The Plurality of Voices in American Society and the Autonomy of "Self"

Many have been seeking a resolution to the political conflicts we experience in today's world. When the world is smaller due to Internet connections and trade is free, nuclear arms and ideologies still plague the landscape and inhibit world peace.

America's Founders understood the need for the balance of power. Although their views were dominated by Newton's paradigm and Christian/Jewish understandings of "Providence", today, the world isn't as simply explained. "Providence" is not accepted, when "the world's" story isn't one that is explained by "ideal dreams or hopes" of "the human/humane". And Newton's paradigm isn't universally accepted as THE paradigm to explain human reality.  History was understood in America as "God's story" as revealed in the Christian "Christ". The Jewish Scriptures were the context of "storying" the Christian message. But, such "messages" appeal to the "ideals" of our Founder's vision of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They were never meant to describe the "real or political" one. The story of Jesus was never intended to be historicized as a political goal, upon individuals, but as a moral ideal of a universal value, a value of "the human/humane". The Jew was the useful "tool" of forming the value of valuing the oppressed, or de-valued.

Politics seeks to address problems, and strategic planning about furthering goals of the politically empowered. The Founders, though empowered, never sought to subvert the individual's claim about his own life. The Founder's understood that society needed to function in an orderly way, but did not attempt to order it in a way that oppressed the individual's right of choice and value.

Though science has discovered much more to "life" than Newton's cause and effect, the political realm is still most effective when it is ordered after our Founder's vision of balancing and separating power. That way, the individual, no matter where they are on the spectrum of human development (intellectual, moral, or faith) or values of priority and understanding (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) can find/make their place in society, without oppressive domination by poltical or religious zealotry. Our society was meant to be a "civil one".

Political power that allowed autonomy and religious liberty, within the bounds of law, were the "ideals" of our free society. Americans should always value and take part in their country's "ideals" furthering the goals that are important to them, personally, because America will only survive when individuals take their personal values/ideals seriously and get involved in the political process. At the same time, free persons should also understand that others are free to disagree, under the "canopy of plural voices" that "speak" in our "political environment" without threatening with poltical domination, whether through nucelar arms, or legal manipulation.

Funny How Christians "Use" Language

We all use language to communicate. But, though many of us can use "words", we do not know how to communicate. What is Communication?

Communication means that one understands a context and the history that affects "meaning". This is how the "Christian" uses language "to fix" or "redeem" (this is their theoogical term) the world. Such language is useful to get "believers to agree" and co-operate "with God's purposes, as Goe's purposes are assumed to be "about the world". But, is it just manipulation of language for certain purposes? When in reality, what is desired is certain behavior for certain outcomes or goals of personal interests or concern to leadership? These goals are defined within contexts, themselves.

Groups like to scapegoat. The Christian scapegoats "God", all groups think that "justice" is "their view" in a particular context and God 'is on their side". This is how the Church theologized "Christ" as the unifier of the world. Christ was scapegoated for one group's sins against another group of people. Group reality is not 'human development", but one identification factor to a particlar indivdiual.

In reality, groups are formed and framed by social, legal, moral, and interests factors. These factors support individuals and their view of themself and "life". Groups can be "causes" or "interests", or "pursuits" or "goals". But, all  formal groups are framed with certain unifying by-laws, written or un-written.

Communication between groups can be hard because interests, views, and commitments vary. And some of a group's assumptions about 'reality" are not readily understood. This is when diplomatic efforts are made to make for peaceful resolution. Resolutions are "peace treaties". Apart from negotiation, there is no "justice", and wars are made from such offenses/differences of values.

 The West believes that the individual has a right to representation and trial by jury. One is not guilty until proven innocent. These protections allow the individual liberty of conscience, as to values and commitments. "Justice", in this regard, has to do with rights. And rights are what make for the "human"/humane environment of the West. The individual is not required to submit to speicifications about their life and its commitments.  Group interests are to be negotiated with private individuals.

Christians like to define their group on the "language of theology", instead of understanding that Christianity itself is fraught with differences that are based on "language". What does "sin" mean? The definition will depend on how one understands "salvation", the Church, human/individual development, ulitmate purposes, practical realities, and contexts. This is where the "universalization of language" can be "defeating" to bringing "justice", because people understand terms differently. And such complexity makes it hard to bridge the communication gap.

People live within their understandings of the world. In the West, we believe that equality under law, protects the indivdual from hierarchal forms of co-ercion, but , religious groups understand that hierarchy 'honors God". Therefore, the individual is diminished and devalued, "in the light of God". During the Roman Empire Ceasars (or leaders over the government) were considered to be "gods". Christians were first thought to be atheists in this climate, because they resisted "earthly power". So, whether the Christian thinks that earthly government or 'spiritual governmant has primacy, it interferes with a universal view on government, as to "faith".

"Self-respect" and personal commitments are not values to many religious communities, because the individual is only 'a part" of the "whole" and the whole is more valuable. This view is a communal or societal view.  Paul said this in his analogy of the Body of Christ and interdependence. While interdependence is a fact of life, dependence is when hierarchal views are held and diminish the indivdiual within the corporate. This is 'injustice", because "the heads" or the corporation pre-determine without considering the "parts" that are needed to carry out their "plans". Such behavior disrespects/dishonors the individuals, who are to be a part of the team, for each team member must be aware to the specifics of the "goal" and know the part they play to be able to commit and carry out the plan. And sometimes the member may not value the goal, and this is when the member is free to consider other options and the "heads" can find a replacement.

It is interesting that individuals all have an innate sense of justice, because we all want to be valued and respected, unless there has been an environment that did not develop proper boundaries in the child.. Self-respect is the first and foremost foundation of coming to terms in 'just relationships. Otherwise, "self" is seen as "selfishness", and run over by those that cease to understand their own selfishness! Self-interest is the basis of our capitalistic system, and "self-interests" supports the view of the Christian or the naturalists. Men are viewed as "fallen" or "fighting for survival".  "Fallen" and Survival" also has many definitions, such definitions make for "life". How are we to understand 'life"?

The Christian likes to spiritualize terms, such as "life". Life is about "God:", instead of man. But, when these terms are united, the reality of "the god/man", we have a man fully developed. The Christian would term it 'in God's image". Such human development does not have to be "spiritual", as man is a physical entity. His brain responds to stimuli and interprets such stimuli in cerain ways. This is why communication is complex, because man's mind is different from his brain.

Minds can be "formed" by certain social conditioning. Such is the Christian's attempt to "condition" through "moral education". But, usually, the Church has certain "goals" that are limiting the definition of such "education of character", which is "Jesus" life, as revealed in Scriptures.  Such a life was not respected, honored, or considered as in our Western concept of "justice". Should the West continue to promote such "education", as Christian character? Or should the Church cease in trying to use "language" to get humans to agree to "denying self-interest"? Should individuals allow the Chruch to abuse them under a hierarchal view of power? Is the Church justified in "making disciples", when the Church acts unjustly, according to our Constitutonal governent? Is the Church above the law, because "God is above the law"? Or is justice defined by the law, whether or not one uses The Church or God to 'sanction' or 'make it holy?

Since men are "fallen" or prone to compete for survival, how should we view "justice" in the Church? Justice in the Church is no more or less than justice in our Constitutional government, as without it, we do disservice to man  (made in God's image,). Man made in "God" image" is not one form, but many forms, because beauty allows for diversity.

"Self" as Identity

I was looking through some Amazon book titles this morning, when one caught my eye. "The Self We Live By". I thought that was an interesting title, and though I have not read the book, nor do I know what the author's thesis is, I am going to use it as a jumping off point to write about what has been "on my mind".

Some people do not accept "self" as a concept. These think that "self" does not and cannot exist apart from community. While humans are social beings, the human is also a rational beings. And reason forms or identifies with different aspects of one's "world". "Self" changes over the course of a person's life, as this is what maturity, learning, and  "coming to terms" with one's values is about. So, what forms the "self"?

"Self" is formed by experiences, within cultural contexts. "Self" is understood,  by such social contexts, but are not dependent on them after "self-awareness" of them. Consciousness of one's social inllences becomes a time of reflecting on what one chooses to value most. And these identification factors can change by one's conscious choice. Then, one's bias or prejuidice is not an unconcious emotional response to life, but a rational explaination of life.

Not every culture allows for "self"s development, if the culture is unduly restrictive. These restrictions can be along the lines of religion, or political ideology.

Religion defines "God", "sprituality", and social mores and values. Political ideology defines how a culture undestands itself. Both of these aspect of/in culture form the child, the young adult and eventually, the adult. This is why being aware and self-reflective as to one's values is important whenver one encounters other people. Communication cannot happen apart from defining terms, and grasping ultimate values.

I am thankful to have been born in America, "the land of the free".....America and her people must "prove" the second part of that sentence; "the home of the brave...." and what that might mean to Amercia's future!

Responsible Leadership Allows for Choice

Responsibility means that "the buck ends here", as one of America's Presidents said. Leadership means responsibiity in all its various contexts. Leadership is not good, unless it allows for "choice".

The first and foremost important relationship is that of the family. The Family forms the child's values, his understanding of himself in the world, his self-concept, which ultimately help to form his goals. Good parenting exposes the child, bears with the child and studies the child. Good parenting is "knowing the child" well, so that the child can be guided, but not guarded; nudged, but not prodded. The parent teaches the child about choice, responsibility and helps the child to grow by giving them age appropriate responsibilities that will build a sense of confidence and assurance about their abilities. Good parenting ultimately knows that the child will grow away from a dependence on their leadership and be able to make responsible choices on their own.

Leadership at school is also important in preparing the child for responsibility. Teachers, guidance counselors, and principals all influence the child and young adult's development toward making good choices and becoming a responsible citizen, ready to give back to society.

The university or on the job training is also important in leading the young adult into functioning in society productively. Professors, supervisors, and older workers help the adult to know if their choice of major or job is the "right one".

Society, itself, is governed by leaders. And good government is only when leaders understand their position as a public trust. These leaders don't shirk their responsiblity be representative of 'the people". But, such leaders must know how to negotiate, compromise, and look for the greater interest of the nation. Those under such leaders have more choices about their lives, because leadership has acted responsibily.

Responsibility is about taking ownership, seeing need, response to one's environment. Such responsibility is about choices, priorities, and values. Not everyone will consider the same needs, or values. Some will not be able to handle more responsibility than their familial ones. But, everyone in society gains when they take their responsibilities seriously!

All good  leadership allows for responsible choice. And responsible choice is about being equipped with informaton, conscious of the needs before them, evaluating one's priorities in a given time, and committing to ultimate values, when one is through the reflecting process.

Every stage of development should be a time of growth, challenge and new responsibilities, as responsibilites are what life is made of and for.

America Needs Good Leadership on All Levels of Society

American needs good leadership at all levels of society!
Society is built by social structures that define and maintain the stability of a nation.

The first and foremost need at the most basic level of society is the family. The family is the first formative foundation of citizens. And good parenting meets the basic needs of the child on the emotional level. Without such emotional needs being met, all sorts of social ills transpire that damage society's health!

The next need for good leadership is education, where children, and young adults grow into their full potential. The successful student grows to benefit himself by meeting society's needs. Young adults that have found their personal intersts and values that define thier own purposes and what role they will play in society.

Govenmental leadership is another need for society to flourish. Good government does not oppress by overbearing demands, but allows liberty to be of ultimate value. Liberty to define one's life. Liberty to seek after one's values. And Liberty to make a "Life". Good leaders in government do not lord it over others, by seeking their own interest, but seek to serve the interests of the nation and not just those that have elected them into office, but all citizens.

All these social structures are necessary elements to develop the nation's interests, and help to further the nation's health, but without the emotional needs of the child being met, the nation will suffer the ills that America find in its society. Such ills are limiting to the nation's educational institutons and the government's need for good citizens. We must find a way back to value the child and the family. Otherwise, all the "fine educational institutions and government politicies will be for aught, because the nation's children will not be ready to take the helm of leadership for the future.

Re-Defining The Good,The Bad and The Ugly

In light of a recent comment from an atheist, I wanted to re-define my recent blog post by this title (The Good The Bad and The Ugly. This entry will be a personal analysis of myself based on Freud's theory of "the Id, the Ego and the Super-Ego".

The Bad is my Id. The Id's desire, hopes and dreams were not to be realized, as my undeveloped Ego had been whipped into place by the "Super-Ego" (parental authority, which was the Ugly). It was reasonable under the circumstances. My step-father was not ready to get married, with a child whose only security was her grandfather's love and was hyperactive to boot. He was a Marine and had also had a difficult up-bringing.

My childish "Id" was harshly disicplined by a step-father who didn't understand his step-daughter and was too stressed from work and making ends meet to learn what my childish heart wanted. He was seeking to be responsible for my mother, me and my soon to be born half-brother. Unfortunately, we didn't have time to develop any relationship, as I moved back in with my grandparents only after living with him 4 years.

The move to another state was an abrupt one for me, who was beginning school that year. I had lost my sense of bearing and my childish heart was stripped of the security of my grandfather's love, the house I knew and my friends from church.

I remember going to school that first day with my mother and there was a little girl crying. I tried to comfort her, as I, myself, was feeling most insecure. I found some friends down the road that I played with regularly and my brother also became of instant intrigue and interest. But, I was not happy. I wanted to be with my grandparents, but also didn't want to make my mother unhappy. I was torn all my life by these conflicting desires. So, my "real world" never was my "ideal one". This is the Bad.

The Good was my developing Ego. I didn't know all my life that I was of value or worth anyone's special attention. I thought that I was a mistake, as my parent divorced and so the existential message was a nihlistic one.

My teen years were a struggle to prove I was loveable. That struggle has gone on until recently. I was always seeking a "special relationship" that would value me, where I would be "the One" and could come to know "family". Then, I became a "Christian".

A Chrisitan meant that I was valued. I had a "isntant family", who was to love and accept me "just as I am". That had never happened before. During that early Christian commitment, I met a young man that I fell deeply in love with. He had a stable family life in a small town as a doctor's son. He encouraged me in my ability to learn. I had such a low self-concept that I used to cry after "our group" would talk about "intellectual things". But, he kept encouraging me and so, I went back to school, making good grades, I became more confident. My helpless Ego was beginning to grow. This is the Good.

He eventually proposed and I thought that we would "live happily ever after", until he went home to tell his family. His mother was adamantly opposed to our engagment. He tried numerous times to talk with her, but to no avail. She was convinced that I was not "good enough" for her son. I broke up thinking it was making him miserable, though his brother had offered support. His little sister was not going to be allowed to be in our wedding. I couldn't stand to see him suffer and I certainly didn't think this was a beginning of a happily ever after! I was crushed and devastated. This was Ugly. Social status had a undermining effect upon my Ego;s developing confidence.

I continued in school and just aroung the corner a man I'd met and be-friended 5 years prior, who was aware of my relational difficulties became more than a friend. He eventually proposed and promised that I would finish school when we moved to our first place after we married. But, unfortunately, I could not continue my education because we couldn't afford it with "out of state" costs and his post-doctoral salary! So, we decided to wait for a year and I'd go back when I'd gained residency status. Then, I became pregnant with our first child and decied to wait to go back to school. This is the Good.

We moved after the following year when our daughter was only a few weeks old. And my husband went off to training, while I moved back "home". During that time at home, I wanted so much to have my daughter to have what I didn't a stable, loving and extended family! So, I sought to perform (my Super-Ego superintending my Ego), hoping to win my family's love and approval for my daughter. I did not realize that I was settting myself back to earning my way to another's heart. This is not healthy Ego development. This is the Bad and the Ugly..

To make a long story shorter, I was still seeking that "happily ever after" where I would have a loving and supportive extended family for my children, when we moved to another location. The Ugly is that religious culture can be damning to those that aren't tuned to those cultural norms and values.This was another "Super-Ego" time where performance bantered my Ego's desire for normalcy and not radicalization of life.

Then, my husband and I moved to D.C. for a year's fellowship with the State Department. During that time, i was to be working on a Master's degree on "moral development". What I learned and experienced shook everything my Ego was based on, that is an evangelical faith. I found myself re-thinking my commitments of value and this was a turning point away from a fundamentalist understanding of faith. I was learning so many things that it thrilled me and changed my life forever. This was the Good.

I think that I split during this time where I didn't want to define my life on narrowed values because of the over-bearing nature of them. My Ego was much too important for me to give in to the demands of the Super Ego. Moralization of life is not a life of liberty and what I realized that our government was for liberty of human value. I had found a secular correlation of human value to my intial understanding of human value in my religious frame. I then, started to question of what value is religion if it oppresses the Ego? And one lives their life separated from 'reality'?. This was the conflict of the Good and the Ugly.

Today, I think that my Ego, while not fully developed is strong to resist over-bearing demands of religious claims and parental images. In a free society, one can choose and determine one's life ultimate values, goals and purposes. So, I fight to know what interests me and there are many things of value to pursue. It will all be a matter of decision and commitment.

 I know I will always pursue a life of learning because I value human knowledge. And I will always pursue family and friends, because without these supports life's commitments aren't celebrated!

One Cannot Objectify Anything, Other Than Liberty

Men are born free. Some believe that liberty should be limited, because man is innately evil. Others believe that men are not innately "evil" but uninformed, or ignorant. What is necessary for society is to "order" or structure society, so that society functions. Such "order" is delegating "roles" for individuals to "perform".

"Irrational believers" that maintain that men are innately "evil" because of a "fall" from "God", or 'grace", are prone to think that one must be "saved", but from what? Some believe that one must be saved from "hell", as God will judge those that have not accepted his "way of salvation" which cleanses from "sin".Others believe that one must be saved from onself, because men are basically selfish. These think that paternalistic "patronizing" leadership is what is needful.

While it it true that children must learn to "live in society", there does come a time when adults must take ownership of thier life. Ownership means that one purposes their own goals, and lives independently giving back to society. in whatever area one desires. We wouldn't want to continue to support adults living as "children", in dependence on governmnet,or "God", as passivity is not ownership. And such dependent societies are not prosporous, or fulfilling to the individual within them.

Becoming an adult does not mean that one is independent from being human, from having "common need" of  survival, emotional support, encouragement, or help. But, it does mean that one has become self-directed and self-governed as to how and why one chooses to live their life, as they choose to do.

What one chooses has; everything to do with one's values, desires, and goals, and these are negotiable 'parallel universes" that one must navigate. So, one cannot objectify another's life, except to "dismiss it". We must all come to the conclusion that no one can live without "reasonable biases" in thier life commitments.

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".

"Inception"'s "Perception"....

Tonight, we went to see "Inception", a post-modern, anti-realist movie that had several "messages for me" :). These messages were on human development, human experience, and human memory. The characters as "social constructionists" were not beyond their own human limitations, or ability to remove themselves from thier own pasts, fears, and ability to cope with human experience. These 'leaders' found out that their experiment had real consequences in a real world which did not necessarily result in "good outcomes". Humans are, after all, a subject of their environment, and not objective of it.

On the level of human development, the main character has a hard time removing himself from the past guilt and responsibility of exposing his wife to ideas that seeded in her paranoia and real mental illness. Her "leap of faith" sent her to her death and was based on irrationality and not the real world of experience. His "ideal" was his wife's hope of growing old together, which had been dashed upon the reality of  his wife's real and actual suicide. It was not just, the "symbolic". From that time on, his wife's memory and hope haunted him and prevented him from entering another's reality. He kept projecting his own guilt and anxiety into another's experience. "Faith" in experience was challenged. His life had been defined by faith in the ideal. And 
"the" ideal always remained a hope, but never a reality.

The main character grew to know that the ideal world of "growing old together" or "living happily ever after" was after all a childish hope. He had coped with his dis-illusionment with 'splitting his personality'. In the end, the "wise old man "was re-united with his "youth" of adventure. This time, "the leap of faith", was not based on irrationality, but a realization of the paradox of reality and the real world of human experience. The main character had grown intellectually to embrace a rationale of hope, recognizing the limitations of the choice to commit to a certain viewpoint.

Another character found that his fear of never attaining his father's acceptance, because he kept pursuing the image he imagined his father had for him, was a baseless fear. His 'ideal" was based on a misconception of his father's real intent. He rejected what he really had needed and wanted all along; acceptance, and hope of realizing his own person. He came to find out that his father had saved his childish "toy" and his father had made provision in his last will and testament for accomplishing his hope of attaining his own ends. He was freed from his fear of never measuring up.

The "social constructors" became aware of how their creation and distortion of other "realities" had real consequences in a real world, another's world. This is where the reality of human experience cannot make judgments, or rationalization about another's life, as an "ideal". There is only human experience, human hope and human choice, which makes for a human reality.

I think the movie was a little less developed than "The Matrix", in my personal opinion, but that might have been a conscious decision on the producer/writer's part, as part of the dis-jointed post-modern story about human reality.....

Social Construction and Social Identity

All cultures in the human and animal "kingdoms" seem to intuitively "know" that social structures form their young. These social influencing elements in the human realm are family, friends, and ethnic tribe.

Social construction is the process of internalizing the social norms, and values in a certain culture. These norms, and values help the young to frame their understanding of the world. Identity is not fully formed in such environments, because of the young's dependent stage of development. The young need the environment to further the internalization process.

In free societies, the family is not stingently defined by outside sources, other than the values of those entering into that commitment. But, religious cultures deem it necessary to define such structures in a uniform way.

The dissolution of such stringent structures has led to much debate about whether it has brought value to society in general. Have such "flexible norms" produced young that have no conscience or regard for society as a value? Has it led to the demise of "civil society" because the young tend to act out of their resistance to what they deem to be oppressive? Or has society "grown" in its understanding of the human need for flexible norms?

The young need nurture. This fact is not debated, but there does come a time when the young must outgrow and think for themselves what is important and of value. Does strict upbringing leave room for promoting intellectural growth? Or does it produce guilt, anxiety, and fear whenever such boundaries are ignored, dissolved, or re-defined? Where is the responsibility of the parent, and teacher/professor?

The child must develop beyond helpless dependence, not only in the physical areas of his life, but also his personal areas. This is the formation of forming the child in his own image and not to a source outside of himself. And when the young adult finds that he has formed and thought out his own values, then he will then be able to commit to a social group, not because of "felt need", but because of his own chosen values.

Existential Angst and Authoritarianism

I had the opportunity to have the grandkids here with me this week. I am always amused and "enlightentened" whenever my grandaughter says something with such conviction and authority, without having the slightest insight into how simple her understanding is.

The learning process has been studied by educators, so that physicians and developmental 'specialists of all kinds' can diagnose whether a particular child is "on course" or developing appropriately. The judgment is not to learn about another individual child, so much as to encourage the parent or give resources or tests to the children who seem to be developing at a different rate than "the average".

But, every stage of learning is a stage of growth, but also "existential angst", because whatever has been believed before is enlarged, or undermined and re-vamped altogether, then there is a cognitive dissonance that needs to be "solved". And the solution is coming to terms with a "new world order".

Children believe in "make-believe", such as fairy tales that paint a world filled with "happily ever afters", or "God" who is personally interested in the particularity of the child's every whim. "God" is representative to the child of security, stability, and hopeful promise of a "future". But, as the child matures, these images and hopes are challenged by encountering the 'real world' and an enlarged view of understanding, which counters their simple and trusting "ideals". The "real world" becomes an enemy to 'peace'.

"Existensial Angst" is what should be expected in Christian colleges, because there is no "special revelation" or special truth in an abstract form, but only in personal form. The student themself is a "revelation" of indivdiuality. And their hopeful future is not protected by "God", but by their ability to function within their specialty of discipline.

Authoritarianism does not allow or understand the need for individuality in personal values or of personal commitment. Authoritarianism hinders growth because of the 'fear of difference". Difference is a challenge to those who hold to authoritarianism, whether ecclesiastical, bibilical, governmental, or organizational.

The individual in his own "right" has a right to exist apart from the collective "whole", and for his own personal values, not society, itself, which de-mean and de-moralize the indivdidual in his/her development and "promise".

Are All Cultures Equal?

Are all cultures equal is a question that faces us in the post-modern West. It is the basis of understanding "life" and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And since Americans believe that all men are created equal, as far as their innate similarities. There are also differences that are formed by the cultures that men inhabit. These are not ultimately equal in my opinion.

Our country believes that humans have an "inalienable right" to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is a civil right that is determined by the individual, himself.

As our culture allows for divers viewpoints, we affirm the individual's right to own his own life, be responsible toward himself and our society. The responsibilities that our citizens must maintain are those that form our laws. We are equal under law, so we do not believe that anyone is "above the law", or should "subvert the law". We should be law abiding citizens.

But, today, there are those that believe that citizens should be mandated by the government to be their brother's keeper. This is what our liberal policies create and further; irresponsibility of individual citizens. Taxes go to "help" those so unfortunate.

The problem with viewing another as "unfortunate" is that this becomes his own self-perception. And that hinders his desire to become responsible. It "feeds" an unhealthy behavior through giving an unhealthy message.

Although domestic policy has been "damaged" by furthering the "welfare STATE", it is no less so with foreign policy.

Globalism tends to be formulated around multiculturalism. Although multiculturalism should be affirmed as a part of individual identity, it should no be condoned when it comes to universal standards. Why?

Universalizing what is particular deminishes the "ideals' needed to form unity or universal goals. Universal goals should be about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And these goals should be informed by individual differences, gifts and interests, not by some "cultural form" that inhibits individual growth, or ego development.

Are all cultures equal? Yes and No. Yes, as far as a culture is internalized, but not all are healthy environments for developing individuality. So, No, as far as the universal ideals of individual liberty that upholds responsible and self-governing "selves" as the greatest goal of culture.

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".

Literalistic Bible Thumping "Models of Reality"

As I mentioned in my last post, my husband gave a lecture on his "Faith and Society" course.

Another important dimension to his course is the teaching of "models of reality". A model of reality is a type of "worldview", but is not a cultural worldview, but a naturalistic/supernaturalistic view of reality. This view is based in one's understanding of God, cosmos, and personability of God, as well as man, man's understanding of God and man's response to God. Is God the intiator, as Calvin supposed? Or is man the reasoned being, that presupposes "God"?

"Models of God" must be understood within these paradigms as they drive how we understand "theology", the "world", "culture", human beings and history.

The traditional view is a salvation history view. Jesus is God's ultimate purpose and focus in history, as Jesus is the "way of salvation". This view believes that a personal God directs the events of history using a specific nation, Israel, to perform his purpose and plan for the world.
It is an objective, hisorical, realist, and literalist view of Scripture.

A more subjective view would view God as the "divine influence" in a person's innate nature. This view views the individual as a possiblity/potentiality that needs development and direction. Determination is not the focus, as God is not personally involved, but has imprinted his image upon man. The person must respond to what God has gifted within. Salvation is viewed as fulfilling one's life purpose or plan. God's plan is more subjectively understood.

A developmental view would understand God as irrelavant, except for human development. Scripture is only useful for the purpose of 'helping" the individual to "respond" to their innate "God consciousness". Through their interaction with scripture and others in community, "God conscieousness" is re-inforced and the person responds uniquely to "meaning" within the context of community.

As I have shared, the meaning of Scripture and community has collapsed into the "normal" for me. There is no distinction for me between the sacred and secular and it irritates me when I think others "enforce" their "model of reality" upon me or anyone else. Faith is the "model of reality" that "reads" everything that "happens". In this case, Job's "model" had collapsed, and he was struggling to understand, while "Job's comforters" "read" Job's life in another way, a theologized one.

On another blog, I sometimes read, it was mentioned that there is disagreement as to how to understand "Paul's Gospel". Some believe in a "Justification by Faith"(Calvin/Lutheran), while others believe in a "moral model" approach (Catholic/Methodist/Wesleyan). But, what about an approach that leaves the individual, as the cogent interpreter? All could be understood as "models" of understanding. Faith is the primary means of grasping meaning. But, is faith necessary in supernaturalistic 'models"? That is the question that cannot be answered.

Since meaning is understood as a personal message of faith. This is only experienced when people are open or are "needy". Whenever a person outgrows a meaning of the "Gospel", or the "meaning" becomes insignificant for "other reasons", "faith in the Gospel" dies.

Scriptures then cease to have any authoriatative power, as it is viewed from a more "objective perspective". I think this view leaves room for individual development, group response to meaning, and interpretive influences.

Nihlism does not have to be the result of "loosing faith". Naive faith is just that, a childish understanding, a need-based interpretation, or a social signification.