tekne and eleutherophobia
April 14, 2012 | by oemb1905
In writing compelling expositions one must refrain from the use of turgid words when possible, but when faced with erudite carrilla one must meet the beauty with the beast. Although mythos is perhaps an accurate word choice to describe the underlying system of beliefs of ‘America’ if the author is choosing to describe the academic, the virtuous, and good deeds of man, then this is merely pretty poetry. And while slick poeses might make beautiful creations of verse, it does nothing for the rake who feeds off of logic. As if an inventive fire and resistance to mass movement would first of all be conflated, and if they were conflated for the sake of argument, why they would have anything to do with mythology is most a absurd consideration. Instead of asking if a 60s revolution could happen today with mired rhetoric, one should instead ask would anyone want that kind of revolution? Sadly, despite the economic and educational failures of the multicultural educational movement, and the last fifty years of invented curriculums, constructed classrooms, and droves of grab-ass, slap and tickle, and poke and giggle, the sad, sad, truth is that, yes, indeed some would want this revolution again. Certainly one wants to commend people for upholding liberty and committing themselves to non-violence, however, one can hardly expect non-violence to be realistic when other people want to kill you. Now perhaps questioning social norms and upholding liberty over status quo, and reason over tradition were perks, but would that society were to receive the educational set back again, society would be loathe to accept such a rigged deal. Sadly, however, this is not the point of the present point, rather, the point is that even if one actually does desire such a sad evolution, why would they think it has anything to do with inventive fire and resistance to mass movement. Is it by their movement that a mover is judged, or is it by where they move to? Is it invention that make the robust individual or knowledge of facts? Whence this automatic assumption that creativity trumps knowledge and that invention usurps application. It reeks of the progressive slander against the McDonalds worker, and one might wonder whether such a thinker tinkerer should read Walden ad infinitum.
Is it by wandering that a man discover himself or self study and deep recluse within his man self? Does one need to sing in his bosom as well as he does in his mind and does it matter if no one hears a man’s songs if that which he sings to himself is beautiful? No, no, the answer is nein, nada, nunca, milch, neva, and one must be aware that the person that seeks to reify Lao Tzu as virtuously restrained and refer to the Walmart worker or UTA frat boy as a docile and passive soul is nothing but an elitist buffoon. Who really is the village idiot here? Is docility pejorative? And passivity? What about the very liberty of that 60s revolution? It should be noted that docility is no more an evil that invention is a vanity, that passivity no more a modicum than singing is an obtrusiveness. Does the walk man stop anyone from reaching the academy more than the iPod, does the Gutenberg press inhibit a man’s quest for freedom anymore than the top hat, and does a suit and tie stop man from being free from his incorrigible naked self? That the cause of anything would be so simple as an knick name like “TV” and that something so beautiful as the name and concept of an inter-net could be blamed for a purported malady of man is nothing but ascribing a sickness to healthy patient. Or, if the patient is sick, it is only because the patient and doctor appear the converse to each other. The patient looks at the doctor and wonders why this strange woman offers medicine for her when she is healthy, and the healthy woman offers medicine to the doctor who seems incurably sick. Perhaps not everything is poison or meat depending on perspective and perhaps there are some natural rights. One must concur this or at least be sympathetic to the notion since it causes society great stability and striving, but is this because it is true or convenient? And whether again, or not, that this woman considers that this person is sick is only one small pansy, while what is in fact worse, is this condition of eleutherophobia that the modern progressive scum reeks of when they rant. This notion that technology has hurt “Merica.” Would that the study of art could hurt anything. Sad fancy that humans develop to this advanced and beautiful state and that whilst dialoguing on this electronic plasma, one has the nerve to say to the other that it is this very modality that causes his suffering? Really? And therefore it must be a supernal act of pity whereby this person succumbs to their earthly passivity and docility to even communicate in this fashion, pandering to the current philosopher. What gives with the liberal fear of private consumption and whence this cadre of phobias of other people’s choices? Does the feigning agogon truly want liberation for everyone with this networked consumption or does this lie belie! Does the indigenous Brazilian “un-contacted” peoples need liberating by the anti-TV progressive? Should a book bearing neo-Joshuaphile seek to remove the burka from the Yemeni society and place restrictions on the age at which women marry? Did Sir Edmund Hillary help Nepal? Have the dances of the dead improved and what of all that erosion? Does anyone ever wonder when a formerly indigenous community hunts with a rifle? While most men seek to find the city in the country, a select few want to find the man in the country. Did Thoreau want his grandchildren to hate TV? Or did he want didactic questioning and reflective fairness. What was it if not that …
Say it again! Eleutherophobia! Men and women have finally advanced the sciences so far that we have dream devices that used to only don comic books or an HG Wells novel, but now exist in every day life. But, alas, as with every wondrous advancement, there has to be some reactionary naysayer who comes along and disses on it. The bedroom was just cleaned, the floor mopped, the laundry done, when the cat came in an peed on the floor. That’s right! Somehow men and women should be ashamed of these great iPads and Androids and social sites they have created and seek freedom from their newest inventions. When one runs, let them run unfettered! Is the the podcast and GPS the fetter or is it rather the mind that creates such an absurd binary as a choice between technology and singing and inventing! Let men and women be not persuaded by such poor arguments and rather be aware of such juvenile fear of technology and its new progeny, its newly found digital liberation, and the ecstatic praxis that comes from staring at a LCD screen.
Oh but it gets so worse. So first the sycophant uses torn up worn out arguments to rabble rouse fear and muckrake nonsense from bottom feeding Facebook cronies, and then this same rhetorician claims that sitting at a desk, learning for twenty years, is something the soul cannot possibly stand upon. That rigor, discipline, structure, and horatio algerian elbow grease failed him and will fail others and that this failure is somehow a means of instilling this same reified invented jabberwocky of passivity mentioned prior. Como que what?! Has one lost their mind? First of all, once again, let it be stated loud from Kit Carson peak that passivity and patience are not the evil made, but how the man be patient and passive is what patience and passivity be made from! Mythos! Get real tidy man, and focus on ethos! There is no evil in focusing on knowledge measurement or the degree at which people acquire said knowledge anymore than measuring a bard, a poet, or a mystic at folk tales, famous verses, and the Kabbalah. Wisdom. Hmmppphhh. It is sad to hear to people talk of wisdom as if it were more than facts. Wherefore that certainty scholar? By what absolute criteria did thee deign seeing truth more than holding truth and who made this false hierarchy for thee? And let the synonyms come … understanding, knowing, wisdom, learning, studying, reflecting, acquiring, and more amor propre. Understanding the synonym is more than understanding the self or whether such an endeavor is anything more than a vanity. Understand what one can, ponder on the rest, but do not fancy understanding to be a pursuit wholly devoted to the self or to other’e emotions. Understanding is just as much devoted to knowledge, facts, and one’s avocation as it is to some pseudo psychological self-healing. Let thinkers cry out loud that mankind will somehow forego teaching ethics to children just because they watch TV. Are the least ethical people perhaps more inclined to watch less TV and utilize less internet than the more ethical?
And there is nothing wrong with a job and an avocation that puts food in front of one’s starving facade, that helps one rest under some privately held land that was privately contracted with another knowledgable man. Artistic talent or artistic inclinations should be no more introduced to children than auto-shop or ROTC to the aspiring engineer. The whole point of educational choices in secondary is that children choose, not that instructors foist the fine arts on those who do not like them. Yes, some people do not like the fine arts. Some do not like dance. Some do not like math. And others dislike fill in the blank. Is it an issue that people choose something they are passionate about? Should children be introduced to everything as if this is what adults actually do, or should they be allowed to stratify, diversify, and cluster. What true blood laughs at the apprentice model? Only the blood who realizes that there is no apprentice without fundamentals. There is nothing fun with mathematics until you know how to use it. There is no literature or writing apprenticeship before one can read and write. Should students be marching and protesting at City Hall before they can write an essay? Diversify education? That’s a meaningless phrase. Life is diverse by nature. Teachers, students, curriculum, and opinions in secondary schooling are diverse for crying out loud. One can simply visit the the staff meeting at any high school if they need to observe some diversity. Is diversity something to be sought as an end in itself? Again, is not that which is diverse beautiful only when it chances to be diverse, or is beautiful qua diversity? It is not the quality of diversity that is its own end but that it is good diversity! How often this is overlooked. Should secondary schools only hire neo-Nazis and abortion killers in order to be more diverse? Is this diversified education? This is not so far fetched grand lib, and educators in the seventies used to do this. Imaging the young African American child having to listen to the KKK guest speaker at school. Absurdity.
That teaching knowledge would or shall ever become outdated is something those who lack knowledge say to make themselves feel better about being negligent. Does anyone ever hear engineers working on sustainable energy complaining that they know Calculus? Does the hedge fund analyst complain that they learned macroeconomics? To be sure, knowledge never was or has been an end in itself, but that does not even come close to the notion that it will retire. Knowledge is the wine and the journey is tasting it. Would that wisdom, if it were something different than acquiring knowledge, would have anything to do with this alleged religious truth. Yet another truth that those who know nothing who cling to in order to feel satisfied with knowing so little. The old sweater is worn not for its warmth, but because it is comfortable. It may be ridden with holes and its lustre shaken, but if someone tries to throw it away, then one will fight for it like it is a world conflict. The only void is the sweater itself. There is no void to acquiring knowledge. One must not underestimate the rudeness of accusing someone who devotes himself or herself to knowledge of being void. Knowledge is secular and has been devoted to first principles since its inception in mankind itself. The Bible, or big book, is a great historical collection of allegory, myth, and genuine history that has many legitimate instances of true knowledge. But it is the parables that teach secular knowledge and retain the most common and classically liberal sense that have withstood the test of times. It is the principle of sacrificing oneself to something greater than what we know for which Isaac is remembered, it is for the voracity of courage that David is remembered in his struggle with Goliath, and it is for the taming on impulses of sloppy society for which Moses is remembered for bringing the Torah to the tribes. These are logical and thinking men’s truths and Maimonides and Aquinas have made this infinitely clear in exegetic works for Simplicio. Faith … if faith means believing the the 800 year old lifespans and that a circle has a circumference of 3 to its diameter, is nothing but bad faith. Faith also must be faith in that which is good. It is not that the person has faith for which he is remembered, it is that to which he has faith in. One should not judge another as a good religious man or woman or deem them worthy of the proverbial cloth because of faith alone, but because of the type of faith that they exhibit, because of what they have faith in and why they have it. Science is the weapon of truth. Science is the weapon the knowing wield against the burghers that try to vandalize Rome. Science is how the world works, and blind ignorant faith is how it brought down. Meaningful halakah and dogma may be valid to the believer because of its holiness, but it is accepted by men and women because of its inherent scientific truth. And men and women know this truth through the acquisition of knowledge through science. It is hard to accept this reality and fact because the sweater is so comfortable and it has gotten primordial man so far, but one must never forget that ragged sweater does not keep one warm, it only makes one feel warm inside. And such a panacea may work for this so-called “singer and inventor,” but does nothing for man of letters, of literacy.
That science exists to reinforce antiquated mythology is the very mythos that destroys society. The very diversity of theses mythoi is not what will improve education but is what rather continues to cause virulent blood shed across the Sudan, in Malaysia, in Palestine and Israel, and across the globe. Even in “Merica” as this famed author calls the United States of America. Does one presume truth before finding it? Then why look? That one would look only to reinforce their petty tragedy is the height of vanity. The same vanity and knowledge driven common sense disdained by the teachings is the very sickness that the fanatic attaches to. The fanatic, and not the zealot, becomes the handmaiden of the tradition for its sake as a story, and not for its sake as a bringer of truth. If the truth is wrong but brought by the divine power you trust, then is it true? Isaac’s story teaches this very balance. Is it a parable that preaches control, or one that perhaps was designed to make man ponder this very choice. Should men do what Isaac had done? As Job did? Scholars debate this precisely because it is known that one cannot be evil or commit evil – no matter who asks it of you. The Crusaders in medieval times re-worked the parable into a justification for murder, the suicide bombers upped the anty, this author does nothing except accept the same mistruths without a belief in his or her own judgment. It is not accident that the author who alleges this role of the handmaiden is the same author who refutes knowledge. One wonders whether it is this very lack of knowledge that has led to such a poor decision. Perhaps if the knowledge was acquired that men should strive to be good, then the author would know that such a fable is a fallacy. The wealthy don’t inflict science against the poor, rather, it is the vain progressive author that inflicts invention and singing upon the indigenous. Biological engineers create food that stores longer because milk will sour if not pasteurized, and food will succumb diseases if not sprayed, and strains have natural weaknesses that suffer and cause death and devastate people dependent on them.
But the worst danger is that the academic comedian will force the world to drink this vignette, and then ascribe the causes to the effects and the effects to the causes. It is the fundamentalist fanatic that is endangering food and the poor by attacking capitalism. Capital and monetary exchange are not evil and harming the world, rather the dogmatists that refuse to encourage the free market and favor insincere altruism are the forces that cause the ruin of the structure. Technology leads to freedom and fanatical rhetoric leads to nonsense. Nothing controls or monitors a population that refuses to be controlled or monitored. Money is nothing but an extension of the community, an extension of exchange between men and women, so that someone may eat wheat and another barley, so that another may share milk with someone who wants wine. Money is sharing and those who share the best, get more to share. That’s why they are called shares. Fanatics disdain profits because they are jealous that the educated descendants of Newton and Einstein refute the chief, because Galileo refuted the prevailing dogma of the day, because Copernicus started the revolution. The fanatic wants to end the real revolution, the revolution of liberty and the mind, the revolution of knowledge. The fanatic wants to keep the tribe in the cave, never to know why they see what they see, and never to realize the wise see because wisdom is sight, the sight of knowledge acquired by hard work. Men do not doubt because of the liberal arts, Simplicio, rather, they doubt because there is so much untruth in the fanatic progressive argument. Being holy and sublime is what every man who devotes himself to knowledge seeks when he works hard at his desk. What you speak of is a lie told to those who lack knowledge in order to promote animalistic obedience.