PROEM & POEM No. 147 - John Locke and Francis Schaeffer / Part 1
Everyone in various degrees argues, qualifies then categorizes his/her own preferences as principles while the preferences of others as whimsies, stupidities, mistakes, exaggerations, detriments and more. The human condition exhibits a paradox far more so than less because rare the tempering by any attempt to restrain oneself per the Silver Rule. To clarify, the Golden Rule is nothing but presumptuous, unethical even outrageous, violent intrusion without first the Silver Rule well studied, pondered and adhered then consistently embraced, practiced and defended. For the Silver Rule assumes implicit dissent until explicit consent. Only upon such logical and ethical prerequisite, the Golden Rule can be propositionally explained and tolerably exercised.
So it observably follows, each and every person expects even insists others to respect and regard his/her preferences, although do not necessarily extend the same courtesy. When extending respect and regard to others and their preferences, it is done so for endless motivations thus countless explanations other than the one and only rationalization constant thus justification consistent. Instead, extended are inconstant respect and inconsistent regard, that is to say, to those if agreeable, if likable, if lovable, if tolerable or sufferable possibly, if favorable or profitable certainly.
To establish further upon a slightly different perspective, consider comments taken from Peter King’s Posthumous Works of John Locke (1706). So it goes; Every one is forward to complain of the prejudices that mislead other men or parties, as if he were free and had none of his own. This being objected on all sides, it is agreed that it is a fault and a hindrance to knowledge. What now is the cure ? No other but this, that every man should let alone others’ prejudices and examine his own… This is the mote which every one sees in his brother's eye, but never regards the beam in his own.
To say a person or group of persons have biases is as ridiculously unnecessary as to say having propensities, preferences, limits, scarcities, flaws, errors, inabilities, deficiencies, gluttonies, excesses and so on, for to be human is to have all of these things, that is, the numerous persisting thorn(s) in the flesh (2 Co 12:7). Thus mere congruity imposes the speculation then inclusion; to be human is to covet as well. These human tendencies prevails mostly unnoticed as part of the larger whole, the philosophically universal propensities for error and excess, else the theologically inherent state of total depravity. Amid the context of either proposition, the tendencies, propensities or depravities (if you will) are commonly compounded and exasperated by covetousness. Always a subtle impulse initially, yet if to linger beyond a few moments capriciously, unintentionally, purposefully or intensely, incited will be presumption, excited the arrogance then ignited the violence privately, publicly, socially, politically, legally, illegally, etc.
By now it should not be necessary, however to logically define again violence as any act or action taken upon another’s person, privacy, preference, possession and property against exact dissent or without explicit consent. For with exact dissent or without explicit consent, the act or action is harmful (see No. 129) as individually determined per the mind logically deciding, as intimately discerned per the soul rightly dividing (2 Tm 2:15), thus as indisputably demonstrated per the hairs defiantly raising on back of the stubborn neck since divine dawn of human reasoning.
So it observably follows, each and every person expects even insists others to respect and regard his/her preferences, although do not necessarily extend the same courtesy. When extending respect and regard to others and their preferences, it is done so for endless motivations thus countless explanations other than the one and only rationalization constant thus justification consistent. Instead, extended are inconstant respect and inconsistent regard, that is to say, to those if agreeable, if likable, if lovable, if tolerable or sufferable possibly, if favorable or profitable certainly.
To establish further upon a slightly different perspective, consider comments taken from Peter King’s Posthumous Works of John Locke (1706). So it goes; Every one is forward to complain of the prejudices that mislead other men or parties, as if he were free and had none of his own. This being objected on all sides, it is agreed that it is a fault and a hindrance to knowledge. What now is the cure ? No other but this, that every man should let alone others’ prejudices and examine his own… This is the mote which every one sees in his brother's eye, but never regards the beam in his own.
To say a person or group of persons have biases is as ridiculously unnecessary as to say having propensities, preferences, limits, scarcities, flaws, errors, inabilities, deficiencies, gluttonies, excesses and so on, for to be human is to have all of these things, that is, the numerous persisting thorn(s) in the flesh (2 Co 12:7). Thus mere congruity imposes the speculation then inclusion; to be human is to covet as well. These human tendencies prevails mostly unnoticed as part of the larger whole, the philosophically universal propensities for error and excess, else the theologically inherent state of total depravity. Amid the context of either proposition, the tendencies, propensities or depravities (if you will) are commonly compounded and exasperated by covetousness. Always a subtle impulse initially, yet if to linger beyond a few moments capriciously, unintentionally, purposefully or intensely, incited will be presumption, excited the arrogance then ignited the violence privately, publicly, socially, politically, legally, illegally, etc.
By now it should not be necessary, however to logically define again violence as any act or action taken upon another’s person, privacy, preference, possession and property against exact dissent or without explicit consent. For with exact dissent or without explicit consent, the act or action is harmful (see No. 129) as individually determined per the mind logically deciding, as intimately discerned per the soul rightly dividing (2 Tm 2:15), thus as indisputably demonstrated per the hairs defiantly raising on back of the stubborn neck since divine dawn of human reasoning.
---
O the speck and splinter fester graver per critical eyes
Cynically “The ayes have it!” thus vied finically the guise
Mystically the ruse the racket per the excuse slightly tacit
Though logically flaccid, academically plain upon placid
Cynically “The ayes have it!” thus vied finically the guise
Mystically the ruse the racket per the excuse slightly tacit
Though logically flaccid, academically plain upon placid
---
Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.
Copyright © 2020 by D.C. Quillan Stone
No comments:
Post a Comment