Nihilism by Accident: The Choices America Has and Will Face

America, according to George Grant’s Technology and Empire: In Defense of North America has a primal aspect not seen in other modern countries today. There are various reasons as to why this is true but the “why” is only the beginning. A careful look at the examples and points made by Grant show not only where America has been and why it when down that path but also where it is quickly approaching. Each nation has its beginnings that are based on where its predecessors left off. That basis also counts for much of the reasons why a country acts a certain way and the choices it will make later in its “life.” America is different. While America had Britain as its “parent nation” it developed in land that was not yet tame and was based on a constitution that was not normative. For this reason, America, as it is racing to a crucial point in history in regards to its growth and technological advancement, must act wisely if it is to stay as innocent and optimistic as it has been the past two hundred years.

The Europeans of today’s world inherited a land that was already conquered. According to Joseph Conrad in his book Heart of Darkness, London has a heart of darkness but it is restrained by generations of civilization. The British from who we came, therefore, were masters of an already conquered land. They had had time to cultivate philosophers, theologians and statesmen on whom the rest of the nation can reflect and rely. These people, because of their distance from the heart of darkness, can contemplate many things, including the purpose for which they are here and the direction that will take them. America, on the other hand, has a much shorter history and therefore necessarily a lack of the contemplative powers that Britain and Europe as a whole have.

The early Americans had to conquer the land. The land upon which they landed was wild and untamed. The Native Americans in North America were not conquerors. They lived in unity with the land, an actual part of the darkness, just like the tribes of deep Africa in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. We were the first, then, like Marlow to enter and attempt to conquer the land.

The early fathers and pioneers of this country who were fighting the land and seeking to control it had little time to contemplate what they were doing and the consequences thereof. These men and women, being either from Europe themselves or the children of those who arrived by ship, were new to this “conquering” and were always coming up against new challenges. It is not to say that these challenges were new to mankind but that they were new to this generation of humans who, fresh from Europe and civilization, were ill-prepared to face the dangers incumbent to the primal darkness of America. This being the case, the early settlers knew they had little time to overcome these hurdles were they to survive. These challenges had to be met with action and application. There was no time for them to seek out a remedy or reason through contemplation. They simply just had to act.

One of the major advantages these pilgrims did have was their religion. The very cause of their split with England enabled them to face the land despite their conditioning in the civilized world. Calvinism, and in general, Protestantism, argues for a faith in which action is preeminent and application of that action is applied to everyday life. Britain’s Anglican Church, however, followed the Aristotelian tradition, a tradition of contemplation. While this tradition is useful and beneficiary to those who live in civilized society, it is entirely unsuited to a people trying to conquer and live in new territory. The emphasis on the application of religion by being proactive taught, or conditioned, the early Americans to apply industry rather than contemplation to all that they did.

Another enablement the early Americans had was the separation of church and state. In England, the king ruled by what is called divine right. In this tradition, the king rules because God himself ordained it. Therefore to go against the king is to go against God. This is important in that the first settlers then, according to European thought, were going against God himself by declaring independence from Britain. This type of religion, as you can see, placed strict restraints on progress. Monarchies in general are notorious for being guardians of tradition and very controlling and this effect is multiplied if one declares that they rule by an act of God, for to disobey any command would mean disobeying your Creator. The separation of church and state in America allowed for traditionalists to keep their traditions and status quo while at the same time enabling the government, politics, and the industrial revolution to charge ahead, free from the chains of traditionalism. In this way, the progression and advancement of technology became America’s “pseudo-official” religion, for it is truly with zeal that Americans have pursued advancement in every area of society.

Incidentally, despite this major difference between the two continents, we both seem to have arrived at very similar conclusions as to the end of man. Through contemplative thought and discussion, the great thinkers of European history have almost completely acceded to a nihilistic religion that believes the goal and end of man is to progress and advance in every way possible. The embodiment of this thought appears to have manifested itself in American industry. The relentless way in which America is constantly moving forward in all her enterprises would make one believe that we share the same nihilism that our neighbors across the sea do. Fortunately, for us, that is where the similarity ends. If one moves to a more than cursory look at the two nations, one can see that America’s nihilism is rather innocent and optimistic whereas Europe’s is exceedingly pessimistic in its outlook. America has been so busy conquering and figuring out ways to control its new land that it has not had the time to stand back and take a long look at the way in which technology, and the advancement thereof, seems to rule our nation. Britain, on the other hand, the civilized land from which we came, has had time to reflect. Its pinnacle of imperialism has come and gone and what is left is the knowledge of what all that industry does to a nation. Despite the tangled way in which the church and the monarchy co-exist in England, its industrialization won out in the end. The church had become commonplace, to the point where its restraints were no longer powerful enough to slow the progress of technology and its by-product, the religion of nihilism. England today can be described as post-modern or post-Christianization and the contemplative efforts of its contemporary thinkers have seen and judged that the imperialistic nihilism it sought and believed in is not truly the true end of mankind.

America, being so busy with the subduing of itself, had little time to notice the direction in which it was heading. All the challenges were taken head on and ultimately defeated by the action oriented beliefs of its population. This belief and religion of technology has thus far served and survived its people well. America, however, is quickly approaching the same point where, as in England, the people will have to decide where we go from here. We are not so far removed from the beginning of our nation that we do not feel the pull of the darkness that was so prevalent and now shackled. Yet, we are far enough removed that we now have the time to think contemplatively and in doing this we are entering known territory. In conquering the land, America did not have a readily available modern example to follow and therefore had to “fend for herself” in the first couple hundred years of its existence. The point we are reaching today has many examples in the European nations that we can follow because we are not too far removed from the time when they also had to make the choices and observations America will have to make.

Because we do have examples, one could allow themselves some ray of hope. We do not have to make the same choices as Britain did. The nihilism we have hereto followed need not be the same “religion” we follow until we too are considered “post-modern.” If we look hard enough, and the contemplators contemplate correctly, we can learn from our predecessor’s mistakes. We can look back over each “father” nation as we shape our decision and direction. We do not have to stand on our own two stunted legs. In history, America is truly a dwarf, not only in length of history but in the richness and fullness of it. Therefore if we ever hope to achieve that fullness, and perhaps even gain more or see further than our predecessors, we will need to pick carefully on which giant’s shoulders we should stand[1].

---

[1] John of Salisbury, in his Metalogicon, states, “Bernard of Chartres used to say that we are like dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, so that we can see more than they, and things at a greater distance…”

The One Good Question By Dio: "And your demons, do they ever let you go?"

This one's a good song by Another Black Day, it's called "Wicked Soul." Sometimes you don't need to write what you're thinking cause someone else has already said it.

"Here I am alone...
Broken by my ghosts.
Will They always haunt me when I'm drowning?

Shattered by my pride...
Married to my guilt.
And the road I walk is paved with sorrow

I've lost again
Dark days arise
Will I find the light?

Will you save my wicked soul
If I swear that I'll change my ways ?


Staring at my wounds...
That I once had closed.
Will they always burn me when I'm drowning?

Fighting for my pride
Try to shed my guilt
I've become a vessel for your torment.

I've lost again
Dark days arise
Will I find the light?

Will you save my wicked soul
If I swear that I'll change my ways ?"

Check this one out: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/11/beck.palin/index.html

Editor's note: Glenn Beck is on CNN Headline News nightly at 7 and 9 ET and also is host of a conservative national radio talk show.

Glenn Beck has some lines McCain can use in tonight's speech to articulate his vision for change

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Campaigns are ugly. Watching the way politicians act makes you long for the respect and self-control of the Sopranos. Throughout, there are legitimate attacks and outright lies.
Every once in a while, I get a call on my radio show from someone telling me that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim, who admitted it in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, and has a fake birth certificate. No, no, and no. As I tell them, there are legitimate reasons not to vote for Barack Obama, no need to make them up.
But the newest target is Sarah Palin. Let's take a quick look at just a fraction of what she has faced in her first few days as John McCain's choice for vice president.

"Sarah Palin believes God told her to go to war with Iraq!"
There has been some hard-core journalistic malpractice on this one. The Associated Press ran this headline about a speech she gave at her church: "Palin: Iraq war 'a task that is from God'"
In the story, they omit the first part of the sentence they're quoting along with the entire previous sentence for good measure.

Here are her actual words: "Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
Palin is clearly praying that we're doing the right thing in Iraq, something sensible for an introspective woman of faith concerned about the lives of our troops to do. She's not saying that she just received a text message from heaven's BlackBerry ordering her to launch missiles. Sorry to disappoint you.
And for those of you who think politicians asking God for guidance is offensive, might I remind you of this famous politician's prayer:
"Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will." --Barack Obama
"She has no experience!"
It's fair to assume that Barack Obama believed he was qualified to be in the White House when he announced he was running for president. At that point, he had been a U.S. Senator for 767 days. When Sarah Palin was announced as a vice presidential candidate, she had been the governor of Alaska for 634 days.
While I'm sure those extra 133 days were filled with personal discovery, I can't imagine anyone seriously trying to make the case that Obama is experienced and Palin isn't.
Unless, of course, you're Matt Damon, who said a Palin presidency would be a really "scary thing" because she has been "governor of Alaska for...for less than two years!" (Damon originally expressed his presidential preference for Obama in December 2006, when he had been a senator for less than two years.)
More importantly, Palin's career has been filled with executive experience. She's the only one of the four in this race who has run a business, town, and/or state (a state that gives her crucial energy experience in the middle of an energy crisis).
When Obama's campaign complains that Palin would be one heartbeat away from the presidency, they should consider that their candidate would be zero heartbeats away.
"But Obama is running a huge campaign -- Palin was just a small town mayor!"
Believe it or not, this one was actually trotted out by Obama himself.
"My understanding is, is that Gov. Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We've got 2,500 in this campaign. I think the budget is maybe $12 million a year. We have a budget of about three times that just for the month."
Apparently, Barack missed that she's become the governor of Alaska in the interim. Why would he compare his current duties with her former duties?
Well, since he announced his candidacy, Barack Obama has raised about $22 million a month. That's a large organization for sure, unless you are directly comparing it to Sarah Palin, who is handling state revenues that are about 61 times as large, or more than $1.3 billion per month.
"Palin only supports abstinence to be taught in sex-ed!"
This claim is usually followed by a super classy comment about her daughter and the use of contraception, but the premise is false. Palin hasn't said she doesn't want condoms discussed in sex-ed, calling their discussion "relatively benign."
"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that," Palin said. Hers is hardly an extreme point of view in America today.
"If she cares about children with special needs, then why did she cut spending on them by 62 percent?"
Actually, Palin almost tripled their funding in only three years from $26,900 per student to $73,840 per student.
Incidentally, the amount of government money you spend on a specific group doesn't equal the amount you care for that group, but that's another story for another column.
All of these represent just a small percentage of the bizarre collection of claims being thrown at Palin by her opponents and some in the media -- who are desperately hoping something will stick. I leave you with my favorite so far: The Internet rumors that she harbors racism against Eskimos. If true, she sure has a strange way of expressing it -- her husband, Todd, is half Yupik Inuit Eskimo.
To balance that out, she must really love his other half.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

Paper for my Colloquium class, got some interesting points if you've ever seen I, Robot

Still No Utopia

The Three Laws of Robotics in Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot were designed so that robots and humans may live peacefully side by side. Also, these laws were designed so that robots may be used as a tool to the human race and that they, humans, would never need fear having a robot around. Robots have no free will of their own. They are programmed with the Three Laws and can not follow any other command should it violate any of those three. The first and strongest law strictly prohibits any robot from harming a human or allowing harm to come to a human. Also, these robots can not act on their own outside the will and parameters set by the humans. Therefore it would appear that they would pose no threat to humans. Unfortunately, as we can see in the book, this does not add up to make a utopian society.

First of all, though robots are programmed to obey the three laws, there are, as with all machines, anomalies; malfunctions, if you will. These malfunctioning robots, either through a lessening or twisting of the first law, may cause harm to a human being. This is possible in that their “logic” has become twisted and they therefore think that they are actually following the three laws when in reality they are not. Even still, if there were no “anomalies” or malfunctioning robots, there still would be no utopia because humans are still are odds with and in danger of being harmed by other humans. Though we humans are like, more than we would admit, the robots in I, Robot, in as much as we can almost have a perfect society were we to follow the Three Laws of Robotics, we have not attained this perfection because despite being like the robots in many ways, we have some very major differences.

Our government was designed to protect the rights and liberties of the governed and in the course of doing so it created laws, not unlike the three laws, by which we are governed. However, because of free will, we must also have warnings and punishments. Robots do not need such things because the three laws are programmed in at “birth.” Humans, on the other hand, having free will, need this system of warnings and punishments to help dissuade them from using their will to break the law. These laws and warnings, however, are not “programmed” into us on the day of our “creation.” We learn these laws as we grow and we are “conditioned” to accept these laws as that which will keep us safe from harm and that which will harm us should we break them (humans have a very high degree and sense of self-preservation). While most humans follow this conditioning throughout the course of their lives, we still have, like the robots, “malfunctioning” members of society, or criminals. Through human free will, these criminals can break the laws of government, even to the point of injuring and killing another human being. Therefore another difference between humans and robots is that we find ourselves in need of a “force” that will protect us from these “malfunctions.” The forces that we need consist of two types: law enforcement and the military. Though these two types have different areas of responsibility, they function the same in regards to the execution of laws laid down by the government.

Now, there are three types of humans. Those who are “normal”, which we will call “sheep”, as in they obey the laws set down by the government and go quietly about their lives. Another type is the malfunctioning human, one with psycho-sociopathic tendencies, which we will call the “wolf”. This human has no regard for government’s laws or the sheep that follow them. It will break the first law over and over again without remorse until it is stopped. The third kind of human only makes up approximately three percent of humans. These humans have what is called aggressive psychopathic tendencies and are who we will call “sheepdogs”. These humans, while not ever harming a sheep, will not think twice about injuring or killing a wolf, especially when other sheep are involved. The third type of human is that which is needed for the law enforcement and military. The reason the sheepdog is preferred is that it already has the tendencies needed to be successful in such a “force”. Law enforcement and military personnel need to be reconditioned so that they know for whom and when they are allowed to break the first law. Sheepdogs, simply by nature of their psychopathic tendencies, already have a potential for this type of conditioning. They already know that they must protect themselves and the other sheep, since the sheep won’t protect themselves, and that they must seek out and contain or destroy the wolf. In a sense, you must teach these humans wisdom, a faculty not available to robots. A robot may reason but, just like his actions being controlled by parameters, the extent of his reasoning is limited by his programming and what information he is fed. A robot is a logical machine that only deals with hard facts while the human is a logical and reasoning being that can also deal with a wide range of illogical and emotional facts.

Therefore, though we humans are akin to robots, our differences are so vast that we can not completely function as a society based on the same Three Laws of Robotics that the robots must obey. Both societies start out with the same premise, that there must be laws to govern and protect the people, but we must go about it in very different ways. The very things that set us apart from the robots, our free will and ability to deal with and reconcile ourselves to impossibilities cause us to govern ourselves in such a way that there can never be a perfect state. But then again, as is always said, what can be perfect when you are dealing with humans?