|
Let’s start out at the finish, and work our way back to the
beginning, by talking about the intended result of a strictly progressive
secular approach to human life as a standard.
Have you ever watched the movie, IQ, in which Walter Matthau plays
Einstein? To get an insight into my nature, regard me as equivalent to the
person who played the auto mechanic in that movie: He suffered a
long-term, deep general interest in science but had no schooling beyond
what he could read on his own. He loved cars; I love
bicycles (and Mama Lou, of course). He
had the kind of brain that could figure things out, and so was an
excellent mechanic filled with wonder about Nature and the universe. He
got onto trouble because of that, and because of getting smitten by Albert
Einstein’s niece. I get into trouble with people for very similar reasons,
whichever side of an argument they support. It seems I am always off
questing somewhere, looking for what both sides are missing. I discovered
a long time ago that's the secret cause of most arguments.
Although it seems oxymoronic, because of my reputedly outlandish take on
things, I could as easily be deemed a conservative progressive as to be
politically identified by any other terminology, for so long as we
Americans seem to deem labels so necessary for finding our way through
life. Like any other progressive person, I regard strict conservatism as
being regressive and against human nature.
On
the other hand, according to my conservative side, those called ‘liberal’
well earn that name by appearing to throw public money at problems while
hoping they work themselves out. Like Dubya and New Orleans and the rest
of his agendas (Faith based: "Give 'em enough of other people's money, and
have faith in how that will solve all the problems Americans face). The
liberal approach to government appears to spawn greed, laziness and laxity
in the beneficiaries their various government programs support, while the
conservative approach would have us reverting into living in caves and
driftwood houses perched high up in trees. (Conservatives are too dumb to
know the difference between Liberal and Progressive). Under pure
liberalism, everybody would become paupers and creativity would be buried
under a heap of papers. Under pure conservatism, a small group of
especially aggressive and mean-spirited folks would own the rest of
humanity– body, breath, and life – and we would be tilling the earth with
hand held sticks in their support.
Under either, creativity would die and science would end. To me,
constructive creativity is the most important element of the human spirit
and must be kept alive because it is the only thing to stand between
zestful, happy, natural humanity and a hopeless, helpless, torpid humanity
devoid of all that makes us unique in the animated world. I have,
therefore, devoted this website to the ideal of Creative Freedom and
everything applicable to that transcendent, nurturant concept. All that I
write, my music, and all that I draw with my art programs, tends toward my
support of that. I have stolen the name "Progressivism" back from the
Liberals (to whom Conservatives donated it) to use as a handle for that
kind of ideal.
While conservatives lean toward a control-freak ‘strict father’ sort of
political model and liberals seem to prefer an altruistic approach to
human deficiencies, I often wonder why both sides work so hard to avoid
the application of science to the problems we encounter getting through
life, and solve them and so put an end to all this kind of discussion. For
instance, why not do trials of various programs to see what
actually does produce the best kinds of human beings, or to even attempt
to discover exactly how to describe such beings? Why not try to discover
exact reasons for why some programs start out with such idealistic
intentions and then fall flat. What are the hidden agendas on both sides
of such questions that end up promoting avoidance by their conflicts,
rather than aggressive campaigns to discover whatever is true by hashing
out programs aimed to accomplish just that?
It
is to discern and propose answers to such questions that I distinguish the
term ‘progressive’ as different from ‘liberal’, in that progressive
advocacy should take a more scientific approach to human concerns than do
either liberals or conservatives (as the only real way to discern and
define 'progress'). That is to say, both of those are more philosophical
than scientific, in that their stances are hypothetical in their nature.
As a Secular Progressive, I uphold the ideal that natural science is the
source of all true knowledge and the only source of verification about the
efficacy of governmental edicts and laws, all of which should be based on
conclusions drawn from investigations of Nature.
Secular or not, Progressives tend toward a nurturant philosophy, rather
than altruistic. The approach used by liberals, more often ends up
smothering than nurturing, however, whereas a strict conservative answer
would be to develop programs designed to abandon and starve the needy
subjects while profiting from their anguish.
Neither side, to my observations, actually promotes a better, stronger
kind of humanity. The liberal answer to human need has been such programs
as welfare, universal free health care, or Social Security
under which government provides for the needs of recipients who meet
whatever qualifications those programs impose.
Conservatives complain that such programs are giveaways of public funds
to undeserving, unproductive people. That there is an arguable element of
truth in such a view ought not to lend approval to their tactic of simply
pulling the rug out from under those who have become dependent on such
programs for their very existence, or those who are made helpless by their
circumstances. What would I rather they do?
To
start with, let me acknowledge special cases always persist. Those would
be people who have been rendered immobile by the circumstances and events
of their existence. Those would be people without the physical and mental
capabilities that cause us to consider them normal and healthy. Those are
people we would support even under the most conservative regime, because
very few of us would choose to have them put to death, nor would we allow
them to starve. Those are people we, Americans, would fully support and
not expect anything from in return, no matter what political school we
would align with.
To
go from there and get to where we ought to go, let me also acknowledge
there are numerous people who may be borderline cases, who have become
incapacitated in many ways that limit their capabilities but do not render
them entirely helpless. They may be partially paralyzed, crippled, or
missing limbs or organs that render them confined to beds, wheelchairs,
crutches or canes, or simply cause them to be very slow or almost
immobile, but whom our current approaches have doomed to lives of
unproductive aimlessness and boredom. Some may suffer various mental
disorders of the sort that once were thought to be possessions by demons,
or that cause them to suffer from conceptual or learning disabilities.
Maybe they are simply, like myself, advanced in age and so diminished in
many capacities. Should all of these be simply fed, clothed and housed,
but otherwise confined or left to aimlessly wander the streets? What would
be the most nurturant approach we should use to deal with these people?
If
we keep creativity in mind as the highest element of humanity, whatever we
do ought to be whatever best promotes that. We must always realize, of
course, creativity is not limited to artists. Creativity applies to any
effort aimed at putting something where it never was before, even if it’s
only something so small as a thought within a mind. Any constructive
improvements in our world result from application of creativity, even
something so finite as self-improvement. Creativity spawns constructive
enterprise; and that, in turn, spawns riches and wealth in all the myriad
ways we humans recognize the fruits of successful ventures. The aim of a
nurturant approach to human problems ought always to be promotive of
creativity in whatever form it appears, and a spreading and enhancement of
the ability to deserve and earn wealth.
And
that, then, is the role of science in a nurturant culture: not to set
standards, but to test and gather data to assure all the nurturant
approaches taken are those with the greatest potential of a positive
result, so that those which might sometimes become counter productive
might be avoided, and so we might always be made aware of how to make the
best choices. Genetic testing might yield many answers, once the knowledge
and experience has been gained so they could be correctly applied. Testing
of IQ, inclinations, aptitudes, and so forth ought to be leading
indicators of what any person could apply him or herself to for maximal
all around potential. We don’t have much of this now in our societies.
What we do have seems hokey, no matter who has been at the helm. Except
for those with already the wherewithal and inclination to pursue it on
their own, self-interest has been mainly stifled except for some small
pockets where its application has been partial and spotty.
The
nurturant approach to a maximally creative and productive society, then,
would be through science-guided education. Data collection and results
evaluations would be ongoing to assure its continued success. Too many
roadblocks, set up by all the kinds of vested interests imaginable, work
to stifle any attempts toward this ideal situation in our societies, some
of which seem, in themselves, to also be majority-supported ideals.
What brings wealth? To know that, we must learn to recognize what
constitutes abundance, which is far more than money, although money is
mainly included but only as one source. What else confers abundance to a
society? Synonyms for material wealth include a society's assets, capital,
means, resources, financial resources, money and cashable possessions, and
effects. Effects includes not only the portable valuables individuals may
cherish, but also the internalized effects made obvious by comparing the
squalor of confinement to poverty against the relatively unencumbered
freedom, security and zest for life inherent to a healthy sense of
goal-oriented plentitude, and all the kinds of internal joy long
associated with spirituality.
Morality is discussed and measured in wealth and fair trade terminology.
Wealth, then, is a result of morality derived from concepts of free and
fair trade (only free trade can be fair). If that is true, then whatever
is most moral ought to be chosen for those who hope to maximize wealth,
not only for individuals but for groups, including the smallest and the
largest, from a consensual couple all the way up to groups of nations. The
practices resulting from mutual nurturance ought to be obvious as the most
moral humanly possible, and highly productive of all that represents
wealth to a wiser humanity.
Distracted by constant bickering between left and rightwing interests, we
lose sight of the only true morés to have ever been presented to us, the
morality wherein we watch after and nurture one another for our mutual
gain and satisfaction, and the resultant gain that benefits all of
mankind. In Nature, no gods exist; no matter how hotly that might be
contested; the contests amount only to wistful words without evidence to
back them up. Without gods, morality must be found within the natural
workings of human nature, for no other source exists. Human morality
exists only as supported by nurturant leadership, a poorly understood
concept not currently in vogue, but which must adhere to certain
principles.
Nurturance can be neither smothering nor abandonment; both are immoral to
progressive ideals, and both are central to the kinds of practices our
society has endured over the past half century. All members of our society
should be tuned to their abilities and limits, in the directions their
inclinations take them, mentally and physically trained to be the best
they can be at their distinct occupations and interests. They accomplish
that by training their talents, not stifling them, as so many ways of
applying ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ philosophies have led most of us to
do.
The
control-freak "strict father" does not allow his followers room for
thought or choice, but demands adherence to his rules and desires with
unwavering focus. His focus appears to be on freedom, but much of what he
requires runs counter to that. Choices are limited to the "strict
father’s" control-oriented design, and to the self-preservation instinct
inherent to the resultant impoverishment of his followers, who are kept
too busy scrambling to worry much about security and freedom, both of
which are gained by "doing right" and "doing without" according to a
prescription.
The
well-intentioned liberal does not support individual initiative and much
prefers team efforts over "unproven" controversial forays into the world
of daring-do. His focus is on ‘security’, but much of what he requires
stifles personal growth except in an academic fashion. Liberals will gain
their sense of freedom and security within an intellectual environment
such as those offered by university settings, or within science research
and developmental fields where they get schooled in the fundaments of
Nature but become known as air-heads by their rightmost counterparts
because of their inexperience with real life in the world, "… as God made
it."
Nurturance results from scientific knowledge, rather than hypotheses.
Nurturance requires a set of well-understood values in order to function,
just as
1mytholistic
"strict father" adherents have known and practiced for decades
(perhaps millenniums). Nurturance may be a rather new and very American
concept, or is at least very poorly developed due to discrediting by those
who feel it threatens their vested interests. We can safely assume that to
be responsible for its poor performance in comparison with its promise.
While "strict father", requiring not much more than a control-oriented
doctrinal approach, is rather simple to deploy, nurturance requires a high
amount of education in subjects still very poorly understood (and the
understanding of which is too often undermined by Orwellian dogmas),
especially among the common folks who have the most to gain from it.
Nurturance gets called "communism" and "socialism" by the rightwingers.
Nurturance is far from communism or socialism; it may, in fact, be a
fiscally more conservative doctrine than the most fanatical rightwinger’s
fiery mind can imagine.
For
nurturance to function, deleterious poisoned dogma must be eliminated
throughout society. Harmful dogma has always functioned to minimize human
freedom and the creative spirit. Harmful dogma does not only originate in
our churches, but is also inherent to much of our corporate structure, and
to the many vested interests at work all around us.
Recognizing that will allow nurturance to function by enabling its tools
to become commonly available. Those tools are provided by a good, secular
educational grounding in language, math, and science— the "Five
Rs", reading, writing, arithmetic, relationships and reasoning, all of
equal importance, and all of which will build on each other.
Reading: A solid foundation in human linguistics
not only enables a grasp of sometimes esoteric concepts and an ability to
learn new subjects, it increases the range of thought available to
individuals and groups. Persons well-schooled in grammar, spelling and
punctuation will find subject matter now deemed to be "hard" and
mystifying has become easy to understand. Such persons will also spot
errors in text that lead to false logic, and so will be harder to
manipulate by those with questionable intentions.
Writing: Reading does not automatically lead to
great writing. Holding a reader’s interest is a skill that can be taught,
to be sure, but the ability to express one’s thoughts without obfuscating
their meanings requires experience and practice. Grammar that makes
reading materials obviously correct becomes a stumbling block to a writer
just learning to apply it to his own work, and great spelling gets lost
among the flying fingers tangling their way around on a keyboard, as does
punctuation.
Arithmetic: Math enables conceptual thinking
that cannot exist without it. Math, combined with a good grounding in
logic, enables one to spot the fallacies inherent to much of what passes
as creative thought. Math also provides direction in scientific research
by enabling a form of proofing that does not require a material presence
in order to verify a concept. Math eliminates much of the necessity for
trial and error approaches to many elements of our existence by enabling
us to figure ahead of time what will work, what will not, and how best to
configure and lay it out for actual testing.
Relationships: A ‘no-no’ in polite discussions
under our current standards, human relationships of all kinds must be
taught to every student beginning at their youngest ages. First, though,
adults must learn to understand the how’s, whys and wherefores about
natural human beings in a purely secular society. Such elements as
compunctions and all the various fears must be addressed, their sources
made known, and their necessities assessed according to whether they
enhance and stimulate healthy relationships, or actually work to prevent
them. All that should result from a careful experimental science rather
than hypothetical notions set forth with trepidation.
Reasoning: The ability to figure things out will
grow out from all of the foregoing, plus a carefully nurtured environment
that spawns freedom of thought. Where one is well aware of the natural
consequences of most potential actions, one schooled in reason and science
can extrapolate the consequences of unfamiliar activities and devise safe
experiments to verify his results. A long passage of time in a purely
secular setting will enable a human culture to gain the experience
necessary to eliminate the need for most such experiments.
Morality, in a nurturing society, becomes a matter of mutual care for
other human beings, to which concern for the environment and the future
become automatically attached. Nurturance implies growth and increase.
Whatever would work against that would be, in a progressive secular
society, deemed immoral almost by default. Much of what we consider normal
under our current standards would fall into that category, in almost every
aspect of our existence. Individualism in a nurturant society would result
from a realization that each person must maintain himself in the best way
possible in order to enable the ability to care for others.
The
raw individualism inherent to "strict father" approaches, and the
smothering inherent to the purely liberal, would be deemed immoral for
sending someone out into the world without adequate tools, preparation,
and support. Rather than ‘rightwing’ and ‘leftwing’, let progressivism
represent the full-bodied, wholesome approach to human living. Why
halfhearted when an approach based on the whole person is required? Our
freedom is at stake, here.
|
More |
| HOME |
|
![[Visit Maeka]](../images/DMmaeka005[1].gif)
