Romans 1:28: Deconstructing the Depraved Mind.

[John D. Brey]

One of the problems in evolutionary-theory revolves around the fact that it's extremely difficult to understand actual speciation. We understand change with modification within a species. But at what point does the dramatic nature of the modification and change justify calling one species, with dramatic modification, a new species rather than just a species undergoing numerous and expansive modification? Part and parcel of this question relates to the distinction between a "host" and a "parasite." A host is categorized as a living species while a parasite is classed as a virus which doesn't fully meet the classification of a living-organism since it can't exist on its own without the host while on the other hand the host is a self-replicating, and self-contained organism.

We could, for the sake of clarity, use the homosexual population as an example of the host/parasite dichotomy since before you can have a homosexual population you must have a heterosexual host population (since every homosexual is basically born from the reproductive strategies of the heterosexual host population). The homosexual population is not classifiable as a living-organism since at its inception, and throughout its history, it requires a living host, the heterosexual population, that doesn't require the homosexual population one iota, while the homosexual population can't exist without the heterosexual population.

In this thread we're not really concerned with homosexuality except to point out that it's a parasite-organism (by scientific nomenclature and categories) and not a "host" body. What we really want to find out is if this scientific schematic, or paradigm, is able to help us determine whether something of this scientific concept can help us understand the dichotomous relationship between the political left, and the political right? Is one a living-political movement while the other is parasitical? Does one require the existence of the other, ala homosexuality versus heterosexuality, ala a parasite versus a host? Or are both living-organisms merely vying for the same resources in a combative manner? Are the political left and the political right the same species or different species? Did one evolve from one, into the other? Is one more like a healthy living-organism, while the other is more like a parasite body?

The peculiar statement above was even more strange since it was injected into a dialogue about the relationship between the political Left, versus the political Right. The insinuation was that the scientific or abstract distinction between a "host" and a "parasite" might lend itself to the apparent fact that people of the Left, and people on the Right, appear almost as if they live in separate realities revolving around utterly disparate interpretations of the facts of mundane actuality. This is to say that if we're intellectually mature enough to realize that neither the Left, nor the Right, are just bad players with nothing but ill intent (as it often seems viewed from either end of the political spectrum), then we should like to know why it is, how it is, that the same facts can be interpreted, by thoughtful interpreters (from either side of the spectrum) in almost antithetical ways?

In the original thread (The Political Divide from A Theistic Perspective), argumentation was had to suggest that in the politics that divide the USA, the Right (most pointedly the MAGA crowd), are fairly undeniably closer to the founding of the Union, and the founders of the Union, than those on the Left. The founders of the Union were xenophobic regarding their relationship to the European nations they considered tyrannical and opposed to their (the founders) WASPy privileging of Protestant ethics and the liberties required to favor those Protestant ethics. The contemporary Left, on the other hand, tends to see the USA not through the xenophobic lens used by the Right (and the founders), but rather, as one Nation, not necessarily under God, but one Nation in an equitable and happy family of nations.

For the Left, it's precisely the WASPy MAGA people who cause conflict within the family of nations such that but for the MAGA people, and the indoctrination come from the Right (one aspect being political xenophobia), the USA would be a more perfect union, unity, with Europe and the rest of the world.

With this background, the previous thread highlighted the somewhat undeniable nature of the statements just delineated so that a fundamentally important set of fact could guide a deeper examination of the issues at the heart of the division of the Nation.

Since the Right is closer to the founding act, the creative-activity forming the original Union, while the Left presents, and or seeks, a newer (fresher) concept of the Union, one that supposes not to merely parrot the founding fathers, and the original Constitution of the United States, but, rather, seeks a newer and more perfect constitution and interrelationship with the rest of the world (putting aside the original xenophobia), this interrelationship between the "original" versus the "new" appears to clearly be at the heart of a serious examination of the situation.

A new truth that claims to be more than a heretofore unrecognized aspect of, or conclusion from, an old truth ceases to be truth and enters the realm of fantasy and delusion.

Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch, The Hirsch Chumash, Shemos, p. 590.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Since the Right is closer to the founding act, the creative-activity forming the original Union, while the Left presents, and or seeks, a newer (fresher) concept of the Union, one that supposes not to merely parrot the founding fathers, and the original Constitution of the United States, but, rather, seeks a newer and more perfect constitution and interrelationship with the rest of the world (putting aside the original xenophobia), this interrelationship between the "original" versus the "new" appears to clearly be at the heart of a serious examination of the situation.

A new truth that claims to be more than a heretofore unrecognized aspect of, or conclusion from, an old truth ceases to be truth and enters the realm of fantasy and delusion.

Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch, The Hirsch Chumash, Shemos, p. 590.​

Rabbi Hirsch's statement as quoted above provides an almost perfect segue into the peculiarity of the original statement upon which this thread is based since the most pronounced peculiarity in the original statement relates to how evolutionary theory, and homosexuality, could possibly have a meaningful relationship to the politics of the Left versus the Right? Rabbi Hirsch states that when, if, a new truth, ala the Left's new vision of the United States, claims to be more than a heretofore unrecognized aspect, or conclusion from, an old truth, (the old, original, vision of the founders and the Right), that new truth (of the Left) enters the realm of fantasy and delusion.

Stated more transparently, Rabbi Hirsch is claiming that if the Left's more perfect vision of a more perfect Union is a wholesale rejection of the original vision, the creative-act of the founders, then it's nothing more than dangerous fantasy and delusion. To be legit, it must (the Left's vision of America) be an unrecognized element or nuance of the original, creative, foundation.

This segues directly into the original statement about evolutionary theory, since in the same sense that Hirsch's axiom puts the Left under the microscope, so too the Right, and the founders of the USA, land under the same microscope, right next to the Left, since just as the Left represents a "new" vision, a new truth, about America (not easily identifiable in the founder's Constitution, or the thinking of the Right), similarly, the founders of the USA, present a new truth about nationhood that clearly divorces itself from the very concepts of nationhood the founders left behind in Europe.

Right here is where the original question concerning "speciation" comes into focus since in evolutionary theory there's a fundamental distinction between change-with-modification within an existing species, versus the clean break that begins a new species. It's this relationship between change-with-modification, versus speciation, that fits the idea that the founders of the USA were knowingly subjecting the Nation to a speciation-event separating the new species from the old, rather than merely undergoing adaptation, modification, of the existing species of nations.

Is the modern Left trying to modify the original Nation, or are they involved, knowingly or otherwise, in an attempt at a speciation-event that's a fundamental break with the original Nation?

Clearly, or at least it seems clear to this observer, the Right feels as though the Left wants more than change-with-modification: they want, so the Right seems to believe, a wholesale speciation-event that will return the USA to the model the founding fathers separated from wholesale as the very creative-event causing the USA to be not a mere modification of the European nations, but rather, a new species, under God, with liberty and justice for all. The founders of the USA sought a clean break, a speciation-event, not change-with-modification. Is the same true of the political Left? And is their clean break, a desire, for the most part, to return to the European model the Right abhors?



John