Possessions and Society

I got to thinking recently, about what possessions people gather in order to establish social esteem or rank. As well, I wondered what people would gladly do without if such possessions were frowned upon society.

It would seem that there are two orders of possession;

> Those that we possess solely for our own gratification

> Those that we possess because others may esteem us more for having such

Obviously the gratification that we receive from the esteem of others is independent of material objects. If the rest of society were to frown upon the first order of possession, we might hide them from view, or at the least, would unaffected in our ownership. If the rest of society were to frown upon the second order of possessions, we would most likely choose not to own them at all

In this sense, we are all responsible--to a certain degree--with what the rest of society chooses to possess, or gives value to. In the same way we have a certain degree of power over what the opulent possess, or at least what they are willing to flaunt before society

A Bellyfeel Defense of Goodsex

I recently had the amusement of reviewing the controversial "THE MARRIAGE VOW A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMiLY[sic]"

Before we even get to the slavery part (perhaps a future post) let's start and finish with the first paragraph:

"Faithful monogamy is at the very heart of a designed and purposeful order – as conveyed by Jewish and Christian Scripture, by Classical Philosophers, by Natural Law, and by the American Founders – upon which our concepts of Creator-endowed human rights, racial justice and gender equality all depend."

um... okey dokey then... you betcha

Judeo/Xtian Scriptures: While monogamy IS mentioned in one of the epistles as being on of the endearing qualifyications of Deacons, it is NOT featured prominently in the scriptures in general. King David, who is described as a man after God's own heart (1 Samuel 13:14, Acts 13:22) had a RIDICULOUS number of wives. It is said that the Judeo/Xtian deity commanded Hosea to marry a whore. And of course in the new testament, marriage is only recommended for those burning with desire (not Xtian counselors looking for a "beard" or the uninterested girl who thinks that God is commanding her to marry him... but I digress)

then there are "the American Founders." For the sake of argument, I am going to assume that rather than meaning the Puritans--who would flog women who weren't performing their wifely duties (which would of course be contrary to the pledge's later "Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control")--instead it is referring to the U.S. Founding Fathers. Men like Benjamin Franklin--who admitted to having "intrigues with low Women that fell in my Way", Thomas Jefferson who carried on a romance with the married Maria Cosway while in France, and Alexander Hamilton, who had an extra-marital affair with a woman to whose husband he paid hush-money.

So, the pledge's opening paragraph frames the rest (and by extension, anyone foolish enough to sign it) in a ridiculous disregard for reality. But, hey, it makes great bellyfeel for the Party faithful :P