I have been romantic most of my life. Dreaming of the day I'd marry and live happily ever after. I absolutely loved planning and being a part of our daughter's wedding. Decorating the reception hall and church was something I will never forget, as I love making things look beautiful! I loved talking to people in junior high and high school about their relationship problems. I used to be all about "relationships". I just knew that things could be worked out. I believed in "love" back then.
Cynicism is a transition phase until one can get over the realities of life. Life is not about hopeful dreams, but problems and difficulties. It is reality based, not escapist theology. Such transition means one doesn't look for narratives to woo one to sleep, but looks for the love in the 'neighbot's face". Friends and family is really all anyone has and these are to be cherished as one gets beyond cynicism of life.
Life hits everyone sometime with hard realities. And those of us who are more sensitized by nature or nurture are prone to react strongly to such realities. Some of us decide to think through their life differently. What they had believed is myth and unrealistic hopefulness of 'Utopian" ideals, not the conflicts, politics and harsh painful realities that are the true reality of life.
I don't think there is any healing for "ideals". These are only to be fought for, they are not realities, but dreams of human hearts. And human hearts understand their dreams in different ways. I only want to now protect others from crushing blows about believing "hopeful dreams". It is improbable for most that dreams come true. And this is what being an adult is about, fighting to live and make one's choices, and be who one desires to be, irregardless of what others think or believe. This is when one not only owns one's life, but starts to enjoy life in a new way, because one begins to love oneself . This is only the begining of happiness, to know oneself and not keep hoping for another reality, life or dream.
After one has grasped that life is not a romantic novel, where things are always completed and neatly tied up, one has to begin thier life in a new understanding of value driven goals, not ideally driven dreams. This is reality based thinking, not mythological dreams for hope in the "by and by".
So, don't talk to me about "love". Love is action, but the action must be driven from personal choices about values that are important. Otherwise, others impose thier "ideals" from the outside, as moral demands and that is not love, nor loving. All of 'us" have a right to "be", so if I am not allowed to "be", "Don't Talk to Me About Love".
Showing posts with label a human being. Show all posts
Showing posts with label a human being. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Bush's Interview
Last night my husband and I watched Hannity interview Bush. In between commercials, we flipped to the other channels and were curious and amazed at what the commentators on these news shows were saying. Did they hear Bush, himself? Or had they already established their view without hearing him? Had their ideology trumped his "defense"?
No matter what your political persuasion, one could not question the integrity or the concern with which this President "did his duty". He took the job seriously and talked about the "human side" of being the President and making the decisions that impact lives. He admitted in so many words, the feelings of limitation, and his questioning of his decisions, when all the information "was not in".
He had thought that the airplane that went down in Pennsylvania was due to a "command" he's given to the Air Force for protection. I couldn't imagine. Then, there was the scare that he and his staff might have been exposed to biological elements that would've killed them. I was impressed with his fortitude.
Hannity read a letter from Bush's father, President H. George Bush Sr., and one could visibly see how it impacted George, Jr. The connection of his humanity was what struck me. This "ideal" and representative Person was a real human being. I felt like I had had a chat with him myself. But, while in office, he respected his position and weighed heavily what to say and what not to say, in regards to our security. He wanted to protect the American people and the American people's "way of life".
I gained respect for the "man", George W. Bush by watching this interview. And I valued his commitment to our nation in service.
No matter what your political persuasion, one could not question the integrity or the concern with which this President "did his duty". He took the job seriously and talked about the "human side" of being the President and making the decisions that impact lives. He admitted in so many words, the feelings of limitation, and his questioning of his decisions, when all the information "was not in".
He had thought that the airplane that went down in Pennsylvania was due to a "command" he's given to the Air Force for protection. I couldn't imagine. Then, there was the scare that he and his staff might have been exposed to biological elements that would've killed them. I was impressed with his fortitude.
Hannity read a letter from Bush's father, President H. George Bush Sr., and one could visibly see how it impacted George, Jr. The connection of his humanity was what struck me. This "ideal" and representative Person was a real human being. I felt like I had had a chat with him myself. But, while in office, he respected his position and weighed heavily what to say and what not to say, in regards to our security. He wanted to protect the American people and the American people's "way of life".
I gained respect for the "man", George W. Bush by watching this interview. And I valued his commitment to our nation in service.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Neither Nature or Nurture, or Universals
The individual should not be determined by Church or State, nor should the individual be determined by nature or nuruture....
Although we live in contexts which do limit us, and all individuals have distinct natural giftings, these cannot be determined in any specific outcome in free societies. There are various "outcomes" in which the individual may use their certain giftings.
Those that want to prescribe a universal value are determinists and will use power to undermine liberty. And these do so with impunity of conscience because their value is absolute, or ultimate. Aren't there various ways of understanding universals?
Children are impacted by their family or origin, but the "impact" does not have to be permanant. All humans have the capactity to enlarge their understandings, or to re-orient themselves to healthier ways of viewing the world or themselves.
Just as we are impacted by our familial envirounments, we are impacted by our physical environment. But, to say that humans are only submissive, compliant "outcomes" of such, is short of true. Humans are resposive to their environments, but aren't prescribed as to how or what they will respond to.
The human mind is a mystery in some sense. Though we respond to stimuli, do we always take the same actions? If the human brain were only a computor then it could be assumed that humans are little more than robots to various stimuli. Don't humans all have various ways of processing information and putting that information together? Isn't finishing a dissertation adding a "new dimension" of understanding and knowledge to the human race? How, then does new information come about, if humans all process their information in the same way?
Although we live in contexts which do limit us, and all individuals have distinct natural giftings, these cannot be determined in any specific outcome in free societies. There are various "outcomes" in which the individual may use their certain giftings.
Those that want to prescribe a universal value are determinists and will use power to undermine liberty. And these do so with impunity of conscience because their value is absolute, or ultimate. Aren't there various ways of understanding universals?
Children are impacted by their family or origin, but the "impact" does not have to be permanant. All humans have the capactity to enlarge their understandings, or to re-orient themselves to healthier ways of viewing the world or themselves.
Just as we are impacted by our familial envirounments, we are impacted by our physical environment. But, to say that humans are only submissive, compliant "outcomes" of such, is short of true. Humans are resposive to their environments, but aren't prescribed as to how or what they will respond to.
The human mind is a mystery in some sense. Though we respond to stimuli, do we always take the same actions? If the human brain were only a computor then it could be assumed that humans are little more than robots to various stimuli. Don't humans all have various ways of processing information and putting that information together? Isn't finishing a dissertation adding a "new dimension" of understanding and knowledge to the human race? How, then does new information come about, if humans all process their information in the same way?
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Review of "Dinner With the Smucks"
I recently went to see "Dinner With the Smucks" and liked the message, but didn't care for some of the comedy. The message was a familiar one; we all have areas to grow and acknowledge, no matter our station in life.
The story line was of an ambitious young businessman, who set his goal to move up the corporate ladder. But, for him to move up the corporate ladder, he had to attend a dinner and bring a "smuck" (idiot). The biggest "idiot" would win a prize and the corporation would grant the promotion to the one that could "lay one over" on another human being.
In the end, the young and ambitious man learned a human lesson that no one is above growing and acknowledgment of human limitations, and human dignity. We are all human, after all. And the "idiot" learned that he could overcome the obstacles in his life if he only believed in himself.
It reminded me of the recent play I saw, "Fat Pig". Helen understood, knew and accepted her limitatons/liabilities. But, she also learned, when she lost at love, that those liabilities are still liabilities in the real business world, where image is everything. Success in both "Fat Pig" and "Dinner With the Smucks" was defined differently than "real world politics", where lying, denial, competition, vanity, and vain-glory win the honors.
The story line was of an ambitious young businessman, who set his goal to move up the corporate ladder. But, for him to move up the corporate ladder, he had to attend a dinner and bring a "smuck" (idiot). The biggest "idiot" would win a prize and the corporation would grant the promotion to the one that could "lay one over" on another human being.
In the end, the young and ambitious man learned a human lesson that no one is above growing and acknowledgment of human limitations, and human dignity. We are all human, after all. And the "idiot" learned that he could overcome the obstacles in his life if he only believed in himself.
It reminded me of the recent play I saw, "Fat Pig". Helen understood, knew and accepted her limitatons/liabilities. But, she also learned, when she lost at love, that those liabilities are still liabilities in the real business world, where image is everything. Success in both "Fat Pig" and "Dinner With the Smucks" was defined differently than "real world politics", where lying, denial, competition, vanity, and vain-glory win the honors.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
What I Hate to Think
What I hate to think is that God is reduced to the "common Gospel"...
or the "common ideal"....
What I hate to think is that man is reduced to obedience, instead of rational choice....
or "devalued part"....
What I hate to think is that the individual is only understood within his function...
apart from his function, he ceases to exist....
Christians need to cease being "Christian", giving advice, and having all the answers....and knowing what "the Kingdom entails", and what God's will for everyone is...
Christians need to learn how to be, before any "doing"....
As Christians are foremost humans and maybe when they understand how to be "more" human, then they will cease to be "Christians"....
And I will cease hating to think....
or the "common ideal"....
What I hate to think is that man is reduced to obedience, instead of rational choice....
or "devalued part"....
What I hate to think is that the individual is only understood within his function...
apart from his function, he ceases to exist....
Christians need to cease being "Christian", giving advice, and having all the answers....and knowing what "the Kingdom entails", and what God's will for everyone is...
Christians need to learn how to be, before any "doing"....
As Christians are foremost humans and maybe when they understand how to be "more" human, then they will cease to be "Christians"....
And I will cease hating to think....
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Life Forms
This morning while having breakfast with my husband, we talked about what made human life different from other forms of life, or could we make that distinction.
Scientists understand life's interdependence. It views life from a wholistic viewpoint. This is why there is so much concern over the environment. Without environment, then 'life' cannot function properly.
This is also the case in human contexts. Without the proper environment, life cannot function properly. Life is squashed, squelched, and squandered.
But, is there something greater than the equality of life forms? Is human life no different from biological systems?
The irreducible complexity of the world and the human being is beyond human ability to understand. I wonder if we will ever be able to understand everything about the world and life.
Life is truly a mystery. In this sense, life goes beyond the material realm. Life points beyond itself, as a design. But, what kind of design is the question. That is what philosophers these days are quandering over.
I just hope they don't reduce life, otherwise, we are headed for quanity over quality and that would be a disservice to mankind.
Scientists understand life's interdependence. It views life from a wholistic viewpoint. This is why there is so much concern over the environment. Without environment, then 'life' cannot function properly.
This is also the case in human contexts. Without the proper environment, life cannot function properly. Life is squashed, squelched, and squandered.
But, is there something greater than the equality of life forms? Is human life no different from biological systems?
The irreducible complexity of the world and the human being is beyond human ability to understand. I wonder if we will ever be able to understand everything about the world and life.
Life is truly a mystery. In this sense, life goes beyond the material realm. Life points beyond itself, as a design. But, what kind of design is the question. That is what philosophers these days are quandering over.
I just hope they don't reduce life, otherwise, we are headed for quanity over quality and that would be a disservice to mankind.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
The "Forever" Pursuit of Finding a Universal
People like to understand universals, because only in the universal, can all things be understood. The "universal" holds the "common thread" to understand human beings and and the "world". Universals, though, will never be found apart for specificities, because we are bound within frames of references of personal and cultural histories and we "put our worlds" together differently, depending not only on these universals of personal and cultural history, but also the individual and thier value system.
Our contextuality has been understood and accepted in postmodernity. The individual is the 'universal". But, scientists, who like to explain the "world" more thoroughly, are investigating different aspects of the individual. The individual could be viewed in physical ways, metaphysical ways and social ways. Somewhere in the midst of the physical and social is the answer. The metaphysical can only be understood thorough the understanding of the "mind", as the metaphysical is about the individual's "construct" of "mind".
Universal ideology is a dangerous way to approach individual situations and contexts, as these are not understood "out there" but "in here", by the individual and within his framing of mind. Biblical scholars all understand that it is impossible to know for certain what was in the "mind" of the Prophets, the disciples, or Paul, for instance. This is the modern paradigm of understanding context, socially, historically, and contextually. But, these understandings are limited as we do not know the whole story around the "stories" contained in the biblical text. We can only surmise and think as far as probabilities. So, to extract universals from the biblical text is dangerous and misguided.
Not only is it problematic to make the Biblical text universal, but also theology has its limitations. Any theologian also, knows that there are as many theologies as there are contexts and "themes" and ways of approaching and understanding "god". This is why some think that theology is contextually bound. But, God is not a 'universal. God cannot be a universal, because of the lack of understanding to a "universal metaphysics".
I think that the Church is seeking a way to explain without explaining away, but this is almost impossible when modernity undercuts the universal in the text and the contextual undercuts the universal in theology. The only universal left is the "human", but what makes the human, "human", or a "universal". That is the biggest question facing anyone of any faith, whether of a traditional kind or an atheistic one.
Our contextuality has been understood and accepted in postmodernity. The individual is the 'universal". But, scientists, who like to explain the "world" more thoroughly, are investigating different aspects of the individual. The individual could be viewed in physical ways, metaphysical ways and social ways. Somewhere in the midst of the physical and social is the answer. The metaphysical can only be understood thorough the understanding of the "mind", as the metaphysical is about the individual's "construct" of "mind".
Universal ideology is a dangerous way to approach individual situations and contexts, as these are not understood "out there" but "in here", by the individual and within his framing of mind. Biblical scholars all understand that it is impossible to know for certain what was in the "mind" of the Prophets, the disciples, or Paul, for instance. This is the modern paradigm of understanding context, socially, historically, and contextually. But, these understandings are limited as we do not know the whole story around the "stories" contained in the biblical text. We can only surmise and think as far as probabilities. So, to extract universals from the biblical text is dangerous and misguided.
Not only is it problematic to make the Biblical text universal, but also theology has its limitations. Any theologian also, knows that there are as many theologies as there are contexts and "themes" and ways of approaching and understanding "god". This is why some think that theology is contextually bound. But, God is not a 'universal. God cannot be a universal, because of the lack of understanding to a "universal metaphysics".
I think that the Church is seeking a way to explain without explaining away, but this is almost impossible when modernity undercuts the universal in the text and the contextual undercuts the universal in theology. The only universal left is the "human", but what makes the human, "human", or a "universal". That is the biggest question facing anyone of any faith, whether of a traditional kind or an atheistic one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
