Most people don't recognize their own values, unless they are religious or are educated about this in their expertise. Americans, for the most part, take their values for granted and don't think about it, because we live in a free society. But, what makes for someone's values? Social conditioning, and personal interests are the basic foundations for values.
Social conditioning is how one has been raised within a specific context. What were the parental values, and how were they imparted to the child? What was the specific culture the child was raised and how did the family function? These are values that are not thought about, but are reflected in one's understanding about money, relationships, and "self". These are internalized values that make it difficult to "see" and sometime hinders communication because of the emotional association of these values. But, these "social values" are not the only driving force in a person's life.
Personal interests also form a person's values. These values are goals, desires and opinions about "greatest value". These are values that are more consciously held, because they drive a person's educational goals and job interests.
I recently watched a movie that I used in another post about a journalist who was pusuing a Pulitzer by revealing a CIA agent and it is pertinent here. The journalist's revelation exposed the President and his indecretions, as well as revealing information about this particular CIA agent. The journalist was holding government accountable by the expose'. But, the government saw it as an intrusion into their ability to function within international complexities. The journalist was held in contempt of court, because she would not reveal her source of information. When given the opportunity to be released from jail and save her marriage, she refused, because of her commitment and value of "Free Speech" and Freedom of the Press". This was a noble endeavor, but the CIA's life and purpose was NO LESS valuable.
The CIA agent seeks to prevent national security breaches. They seek to give information so that decisions can be made that will protect citizens, the military and other dignitaries. These are valued servants of the public's interests. And they should be applauded.
Everyone will have different priorities in a free and open society and these all must be protected, as without them, we will cease having a free society. Those that have internalized social values, must stop and think before they judge another's difference, as to whether those differences are undermining society at large, or are just different priorities of interests. Appreciate the differences, and move on. Don't make issues of things that support an open and free society because of your own internalized differences or personal interests.
Showing posts with label communication. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communication. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Individual Rights and Expectations
Ayn Rand
Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.
“Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 84
The other day, I heard a psychologist talk about expectations in relationships. He made the point that expectations make for conflict/"war". Expectations are those "goals", images, desires, hopes, and dreams that are put upon the relationship or the other individual. Though our culture "romanticizes" love and creates what "happily ever afters" must look like, real people must step back long enough to ask themselves and thier mates what are their goals, hopes, dreams, desires, and images of marriage. Otherwise, one will always be frustrated because thier "mate just doesn't get it", and you really won't understand why. But, this way, you can count on having a "real relationship" that is based on real communication with another person, which is not defined by a role or function of one marital partner, but mutuality, compromise, negotiation, and respect.
In civil societies, we come to expect that people will obey the law, where we can live peaceable lives, depending on the mutuality that paints our society. Time has meaning in our society, because Americans believe that deadlines are respect for those that are waiting on you to meet them. When an American makes a date, whether a professional or social one, it is considered disrespectful and dishonoring to be late, without calling with an explaination and apology. This is a common courtesy to not presume upon another individual's time/life. And it doesn't much matter whether the one late is the employer or the employee, as to its message. Americans understand that business does not function apart from the employee, and good businessman knows how to entice and convince an employee to join his enterprise. Collaboration is the "food" of business partnerships, and building teams that meet the expectations of their investors. This is what has prospered America economically; trust, respect, co-operation, and mutuality.
How does free and open communicaton and a respect for individual lives make for a better life? It doesn't if one believes that men and women are unequal, in their personhood. If men and women are looked at as only thier gender identity and form their expectations based on that alone, then, it limits personhood to a particular role or function that is "expected Such structuring of a relationship might be easier to "correct", but it is not fulfilling to the individuals involved. Society might function smoothly, and might benefit by these simple roles/functions, but is society where the ultimate focus should be? Society, as the predominat value in this scenario, is justified to over-ride individual liberties because society cannot function apart from a fully functioning family. And a functioning family is considered in some circles to be a man and a woman, producing children. Society does not have the complexities to discuss when such limitations are the norming "norms". But, how do we address those at either "ends" of marital definition?
Those, who believe that polygamy should be allowed to define marriage, have different expectations of women and the relationship between the husband and wife, than a traditional marriage would. The woman is useful for the man's pleasure and procreation of his familial line. But, the woman has little say, even when they have the "right" to approve of a "newly elected" wife. Should this type of marriage be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Wouldn't it meet the requirements of a fully functioning marriage, a family? Polygomous marriages is a partiarcial view (expectation) of marriage.
On the opposite end, are same sex couples that expect that marriage should be defined by mutual consent, commaradie, and expectations. Is this not similar to the first communicative relationship that was affirmed? Is this kind of marriage to be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Is marriage about one's gender and function within the marital bed/relationship? Is marriage primarily about the ability to procreate?
In America, religious liberty is a value that cannot be undermined, unless we change our Constitutional government. We believe that the individual has a right to conscience in worshipping 'God' however he./she sees fit. No one can deny that priviledge, but it stops at the door of another's conscience, as one individual cannot impose their views, without hindering another's right to civil protections under law.
So, what should we desire for and in America, as to our expectations? Should we desire everyone have the same liberty we desire for ourselves? Should we desire that everyone believe like we do? How possible is it that with America's diversity that we will all see "eye to eye" on most everything? Aren't our diverse views understandings that make for great science in investigating such questions? Should we limit the diversity that is the seed-bed to discovery? I think not, that is my hope and expectation!
Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.
“Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 84
The other day, I heard a psychologist talk about expectations in relationships. He made the point that expectations make for conflict/"war". Expectations are those "goals", images, desires, hopes, and dreams that are put upon the relationship or the other individual. Though our culture "romanticizes" love and creates what "happily ever afters" must look like, real people must step back long enough to ask themselves and thier mates what are their goals, hopes, dreams, desires, and images of marriage. Otherwise, one will always be frustrated because thier "mate just doesn't get it", and you really won't understand why. But, this way, you can count on having a "real relationship" that is based on real communication with another person, which is not defined by a role or function of one marital partner, but mutuality, compromise, negotiation, and respect.
In civil societies, we come to expect that people will obey the law, where we can live peaceable lives, depending on the mutuality that paints our society. Time has meaning in our society, because Americans believe that deadlines are respect for those that are waiting on you to meet them. When an American makes a date, whether a professional or social one, it is considered disrespectful and dishonoring to be late, without calling with an explaination and apology. This is a common courtesy to not presume upon another individual's time/life. And it doesn't much matter whether the one late is the employer or the employee, as to its message. Americans understand that business does not function apart from the employee, and good businessman knows how to entice and convince an employee to join his enterprise. Collaboration is the "food" of business partnerships, and building teams that meet the expectations of their investors. This is what has prospered America economically; trust, respect, co-operation, and mutuality.
How does free and open communicaton and a respect for individual lives make for a better life? It doesn't if one believes that men and women are unequal, in their personhood. If men and women are looked at as only thier gender identity and form their expectations based on that alone, then, it limits personhood to a particular role or function that is "expected Such structuring of a relationship might be easier to "correct", but it is not fulfilling to the individuals involved. Society might function smoothly, and might benefit by these simple roles/functions, but is society where the ultimate focus should be? Society, as the predominat value in this scenario, is justified to over-ride individual liberties because society cannot function apart from a fully functioning family. And a functioning family is considered in some circles to be a man and a woman, producing children. Society does not have the complexities to discuss when such limitations are the norming "norms". But, how do we address those at either "ends" of marital definition?
Those, who believe that polygamy should be allowed to define marriage, have different expectations of women and the relationship between the husband and wife, than a traditional marriage would. The woman is useful for the man's pleasure and procreation of his familial line. But, the woman has little say, even when they have the "right" to approve of a "newly elected" wife. Should this type of marriage be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Wouldn't it meet the requirements of a fully functioning marriage, a family? Polygomous marriages is a partiarcial view (expectation) of marriage.
On the opposite end, are same sex couples that expect that marriage should be defined by mutual consent, commaradie, and expectations. Is this not similar to the first communicative relationship that was affirmed? Is this kind of marriage to be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Is marriage about one's gender and function within the marital bed/relationship? Is marriage primarily about the ability to procreate?
In America, religious liberty is a value that cannot be undermined, unless we change our Constitutional government. We believe that the individual has a right to conscience in worshipping 'God' however he./she sees fit. No one can deny that priviledge, but it stops at the door of another's conscience, as one individual cannot impose their views, without hindering another's right to civil protections under law.
So, what should we desire for and in America, as to our expectations? Should we desire everyone have the same liberty we desire for ourselves? Should we desire that everyone believe like we do? How possible is it that with America's diversity that we will all see "eye to eye" on most everything? Aren't our diverse views understandings that make for great science in investigating such questions? Should we limit the diversity that is the seed-bed to discovery? I think not, that is my hope and expectation!
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
What Do You Do, When No One Listens?
What happens when people don't listen to YOU? Do you feel frustrated, alone, insignificant, devalued, ignored, minimized, dismissed or what? Perhaps, all these terms apply and this is what is so disturbing when people don't listen!
Has life taught you to expect others to listen because your parent valued your opinion, or at least, you, as a child and a separate being? Or has life taught you that no one listens, because they are too busy for YOU? "You" are those previous terms we used in our first paragraph? What happens when we don't take others seriously? Can we have expectations of them, when we have been dismissive and arrogant?
On a recent program I was listening to, a psychologist say that many conflicts occur because of hidden expectations. These unidentified expectatons are "key" to what we really want or need in a relationship. Expectation is about how we 'see" relationships, in general, and if they are not addressed, there is not much hope of relationship.
Relationships are about two people or groups of people that have certain desires and these groups/people are "formed" by expectations. These expectations frame/interpret our judgments of another's "love" :"value" or "care" of us, as persons. Many times unconscious demands on another's life is what really bothers those that can't seem to bend or express themselves in ways that are productive. These kinds of people are hard-core moralists that hold to a high road of superior vision, purpose, or design about/on life. Those not "in the game" are "not in the game". There is not much compromise in their view, as to compromise is to de-value their ultimates which are absolutes. Absolutes cannot be negotiated, as that would be 'kin" to treason. One must by loyal to principle before people.
When no one listens because they haven't understood or minimized your concern, what can you do? You can take responsibility for youself, and choose the road that seems most pertinant to your values and remember that even those that listen, might not listen well. So, take care of yourself and your own family.
Has life taught you to expect others to listen because your parent valued your opinion, or at least, you, as a child and a separate being? Or has life taught you that no one listens, because they are too busy for YOU? "You" are those previous terms we used in our first paragraph? What happens when we don't take others seriously? Can we have expectations of them, when we have been dismissive and arrogant?
On a recent program I was listening to, a psychologist say that many conflicts occur because of hidden expectations. These unidentified expectatons are "key" to what we really want or need in a relationship. Expectation is about how we 'see" relationships, in general, and if they are not addressed, there is not much hope of relationship.
Relationships are about two people or groups of people that have certain desires and these groups/people are "formed" by expectations. These expectations frame/interpret our judgments of another's "love" :"value" or "care" of us, as persons. Many times unconscious demands on another's life is what really bothers those that can't seem to bend or express themselves in ways that are productive. These kinds of people are hard-core moralists that hold to a high road of superior vision, purpose, or design about/on life. Those not "in the game" are "not in the game". There is not much compromise in their view, as to compromise is to de-value their ultimates which are absolutes. Absolutes cannot be negotiated, as that would be 'kin" to treason. One must by loyal to principle before people.
When no one listens because they haven't understood or minimized your concern, what can you do? You can take responsibility for youself, and choose the road that seems most pertinant to your values and remember that even those that listen, might not listen well. So, take care of yourself and your own family.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
"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!
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!
Thursday, February 17, 2011
You Cannot Demand Relationship
I have spent the greater part of the morning trying to "discuss" (at least that was my thinking) a particular person's needs. She had called me, so I thought that this was a suggestion of her openness to me. But, unfortuately, one cannot demand a healthy living relationship.
Relationships have to be built on mutual trust, respect and a diligence to keep the communication lines open. Otherwise, the relationship become a one-sided attempt to keep alive what is really, dead.
This person doesn't seem to "give and take". And I find that if one doesn't agree with everything the person says, they feel defensive. Why the defenses? I'm not sure. But, what I do know is if one attempts to suggest another alternative interpretation about "what happened" or another's motivation, one will end up holding a phone that has gone dead. Or if I offer suggestions that might help a particular situation, there is a verbal attack. It is baffling and frustrating. But, I'm sure that the other's perspective could be similar, as to her preception of me! I just don't know!
When I attempt to make clear expectations, there is a justification and defensiveness that tells me, that this is more about "her" than "us". Maybe some people can't have relationships. Or maybe there is something that hasn't been expressed or shared that is the interpretive "frame" to everything that is said, or not said.
I have asked numerous people how to handle theis person and our relationship (or lack thereof) and most that know her seem to suggest that I really can't have a mutual relationship. I guess I just can't grasp that concept. Perhaps, I am the one that is co-dependent.
Demands upon another cannot offer real gifts of love, or sevice, but only demands of duty or obligation. This is what makes me so resistant to "requirements", such as duty, demands, commands, etc. I equate such terms with obligation, responsibility, and co-ercive and/or manipulative power.
Commitment must be a choice, but how does one commit to a relationship that isn't based on terms that define healthly relationship? can one commit to such a relationship and survive the deneigrating sense about onself? Can one have self-respect enough to overcome a bombardment of snide remarks, inuendo, and outright disrespect as to one's character or motivations or others that are mutually known? I am just at a stale-mate, as I don't know what to think or do or not do.
Why do I desire any relationship with this person? Whenever one begins to "enter" or think they enter the other's world, there is a slammed door, or so it seems. On the other hand, this person can have a overzealous conscientiousness about another relationship, to the extent of compulsion. I've been advised that one cannot have access to those that choose to not allow such access. And when I think about it, isn't this what I'd want? Respect for my boundaries and a honoring of my "right of denial"?
Relationships have to be built on mutual trust, respect and a diligence to keep the communication lines open. Otherwise, the relationship become a one-sided attempt to keep alive what is really, dead.
This person doesn't seem to "give and take". And I find that if one doesn't agree with everything the person says, they feel defensive. Why the defenses? I'm not sure. But, what I do know is if one attempts to suggest another alternative interpretation about "what happened" or another's motivation, one will end up holding a phone that has gone dead. Or if I offer suggestions that might help a particular situation, there is a verbal attack. It is baffling and frustrating. But, I'm sure that the other's perspective could be similar, as to her preception of me! I just don't know!
When I attempt to make clear expectations, there is a justification and defensiveness that tells me, that this is more about "her" than "us". Maybe some people can't have relationships. Or maybe there is something that hasn't been expressed or shared that is the interpretive "frame" to everything that is said, or not said.
I have asked numerous people how to handle theis person and our relationship (or lack thereof) and most that know her seem to suggest that I really can't have a mutual relationship. I guess I just can't grasp that concept. Perhaps, I am the one that is co-dependent.
Demands upon another cannot offer real gifts of love, or sevice, but only demands of duty or obligation. This is what makes me so resistant to "requirements", such as duty, demands, commands, etc. I equate such terms with obligation, responsibility, and co-ercive and/or manipulative power.
Commitment must be a choice, but how does one commit to a relationship that isn't based on terms that define healthly relationship? can one commit to such a relationship and survive the deneigrating sense about onself? Can one have self-respect enough to overcome a bombardment of snide remarks, inuendo, and outright disrespect as to one's character or motivations or others that are mutually known? I am just at a stale-mate, as I don't know what to think or do or not do.
Why do I desire any relationship with this person? Whenever one begins to "enter" or think they enter the other's world, there is a slammed door, or so it seems. On the other hand, this person can have a overzealous conscientiousness about another relationship, to the extent of compulsion. I've been advised that one cannot have access to those that choose to not allow such access. And when I think about it, isn't this what I'd want? Respect for my boundaries and a honoring of my "right of denial"?
Monday, February 14, 2011
Anger About One's Own Naivete'
Today, a friend from far away called. She and I understand and accept one another because we "know" each other. This is "Human Nature" in relationship. One's way of viewing reality can be different but the ability to tolerate difference is really dependent on one's self development and where one personally chooses to draw their boundaries and what one ultimately thinks is valuable. I think that prejudice cannot be avoided for this very reason.
Today, I was expressing my journey and she picked up my anger and told me that if she didn't know me, she'd think I was angry at HER. She knows me better than that. I understood and confessed that I was really angry at myself. I had made many choices based on what I had understood to be a universal understanding, and it wasn't.
All political dialogue is based on terminology that must be investigated as to definition. Definitions define and reveal assumptions, ends, and ultimately whether values are on the "same page" or not.
Politics has a habit of using such rhetoric and not revealing the underlying assumptions of value. Those that are not educated in critically thinking through whether what is said, is equatable to what is understood. might just be duped into believing that we "all" agree! when we really don't!
I am angry, but I will eventually "get over it", because I am changing my allegiances, and understandings. I am pursuing and investigating. I am just glad to have friends that value me apart from what I believe or don't believe, or what I value as ultimate or not ultimate, because these are true friends, indeed....And true friends are one of life's greatest values, because they support you in your journey in life, no matter where it leads!
Today, I was expressing my journey and she picked up my anger and told me that if she didn't know me, she'd think I was angry at HER. She knows me better than that. I understood and confessed that I was really angry at myself. I had made many choices based on what I had understood to be a universal understanding, and it wasn't.
All political dialogue is based on terminology that must be investigated as to definition. Definitions define and reveal assumptions, ends, and ultimately whether values are on the "same page" or not.
Politics has a habit of using such rhetoric and not revealing the underlying assumptions of value. Those that are not educated in critically thinking through whether what is said, is equatable to what is understood. might just be duped into believing that we "all" agree! when we really don't!
I am angry, but I will eventually "get over it", because I am changing my allegiances, and understandings. I am pursuing and investigating. I am just glad to have friends that value me apart from what I believe or don't believe, or what I value as ultimate or not ultimate, because these are true friends, indeed....And true friends are one of life's greatest values, because they support you in your journey in life, no matter where it leads!
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Tally's Folly, Fears Addressed
Tonight, we went to see "Tally's Folly"'. Interesting story line about a couple that had had a romance the previous summer and the girl, Sally, gets "cold feet".
The boy, Matt, has decided to face his fears and risk rejection, while Sally can't help but feel compelled to reject him first.
Matt confronts Sally about her fears and confesses his own, telling of his experience of rejection as a Lithuanian Jew. He suggests that the answer lies in breaking apart their "shells", so that communication and intimacy might occur.
In the end, Sally admits that she, too, had been rejected. Rejection had caused her fears. But, fear came from social/ psychological circumstances. She had been engaged and then rejected by her fiance' and his family. She had gotten sick and could no longer have children. Her own family had become disenchanted with her, due to their loss of status and her prolonged singleness.
Two lovers at odds because one suffered from political scars, while the other suffered psychological scars. Both came to their senses in the end and I'm sure lived "happily ever after".
The End!
The boy, Matt, has decided to face his fears and risk rejection, while Sally can't help but feel compelled to reject him first.
Matt confronts Sally about her fears and confesses his own, telling of his experience of rejection as a Lithuanian Jew. He suggests that the answer lies in breaking apart their "shells", so that communication and intimacy might occur.
In the end, Sally admits that she, too, had been rejected. Rejection had caused her fears. But, fear came from social/ psychological circumstances. She had been engaged and then rejected by her fiance' and his family. She had gotten sick and could no longer have children. Her own family had become disenchanted with her, due to their loss of status and her prolonged singleness.
Two lovers at odds because one suffered from political scars, while the other suffered psychological scars. Both came to their senses in the end and I'm sure lived "happily ever after".
The End!
Monday, January 31, 2011
Words Have Diverse Meanings,
Words have meanings. That is understood, but humans don't always identify words to their dictionary meanings. Human experience is how children define words. And how these words are "felt" are the understood meaning. True communication means that one understands the individual's definitions, as well as the word itself.
Have you ever had a "reaction" or response to an event that went way beyond the actual event itself? Your emotions were "out of kilter"? Why do you suppose this happened? Memories that are recorded in the brain are "revived" by some "image" that parallels the present experience. One can have physical reactions to such experiences, whether good or bad. And such emotional responses have a lot to do with religious feeling.
How do you suppose that such "recordings" or "brain images" are transformed?
Children need nuture, not harsh discipline to grow to a fruitful maturity. Discipline should be age appropriate, and not demanding or overwhelming to the child. Childish fears should be respected, not by dismissing childish fears, but giving the child a means of self-responsibility. A flashlight that can be turned on if the "monster" invades his/her room, or a special "fairy wand" that makes a "magic space of protection, where the "monster" cannot see the child.
The religious child is trained to "pray to God" for protection and help. And the child's belief in "God's help" is really the parent's representation of "god" to the child. Good parenting should give the child a means to transferring his dependence on "god" (parental image) to "self".
Childish beliefs must be challenged, and children need to grow up to own their life, where fear doesn't inhibit healthy self-identity. Without self identity, the child will never grow to become and make a difference. He will be crippled and left to his childish imaginations where "monsters" (the Devil) invade his "world" and make bad things happen, or "God" invades his world and makes "good things happen".
Words have meanings and true communication means that individuals seek to understand the meanings, images, messages of the words that are used, so that understanding and true communication can happen.
Have you ever had a "reaction" or response to an event that went way beyond the actual event itself? Your emotions were "out of kilter"? Why do you suppose this happened? Memories that are recorded in the brain are "revived" by some "image" that parallels the present experience. One can have physical reactions to such experiences, whether good or bad. And such emotional responses have a lot to do with religious feeling.
How do you suppose that such "recordings" or "brain images" are transformed?
Children need nuture, not harsh discipline to grow to a fruitful maturity. Discipline should be age appropriate, and not demanding or overwhelming to the child. Childish fears should be respected, not by dismissing childish fears, but giving the child a means of self-responsibility. A flashlight that can be turned on if the "monster" invades his/her room, or a special "fairy wand" that makes a "magic space of protection, where the "monster" cannot see the child.
The religious child is trained to "pray to God" for protection and help. And the child's belief in "God's help" is really the parent's representation of "god" to the child. Good parenting should give the child a means to transferring his dependence on "god" (parental image) to "self".
Childish beliefs must be challenged, and children need to grow up to own their life, where fear doesn't inhibit healthy self-identity. Without self identity, the child will never grow to become and make a difference. He will be crippled and left to his childish imaginations where "monsters" (the Devil) invade his "world" and make bad things happen, or "God" invades his world and makes "good things happen".
Words have meanings and true communication means that individuals seek to understand the meanings, images, messages of the words that are used, so that understanding and true communication can happen.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The ARTS, As a Universal Language
Tonight, we went with friends to our church to see an organ concert. But, it was more than the organ, it was also a Chamber orchestra, and solos on the violin, trumpet, and saxophone. All of these musicians were professionals, hired by local orchestras. And the concert was Free!
The thing that struck me was that we have been going to this church for most of the year and it was never filled like it was tonight. Granted many in the audience had come from other places, if they even attended church. But, what came to mind was; music is a universal language. It gets beyond the cognitive, prepositional to the emotive, where the walls are not up. And it touches where everyone can be touched, as humans.
This is not a new insight, I know, but it came to me, as new and important tonight, because of the movie we saw yesterday.
Yesterday, we saw a moive, "Never Let Me Go". It was a movie made from a best-selling novel. And it was done in a literary style. But, the story was starkly is contrast to its style, which might have made it more impacting to the human pscyhe.
The story was about the developing relationships between three young people in an English boarding school. This boarding school was unlike other boarding schools, because it was used for the sole purpose of protecting and providing an environment to "grow" human specimens to "harvest" their organs.
Soceity was the focus and goal of such an experiment of human "souls". It was all done for the greater good. But, at the end, after much heartache of separation and dehumanization, one of the main characters rationalizes her "lot in life", by saying that her last days were at least happy, as they granted her a few days with the man she loved. And after all, the organ beneficiaries' lives were not unlike her own, as they all must in the end, die!!!
I found myself repulsed, and intensely angered by the "realistic" scenario of such a movie. The reality is the basis of a scientific experiment that treated humans as objects! My heart was wrenched over their "lot in life". Who got the right to determine another human's life? I was outraged!
And then, tonight, the music helped me see that irregardless of differences of ideology, belief systems, or other things that would inhibit communication, music or art was the way that would get beyond those differences and help us to understand and unite as humans!
I think Condelezza Rice, when she was the Secretary of State, did try to cross culturally communicate by sharing of the "human arts" or humanities.
The thing that struck me was that we have been going to this church for most of the year and it was never filled like it was tonight. Granted many in the audience had come from other places, if they even attended church. But, what came to mind was; music is a universal language. It gets beyond the cognitive, prepositional to the emotive, where the walls are not up. And it touches where everyone can be touched, as humans.
This is not a new insight, I know, but it came to me, as new and important tonight, because of the movie we saw yesterday.
Yesterday, we saw a moive, "Never Let Me Go". It was a movie made from a best-selling novel. And it was done in a literary style. But, the story was starkly is contrast to its style, which might have made it more impacting to the human pscyhe.
The story was about the developing relationships between three young people in an English boarding school. This boarding school was unlike other boarding schools, because it was used for the sole purpose of protecting and providing an environment to "grow" human specimens to "harvest" their organs.
Soceity was the focus and goal of such an experiment of human "souls". It was all done for the greater good. But, at the end, after much heartache of separation and dehumanization, one of the main characters rationalizes her "lot in life", by saying that her last days were at least happy, as they granted her a few days with the man she loved. And after all, the organ beneficiaries' lives were not unlike her own, as they all must in the end, die!!!
I found myself repulsed, and intensely angered by the "realistic" scenario of such a movie. The reality is the basis of a scientific experiment that treated humans as objects! My heart was wrenched over their "lot in life". Who got the right to determine another human's life? I was outraged!
And then, tonight, the music helped me see that irregardless of differences of ideology, belief systems, or other things that would inhibit communication, music or art was the way that would get beyond those differences and help us to understand and unite as humans!
I think Condelezza Rice, when she was the Secretary of State, did try to cross culturally communicate by sharing of the "human arts" or humanities.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Why I Love the Quote by Heinlein
The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. -- Robert A. Heinlein
I love this quote because those that love to control others think they are leaders, but what they are really doing is not leadership, but tyranny. Leadership is about winning the right to lead, not manipulating others with dishonesty or power plays.
I love this quote because those that have ideals and define them for others, do a disservice to others, because they do not allow others the right to think and understand what they would choose to believe and what they value and why.
The later type are critical thinkers. They do not take things on face value, therefore, they would ask questions, and investigate to understand another without making assumptions, presumptions and demands based on their understanding of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
The idealist would think that the real leader would be those who are so focused on the goal that they see clearly what the "end" is. These understand their vision from pig-headed stubornness, if they are not careful. Whenever something is clear to us, we also need to be aware that others may not see or understand things the same way. This way, communication is valued and negotiation can be closer to reality. And then the vision so clearly seen can be adjusted to take into account all of the "team".
I love this quote because those that love to control others think they are leaders, but what they are really doing is not leadership, but tyranny. Leadership is about winning the right to lead, not manipulating others with dishonesty or power plays.
I love this quote because those that have ideals and define them for others, do a disservice to others, because they do not allow others the right to think and understand what they would choose to believe and what they value and why.
The later type are critical thinkers. They do not take things on face value, therefore, they would ask questions, and investigate to understand another without making assumptions, presumptions and demands based on their understanding of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
The idealist would think that the real leader would be those who are so focused on the goal that they see clearly what the "end" is. These understand their vision from pig-headed stubornness, if they are not careful. Whenever something is clear to us, we also need to be aware that others may not see or understand things the same way. This way, communication is valued and negotiation can be closer to reality. And then the vision so clearly seen can be adjusted to take into account all of the "team".
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Bias Is Difficult to See and Hard to Overcome
Today another blog site, and another mis-conception.... Whenever one is seeking to prevent the previous "worldview" from holding authority over one's understanding, then one can and often does prevert hearing what is being said about that particular subject. This is a hard-line bias. And it happens whenever we have things that we need protecting, as well as agendas we want to pursue. We must ask ourselves the question about what we are protecting and what we want to pursue. These are questions that might be very revealing to motivations and attitudes about one's bias.
Bias can be just as opinionated against something as for something, and it is hard to see when one's worldview, context, values, goals and identity is at stake.
Tomorrow a friend and I are going to the Newmusuem. The times I have gone there before, I remember reading a number of quotes about bias in the media. There is also a film about Bias in the Media. I am taking my notebook to write down this information to process how I might be subject to similar short-comings and to help me reflect enough on my own bias to ask myself questions.
I share all of this to help others understand how bias is hard to see and prevent and can distort communication, views of reality, and other such important matters.
Humans are story tellers from the earliest days of communication. Needless to say that this is still the case in the modern day world. Myth is meaning making. Myth defines reality for most. And myth is just myth to some. And that is the question I need to resolve. Is myth really important or valuable to be human? I don't think so, but maybe I am biased. So, I will investigate.
Bias can be just as opinionated against something as for something, and it is hard to see when one's worldview, context, values, goals and identity is at stake.
Tomorrow a friend and I are going to the Newmusuem. The times I have gone there before, I remember reading a number of quotes about bias in the media. There is also a film about Bias in the Media. I am taking my notebook to write down this information to process how I might be subject to similar short-comings and to help me reflect enough on my own bias to ask myself questions.
I share all of this to help others understand how bias is hard to see and prevent and can distort communication, views of reality, and other such important matters.
Humans are story tellers from the earliest days of communication. Needless to say that this is still the case in the modern day world. Myth is meaning making. Myth defines reality for most. And myth is just myth to some. And that is the question I need to resolve. Is myth really important or valuable to be human? I don't think so, but maybe I am biased. So, I will investigate.
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, July 3, 2009
Liberty and Marriage and Parenting
Marriage is a social structure and a social contract. Social structures have functions in society, but are not necessarily to be understood as static, as any healthy relationship grows with the people involved. Social contract is the communicated and agreed upon expectations about the marrage.
I find that those who adhere to a traditional conservative view of marriage, sometimes do not allow freedom to the individuals to formulate their own roles within the marriage, as they are defined in static form by the text of scripture. These make no allowance for individual conscience or identity apart from the marriage unit. In psychological terms, identities become "enmeshed", or "enabling" or "authoriatarian" and "overbearing", instead of functioning in a healthy dynamic way.
Communication is key to the continued intimacy in a changing relationship, as otherwise, there will be no ongoing understanding. Some think that there is no need to communicate, as their expectations of their marital partner is already understood, because of the "role" the other is to perform. Performance of any function is a de-humanizing way to "be" in a relationship. The standardization of marriage leads to a suppression of individual differences in talents as well as conscience.
I have used Jenny Sandford as an example of a healthy individual. She has not defined herself by her role, but understands that her person is not defined as Gov. Sandford's wife, but as a separate identity with a separate career. She also gives her husband room to choose what he will be and what he will do. This is why she can say she will forgive him, but reconcilliation is dependent on him, not just on her part. He must respect her, as well as co-operate in the relationship as an "equal partner". This is common sense, but some Christian marital counselors would condone an unhealthy union, as long as there is no physical abuse.
I think that whenever there are certain prescribed expectations that become formalized, then there will definately be an unhealthy relationship, as relationship is not about the "formula" but about the individuals involved. Their distinct uniqueness as individuals is impossible to define within a " roles or functions" understanding or mentality.
Expectations that are defined universally and not specifically, are a hinderance to the relationship. There is no form for marriage, in regards to roles and functions, just as there are no "formulas" that define what universal parenting should look like, except that the parent is interested in the best for the child.
Good parenting takes wisdom and makes room for the child's individual differences. Bad parenting does not allow the child to develop properly as it is overbearing, indifferent, or hovering. These bad parenting models are more about the parent's needs, than the child's. So, it takes a mature adult to raise a child and to be a good parent.
And it takes a mature person to be in an intimate relationship that is healthy and growing. Fortunately, our country allows diverse views and opinions. This is healthy for the individual, as well as the social structures.
I find that those who adhere to a traditional conservative view of marriage, sometimes do not allow freedom to the individuals to formulate their own roles within the marriage, as they are defined in static form by the text of scripture. These make no allowance for individual conscience or identity apart from the marriage unit. In psychological terms, identities become "enmeshed", or "enabling" or "authoriatarian" and "overbearing", instead of functioning in a healthy dynamic way.
Communication is key to the continued intimacy in a changing relationship, as otherwise, there will be no ongoing understanding. Some think that there is no need to communicate, as their expectations of their marital partner is already understood, because of the "role" the other is to perform. Performance of any function is a de-humanizing way to "be" in a relationship. The standardization of marriage leads to a suppression of individual differences in talents as well as conscience.
I have used Jenny Sandford as an example of a healthy individual. She has not defined herself by her role, but understands that her person is not defined as Gov. Sandford's wife, but as a separate identity with a separate career. She also gives her husband room to choose what he will be and what he will do. This is why she can say she will forgive him, but reconcilliation is dependent on him, not just on her part. He must respect her, as well as co-operate in the relationship as an "equal partner". This is common sense, but some Christian marital counselors would condone an unhealthy union, as long as there is no physical abuse.
I think that whenever there are certain prescribed expectations that become formalized, then there will definately be an unhealthy relationship, as relationship is not about the "formula" but about the individuals involved. Their distinct uniqueness as individuals is impossible to define within a " roles or functions" understanding or mentality.
Expectations that are defined universally and not specifically, are a hinderance to the relationship. There is no form for marriage, in regards to roles and functions, just as there are no "formulas" that define what universal parenting should look like, except that the parent is interested in the best for the child.
Good parenting takes wisdom and makes room for the child's individual differences. Bad parenting does not allow the child to develop properly as it is overbearing, indifferent, or hovering. These bad parenting models are more about the parent's needs, than the child's. So, it takes a mature adult to raise a child and to be a good parent.
And it takes a mature person to be in an intimate relationship that is healthy and growing. Fortunately, our country allows diverse views and opinions. This is healthy for the individual, as well as the social structures.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Misunderstandings and Such
I have been told that I "take the ball and run" when I respond on another blog site. I have been told more than once, so there must be some truth to this. As I reflected on this, I have some 'theories about why this may be so...
1.) these who say I am "re-inventing the wheel" may have certain understandings that I do not have, so my response is "off kilter" to them. I have a different frame of reference than theirs. For instance, if someone thinks that you should be feeling guilt about something, then they will think that you "project" your guilt in your responses. They are prejudiced in a certain way, because of their own personal convictions, or bias.
2.) I have different definitions to my words, therefore, when I read their site, I "hear" something different from what they meant.
3.) I have different "interests" so what I extrapolate takes the discussion in a different direction from the one intended..
4.) I have a learning disorder.
Which one (or all) is true? and how do I know? or how do I find out?
1.) these who say I am "re-inventing the wheel" may have certain understandings that I do not have, so my response is "off kilter" to them. I have a different frame of reference than theirs. For instance, if someone thinks that you should be feeling guilt about something, then they will think that you "project" your guilt in your responses. They are prejudiced in a certain way, because of their own personal convictions, or bias.
2.) I have different definitions to my words, therefore, when I read their site, I "hear" something different from what they meant.
3.) I have different "interests" so what I extrapolate takes the discussion in a different direction from the one intended..
4.) I have a learning disorder.
Which one (or all) is true? and how do I know? or how do I find out?
Monday, January 19, 2009
Mispreceptions Lead to Misconceptions
Last night, I was thinking about how our misconceptions (generalities) lead to mispreceptions (specificities). But, this morning, as I was pondering over some reading, I also realized that our specific interactions with other, our preceptions, can lead to misconceptions, as well. This happens whenever, we try to enlarge our specific understanding about life or humankind, in general. This is where observation fails, I think.
Take, for instance, yesterday's mispreception of my son's intent in wanting to help me across the ice, my experience had trained, or taught me that whenever he approaches me like this, he has certain tendencies. Past behavior is projected to be future behavior.
A certain movie, that was popular last year, would be a good example. In that movie, a pre-teen views what she thinks is a "sexually" charged scene between two individuals she knows. They movie goes on to enlarge what is really happening, but the girl is still precieving the information through "prejuidicial eyes", which leads to further "evidence" for "truth". The initial mispreception leads to a full-blown misconception, as she only "sees" what she thinks she will see. Thus, the story has a tragic end, as her "revelations" of her observations are miscontrued and influence the opinion of others toward this couple.
I find that this happens often to those who have "vivid imaginations", a creative tendency of story-telling. But, the scientists know better than to assume anything about mere observation. There must be experiment upon experiment with control parameters, that can guide the judgements before "truth" can be verified. This is good science.
So, while our generalizations about experience can lead to specific fears or anxieties about the present or future, our observations of the present can also be miscontrued.
How do we protect ourselves from these crimes of "mind"? I think the best way is to journal, accountability partnes, and a real effort to become aware in self reflective moments. These moment of writing, sharing and meditating can inhibit us from "sins of ignorance" of ourselves and others.
Take, for instance, yesterday's mispreception of my son's intent in wanting to help me across the ice, my experience had trained, or taught me that whenever he approaches me like this, he has certain tendencies. Past behavior is projected to be future behavior.
A certain movie, that was popular last year, would be a good example. In that movie, a pre-teen views what she thinks is a "sexually" charged scene between two individuals she knows. They movie goes on to enlarge what is really happening, but the girl is still precieving the information through "prejuidicial eyes", which leads to further "evidence" for "truth". The initial mispreception leads to a full-blown misconception, as she only "sees" what she thinks she will see. Thus, the story has a tragic end, as her "revelations" of her observations are miscontrued and influence the opinion of others toward this couple.
I find that this happens often to those who have "vivid imaginations", a creative tendency of story-telling. But, the scientists know better than to assume anything about mere observation. There must be experiment upon experiment with control parameters, that can guide the judgements before "truth" can be verified. This is good science.
So, while our generalizations about experience can lead to specific fears or anxieties about the present or future, our observations of the present can also be miscontrued.
How do we protect ourselves from these crimes of "mind"? I think the best way is to journal, accountability partnes, and a real effort to become aware in self reflective moments. These moment of writing, sharing and meditating can inhibit us from "sins of ignorance" of ourselves and others.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Misconceptions Based on Mispreceptions
Today we dedicated our grandson, Drayton, in Church. As a celebration, my husband, I and family went to a local resturant.
After having lunch, we all departed to meet back up at our house. I entered the parking lot, which was filled with ice. My oldest son approached me with his hand outstretched. I started to back away, as I identified this gesture as one of mischief. He continued to approach me rapidly and when I grimaced, he looked at me with surprise, as he was only trying to help me across the parking lot. I, on the other hand, had thought that he had a "snowball in tow" to throw at me...When we got in the car, he questioned my response, and I told him that he and his brother always found seaweed at the beach to "scare" Mom"...so, I had projected that image onto his helpfulness. We laughed in the car, reminiscing about our times at the beach and their mischevious ways...I'm glad I misprecieved his intent, as it led to a delightful memory of "family"...
This so often happens in relationships, as we precieve what we have experienced, so often and project it onto our present experience. We must take care to take care of our past, so that our past does not continue to affect our present and influence our future.
After having lunch, we all departed to meet back up at our house. I entered the parking lot, which was filled with ice. My oldest son approached me with his hand outstretched. I started to back away, as I identified this gesture as one of mischief. He continued to approach me rapidly and when I grimaced, he looked at me with surprise, as he was only trying to help me across the parking lot. I, on the other hand, had thought that he had a "snowball in tow" to throw at me...When we got in the car, he questioned my response, and I told him that he and his brother always found seaweed at the beach to "scare" Mom"...so, I had projected that image onto his helpfulness. We laughed in the car, reminiscing about our times at the beach and their mischevious ways...I'm glad I misprecieved his intent, as it led to a delightful memory of "family"...
This so often happens in relationships, as we precieve what we have experienced, so often and project it onto our present experience. We must take care to take care of our past, so that our past does not continue to affect our present and influence our future.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Theology's Task Today (continued)
In my last post, I said that there needed to be a globalized faith. This means that several things must change in the Christian world, where it concerns faith.
Science deals in the real world and describes many aspects of life in this world. Anthropological study of man within context, psychological study, which studies everything from neuroscience, cognitive science, learning theories, to how people respond and understand religion and God...Church history has focused on questions that confronted the Church and how they should be answered using philosophy. This is how theology should be done today, as it connects the real world with the transcendent. There is no superspiritual message of salvation in the sweet by and by, as we really do not know about the transcendent. We only know about how man has functioned within the world. This is a theological humanism, as all men are created in God's image.
Some would like to protect the Bible as a special revelation to man, but I find this is misguided. The material in Scriptures has always been interpreted differently throughout the ages, but some would like to protect Jesus as a unique figure, instead of understanding him within a moral framework as natural theology would. A natural theology could be palatable to many atheists, I believe for it would not deny or detract from reason or reasonble scientific understandings of "truth" and theology. Of course, many would say that the wall between science and religion should remain intact, but why is this necessary? To protect the Church's interests? The Church's interests should be first and foremost about man and the world.
Augustine understood man within a certain framework that I think is downright wrong. Why? because of many atrocities that happen when one religion thinks it owns truth! And more so when there is correction in the name of God that must be made because man is fallen and will go to hell if he is not saved (spiritually). This attitude and focus breeds a radicalization of faith that breeds what Wesley would call enthusiasm. We do not need such thinking and feeling about faith today. We need a re-structuring that breeds understanding, listening, and a wideness in understanding God's grace, mercy and love. This theological framework would be diplomatic in its undertaking of peace in the world and would help to alleviate much miscommunication.
Jesus has been interpreted in so many ways that there is not "right way" of understanding him. He was a moral model, but was one among many in the world of religion. Religious understanding should include moral, ethical, social and political models within all cultures. Understanding others and their cultural heroes help to breed understanding and trust, which helps communication.
What do Christians really want? Do they want to have the "ultimate and only" truth? Or are they open to struggling to breech the wide gap amongst the religions of the world and bring a larger vision of hope?
According to the science and religion debate, this view is NOT complementary, but integrative. This is necessary and mandantory, as education has left faith altogether, which has bred the atheist we see today.
Science deals in the real world and describes many aspects of life in this world. Anthropological study of man within context, psychological study, which studies everything from neuroscience, cognitive science, learning theories, to how people respond and understand religion and God...Church history has focused on questions that confronted the Church and how they should be answered using philosophy. This is how theology should be done today, as it connects the real world with the transcendent. There is no superspiritual message of salvation in the sweet by and by, as we really do not know about the transcendent. We only know about how man has functioned within the world. This is a theological humanism, as all men are created in God's image.
Some would like to protect the Bible as a special revelation to man, but I find this is misguided. The material in Scriptures has always been interpreted differently throughout the ages, but some would like to protect Jesus as a unique figure, instead of understanding him within a moral framework as natural theology would. A natural theology could be palatable to many atheists, I believe for it would not deny or detract from reason or reasonble scientific understandings of "truth" and theology. Of course, many would say that the wall between science and religion should remain intact, but why is this necessary? To protect the Church's interests? The Church's interests should be first and foremost about man and the world.
Augustine understood man within a certain framework that I think is downright wrong. Why? because of many atrocities that happen when one religion thinks it owns truth! And more so when there is correction in the name of God that must be made because man is fallen and will go to hell if he is not saved (spiritually). This attitude and focus breeds a radicalization of faith that breeds what Wesley would call enthusiasm. We do not need such thinking and feeling about faith today. We need a re-structuring that breeds understanding, listening, and a wideness in understanding God's grace, mercy and love. This theological framework would be diplomatic in its undertaking of peace in the world and would help to alleviate much miscommunication.
Jesus has been interpreted in so many ways that there is not "right way" of understanding him. He was a moral model, but was one among many in the world of religion. Religious understanding should include moral, ethical, social and political models within all cultures. Understanding others and their cultural heroes help to breed understanding and trust, which helps communication.
What do Christians really want? Do they want to have the "ultimate and only" truth? Or are they open to struggling to breech the wide gap amongst the religions of the world and bring a larger vision of hope?
According to the science and religion debate, this view is NOT complementary, but integrative. This is necessary and mandantory, as education has left faith altogether, which has bred the atheist we see today.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Images
Images are appearances. That we can all agree upon. The difference lies in what do the images represent? Do images represent the absolute REAL? If so, is there numerous ways of understanding the real, through the interpretaion? These interpretaions are evaluated based upon our experiences in education (life, formal, cultural, familial). These are social constructed interpretations. Therefore, our understanding would be limited by our education.
What if the images are just images that are representative of cultural values? They are not images that reflect something of the "real world", but are a means of communication and expression of those values? Then, our understanding would be culturally framed based upon that culture's value structure.
Which is it?
A REAL world that we battle on the basis of Truth that is still dependent on interpretation.
OR, is it a symbolic world of cultural values that have no basis in "Truth", but are just cultural values?
What if the images are just images that are representative of cultural values? They are not images that reflect something of the "real world", but are a means of communication and expression of those values? Then, our understanding would be culturally framed based upon that culture's value structure.
Which is it?
A REAL world that we battle on the basis of Truth that is still dependent on interpretation.
OR, is it a symbolic world of cultural values that have no basis in "Truth", but are just cultural values?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
