in opportunity or free choice... Society's role... limited internally to functioning inside of that open-ended loop of violence, to help maximize potential in what could be... proceeding in seeking to elicit the best of human nature, but not FORCE materialistic outcomes that induce the opposite... and not taking by force, while using force only in punishing those who take it on themselves to violate others by using force as by right...
I note that often as freedom, and freedom's expression in markets... as free markets... being "no fraud, no monopoly, no obstacles to participation"...
But, that does not envision "no use of force". Surrendering the use of force merely returns us to a Hobbesian state of nature... as sheep among wolves... which we're seeking to rise above ?
Instead, it requires the use of force... controlled to prevent others wrongful use of force... including that used in enabling frauds, monopolies, and obstacles to participation"... including violence done by corrupting the laws, and men, as with bribes, etc.
Freedom does not exist without law, and the sustained good will of men submitting to and enforcing it fairly... nor can it exist, as today, where the law itself is as corrupt... as those who make and enforce it.
You cannot and will not have a society that enables progress... without using force in resisting the errors and the force being applied by those others insisting on a forceful devolution in self interest, at others expense... forcing us back into a two-dimensional materialism that denies the intrinsic fairness and fundamental value of freedom... not only in its economic aspects... but in all its aspects...
So, may the God of your choice, or your own conscious, knowing and obstinate spirit, accepting its own agency... damn the CCP... the RNC... and the DNC... as equally as they deserve... for violating fundamental truths, reason, basic human morality, and others basic rights... in the measure that they do...
I measure the CCP's excesses in its growing and blindly pernicious impositions on its own citizens as still far worse than most others... the people alone bearing the full brunt of its errors. The (barely) superior (Hobbesian, for now) RNC / inferior (Marxist, for now) DNC as less in that than the CCP, (for now) but both, with a more practiced hand, are worse in takings, and in their impositions on others. Americans, glad for separation of powers (luckily) sharing some portion of their pain with (unfortunate) others. Meanwhile, the ongoing accelerations in conflicts as China reverses field on its prior emergence from the abject impotence once imposed by the cult and culture of Marxism, as the same is being adopted by the DNC, are now only narrowing the gaps between them... with both adopting more of the worst features of the other in a competition that is devolving into a race to the bottom...
What happens (or when) in a race to the bottom... as an endless approach to limits, or in a clear countdown to some inevitable impact... isn't entirely clear. The nature of dimensional limits, as the dimensionality of ones view is conditioned by many things... the choice of venue [the spot on the line chosen] in conducting observation... not least one's perception of the functions in expression relative to time... as control must be a function of time in terms relative to the proper dimension... But that isn't overly revealing of which limits may be exceeded, when, and how... without any penalties paid in result of some dimensional twist...?
Competition is complex... with many unknowable variables. In a drag race, perhaps a close contest, in which one inches out a narrow win over another... or, perhaps, one has an engine explode... while the other hits the wall... ? Perhaps the only winners are the wives with large insurance policies ?
But a critic of Hobbes and Marx... might only note... they were going the wrong way. |
