The slow decline

I blame talk radio.

And, to a lesser extent, the Internet.

What I blame them for is the slow but inexorable decline in the intellectual standards of conservative political commentary. For those who doubt that conservatism's intellectual standards were ever very high, I'd point to the writings and speeches of such notable conservative leaders as William F. Buckley, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan. Agree with them or disagree, but these were people who took ideas seriously and (often, though not always) engaged their opponents at an intellectual level.

But for the past ten years or so, the intellectual flame of the conservative movement has been flickering ever more feebly. Today the movement is at risk of degenerating into all-out know-nothingism, the cracker-barrel anti-intellectualism of jaded punks and proud illiterates.

A case in point is a post that appeared today on Dirty Harry's Place, a blog about film written from a conservative perspective. (The blog will soon be superseded by its new incarnation, Big Hollywood.) The post includes a quote from Clint Eastwood:

I don’t know if I can tell you exactly when the pussy generation started. Maybe when people started asking about the meaning of life.

The blog's proprietor, who takes his moniker from an Eastwood character, enthusiastically seconds this opinion:

You start right around 1967 and call the whole stinkin’ bunch: Generation P.

Most of the comments agree with Clint and Harry - though I know that at least one dissenting view (mine) never made it past the filter. The consensus seems to be that anyone who wastes time on questions like the meaning of life is a mere navel-gazer, incapable of contributing to society or taking on the important tasks like, presumably, making spaghetti westerns and guided missiles.

Now, I don't know how seriously to take the Eastwood quote. It seems to me that the director of Unforgiven has spent his share of time pondering life's meaning. Maybe he said it only for shock value, or when he was in a sour mood, or maybe he said it years ago and has since changed his mind.

But the fact that this statement - the epitome of anti-intellectualism, not to mention anti-spiritualism - can be adopted without hesitation by the conservatives who visit that site ought to give us pause. Imagine Bill Buckley opining that questions about the meaning of life are a time-waster! I think Bill would have reminded Clint that the unexamined life is not worth living.

Have conservatives forgotten this? I think many have. The movement has declined into mere populism - and populism, despite its name, is not very popular. People distrust leaders who are no more educated or intellectually curious than themselves.

Why do I blame talk radio and the intertubes? I think both media have opened the door to populism and thus cheapened the conversation. In its quest for the largest possible audience, talk radio resorts to bombast, mudslinging, unfair distortions, and stupidly vicious satire, while encouraging a conformist, me-too, herd mentality. Callers who disagree with the host are mocked and then cut off; intelligent discussion is hardly possible; attitudes matter, but ideas don't.

The same is true of the Internet, where political blogs typically degenerate into mutual congratulation societies, all dissenting views being ridiculed or suppressed.

Liberal radio shows and blogs are just as bad, if not worse - but I have no stake in liberalism. Besides, liberalism has been intellectually depleted since the 1970s. These days, it is mainly a set of social poses. Conservatism used to offer something more - a principled view of the relationship between the individual and society, or between citizen and government. It was a view grounded in centuries of philosophical discourse dating back to Edmund Burke, John Locke, Adam Smith, and other seminal thinkers. 

Where are those conservatives today? I'm afraid they are nowhere to be found, and in their place we have people who characterize a quest for personal meaning as the obsession of "pussies." 

Over the doorway to the temple of the Delphic Oracle were inscribed the words "Know thyself." Few of today's conservatives could step through that doorway now.  

Comments

[Dirty Harry]

If you write under the name I think, you're out of the spam filter.

The filter's catching the "p" word, not dissenting opinion.

Promise.

[Michael Prescott]

As an addendum to this post, I recommend this October 9, 2008, opinion piece by conservative columnist David Brooks.

Really, he said it much better than I did.

[Michael Prescott]

The filter's catching the "p" word, not dissenting opinion.

Thanks, Harry! I enjoy your blog, even when I sometimes disagree (and I agree more often than you might think). I wish you much success with Big Hollywood, starting on January 6.

The name I write under is "sauropod." But you probably knew that.

[Dirty Harry]

Thanks Michael,

I guessed as of today were but had no idea before I saw it in the spam filter and made the connection.

Agree or no, you're always welcome on the site and hope you make your way to BH.

[Zerdini]

Because of the current trend of bringing everything down to the lowest common denominator I cannot see how much can change in the short term.

Deep and serious thinkers are in the minority at the present time.

Nevertheless, I believe that life runs in cycles in that what appears to go down will rise again.

Thinkers of the world unite!

As you get older it seems like the people around your are geting dumber, but that's only because you are learning more and getting wiser. This is why every generation, in every era of history thinks the world is going down the drain, but if you actually look at the evidence, things are getting better not worse people have better health, live longer, there are fewer wars etc etc.

You would complain about skeptic who cherry pick the evidence to disprove psi, why do the same to prove civilization is degenerating? Why not look at what the professional sociologists say not the mass media reporters who we know are so unreliable in other subjects?

Michael Prescott,

Do you ever post over at:

http://forum.mind-energy.net/

[Thorsten]

Let's imagine that people of both parties need to work together in the USA because neither of them could fulfill a very important task alone.

Is that still possible or imaginable ? Could both people work on a compromise and swallow their pride ?

I have problems to believe it because many people of both parties are fostering an hideous caricature of the opponent.

And who will follow McCain ?

[Bill I.]

A clear sign of rot was the chairmanship of Lee Atwater.

I connect this with the "changing of the archetypes" from the symbolic masculine to a new blending of it with the symbolic feminine.

The early Eastwood quote is typical of the long era (6,000 years?) that now rapidly comes to an end.

A great deal of confusion at such a juncture isn't surprising.

Bill I.

[william]

Until politics, religion, societies, and nations in general discover that there are spiritual or universal laws in effect these debates and blaming others will continue. Neither the liberals nor the conservatives understand this is not a recession or even a depression; this is the decline of wealth and power of a nation.

Until any nation aligns their political systems with these universal or spiritual laws problems will arise. We are now witnessing one of these spiritual law’s (karma) influence on our nation and instead of seeing this reality we blame and point fingers.

A decline of wealth of a nation is not the worst thing than can happen to a nation. Out of this decline are great opportunities for spiritual growth. Sometimes we get so caught up in wealth generation and politics we forget (myself included) that this journey is about the spiritual growth of our souls.

Jesus did not get that upset about politics. Someone that came after Jesus a few decades later that claimed to be the Jewish savior led the Jewish people in a revolt against Roman occupation. Rome’s armies came through and literally wiped out the Jewish nation.

One “savoir” did the political right thing to do for that time and conditions and one “savior” taught spiritual truths. Who do we remember today for their beneficial presence in the world? Both saviors offered freedom.

[Bill I.]

William: "Jesus did not get that upset about politics. Someone that came after Jesus a few decades later that claimed to be the Jewish savior led the Jewish people in a revolt against Roman occupation. Rome’s armies came through and literally wiped out the Jewish nation."

Dear William:

Thanks for giving me an excuse to exercise my groggy mind this Sunday a.m. What follows is long and rambling, as I gradually wake up and wonder why on earth I've chosen to write this.

1. You would do well to review the little history that is available on this topic before comparing "Jesus" -- an actual man (?) at the center of a movement that was extremist and nationalistic, one that combined politics and religion in ways difficult to comprehend today, a man mythologized into a god after his life -- with Simon Bar-Kochba, another man also at the center of such a movement who lived over a century later, not "a few decades."

With two periods of major destruction eliminating records and the considerable mythologizing that accompanies any religious myth, you can only imagine what "Jesus" may or may not have thought, whether or not he was "that upset about politics."

Simon Bar-Kochba might have become the center of an offshoot of Judaism like Christianity, might have had words put in his mouth, might have become transformed by myth into a god, too, had there been no developing Christian myth at the time.

Who knows what his alleged teachings would have been about? He and a great many of his followers were killed, while those who belonged to those sects that coalesced into Christianity had no need for a second messiah -- they already had one.

You project the elements of a myth backwards in time when arriving at your conclusions.

Yet I find myself in agreement with some of the tone of your thoughts. I, too, would elevate transcendence as a focus of human affairs.

2. I suggest that the inner self and greater self (or "soul") exist in all people at all times, including then and now, in Democrats and Republicans, Conservatives and Liberals, Jesus and Bar-Kochba, no less than in anyone else.

Each chooses their thoughts and actions, and whether to be more or less aware of their inner nature.

The same applies to political parties and nations.

You rail against playing the blame game yet are you not blaming nations and their citizens for being insufficiently "spiritual," not abiding by the alleged laws of karma, and so on?

I believe our inner selves are "more real" than whatever we create in the external world, yet it's nearly impossible to ignore what goes on there (and why would we do that, particularly if all that happens outside of our selves reflects our inner activity? What are here for, anyway, if not to live and explore the nature of physical existence?).

I happen to believe we now live at a time in which a "spiritual" movement begins to gain great force, but if this is not so, I intend to continue to focus in that direction, anyway, no matter what happens in the world, no matter what others choose.

3. Michael is concerned with the perceived thoughtlessness of the present U.S. conservative political movement, as evidenced by the broadcasts of "hate" radio and similar activities.

I feel, possibly, somewhat similar when comparing present U.S. liberal pronouncements and beliefs with pre-WWI British progressive-liberals.

See:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1911hobhouse.html .

Even so, there's something truly rotten with any party that chooses to elevate such personalities as Lee Atwater or Karl Rove, masters of duplicity and cultivators of hatred.

Modern liberals seem to have lost their way, but at least they aren't quite as stuck in the "might makes right" mode of their opponents.

If "by their actions ye shall know them" has any validity (it does, of course), then we know what pugnacious fools so many conservatives have become, eager and willing to inflict death and suffering on others in an attempt to maintain their vision of a strong America that gives lip service to its ideals while stomping on others, spending ridiculous and unsupportable sums of its citizen's money to maintain its colossal military arsenal, as though its victory in WWII was simply the prelude for world domination.

This "America Uber Alles" nonsense, in a world of nearly 7 billion humans, is no better than some kind of bizarre & exaggerated high school football rivalry; much worse, in fact. This is arrogance and conceit.

This kind of behavior and belief is exactly that associated with the old-time "Father God" archetype ("Do as I say or I'll smote ya!") and I believe it's finally on its way out.

Liberals, meanwhile, would spend massive sums -- very inefficiently -- for their own various projects, most designed to create a sense of security in a world in which the only real security is that which an individual creates for him or herself.

(This section is very rough, for which I apologize; I am nearly 80 years out of date in terms of politics and the polishing of my own views on them. My present activities are much more inwardly focused or, when working, on business and technology, not the ugly twists and turns of politics I once found so compelling.)

I am so glad the present U.S. president is on his way out; he reminds me in many ways of Kaiser Wilhelm, no matter that I'm aware of a friendship between earlier versions of us in the time of Charlemagne, when he was a very effective -- if brutal -- military officer.

Charlemagne had good reasons for never promoting him to a political position with his empire.

Regards

Bill I.

[Michael H]

The David Brooks column MP linked to earlier came to mind as I was reading the main post. I have to agree that talk radio has contributed to the decline of conservatism. Whatever Rush Limbaugh is, he's certainly not interested in ideas other than his own. And the Internet, although it contains countless views on countless matters, may be most effective as a herding device. People of any particular inclination can find whatever reinforcement they need, which is apparently much more comforting than thinking for oneself.

What the conservative movement really needs is for Thomas Jefferson to reincarnate, or at the very least, take to heart Jefferson's views on the separation of church and state. Barring that, we'll probably have to witness the consequences of an expanded nanny state before more understand the real value of a constitutional republic.

Maybe Obama will surprise us - he's impressed Brooks so far, who gave him an "A" regarding his cabinet selections during PBS's NewsHour a couple of weeks ago. One thing's for certain. If the Republicans nominate Palin in 2012, we'll know they haven't learned anything yet.

[Louise Lewis]

Thank you for standing up for us 'meaning of life' folks. Viva la question!

Keeping politics out of it, let's get back to the time of Reagan, Thatcher, etc., when people actually listened to one another's view point. Pondered it. Then thoughtfully responded.

Can we get back to having conversations instead of talking-head monologues? Are we really that starved for attention that we've lost our ability to discuss ... debate ... converse?

Oh the horror...What is the meaning of life?

[william]

“You would do well to review the little history that is available on this topic before comparing "Jesus" -- an actual man (?) at the center of a movement that was extremist and nationalistic”

I am interested in the quotes or material or teachings you have of Jesus making extremist or nationalistic statements.

“You rail against playing the blame game”

“We are now witnessing one of these spiritual law’s (karma) influence on our nation and instead of seeing this reality we blame and point fingers.”

I guess I missed the blaming others part with this statement. Twice I used the word we and once the word our. Most of us are not immune to the blaming or pointing fingers part. Karma is not punishment or blaming but a vital part of the law of progress for soul development.

“Jesus did not get that upset about politics.”

When I referred to Jesus in this sentence I suspected that some might think that I am referring to Jesus as a religious figurehead. It is the teachings that he is given credit for that are of interest to me. Whomever or whoever gave us those teachings they cross validate well with many other advanced teachings (NDE’S, mystics, enlightened Buddhists and Hindus, Sufis, spirit communicators, etc) into the underlying reality of appearances and the meaning and purpose of life.

Often when we make a person with advanced teachings a religious figure we can miss the teachings. Most of “his or their” teachings have stood the test of time as spiritual truths.
I personally believe in a historical Jesus but that does not make it so.

I have found that people that tend to get a little or somewhat upset when the name Jesus is mentioned has endured some kind of resentment towards their religious upbringing. I know when I had some friends who were catholic they called themselves “recovering Catholics” because of the recovery phase after their childhood indoctrination (their words) they had to go through to remain a practicing catholic.

“Maybe Obama will surprise us”

Change the system change the direction of an organization or nation. Only time will tell if Obama can change the system. So far he has been pretty adept about working within the existing system. Those successful working within the existing system have little incentive to change the very system that makes them successful.

Change you can believe in? Am I missing something it appears those he has selected are very much Washington insiders. I think Thomas Jefferson was on to something about change.

“Keeping politics out of it, let's get back to the time of Reagan, Thatcher, etc.,”

Interesting statement indeed about keeping politics out of it.

[Jeff A]

Where are those conservatives today?

There voices were muffled by the Southern strategy.

[Jeff A]

Geez. Their voices

[pmprescott]

William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold Speech still resonates today. Legislate to help the wealthy and instead of trickling down (like Saint Ronnie prophesied) they steal it all (my commentary). Legislate for the masses and the wealthy get even wealthier as their wealth rests on the masses (to buy their products) to begin with.
Once the fiscal conservatives, who merely tolerated the racists and holy rollers jump ship, what do you have left, but the Rush Limbaugh's and Pat Robertson's, James Dobson's et al.

"I have found that people that tend to get a little or somewhat upset when the name Jesus is mentioned has endured some kind of resentment towards their religious upbringing."

Bingo, William. I'd say the shovel just hit the casket.

[sonic]

Micheal- you are too correct on this.
We lost William Buckley. National Review was the best magazine for years. Written for people who didn't mind being challenged intellectually.
Conservatism needs another great. I hope this person is with us now and is about to take control of the discussion.
I am an optimist.

[Chris]

Many conservative outlets have indeed degraded over the years, but I suspect liberal commentary will get worse as well.

I expect to see more accusations of misogyny, racism and homophobia leveled at anyone who doesn't fully endorse PC Cultural Marxism, as well as more blaming of everything which goes wrong in the economy on "the unrestrained free market" (something we never truly had, save perhaps in the wild west).

http://www.reason.com/news/show/130861.html

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/01/top-ten-reasons-things-are-still.html

1. Crime rates are falling.

2. Sex crimes are down.

3. The divorce rate is at its lowest point in four decades.

4. Life expectancy is up.

5. Mortality rates for eight of the 10 leading causes of death in America are dropping. Deaths from the two biggest killers—cancer and heart disease—have been in decline for a decade. Deaths from the third leading cause of death, stroke, are also down.

6. For six years, both incidence of and deaths from cancer have been in decline.

7. Since 1991, fewer teens are having sex, fewer are having sex with multiple partners, and more are using condoms when they do engage in intercourse.

8. The abortion rate is also at its lowest point in 30 years.

9. Juvenile violent crime is still 40% lower than it was in 1994. The juvenile murder rate is a whopping 73% below its high in 1993.

10. We have more leisure time. Americans work on average eight fewer hours per week than we did in the 1960s.

[Pete]

Never thought I’d hear Thatcher and Reagan described as intellectuals. Idealogues, yes. Thatcher never engaged in debates –she just hectored. Her intellectual advisor was Keith Joseph, who was extremely Malthusian, and had to be kept in the background. As for “nuke the Russians” Reagan, who was his intellectual advisor? Kenneth Adelman?

Shakespearian scholar Adelman has now moved to supporting Obama. Perhaps Shakespearian scholar Mr Prescott will eventually go that way too.

[Bill I.]

William: "I am interested in the quotes or material or teachings you have of Jesus making extremist or nationalistic statements."

There are none, of course, but we do have such items as the Dead Sea Scrolls and we do know how Roman administrators reacted to the overall movement associated with his brother, James, or how John the Baptist's movement was simultaneously religious and political in nature.

Certainly those movements were extremist and nationalistic, combining a particular vision of "old time" religion with a desire to rid the land of Roman oppressors and their collaborators.

Clearly the messianic myth was associated with Jesus, and certain flavors and/or components of that myth dealt with violent overthrow, harking back to military heroes like King David.

We have nothing to indicate what such a man may have thought regarding his own status (in other words did the brother of James believe he was the messiah as forecast by interpretations of the words of prophets?) and can't know, really.

What we can know is how seriously the pictures presented of the time and place in the New Testament are "dumbed down" or oversimplified, a bit like modern comic books. To believe otherwise is to be naive.

The place absolutely seethed with political undercurrents, resentment, major differences of religious belief -- Judaism wasn't uniform, with quite a few sects and major groupings, this while the official worship was totally rife with politics involving royal lines, the appointment of priests, and so on.

What had become a Roman province had been, after previous & bloody strife, an independent kingdom, but that independence was now lost and many weren't about to forget this.

It was a violent place, too; "Jesus" may have been a man of peace but if his movement was of any size, some followers were undoubtedly cutthroats.

Suppose he was a healer, much in the pattern of the Gnostics and later Bogomils. If so, this was an extremely subversive pattern, whether in the minds of the Roman administrators or "conservative" Jewish groups, as it threatened the official order; there would be no way he could engage in such activities without being highly aware of this; in that sense alone, "Jesus" was very political.

It's easy to picture the mythical Jesus, the literary creation, as being beyond such things; the same can't be said -- it's unknown -- for any actual living man. (Per Josephus, however, James lost his life owing to his stance within this complex politico-religious situation; it was both a religious and a political stance, the two inseparable.)

_Maybe_ the man behind the myth was, owing to transcendent experiences, unworldly to an extreme and above or beyond all earthly politics.

This is highly unlikely, however; after all, he was, theoretically, the head -- the messiah -- of an independence movement seeking the liberation of a Roman province, a movement utterly intertwined with religion, much like the later Simon Bar-Kochba.

Is it really necessary to rely on the sayings of a mythical son of god when discussing modern political movements?

Those movements are as suffused by the myth as Western civilization has been for far too long, but what prevents us from moving on to new ground? We live now, in the present.

“We are now witnessing one of these spiritual law’s (karma) influence on our nation and instead of seeing this reality we blame and point fingers...I guess I missed the blaming others part with this statement. Twice I used the word we and once the word our. Most of us are not immune to the blaming or pointing fingers part. Karma is not punishment or blaming but a vital part of the law of progress for soul development."

The law of karma is a belief about reality, a component of larger, related beliefs, within certain traditions. There are variations of these beliefs and you didn't state which particular variation you happen to believe in. You seemed to be chiding those who don't share your beliefs and/or are ignorant of this alleged law, but I may have been reading my own beliefs in to your comment.

“Jesus did not get that upset about politics...When I referred to Jesus in this sentence I suspected that some might think that I am referring to Jesus as a religious figurehead. It is the teachings that he is given credit for that are of interest to me. Whomever or whoever gave us those teachings they cross validate well with many other advanced teachings (NDE’S, mystics, enlightened Buddhists and Hindus, Sufis, spirit communicators, etc) into the underlying reality of appearances and the meaning and purpose of life."

It's useful to qualify terms, as you do here.

Note that Sufis have long been very aware of political activities, with very old traditions recommending courses of action in various situations. While "getting upset about politics" isn't how I'd put this, they certainly paid (and pay) close attention and haven't been "unworldly" about this at all.

"I have found that people that tend to get a little or somewhat upset when the name Jesus is mentioned has endured some kind of resentment towards their religious upbringing."

I'm very familiar with this. A frequent on-line opponent who touts science as the answer to all questions and would consign both religion and spiritual activities to the rubbish bin admits to being angry at the Catholic propaganda he absorbed at an early age; a personality in the on-line Seth cosmos evidences a similar animus.

If you apply this to me, however, you're projecting, or reading in.

My animus is of a different nature. I was brought up in the watered-down Christianity of traditional New England Protestantism and discarded my Sunday school teachings at an early age. (It is true that I'm aware of other life experiences involving much more hard core forms of Christianity, even one directly involving Christianity vs. direct inner experience, but these aren't particularly relevant at the moment.)

I view the myth -- despite its positive elements -- as being a major obstacle to a superior understanding, in any number of ways, believing strongly that such understanding is best achieved by immediate and direct personal experience in the present moment, as free of preconceived notions as possible (and indeed, requiring learning to bring all conscious mentation to a temporary halt).

I find it very difficult to connect such personal beliefs with political thought, which tends to be abstract on one level, very coarse on another.

To do so requires me to examine political ideals, which we have in great abundance, many of them traceable to the positive elements of the Christian myth I allude to above.

Classical Liberalism was highly informed by Christian belief -- "good works," for example. Myth or no myth, I still find such ideals positive and tending to create those conditions favorable to a more "enlightened" creation.

Politics -- inevitable when two or more people co-create their realities -- primarily deals with the exercise and manipulations of power, however, despite idealistic theory. No political theory can be implemented without dealing with practical realities.

Here we get into the toss and tumble -- and at times dirt and hypocrisy -- that may be quite opposed to a greater illumination.

Ends are used to justify means -- those spouting religious beliefs, for example, kill others, fearing those others might harm them (re: Al_Queda, Invasion of Iraq; Holy Crusades; Inquisitions; etc.).

If "Jesus" in action was like the Gnostics, Bogomils, or Cathars (possibly even inspiring them) then we actually have a kind of political ideal, one that incorporates an approach to illumination.

If you examine those movements and their theories and practices, however, you may find that they promoted unworldliness to an unhealthy degree.

The mythical Jesus underwent serious exercises in ascetism and self-denial, quite in accordance with the activities of, say, Cathars (suggesting some aspects of whatever truth lies at the heart of the myth).

Compare this with, say, Puritanism, which can be called a political-religious movement which included extremists -- Oliver Cromwell, for example.

If present Conservatives were Puritans, I'd have to ally myself with Liberals.

Regards

Bill I.

[Päiviö]

Dear friends!

I would like to lift up the whole discussion on the complete different rails.

Do you have any proposal for the question "Why is Science Western?"

If we continue even a bit on these rails, we can and we must consider Jesus, Jews, Rome, Athens and many other elements you just have been discussing about.

However - many of these elements will get soon strongly different worth and judged differently. History will be a major tool to keep the thoughts on the ground level and next to reality.

You may start with my introduction.

http://www.latvus.com

[Bryan.A]

Wow,such a creative topic.Yet you are right,totally right.I think everybody will attack you with their 'understanding of the meaning of life though'.

I certainly hope society becomes more objective and open-minded to a variety of subjects,from alternative energy to spiritualistic phenomena,though as it looks like it to fit in society you have to adjust to the herd mentality,lead,follow,or get out the way,just remember to lead with populism.

[Päiviö]

Dear Bryan A.

Did you have time to read my introduction?

You did not!

[william]

(After reading my responses I realized I had better qualify my statements about Jesus. I do not consider myself a Christian but I have interest in the teachings that have been attributed to Jesus. Much of Christianly today as most Christians in my view practice it has little resemblance to what Jesus taught. I belong to no political or religious or business organizations as in my view this often adds to our bias and affects our research.)

“If "Jesus" in action was like the Gnostics, Bogomils, or Cathars”

It is the if word here that is an issue.

William: "I am interested in the quotes or material or teachings you have of Jesus making extremist or nationalistic statements."

“There are none, of course”

You equate Jesus with the political unrest during those times and indeed there is still political unrest in that region. This does not mean a master teacher or advanced soul on a mission could not preach and live something different and be able to not get involved in these movements and unrest.

“New Testament are "dumbed down"

The teachings that are attributed to Jesus are anything but dumbed down. Most preachers still do not understand many of these teachings today 2000 years later.

To equate Jesus teachings with John the Baptist teachings is misguided. Even Jesus said something about John the Baptist and his chances of getting into heaven a very high realm of existence for advanced souls. It appears they had totally different levels of soul development.

“It was a violent place, too; "Jesus" may have been a man of peace but if his movement was of any size, some followers were undoubtedly cutthroats.”

His followers screwed up but cutthroats we do not know that. This is an assumption on your part. Followers almost always screw up when trying to follow such advanced teachings. Give Rome what is Rome’s is pretty advanced teachings.

The next messiah to come along cost the Jews their homeland as he advocated violence. From my point of view if a “messiah” advocates violence that would be a person with very low level of soul development.

“I would like to lift up the whole discussion on the complete different rails.”

You make the assumption that your introduction is a lifting up from previous discussions. That may be intellectualism defined. Would you or could you even consider that maybe your introduction is not a lifting up but a lowering of the discussion?

From my point of view the teachings of Jesus or a Buddha or an enlightened Hindu master far exceeds the level of understanding into the meaning and mysteries of life than the philosophers and scientists that you quote.

[Bill I.]

Päiviö: 'Do you have any proposal for the question "Why is Science Western?'"

My stock answer is that science as we know it is an egoic science.

As such, it mirrors the Western egoic condition, strong on "separation" and dominated by the symbolically masculine in direction, activities, and the myths that reinforce it. (And thus strong, too, in deduction and analysis -- I did read your intro, btw.)

One metaphorical description for what we are collectively beginning to experience/ create is that we are witnessing, on the one hand, the destructive aspects of Shiva, while on the other simultaneously experiencing the effects (for lack of a better term) of Shiva's Nataraja (Lord of Dance) aspect.

My own researches suggest the various myths of Shiva -- decidedly non-Western and originating in a region in which other, older forms of what might be termed "science" have predominated until recent times -- are coverings for something that most Westerners would find unbelievable, unacceptable, and so on.

We even lack words for this something, although there are loose connections with "energy," "Dionysus," and other terms, traditions, and concepts, some perhaps fit for the long discarded mystery schools that predated the rise of rationalism, part of a hidden strain in the West that included any number of Greeks, Islamic thinkers, and later Renaissance-era personalities and movements at great variance with official doctrines. (Oddly, there are connections shared with these and the thought of those who initiated the rise of science.)

Shiva/Nataraja myth speaks of change, while focusing on the pulse or, in musical terms, the tempo of life and consciousness; when this accelerates, the old is shattered.

Who has exemplified this energy? Many, but some of these are quite surprising. Miles Davis, for example, to use another musical example.

This "Natarajan" energy from an old, non-Western culture can be attuned to and felt, with unexpected effects; few beyond Hindu devotees would even think to do this, however.

Regards

Bill I.

[Bill I.]

William:

By disagreeing on-line we exaggerate differences of belief, as we are forced to use words (and in a very linear arrangement of them).

Let's say that from my perspective your "Christ" is quite divorced from the realities of the time and place in which the myth originated.

(Have you never personally attempted to "psychically" place yourself in that time? Doing this can be assisted by reading what scholars and archeologists think and have discovered, but you could spend a lifetime doing that, while if you can effectively "tune in" you will note how radically different -- in a disturbing sort of way -- that time and place is compared to the way it is presented in a Sunday school class.)

You used the word "teachings" when refuting my "comic book" statement but by doing so you changed the nature of my comment, which was about the picture of the time created in the minds of those who read the NT, not necessarily any teachings, specifically.

By elevating a man and taking him out of his actual setting, turning him into some highly advanced soul, you participate in the perpetuation of what is, after all, mostly myth. In the official myth, the man is the sole son of an archaic god, once very local but later -- owing to the workings of myth -- made universal and synonymous, in many minds, with All.

You simply restate the myth in terms you find more acceptable.

Consider that you are as much an expression of All as was the brother of James the Righteous; consider that you are also the embodiment of a very experienced soul or entity no less than that long ago living man (again, I assume such a man existed but can't prove this to myself or anyone.)

Was that man a "god realized man?" Maybe so, maybe not; if so, you can hardly expect to gain much of anything in your own "god realization" through the distortions of myth.

Whether he was or not, I doubt he'd be even slightly offended if you simply temporarily discarded the myth, whole hog, temporarily put aside your beliefs in highly evolved teachers, and accessed the suitable region of your own self that would be most helpful in your own "gnostic" endeavors.

Consider what a zen moment might be, and what an external teacher can accomplish by hitting an adept over the head with a stick; where is the highly evolved soul in such an instance?

Regards

Bill I.

[Päiviö]

Dear Bill!

Greetings from India!

However - it is already 20 years, since I was there, but still I feel Indian Subcontinent as my second homeland - and also -culture.

Certainly, I am a Christian, but many of my friends are from hindu-, muslim etc. cultures.

If I open my bag - I start from Abraham - from the society of Hammurab and Urukagina.

You all on this page seem to have a great story to write. So do I.

Abraham got order to leave the society. The Lord allmighty, you all speak about, promised to bless te whole mankind through him and his children.

I am technically oriented - and I try my best to keep my feet on the ground. So - I also value especially that science and knowledge, which helps mankind to understand the laws of nature.

Plato said that everything has something on it, where it is part of. So - if somebody will understand the nature - I will draw conclusion that he or she or that culture (worldview) is next to the Lord, the Creator of nature.

If I speak again about the comprehensibility of the laws of nature, we can see, that they are those cultures which have faith in Creator.

Here I rely on Joseph Needham, who even as an atheist, suggested that fellows like Galilei and Newton were able to understand the laws of nature because they were living in Creator paradigm.

Faraday and Maxwell, who's discoveries are just here as the basis for our discussions electromagnetically. They were also strong believers of Creator - and also Jesus.

The Muslim-intellectuals had the same startingpoints, until they returned back to the Neoplatonism.

India is the key nation to bring mathematics for the mankind - to build the natural sciences. And Muslims continued this process.

These are the basics, you all know before. So - I have to hurry to rise the questions - why then the Christians and Jews were such a long time (hudreds of years) in djungle of ignorance.

If I would not - as a Christian - rise the Dark Ages on the table - you would not long time follow my writings.

In my introduction I show, how - according to my theory - the Jewish-Christian worldview has been the major actor, and helper, for the comprehensibility of mankind - concerning the natural laws - but roots for the Dark Ages have been - until these days - such a dilemma, that whole theory of betterness of these two religions has been forgotten.

These roots are - however - empirically to be studied and solved. There is no any mystics in that "dilemma".

[Michael Prescott]

Do you have any proposal for the question "Why is Science Western?"

No offense, but how is this question related in any way to the topic of my post?

[dmduncan]

Honestly, I don't know what conservatism is anymore. When conservatives can oppose conservation, it seems to me the word has pretty much lost its meaning.

Buckley was smart, but he was an example of the problem too. It's like that episode of Star Trek where Kirk is split into two people by the transporter, one of them a hand wringing, indecisive whiner, the other a hard drinking, womanizing sociopath. The moral: he needed both halves in balance to function as a decent, rational person, and the political parties mirror that split, each one thinking that they are The One.

It's hard for me to imagine how someone can be enlightened——and then line up behind one party or the other.

It seems to be a valid generalization that liberals feel too much, and conservatives don't feel enough, and neither group respects the balance that the other half provides.

[william]

“Consider what a zen moment might be, and what an external teacher can accomplish by hitting an adept over the head with a stick; where is the highly evolved soul in such an instance?”

From my point of view there is no highly evolved soul in that room. They are both trying to do or to give enlightenment. I.e. whatever enlightenment is.

“you can hardly expect to gain much of anything in your own "god realization" through the distortions of myth.”

Please point out to me were I have claimed that I am trying to attain god realization or enlightenment by doing my research into the teachings of anyone (advanced souls, enlightened ones, etc) god realized or enlightenment. This is research that I am interested in for my own personal knowledge. I personally don’t believe one can do anything to attain god realization. I.e. with few exceptions that we know little about.

“It seems to be a valid generalization that liberals feel too much, and conservatives don't feel enough”

Feeling or not feeling is the problem as feelings can lead us down a very long and harsh road. Compassion has very little to do with feelings. It is about understanding and discernment. Humankind will someday move beyond liberal and conservative and be more interested in understanding and discernment of reality.

“and the political parties mirror that split, each one thinking that they are The One.”

Neither party is the one. Both parties are participating in the rapid decline of a nation. But then in a republic the majority deserves its leaders and its parties. I.e. best kept secret in America. When bush jr said he was the decider that was a correct statement because in a republic the voters elected him to make decisions with all the constitutional authority of a president. They may not like his decisions but that is how a republic works.

The framers of our constitution did not create a democracy but a republic (reprehensive government) for many reasons. Sorry I had to leave reprehensive in the sentence as I originally misspelled representative but my spell check corrected it to reprehensive. I think my spell check is on to something. I.e. my idea of humor.

If you don’t think our government is reprehensive check out how much Nancy made sure her favorite business donor got of the 700 billion before she would pass the bill through the house.

[Thorsten]

@Anonymous:
[List of good news]

Not bad, but it does not address Michaels concern if I understand him right.
Michael seems to be concerned that the GOP is drifting away from a defendable position of promoting values to an ideological and negative emotional position ("We don't wanna be sissies").
Every party needs role models as leaders. While Roosevelt and Eisenhower can be critized for their strong jingoistic stance, they are neither stupid nor incompentent and they radiate a strong sense of integrity. While not eggheads, they don't send the message that stupidity and egocentrism is excusable.
But many current high-ranking members of the GOP display severe negative character traits despite their claim of defending a higher moral position.

Worse, their proponents seems so intent to furiously fight THEM that they simply don't want to take a more close look at their leaders. If they cannot see the difference of quality between Eisenhower and chickenhawk GW Bush, there is something wrong with the motives of Republicans.
So who comes after McCain ? Sarah Palin ? Don't make me cry...

[Shrewsbury]

For thoughtful conservatism I highly recommend Lawrence Auster's View from the Right at amnation.com/vfr.

[Michael Prescott]

Lawrence Auster's View from the Right

I took a brief look at that site and thought I detected a rather disturbing odor of racism there. Much talk about "defending the white race," much focus on crimes committed by nonwhites against whites. I admit I did not read the entries in detail, but I'd be wary of a blogger who's so fixated on race.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

”Compassion has very little to do with feelings. It is about understanding and discernment.” - William

I’m curious about this statement, even though it’s somewhat off-topic. In this context, what is understanding based on if not feelings (empathy)?

[LM_Rose]

I admit that I am new to this blog and am enjoying the debate and investigation into our civilization/culture and the spiritual consciousness. I am sure many of you will find this WAY off topic. I find the reference to a "mythic Jesus" interesting. Yes I admit to viewing the world from a Christian prospective. If you take not only the biblical but historical evidence, corroborated witness accounts from the Jewish, and Romans, as well as other people outside of these two cultures, and the evidence of reproduction of this "story" in written manuscript it does create a strong case for Christ.

That aside, I do view Christ as being quite political and definitely a higher spiritual being. He suffered for His political views because they did not align with the major factions of the Western world. He deplored the corruption of the people on both of these opposing sides, and called it out for what it was. Though it was said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, He was referring to responsibility of humans while living in the political process and culture of the time and although required of the physical being it was unimportant and had little to no impact onto the spiritual being. He continued with and render unto God what is God's. I see this as His reminder that while we are flesh we are more importantly of the spirit, and have a personal responsibility to both sides of our own being. I believe His teaching to be food for the spiritual side of our being, His message is to help a person with the pursuit of spiritual peace and health of being.

This my personal belief, He came to teach people to think and realize the spiritual being in each of us. He came with teachings on how to foster well being of the soul.

As stated above this is my belief - your mileage may vary.

[dmduncan]

I went and saw Eastwood's "Gran Torino" yesterday, and my opinion is that it's the best film he's made, and he's made some good films.

Eastwood's character in the film, Walt, is a mean old bigoted Korean War vet who calls people like he sees them, and my hunch is that his comments about generation P reflect his character in the film: Although Walt is not a nice man, he is, it turns out, a very good man, and if you judged him by the language he used, you would in your own simplicity misjudge both his character and the humanity he really has.

So maybe Clint meant it, maybe he only half way meant it, but one thing seems certain: The man who made "Gran Torino" has given some heavy thought to the meaning and point of life.

I won't give away any of the details because the power of this film in part depends on your own assumptions, and in an unexpected way it makes you look at your own tendency to prejudge, to know before you know how things are and will be.

"Unforgiven" was a great film. I think this one's better.