Telling someone Jesus loves them when they are suffering and could easily be helped but aren’t helped because they aren’t part of the christian community and the christian community wouldn’t help them an ounce because they are judgmental or assume that the person who is suffering and in need of help is wholly at fault for their predicament is a sick act of inhumanity that ought to be criminalized with penalties worse than that of murder.
It is an overwhelmingly common act.
It makes one wonder whether Jesus or his followers actually care about saving the world or whether they even have the remotest slight of comprehension of what saving the world even means. Scientology proclaims to be the synthesizer of scientific knowledge with religious wisdom, and in their television programs appear to do a great job with it.
It has been twenty years since graduating university in sociology…and though I was young at the time and not really concerned with anything but obtaining a degree, the two decades of reflection have been enlightening.
Specifically, it is a ridiculously underutilized realm of science, obscured and diminished by a society that, in its freedom, does nothing significant out of utopian idealism and rarely acts out of selflessness. The majoritarian thoughtforms and constructed dramaturgical arena of modern life have put that truth on full display.
It is blatantly obvious that capitalism and the preeminence of money has been responsible for the genesis of our social order…for its crafting of the stage, time, setting, background, of our entire drama. Human’s entire identities revolve around it. It is the source of social construction. Nobody can reason against the notion that money plays a central role in the psyche of every single individual human on earth anymore. It’s there…its everywhere, in everything.
Where it reveals itself as fallacious in forms that can be ignored, it is ignored. Where it reveals itself as fallacious in manners that can be blamed on others, it is. Where it reveals itself as fallacious in manners that cannot be blamed on others, it is justified as a necessary ill to a greater good. Where it reveals itself as fallacious in manners that affect others negatively, it is compensated for, if and only if, the law requires it, autographed by non-disclosure agreements. Where it reveals itself as fallacious in manners destructive to the sacred, it has yet to reveal itself to its perpetrators.
All that aside, we simultaneously have created a major revolution of data. We know this is attributable to the motivations of capitalism, as information is the most valuable thing in the tangible world. But what about how data is used, organized, and described. How data is understood. Before data is even gathered, how is it determined what information is sought and from what and whose perspective. Why?
Since statistical data is given attributes in the form of language, representative of subjective forms of thought from existing individuals and social institutions, Rantangent suggests that increased data accumulation can create disruptive fairness to natural order. Information assymetries are the primary creation of this, but disruption in the psychic ontology in natural actors is more apt to describe the dilemma.
In reality, it is the fact that money and capitalism always dominate. So, for example, if some social data acquired shows some increase in petty theft among women and increased female incarceration, this data can’t be used to reconfigure society in very many manners, because nobody is going to say a company like Target shares social responsibility to prohibit them from prosecuting theft against them. Interestingly, nobody will either question the entire game of monopolistic life created whereby money systems are implemented, unfair advantages are capitalized upon, the means and modes of production are centered around victors hegemony, and the diminishment of earned-access opportunity as a result are not something the victors should have any authority over.
They were actors in a pre-determined stage…the director and producer should have maintained authority over the game.
The Earth is finite, so what happens when the entirety of it is in perfect control by the currently dominant systems that proclaim their narratives as righteous? What happens when the entire Earth is under the domain of the ways of Western philosophy? Its gotta be damn close, if not an open and shut case already…and it feels utterly atrocious, depression, and wrong on a moral level Christ himself would weep in weakness over.
Statistics about incarceration in the United States should reveal a place inside people that don’t merely address criminalization of various acts, but criminalization of human existence, about the concept of authoritarianism—not in Nazi-like forms, but general claimants of jurisdiction and justification of systems as proper when they have clear power structure problems and obviously driven to protect capitalist order—as plainly wrong.
Technology has been used to implement policies that effectuate this inequity. Technology is how data is utilized and constructed, and its used to catch perpetrators against the narratives of justice.
I’ve been a big believer my whole life of leaving people alone, to not upset nature, and draw fair lines between my soul and the world is travels through. Alan Watts once suggested that the best way to protect the world’s natural order is to leave it alone, with the example of trying to tranquilize water turbulence by dragging ones hand across it to smooth it out.
The actors behind the construction of American’s dominant institutions have been very proactive in creating otherness.
It is for these reasons, as I suggested earlier, social sciences develop more of a respected role in our society. To assume the only jobs for sociology grads is as counselors in junior high schools is like assuming computer engineers should all go work at Texas Instruments making calculators. In actuality, the social sciences, if endowed, could more effectively get humanity on a utopian track than any other realms of thought considering our current predicaments.
For example, we all should know that directed efforts based on highest understanding are key. So often, we devote time and energy to resolving an issue, as we see it, when the true problem could be negated far further along the chain of life events. It would be a waste of energy to state fund counseling programs at $3M annually if, for a single endowment of $1M, we could diminish a stigma that is the sole contributor of whatever has been requiring said counseling. Further, utilizing established institutions for free, beats establishing new ones at a cost. While this doesn’t create new bullshit jobs for the friends of an advisor to the governors office, it does make for efficient economization of utopianism. Get it? Money and utopianism are incongruent. My point is made…again.