Tag Archives: Fundamentally Religious

When the Word “Liberal” Is Used as a Dehumanizing Term.

My goal in passing on this posting, is to intellectually arm like minded people with the counter argument to those who would use the word “Liberal” as a dehumanizing term.

To me, they are Freudianly exposing the weakness in their intellectual application of this word. It may be well noted that based on the fact they don’t even know the true origins and meaning.

I would make note that there have been many dehumanizing terms for the enemy you would have to shoot, and kill on the battle field, so a man may kill another without engaging their conscience in doing so at that moment.  Terms such as Jap, Kraut, or Gook to name some distasteful and dehumanizing terms used in the past.

The contemporary Conservative Talk Personalities have once again used this technique to demonize those whom do not assimilate or aqueous to their conservative viewpoints in their seen current “Political War”.

The results of those claiming the Reactionary Conservative values, will today poisonally spew out the word “Liberal” as if it were an attack on others.

Of course the term “Liberal” is really quite a complimentary attribute when you know the origins of the word.

The use of “liberal” for progressive politics dates to the mid 19th century. “Liberal” is based on the Latin origins of “Liber” the Latin word for “free”. Thus it can also mean a “Freeman”.

To call someone a liberal, you are saying this person is free from a situation, especially imprisonment of slavery, in which their “liberty” is severely restricted.  In Europe the serfs had been “liberated!”

So when an unenlightened, or reactionary conservative propaganda programmed person thinks they are cleverly derogatory slamming you by calling you “Liberal”, throw it back into their face how ignorant their statement truly is.

Take pride in being progressive, and liberal.  You are laying claim that you will not be economically enslaved, to be politically subservient to the will of the 1%.  In summation, you are claiming your FREEDOM!

Isaac Asimov Mulls “How Do People Get New Ideas?”

This past week I was reflecting back on all of my worldly travels, and the thought came to me that those whom have a viewpoint that is so counter intuitive to me, was that they have not seen nor experienced what I have.

Many have heard me say that, “Everyone is the sum of their own lives’ experience”.  I can also pass on the former posting on this site, “Giraffes and Turtles”, and how it can relate to people today.

https://mindsandtimes.wordpress.com/2014/06/21/the-giraffes-and-turtles-parable/

Those whom hold the reactionary conservative views are only stating their views from the limited “Turtle’s” vantage.  This is their major pitfall in their thinking.

As by chance I came across this essay by Isaac Asimov.  It was very obvious, and I recognized, that its contents are as broadly relevant today as when he wrote it.  It describes not only the creative process and the nature of creative people but also the kind of environment that promotes creativity.

I would ask my readers and those listening the radio program, “Here Be Monsters, The Sunday Show,” to invest the time, read, and polder, the essay below.  You will find it very informative and thought provoking.

ON CREATIVITY

How do people get new ideas?

Presumably, the process of creativity, whatever it is, is essentially the same in all its branches and varieties, so that the evolution of a new art form, a new gadget, a new scientific principle, all involve common factors. We are most interested in the “creation” of a new scientific principle or a new application of an old one, but we can be general here.

One way of investigating the problem is to consider the great ideas of the past and see just how they were generated. Unfortunately, the method of generation is never clear even to the “generators” themselves.

But what if the same earth-shaking idea occurred to two men, simultaneously and independently? Perhaps, the common factors involved would be illuminating. Consider the theory of evolution by natural selection, independently created by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace.

There is a great deal in common there. Both traveled to far places, observing strange species of plants and animals and the manner in which they varied from place to place. Both were keenly interested in finding an explanation for this, and both failed until each happened to read Malthus’s “Essay on Population.”

Both then saw how the notion of overpopulation and weeding out (which Malthus had applied to human beings) would fit into the doctrine of evolution by natural selection (if applied to species generally).

Obviously, then, what is needed is not only people with a good background in a particular field, but also people capable of making a connection between item 1 and item 2 which might not ordinarily seem connected.

Undoubtedly in the first half of the 19th century, a great many naturalists had studied the manner in which species were differentiated among themselves. A great many people had read Malthus. Perhaps some both studied species and read Malthus. But what you needed was someone who studied species, read Malthus, and had the ability to make a cross-connection.

That is the crucial point that is the rare characteristic that must be found. Once the cross-connection is made, it becomes obvious. Thomas H. Huxley is supposed to have exclaimed after reading On the Origin of Species, “How stupid of me not to have thought of this.” But why didn’t he think of it?

The history of human thought would make it seem that there is difficulty in thinking of an idea even when all the facts are on the table. Making the cross-connection requires a certain daring. It must, for any cross-connection that does not require daring is performed at once by many and develops not as a “new idea,” but as a mere “corollary of an old idea.”

It is only afterward that a new idea seems reasonable. To begin with, it usually seems unreasonable. It seems the height of unreason to suppose the earth was round instead of flat, or that it moved instead of the sun, or that objects required a force to stop them when in motion, instead of a force to keep them moving, and so on.

A person willing to fly in the face of reason, authority, and common sense must be a person of considerable self-assurance. Since he occurs only rarely, he must seem eccentric (in at least that respect) to the rest of us. A person eccentric in one respect is often eccentric in others.

Consequently, the person who is most likely to get new ideas is a person of good background in the field of interest and one who is unconventional in his habits. (To be a crackpot is not, however, enough in itself.)

Once you have the people you want, the next question is: Do you want to bring them together so that they may discuss the problem mutually, or should you inform each of the problem and allow them to work in isolation?

My feeling is that as far as creativity is concerned, isolation is required. The creative person is, in any case, continually working at it. His mind is shuffling his information at all times, even when he is not conscious of it. (The famous example of Kekule working out the structure of benzene in his sleep is well-known.)

The presence of others can only inhibit this process, since creation is embarrassing. For every new good idea you have, there are a hundred, ten thousand foolish ones, which you naturally do not care to display.

Nevertheless, a meeting of such people may be desirable for reasons other than the act of creation itself.

No two people exactly duplicate each other’s mental stores of items. One person may know A and not B, another may know B and not A, and either knowing A and B, both may get the idea—though not necessarily at once or even soon.

Furthermore, the information may not only be of individual items A and B, but even of combinations such as A-B, which in themselves are not significant. However, if one person mentions the unusual combination of A-B and another unusual combination A-C, it may well be that the combination A-B-C, which neither has thought of separately, may yield an answer.

It seems to me then that the purpose of cerebration sessions is not to think up new ideas but to educate the participants in facts and fact-combinations, in theories and vagrant thoughts.

But how to persuade creative people to do so? First and foremost, there must be ease, relaxation, and a general sense of permissiveness. The world in general disapproves of creativity, and to be creative in public is particularly bad. Even to speculate in public is rather worrisome. The individuals must, therefore, have the feeling that the others won’t object.

If a single individual present is unsympathetic to the foolishness that would be bound to go on at such a session, the others would freeze. The unsympathetic individual may be a gold mine of information, but the harm he does will more than compensate for that. It seems necessary to me, then, that all people at a session be willing to sound foolish and listen to others sound foolish.

If a single individual present has a much greater reputation than the others, or is more articulate, or has a distinctly more commanding personality, he may well take over the conference and reduce the rest to little more than passive obedience. The individual may himself be extremely useful, but he might as well be put to work solo, for he is neutralizing the rest.

The optimum number of the group would probably not be very high. I should guess that no more than five would be wanted. A larger group might have a larger total supply of information, but there would be the tension of waiting to speak, which can be very frustrating. It would probably be better to have a number of sessions at which the people attending would vary, rather than one session including them all. (This would involve a certain repetition, but even repetition is not in itself undesirable. It is not what people say at these conferences, but what they inspire in each other later on.)

For best purposes, there should be a feeling of informality. Joviality, the use of first names, joking, relaxed kidding are, I think, of the essence—not in themselves, but because they encourage a willingness to be involved in the folly of creativeness. For this purpose I think a meeting in someone’s home or over a dinner table at some restaurant is perhaps more useful than one in a conference room.

Probably more inhibiting than anything else is a feeling of responsibility. The great ideas of the ages have come from people who weren’t paid to have great ideas, but were paid to be teachers or patent clerks or petty officials, or were not paid at all. The great ideas came as side issues.

To feel guilty because one has not earned one’s salary because one has not had a great idea is the surest way, it seems to me, of making it certain that no great idea will come in the next time either.

Yet your company is conducting this cerebration program on government money. To think of congressmen or the general public hearing about scientists fooling around, boondoggling, telling dirty jokes, perhaps, at government expense, is to break into a cold sweat. In fact, the average scientist has enough public conscience not to want to feel he is doing this even if no one finds out.

I would suggest that members at a cerebration session be given sinecure tasks to do—short reports to write, or summaries of their conclusions, or brief answers to suggested problems—and be paid for that; the payment being the fee that would ordinarily be paid for the cerebration session. The cerebration session would then be officially unpaid-for and that, too, would allow considerable relaxation.

I do not think that cerebration sessions can be left unguided. There must be someone in charge who plays a role equivalent to that of a psychoanalyst. A psychoanalyst, as I understand it, by asking the right questions (and except for that interfering as little as possible), gets the patient himself to discuss his past life in such a way as to elicit new understanding of it in his own eyes.

In the same way, a session-arbiter will have to sit there, stirring up the animals, asking the shrewd question, making the necessary comment, bringing them gently back to the point. Since the arbiter will not know which question is shrewd, which comment necessary, and what the point is, his will not be an easy job.

As for “gadgets” designed to elicit creativity, I think these should arise out of the bull sessions themselves. If thoroughly relaxed, free of responsibility, discussing something of interest, and being by nature unconventional, the participants themselves will create devices to stimulate discussion.

The Shame In Murietta, California

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
Citizens of this country use to hold up with pride these words that were emblematical of our values as a nation.

July 1, 2014 when I saw the news footage of the “foaming at the mouth” lunatic hordes of people brandishing their venomous insults towards the Border Patrol’s buses filled with Central America’s growing migration crisis of women with their children refugees, my heart was saddened at the loss of compassion for others that has become so prevalent today in this country by the Extreme Reactionary Conservatives.

“The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

I cannot help but think of the poor Italian mother who had to send her child, particularly her male child, to this country for a better life. One that could provide the hope for employment to combat starvation, to put a roof over their heads, and with the hope of a safe life to build a family around.

A hard, and heart tearing decision to send off her child to another country from that of her birth, but the only survival choice, and prevention from being absorbed into the corrupt, criminal Mafia that was so prevalent for the poor in Italy at the turn of the 20th century.

I thought of the Irish who were starving in the land of their birth when a wealth of food was being shipped out to England by the controlling wealthy 1% in Ireland at that time.

In a single day on the 15th of September, 1847, at the height of the famine, the following goods were shipped out of Cork Harbor for England:
186 bags of flour
286 barrels of barley
334 barrels of wheat
96 casks of ham
486 boxes of eggs
219 head of cattle

“Eighteen forty seven,
Was the year it all began,
Deadly Pains of hunger,
Drove a million from the land,
They journeyed not for glory,
Their motive wasn’t greed,
Just a voyage of survival,
Across the stormy sea.”

I thought of those of Jewish descent for centuries who had to flee from countries such as Russia and Germany to keep from being exterminated by the ignorance of others in those countries simply for the beliefs of their faith.

This country was built and prospered from the many waves of immigrants over the years looking for a better life not only for themselves, but more importantly for their children. That is a pretty good motivation to succeed in a person’s adoptive country. The real plus benefit for our nation is this indisputable truism. “Sometimes from humble beginnings, greatness can bloom”.

Immigration has always been the fresh blood transfusion to keep our country growing and aided toward its progressive development. It is this diversity that makes us, The United States, great.

So I will close with sadness for how far many in this country clamming to be “good Americans simply trying to take back their country” hollow, bull shit verbiage, but while tomorrow as we celebrate our proclamation to the world on July 4, 1776, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

I give this last example of the ignorance, the intolerance to their fellow man, and claiming Christian Values, when their actions are anything but. To the “Tea Party, Ultra-Conservative, Whipped Up Nut Jobs,” I say; “You are not the answer, you are the problem”. I hope your hatred will be short lived for the sake of the United States of America.

The Full Quiver Project

As many have heard me speak of the “Full Quiver Project” on the radio program, “Here Be Monsters, The Sunday Show,” I thought I would post more on this subject so the listeners may educate themselves as to what I am speaking of.  This is a very disturbing aspect from the Reactionary Fanatic Fundamentally Religious within our country.

I would never use the “Generalization Statement” to say that ALL Tea Party Members believe in the “Full Quiver Project”….. but I would say that those most who practice the “Full Quiver Project”…most are probably Tea Party Members.

Once again we are seeing the examples of the “Extreme Supporters of the Religious Right” who are trying to move legislation farther to the right than ever before, and they want to take the country along with them.

A professor of Christian Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, whose name is Bruce Ware, is pushing their religious right agenda to the extremes. This person finds passages in the Bible to justify that God meant women to be submissive to men. It is within the same passage that states, children should honor their mother and fathers, and slaves should honor their masters etc.

This Southern Baptist Seminary now has some of the other ideas from their fundamentalist positions. This new teaching is being called “The Full Quiver Theology” and is based on Psalm 127: 3-5 which reads, “Children are a heritage of the Lord, the fruit of the womb, a reward. As arrows in a soldier’s hand, so are the sons of the young. Blessed is the man who has filled his quiver with them.”

The seminary’s president, Albert Mohler, explained that under-population was a pressing concern. Couples who choose childlessness are guilty of “rebellion against parenthood that represents nothing less than an absolute revolt against God’s design.” God will decide whether to open or close the womb. Using birth control is an act against God’s will. The truly Christian couple will allow God to decide whether each act of sex will result in procreation and sex will be returned to its proper place in a Christian’s life. What part of this decision does the Christian woman have? None because she should submit, of course.

When asked about his position, President Mohler explained to the Chicago Tribune, “We are barely replenishing ourselves,” he said. “That is going to cause huge social problems in the future.” Now the first alarm that should go off and one should ask themselves, “What did Mohler mean by “we.” The world’s population is expected to grow to 9 billion by 2050. The United   States’ population is expected to grow to 400 million by 2040. No under-population there.

There is one trend that President Mohler could be referring to is the influx of new Latino immigration and if the trend continues Euro-Americans will cease being the majority race in the United   States by about 2050. Over the next half century, America will become a predominately non-white nation. Is this religious call for “Full Quiver” theology a white-supremacy code language advocating for the increase of white babies?” Is the “huge social problems in the future” going to require the need for the “Full Quiver” of white arrows, “arrows in a soldier’s hand,” to defend their religious views?

This really sounds a lot like the Adolf Hitler’s Nazi speech’s warning Germans of the threat from Jews during the 1920’s and the policies and laws that were enacted in the 1930’s. Of course President Mohler and Professor Ware are backing up their contentions with plenty of Bible verses; which for some people means they are teaching the truth.

I have a good friend who has a Nazi Gold Mothers Cross.  This was awarded to the woman who had seven children, five who were males that filled the ranks of Hitler’s WWII army.  This was the honored German Mother who did her duty and filled the German Ranks of the Aryan children that would fight for the Father Land, and fit into Hitler’s views.  This “Full Quiver Project” is the exact same thing.