Passions of Cultural Relativity...
In the height of passion, the ambitious devil emerges to dwell in the moonlight. The door keeper knew the dogs are hungry and must be fed to prevent the pending chaos. Out of the shade comes the royal mist, the ultimate fashion of sentiments. There is cold, sweat and wild as the red meat is savaged in the ultimate feast of desire. I have no idea of who's who in creation as they all seem to tie a relative bond. Whether in politics or in wine the culture of sentiment is king and the status of fashion is queen. The high fashion of merry street abstracts stock for a price, paid for by the kid on the street.
The downturn has marked a distinction between the exercise of rational freedom and its material opposition. The conflict provided a surprised test for democratic principle, almost unintended. And I stand among others that Democracy is a principle value determined by rational reason, and not a subjective material aspect determined by popular opinion. It is not a number or majority rule yet democracy is taken for granted in the sway of majority cultural membership.
I'm glad because the decision provides an opportunity to distinguish the rational analysis of My Social Relations from the material aspects of Socialism - Marx's subjective material. Briefly; 'pure freedom' is innocent to the law and not obliged to expectations but knowing what ought to be the right thing to do. Remember the objective spans beyond the material to quantify a concrete purpose not to serve oneself or another, but the common good. A 'state of innocence' and 'not obliged' is when the natural elements of 'self' are purified; our feelings and senses elevate in a higher function that intuition is in touch with our conscience awareness of the right act. We are consciously aware of the passion surrounding the event and the habitual temptation of the self, but we are motivated by the principle as natural. We become being in quantifying the act, the living witness to the principle of truth.
The internal conflict between self and principle can determine the position of the outcome between relative aspects and absolute solidarity. Recent decisions in highest places have consistently reflected the dominant nature of culture in not only in politics, but also in religion and in economic decisions. It provides a strong basis that 'blood is thicker than water...'
You see, it is freedom which leads to informed decisions that gives rise to a collective consensus. The collective agreement or consensus refers to two achievements; one, the collective conscience is the outcome of a pure process and two; the conscious collective is the outcome of the material or passionate process. The former is objective, the latter subjective and being rises above the self. But many decisions take advantage of a popular moment only to fail the test of objective reality. It is where the principle person expects to stand against popular opinions for what is right. We're not talking about an emotional or popular right, but a right that spans the boundaries of culture, of religion, and gender. We're not talking about a right of the majority culture or religion or gender, instead we are talking about the integrity shared by all of humanity irrespective of difference.
Obviously, one against the many is perhaps considered by subjective materialism as not fair, but in the long run doing what is right achieves an objective purpose for the many. We concern ourselves with financial management of the economy because we, our families and our children suffer the consequences of undemocratic and subjective decisions made on our behalf. We have to pay back loan deficits and to pay them back in increased interest rates in an economic environment of higher cost of living. But our health, welfare, and wellbeing and finding a job depend upon our cultural, religious, and gender identity. Because of culture, religious, and gender identification, some are implicitly imprisoned by denying them access to resources such as education, employment, health and housing. Political prisoners of cultural relativism have their families endure the consequences.
We endure the social consequences of political decisions unfairly imposed upon us. At the same time, we have a democratic right, or social, political, and economic right to protest and attempt to do what is right. It is inherent of nature that we strive to do what is right. All peoples share their humanity irrespective of culture, gender, or religion. When political decisions favour one culture or gender over another, corrupt begins to eat into the structure of the organisation. And soon people will begin to complain, to protest, and to revolt against the regime. Now the organisation is subject to the urgent demands of the conditions it created in the first place.
The principle remains absolute as long as we are all human, and at the same time we are not disadvantaged by our cultural, gender, or religious identity. While the inalienable right of human precedes its subdivision, the absolute status of humanity is also maintained by Marx's economic function in the position of the social structure. Your culture, gender, and religion is not the determinant factor of distribution, it is what you do that determines your social and economic status.
I have exemplified the difference between social and economic status before and I will do it again in another time but not right now. But to balance the equation is where the purpose of the function achieves a social objective, and income determines the economic status of that function. Bureaucratic organisation for example serves a social purpose but earns a profit at the same time before it's sold to the private sector and earning a profit for private corporations and multinationals while citizens become consumers and tenants in their own country. Obviously the higher the position on the top of the ladder the greater the economic reward, but may have no social status if the function is contrary to the principle. You know, the manager of a brothel might receive a fair income, but he/she may not be the ideal speaker in the community's fund raising event. What one does is just as important as the purpose in the social organisation of society, the income is relative.
Rates based on gender, culture, and religion therefore tend to specialise socialism of the subjective kind diversifying the principle to relative aspects of production and where provisions are designed to address grievances. Group lobbyists have thus succeeded in the regulation of equality. This specialisation diversifies divisions and subdivisions to assert a so-called altruistic case of equality with privileges. And soon it became a popular platform for launching political careers. It is a platform which generates subjective aspects of socialism prompting the social structure of an elite professional class. The only people this platform serves are the professionals and their political lobbyists.
I want to insert in here therefore that equality is not an altruism sentiment or divine intervention in the interest of human dignity. It is rather the specialisation of sub divisions that breaks down absolute principles. The stripping or detaching of values from the material weakens him/her requiring a representative entity in political decisions. It is the result of cultural attitudes in political and economic decisions of society. These decisions are largely undemocratic, but are influenced by popular opinions and nepotist cultural identification. It has attached itself to modern capitalism and has assumed a modernity role of subjective materialism against tradition. This modern socialist arm of Capitalism is relative and subjective. My Social Relations attempts to validate these trends for social, political and economic stability. But the problem rests with the king, the culture of sentiment. Everywhere you look, decisions are influenced by cultural sentiment. Democratic decisions continue to be influenced by culture, until the excluded and disadvantaged strive for a fair share and for political representation.
Now not only one-party-governments are guilty of generating one sided policies to the disestablishment of labour and destruction of the market, but the excluded have provided oppositions in revolt and have also proven disruptive to economic stability. Downturns are longer and detailed as the domino exhausts its sub division twists and diverse turns down the spiral of modernity. Equality has stripped the material by removing objective values that stabilised the organisation. And it is the democratic principle that is coherent with human integrity irrespective of culture, religion, and gender to the rescue and restoration of the division in diversity and relative fragments of organisation into stability.
Today, principles are put in place to reinforce the cause of organisation proper during times of turmoil. Without principles, the material is stripped to a linear entity too weak to stand against abnormal developments.
I cannot say the fault in the organisation is inherent of the system because it is a subjective human behaviour that can be corrected simply by changing attitude towards others and doing the right thing. The large attachment of dependency is self imposed upon the system by the majority culture and has proven expensive. This aspect can be corrected simply by respect of the universal principle for stability, and not its weakened relative aspect of subdivision.
There is obviously more to this that must follow...