The Question of Experience in Brain Experimentation

Because humans are sensate beings, the brain is obviously on the forefront of scientific investigation. Experience, then becomes of interest in investigating human response to stimulit in understanding culture, human reasoning, human rationale, and how the mind interacts with the brain. Such experiments are "necessariy evils" according to such scientists, otherwise, humanity cannot learn how to live in "peace", as we will always be conflicing in our "worldviews" which create values, and form "world colliding realities".

Education is such a "life transformation", as it gives information about the world that brings about cognitive dissonance and a 're-ordering" or one's "world". Fine tuning one's reasons for believing or committing to one's values is what defines the years of growing into maturity and wisdom. Such academic freedom is not valued in religious communities.

While control of academic liberty makes for religious control, freedom of the Press makes for political control. Such States demand that the 'people be conformed by the information that is regulated. Both types of limiting information, whether academic or political make for conforming man's 'mind' and forming society into a "collective". Individuals are not important to the collective mentality.

But, the question of values always makes for conflict when values want to be defined by outside sources. Where and what will determine values? Science seeks to promote and protect the "natural environment and resources". Such "experts" then, define for everyone else where the lines are..and some seek to re-define values based on global concerns about these resources, while others like to define values on social issues that concern society.

The Church has been useful to further the concerns of the State when they collude over global power and dominance. Such endeavors have to do with the "poor", the "outcast" (Islam?) and the disenfranchaised (the minority) and using the "ethics" of political and social power to bring about an equalization to all. But, it also undermines the political power of the nation-state and makes for an allignment to those outside the boundaries of lawful behavior. Such an allignment might make humanity open to a "new religious order". Then, the "war" will be between religion and the nation-state as to the defining of law and order, Whichever power, religious or political, the "new world order" will not bring about liberty unless it allows law to protect individual liberties in conscience concerning religion and their personal choice!.

Apologies, But, No Apologies

Apologies are offered to anyone that has "happened" upon this blog and been offended. I speak my personal opinion for two reasons.

The first is something I hold dear and cannot compromise. It is the value of the freedom of speech and the press!!! Without the right to speak one's mind, there is no freedom, but oppressive conformity to what is "politically correct". Political correctness subverts the ability for individuals and the populace to have information and come to conclusions themselves. I think this is a value we cannot undermine without undermining free society, itself.

The question comes as to what is appropriate. In a personal blog, I think it is appropriate and even mandantory to express what is on one's mind. And what one thinks. No one is bound to read anything that is written here, or anywhere else, as it is a way of me processing and coming to terms with values.

The other reason is just as important for me personally. I need to write my opinion, irregardless of what anyone else thinks. This is an attempt to assert myself, build courage to speak my mind, in spite of what has imposed itself upon me by environmental conditioning. Perhaps, it is an adolescent stage of "coming into my own". Or it may be a "mid-life" stage of finding my true voice. I don't know, yet. But, I hope to learn and grow in the process of exploring and come to terms with what I cannot give up. Thus, my stripping away of what seems to be extraneous. Critical thinking is necessary in this process. I may not have developed my thinking altogether, but I am trying and this is a good thing.

I believe that those that are secure in their convictions, and values, will not be offended by my "voice".

What Does a Good Citizen Do?

What does a good citizen do? That question could be answered in various ways, depending on how one understand the individual and society.

A good citizen is defined by individuals based on certain values they hold. Do they hold liberty as the ultimate social value or is society itself of ultimate value and concern. The latter are more socialistic in thier view politically.

The political ideal for the socialist is equality of property versus an elitist view that supports capital and investments and individual initiative.

Religion has been useful to serve the ends of socialist's agendas. But religion itself is a question of value. Does one believe that the world was "caused"? Is God personal or an abstraction? Should someone act in faith without evidence? Or should one base their decisions on reason alone?

Is society the basis of values, or is there a moral theist view about society?

Are individual's free, or determined and how hard is the determination? What determines an individual, genetics, or environment? Can someone be held accountable to actions that are beyond his control because of a genetic predisposition or environmental conditioning? What is justice, then?

Is justice or morality relative, or are they absolute? Multiculturalism would uphold a relativistic view, but international law, human rights activists, and the Founding Fathers believed that all people were created with certain inalienable rights, the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Is happiness the only ultimate value, or are there a "world of values" in a pluralistic view?

Where people answer these questions will determine their commitments and behavior in certain situations.

Humans are thinkers, whether they think so or not. They are always being influenced by the things they read, hear or see. And in free societies, we allow most any information to be sorted by the individual's free determination. But, the value question comes in, as to what sort of information is productive? Should there be an evaluation of what is productive based on what society wants the outcome to be? And organist view of society would believe so, as would the socialist and moral theist.

But, if one thinks of society as a social contract, one will come to different conclusions than one who thinks of society as an organism, itself. The individual will be of uptmost importance because he, the individual cannot be dissolved into his function in society alone. He is a human being, who has his own desires, purposes and goals, which should never be stolen.

A social contract view of society affirms individuals making an agreement about their affliation with society in a certain culture. This is what makes for liberty, in regards to choices about one's life commitments, and values. "Big Brother' does not determine what one should or should not to in the speicific choices of vocation or mate selection. And this is what has made America great because the individual is motivated by his own goals, for his own life. He owns his life, no one owns it for
Life cannot be lived fully without the freedom to choose and be in the world as one comes to understand the world. And as one understands that many in the world do not have the choice or right of individuality, and live in fear of torture or torment from government or religion, one comes to value the American ideals of individuality and liberty.

Moral Authorities and Economics

Moral authorities like to demand conformity without understanding personal conviction or conscience concerning complex issues. These want to demand or co-erce others to transform society into their understanding or viewpoint, hindering liberty. (They assume that to transform society, then those who view things differently must be educated into their way of thinking, limiting diversity of views and limiting the freedom of the Press).

Much has been written about disgust and purity issues. I have such disgust over those who want to demand a "one size fits all" way of thinking and being in the world.

It is to the advantage of the materially minded to suggest that others provide virtuous attitudes in their bodies, while they take control of life and limb, all the way to the bank. Such was the case with the sell of indulgences during Martin Luther's reform. The real problem of the Church was their abuse of power. Power has to be balanced in any relationship. Otherwise, there is coercion, and bondage.

Economics must be based on rational choice of the individual under contract, not some redistribution of wealth or corporate profit that disregards the 'worker'. Whenever one does not concur with a goal of an organization or the value of a company, negotiation must transpire. And there is always the choice of leaving a company because of a disregard for proper negotiating.

Moral authorities who are "idealistically" inclined mandate for the poor and needy in society without understanding that it is the free enterprise system that has made for a flourishing economy in the West. And it is the West who have given most to the poor, because of that prosperity.

Prosperity is not the 'great evil" in the world. But, it has been disparaged by the "superior" because of altruistic goals, not understanding the means of that "outcome". The means are always human beings, as human beings have to have the right to choose their own goals, and if that falls in line with another's goals of altruism and/or profit, then so be it. But, if not, that is the right of an individual in a free society to not co-operate.

Let us be done with a monistic view of life and liberty. Otherwise, we are headed for a "new aristocracy".