« Juan Cole Wrong on Unconventional Warfare | HomePage | The Fourth Generation of Modern Peace (Nonviolent Ideoogical Net-Struggle) »
Thursday, April 21, 20051114130400
For Christianity and Against the New Style
"Reflection on a Comment"," by Michael Forbush, Dr. Forbush Thinks, 21 April 2005, http://drforbush.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/04/21/reflection_on_a_comment.html.
Forbush saw my lazy use of English, and he pounced
“Individuals can change. But the people (the mean of society, the "average man," whatever) does not.”
This means that the average of society remains constant. So, for every person who improves himself there is another poor bloke who falls from the grace of God. If this is truly the conservative philosophy it is very nihilistic. What is the point of trying to make things better? If this is the basic philosophy of conservatives, then no wonder they feel so selfish. “Get what I can for myself before I become the poor slob who looses everything” must be the conservative motto.
And he goes in for the kill
I wonder if this could actually be proven by some measurable quantity. So, we could look at some measurable quantities to test this theory. Lets look at education. Students are tested every year. If the conservative theory were correct there would not be any point of making this measurement, because it would always be the same. But, the point could be to point out which schools are on the extreme ends of the spectrum. But, based on this conservative philosophy nothing could be done to change anything on average. If you improve the education at the poor schools, then the better schools must slip into mediocrity. If you are still reading this I hope that you realize the absurdity of this statement.
And then wonders how this effects evangelism
But, maybe he is referring to ethics or morality. After all he is a self-proclaimed Christian and morality may be his only true concern. If this is so, then what is the point of Christian Evangelization. With all the effort in the world the average number of people who are going to be saved must remain the same. Why make the effort if you don’t believe that the effort is going to make a difference. Why not become a monk or recluse and make sure that you are going to be saved. After all the mean number of people who are going to be saved remains constant no matter what effort you make.
It's all mad worse by a question I answered, poorly
So, you agree that George W Bush is a drunken cocaine fiend that only has his self-interest in mind. He is average in intelligence and has extremely poor management skills. And to top it off he has no faith in God. Because these are all admitted to by George W Bush himself or documented in public record [sic, but the point is taken -- tdaxp]. If you believe that people can not change then George must be the same person he was...
I never said persons cannot change. But a New Style People will never be created...
So, to answer...
When I said that "the people (the mean of society, the "average man," whatever) does not" change, I meant their "virtue" does not change. People will always be as proud, greedy, envious, angry, lustful, gluttonous, slothful, etc. Individuals can truly change.. but rarely. Both Paul and Bush had the same basic personality they had before their conversions as afterwards.
But these "vices" can be controlled and sublimated. The conservative project is to do that well. Conservatives want to maximize happiness and minimize tyranny by attention to man's limitations. A New Style Man will never be created, be we can still build a future worth creating.
Christian Evangelism serves two purposes. First, it builds a system of horizontal controls. (Progressivism is especially dangerous here, because it attempts to destroy the old horizontal controls.) These create a safe society and preempt the need for vertical controls. Second, Christianity introduces a revolution in social affairs: loving kindness. This doctrine, created by Jesus and expounded by Paul, makes society kinder at the margins and saves us from the worst of horizontal pressures.
19:40 Posted by Dan tdaxp in Blogosphere, Connectivity, Faith | Permalink | Comments (4) | Email this | Tags: christianity, modernism
Comments
You claim that progressives are atempting to destroy the "horizontal controls" of society. You have defined horizontal controls as peer pressure and peer equal relationships as a means of controling behavior.
To counter this assertion I would point to the progressive movements use of "horizontal controls" to battle the health effects of smoking. This battle was opposed by conservatives, who at the time fought for freedom to smoke and to smoke where you want.
Through an extensive campaign of anti-smoking ads, and legal battles the movement was able to rid many places of this dirty habit. It has improved the health of millions and save millions of dollars in health care costs.
Or, is the right now claiming credit for this. Remember the new laws proposed by the right to limit these lawsuites that turned around society...
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | Friday, April 22, 2005
You are correct in your definition of horizontal controls. They are the use use peer-equal relationships as a means of controlling behavior.
The ad campaigns are a classic example of explicit horizontal controls. The hope is that these explicit horizontal controls will be internalized and they will become implicit horizontal controls -- that smoking will be "weird."
However, the anti-smoking laws and lawsuits are not horizontal. Because they rely on force and police-powers, they are vertical controls. And because the vertical controls have the effect of weaking horizontal bonds, they weaken horizontal controls. I don't smoke and hate to be around smokers -- I am glad for the horizontal sanctions against smoking. But the use of vertical controls to prevent smoking is a tragedy. One that certainly isn't "horizontal."
Posted by: Dan | Friday, April 22, 2005
Your definitions of horizontal and vertical seem strange. Vertical controls obviously are invoked to lend credence to and strengthen your horizontal controls. Obviously you invoke religion as a horizontal control, when it is obviously based on the most vertical of power structures. Religion claims that God made the rules over everyone even the Kings and Presidents. This would say that God is the ultimate in vertical control. But, then you argue about the virtue of Christianity:
"First, it builds a system of horizontal controls. (Progressivism is especially dangerous here, because it attempts to destroy the old horizontal controls.)"
I don't think that Progressives want to do anything of the sort. Instead they want to fix the system. The current system was created through evolution of the culture. This is why there are so many different types of horizontal and vertical controls in the different cultures that have existed throughout history. This is why some races and groups are treated differently, because the system is inherently flawed.
Progressives just want to fix the system and make it fairer. Obviously, Fairness is an ideal that may be impossible, but there are certainly flaws in the current system that can be addressed.
I don't know what your point is with smoking control not being a completely horizontal system. Obviously some vertical controls need to be used to change any horizontal control, because people don't think in group think as a rule.
Posted by: Dr. forbush | Monday, April 25, 2005
What is strange about my definitions?
Vertical controls are often used to strengthen horizontal controls. I think most of these attempts fail, though. When Spain and Iran forced religion on their citizens, the result in both places was mass faithlessnes. In the same way, even explicit horizontal controls (peers telling you that you "must" do something weaken implicit horizontal controls (where that behavior is just normal, and you don't think twice about it).
Organized Religion is a horizontal control because a peer (a human who cannot kill, imprison, or forcibly take your property) is telling you what to believe. You are just as free to tell that peer what to believe. Your reaction, and trust of, a peer (whether the peer is a "bishop," "priest," "pastor," "follower," etc.) is your business. It is a voluntary relationship. Your peer cannot force you to have faith ("trust in") their version of God. Only you chose who to believe.
You are right that all systems of horizontal and vertical controls have evolved. You are also right that they are imperfect. I would say that history has shown that attempts to rationally devise a system of vertical controls create more misery than naturally evolved systems, though.
My point on smoking is that both horizontal controls and vertical controls were used to change behavior. I was just emphasizing that both were used.
Posted by: Dan | Monday, April 25, 2005