Was Jesus an Anarchist?

Would anarchy not be the most faith-based society possible? A society completely based upon the Will of God rather than the laws of man? So why are there not more Christians that at least consider this? They seem to be so sure that a government that controls all aspects of life would be far better, but that is simply asserting the will of man over the Will of God. Would that not be putting all our faith in a government rather than in God? So is this not idol worship? True anarchy would definitely create chaos, but what about a society based only on a Constitution? Or perhaps, a limited government that can only act according to a Constitution? Oh wait, isn't that what we are supposed to have? Oops, I guess that must not work. We are trying so very hard to move away from that. Perhaps we should at least check out what the goals and ideas of the originators of our government sought? Perhaps read a little of what they said? Again, the "Moral Majority" and the "Christian Reich-err I mean Right" seem to want us to put more and more of our faith into a government that enforces their will, but isn't their will their own and not that of God? Should we not allow the Will of God to be done rather than push our own beliefs of what we think that is? Or would that require more faith than those who pretend to be Christians want to admit it to? All well, just the entertainment of ideas that are still free to roam in my own head.

The Oxford English Dictionary of Philosophy defines understanding as follows:

understanding To have a word, or a picture, or any other object in one's mind seems to be one thing, but to understand it is quite another. A major target of the later work of Wittgenstein is the suggestion that this understanding is achieved by a further presence, so that words might be understood if they are accompanied by ideas, for example; Wittgenstein insists that the extra presence merely raises the same kind of problem again. The better suggestion is that understanding is to be thought of as possession of a technique, or skill, and this is the point of the slogan that ‘meaning is use’. The idea is congenial to pragmatism and hostile to ineffable and incommunicable understandings. See also meaning, private language, verstehen.

Epistemology is defined as the study of knowledge, but perhaps it should be the study of human understanding of knowledge. Understanding is something far less confrontational, divisive, or elusive. Pursuing understanding seems to be under-developed, and perhaps many of the fruits of the epistemologist's labor are to be had in such pursuits. Food for thought.

Bibliography

"understanding" The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Simon Blackburn. Oxford University Press, 1996. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. 27 November 2007

Black Dot whisperings

I live in a crazy place in a crazy time. We are in a time when our actions have very large consequences, but who says we can't kick ass? Just because the situation our world is in seems desperate, does that mean we should despair? I argue that most people I know say they work best at crunch-time... Perhaps now it is time to put up or shut up. I observe a world of artifice and superficial substance and am scared of the waste we accept of it. Why do we need to pay the middle man? The bureaucracy doesn't work and we don't have to let it exist. They may argue we'll be destroying jobs, but I argue that it destroys jobs. It allows mediocrity, limits greatness, and entrenches itself further in our society like a cancer. Why not endorse local artisans rather than faceless corporations? Easier said than done. I'm a hypocrite. Convenience is my vice, perhaps it is sloth. Perhaps the internet can give me some respite. Through this crazy technology, we can excise the middle man. Perhaps technology is not as evil as many think it to be. Perhaps technology will provide us with the answers for our crises. Could abundant energy be something that could bring about enough economic destabilization to bring about something closer to a direct system of capital that represents the people's worth and their interests, rather than one that is best exploited by those in place to do so? Check it out.

Grasping Reality

Is it going to far when you dial the phone to your employer. Thinking about the previous night's conversation with your brother. A conversation about your disapproval of the financial situation at work. Suddenly, the thought of how predictably I had reacted to the conditions involved from a psychological standpoint and feeling disappointed that I had been so negative about the money situation because of hard times at work. Those guys are good guys. In fact, the guys I work with are guys that I would love to be able to work with for the rest of my life. There is no better career I could think of. Working in something that makes you feel like you are contributing to your maximum potential (and then some) for the best interest of the world is the most gratifying thing I could think of. The people I work with are very talented, and very honorable. The things we work on are motivating, pioneering, and relevant to humanity now and forever. I couldn't ask for a better place to be in my life. I wish everything, and everybody could find that something for themselves. I think it comes from finding what you are great at, and excelling at whatever that is; because we shouldn't dwell on the things that others get, but be more concerned with what we give. I guess that is something nice to say, but you have to get something in order to give anything. Perhaps I'm just raving and my mind wanders far more than anyone could find interesting, but I cannot help the way my head works. I know I am idealistic, but it is good to think for the best. I like to think that we can visualize what should be, work to make it the closest we can, accept what we get, and do the best with that, that we can.

Poems

I've just been experimenting with the idea of quick and concise projections of thought through poetry. I've read a bit of the argument between philosophy and poetry in Harold Bloom's, Where Shall Wisdom be Found? My argument being that it can be found in anything because it is itself nothing, but that is only scratching the surface and I do not want to drag on because just about everybody checks out pretty quick if you start getting to abstract. It is crazy to me how little communication really goes on in the world. There is plenty of information being transfered, and words being used, but when speaking there is not often a single full idea shared. With writing, the writer can manifest their full idea, but the reader cannot interact to truly understand the meaning. It is as though we go through life hearing the half meaning of someone's finite attempt at explaining things that are almost all infinitely complex. I begin to wonder if it is I who is at fault for being so dumbfounded and that perhaps I cam just not quite as intelligent as the rest of the world. Perhaps everyone else gets it, and can understand what complexities matter while I trickle through the many streams of understanding that could possible lead to or leave from the fragment of an idea that might find its way before me. I am ranting once more, far from the topic in the title. I guess the point of this is that I wonder if people can better understand the directness of poetry in contrast to the vast complexities of a philosophical understanding. Either way Sophists have come back to take over the world. Beware for we have no Socrates to save us, and if we did he is probably in jail for molesting little boys. Enjoy.

Death by Peace

As I had feared
There is nothing to fear.
And so I die
A death unsung.
The masterpiece of war,
Undone.
And so I fade into the twilight.
No use for me
With no one to fight.
The love shown to me
For fear of the enemy.
But alas,
It had to end
Happiness in another's grief
Cannot last
It must be brief.
A soldier's tale
Honor and pride
But in the end
Because of peace
I died.

Mysterious Plans

The vision given by the seers.
The words of God.
The heart set.
The mind hardened.
Driven on a course with determined will.
The question never dawned on him.
Did he see what will be, or see what he needs to see?
Did he hear the words of God, or the words of his own reason?
With his own being, the answers would be paid for.
He may only hope it would be worth the cost.
Would it matter?
The time would come and go.
Would he be any the wiser?
Could he afford the price to know?
He could be no miser.
He thought long and hard.
Then it came in a flash.
It all seemed backward.
Wrong.
Then with a splash.
He saw it happen.
He heard the story before.
His heart set.
His mind hardened.
Driven on a new course with determined will.
The question never dawned on him.
How could this be?
The unfathomable mystery.
All was seen and he smiled.
The workings were finely dialed.
A story to well written.
The muse smitten.
His satan defeated-he pleaded.
The true test had come.
A past understanding, deep seeded.
Should he spare the beaten scum?
His judgement said no, but the words were never more clear.
If he killed this man, he killed himself.
The satan he fought was far more than he should have to bare.
His heart set.
His mind hardened.
He did not realize the cost was so high.
It was not time to die.
Then he remembered.
He had a choice once.
He chose to fight.
He would save many lives, he would do the world good.
He knew he was right.
He lowered his hood.
Slaying his satan, he had given himself.
His taint was now permanent.
He knew nothing else.
He asked God why?
Without a reply.
Then it dawned on him.
The rays of a smile creeped to his lips.
He was consoled.
He had done the necessary thing in a world of imperfection.
No man could be innocent.
God alone.
But then he frowned.
He had to ask.
In a world of imperction, what could be good?
He had killed a man.
Broke the commandments.
His being was lost.
He sacrificed it so that others could keep theirs.
The children of hope, the heirs.
Would he be redeemed?