posted on Feb, 28 2009 @ 11:12 AM
"The Preterite and the Elect are and always will be separate. The preterite, the sleeping, the cattle, they're doomed. The irony is they will never
be able to understand the noble words you use and they'd tear you apart if you tried to make them see."
This is clearly your basic assumption. Unfortunately, it is an assumption which, as far as I am aware, has not been supported by either empirical or
a priori evidence. Nevertheless, you have developed for yourself a nice neat little ethical system in which you (who are presumably
"awakened") are the one who receives the most benefits from the system.
Of course, the fact that you receive the greatest benefits from the ethical system does not entail that the connection is not incidental. But if no
evidence can be found which can actually support your claim that some persons are substantially different than others, then this ethical system
ought to be relinquished as dubious in motivation.
So tell me, Manganese, why do you think that some persons are substantially different from others? My experience is not sufficient to warrant a belief
that there is a certain sector of society that simply cannot understand me. Though I have met dense and zombie-like persons, I have seen absolutely no
evidence that the zombie-hood is not caused by poor upbringing.
This substantial distinction between the awake and the asleep, of course, assumes an answer to the famous modern argument between nature and nurture.
If being asleep is all nurture, then there is no substantial difference between the awake and the asleep, and all persons can be awakened. On the
other hand, if being asleep is a natural state -- a DNA problem, if you will -- then the only the "elect" can be awakened.
So what makes this ethical system dubious?
Well, presumably one can only awaken if one is first asleep. Thus, the OP must accept that the "elect" and the "preterite" are in the same
state prior to the awakening of the elect. The difference between the two is that the preterite have no possibility of awakening.
How does one know the difference between a sleeping elect and a preterite? What if a sleeping elect person awakens when she is 80 years old? Suppose
that this sleeping elect woman lived a life of poverty and brutality, and when she finally awakened, discovered that she has been wrongly treated like
a preterite all her life. How will we justify the injustice we have wrought upon her for 80 years?
Manganese, what you are suggesting is a caste-system which is implausible. It is implausible for two reasons: (1) The distinction between "asleep"
and "awake" is defined by those who claim to be awake, but there isn't even agreement about who is awake and what it means to be awake at
all. For these reasons, your distinction is much too vague to build a plausible political system around. (2) There is no guarantee that the creme will
eventually rise to the top. The reason for this is that those who are awake do not know who are elect and who are not. Thus, they are vitually
guaranteed to accidentally treat an elect as a preterite. And this has been seen in the world today: banks and corporate behemoths regularly cheat and
mislead persons without even bothering to find out whether they are awake or asleep.
I'm sorry manganase, but the only plausible political ethics is one which assumes that all persons have the same basic capabilities, but whose
capabilities differ only in quantity, not quality.