We have all been circling around the genesis of our society’s ills 状语从句since the COVID epidemic struck and the riots and peaceful protests began. It is not ironic 主语从句that everything happened seemingly at once; rather, 状语从句once the wound appeared, it became inflamed and infected almost immediately.
On the most fundamental level, we are suffering from a complete disrespect for boundaries. The idea of boundaries is fairly simple, yet its roots grow deep, indeed to the core of humanity. One of my favorite books describes the entire book of Genesis from the Bible as an ironic story about boundaries (The Book of J, Harold Bloom & David Rosenberg).
Genesis describes the boundaries of the land of Canaan, but it also explains the boundaries between neighbors, between enemies, between men and women, between tribes, and most importantly between God and man, Heaven and Earth. The boundary between God and man exists even for the atheist because his faith is rooted not in a divine being, but in something else. 主语从句Whatever it is that he believes in matters not. Science, anti-science, political ideology — something gives him sustenance, and between him and that ideal, there lies a boundary. It may only be his own misery he has faith in. That is enough to create a boundary.
A crude explanation for the need of religion is 表语从句that dogma explains boundaries to us in no uncertain terms. You can believe wholeheartedly in the right for women to have control over their own bodies, but you cannot say that by killing an innocent living human being, you have not crossed a boundary. So the argument is not 表语从句whether the boundary exists or not, but do you respect it? I can think of no prose 定语从句where a more fitting word has been chosen than in “forgive those 定语从句who trespass against us.” Trespass. The fact同位语从句 that this word was chosen informs you that its author was keenly aware of boundaries.
主语从句How we deal with boundaries is called “morality.” You do not need to be religious in order to adopt a code of behavior and respect for a moral view of the world. You only need to see宾语从句 why morality is needed.状语从句 As Jordan Peterson observes, even within packs and herds of animals, there is an instinctive morality 定语从句that is observed lest the pack turn on the outlaw. Mankind boasts a most sophisticated moral view定语从句 whose subtitles and gray areas have been adjudicated, been debated, and even led to war.
Our founding fathers understood the reality and the need for boundaries. They were tasked to create political limits among the branches of government and also to define the boundary between government and society. They could not make their population moral. But they could and did apply a moral code to their definitions. Those things 定语从句that protect the individual from the State were called “The Bill of Rights.” These rights derive from a commonsense notion同位语从句 that man is not the creator, but the created. 定语从句Whether you believe solely in evolution or solely in creation or something between the two, humankind did not create humankind. That’s common sense. There is a boundary between us and the nature of our creation. We did not create ourselves.
Therefore, the logic goes, there are certain things within the human being 定语从句that make him sovereign, and those elements are endowed through creation in us. They are not subject to state authority. They “belong” to the individual.
Most notably, the human mind is the sole property of the individual, given him by creation. We did not create our minds or our bodies. Neither did the government. This fact should be part of “gender studies” as well as “race relations.” Dialectic reason says宾语从句 that what comes from an individual’s mind — i.e., what he thinks — is therefore also a gift of creation. It cannot be taken or abused or stifled by the government. We call this “freedom of speech” 状语从句because 主语从句what we say reflects what we think.
Freedom of speech becomes freedom of the press. 状语从句When we shout down or cancel someone’s speech, we are seriously crossing a boundary. In the old days — say, two years ago — there was always someone to stand up for this right. “Let him say his piece,” we might say to a dissenter. “Then you can have yours.” Sadly, that is not the case today. Mob mentality is taking over.
Why do the feds usurp authority from the states, and why do the states demand of the feds, and why do people trespass on someone’s right to speak? Why does the Executive Branch make law 状语从句when the Congress is constitutionally assigned that responsibility? Why are so many boundaries being invaded, and why is trespassing no longer a crime?
The answer is obvious. We no longer respect boundaries. We have become that tribal human animal 状语从句before religion awoke us to the necessity of morality. The whole concept of existentialism rides on the concept of organized and lawful conduct. Some say “social contract.” Pick your terminology; say it how you like. The ends are the same. This society is fracturing at an alarming rate. Nothing can turn the tide 状语从句until boundaries are once again recognized and respected. There is no moral code without them.
There are other more powerful forces at work also. We call them Google and Facebook and Amazon, a dozen companies 分词定语seeking to strike down freedom of speech on the altar of their self-righteous narcissism. They are zealots, worshiping the ideological god of Critical Theory and insisting you repeat their rhetoric 状语从句lest you, the infidel, be canceled. They wish to control your thoughts.
This radical religion is devoid of wisdom from its founding presupposition. Critical Theory should deconstruct (their favorite word) its own thinking! 状语从句Just as the ego of a narcissist knows no bounds (by definition), Critical Theory does not acknowledge the universal fact 同位语从句that boundaries exist. Move over, Google — you’re crowding me! Why they wish to control your thoughts and opinions is anyone’s guess. (Power, maybe?) 主语从句How they are doing it is by algorithms, keywords, and the beginnings of artificial intelligence. What they are doing is crushing our right to hold thoughts 定语出价that do not confirm to their dogma.
Anti-trust laws were put in place for this reason. Monopolies by their nature invade the boundaries of other businesses trying to survive. They can manipulate markets and apply irresistible pressure on groups and individuals. It’s always the zealots 强调句who will not permit debate or dissension.
状语从句If we are to open our national borders and forgo immigration laws, we will no longer be a country. 状语从句If we no longer protect the citizenry from criminals by arresting them and prosecuting them, there will be no justice, no peace whatsoever. If we allow Big Tech to censor the digital world, there will be no intelligent debate or truth-seeking. Without truth-seeking, we have no education, no possible way forward. At that point, can we really call ourselves “civilized human beings”?
Follow Me 👉🏿
