|
Conservatism, is such a gentle sounding term for a structure with such an terribly ugly face. Indeed, as its position on the matrix indicates, Conservatism is the unmanifest or causative from of Anarchy. However, it also some extremely subtle features that are not easily recognized as being an aspect of conservatism. One such feature becomes apparent through a type of art and music that characterizes romanticism and existentialism. It is a kind of art where beauty is derived from environmental factors that man is merely fitted into, whereas classical art begins with the beauty of the soul expressed in man, to which all else is secondary and subjective. Romanticism makes man subjective. In an environment of romanticism 'feelings' and sensory factors become primary, and the human intellect and its creative capacities, become secondary. Romanticism makes man subject to feelings and conditions, thereby shutting down the dominion of man that includes the capacity to control feelings intelligently, to create conditions as required, to dominate the environment establishing freedom, rather than bowing in subjection. Romanticism, may have a pleasant face on the surface, but it cruelly belittles man. It is definitely a part of conservatism. Its 'light' is darkness. Its 'knowledge' is death. Mary Baker Eddy describes it as, "Evidence obtained from the five corporeal senses; mortality; beliefs and opinions; human theories, doctrines, hypotheses; that which is not divine and is the origin of sin, sickness, and death; the opposite of spiritual Truth and understanding." This description is from the Glossary, where it defines KNOWLEDGE.
There is still another observation that one can make about conservatism, namely, that it is the foundation for much of the world's environmentalism. Today's (intentionally) abused environmentalism has pushed the status of man even lower than romanticism had done. The cry goes out today to save the earth from man, but the earth is not in danger. Man is in danger. The cry goes out to save the earth's mineral resources. But can these resources really be depleted? Even the space junk that floats in orbit around the earth eventually drifts back to the surface. Also, the cry goes out to save the world's energy resources, but why should we? The planet, at present, contains more energy resources than can possibly be used up in the planet's entire expected life-span of a few billion years. The cry goes out to save nature. But can nature really be saved in a low technology environment of creeping poverty? No, nature cannot be saved in an environment of poverty in which the resources for living must be taken from the land, rather than being produced by means of technological processes? A rich and productive environment, alone, can provide the resources through which the economic burden is shifted off the natural world as a resource for living, and onto a technological platform of resource creation by intelligent means.
Much of today's ecology movement is hypocritical. Those who cry against development and technologies, are likely to be the first to line up at the welfare offices, demanding to be supported from the proceeds of the very same development and technologies that they protest against.
Next Page
|| - page index -
|| - chapter index -
|| - Exit -
||
|
