![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Revenge of the Churian Separatists!
A while ago I posted a short blurb from a group called the Churian Separatists. And, no, they aren’t a species of aliens from Babylon 5. But I can’t quite figure out what they are, even after receiving the following email from the founder of the site Robert Burk:
If the universe is alive and has choice then physical law becomes ethical law and ethical contraventions become strategic violations. Choice becomes the moral imperative and domination the source of all evil.
The technology of choice resides in the determination of value. The source of all value is God. All choices implicate God whilst all force blocks God from those whose choice have been frustrated. A loss of value is a loss of choice. Thetheft of value is a theft of choice.
Choice is life, since life is choice all choice creates life and all subversion of choice diminishes life. If we do not choose God our choices diminish and we lose life to that degree.
The choice of that which has value in exchange for that which has greater value is economic. In an exchange both parties benefit. Life is aware in an economic sense, knowing the value of things. The value of a thing is equal to the value given for it, in theft no value is given and so the item stolen has its value diminished. The world is made poorer through theft and richer through the free exchange of things that have value.
So… does anybody want to ask this guy any questions, now that we seem to have gotten his attention? What do you think of what he said above? Also, what do you think about all this “choice” stuff he’s pitching? Do people fetishize the concept of choice? What happens if and when we do? What’s so important about it? Would we be happier without any choices - with everything just totally laid out in front of us or is that just not possible on this plane of existence?
- The Churian Separatists
- Notes: Owner of Animals
- Something smells like Sith in here…
- Chinese rat poison murders
- Badger, Keeper of Stories
- Prev: Old Wounds
- Next: Change to commenting system
April 28th, 2006 at 2:20 am
This kind of reminds me of a study done in the 1960s on Rhesus monkeys, which tried to determine if Monkeys would act altruistically towards each other based on “choice.” The choice being their ability to pull a chain to recieve some food in response to either a blue or red light. One of the lights delivered food, and the other light delivered food, but also sent forth a severe shock to the reciever (another monkey). To me, this seems to somewhat tie in with the “technology of choice” that this Robert Burk is talking about. On the study done with the monkeys, most of them of course pulled the chain which delivered them food, however there were some monkeys that seemed so afraid of making the wrong choice (hurting another monkey), that they totally stopped from pulling either chain. It was interesting that some of the monkeys did seem to show altruistic behavior towards one another, refraining from eating to avoid injuring another.
April 28th, 2006 at 2:31 am
It seems to me that they seek to support the economic model of the US through religious belief. Perhaps they do this unconciously.
I most certainly would not, but I have many strong anti-authoritarian tendencies. I think that some would thrive without making any, or many, choices, but I would find it stifling.
April 28th, 2006 at 3:38 am
Oops, I left out that perhaps the monkeys indeed felt like it was their “moral imperative,” not to pull either chain. Whether you can attribute that to value or perhaps even empathy one can only speculate and wonder.
April 28th, 2006 at 8:12 am
I think choice is somewhat of an illusion. At least what we think of as choice in Western (especially North American) culture. Many of the so-called choices we make are not really freely made choices at all, but dictated entirely by circumstance.
Did I “choose” job X over job Y? Not really: probably X was the only one available to me, or else my economic circumstances dictate that X was more practical (in the short or long run) than Y.
Not all choices are made “rationally” in the sense of classical microeconomics, but more modern behavior-economic theories account for hidden circumstances that lead to choices that appear to be irrational on the surface but have their own hidden logic if you dig deep enough.
That said, I do believe that every one of us arrives at moments in our lives when a true choice has to be made. These are the true inflection points of our lives, and in these circumstances I agree that the choices we make reflect our character and determine our future (at least until the next inflection point). These are rare moments, which is why I think they deserve to be taken seriously.
April 28th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
choice has structure. if it did not then there would be no choice. choices are between values. but values are denoted by what one is willing to give up to get that which one wants. this is the structure that politics diminishes. politics short circuits the structure of choice by predetermining what we as a society will receive. This is identical to the actions taken by criminals. Theft eliminates the options we would otherwise have - taxation has the same effect.
Slomo says: That said, I do believe that every one of us arrives at moments in our lives when a true choice has to be made. These are the true inflection points of our lives, and in these circumstances I agree that the choices we make reflect our character and determine our future (at least until the next inflection point). These are rare moments, which is why I think they deserve to be taken seriously.
This is the act of creation. As we choose so do we betray our values. Our choices determine who we are and who we will be. The ultimate choice is to choose God as the ultimate value and thus to give up all for God to exemplify His absolute value. This is a step humanists cannot make and so in the end their choices remain shallow, limited and ultimately self-defeating.