This is a sort of rough-draft. A snippet of some writing fresh out of my pen, so to speak. I had to take a little lunch break after writing the last line that you will see here. I found it rather taxing to write it.. I think simply because at least as a rough-draft, it had great potential to be engaging. And...well, it's easy for me to write more abstract ramglings-on about "pure" philosophical thought. But to remind myself to return once in a while to the real planet earth and to speak about real matters and yet not get TOO engrossed in one scenario or issue by itself...well, that's a relatively new exercise in writing for me. And, as I suggested, at least as a rough draft, that kind of exercise is what I was laying the ground work for in this.
It doesn't necessarily have a large context. You may have to read it as if it were a quote taken out of some larger, unknown context. But...basically, I invite any reactions to it. In fact,
I think that's more or less why I'm sharing it. So...reactions or not, here it is:
For some government posts, it is made difficult for one who has been promoted to be demoted or removed from office. But the processes for attaining such offices too easily make use of the underhanded favors that one can do for those already holding offices above one. Or, the processes for promotion too easily prey on the levels of corruption to which one is accustomed - one's being comfortable with underhanded, "quicker" paths to promotion or one's being able to be blackmailed or intimidated into cooperating with such corruption. In other words, one does not enjoy special statuses by reason of one's virtue, but rather by one's potential or propensity to be corrupted "to a reasonable extent." This is the nature of government jobs, and
apparently, always has been that nature.
There is a mixed bag of goods in the government-job scenario. A candidate or heir-apparent to a particular government post, especially a post given a certain air of prestige, must be at least mildly compassionate with people's situations and at the same time willing to take advantage of those same situations of the people. Nowhere is there obvious precedent for a government official who completely repented his without also defaming the whole concept of government office. Even if a person were to remain in a government post of any kind whatsoever, the most honest thing he or she could do would be to utterly defame the
whole meaning and nature of holding a government office, so as to suggest that a relatively intelligent and mature world would not even have such offices.
It is also true that while we may not be willing to give up our own state-appointed offices, from which as we climb the ladder of posts, we will continue to make decisions which impact people's lives without even so much as their consent, and sometimes with even the intentional prevention of their knowledge. An honest, wise, and decently knowledgeable government official would be at least able and willing to speak of one's job for exactly what it is - an accepted office much worse than any office occupied by an officer of any private company. The people placed under a government
officials "domain" possess absolutely no decision as to whether to simply "quit," as can be done when a person is employed by a private company.
And, commonly, "quitting" a government, or defaming a government, or attempting an intellectual revolt against a government and/or its decisions is considered the equivalent of renouncing one's citizenship or committing some form of "treason." In fact, it can be argued that we are hugely tempted to give to armed revolts more respect than modern, non-violent and intellectual revolts, movements or arguments. We probably do so out of various aspects of the sheer power or sway that tradition has on us.
And it is funny, that for those with citizenship in the United States of America , such so-called "treason" is not respected, rather than defamed. A country so proud of its "independence" is, in the end, entirely too proud of its nationalism, if only because nationalism and independence do not go hand in hand. That is, one must ultimately take precedence to the other, for "one cannot serve two masters." Yet anyone stepping out to make use of this truth may be quickly or easily shot down with nonsense, but hardly ever with open reasoning.
Doubtless, it is very difficult to shoot down the concept of an ultimate independence of citizens, or a truly philosophical base for democracy, with open reasoning. Very difficult indeed. It is much easier, and it can well be argued to be absolutely necessary, to instead use force and defamation of character to tear apart the proponent of the message of truth, rather than to tear apart the message.
A battle waged against any relative truth (anything true within a given context) cannot be torn apart with reasoning, and must be torn apart with sheer force. Notice that the truth is not torn apart, however. The
speaker of the truth must instead be torn apart. The story of probably any religious, political, or other kind of philosophical speaker or messenger to a truth that should be incorporated into a people's actions in a given context, can attest to these principles. That is, the character or physical person of the messenger must be attacked rather than the message, when a given person or people do not wish to incorporate the message of truth into their actions.
The political processes as they have survived well into the modern world, and into the United States of America still follow these same underlying principles, in this great respect. When a truth is
brought to the table, wishing to be heard by its messengers, and that message of truth is not heard by others, the others must eventually take violent actions of force against the one who brought the message. And it can easily be noted at this point that the relative worth of a particular message is of no consequence, except perhaps in calculating how easy it should be to handle that particular message and act on it.
In other words, it cannot be argued that "we do not have time for your message right now." For this way of handling someone else's truth is the equivalent of telling the child who is growing up into an adult that "we do not have time to hear you out and thereby to help you grow. Instead, you must develop the concept that
this world is a cruel world, and that there will ultimately be no help afforded you in this world. You must make your own way, and no matter how compassionate you wish to appear, you must sooner or later take advantage of another person while pretending not to do so."
You see, it is the "pretending not to do so" part that is particularly objectionable. It is the part that is morally most wrong, and yet the part that becomes easily ignored, in the twists of government practice and inter-personal relationships in the world we see around us. Lying about what it is that one is doing is ultimately lying to one's self. It is not simply letting an untruth slip by someone else, in order to protect them. That understanding (that EXCUSE) itself is
a lie. Instead, lying is ultimately lying to one's own self...attempting to create a world that does not exist...INTENTIONALLY trying to make one's self the equivalent of schizophrenic or insane. It does not matter if a given lie is popular or common. If we were to say that a given type or example of "schizophrenia" were "common," would that make us more comfortable with that form of schizophrenia?
It is the same with mass delusion. If "the masses" are said to be honest delusioned, does it necessarily make the delusion any less real? Or, does the power of the mass delusion make the reality or truth of the situation any less true than the delusion?
But in answering these questions, we must call upon our sense of independence. And we in the United States may be glad to celebrated our "Independence Day," and to be the leaders in the world for those other countries who celebrate comparable days in their own calendars. But do we have the resolve necessary to celebrate the independence of the INDIVIDUAL? Do we have the resolve necessary to celebrate the principle of ultimate independence of our own SELVES?
Some say the reason we are free, is because armies are waiting to do violence on our behalf. Perhaps the reason we are NOT free is because we think we are in need of people to do violence on our behalf.