Because my thinking is going along the lines of our society, liberty of conscience, and "group think", I am re-posting some quotes that grasp the essence of a free society.....
“Society exists only as a mental concept; in the real world there are only individuals.” Oscar Wilde
“Society is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness Thomas Paine
“In any free society, the conflict between social conformity and individual liberty is permanent, unresolvable, and necessary” Kathleen Norris
The definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.” Adlai E. Stevenson
Showing posts with label conformity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conformity. Show all posts
Monday, July 18, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Can Science Be Just as Oppressive as Religion
Religion is well-known to bring about oppression. It describes the world in "old ways", using "god language". Such "god language" is "theology speak". Natural real world experiences are interpreted by rational explainations about theodicity. God is present, just not understood. Faith is trust irregardless of pain and suffering, as "God is in control". Such thinking leaves one cold from the "rational". There is "no heart" there.
On the other hand, science can be just as heartless. Science is useful to bring about new discoveries and create new realities that help humankind. But, science is just as blind as religion sometimes in its universalizing what can't be understood readily without experimentation. But, even with experimentation, who is to know how to gauge whether a particular human being will respond as all human beings given particular stimuli? How does one understand a "human universal", even when experience is common?
Sciene seeks to describe reality in uniform and monistic ways, as this helps science to formulate "natural laws". But, when human persons are put within a framework of uniformity, conformity and monistic understanding of reality, then, science has become just as oppressive as religion.
Somewhere between absolute scientific materialism and religious idealism is a new understanding for the "human". I think our Founders came close to granting that in our form of government, where individual liberty is appreciated within the boundaries of an ordered society and leaders being accountable to the people they are to serve. Then, there is no empowered "vision" for mankind through uniformity, that is granted primary status over society, either through scienctific investigation and technological advances, or religious idealism/abolutism and confomity.
On the other hand, science can be just as heartless. Science is useful to bring about new discoveries and create new realities that help humankind. But, science is just as blind as religion sometimes in its universalizing what can't be understood readily without experimentation. But, even with experimentation, who is to know how to gauge whether a particular human being will respond as all human beings given particular stimuli? How does one understand a "human universal", even when experience is common?
Sciene seeks to describe reality in uniform and monistic ways, as this helps science to formulate "natural laws". But, when human persons are put within a framework of uniformity, conformity and monistic understanding of reality, then, science has become just as oppressive as religion.
Somewhere between absolute scientific materialism and religious idealism is a new understanding for the "human". I think our Founders came close to granting that in our form of government, where individual liberty is appreciated within the boundaries of an ordered society and leaders being accountable to the people they are to serve. Then, there is no empowered "vision" for mankind through uniformity, that is granted primary status over society, either through scienctific investigation and technological advances, or religious idealism/abolutism and confomity.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Conforming Tradition
Those who subscribe to social construction must understand how tradition "works", so that a successful re-definition can be accomplished. Re-defining tradition is important to bring about transformation. The question today is what is tradition's role, when science is understanding human development in such a way that undermines the prominent role of tradition in past centuries.
Tradition, in the past, when there were hierarchal understandings of government, brings about "hope" to oppressed people, by giving a future judgment to the injustices suffered today. The "constructors" of tradition (theologians/philosophers) also use "moral modelling" to give a "vision of life", so that moral example can be followed. These images, whether real historical figures, or mythical ones are literary devices that "conform" the individual to group norms and values. Because these cultures are hierarhcal in governing, the "role model" is one of personal sacrifice. The personal sacrifice of one class for another is the moral model for an aristocratic class, which is what "inspired" Luther to bring about the Reformation in questioning the Church authorities. Tradition is not based on democratic ideals. The book of Hebrews in the Christian scripture and "The Chronicles of Narnia" are two examples of these types of Christiaan literature.
The social sciences are revealing that men develop through the use of education, where critical thinking is valued and helps the individual to come to terms with his own values, apart from traditional conformity. This is not to say that tradition will not become a dominant value to one such educated, as the indiviudal must determine for himself what is of ultimate concern. But, it does mean that the individual could leave tradition's role and re-define himself according to his own personal interests and values.
Traditional cultures depend on religion to maintain their identification and define values. These values are interpreted by religious authorities that rule and dominate another's conscience and choice. These cultures do not value freedom in any form, as freedom of information through academia, the media, and life choice would undermine tradition's role of dominance and determination, which would limit and undermine the aristocrat in their purpose of maintaining "social order", whether the "aristocrat" is a political or religious leader.
Tradition, in the past, when there were hierarchal understandings of government, brings about "hope" to oppressed people, by giving a future judgment to the injustices suffered today. The "constructors" of tradition (theologians/philosophers) also use "moral modelling" to give a "vision of life", so that moral example can be followed. These images, whether real historical figures, or mythical ones are literary devices that "conform" the individual to group norms and values. Because these cultures are hierarhcal in governing, the "role model" is one of personal sacrifice. The personal sacrifice of one class for another is the moral model for an aristocratic class, which is what "inspired" Luther to bring about the Reformation in questioning the Church authorities. Tradition is not based on democratic ideals. The book of Hebrews in the Christian scripture and "The Chronicles of Narnia" are two examples of these types of Christiaan literature.
The social sciences are revealing that men develop through the use of education, where critical thinking is valued and helps the individual to come to terms with his own values, apart from traditional conformity. This is not to say that tradition will not become a dominant value to one such educated, as the indiviudal must determine for himself what is of ultimate concern. But, it does mean that the individual could leave tradition's role and re-define himself according to his own personal interests and values.
Traditional cultures depend on religion to maintain their identification and define values. These values are interpreted by religious authorities that rule and dominate another's conscience and choice. These cultures do not value freedom in any form, as freedom of information through academia, the media, and life choice would undermine tradition's role of dominance and determination, which would limit and undermine the aristocrat in their purpose of maintaining "social order", whether the "aristocrat" is a political or religious leader.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Human Formation, Conformity and Discrimination
A lot of discussion has gone on in the recent past about the biblical text. What is this text and how did it come to be an authority? The text was written to form a tradition around history. The historical Jesus' impact on his culture began with a small group, spread to become a movement that came to define a religious tradition. The Church was born upon the heels of Jewish tradition and its text was interpreted as a unique revelation (but uniqueness is understood in any tradition, initially.).Tradition is the concretelization of experience that represents a universal "ideal" and are brought about by social, religious and political reformers (some would understand them as revolutionaries.).
Tradition is defined by its beliefs and many have suffered persecution under its power. "Conditioning traditions" of ostracism, exclusion, and heresy hunting have permeated the Church's history, but, unfortunately has not been viewed as discrimination. Belief is a powerful identity factor in humanity's search for meaning. Conformity is identified as spiritual formation in a tradition. But, conformity to a tradition is not uniqueness, but identification with a certain means of understanding existence.
Evolutionary biology/neuroscience has "revealed" that man is nothing more than animal in his responses, unless he is "trained" to conform. Brain science has born out that the neural connections must be disciplined, so that humans might behave in a proper way for maintaining society's order and structure. Man is no longer viewed as primarily a rational animal, but an animal of instinct. Moral training must form the individual into conformity, so that society's flourishing will be furthered and man will attain his "teleos".
I find that there is nothing wrong with training children, but is not the epitome of man's rational development. There is something wrong with conformity, when the "form" is so narrow that the individual child cannot attain to his/her uniqueness. Conformity is what Jesus stood against in discrimination of others who did not fit with the Jewish standard, which was a religious tradition.
In the Christian traditon, how is discrimination seen? And how would Jesus' example exemplify another standard than the "christian one"?
I find that "biblical christians" those, who live by the text are always dismissing some things while emphasizing others. Is this really what religion should be about? Or should religion be about unifying and expanding human existence beyond traditional understandings, where man is seen as human within a humane context and not one driven by a religious ideology? But, then religion is about defintions and standards, which are gauged by groupism, or textual understandings. And discrimination is always about how the other doesn't fit. Traditions call the outsiders "sinners", "infidels", and "dogs". Religion, then becomes a narrowing of boundaries and limitation to man's flourishing.
Tradition is defined by its beliefs and many have suffered persecution under its power. "Conditioning traditions" of ostracism, exclusion, and heresy hunting have permeated the Church's history, but, unfortunately has not been viewed as discrimination. Belief is a powerful identity factor in humanity's search for meaning. Conformity is identified as spiritual formation in a tradition. But, conformity to a tradition is not uniqueness, but identification with a certain means of understanding existence.
Evolutionary biology/neuroscience has "revealed" that man is nothing more than animal in his responses, unless he is "trained" to conform. Brain science has born out that the neural connections must be disciplined, so that humans might behave in a proper way for maintaining society's order and structure. Man is no longer viewed as primarily a rational animal, but an animal of instinct. Moral training must form the individual into conformity, so that society's flourishing will be furthered and man will attain his "teleos".
I find that there is nothing wrong with training children, but is not the epitome of man's rational development. There is something wrong with conformity, when the "form" is so narrow that the individual child cannot attain to his/her uniqueness. Conformity is what Jesus stood against in discrimination of others who did not fit with the Jewish standard, which was a religious tradition.
In the Christian traditon, how is discrimination seen? And how would Jesus' example exemplify another standard than the "christian one"?
I find that "biblical christians" those, who live by the text are always dismissing some things while emphasizing others. Is this really what religion should be about? Or should religion be about unifying and expanding human existence beyond traditional understandings, where man is seen as human within a humane context and not one driven by a religious ideology? But, then religion is about defintions and standards, which are gauged by groupism, or textual understandings. And discrimination is always about how the other doesn't fit. Traditions call the outsiders "sinners", "infidels", and "dogs". Religion, then becomes a narrowing of boundaries and limitation to man's flourishing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
