Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Today I would like to draw your attention, dear reader to a series of comments that appeared in the comment box. These comments were responses to a post I did about the work that Dr. Curt Doolittle is doing at the Propertarian Institute.

Before I start, my intent is not to criticize anyone posting in my comment box. What is behind my intent is to make a wider point. That wider point is in essence that an individual, gifted with an average level of intelligent and a minimal amount of good will, can observe PROCESSES that are aligned, if not part and parcel of the same phenomenon.

Going into the specifics, yesterday the following comment appeared in my comment box:

Dialogue.
~from dia- “across” (see dia-) + legein “speak” (see lecture (n.)).
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=dialogical
Because that’s “dia-logic”. Right? – Peterson 2017.
What is this rubbish. It has NOTHING to do with logic.
Dialogic
adjective
1.of, relating to, or characterized by dialogue.
2.participating in dialogue.
“Dialogic learning is learning that takes place through dialogue.” -wiki

The Chruch does not ‘progress’ towards Truth, Holy Mother Church keeps it in Her Immaculate bossom and conquers to the four corners of the world.

This passage was in response to this that was written in the post titled Oh My! Real Dialogue Has Broken Out…:

The post-Modernists don’t believe in coherency, and I’m not making this up. This is part of their philosophy. They don’t believe in logic. You know, Derrida says straight out that Western is fallo- logo centric, by which he means male centered and privileging the idea of logic. Well, he doesn’t buy any of that.  He doesn’t think that there is a truth that is out there. He doesn’t believe that individuals can reach any sort of truth by thinking. He certainly doesn’t believe that we can move towards truth in dialogue. Because that’s “dia-logic”. Right? There’s none of that. 

So without going into the etymology behind the word “dia-logos” (Greek), nor the CONTEXT of Dr. Peterson’s point, i.e. that dialogue, just like the word logic, is a word derived partially from the term “logos”, i.e. captial “T” Truth, or as we say on this blog, the second person of the Most Holy Trinity, I would just like to make the point that these two observations are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, Dr. Peterson’s definition is by no means “rubbish”.

The larger point that I would like to make here is that what we are observing in this particular comment is a case where the Perfect has become the enemy of the Good.

Once again, I would like to make the point that THIS BLOG attempts to “chronicle” the Restoration. By the term “chronicling”, your humble blogger means: a chronological record of events; a history.

It is only when one understands that this blog “chronicles” a “process”, that one can then understand the proper “context” of that which is written here.

Furthermore, what in fact this blog chronicles can be described as a continuum. The reason being that it is along this continuum that a person moves from agnosticism or apostasy to the ONE TRUE FAITH. Now, this is not to say that everyone will reach the end goal, but then again, Our Lord told us that He has come to save Multis, not Omnes.

Now on to the chronicling. Two events that I have come across that are of interest and fall under the purview of this blog’s mission. On the Propertarianism blog, the following entry appeared yesterday:

Sovereignty at Scale

THINKING OF SOVEREIGNTY AT THE GROUP EVOLUTIONARY SCALE NOT THE INDIVIDUAL SCALE: LIBERTY OR FREEDOM

—“I think that [Doolittle] wants to incentivize cooperation within the group so that the group will succeed in its environment and in competition with other groups. In these situations, it does not matter whether individuals cooperate in order to benefit themselves or in order to benefit the group, and their justifications do not matter; the cooperation which allows the group to succeed matters (to us). I feel like I have missed a few details, so maybe someone will help fill them in.”– Brandon Vaughn

ANSWER:
Correct.
The western group competitive (evolutionary) strategy is non-parasitism, truth, high trust, to produce normative commons, the returns upon which – whether genetic, normative, institutional or physical capital – are greater than groups that cannot produce such commons can compete with.

Commons are the west’s competitive advantage. And we alone other than the japanese seem able to produce them at any substantial scale.

The reason that I bring this to your attention is that this OBJECTIVELY CORRECT observation about the significance of what Dr. Doolittle calls “the normative commons” is in fact that which goes by the Catholic term “common good”. Here is how we defined the common good in a post titled  The “Common Good”:

common good, which may “be shared wholly by each individual in the family without its becoming a private good for any individual family member”.

So why am I bringing this matter to your attention you ask?

Well, the answer is that there is a competing definition of what constitutes the term “common good” in… let’s call it FrancisChurch. And what is this novel definition, you might ask? Here is the passage:

that which, “though possessed by all as a group, is not really participated in by the members of a group. It is actually divided up into several private goods when apportioned to the different individual members.

Well, the above definition is that of a “collective good”. And who is this “collective good’s” main proponent presently?

Why it’s none other than Cardinal Reinhard “Bling” Marx, the Archbishop of Swank.

And if you dear reader go back to the Common Good post linked to above, you will find that the definition of the Catholic Common Good has “de-volved” into a FrancisCommonGood, and by strange coincidence (?) the Marxist “collective good”, and the manner in which it has changed, your humble blogger described as follows:

Concluding we can clearly see the complete and utter corruption of both definitions and language. I will leave it up to you dear reader to judge assess the degree of intent as opposed to the degree of ignorance of the cardinal.

So what is the point of the above, you might ask?

Well, the point is that an individual who cannot be considered a theologian, i.e. Curt Doolittle, using logic and reason, has come to a definition of what constitutes the “common good” that is much, much more in line with Catholic social teaching than a high ranking member of the post-conciliar NUChurch hierarchy and a member of Francis’ kitchen cabinet, i.e. the C9.

Which brings me to the second observation, also along the same lines. In the video above, a short monologue by Stefan Molyneux can be viewed. Listening to the subject matter of Stefan Molyneux, one notices that he uses a philosophical construct to explain why the state of the Middle East and Europe is the way that it is at present.

Notice how Stefan defines some basic virtues and then goes on to explain how it is these competing virtues, if understood correctly and used as the foundation of the US and European economic and foreign policy, would resolve the current crisis engulfing this region of world.

I will stop here, but I highly recommend the short view (12:00 minutes).

And one final question: why can’t one of the Catholic Cardinals say something along these lines?

Concluding,  what is of importance is to observe that individuals who do not consider themselves Catholics and have no theological background, make statements that are big “C” Catholic by their very nature.

Now, I cannot stress enough that these individuals did not come to hold there positions from a theological education and/or background. One of these individuals has a philosophical background while the other’s appears more grounded in the area of economics. Yet they both arrive at positions that are Catholic by definition.

So what one can say is that the positions that these two individuals hold might not be “perfect” from a strictly Catholic doctrinal point of view, yet they are objectively correct, i.e. catholic positions none the less.

And a further sign that the Restoration is on track, whether NUChurch likes it or not…

Advertisements