Monday, 4 May 2015


Alas we have come to the time where political discussions begin and our true natures are exposed!

I must first say that American politics confuses me to no end. I reject the idea of a two party system, it's atrocious. I do not, however, reject unity among people that is strong enough to potentially lead to a two party system? (Perhaps that's idealistic logic, but I'll give my naivety in this topic and the nation that I call home some benefit of the doubt.)

In terms of economic affiliated terms such as "capitalist" and "socialist" I'd fit strongly with the latter. I do not believe that either of these theories/methodologies are ontological. There are a lot of implications on metaphysical claims (which I find most fun to discuss) in both. A separation of market and the Will of a person in choice, the ability to strive for one's own Well-being together as a community is a strong argument for capitalism. Unity among diversity, a common goal so strong and the knowledge, as a whole group, that Life is present in such a powerful way that there are certain things much more important, worthy, and priceless than money can buy or offer on the market. This latter statement is not a necessary argument for socialism, in fact, socialism is often anathema to diversity. This ought not be the case.

I'll bring it back to American politics with a bit of Aristotelian zest. Consider our duties as citizens, whichever class we occupy and whatever frame of mind we have--contrarian trolls or Enlightened and supportive poets etc etc all influence the wonderful invisible whole, the nation. What's wrong with the statement here? The nation is not a powerful enough word to describe what our link to unity ought to be. It is a long stretch to state that therefore the phenomena as politics as we know it is false: I am critiquing the lust over the ideas of contracts. This critique goes against both "Statest" socialism and capitalism.

The lust for unity in our most recent history has been for contracts. If it is penned down then it is legal. If we have agreed then it then is in stone and it will never change (unless it goes through its own rigorous process....) The allusion to the Ten Commandments is misleading because the symbol of fire on stone and the laws that are Divine are more powerful than those agreed upon by humans.

No. I am not creating a duality.
No, I am not claiming a theocracy. What I mean by Divine is the precise nature and Life that can bring Satisfaction to sentience, the future, and our present. I have no idea what this sort of Life may entirely entail but it I know for a fact that the words I just wrote would not show up in common law.

Love is a powerful influence in law, justice, mercy, the rest of it all have their pendulum sways in historical moments, yet which wins?

Deep within us there is obligation that we did not choose. We have been chosen to have been given power through, by, and with Nature, therefore we cannot bastardize her.

Our laws and the contracts that we build with ourselves are good as long as they know their own misfortunes and misgivings. No law is perfect and no person should believe such a thing. Law, as us, changes and shifts, molds and bends to odd times, and in strength of Compassion, hopefully to "good ends." But if it fails us, if we fail ourselves, we must continue onward. I am thankful that there is no other choice.

Coming back to American politics. Ideally, if Bernie is capable of defending democratic socialism and pointing to Life and doesn't sell out, then good for him.

I hope, more so however, that the mainstream eventually truly catches onto Mercy, Love, Forgiveness and the rest of those wonderful things.

Best Wishes,
Denis Kurmanov

No comments:

Post a Comment