Comradette Pamalinsky,
I must here point out that when I typed the following, I had only read up to Mr. Solzhenitsyn's “…Western society expanded in a triumph of human independence and power. And all of a sudden in the 20th century came the discovery of its fragility and friability.” Since typing the below, I have read all of his piece, and his description of Western bureaucratic ineptitude and cowardice is indeed prescient in describing 0bama and his “lead from behind” style of “governance”, where he is petty and bold and dictatorial over our citizens and those who were once our friends and allies, yet petty (Oh! Commonality) and meek and limp and apologetic to the remainder of the world, particularly those who mean us harm. Mr. S. also correlates these broader elements which pervade our society with our weakening will leading to our downfall. Also we see we have moved in the opposite direction of unlimited “freedoms” as “our” (actually its own for its own power) government now tamps down not only individual rights, but also individual initiative and creativity. So once again, we become a people who have “progressed” to a common repressive and controlling (for our own good, of course) government with little to differentiate it from the governments of the rest of the world, trudging along a well-worn rut in a doggedly repeating theme weaving itself throughout all of human history.
I do not believe Mr. S. would disagree with my statements on the former USA, and I like to believe he might even agree with my further observations on various philosophies, which content he touched on (though in different fashion) in his speech. Yes, these are philosophies which were prevalent when Mr. S. spoke, and prevalent today, but why? Why do people believe what they believe? Why do we do such a good job of making things bad for ourselves? While I will not attempt to expound on the root cause here, this may be a good forum to touch on some of the beliefs and assumptions which fuel the philosophies, and those beliefs and assumptions hint at their root. Also I mention the solution, which we know will not see its fulfillment until some very scary (more so than all of history has provided) – for some – events occur. So here they are for your consideration, and I hope you find them worthy of comment:
Though I am posting this in a public forum, it is chiefly for your eyes, as I know you will understand the premises. However, I post it here because if even one additional viewer can glean benefit from it, the posting will be worthwhile.
Thank you for sharing the link to this delightful speech of Mr. Solzhenitsyn. It is inspirational, and no doubt he would be pleased that there are those of us who find it so. I initially contemplated his words about society, and then found my thoughts wandering more broadly. I'd like to share them with you, even though I did not give myself the benefit of reading the remainder of the speech, so if what I say is redundant to Mr. S's words, please forgive me; I am only being true to my handle if I fall into that trap.
In bringing Western values to the people of the (in some cases former) third world, their situations improved, as long as their autonomy was maintained (that is, they were not made captive territories of the West). That is the unique gift of the United States. We brought improvements to lands we reached out to, and in turn those societies benefited, even while they maintained their sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to typical former territorial and national invasions, carried out largely for conquest. After initial territorial expansion (and this is not the forum to debate the merits of that expansion, that is best left for another time and place), the United States sought shared benefit. Other nation-states went in conquering and to conquer, as we see when we examine the Muslims (in conquests that led to Europe's expulsion of Muslims from its territories during the Crusades), Europe (in colonial expansion – although this colonialism tended to also foster more shared benefit than mere oppressive reign), and Russia (through captured satellite states in the Soviet era).
It cannot be said that America went forth conquering and to conquer, or that the American system was no better than any other. China, Japan, India – all copied elements of American industrialism and ingenuity and no one can rationally argue that they have not benefited. Indeed, the standard of living for the greatest percentage of humanity that chose to participate in this period of what has been termed the “American Era” (now gone as we are merely another part of the World of This Tuesday™) has been given the greatest boost in the shortest time than in any other period of human history.
America was never perfect, as no organization or institution built of men (although it was not built completely by men (or women) (and I'm not referring to the “You Didn't Build That™” mantra) – again, that to be explored elsewhere) can be perfect, but it was the best example in humanity's history so far of a society that has shown some of humanity's potential, when it created an environment where a large number of individual humans had the opportunity to live, conduct commerce, invent, and prosper with some degree of liberty.
However, there is much more to life than debating which society or system is better than another or has brought more wealth to more people, for that is only temporal, and all societies are swept away over the course of time. Of more pressing concern is the human condition. What we do here on this Earth is important, but is it all there is? Moving away from what man can do in any given society, and circling to broader horizons now, let's briefly examine what can be demonstrated to be the three competing human worldviews, and what they have to offer.
First, let's start with the most common philosophy we encounter in our society today, which goes by many names, such as “naturalism” or “rationalism” or “enlightened progressivism” et al, but for the sake of convenience, I will here use the familiar and largely accurate term “secular humanism”.
It must be said that this “secular humanism”, which was – and in far too many sad cases still is, as it is currently widely promoted – believed to be the philosophy that would lead to the collective salvation of humanity, has been shown to be a miserable failure. Mankind is not merely a physical creature, or merely a collection of minds with bodies; we are that and more – we have souls which long to be nourished and cause us to recognize that there must be more than this brief spark of life we are given here on earth. Those who espouse this secular humanist philosophy more often than not seek to be their own gods, or they adopt a pseudo-spirituality and cling to common pagan beliefs that vegetables, or animals, or the earth, or a crystal, or a celestial body, or some force can rescue them when they become aware of needs or desires that they cannot satisfy, so they wind up worshipping the created thing and attributing life-giving power to that which must be sustained to live. They seek out those who share their beliefs so they will not be challenged (which is only natural), or they may choose to live in relative isolation, largely separated from their fellows as they attempt to create their own realities, but the common theme which pervades their lives and is illustrated in their “art” is their sad, unsatisfied, continual quest: never finding happiness while constantly striving for it, moving from relationship to relationship without deriving more than short-term pleasure that ends when the bloom is off the rose, or when one party no longer benefits the other.
Secular humanists of all stripes have a commonality: their disbelief in a common framework of truth that directs the way the universe we know, and life contained within it, operates. In all their activities, they deny truth with the certainty that the only truth can be that there is no truth. That otherwise intelligent people fall for this logical fallacy is breathtaking, but it demonstrates that rationality is easily overcome by belief. This lack of acceptance of a universal framework of truth can manifest itself in another way, since not all can accept the illogic of the non-concept of non-existent truth. Some caught in the secular humanist trap come to believe that there is truth, but it is only individual; that it only applies to me, not to you. In this case, a framework of universal truth is still denied, and what is believed to be individual “truth” is actually individual preference. Thus, for this subdivision of secular humanists as for the first, there can be no consistent framework of guidance for how to find the elusive “thing” (power, stuff, peace, love (which typically translates to mere lust), happiness, fulfillment (there's a word you can pour any meaning whatsoever into), or what-have-you) they crave, so they constantly yearn but are never satisfied, they constantly seek but never find. And since there is no common framework to dictate behavior that nourishes and advances the individual and society, whatever behavior the individual chooses cannot be said to be unacceptable, which leads, because of man's nature, to behavior beneath that displayed by “brute beasts”.
In any event, the measure of the secular humanists' lives is indeed common: they strive to eat, drink, and be merry, and they strive to forget that one day they will die.
The secular humanist camp has another characteristic which follows from the disbelief in a universal framework of operations for life – it tends to be comprised of those who refuse to accept that they could be accountable to an overarching “god” concept, which often leads to a worldview-concept that the order they see about them was produced by chaos. This allows them to justify their felt need to manage the chaos they believe life to be through their own efforts, or by ceding control of their lives to others who claim to be masterminds.
Then there are the religious of every stripe, those who seek a creator-god invented by men (or worse). This group, in contrast to the former, recognizes that order cannot be created from chaos, and if there is a creation, there must be a creator. But it is at this point that human invention, among other influences which this posting will not take the time or space to address, diverges from continued pursuit of truth. For this group, as the previous, wants to exercise some level of deterministic control over the ultimate end of earthly individual life. Thus throughout human history there have been many who have created their own gods that fit the human frameworks of those who develop them, and who have attracted adherents with religious systems and formulas to pursue paths which their adherents are told they must follow to reach a level at which they are accepted by their invented gods. But those adherents are never sure if they are following those paths well enough, and they are never sure if their gods will accept them into the paradises they've been told wait for the faithful when it's time to die, and they live with the fear of death just as surely as the secular humanist, but with some sad cherished hope that they will be accepted by the gods they make. Or that they will be recycled to try again, as part of the ultimate “green revolution” (which perhaps influenced the idea of Soylent Green?). Often they never find any more satisfaction in this life than the secular humanist, though they struggle mightily in this life so that they may attain it in the next. Unfortunately, this group tends to spawn “leaders” who seek to control as many as possible just as secular humanist “leaders” do.
The need for control evidenced by “leaders” of these two groups is a result of natural human predilections. Children will bully and cajole and dominate their fellows to get what they want. Many adults share this characteristic. It is universal, and it is very human.
Finally, there are those who recognize that they have a problem they can't overcome, and no other human or human invention can overcome it for them, and that problem is the same that all of humanity faces (or vainly strives to deny), as previously mentioned: is this short life on this tiny earth all there is? And if not, where will I be when my life here is done? They will not be led to the realization through a merely human mental or emotional process – although both of these processes are encouraged to assist in the understanding of the realization, to the limit each individual can understand it – but there is a drawing of them which causes them to see that they can never get to the Creator, but the Creator can get to them. Those are the ones who accept Grace, and recognize that their future is assured, but not through any action of theirs. They learn to recognize the essential truth in the expression “greater love has no man than this, that he lay his life down for his friend”, and that when The One Who gives Life is The One Who laid His Life down, to accept that resurrected life in exchange for death, no one, not even the one who accepts the gift, can snatch it away, and The One Who Gives will not take it away. Thus they have assurance, no matter what befalls them in this world, and they can love others in spirit and in truth because they were first loved by Him Who Is Love. And that is the ultimate acceptance of the expression of rationality: The acceptance of that Love.
This last group, in contrast to the first two, learns that merely human control leads to strife, envy, hatred, oppression, tyranny, and despotism. This is the group that understands the concept of the servant-leader (and that is not one who leads from behind), by example of the Great Servant-Leader. This group also produces leaders, but those of this group who are true to their Leader are markedly different from those “leaders” produced by the first two groups. This third group's leaders, rather than control those led, desire to shepherd them, to allow their “flocks” to grow to the potential imbued to them by their Creator.
I must momentarily re-address that first group particularly, since we in this culture are so steeped in the results of their philosophy. I find it strange that so often those who consider themselves the most rational are unwilling to accept the rationality of the concept of truth. They delve into ever deepening spirals of irrationality to disprove what is ultimate rationality, for there can be no reason if there is no truth. Reason is recognition of truth, else all is chaos.
I know that now, even though I once fiercely denied truth and thus denied rationality, as I was for much of my life a proud and thoughtless member of that first group. I was one of those who had to be dragged kicking and screaming to Truth and Love. And I'm glad He loved me enough to drag me out of myself and into saving knowledge of His Truth and Love.
That doesn't make me a great person. It makes me greatly loved. What is so great is that He Loves each of us the same way, no more, no less, but each of us must be quickened in order to accept that Love. All I can do is agree with Paul when he wrote “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.” (Eph 2: 8 – 10)
