Pragmatism is living in the real world. It application of knowledge, as in technology. It is life experience, which is activism, and service oriented jobs. So, why does pragmatism leave some humans "cold"? Why are "ideals" so important to move "the human", whether ideals are used by the poltician to gain the vote, or the marketer to gain the sale. Humans respond to ideals.
Those with artistic bents, are not prone to be moved by the statistics and analysis or the facts of "science". Art, though, is the expression of "the human". It is connection to human feelings, thoughts and experiences that brings more to life than monotonous existence. Art is beauty. Art is creativity. Art is self expression. Art is philosophy. And art can't be appreciated if there is no liberty for expression. Expression is art!
The question of the value of art in today's technologically oriented society makes for questions about the "humanizing forces" of art.
Our brains, bodies and very being are affected by our senses. The senses are engaged in art and have an impact on emotion, or the sentinent portion of "the human". Art can help relieve stress, or process grief. Art is therapeutic for "Man".
Art is imagery in poetry, as in painting. Art is fashion and interior design. Art is drama and dance. Art is about color.
Art has not always been appreciated, as art is representative of something that humans can all understand and this is what has made art "idolatrous" to religious ideals. Relgious ideals either translate "God" into the practical, which is religion, or the mystical, which is the spiritual. Because "God" isn't understood as a metaphor of human expression, but as a real and active being, "the human" has been crushed under the "foot of God". This is why I much prefer being atheistic in understanding of "art", as even art must be interpreted. And art's expression and interpreted meaning is about personal realities. What was the artist thinking or meaning by a particular painting, essay or drama? "God" is really about human expression. And human expression must have liberty for "the human" to fulfill potential. "God" interferes with "life", because of some projected and protected meaning about/to/for life.
Our Founders understood the value of protecting liberty for conscience's sake. And conscience is about "art"!
Showing posts with label American ideals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American ideals. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Saturday, October 15, 2011
A Note for Humanism and It's Ideals
I have been reading and reading and it seems to me that today's thrust for religion is humanistis, rather than Theistic. But, what are the problems of humanism, as an ideal? Humanism can't be held as individuals in their OWN right are the only end, not some cultural "ideal"! Otherwise, individuals are not values, only the "ideal", which is unattainable in this world.
All "solutions" are pragmatic ones, which mean that there is planning and "engineering" of sorts, which makes for success in a given strategy. But, goals of universalization or universals, themselves aren't pragmatic, because the world is much too large and diverse. Unless one wants to promote a uniformity upon the world. This solution politically and practically speaking is 'communism". Equality is regulated by some "power" which is unregulated itself. And this is the problem, isn't it?
Yesterday, when I heard that we would be sending special troops into Central Africa, I wondered why. Was it necessary to sacrifice our special forces to such an endeavor, when we are already stretched militarily and financially? Didn't our Constituton ask the President and other elected officials to protect our country and uphold our Constitution? Then, how come our Representatives are not protecting OUR interests? This is an underhanded way to promote humanistic values, isn't it? And is the intent to dissolve our nation of it power, to prevent "special priviledge'? Or is it our "moral duty" to protect the loss of life in ALL OTHER countries, at the same time reducing our military budgets and submitting to tyranncial governments? What is to be the outcome IF we do not RESIST such governments? And haven't our attempts to equip others to protect themselves ended up backfiring on us at a later date? There will not be Utopian ideals attained in this world and life. And yet, humanists want Utopian ideals and dreams.
The Jews have been the foundation to a Christian undestanding of "priviledge" and our humanitarian values have should restitution to the Holocost for them. What is to be our resitution to the world in giving this land to the Jews? Will the Jews continue to be ostericized by the world and hated by the Muslim? Do we think that when we try to rectify "injustice", as perceived by one that we un-do justice on the other hand? Will our attempts at pacifying Islam result in what has been a warning from those that should know; Islam's desire to hold global power and dominance?
It seems to me that there is a naive and idealistic hope that the "world will live in peace" and we will all live happily ever after! The problem is; if that can't be true for each and all individuals, then how in the Hell can it be true for the WORLD? Society is only made up of individuals, as society ONLY exists in the mind!!
All "solutions" are pragmatic ones, which mean that there is planning and "engineering" of sorts, which makes for success in a given strategy. But, goals of universalization or universals, themselves aren't pragmatic, because the world is much too large and diverse. Unless one wants to promote a uniformity upon the world. This solution politically and practically speaking is 'communism". Equality is regulated by some "power" which is unregulated itself. And this is the problem, isn't it?
Yesterday, when I heard that we would be sending special troops into Central Africa, I wondered why. Was it necessary to sacrifice our special forces to such an endeavor, when we are already stretched militarily and financially? Didn't our Constituton ask the President and other elected officials to protect our country and uphold our Constitution? Then, how come our Representatives are not protecting OUR interests? This is an underhanded way to promote humanistic values, isn't it? And is the intent to dissolve our nation of it power, to prevent "special priviledge'? Or is it our "moral duty" to protect the loss of life in ALL OTHER countries, at the same time reducing our military budgets and submitting to tyranncial governments? What is to be the outcome IF we do not RESIST such governments? And haven't our attempts to equip others to protect themselves ended up backfiring on us at a later date? There will not be Utopian ideals attained in this world and life. And yet, humanists want Utopian ideals and dreams.
The Jews have been the foundation to a Christian undestanding of "priviledge" and our humanitarian values have should restitution to the Holocost for them. What is to be our resitution to the world in giving this land to the Jews? Will the Jews continue to be ostericized by the world and hated by the Muslim? Do we think that when we try to rectify "injustice", as perceived by one that we un-do justice on the other hand? Will our attempts at pacifying Islam result in what has been a warning from those that should know; Islam's desire to hold global power and dominance?
It seems to me that there is a naive and idealistic hope that the "world will live in peace" and we will all live happily ever after! The problem is; if that can't be true for each and all individuals, then how in the Hell can it be true for the WORLD? Society is only made up of individuals, as society ONLY exists in the mind!!
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Parallel Longings and Fulfillment
Choices in America are as various as there are types of people. We love to have choices. Take note of our supermarkets, or SuperWalMarts. The bigger the better because it accomodates all of us and our diverse tastes. Diversity is what makes America, well, America.
But, choice is much more than about the food we eat, or the clothes we choose to wear, but also the values we hold about life and what we want out of life. These all matter, too. An Ameican will 'fight for the right' to have alternatives and, to negotiate differences. This is what has motivated the American worker, as well as inspired the American entreprenuer. Everyone is "special" in America because there is always a place where one can find a "home". "Home" is about what the heart longs for and human hearts long for more than just a place to belong, but for "ideals". America values its ideals and we paint them in our wildest imagninations. And imagination reside only in individual human hearts.
The individual human heart longs for beauty, justice and love. Each individual cannot find that beauty, justice and love apart from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is what makes America great, because we believe that each individual counts and matters. And because of the individual's value in our society, he can choose how he defines the beauty of life. He is allowed the liberty, which is justice to follow his passion/love in the pursuit of happiness.
We are free in America in many ways to pursue our dreams, fulfill our hopes and find our lives in whatever endeavor we desire. I hope that this American Dream will last so my grandchildren will have the opportunities we so often take for granted. I am thankful to be an American.
But, choice is much more than about the food we eat, or the clothes we choose to wear, but also the values we hold about life and what we want out of life. These all matter, too. An Ameican will 'fight for the right' to have alternatives and, to negotiate differences. This is what has motivated the American worker, as well as inspired the American entreprenuer. Everyone is "special" in America because there is always a place where one can find a "home". "Home" is about what the heart longs for and human hearts long for more than just a place to belong, but for "ideals". America values its ideals and we paint them in our wildest imagninations. And imagination reside only in individual human hearts.
The individual human heart longs for beauty, justice and love. Each individual cannot find that beauty, justice and love apart from life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is what makes America great, because we believe that each individual counts and matters. And because of the individual's value in our society, he can choose how he defines the beauty of life. He is allowed the liberty, which is justice to follow his passion/love in the pursuit of happiness.
We are free in America in many ways to pursue our dreams, fulfill our hopes and find our lives in whatever endeavor we desire. I hope that this American Dream will last so my grandchildren will have the opportunities we so often take for granted. I am thankful to be an American.
Friday, February 18, 2011
What Is Government?
Wiki states;
In the social sciences, the term government refers to the particular group of people, the administrative bureaucracy, who control a state at a given time, and the manner in which their governing organizations are structured.[1][2] That is, governments are the means through which state power is employed. States are served by a continuous succession of different governments.[3]
Each successive government is composed of a specialized and privileged body of individuals, who monopolize political decision-making, and are separated by status and organization from the population as a whole. Their function is to enforce existing laws, legislate new ones, and arbitrate conflicts via their monopoly on violence. In some societies, this group is often a self-perpetuating or hereditary class. In other societies, such as democracies, the political roles remain, but there is frequent turnover of the people actually filling the positions.[4]
In most Western societies, there is a clear distinction between a government and the state. Public disapproval of a particular government (expressed, for example, by not re-electing an incumbent) does not necessarily represent disapproval of the state itself (i.e. of the particular framework of government). However, in some totalitarian regimes, there is not a clear distinction between the regime and the state. In fact, leaders in such regimes often attempt to deliberately blur the lines between the two, in order to conflate their own selfish interests with those of the polity.[5]
The 14th century Arab scholar Ibn Khaldun defined the government as "an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself". The British philosopher-anthropologist Ernest Gellner considered Ibn Khaldun's definition to be the best in the history of political theory. For Ibn Khaldun, government should be restrained to a minimum for as a necessary evil, it is the constraint of men by other men."
Government is an arbitrator of justice. Justice can be defined as individual rights in America, as Jefferson said, the individual is the smallest minority. Civil rights seek to prevent abuses of power. Without such 'real securities" as civil rights, then, the individual is at the "mercy of a collective" and collectives tend to Statist's views in understanding and attaining particular purposes. As stated above, "......totalitarian regimes (government and STATE), there is not a clear distinction between the regime and the state. In fact, leaders in such regimes often attempt to deliberately blur the lines between the two, in order to conflate their own selfish interests with those of the polity"
Whenever groups, organization or government blur the distinction between the group's identification factors (State) and the act of governing others, then it has become totaltalitarian, or Statist. And such group identity lends itself to all kinds of atrocities; genocide, prejuidice, Us/them, social death, racism, etc.
American's identification factors are grounded in liberty. Liberty doesn't allow the lines to be blurred between government and the State. This is why whenever the ideologues reign/rule, American ideals suffer hard death blows to the "other side". And it is the basis of our culture wars.
In the social sciences, the term government refers to the particular group of people, the administrative bureaucracy, who control a state at a given time, and the manner in which their governing organizations are structured.[1][2] That is, governments are the means through which state power is employed. States are served by a continuous succession of different governments.[3]
Each successive government is composed of a specialized and privileged body of individuals, who monopolize political decision-making, and are separated by status and organization from the population as a whole. Their function is to enforce existing laws, legislate new ones, and arbitrate conflicts via their monopoly on violence. In some societies, this group is often a self-perpetuating or hereditary class. In other societies, such as democracies, the political roles remain, but there is frequent turnover of the people actually filling the positions.[4]
In most Western societies, there is a clear distinction between a government and the state. Public disapproval of a particular government (expressed, for example, by not re-electing an incumbent) does not necessarily represent disapproval of the state itself (i.e. of the particular framework of government). However, in some totalitarian regimes, there is not a clear distinction between the regime and the state. In fact, leaders in such regimes often attempt to deliberately blur the lines between the two, in order to conflate their own selfish interests with those of the polity.[5]
The 14th century Arab scholar Ibn Khaldun defined the government as "an institution which prevents injustice other than such as it commits itself". The British philosopher-anthropologist Ernest Gellner considered Ibn Khaldun's definition to be the best in the history of political theory. For Ibn Khaldun, government should be restrained to a minimum for as a necessary evil, it is the constraint of men by other men."
Government is an arbitrator of justice. Justice can be defined as individual rights in America, as Jefferson said, the individual is the smallest minority. Civil rights seek to prevent abuses of power. Without such 'real securities" as civil rights, then, the individual is at the "mercy of a collective" and collectives tend to Statist's views in understanding and attaining particular purposes. As stated above, "......totalitarian regimes (government and STATE), there is not a clear distinction between the regime and the state. In fact, leaders in such regimes often attempt to deliberately blur the lines between the two, in order to conflate their own selfish interests with those of the polity"
Whenever groups, organization or government blur the distinction between the group's identification factors (State) and the act of governing others, then it has become totaltalitarian, or Statist. And such group identity lends itself to all kinds of atrocities; genocide, prejuidice, Us/them, social death, racism, etc.
American's identification factors are grounded in liberty. Liberty doesn't allow the lines to be blurred between government and the State. This is why whenever the ideologues reign/rule, American ideals suffer hard death blows to the "other side". And it is the basis of our culture wars.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Jazz, an/as/and the American Ideal
Jazz is original American music "type" that origninated in African American communities. The origin of the word jazz is one of the most sought-after word origins in modern American English.[citation needed;WiKi, Febuary 2010] The word's intrinsic interest—the American Dialect Society named it the Word of the Twentieth Century—has resulted in considerable research, and its history is well-documented (WiKi,). I believe that Jazz is loved because it represents in musical form, American ideals.
Americans love the ideals of individual liberty, and, love their country because of it! Jazz has a unity in diversity musical form. Various instruments are allowed expression, sometimes in solo performances. This is how American society "works". We are free-forms and free thinkers. We are creative spirits that have experienced liberty in our form of government and expressed that liberty in pursuing our dreams that have resulted in various technological inventions, as well as artistic expressions. Americans love the free market, because it allows the individual the right to pursue material gain. American love to be independent. Baroque music would be jazz's "opposite.
I believe that the human spirit is made for and desires freedom, altho some may fear it. When the slaves came to America and were sold and worked, they created a means of expressing themselves in this art form. Their human spirit sought a "way out" of their dire circumstances. While they waited for "salvation", they made music.
Jazz was initially viewed as a "low class" or "anti-class" type of music that represented "whore houses", and sexual promiscuity. But, jazz soon became accepted by mainstream society.
Jazz has no defined definition, as Jazz is as diverse in musical style, as it is diverse in muscial expression.
I like jazz.
Americans love the ideals of individual liberty, and, love their country because of it! Jazz has a unity in diversity musical form. Various instruments are allowed expression, sometimes in solo performances. This is how American society "works". We are free-forms and free thinkers. We are creative spirits that have experienced liberty in our form of government and expressed that liberty in pursuing our dreams that have resulted in various technological inventions, as well as artistic expressions. Americans love the free market, because it allows the individual the right to pursue material gain. American love to be independent. Baroque music would be jazz's "opposite.
I believe that the human spirit is made for and desires freedom, altho some may fear it. When the slaves came to America and were sold and worked, they created a means of expressing themselves in this art form. Their human spirit sought a "way out" of their dire circumstances. While they waited for "salvation", they made music.
Jazz was initially viewed as a "low class" or "anti-class" type of music that represented "whore houses", and sexual promiscuity. But, jazz soon became accepted by mainstream society.
Jazz has no defined definition, as Jazz is as diverse in musical style, as it is diverse in muscial expression.
I like jazz.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Education for Vocational Purposes Only?
The education conferene this past Friday continues to "brew" in my mind. What is education really for? Is education only for preparing for a vocation? Is an education also for developing the person, or the "self"? Aren't parents the main influence on a child's life in educational edndeavors and how education is percieved? America has come to not value education for the most part, because of America's entertainment mind-set. And, I think this is a downfall to our culture as a whole. But, if education is to be a value, the question is how is education to be paid for and what would be the "end" of education, then?
Patronage was useful since the beginnings of the university. Patronage was first given under the auspices of the Church, while today, we have "public education". And recently, there has been more talk of business as the patron of education. If the Church was to create the "moral model" in education, and the government tends toward the "mass production" model, then what would be the result of business interests getting their hands into education?
The main purpose of a business adventure into education would be for profit. Businesses are mainly interested in profit and there certainly is nothing wrong with profits. The question comes from how business 'investments' in education are handled, as ethics should alway hold sway over business profit margins, as ethics remembers that there are more important aspects to education than profit itself.
Education is in a crisis today and the President has been interested in addressing such problems, knowing that without an education, people will not have a way out of the present economice crisis and the trasition from a manufactoring/industrialized nation, to a communication/information one.
The question that interests me is; Is education for vocational purposes alone? No, because vocation is only the way a person makes money, while an educated population is needed to remain free. Why is this so?
Propaganda is useful to control populations in totaltalitarian regimes. An uneducated population is necessary to further propaganda's purposes, that is, to "control the minds" of the public, so that social order will remain peaceful. The ruling elite will "do as they please", while the population is listening to the "public radio" that tells them how to think and what to believe. This is a danger to America.
But on the other hand, "public" is not a necessarily for Propaganda, if public means solidarity, or fous, as a nation. What should unify our nation, that is a question to be pondered.
So, which model will be best for education? Will the Church's educational model for human development, public interests model or business interests model?
The Church as an institution is to maintain the virtue in a society. And virtue is what is needed for all citizens, not just the "peasant". Leaders are to have the character necessary to inform their conscience, so that they will govern with discretion and discernment. This is necessary for America's future. Otherwise, we will live by the "tribe", or "fittest" mentality. Equal is what America holds dear and makes it a free nation. Equal is about justice.
America's profit margins have become obsessions and have driven men to unethical behavior. This is why our country is having its culture crisis. We cannot trust our elected officials to see themselves as servants of their people. They have become rulers, and dictators, in certain areas. And this is unbecoming to American values, liberties and "ideals".
Education must change if there is to be "hope for America".
Patronage was useful since the beginnings of the university. Patronage was first given under the auspices of the Church, while today, we have "public education". And recently, there has been more talk of business as the patron of education. If the Church was to create the "moral model" in education, and the government tends toward the "mass production" model, then what would be the result of business interests getting their hands into education?
The main purpose of a business adventure into education would be for profit. Businesses are mainly interested in profit and there certainly is nothing wrong with profits. The question comes from how business 'investments' in education are handled, as ethics should alway hold sway over business profit margins, as ethics remembers that there are more important aspects to education than profit itself.
Education is in a crisis today and the President has been interested in addressing such problems, knowing that without an education, people will not have a way out of the present economice crisis and the trasition from a manufactoring/industrialized nation, to a communication/information one.
The question that interests me is; Is education for vocational purposes alone? No, because vocation is only the way a person makes money, while an educated population is needed to remain free. Why is this so?
Propaganda is useful to control populations in totaltalitarian regimes. An uneducated population is necessary to further propaganda's purposes, that is, to "control the minds" of the public, so that social order will remain peaceful. The ruling elite will "do as they please", while the population is listening to the "public radio" that tells them how to think and what to believe. This is a danger to America.
But on the other hand, "public" is not a necessarily for Propaganda, if public means solidarity, or fous, as a nation. What should unify our nation, that is a question to be pondered.
So, which model will be best for education? Will the Church's educational model for human development, public interests model or business interests model?
The Church as an institution is to maintain the virtue in a society. And virtue is what is needed for all citizens, not just the "peasant". Leaders are to have the character necessary to inform their conscience, so that they will govern with discretion and discernment. This is necessary for America's future. Otherwise, we will live by the "tribe", or "fittest" mentality. Equal is what America holds dear and makes it a free nation. Equal is about justice.
America's profit margins have become obsessions and have driven men to unethical behavior. This is why our country is having its culture crisis. We cannot trust our elected officials to see themselves as servants of their people. They have become rulers, and dictators, in certain areas. And this is unbecoming to American values, liberties and "ideals".
Education must change if there is to be "hope for America".
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
John Stossel's Quote on Big Government
I love this quote!
"If the choice is between individuals using their freedom of speech hurtfully and an all-seeing Big Brother watching our words and thoughts, I know which society I'd rather live in. You can always ignore a racist. You can't escape from the government." ~ John Stossel
"If the choice is between individuals using their freedom of speech hurtfully and an all-seeing Big Brother watching our words and thoughts, I know which society I'd rather live in. You can always ignore a racist. You can't escape from the government." ~ John Stossel
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The Difference Between Our Founding Revolution and Today's
America was founded to establish a different environment for human flourishing. This environment allowed for religious freedom, as well as self-interested "gold digging". There was to be no Divine Right of Kings, meaning that no one was above the law. All were created equal and were given the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Leaders were no different from "Peasants" in our country's estimation! We were equal AND free!
Today, it seems that leaders think that they must establish a "certain order" and/or outcome to maintain equality. This mind-set "flies in the face" of the self-governance that our Founders admired. The individual was a person in his own right. No authority, except the law was to have power over him, and that was only to limit license where it concerned another citizen.
Today, those with money and/or power tend to think that they can "bend the rules" to suit their purposes. And these have no sense of conscience where it concerns impinging upon another's boundary.
Although it is true that the Founding era allowed for slavery, it is also true that America fought for civil liberties, and "her people still do. Men are equal under the law, but are we as free?
Government was to be limited in the Founding era, as governemnt was to be "by the people and for the people". Government was no longer ruled by those who inherited the position but by those who "won the vote".
Today, those who "win the vote" must also win the pocketbooks. Those that run for office must have the means to establish their campaigns, and campaigns in our big county takes a lot of money. Does the influence of money in our politics corrupt? How can we limit such corruption?
Government was not to be a "society" itself, where leaders could have special priviledge behind its "walls". Government was to be not just representative, but accountable.
I wonder what the Founders would have thought if they had lived today? What would be their advice to us? And what could we learn from them?
Today, it seems that leaders think that they must establish a "certain order" and/or outcome to maintain equality. This mind-set "flies in the face" of the self-governance that our Founders admired. The individual was a person in his own right. No authority, except the law was to have power over him, and that was only to limit license where it concerned another citizen.
Today, those with money and/or power tend to think that they can "bend the rules" to suit their purposes. And these have no sense of conscience where it concerns impinging upon another's boundary.
Although it is true that the Founding era allowed for slavery, it is also true that America fought for civil liberties, and "her people still do. Men are equal under the law, but are we as free?
Government was to be limited in the Founding era, as governemnt was to be "by the people and for the people". Government was no longer ruled by those who inherited the position but by those who "won the vote".
Today, those who "win the vote" must also win the pocketbooks. Those that run for office must have the means to establish their campaigns, and campaigns in our big county takes a lot of money. Does the influence of money in our politics corrupt? How can we limit such corruption?
Government was not to be a "society" itself, where leaders could have special priviledge behind its "walls". Government was to be not just representative, but accountable.
I wonder what the Founders would have thought if they had lived today? What would be their advice to us? And what could we learn from them?
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Idealism or Realism?
All humans understand their "realities" within frames of reference(s). Individuals are understand thier "world" with philosophical or historical lenses, after they "come of age", as self-reflective individuals. Our psychology as humans is intent on creating ourselves within our "worlds" that provide for a "flourishing environment". An identity is where we "place our hat" in these philosophical and historical references.
Philosophy has been a way to understand the "ideals" in the human heart. Ideals are universals, while their historical contexts may make differences in how these universals are interpreted and these historical contexts are individually understood and embraced.
Religion is both historical and philosophical, as religion seeks to understand man's quest for significance in their understanding of "god". Religion has been useful to create an "ideal" in a "not so ideal world". And religions have formed from those that have represented certain "ideals" that are valued in a given society or by those that have represented a certain people, or cause.
The real world of history is born out in politics, power and economics. These are areas in which the political world "speaks" in society's institutions.
America's government doesn't acknowledge the institution of the Church, so much as allow for religious freedom in individual conscience. America was a Protestant Nation, after all. We were "nominalists" in our ideology.
Today, the "culture wars" are about the real issues of policy, which impact society's institutions and society at large. Religion becomes dangerous in such an environment, because instead of individual citizens making thier own determinations about what the "ideal" "should" be, we have "God" useful to justify a "one party system". And a "one party system" is not conducive for a free society, because the minority opinion becomes marginalized and demonized.
Without realizing what is happening, what is hoped for in fighting for God, becomes oppressive and tyrannical in the "name of God".
Philosophy has been a way to understand the "ideals" in the human heart. Ideals are universals, while their historical contexts may make differences in how these universals are interpreted and these historical contexts are individually understood and embraced.
Religion is both historical and philosophical, as religion seeks to understand man's quest for significance in their understanding of "god". Religion has been useful to create an "ideal" in a "not so ideal world". And religions have formed from those that have represented certain "ideals" that are valued in a given society or by those that have represented a certain people, or cause.
The real world of history is born out in politics, power and economics. These are areas in which the political world "speaks" in society's institutions.
America's government doesn't acknowledge the institution of the Church, so much as allow for religious freedom in individual conscience. America was a Protestant Nation, after all. We were "nominalists" in our ideology.
Today, the "culture wars" are about the real issues of policy, which impact society's institutions and society at large. Religion becomes dangerous in such an environment, because instead of individual citizens making thier own determinations about what the "ideal" "should" be, we have "God" useful to justify a "one party system". And a "one party system" is not conducive for a free society, because the minority opinion becomes marginalized and demonized.
Without realizing what is happening, what is hoped for in fighting for God, becomes oppressive and tyrannical in the "name of God".
Monday, April 19, 2010
Radicalizing Reformers and Their Movements
Reform does not seek to undermine or dissolve previous institutions, or values, while revolution is a "new way" of being in the world. The "tea parties" were correlated to the civil rights movement today on a program I was listening to. Is this the case?
The Civil Rights movement was a social/political movement that valued the institutions of our society, but the leaders of the civil rights movement sought change in the cultural mores concerning African Americans. This was a movement of Reform, according to Martin Luther King, Jr. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed in passive resistance, petitioning government, public demonstrations, and public discourse. Many that have sought to follow in his footsteps have been revolutionary, not reformist in their practice. This is usually the case with any 'mover or shaker" in society. The leader becomes radicalized. This has transpired with all political, religious and cultural leaders that have had major impact on society.
Revolutionary images appeal to "ideals" that the movement won. These "ideals" become internalized in a people's consciousness and create a factor of identification. The radicalization of the civil rights movement was seen especially in the 1960's, when the Black Panthers became the "standard representation" of "Black Power". This was not Martin Luther King, Jr.'s representation. His was based on character, their movement was based on power.
History tends to not just radicalize "ideals", but also create the environment for politicizing what was useful for social change at a particular time. The politicalization of movements are dangerous because of the emotionally driven identification factors, that can end up being an environment that creates power politics.
Revolution should never be embraced by those who value our institutions. But, those that radicalize their own "ideals" and de-value the checks and balances in our form of government are bent on revolution of their own kind. This is when the "tea parties" are a reactionary response that represents "ideals", institutions, and our form of government that have become de-valued and politicized for the purpose of "change", without accountability. Government without accountability is non-representative and is what our Founders understood to be tyrannical.
The Civil Rights movement was a social/political movement that valued the institutions of our society, but the leaders of the civil rights movement sought change in the cultural mores concerning African Americans. This was a movement of Reform, according to Martin Luther King, Jr. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed in passive resistance, petitioning government, public demonstrations, and public discourse. Many that have sought to follow in his footsteps have been revolutionary, not reformist in their practice. This is usually the case with any 'mover or shaker" in society. The leader becomes radicalized. This has transpired with all political, religious and cultural leaders that have had major impact on society.
Revolutionary images appeal to "ideals" that the movement won. These "ideals" become internalized in a people's consciousness and create a factor of identification. The radicalization of the civil rights movement was seen especially in the 1960's, when the Black Panthers became the "standard representation" of "Black Power". This was not Martin Luther King, Jr.'s representation. His was based on character, their movement was based on power.
History tends to not just radicalize "ideals", but also create the environment for politicizing what was useful for social change at a particular time. The politicalization of movements are dangerous because of the emotionally driven identification factors, that can end up being an environment that creates power politics.
Revolution should never be embraced by those who value our institutions. But, those that radicalize their own "ideals" and de-value the checks and balances in our form of government are bent on revolution of their own kind. This is when the "tea parties" are a reactionary response that represents "ideals", institutions, and our form of government that have become de-valued and politicized for the purpose of "change", without accountability. Government without accountability is non-representative and is what our Founders understood to be tyrannical.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
An "Enlightenment" to One's Own Bias
Today, I realized that whenever one has an agenda, there is biased opinion. Things that are read, or heard are "heard" with that "frame" in mind. This "frame", in turn, predisposes one to connect and make associations, that are not in what is read or heard. This the the major problem of reporting objectively. We all have bias, don't we?
Why would I assume that everyone has bias? Would it be that humans are context bound and are dependent beings on what they know, and what effect that has had on them? The totality of an experience, in sense and formal education, is the important thing to recognize. One person's highlight, is another's bland boredom. Why would this be? Expectations and information.
Our expectations do predispose us and bias us toward how we experience and understand. Whenever we expect "ideals" to be realized, most usually, we are disappointed, at least, if we expect these disconnected with the "real world" of less than ideal contexts and people.
Our expectations may disappoint, but not as sorely as when we have knowledge. Knowledge equips us for the real world, and not an ideal one. The pragmatist knows and understands the limitations of life and is prepared to embrace what comes into one's experience.
Today, while attempting to interact on a blog, I was told that I had run away with "the store", so to speak. By the time I had ended my "interaction", there was little connection to what had been shared. Why was this so? I had an agenda.
Because of recent politics, I have grave concern over our nation and its future. Therefore, I sought to understand America's origins, its Founders, and understand how politicians and the populace were understanding the issues and contexts they were in. This set me on a course for over the last couple of years, that has fascinated me. My worldview was challenged and changed. I will never be the same. But, in the mean-time, until I "settle", then I will probably "read" into the things I am reading, gleaning what I "need" to fill in the gaps of my understanding....This presupposition limits my critical ability to engage the issues before me. But, then, again, I want independence of thought. I do not desire to be spoon-fed. But, I do desire to be educated, by the educated.
In conclusion, we must undestand whenever we have agendas or things that are being reconciled in our lives and thinking. For if we are not careful, we will misunderstand and miscommunicate. And others will be baffled over how we have come to our conclusions. So, be aware of where you are, before you speak and think before you write. Otherwise, people will not be any better off, than before you opened your mouth or picked up your pen.
Why would I assume that everyone has bias? Would it be that humans are context bound and are dependent beings on what they know, and what effect that has had on them? The totality of an experience, in sense and formal education, is the important thing to recognize. One person's highlight, is another's bland boredom. Why would this be? Expectations and information.
Our expectations do predispose us and bias us toward how we experience and understand. Whenever we expect "ideals" to be realized, most usually, we are disappointed, at least, if we expect these disconnected with the "real world" of less than ideal contexts and people.
Our expectations may disappoint, but not as sorely as when we have knowledge. Knowledge equips us for the real world, and not an ideal one. The pragmatist knows and understands the limitations of life and is prepared to embrace what comes into one's experience.
Today, while attempting to interact on a blog, I was told that I had run away with "the store", so to speak. By the time I had ended my "interaction", there was little connection to what had been shared. Why was this so? I had an agenda.
Because of recent politics, I have grave concern over our nation and its future. Therefore, I sought to understand America's origins, its Founders, and understand how politicians and the populace were understanding the issues and contexts they were in. This set me on a course for over the last couple of years, that has fascinated me. My worldview was challenged and changed. I will never be the same. But, in the mean-time, until I "settle", then I will probably "read" into the things I am reading, gleaning what I "need" to fill in the gaps of my understanding....This presupposition limits my critical ability to engage the issues before me. But, then, again, I want independence of thought. I do not desire to be spoon-fed. But, I do desire to be educated, by the educated.
In conclusion, we must undestand whenever we have agendas or things that are being reconciled in our lives and thinking. For if we are not careful, we will misunderstand and miscommunicate. And others will be baffled over how we have come to our conclusions. So, be aware of where you are, before you speak and think before you write. Otherwise, people will not be any better off, than before you opened your mouth or picked up your pen.
Friday, March 5, 2010
I Have Concern For Our Nation
I have concerns for our nation with the recent subway shootings at the Pentagon!
The disenchanted and disillusioned culprit was a man who felt helpless about making a difference in his government. He had become angered by ethics violation and abuse of power that runs rampant in the halls of power. I don't blame him there.
But, is there some other way to express anger than taking a gun to shoot others. This is where public engagement diminshes into tribal slug fests! And where bombing of abortion clinics outweigh reasonable influence.
I am concerned because of the demonization of the "world of ideas". Ideas are what our Founders based the "founding of our country". These were what created our "worlds" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"!
But, what most don't stop to think about is that these ideals have to be defined in real world terms. And what does "THAT" mean? Real world terms is real world values that are reasoned expression of support for one's position.
Take the word "life" for instance. What is life? What makes for "life"? What is important to "life"? Who determines the value of life? Why do you believe these things? or How do you support your position?
What about "liberty"? What does "liberty" mean? How does one promote liberty as a value? Is liberty absolute? Where does one draw a line around liberty? Why does one think liberty should be limited? What values limit liberty? ETC....
We must understand that our country values diversity, so we will understand and frame these terms differently. But, we are all Americans, who value these "ideals" and we must stop fighting each other and determine to engage ourselves within our value systems and commit to being engaged politically.
Public engagement without abusing power is what I hope for America, without this "ideal", then there is no hope!
The disenchanted and disillusioned culprit was a man who felt helpless about making a difference in his government. He had become angered by ethics violation and abuse of power that runs rampant in the halls of power. I don't blame him there.
But, is there some other way to express anger than taking a gun to shoot others. This is where public engagement diminshes into tribal slug fests! And where bombing of abortion clinics outweigh reasonable influence.
I am concerned because of the demonization of the "world of ideas". Ideas are what our Founders based the "founding of our country". These were what created our "worlds" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"!
But, what most don't stop to think about is that these ideals have to be defined in real world terms. And what does "THAT" mean? Real world terms is real world values that are reasoned expression of support for one's position.
Take the word "life" for instance. What is life? What makes for "life"? What is important to "life"? Who determines the value of life? Why do you believe these things? or How do you support your position?
What about "liberty"? What does "liberty" mean? How does one promote liberty as a value? Is liberty absolute? Where does one draw a line around liberty? Why does one think liberty should be limited? What values limit liberty? ETC....
We must understand that our country values diversity, so we will understand and frame these terms differently. But, we are all Americans, who value these "ideals" and we must stop fighting each other and determine to engage ourselves within our value systems and commit to being engaged politically.
Public engagement without abusing power is what I hope for America, without this "ideal", then there is no hope!
Brain, Mind, Emotions, and Memory Response and Living in the Real World
Last night my husband and I watched a movie with Morgan Freeman. His moives usually have some meaning or message, and they are usually good. We thought we might be "headed to see" some B rated movie, as we'd gotten several movies from Sam's Club for under $5. But, we were delightfully surprised!
The movie was about two serial killers. Morgan Freeman was a forensic psychologist from D.C. who travelled to the Triangle Park, N. C. area to help the police there find the suspected killer. He had a "dog in the fight", as his neice had been missing for several weeks.
To make a long story short and to get to my point, the movie was intensely suspenseful and just when you thought that the movie was solved, there was another "crook in the road"..This led to an emotional connection with the movie unlike most. And the post traumatic stress that the main escapee suffered was experienced alongside her.
In my sleep, I kept having dreams as if the situations had happened to me; whispering in my ear from the murderer, running away from the killer, etc. This led to a fitful night and waking up several times to realize "it was only a dream".
I had not eaten anything out of the ordinary last night and had gone to bed as usual. So, there should've been nothing that would have made my sleep different, except for the movie.
My unprofessional and "scientific" suspicion is that my emotional connectedness to the movie led me to an emphathetic response. I had experienced the situation personally.
Is this not what we experience with those we feel connected to when they suffer? Our emotional connection leads us to justify their misfortunes, reach out to help, and understand their weaknesses.
I think that our reason is useful to help us function in the world without collapsing into a "pool of emotion". What good would that do? So, our reason help us rationalize our lives so that we live reasonably, not emphathetically. We cannot "love humanity", as that is an 'ideal" and ideals have to be defined and practically understood for there to be real meaning and purpose.
This is where we play out our lives committed to certain values which are prioritized accordingly. We live rationally, according to our values.
And I believe that values are a culmalative conglomoration of different experiences, individual personality and interests. Therefore, universals do not exist in the real world, only "ideals" that are manifested differently.
The movie was about two serial killers. Morgan Freeman was a forensic psychologist from D.C. who travelled to the Triangle Park, N. C. area to help the police there find the suspected killer. He had a "dog in the fight", as his neice had been missing for several weeks.
To make a long story short and to get to my point, the movie was intensely suspenseful and just when you thought that the movie was solved, there was another "crook in the road"..This led to an emotional connection with the movie unlike most. And the post traumatic stress that the main escapee suffered was experienced alongside her.
In my sleep, I kept having dreams as if the situations had happened to me; whispering in my ear from the murderer, running away from the killer, etc. This led to a fitful night and waking up several times to realize "it was only a dream".
I had not eaten anything out of the ordinary last night and had gone to bed as usual. So, there should've been nothing that would have made my sleep different, except for the movie.
My unprofessional and "scientific" suspicion is that my emotional connectedness to the movie led me to an emphathetic response. I had experienced the situation personally.
Is this not what we experience with those we feel connected to when they suffer? Our emotional connection leads us to justify their misfortunes, reach out to help, and understand their weaknesses.
I think that our reason is useful to help us function in the world without collapsing into a "pool of emotion". What good would that do? So, our reason help us rationalize our lives so that we live reasonably, not emphathetically. We cannot "love humanity", as that is an 'ideal" and ideals have to be defined and practically understood for there to be real meaning and purpose.
This is where we play out our lives committed to certain values which are prioritized accordingly. We live rationally, according to our values.
And I believe that values are a culmalative conglomoration of different experiences, individual personality and interests. Therefore, universals do not exist in the real world, only "ideals" that are manifested differently.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
What is Character?
Character in some circles is used like an "ideal". But, "ideals" have to be defined to be really understood. All of us understand our definitions differently because each of us will have different priorities and values concerning what consitutes "character".
If I am a child that has need of a parent to love and nurture me, then "character" is used by the child as a "nurturing and affirming adult". That is "character" to the child in need.
But, if I am drowning in an ocean, and a ship passes by and someone sees my dilemma and rescues me. Then that is "character" because I had a need for someone to be courageous, concerned, and responsive to my need.
If I am an abused wife and have led a fearful and subservient life under the domination of an abusive and controlling husband. I need someone to be sensitive, understanding and considerate to my over-reactions to any form of "interference", as I will view the concern as "control".
But, if I am in a business proposition, I have need for others to be honest and forthright about their expectations, and negotiate those expectations, and outcomes, so that we can agree. The compomises and agreement will benefit both of us, because I have entered into a contract with someone of integrity.
A politician is given public trust by the voter to uphold his promises during the campaign. But, all too often, politics does not allow the individual politician to uphold his promises, because of the contingencies and values of other propositions and political goals of others. So, always there wil be compromise and the public looses trust. And the politician is left as one without "principle" (or character). Principle will not get along with those who differ and cannot compromise to get anything accomplished in the political realm.
What is needed by any one situation or person differs. And "character" understands the needs of the person or situation and tries to act appropriately. Character is the ability to act or respond in a situation regarding others in an appropriate way.
So, what then, is character?
So, whenever someone says "character" to me, I wonder what they mean. They must mean that their particular value is upheld. But, at what costs is their value upheld? Is their value a universal value, or one that they thing "should" be a universal? Do these see the "world" as innately "evil" and they must correct it? Or do they see "beauty", even through tragedy and seek to alleviate the tragic? The universals of life, liberty and the "pursuit of happiness" are universals, but will be defined and understood differently. And free societies will allow such differences.
If I am a child that has need of a parent to love and nurture me, then "character" is used by the child as a "nurturing and affirming adult". That is "character" to the child in need.
But, if I am drowning in an ocean, and a ship passes by and someone sees my dilemma and rescues me. Then that is "character" because I had a need for someone to be courageous, concerned, and responsive to my need.
If I am an abused wife and have led a fearful and subservient life under the domination of an abusive and controlling husband. I need someone to be sensitive, understanding and considerate to my over-reactions to any form of "interference", as I will view the concern as "control".
But, if I am in a business proposition, I have need for others to be honest and forthright about their expectations, and negotiate those expectations, and outcomes, so that we can agree. The compomises and agreement will benefit both of us, because I have entered into a contract with someone of integrity.
A politician is given public trust by the voter to uphold his promises during the campaign. But, all too often, politics does not allow the individual politician to uphold his promises, because of the contingencies and values of other propositions and political goals of others. So, always there wil be compromise and the public looses trust. And the politician is left as one without "principle" (or character). Principle will not get along with those who differ and cannot compromise to get anything accomplished in the political realm.
What is needed by any one situation or person differs. And "character" understands the needs of the person or situation and tries to act appropriately. Character is the ability to act or respond in a situation regarding others in an appropriate way.
So, what then, is character?
So, whenever someone says "character" to me, I wonder what they mean. They must mean that their particular value is upheld. But, at what costs is their value upheld? Is their value a universal value, or one that they thing "should" be a universal? Do these see the "world" as innately "evil" and they must correct it? Or do they see "beauty", even through tragedy and seek to alleviate the tragic? The universals of life, liberty and the "pursuit of happiness" are universals, but will be defined and understood differently. And free societies will allow such differences.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Anarchism
Anarchists do not believe in government's power or right, because they believe that the people have the right to liberty, irregardless of government's needs. Government is not an established authority, but a "consented authority".
I have been thinking about this, as another blog had a survey on which type of government would be the best. But, they did not include a Constitutional Republic! And I wondered why....
I answered a Democratic Capitalist, because I don't adhere to Socialism, or Dictatorship. And as I believe that our government by it very nature protects individual civil liberties, I didn't go for "Anarchism". But, on further reflection, isn't this what the "tea parties" are about? So, maybe I am an anarchists.
The "tea parties" are tired of government subverting the right of the people, because our government was founded on the premise of be a government "by the people and for the people", as well as being a government given "power by the people, themselves"!!! So, maybe under certain circumstance, I am for anarchism....
Didn't our Founders subvert the previous form of government, a monarchy...and wasn't the Civil War about the rights of those who weren't represented in our "Representative Republic"?
Although there has been debate about State rights, versus Federal rights, or Localism versus internationalism....how can we deny that we are already bound to a globalist economy? Trade has mandated that this is so. But, we are not prepared for the diveristy in which government's do trade, are we? And how do we maintain the individual's free choice, when others do not have those same values?
A lot has to be reflected upon before we get ourselves into further danger. We have let down our borders with no consideration of what this must or may mean to American's values of life and liberty...
I guess I am learning that there is no "ideal" world, but there are "ideals". And "ideals' lead to the wars we have because "ideals' determine what kind of political system one believes in. "Ideals" speak to man's hopes, dreams, and possibilities. And Americans are big on thier ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for the person, the individual....in his or her own right.
I have been thinking about this, as another blog had a survey on which type of government would be the best. But, they did not include a Constitutional Republic! And I wondered why....
I answered a Democratic Capitalist, because I don't adhere to Socialism, or Dictatorship. And as I believe that our government by it very nature protects individual civil liberties, I didn't go for "Anarchism". But, on further reflection, isn't this what the "tea parties" are about? So, maybe I am an anarchists.
The "tea parties" are tired of government subverting the right of the people, because our government was founded on the premise of be a government "by the people and for the people", as well as being a government given "power by the people, themselves"!!! So, maybe under certain circumstance, I am for anarchism....
Didn't our Founders subvert the previous form of government, a monarchy...and wasn't the Civil War about the rights of those who weren't represented in our "Representative Republic"?
Although there has been debate about State rights, versus Federal rights, or Localism versus internationalism....how can we deny that we are already bound to a globalist economy? Trade has mandated that this is so. But, we are not prepared for the diveristy in which government's do trade, are we? And how do we maintain the individual's free choice, when others do not have those same values?
A lot has to be reflected upon before we get ourselves into further danger. We have let down our borders with no consideration of what this must or may mean to American's values of life and liberty...
I guess I am learning that there is no "ideal" world, but there are "ideals". And "ideals' lead to the wars we have because "ideals' determine what kind of political system one believes in. "Ideals" speak to man's hopes, dreams, and possibilities. And Americans are big on thier ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for the person, the individual....in his or her own right.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
The Super-Ego and the Id
Scientists today are interested in "altruism". How do humans who are made to "survive" based on their personal interests to take interests in others? Religion and tribal/cultural understandings of formation of the Super-Ego have been understood to help along the "ultimate good", "pubic good", or "moral imperative". But, is societal "good", the "collective" the greatest value one is to value? This is the question posed to moral philosophers, psychologists, sociologists, diplomats, and theologians.
Freud made popular the terms Id and Super-Ego. These terms are used to identify how individuals naturally are pre-disposed and how they become due to societal/cultural impact. Whenever there is a coflict between the Id and Super-Ego, the Ego uses defense mechanisms to "cope" with anxiety.
The child needs a nuturing environment to survive. And as Western society has lost its sense of responsiblity and obligation to its young, Western culture has suffered the dire consequences. The family is the first formative community that the child encounters to teach and train. As the child grows and experiences his teachers, and others that impact the child, the child learns to trust or mistrust "life". Is life to be embraced, explored and trusted, or is life to be a challenge to life itself due to impoverishment, whether physical or social? These are the social problems that face the West. And it becomes the question of the developing Id and Super-Ego.
I think that whenever the individual, whether a child or adult, is undermined through subversive means, then it is an undermining of the stability that will bring about "altruistic concern". How can one who has not recieved the proper nourishment from society, be or become what society needs to further the goals of human flourishing?
Human flourishing has to begin at the individual level for the individual to "give back" and bring about human flourishing for another. The "super-ego" can be a gift or a curse depending on how that has been formed in early childhood. Has the environment been nurturing or punitive? And how has the parent handled the child's innate desires? Have they been affirmed as far as possible, without subverting the child's "good"?
Parenting the child's "Id', his innate desires is an important part of developing the child's gifts. If the parent is too afraid of the desires of the child because of some punitive understanding of religious doctrine, then the child becomes malformed and may sabatoge his own happiness later in life.
I think that religion can be prohibitive to healthy development due to a "fear of God". If one has certain natural desires, then one is "doomed to be punished". Happiness is not to be sought in the development of what one desires, because one must sacrifice for 'God. This is seen as the ultimate in service to God. But, sacrifice and subservience is an unhealthy understanding of faith. The fundamentalist appraoch to faith demeans the "human".
Freud made popular the terms Id and Super-Ego. These terms are used to identify how individuals naturally are pre-disposed and how they become due to societal/cultural impact. Whenever there is a coflict between the Id and Super-Ego, the Ego uses defense mechanisms to "cope" with anxiety.
The child needs a nuturing environment to survive. And as Western society has lost its sense of responsiblity and obligation to its young, Western culture has suffered the dire consequences. The family is the first formative community that the child encounters to teach and train. As the child grows and experiences his teachers, and others that impact the child, the child learns to trust or mistrust "life". Is life to be embraced, explored and trusted, or is life to be a challenge to life itself due to impoverishment, whether physical or social? These are the social problems that face the West. And it becomes the question of the developing Id and Super-Ego.
I think that whenever the individual, whether a child or adult, is undermined through subversive means, then it is an undermining of the stability that will bring about "altruistic concern". How can one who has not recieved the proper nourishment from society, be or become what society needs to further the goals of human flourishing?
Human flourishing has to begin at the individual level for the individual to "give back" and bring about human flourishing for another. The "super-ego" can be a gift or a curse depending on how that has been formed in early childhood. Has the environment been nurturing or punitive? And how has the parent handled the child's innate desires? Have they been affirmed as far as possible, without subverting the child's "good"?
Parenting the child's "Id', his innate desires is an important part of developing the child's gifts. If the parent is too afraid of the desires of the child because of some punitive understanding of religious doctrine, then the child becomes malformed and may sabatoge his own happiness later in life.
I think that religion can be prohibitive to healthy development due to a "fear of God". If one has certain natural desires, then one is "doomed to be punished". Happiness is not to be sought in the development of what one desires, because one must sacrifice for 'God. This is seen as the ultimate in service to God. But, sacrifice and subservience is an unhealthy understanding of faith. The fundamentalist appraoch to faith demeans the "human".
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Dominion and Stewardship
Christians believe in the "creation mandate". These believe that since God created all that is, humans are responsible to be responsible. It is no less true for the scientific materialists. These also believe that one must dominate and steward the earth's resources. Therefore, there has been an alliance of purpose, so that the world, or globalized efforts will "come into being". But, is 'one purpose' the best way or best option among options of "leading the world"?
Science in the West has been useful to bring about a better way of life, in quality to health, and comfort of lifestyle. We believe that science gives us opportunities to explore and discover yet to be known facts about our physical environment, so the the earth can be its best in serving mankind's needs.
Christians, and other faiths, also believe that the earth is of value to protect. Therefore, the environmental movement, from global warming to recycling has impacted the globe, whether believer or unbeliever. "Avatar" is only one amongst many sci fi movies that feature American interests in science, environment and "mystery" (the yet to be discovered).
"One world" can come about through such goals and visions of stewardship and dominion. But, in our world of global conflict, ideological differences, is it going to bring about "the Kingdom of God", "peace on earth", or "Utopian dreams"?
With limited resources, and within limited means of bettering the world, how are we to envision that all will have equal? or live under equal protections of "law and order"? Is duplicity a means to that end? And what of those that are duped under such means? What is the real purpose of the law?
It becomes clearer as the West has opened its doors and heart to those "without", whether national identity or social and economic means, that the world is much too complex to hope for "utopian ideals". Laws define the boundaries around national identity. And laws conflict when ideology conflicts. This is why some in the West are frustrated by Islam's demand for special consideration of their laws. The U.N. has acquiesed. And the West is suffering under what to do with Shairi'a.
This is not to say that those that have "hearts of gold" or seek to "sainthood" should not seek to do good, waiting for a reward later, or whether they just don't "miss" the funds they send because they have so much anyway.
I just oppose those who want their visions to be everyone's. Stewardship and dominion must be held, defined and expressed within different value systems. Stewardship may mean for those without the ability to give to the poor, that they don't buy the "Coke", so they can afford the formula for the baby at home. And for those who have so much, well, they are free to give as their hearts desire, because they won't miss it anyway.
Dominion of the earth and its "goods" is a way of viewing leadership in honing the earth's resources to better mankind. Scientists have the ability to dominate the earth in the way their specific expertise designs. But the personal commitments, and values of individual scientists, will determine how that will be lived out in their lives. There is no "one way of being in the world". It is a matter of commitment, choice, and value. And it is a matter of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Science in the West has been useful to bring about a better way of life, in quality to health, and comfort of lifestyle. We believe that science gives us opportunities to explore and discover yet to be known facts about our physical environment, so the the earth can be its best in serving mankind's needs.
Christians, and other faiths, also believe that the earth is of value to protect. Therefore, the environmental movement, from global warming to recycling has impacted the globe, whether believer or unbeliever. "Avatar" is only one amongst many sci fi movies that feature American interests in science, environment and "mystery" (the yet to be discovered).
"One world" can come about through such goals and visions of stewardship and dominion. But, in our world of global conflict, ideological differences, is it going to bring about "the Kingdom of God", "peace on earth", or "Utopian dreams"?
With limited resources, and within limited means of bettering the world, how are we to envision that all will have equal? or live under equal protections of "law and order"? Is duplicity a means to that end? And what of those that are duped under such means? What is the real purpose of the law?
It becomes clearer as the West has opened its doors and heart to those "without", whether national identity or social and economic means, that the world is much too complex to hope for "utopian ideals". Laws define the boundaries around national identity. And laws conflict when ideology conflicts. This is why some in the West are frustrated by Islam's demand for special consideration of their laws. The U.N. has acquiesed. And the West is suffering under what to do with Shairi'a.
This is not to say that those that have "hearts of gold" or seek to "sainthood" should not seek to do good, waiting for a reward later, or whether they just don't "miss" the funds they send because they have so much anyway.
I just oppose those who want their visions to be everyone's. Stewardship and dominion must be held, defined and expressed within different value systems. Stewardship may mean for those without the ability to give to the poor, that they don't buy the "Coke", so they can afford the formula for the baby at home. And for those who have so much, well, they are free to give as their hearts desire, because they won't miss it anyway.
Dominion of the earth and its "goods" is a way of viewing leadership in honing the earth's resources to better mankind. Scientists have the ability to dominate the earth in the way their specific expertise designs. But the personal commitments, and values of individual scientists, will determine how that will be lived out in their lives. There is no "one way of being in the world". It is a matter of commitment, choice, and value. And it is a matter of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Military Rules in Today's Deployment
I have stated before that my husband and I admire the military, because the military believes in ethics. They do not condone fratenization, adultry, or disrespect for authority. The military believes in "team effort" and pursuing the ideals that made our country great. The military is a great tradition to be involved with.
Westpoint's motto, "We don't lie, cheat or steal and don't tolerate those who do", is the motto of character. I value the training that our men and women in uniform submit to, for the sake of liberty. These lay their lives down willingly for the sake of democratic ideals and our national interests.
Today, I was listening to a program on NPR that had a former military commander, a professor of military law from Yale, and others that were talking about he recent General's pronouncement that anyone found to be pregnant during their service under his command in northern Iraq would be court-martialed. It is my understanding that the pronouncement was tempered a bit. But, the lawyer from Yale said that if this pronouncement was challenged in the courts, it would be upheld. The military "owns" you. And with that, a woman called in to say that she was a former military wife whose husband was told by his commander that they owned his body. One of the other officers had gotten sunburned and was disciplined, because no one should be in any condition that subverts their readiness to serve.
I respect the military's commitment to the ideals of our govenrment and their commitment to one another, as team members serving the same goals. This is an environment any business envies and tries to emulate. Productivity is high in this environment, because of the voluntary nature of entrance, one understands and knows what he/she are serving and why.
The military is not respected by some that think that a pacificist stance is more true to the ideals of humanity's interest. But, this commitment is based on an idealized view of man, where man is not prone to the "disease" that free societies call oppression, and the religious term "sin".
The military will always be needed and should always be applauded not because of what they have to do, but what they protect and what they value. These are the ideals that free societies uphold, even by force, if necessary, because otherwise, none of us will be free for long.
Westpoint's motto, "We don't lie, cheat or steal and don't tolerate those who do", is the motto of character. I value the training that our men and women in uniform submit to, for the sake of liberty. These lay their lives down willingly for the sake of democratic ideals and our national interests.
Today, I was listening to a program on NPR that had a former military commander, a professor of military law from Yale, and others that were talking about he recent General's pronouncement that anyone found to be pregnant during their service under his command in northern Iraq would be court-martialed. It is my understanding that the pronouncement was tempered a bit. But, the lawyer from Yale said that if this pronouncement was challenged in the courts, it would be upheld. The military "owns" you. And with that, a woman called in to say that she was a former military wife whose husband was told by his commander that they owned his body. One of the other officers had gotten sunburned and was disciplined, because no one should be in any condition that subverts their readiness to serve.
I respect the military's commitment to the ideals of our govenrment and their commitment to one another, as team members serving the same goals. This is an environment any business envies and tries to emulate. Productivity is high in this environment, because of the voluntary nature of entrance, one understands and knows what he/she are serving and why.
The military is not respected by some that think that a pacificist stance is more true to the ideals of humanity's interest. But, this commitment is based on an idealized view of man, where man is not prone to the "disease" that free societies call oppression, and the religious term "sin".
The military will always be needed and should always be applauded not because of what they have to do, but what they protect and what they value. These are the ideals that free societies uphold, even by force, if necessary, because otherwise, none of us will be free for long.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Nation-States, Values and Universiality
Today's need to look for the universal, so that our fractured state of affairs might be mended, is all important, I believe. Is there a universal? Are there unversal values?
In a scientific age, where men do not accept religion at face value, one must use the "picture" of man as an evolutionary being, and yet, hold to some aspect of "higher value", so that man is prized above the natural realm. Why would this be important?
Humans must not be equivolized to "matter alone". Otherwise, science will treat man, as just matter. There is no ethical or moral obligation to deter science from de-meaning those "outside of the power structures".
Today's climate of globalism has led many to affirm multi-culturalism without critical analysis. These have sought to understand man within context, without understanding man, himself. Is the "man" apart from culture?
Yes, man is a rational being, that acts in response to stimuli,and has certain basic needs to develop potential. But, affirming multiculturalism is a different matter.
Multiculturalism holds no values as universal, because values are contextually understood. While this may be true within the realm of religious values, it is not true within the realm of science, or universiality.
Universiality are the basics that our nation upholds; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Each citizen is granted these inalienable rights. These rights are the basis of human rights and our government's desire to see that other nations comply with these universal principles.
Today's globalism that affirms such multiculturalism and relativism as The United Nations affirms all nations as equal. Lybia is an equal to America, in fact, because of America's "discriminaton" of certain nations, America suffers persecution under the label of "Empire".
This is an absurd view, because American ideals value individual liberties and independent thinking, unlike nations that condone monarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships.
What is of ulitmate value? American ideals, which uphold human rights, but within the bounds of law.
In a scientific age, where men do not accept religion at face value, one must use the "picture" of man as an evolutionary being, and yet, hold to some aspect of "higher value", so that man is prized above the natural realm. Why would this be important?
Humans must not be equivolized to "matter alone". Otherwise, science will treat man, as just matter. There is no ethical or moral obligation to deter science from de-meaning those "outside of the power structures".
Today's climate of globalism has led many to affirm multi-culturalism without critical analysis. These have sought to understand man within context, without understanding man, himself. Is the "man" apart from culture?
Yes, man is a rational being, that acts in response to stimuli,and has certain basic needs to develop potential. But, affirming multiculturalism is a different matter.
Multiculturalism holds no values as universal, because values are contextually understood. While this may be true within the realm of religious values, it is not true within the realm of science, or universiality.
Universiality are the basics that our nation upholds; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Each citizen is granted these inalienable rights. These rights are the basis of human rights and our government's desire to see that other nations comply with these universal principles.
Today's globalism that affirms such multiculturalism and relativism as The United Nations affirms all nations as equal. Lybia is an equal to America, in fact, because of America's "discriminaton" of certain nations, America suffers persecution under the label of "Empire".
This is an absurd view, because American ideals value individual liberties and independent thinking, unlike nations that condone monarchies, theocracies, or dictatorships.
What is of ulitmate value? American ideals, which uphold human rights, but within the bounds of law.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Politicizing the Public Square (con.)
My last post suggested that we must allow diversity of viewpoint, if we want our Republic to survive the "cultural wars". The Establishment clause did NOT discriminate against relgious freedom, but neither did it discriminate against any other form of "being in the world". So, religion cannot be established by the government, that means a certain tradition being sanctioned under governmental power. But, religious people can form the views and opinions and have a right to assemble about political goals. This is appropriate in a free society.
We do not discriminate based upon one's choice of commitment, whether that be to one's vocation, one's spouse (except in the case of homosexuality), one's religious views, or one's political views. We are a society that believes in liberty, as our unifying identity.
Today, though the Church wants to implement its views into our courts and legislate what everyone should do. Legislation is not about character, but about conscience and values. Instead of winning the "war" with persuasion, the Church wants to control behavior legally.
Whenever one attempts to control another's behavior, there is a lack of ethical character that I think trumps the concern that the religious try to impose. One size does not fit all, as Americans are not all believers. And even believers differ in many ways from other believers in their opinons and convictions. There is diversity and this is a strength, if we hold to the ideal of tolerance, and not some form of ideology that defines what life and liberty MUST mean.
Our Founders were not all in agreement as to their personal religious "commitments' and beliefs, and they found a way to form our government around the ideals that define "freedom for Americans". Those who disagree with what is or has been legislated have an open forum in the public square to voice their opinon. But, all who voice thier opinion should also know that there should be equal access of time to those who have a different view.
What would our nation look like if we could disagree and tolerate, holding to the ideals of liberty and justice for all, not just a segmented or identified part, but for ALL of us. Would that be more like "heaven on earth"?
We do not discriminate based upon one's choice of commitment, whether that be to one's vocation, one's spouse (except in the case of homosexuality), one's religious views, or one's political views. We are a society that believes in liberty, as our unifying identity.
Today, though the Church wants to implement its views into our courts and legislate what everyone should do. Legislation is not about character, but about conscience and values. Instead of winning the "war" with persuasion, the Church wants to control behavior legally.
Whenever one attempts to control another's behavior, there is a lack of ethical character that I think trumps the concern that the religious try to impose. One size does not fit all, as Americans are not all believers. And even believers differ in many ways from other believers in their opinons and convictions. There is diversity and this is a strength, if we hold to the ideal of tolerance, and not some form of ideology that defines what life and liberty MUST mean.
Our Founders were not all in agreement as to their personal religious "commitments' and beliefs, and they found a way to form our government around the ideals that define "freedom for Americans". Those who disagree with what is or has been legislated have an open forum in the public square to voice their opinon. But, all who voice thier opinion should also know that there should be equal access of time to those who have a different view.
What would our nation look like if we could disagree and tolerate, holding to the ideals of liberty and justice for all, not just a segmented or identified part, but for ALL of us. Would that be more like "heaven on earth"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
