The idea that the individual is the government, and it is that simple, is a bit trite in my opinion. It is the political equivalent of the spiritual advice "we are all one". (On a side note, it is very interesting to notice the almost polar difference between these similar attitudes!)
We get lost in the system, only because it has been around for so long. People begin to think that certain patriotic ideals are functional reasons. They think that "for the sake of freedom" is actually meaningful basis for action. They start to think that freedom is the government, because it can apparently provide certain freedoms. It is then only natural that we spread our freedom around the globe.
Because we live in the same world that we act in, freedom is and can only be an ideal. There is the freedom to act and influence the world, but there is also the freedom from the same influences.
The art of modern politics is ignoring one half of this "freedom". To explain further, this is characterized by Jean Paul Sartre's concept "bad faith".
The typical modern politician who is in bad faith, will invest his outward political motive in either immanence (an unhindered existence), or transcendence (action which brings change). But at the same time, he masks his choice in the notion of a unification, which he calls "freedom", or "justice". So for the purposes of his political motive, he relies and preserves the dualistic matrix of action, but he denies partiality and presents this in a sugar coated unification called "freedom".
In an example, it is very simple: Does a person have the freedom to listen to music, or does his neighbor have the freedom to exist in unpolluted silence? The politician will choose one or the other for the sake of "freedom".
Quote:
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.
-Thomas Jefferson
What I have learned, is "for the sake of freedom" is bad faith in action. If it is thus considered that we must share this world, (that is, if we acknowledge the humanistic consequences of our actions); "for the sake of freedom" is just a sugar coated appeal for vague political action.
This is because "the sake of freedom", is not a reason in itself. Politically speaking, it is implied that we all desire freedom (of course!). The unspecified notion of freedom is simple, animalistic energy, masked as a humanistic endeavor. But again, it is not a specific endevour.
Albert Camus held that the energy of a revolution and rebellion, is due course (if successful) to eventually become tyrannical. He was right, it is the same basic energy of action. This energy is what Nietzsche referred to as the will to power. The desire for freedom, freedom to do what we please, is the universal will to power.
The political action of humanity can be expressed as either revolution, or its opposite, the establishment of systematic hierarchy. This is the duality of our actions that we must consider. These are two ideals, that both have come to stand for freedom: The freedom to exist in an environment (conservation as a political action) and freedom to effectively change our environment.
I have learned to understand the manipulations of politicians, by understanding their language and how it relates to their proposed actions.
The basic principal that I am trying to impress, is that anyone who vaguely, but explicitly calls attention to patriotism, freedom, justice, or any similar ideal in a political motivation, is not to be trusted. Freedom, justice, and patriotism are implicit ideals of politics, how could they be anything else?
The establishment of our constitution is the only necessary explicit decree of these ideals. Subsequent explicit (or as previously mentioned; functional) appeals to freedom, justice, and patriotism should only serve as alarms for the intelligent citizen. What is the use of patriotism?
For instance, a politician running for the office, assures us that he stands resolutely for this group, "I am an American". Or perhaps his patriotism is the more general phrase, "freedom". Often times, laws are passed under the colors of patriotism.
I ask myself what is the use of this? Why should someone running for an american position of office, assure me that he is for the American people. Isn't this implied?
The politician who indicates that he is "for freedom", he is no better. Freedom is also an implicit ideal, because who doesn't wish to do "as one pleases"?
Finally, in a recent act, the patriot act, I have noticed a revolutionary use of language in our politics. This is not the patriotic appeal to "America" or "freedom", it is actually by name, the appeal to "patriotism"! And in the ordinary patriotic spirit that I have been attempting to demonstrate, the implicit ideal has nothing to do with the function of the act. What functional reason is there to name this the patriot act? Why not call it the increased security act, or something similar?
The real "use" of this, is consolidating the "bad faith" of a population. Speaking of freedom in the way it is commonly referred to today, is just about as confounding to the real issues, as references to God. I am not an activist, but what I can stand for is philosophy. To the extent that freedom, justice, and God may be relavent, they must remain implicit in politics, despite whatever is actually the case.
One politician may "stand for America" better than another, but we should only allow his proposed functions inform this, and nothing else; because this is how he will actually serve.
The only way that patriotism arises, is in faith to a system. Ordinary faith in the system is one thing. I believe we are free to love America, and to express this. But what I have been describing, is a whole other thing. "Bad faith" in the system, is where a "patriot" seeks to substantiate an abstract system, for utility of his political motivations.
There is no seperation between religion and state, as long as the people believe that justice and freedom are substantial. Let us discard the absolute notions of a "perfect", "just", or "free" system. Recognize that since we have to make sense of this together, the system is by nature of the individual, corrupt: freedom for one, is tyranny for another. Let us recognize America, our "matrix" for what it is.
Quote:
"Man is born free, and is everywhere in chains"
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
daytripper23 
mushroomhunter10 
Edit 
Reply 
Grav
Rono
1 2 all )
RandalFlagg
Innvertigo
mntlfngrs
chodamunky
GabbaDj