I knew that if I stopped but for a moment to consider the wonder and glory that the God of which they spoke possessed, I should be undone. All my clever defenses would quit me like mists blown by a strong wind off the lake. String by carefully woven string in the barricade of my schema would unravel, be hacked to shreds, as if the Fates had grown bored of their duty and become sansculottes of the cognitive realm - snipping the bonds of my conscience with maenadic fervor. The piercing light of dawn ever threatened to plunge into the darkness of my mind and force open my eyes. Sometimes the brightness was so overwhelming it threw the world on the other side of my shroud-lids into brilliant orange. Yet for all the clarity of the darkness nothing could prepare me for the lucidity of the sun.
I stole the first peek facing away from the horizon where the sun would soon crest and begin his stroll across the sky. And as I turned slowly (ever too slowly!) so he rose to meet me. Thus as I increased my field of vision in regard to the luminescence the magnitude of the sun's glow grew as well. As if seeing the light was not apology enough for its glory its existence expanded a fortiori. It takes no time to prima facie become a votary of the sun (but it must be an honest viewing!) when our dark reverie is discarded and we awaken to the persistent promulgation of light that is the Divine Metonymy of this world.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Novus Ordo Mundus
The rhetoric of globalization, the global community and a new world order meet us at almost every turn in today's politics. It is unlikely that anyone is unfamiliar with the terms or the general feeling they invoke. What is likely, is that the underlying assumptions and implications that this language carries with it go unattended in most minds. I think on the whole it is viewed that global "oneness" includes a happy, contented belief that everyone else in the world is human in the same way as ourselves; that the radical Muslim in Iran has the same human problems as the Catholic next door. In one respect this acknowledgment of a common human condition is correct, but taken another way, this view (and the ramifications of the masses accepting it) is dangerous.
Firstly, the idea that all humanity is equivalent not in being sinful, but in experiencing similar emotions, thoughts, and outlooks, is to disregard entirely the affects of culture and religion. In our egoism we conclude that our unique thought processes are distinctly human and representative of the species in general. Freud made each individual study his past; today we have all looked back and found the same human root and concluded that we must be the same branch as well. It's easy to forget the words, "Yet hear now, O Jacob My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen. Thus says the LORD who made you and formed you from the womb" (Isaiah XLIV 1-2). There is nothing of community in the LORD's words here, He is strictly personal on the subject of creating each person. What I think is easy to forget, is that the tree that our botanist-psychoanalysts are studying, has many roots. The analogy that plays closest to the melody, I think, is that we are each created individually, and as many roots merge into the trunk, so many people come together into sin and form a single Fallen Man. Then, being in sin, Man branches out on many paths of evil, and some into buds of salvation where the water of Grace, the light of Love, and pruning of Scripture has yielded holy fruit. But that is a picture better painted another day by a better studied man than I. The point is that despite our common sin, each man is distinct, with his own woven past and unfolding future.
Truly, though, despite the consequences of a global community mindset on the individual, the real trouble comes with the politics of the thing. Another of the assumptions of a world order that is pushed under the rug or hung up in the closet, is that of governance. It seems to be considered that we should all simply "get along" and "live in harmony." While there are current thorns in the side of this harmonious community, the solutions offered present a bit of what I'm talking about. Leaders of nations are not looking to countries like Iran, North Korea, and other mavericks has undisciplined school children that need to be shown their place; these states are instead considered to be rebellious outsiders in need of an offered spot at the table. That the result of nuclear threats should be militaristic preparation and response seems clear. If your neighbor brought a gun to your doorstep you would hardly greet him without first being resolved to shoot him should he try anything. But what it seems to me that the "free world" is doing, is to respond as a united front, not for the purpose of retaliation, but for the purpose of denouncement and invitation. One may argue that the global community arranged in this manner is the best instrument for world peace, I disagree. That is no more than an empire, when all states join one homogeneous "order," whether they do so willingly or not. And empires, as history shows us, do not last, but rather splinter along many lines. When retaliation and then, this is essential, grace is involved in the aftermath, that is where true alliances come from. The United States' relationships with Japan and Germany after World War II are a better demonstration of good international politics than Russia's formation of the Soviet Union.
I recently read in an article that a former world leader approached the world as the ruler of a powerful nation speaking to a community of rulers of lesser nations. This type of policy was tossed out, the article said, by the current leader of the same nation, who now offered to come along side other states and listen to them, speak with them, and generally secede his place as "the" global authority. But I must read between the lines and make the connection with the previous arguments of all people coming together into a "new world order." As I said before, the question that is unspoken when talk is had of uniting the world into a single community, is that of who shall govern it. All states may be defined as societies upon which different types of organizations exist to establish how the society runs and then to enforce those laws. Plato in his Republic sets about discussing the type of society he considers beneficial before naming the guardians as the head of that society, and the philosopher-king takes the place of government in so much as he governs society. The crux of the problem we're discussing, is that when these nations of the world "unite" and "come together to build a stronger, global regime," their must be someone appointed to lead it. Locke argues that a social contract binds people and government, that this constitution holds each to respect the other. I might claim that even authoritarian kingdoms contain a social contract, in that when the ruler acts entirely outside of what is deemed appropriate, the people respond. This very occurrence brought about the West's first taste of democracy in 1215 with the signing of the Magna Carta, and the most definitive rebellion against the breaking of a social contract is well known as the American Revolution.
What is different with the idea of a world order created by the leaders of states, is that up until now people entered into agreement with governments for the sake of promulgating a contract. When only governments are concerned with creating a new government, the people have no voice. It is assumed by each nation's ruler that the people have spoken favorably when they elected (or in some cases, didn't rebel against) him. Thus, without general consent a union may be formed that sets forth a new government over and above its member nations. And someone (I do not think this will be a democracy) will have to rule this "community." As that realization strikes, the man most in-line to claim the throne will be him who "lowered" himself and drove for unity in the first place. "The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness...This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector," is how Plato described it. The good man becomes an emperor. Power doesn't corrupt, it simply removes the mask. He who worked so hard to bring the nations together will have no opposition to, will even be promoted to, the throne. What started as humans connecting on a false emotional equilibrium will ultimately become a tyrannical world government. We may only pray to hold off for a little while, and to be diligent in our observations, "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." We may mourn our inevitable situation, but "so do all who live to see such times." The best we may do is to pray, hope and work. These are all the gifts our LORD has given us and we must use them to the fullest.
Jason
Firstly, the idea that all humanity is equivalent not in being sinful, but in experiencing similar emotions, thoughts, and outlooks, is to disregard entirely the affects of culture and religion. In our egoism we conclude that our unique thought processes are distinctly human and representative of the species in general. Freud made each individual study his past; today we have all looked back and found the same human root and concluded that we must be the same branch as well. It's easy to forget the words, "Yet hear now, O Jacob My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen. Thus says the LORD who made you and formed you from the womb" (Isaiah XLIV 1-2). There is nothing of community in the LORD's words here, He is strictly personal on the subject of creating each person. What I think is easy to forget, is that the tree that our botanist-psychoanalysts are studying, has many roots. The analogy that plays closest to the melody, I think, is that we are each created individually, and as many roots merge into the trunk, so many people come together into sin and form a single Fallen Man. Then, being in sin, Man branches out on many paths of evil, and some into buds of salvation where the water of Grace, the light of Love, and pruning of Scripture has yielded holy fruit. But that is a picture better painted another day by a better studied man than I. The point is that despite our common sin, each man is distinct, with his own woven past and unfolding future.
Truly, though, despite the consequences of a global community mindset on the individual, the real trouble comes with the politics of the thing. Another of the assumptions of a world order that is pushed under the rug or hung up in the closet, is that of governance. It seems to be considered that we should all simply "get along" and "live in harmony." While there are current thorns in the side of this harmonious community, the solutions offered present a bit of what I'm talking about. Leaders of nations are not looking to countries like Iran, North Korea, and other mavericks has undisciplined school children that need to be shown their place; these states are instead considered to be rebellious outsiders in need of an offered spot at the table. That the result of nuclear threats should be militaristic preparation and response seems clear. If your neighbor brought a gun to your doorstep you would hardly greet him without first being resolved to shoot him should he try anything. But what it seems to me that the "free world" is doing, is to respond as a united front, not for the purpose of retaliation, but for the purpose of denouncement and invitation. One may argue that the global community arranged in this manner is the best instrument for world peace, I disagree. That is no more than an empire, when all states join one homogeneous "order," whether they do so willingly or not. And empires, as history shows us, do not last, but rather splinter along many lines. When retaliation and then, this is essential, grace is involved in the aftermath, that is where true alliances come from. The United States' relationships with Japan and Germany after World War II are a better demonstration of good international politics than Russia's formation of the Soviet Union.
I recently read in an article that a former world leader approached the world as the ruler of a powerful nation speaking to a community of rulers of lesser nations. This type of policy was tossed out, the article said, by the current leader of the same nation, who now offered to come along side other states and listen to them, speak with them, and generally secede his place as "the" global authority. But I must read between the lines and make the connection with the previous arguments of all people coming together into a "new world order." As I said before, the question that is unspoken when talk is had of uniting the world into a single community, is that of who shall govern it. All states may be defined as societies upon which different types of organizations exist to establish how the society runs and then to enforce those laws. Plato in his Republic sets about discussing the type of society he considers beneficial before naming the guardians as the head of that society, and the philosopher-king takes the place of government in so much as he governs society. The crux of the problem we're discussing, is that when these nations of the world "unite" and "come together to build a stronger, global regime," their must be someone appointed to lead it. Locke argues that a social contract binds people and government, that this constitution holds each to respect the other. I might claim that even authoritarian kingdoms contain a social contract, in that when the ruler acts entirely outside of what is deemed appropriate, the people respond. This very occurrence brought about the West's first taste of democracy in 1215 with the signing of the Magna Carta, and the most definitive rebellion against the breaking of a social contract is well known as the American Revolution.
What is different with the idea of a world order created by the leaders of states, is that up until now people entered into agreement with governments for the sake of promulgating a contract. When only governments are concerned with creating a new government, the people have no voice. It is assumed by each nation's ruler that the people have spoken favorably when they elected (or in some cases, didn't rebel against) him. Thus, without general consent a union may be formed that sets forth a new government over and above its member nations. And someone (I do not think this will be a democracy) will have to rule this "community." As that realization strikes, the man most in-line to claim the throne will be him who "lowered" himself and drove for unity in the first place. "The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness...This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector," is how Plato described it. The good man becomes an emperor. Power doesn't corrupt, it simply removes the mask. He who worked so hard to bring the nations together will have no opposition to, will even be promoted to, the throne. What started as humans connecting on a false emotional equilibrium will ultimately become a tyrannical world government. We may only pray to hold off for a little while, and to be diligent in our observations, "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." We may mourn our inevitable situation, but "so do all who live to see such times." The best we may do is to pray, hope and work. These are all the gifts our LORD has given us and we must use them to the fullest.
Jason
Friday, April 3, 2009
Another Question...
Well, while my fellow writers think through my last question, I turn to the audience for participation.
I need material, content, a direction. Pose a question (multiple people can post questions) in the comments to this post and I'll offer what I can in response to one, or perhaps all (depending on the activity, again, of my compatriots).
Ask away!
Jason
I need material, content, a direction. Pose a question (multiple people can post questions) in the comments to this post and I'll offer what I can in response to one, or perhaps all (depending on the activity, again, of my compatriots).
Ask away!
Jason
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)