Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Imagining “Reality”

Quite a number of perceptive thinkers have been aware of the need for more integrated lives and existences -- even before the Internet; that’s what Don Quixote is all about, and more recently in literature, Walter Mitty. That is the mentality still separating fiction from non-fiction -- of which obviously, fiction has precedence, or the classifications would be reality and non-reality.

When the Web was first catching on in popularity and we were learning all the wonderful things one could now do, one of the exercises was to create a homepage and online identity -- and the standard was that everyone would create an entity other than who they really were -- as though anonymity was actually the objective of this enhanced capacity to get to know the world, others, as well as oneself better -- which has always been the meaning and purpose of any fulfillment in life.

But as the world became more specialized and fragmented in the last century, what occurred instead was the possibility of many increasing their multiple realities and personalities, or at least, manifesting them so they became more obvious as the contradictions in many lives. When that became more apparent, liberal hypocrisy became a de facto standard of many people’s lives -- in saying one thing, and doing something else entirely.

People would talk about the increasing “homeless” problem while “flipping houses” -- and saw no contradiction or even connection in that -- that real estate (housing) speculation made housing prohibitive to many -- and ultimately, many would simply refuse to play the game as captives of that special interest.

All these quandaries are connected -- but taught as unconnected phenomena in our schools, universities and media (journalism), and so it is quite the norm for a person to hold mutually exclusive, contradictory “truths,” and think nothing of it, because that is the “political correctness” of the day. George Orwell described this as “doublethink,” which has become the language of mass media culture -- “you ‘d better believe it because we tell you to believe it, and tomorrow, we’ll tell you something else.”

Journalism actually perpetuates this dichotomy by legitimizing the “objective” and the “subjective,” in what they dismissed as “anecdotal” reality, which is actual, real life experience. However, the academics have turned that paradigm upside-down in claiming that only their theories and explanations are the “real,” and people’s actual experiences are illusions of “incorrectness.”

Obviously the former should not take precedence over the latter but they should merge and integrate to reflect one verifiable reality -- using imagination productively rather than merely creating sand castles in the sky -- like socialists of a previous generation, who have in actuality, been the bane of humankind in imposing their “nationalist socialisms” on their unwilling populaces.

No matter how “enlightened” these self-proclaimed think they are, a free and healthy people must be allowed to choose their own right path after being given accurate information -- and not the distorted information to “choose” what a few demagogues demand that they believe and do. That is hardly an improvement over the previous generations’ totalitarianisms.

Such people have always claimed the authority of knowing best what is good for everybody else -- if we just allow them to do the thinking for everybody else (as God intended). In both the old and new media, it is still commonplace to see such coercions, manipulations and deceptions -- but only in the new, is it possible to see something else beyond -- to truths that actually make sense.

6 Comments:

At September 14, 2007 12:42 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

Unfortunately, a lot of people's idea of using their intelligence, is to create problems for everybody else, as their only expression of power.

They never have a plan for the betterment of everybody else, but if anybody else does, they will do everything they can to sabotage and undermine them. Not surprisingly, such regressives will call themselves "progressives," as though the word makes them so.

Their hatred, bigotry and prejudice, will then be defended vigorously as their freedom of religion and expression.

 
At September 14, 2007 1:03 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/what_kind_of_person_calls_hims.html

September 14, 2007

What Kind of Person Calls Himself 'Progressive'?

By James Lewis

We all want progress. We may disagree whether gay marriage or drug legalization constitutes progress or not. But we all want better things for the world -- better food, better health and well-being, scientific and technical advances, wiser political systems, more peace and freedom, more happy children, more humane treatment of animals, more tolerance, more prosperity for the world, you name it. That's called being a decent person.

So what kind of person has to label himself "Progressive?" Obviously somebody who believes he (or she) understands real progress better than the rest of us. Because if you are a Progressive it implies that everybody else, let's face it, is a Regressive, or maybe just a Stagnant. It's a smirky, self-flattering way of saying you're a lot better than the rest.

So what kind of ego needs do you have to have to call yourself that? And what do you believe about others? In fact, Progressives must believe that other people are worse than they are; that only they can Save the Planet, or create Peace on Earth, or Solve Inequality, or whatever sin bedevils mankind.

Like the preacher who is focused on nothing but sin, Progressives must emphasize the alleged flaws of other people. They need to pinpoint those flaws, to feel important. Because Progressives make it clear that the real obstacle to Progress is Other People. In fact, if you really ask a "Progressive" what other people are like, you're likely to hear that much of humanity is either ignorant or evil.

The word Progressive first became popular in the late 19th century, but has now been adopted as a popular synonym for "socialism." Americans tend not to like socialism, associating it with the Soviet Union and other bad characters. But "Progressivism" sounds fine. So it is a euphemism for something people fear; a cover-up label.

The odd thing, of course, is that real progress in the world is almost never achieved by self-proclaimed "Progressives." They generally make things worse rather than better. (See all the mad utopian schemers from Bin Laden to Stalin and Ahmadi-Nejad.) As a group, they are strikingly ill-equipped to even understand the world in any depth. Rather, it's farmers, business people, engineers, teachers, laborers, scientists, soldiers, cops, doctors, writers, inventors, all of whom create real progress --- or who keep the world from sliding back into barbarism.

All the radicals in the world together have not created as much economic progress as the inventor of Diet Coke or the Post-It Note. I'm sorry, but it's plainly true. So the "Progressive" ego trip is really only an ego trip.

The same thing goes for "post-modernism," and so many other labels on the Left. If you're a "post-modernist," you plainly imply that everybody else is past it: dead and gone. The Progressive part of the world has moved beyond modernism, or whatever ism is to be surpassed. Well, why would you believe something as obviously false as that? Basically, to flatter yourself and your fellow deludees.

The "in" thing is to be "post." Various Left movements love to call themselves "post-industrial," "post-structural," post this, post that. It all means, "you're a dead White male, and your time is past and buried."

So what kind of person needs to believe that? What kind of shriveled self-respect makes you want to feel that nobody is as Progressive and "post" as you are? What school curriculum has taught you to have such contempt for others?

Or take "anti-racism." If you define yourself as an "anti-racist," it means that a lot of others must be a racists, right? But how do you know that? Not many people go around wearing Kluxer sheets. You have to want to believe it, or to be more ready than the rest of us to point your finger at suspects. You're a racist! You're a homophobe! Ultimately, in many cases, being a white middle aged male is enough to make one suspect. Since the Archie Bunker series All in the Family, Hollywood and television have adopted a visual code for evil (white, fat, middle-aged, male) and good (non-white, slim, young, and/or female). Watch CSI and you'll see the code working. And with that little piece of "Progress," the Left has created its own racism, judging people purely by their appearance. The new racism is just as invidious as the old kind, and it is much more pervasive, being propagated by high-tech media.

It's all very childish, with very pernicious effects. It cultivates an accusatory, suspicious sense of victimhood and rage at the rest of humanity. And being based on mere appearances, it is incredibly superficial.

All of Political Correctness, the dominant cultural theme of the Left, depends upon such allegations and accusations. It is incredibly shallow and superficial - but it is also very effective as a power-play. If you can put the world at a disadvantage by implicitly accusing them of sin, you can also manipulate and oppress others, conscious of your own moral superiority. Evidence is not required. It is the pervasive McCarthyism of the Left.

I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. If they don't talk like haters, I'm happy to believe they're not haters. Most people want the best for humanity, and appealing to their goodness seems kinder than accusing them of evil.

James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/

 
At September 14, 2007 2:01 PM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

There will always be an unlimited supply of liberals to hoodwink, deceive, manipulate.

That’s what our mass (public) education produces.

 
At September 17, 2007 8:39 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

Perpetuating a state of ignorance:

http://honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070917/OPINION02/709170305/1104

TRANSPARENT PROCESS FOR HOMELESS SHELTERS

Reporter Jim Dooley's assertion ("Lingle emergency powers questioned," Aug. 31) that the governor extended an emergency homeless declaration to circumvent procurement law and award a contract to a developer is ridiculous and false.

Developer Stanford Carr is working collaboratively with the state to help solve the homeless problem. He is not making a profit from this project; no other developer has made such an offer.

The process under the emergency proclamation has been transparent. When the governor signed the emergency proclamation, the state issued a "request for interest" from anyone interested in helping to develop homeless shelters.

For the Villages of Maili, 10 meetings have been held with the community. A large majority of the community supports this project.

The governor issued the emergency declaration in July 2006 after Department of Health reports of possible health hazards resulting from people living without adequate sanitation facilities on Leeward beaches or in parks.

While the state has made progress in transitioning people off beaches and into shelters, health concerns remain. For this reason, the governor is using her authority to extend the emergency proclamation so the state can provide additional relief on an accelerated basis.

This proclamation enabled the state to complete the Onelau'ena shelter at Kalaeloa in less than four months, and the Pai'olu Kaiaulu shelter in Wai'anae in less than five months. These two shelters have served more than 900 people. Nearly 200 of these people have transitioned into permanent or alternative housing.

The Villages of Maili will serve another 250 people. There are two other projects in the pipeline that are under the proclamation that will house an estimated 400 people. We remain committed toward this important mission to rebuild lives, improve community spirit, and restore the beaches and parks for all to enjoy.

Kaulana Park
Homeless Efforts Achieving Results Together team leader, Leeward Coast

 
At September 17, 2007 8:41 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

There might have been a time in which the reporters and editors at the newspaper weren't just shameless partisan and biased shills of the Democratic party -- but nobody can remember when that was anymore.

 
At November 15, 2009 9:40 PM, Blogger freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,酒店,

 

Post a Comment

<< Home