Banner Rotate

Logo by Julian Spanos

Antitheistic. Long. Perplexing. Offensive. Whatever.

Warning: This blog does not cater to your whims. If you are offended, then I am not obliged to care. It ain't personal until otherwise stated.

Random Quotes

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

So it begins...

The wandering few!: Hardly wandering! So leave 'em alone! Damn it!

The humid winds blow in the realm, lost between heaven and hell. Yes, this blog entry initiates from the forefront of an undisclosed locality, somewhere in the south-middle-eastern region. Ponder not, for it is not the chaotic region of Afghanistan, or the recently strong and ongoing religiously conservative techno plains of Iran. Nope, the locality will not be revealed, for the mere fact that many territories still have a so-called "dummy democracy," which is actually a concealed theocracy; therefore, a lot of religious laws. Clearly, the following will be considered somewhat blasphemous, so until I, Kade, don’t develop a death wish; or the general theocratic undertones don’t phase out for good, I will keep that information on reserve. However, this blog it self, will be as liberal and individualistic, as it gets.

Hell, this blog, is devoid of any regional ideology, or theological bullshit that a small but significant minority of the global population must have its face smudged into all the time. This is where the winds pick up pace, along with a massive rise in the unbearable humidity. This computer, this jurisdiction, is my jurisdiction, and the laws here, are those of my own conscience. Some may call it a hell, which I don’t take as an offence; but this, is a hell, that’s under positive initiative.

How many of you out there feel entrapped these days? You know, not quite here, not quite there. How many of you find your selves, floating nicely in your own orbit, when suddenly a massive fucking group of heavenly bodies surround you, slowly tearing you apart by their opposing gravitational pulls? I can bet a majority of you lot will feel that way when it comes to facing the different polarities in the real world. Of course, why the hell do many sociologists view the concept of “Pigeon Holing” in such bad light? Fuck, despite feeling a general way about things, one would not want a certain orthodox set of their preferential facets, painting over their entire profile. Yes, yes, generalisation is weak.

“Get to the point god-damn it!” some of you must be saying now, and I’ll apologise, but insist that this is in a very incoherent way, getting somewhere and perhaps this blog entry alone may not offer a productive conclusion.

As we return to the topic, we find out that not many of us like being boxed straight away, of course. However, sadly enough, there are three groups, that we’re dealing with in this rather general scenario. Yes, once again, a flawed grouping approach is taken, but it is the only option here. People generally; see two boxes for each allegiance: the moderates and the fanatics. I believe one significant, but rather strong minority is missed in this analysis, and that would be the damn “no bodies” in between.

Some of you may want to know how significant this group. Hell, it could very well unite with others of its kind from foreign cultures. Why? Because this group frankly, could not be arsed about one side or the other; one group or the other; one political/social movement, or the other. They don’t give a damn about anything, other than their own life-spans and getting the fuck along with anyone else they fancy a bit, and leaving alone those with whom there is no common ground.

Such a group “appears” to be having a ball of a time, taking on what many would consider a ‘simple’ approach. That is where a major “bullshit” subtitle comes into play, because it is anything but simple. This is where the moderates and the fanatics come in; they both support the same archaic following, but they claim to have completely different takes on that scripture. One argues that their interpretation of the script is accurate, and that there is no second-way to it, other than eternal damnation. While on the other hand, the other group claims to have an evolved an enlightened take on the scripture, making it worthy of being ‘imposed’ yet again. A quirky distinction without much of a difference. Therefore, with this deviation, the conflict between the two groups begins. So which side should one pledge their soul off to? One could cower in fear and back off; or try to box their personal observation and conscience, about the script. What the fuck? Is this for real? No it isn’t.

Do these two sides ever consider the fact, that some of these neutrals actually don’t want any of the scripture to begin with? That perhaps they’ve developed their own interpretation of it, and instead of accepting it to be fundamentally correct; they’ve instead, chosen to evaluate it against their own conscience that they decide to rely on far more? Do they consider that perhaps to some of these people, the scripture must compare well, and compliment their own moral conscience? Perhaps some of the individuals out there would much rather think for themselves, thus exude proper critical thought, a concept that has existed to bring about enlightenment within the human thought process. Why the hell do people forget about that? Why do they overlook the fact that a human mind doesn’t always follow a single manual set of instructions, and that it could very well piece together various aspects of its own past experiences and interactions, to forge its own custom perspective? Yes, I realize that this must feel like a barrage of rhetorical questions, and would very likely be getting on some of your nerves by now, patience please.

If there’s a perfectly healthy specimen of a human being, who fits a certain size of clothing, and that person were to end up with a larger size of clothing. What the hell does the person do? Gain weight to fit the clothes, or find a better size? Yes, yes, a poor analogy, but one that can apply. I see cockeyed book thumpers out there, claiming that innate moral conscience is only there because of archaic scripture, because of healthy religious values, and based on that premise, one cannot deviate from the script. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Can one not evolve, PAST the script? Even if scripture has played its part in initially restoring order to a once savage time, doesn’t mean that humans cannot utilize the much capable and competent, critical thought process to take the spirit of that very order, and evolve to levels beyond.

It’s part of evolution, of science, mind, and philosophy. Critical thought has always existed, and yet people find the idea of some few, relying on self-tailored judgement - dumbfounding and flawed. How so? Because the script claims that, there can be nothing beyond the script? Bull shit! Human psychological potential is radical and one void of any real practical limitation. One cannot tell a modern thinker that they’re incapable of thinking and conceiving for themselves; when clearly they’re demonstrating quite the opposite; exuding the most era relevant and current issues tolerant approach.

Is this an attack on the conventional fanatic religious right, vs. the moderate religious left? Perhaps, in a sense it is. However, it goes a little beyond that, because even the moderates, still abide by the script, with a mild view of social evolution, coupled with some needed thinking to somewhat accommodate that social evolution. Neither of the groups can ever truly satiate a truly individual mind; a mind that seeks to filter, splice and assimilate all forms of wisdom for its own self. Those wandering few in between don’t want any part of either side, because they don’t want to have external thought thrust onto them at gunpoint. For that matter, they don’t want a sugar coated, sober version of the same external through, trick-fed to them. They don’t want external script and thought imposed on, because they thrive on experiencing their own thoughts and growing to forge their own beliefs and conscience based on those experiences.

Look at the real world goddamn it. Agnostics, atheists, and dejected no bodies; are hardly pissing around. One hardly finds any of them creating ideological quagmires now do they. It’s funny how they seem so to go about their business in an archly fashion, yet cognizant to the greatest degree about their personal awareness towards the world. So let’s accept it, perhaps by scripture principle, which cannot change, because words on paper don’t transform with time; such individuals may be on the wrong path, but that they no longer desire, or need the guidance of any such script. If the static text condemns such people to hell, then they should be allowed to. Many of them are already aware of what’s on the paper, and have already embarked on that journey for their own personal reasons.

“We’re confident doing our own thinking. We don’t bank out composure and life span on some archaic manual of life. Despite these facts, we don’t seem to be committing any moral atrocities; so therefore, in our modern judgement, we’re doing just fine. Fucking fine, and dandy! Leave us the hell alone! Think we’ll go to hell? We’ll have a blast then, and be sure to send you a post card! Until then, Fanatics! And Moderates! LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE!”

Note: Stay tuned for the next rant, which will take place at a random time. Next time we’ll move past the internal ideological conflict between moderates and fanatics of the same ideology, into conflicts between different ideologies/cultures. Of course, as always, the neutrals, the agnostic nobodies, will be sitting back and laughing, while begging to be left the hell out of it on a cross-cultural level as well. Cheers.

No comments: