Brain/Mind and Human Needs

It has been understood that the human always looks for causes to explain the world he lives in. Early in human history, humans understood the "cause" as "God" or Providence. Nowadays, science sneers at such beliefs, because science has understood itself as the tool to understand physical laws, not superstitious belief. But, what of human needs, as to the brain/mind?

The human not just needs to understand and explain the causes of the universe, which can be explained by the facts of science, understanding natural laws. But, humans need the ability to trust that certain results will come from their "world". That is, humans need consistance in some way to be predictable, so that humans can organize their life and "feel they are free" and not pawns of some natural force that is unpredictable.

Predictability begins to be understood by the child, as he grows to understand the world at his parent's knee. The parent is "god" in the sense that the parent trains the child to predict what will happen if certain behaviors are done or left undone. This breeds a sense of security in the child as the child understands himself and the world as a predictable place.

Humans do not fare well in natural disasters, human tragedy, or other types of "irregularity" in their "world". It traumatizes the human to experience such disruptions to the regularities fo life. It breeds anxiety and some experience the effects of Post Traumatic Stress.

When the child grows to be a teen, he begins to understand that the law, which guards the socety, which he is a part of, also is predictable. If you transgress, then there are costs. The law maintains social order, so the teen can understand what is expected from him in his society.

The adult comes to understand that though the law protects the social order, life isn't nice and neat, like reaping and sowing, but results , sometimes, in human tragedy that is unpredictable, and sometimes disorienting. Such tragedies should never be judged as getting what one deserves, but understanding that life isn't as predictable as one once thought.

Humans do need predictability, and this is when those that are prone to authoritarianism are prone to believe judgment is always the best way to treat such offenses. Otherwise, "the community" and soceity would go to "pot". These are anxious about protecting and defending what they deem as "absolute", and sometimes these people use 'God" to enforce their positions.
Others think that compassion is a better way to express solidarity in life. No longer is it necessary to protect oneself from unpredictability, by control, nor to defend "God's order", nor is it necessary to affirm oneself in comparison to another. One has come to a point of understanding that life, and living are much more than a certain choice, that causes certain consequences. But, that life has parallel universes that produce different realities, this is true, but that life can be embraced, no matter which "world" one has chosen.

"Providence" and Government

Does it make you "ill" when people that are adults believe in "Providence"? It does me. I think all meaning or interpretation is a matter of correlation in one's mind to past memories and present preception of oneself, as well as past perceptions of oneself.

Humanists and scientists are trying to understand what makes for alturistic concern. They have found alturism in animal behavior and wonder what makes some people compassionate, and others, not so much. Some reasearch has revealed that children that were not nurtured as infants tend to not be as compassionate. There is information that suggests there are differences between the sexes. And, then, there is the chemical imbalances in the brain that make for mental illnesses. What does compassion have to do with "Providence", you ask?

"Providence" understands or interprets happenings as "God's intervention" in the world. These "happenings" are the result of people who experience "God" through others' acts of compassion. And science it seeking to understand if compassion can be "learned" behavior, as well. Can the physical properties of the brain and one's perception be changed over time with "conditioning"? Obviously, animals respond to discipline and learn how to behave. Authoritarian religions, as well as Totalitarian States believe that "discipline" is needed to bring about the 'salvation of mankind".

Atheistic States and authoritarian Religions believe that social conditioning is needed to protect against 'savagery" and can provide a "better society". This is the reason for propaganda and manipulation of the public or indoctrination in relgious climates. There is no real reverence for an individual's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. We are a collective, so "individuality" is a threat to progress and conformity! Scientific materialism or religious conformity is much too important. Some scientists believe that even our experience of art and beauty is a result of stimuli to our physical properties, while religions see these "expressions' to be "useful" for "glorifying God". What makes for an artist's imagination? And is the artist's imagination as productive in a regimented and oppressive environment?

Religions have brought solace and comfort to those under authoritarian regimes, because of the need for the human to experience their own "reality". But, religions have also oppressed as much as any absolute State. The sense of "self" and one's own control of their life, is an important aspect of "feeling free". None of us are totally free, as we live under governments, and societies, and if not, we all live under the constraints of natural resources.

Natural resources are seen as limited unless science provides new ways or making them or limiting our use of them. And the environmental consequences to such use is also of concern. The question, then becomes who, what, and how will the policy decisions be made , how will they be prioritized, when there are so many variables? These are the conflicts within an open and free society. Those that hold the power make the determinations about policy and this is where "Providence" is an absurd understanding about life and what happens.

Unless one wants to affirm and confirm a Totalitarian State, where there is not "representation", then one must understand and see that it is "the people" who will vote, petition and make the differences to "outcomes" in their government, which isn't about "Providence", but about responsibility and concern.

"Providence" is a term useful for those that believe in authoritarianism! And good government is NOT authoritarian, not at all.

"Self", as the Center to Self Awareness

Atlas Shrugged


‎"Let a man corrupt his values and his view of existence, let him profess that love is not self-enjoyment but self-denial, that virtue consists, not of pride, but of pity or pain or weakness or sacrifice, that the noblest love is born, not of admiration, but of charity, not in response to values, but in response to flaws—and he will have cut himself in two."
S2C4

There is something insincere about people who try to patronize others. But, perhaps, their patronizing attitude is due to their superior opinion of themselves as the "saviors of the world".
 
It is imagined that one cannot be a "Christian" if one has concern for oneself, one's own family or cultural values. That is absurd. Christian has as many meanings as there are cultures, because Christiainity is compliant to different values, primarily, I believe, due to Protestantism. "Faith" can mean anything and does in American culture. I think we should seek to keep it that way, otherwise, we will limit America's foremost value, liberty.
 
The above quote suggests that to defy one's values and one's commitment to them, is to "cut oneself in two". Why? Because men are made to make choices about what they respect, admire and want to accomplish for themselves and their families. This is a motivation to set goals. And goals to accomplish inevitably lead to benefitting society.
 
When one is prone to be taught to "feel sorry for" and pity, then one is not respecting, or admiring another. And this "feeling" of pity/compassion is demeaning and demoralizing to those that are also meant to set goals and excel.
 
Expectations in America are individualized, so there is not "one way" to view life and its purposes, or value. And that is as it should be, otherwise, some willl always be defining their life by another's need. And that leaves a co-dependent relationship that is not healthy or beneficial to either party.
 
Value what you value and know why you value it. This is the only way to "own your own life" and defeat "class warfare" and give your own life purpose and meaning.

What I Have Learned About the Compassionate.

Much has been said these days about social identity, community, social responsibility, and the "common good". These are ways of helping us to understand that we are not islands, but that our lives are interconnected. But, those that think that they are the "leader" or are more compssionate, or spiritual are prone to think that they must lead others toward whatever their passion is. They must implement thier passion upon the world.

I have learned that those that feel so self-righteous in their "care", do not care for those who don't, unless it is to "train" them to "care". These have a mistaken idea of "care". Their need is to 'parent" another, to make them into their own image and likeness. Those that don't care must care, and be made to care...about the same things. If there is a starving child dying of AIDS, then that is what must be the focus of everyone, interior designers, beware. You might be labeled as 'uncaring and materialistic'!

The height of arrogance, at least for me, is to assume that one's passion, ultimate concern, or conviction should be everyone's. The whole world should stop and take notice of the concern that some think are of ultimate importance. There are many important concerns in and about the world. One must not think that there should or will be only one.

I get rebellious over this way of thinking, because it is disrespectful of another's difference of value. For, those that judge another because they do not have the same concerns, are doing an injustice to so many.

I have learned that the compassionate can be the most attentive to specified needs, but completely dead when it concerns other kinds of needs. The driven need to be concerned is a type of addiction to "feeling needed" or "feeling important", as if one is a "savior".

The compassionate are never labelled compassionate, in my book, if they have not shown compassion toward those they deem uncompassionate.

I Would Do It the Same Way Again..

Time is curious, as it seems to have no consitency in our perception. Sometimes time seems to fly and other times, time stands still. But, nevertheless, time moves one whether we percieve it to or not. Time makes many of us wiser and this is the topic of discussion today.

Wisdom comes with age, they say, because life has a way of teaching you about "life". Many of us learn and grow as we are stretched or enlarged by our formal or informal educational opprotunities. But, when I look back over my life, I cannot regret. Why?

If I went back, I would be the person I was, not the person I am, now. And because I would've been that same person, I would've responded in the same way I did back then. We can never go back. But, we can learn to grow through our mistakes and learn from them. This is wisdom.

So, today, grace is about forgiving oneself, even more so, because we must be understanding of the other as well. Otherwise, we become hardened and narrow and bent on correcting another's wrong, without understanding that we ahve make mistakes, too.

Sundry Thoughts On Experience, Psychology and Theology

Does experience have to "form" our understanding or thinking? Some believe that it does, as we are bound within cultural contexts that define or determine meaning. This view does not allow for development of reason, or individual uniqueness in personality or gifting. Cultural contexts are "group" forming "groupthink".

Although experience does influence our understanding, it cannot determine what or how we understand life, unless we allow it to. This view takes into account another way of "seeing" or coming to terms with reality. Those who have experienced trauma are helped by counselors to see or understand reality differently and not allow their experience to "interpret" the present.

Science does give us clues as how experience affects us. Mental disorders such as Post Traumatic Stress, neurosis or anxiety disorders have been understood to have begun through a "conditioning experience". These disorders can be overcome through means of medication, behavior modification, and coping mechanisms.

"How do we paint reality"? Many paint their reality through their experiences of childhood. Bad parents breed bad behavior and bad thinking. The child's self-concept is damaged to such an extent that the child cannot grow emotionally, or finds it difficult to attian their potential. These ways of "painting reality" must be rectified, so that these young adults will become and accomplish.

Today's sermon was given by a youth leader. His message was about "conviction" and power of the Holy Spirit and how we live "Christian" lives. What do people outside our church say about our church. Do we only say what we feel or do we live what we feel, as a testimony to our faith?

It seemed he was basing faith on feeling. That was interesting, as feeling is a common "identifier" in man. But, this "feeling of conviction" was also the identifier of the radical Islamic that killed our soldiers last week. And then, when he said that we don't "feel the power of conviction" because we are affluent or prosperous, he lost me. He said, we cannot understand (or feel) the "power of conviction" because of our experience of prosperity!?

Although I do agree that we cannot enter into another's pain of "poverty" in the same way when we have no experience to identify with, does this mean that one MUST experience pain to have "compassion"? And is compassion only toward "the poor"? That is ridiculous.

Some experiences cannot be "formative" for another, as was Job's experiences. Job did not need anyone to analyze his situation, but to "be there". Theological dogmatics do not lend themselves to compassionate understanding, but "demanding" obedience, or repentance, or justification of "God". Was Job more compassionate after his experience with the religious? Was Job more compassionate after his rebuke from Elihu? No, but he was more humble in understanding that there are some questions that are unanswerable. So, is compassion the only necessary ingredient to faith?

I find that those who have "agendas" that are unacknowledged, or deceptive are prime culprits of using persuasion to influence others. And theology is a useful "tool" for those who are unreflective and disregarding of another's situational "contexts" to manipulate or control. Influence and agendas are not the problem, but deception is, whether that be one's own personal unreflectiveness, or attitudes toward another.

Fortunately, our government is based on "the rule of law", where the "real world" trumps the "transcentdental one".

In Thinking About Aristocracy

History was never a subject that I delighted in during my schooling. Unfortunately, without an understanding of history, one is doomed to "repeat the mistakes of the past". History teaches us wisdom, as it helps us understand the "human element" that does not change. Government is to provide a framework to protect men from each other. It was never meant to be an oppressive force over individual liberties.

Since evolutionary theory is the "consensus" of most, and scientific investigation "works" upon the basis of the "pragmatic", we accept evolution as truth in science.

Evolution does not give us "human history", as we have developed from lower life forms. These life forms do not hold the "essence" of the human, but are the basic physical components of the "human". We really do not understand the human in these days of scientific understanding. But we are seeking for more information and understanding.

Evolution applied to human society defines civilization as human "engineering". Leaders plan, dominate and control what "is to be". These are the aristocracy in our societies. Aristocracy is a 'natural" occurrance in the world, as without leadership, nothing else will have focus, or vision. But, while aristocracy is the "natural" understanding of organizational structuring, free societies do not priviledge the aristocracy to be "above the law". Free societies depend on "law" to maintain order and structure in society, and not just leaders' visions, viewpoint, desires and opinions. Societies that function on the basis of a leader's "persona" are despotic.

Leaders in oppressive societies limit equality under law, subvert the law, or define the law arbitrarily. These societies seem to bring about a human resistance in reform or revolution, as humans are meant to live as individuals, defining themselves by their most important values. This is why America applauds "civil liberties". And no one is to be "above the law".

The natural order is structured by competition. Many think that this is wrong and attempt to "give life and choice" to those who have less of an edge on competition. These think that governing through "compassion" is the most important attribute to develop. Others think that competition, being the natural state of things should determine how we "use" the natrual order for the benefit of society. These believe that the market is the most productive way to "use" the natural order.

I believe our country affirms both values, as we believe in protecting the rights of the disabled, the minority, and the unfortunate. But, we disagree to what extint this should go in our society.

Competition is based on "self responsiblity" and "self governance" that protects the individual from their tendency to "not bear their weight". Compassion, on the other hand, lends help to those who cannot govern themselves, either through lack of training, or lack of ability. Our political parties are divided as to how these values are to be implemented and maintained. This is what our culture wars are about.

Is the aristocracy to be in government's hands, corporate hands, or individual hands? That is a big question of how we see the world, understand life and evaluate priorites.

Co-ercion in the Name of "Community"

This morning was a mixture of reflections between the Church and the State. The first stirring toward reflection was when I read an editorial in our newspaper. The other was when I read one of my regular blog sites. Both reflected on "coercion" in different ways.

The editorial was about how our government is beginning to undermine our "right to private property". Our Constitution protects private property from "public use". This editorial went on to tell the story of various occassions where the government "took" from private citizens, or businesses and 're-distrubuted" it for public interests. The point was made in the editorial that money was also property. Whenever co-ercion is used, there is resentment, because man is made to be a "free moral agent".

While many might have disagreed that the wealthy have the right to their money, as many believe that the wealthy can afford to be taxed more and morally, it is reprehensible to have those who are in the top 1% to have most of the "goods". It is still inappropriate for the average "Joe" to begrudge another of their property, unless it was "ill-begotten".

All taxpayers are outraged over the "bail-out" at taxpayer expense, while banks are raising their rates on bank accounts, credit cards, etc. The average taxpayer gets hit through taxes that pay off others debts, and at the same time, paying more to underwrite those same busniesses. It seems to be doubly offensive and disregarding of the taxpayers budgets. This is a "type of co-cercion" by our legislatures and President.

Government was to protect our personal property from another's greed, which is protection from envy, and coveting. But, while the government protected from the greed of another, it did not protect us from our own greed. This is the state of our country. We have become a people that bases their decisions soley on monetary gain. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with considering the monetary in making one's decsions, but basing the whole decision on the monetary is mis-guided and limits more necessary priorities, such as family.

Our country's "state" is not just because of our collective, and private "greed", but also because of the Church's greed. The church has given the impression that this same attitude pertains to the Church. The Church was to be the instrument whereby society could be benefited. In this sense, there is no difference between the Church and State. But, the Church has beomce more politically active, than socially concerned. This has led to a lack of relationship to the Church within local communities. And has distanced the Church to other through political attitudes that are less than pleasant and loving.

I do not believe that a "supernaturalistic" message brings any hope when life is falling apart before one's eyes. This is a "sore spot" for the Church, as it points to the Church's failure to meet the needs before them. The Church's emphasis has been distorted because of its need to grow and become an entertainment center, rather than meeting the human at the point of the human.

It is like that "warmth of my heart" in yesterday's post about Sen. Kennedy giving a dog to the first family. Whatever your political opinion, the human heart is warmed by human contact, human compassion, human affirmation. This is the "universal" that is to be the Church's vision, humanity's interest.

And in that light, there really is no "jew or greek", Democrat or Republican, slave or free, black or white, pure or impure, etc. There is just humanity, which is "god's interest". And "god's interest" should be ours.

Education of Heads and Hearts

Education is about inquiry and openness. But, education is limited when heads or hearts are closed. How do heads or hearts become closed?

Heads are closed when academic knowledge disconnects head from heart, while hearts are closed when heads are not engaged! Both aspects of "man" should be affirmed, otherwise, there will be a paternalistic attitude toward another.

Paternalistic attitudes toward others are heads that believe others have no heads, and hearts that believe that others have no hearts. This attitude is dangerous and damaging when power is engaged with these "certain views". Justice is distorted with attitudes like this.

What happens in education when these absolute heads and hearts combine to "teach" others, while not open to learning themselves? It reminds me of Paul's rebuke to the Jews in Romans. "Do you seek to teach and not teach yourselves?"...we all are blinded by our own sense of superiority. This is what prejuidice is about and it limits educational endeavors, because of closed minds and hearts. Hearts and heads who are hardened by their sense of certainty!