It’s very easy to debate applications of ideas where most people agree to the idea as valid in itself but not as to how to apply it or if not at all. This is where most people get stuck.
It’s similar to the question I often pose; Do you believe in god or about god? Using small ‘g’ denotes the god entity as a ruling idea and not as a personalized or necessarily a conscious idea.
When you believe that for example a religious god exists and then use a certain dogma i.e. ancient religious scriptures, to promote the idea and then build a foundation of rules to control yourself and others through them, that means that you believe about that god.
Most people believe about and not in, meaning that they find it difficult to place their personal (and metaphysical) wellbeing on a personal relationship with the idea, regardless of the rules and explanations which follow The About version.
You can extrapolate this into many ideologies, the god idea of socialism or communism is similar.
Most of the people who believe about that idea are excellent at promoting the foundation of dogmas onto others and use them to establish control systems but fail miserably at placing their intellectual and physical wellbeing on to it openly and transparently.
In essence, when I use the word corruption, I’m referring to this, the intellectual and spiritual dishonesty which rises from the degree of consciousness that not only refuses to acknowledge the existence of these distinctions but moreover slander and villify those who do, in order to avoid understanding it.
These are the people who never can entertain ideas which are unfamiliar to them and therefore attempt (often successfully) to petrify culture and drive it into a static moulding statue garden of past ideas that more often than not have disproven their usefulness (or the useful application has eroded into oblivion over time).
Moreover, they corruptively drive all those around them to apply them further (placing themselves into the affluent drivers seat) , to the detriment of all.
If this sounds complex to you, who most probably is raised in a school of humanist enlightenment, you might be tempted to ask yourself if the designers of that worldimage expect you do find it complex or have simply failed to teach you the foundation of thinking?
No disprespect is intended here. The reverse is true, for how concisely can we define the nature of corruption?
