Is Coping Wrong?

On reviewing an old post questioning whether America should legalize marijuana, I began thinking about the reasons that I used to argue for legalization. What were the benefit to people and society?. And that got me thinking about coping, as coping is the main reason for addictions, at least in the beginning. Is coping "wrong"?

All humans cope to escape fears, anxiety, hopelessness, helplessness, frustration, boredom, anger, loneliness, lovelessness, isolation, and I'm sure I'm leaving some human emotions out. All of these feelings leave one seeking answers, or questioning one's existance, and one's future. All humans do this.

Psychologists and psychiatrists, have medicatons and therapies that address such feelings. But there are numerous ways/therapies in which these feelings are addressed. And medications depend on the diagnosis. But, therapies and medications are acceptable ways of coping. "Addictions" are not.

What is an addiction but a way to cope? Addictions are wrong because of a person's dependence on them. but, depedence on a therapist and medication is not considered unhealthy. The problem with addictions is the costs to the indvidual and society at large. Interesting, isn't it? Acceptable coping is a "cost analysis" to society, first and foremost.

I am in no way justifying addictions, but questoning society's means of addressing such addictions and asking why is this methold useful or accepted?

Religous ways of coping are no more less an addiction, but seems worse to me, because it is depending on a transcendent realm that isn't even possible to affirm. Twelve step programs use "a power greater than oneself" to get beyond addiction. Why would this work? Is it a sense of being "helped"? I believe it is more the case that these Twelve Step groups are support groups. People tend to respond to "like-mindedness". It gives them a sense of identity and less a sense of isolation, which addresses one of the main culprits of addictons, "hiding one's true feelings".

Coping is and should be a way of living, as none of us are immune to pain, suffering and chance in this world. Therefore, we do need friends especially in times of crisis. But, friendship everyday helps everyone to cope a little better in this world. And I believe such need is of major importance n our society today. This is one reason why social networking on the Internet has become so popular! All human need a friend.

The Problems of Testing...

The modern mind-set solves problems with solutions. Standardization and testing is seen as an effective way to solve the problem of categorizing individuals. Humans like to categorize because it makes life more easy to solve the problems in the world. Our minds, in fact, are made to categorize, I think. So, what is the problem?

Before I go into the problems, I want to affirm the need to test, because testing defines. And definition is necessary to organization. But,  the problem for me is;  is a human being a product, commodity, or problem to be evaluated, shuffled into place and "presto" the organization functions!?

I began my pondering on the problem, I have with testing  a year or so ago. For instance, yesterday just for fun, I took a "test" about which Disney character represented "me", I was frustrated as I usually have been with testing. I know these tests are foolish and simplistic in many ways, but what I found interesting were the questions they used. Don't the questions themselves determine or limit answers? And what if an answer was not given, that would have been more representative to "the truth"? How does this limitation of answers skew the outcomes? And are the outcomes a means of defining a given individual, and how much is that individual determined in their minds about those outcomes? Does it influence a person's performance in a given situation because they believe themselves to be a "Belle" :-)?

I re-took the tests and gave other answers that I also thought were representative of "me". But, some questions left me wondering how to answer. Do I value "humility"? Well, what are you asking? Are you asking if I value this for myself or when I see it in others? Or is it a general question about character values? And what if experience has taught someone that a certain character trait is in opposition to their best interests, like survival? Would that hinder their identification with humility?

Does observing another, like an object, change the individual and thier perceptions, responses, or reactions? If so, how can social sciences be done effectively? And is social science a way for humans to understand and organize life? Is organizing life a proper goal on a grand scale? Evolution doesn't seem to value organization, so much as a fight to win. Is this what we are trying to prevent, the fight to win, or the fight for survival?

Just a rant of mine today, because I think that the labelling and wearing of labels is dismissive of personhood. And I look at systemizing as a limited perspective in understanding life and all that is.

Faith and The Quadralateral

As I have been thinking along the lines of what values are most important to individuals, on what basis do individuals maintain or uphold their values? This "foundation" or "beginning" is what gives definition to values.

The four basis on which to base one's values are; Reason, Experience, Tradition and Text. Of course, without understanding that humans MUST approach any "foundation" through reason and experience, one is short-sighted.

Reason is basis of science. Science is produced by hypothesis, experiment, observation, verification, and conclusions. But, one's approach to any scientific endeavor is based on some understanding of 'universal laws" which guard the order in which man even begins to understand the "outcomes" of the experiment. But, does man understand the 'whole order' of the universe?

Experience is what the humanists base their understanding of "life" on. Experience is human existance. And human existance is understood by observation, and sense encounters. Are these observations and sense encounters different from other conscious entities?Wherein lies individual diversity? Is the human person uniquely distinct or innately similiar? Where does the elements of environment and physicality intersect? How do we know or understand consciousness? Is consciousness what makes one "human"? Is there a distinction of consciousness between the human and animal kingdom? If so, what is that difference? How did humans develop? Those who study the aspects of "man" use anthropology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, humanities, history, business, marketing, commerce/trade, international relations, political science, law, etc.

Tradition is narrowed as a sub-set of human experience. Tradition is understood by cultural studies, religion, religious studies, sociology, social psychology and historical texts but also crosses over into the experietial domains of commerce, trade, international relations, linguistics and history that impact that particular tradition.

Texts are those written forms of documentation of history that impact and/or form a culture.

The universals are reason and human experience, as other aspects of human existence are relative to cultural frame. And cultural frames are relative, while reason and experience are universal. What kind of faith do you have? Rational faith, existential faith, or a cultural faith?

The West allows for government that is accomadating to cultural diversity, while maintaining reasonable ways of negotiating conflict in our courts of law. The value of individuality in making the choice of cultural values is what makes for a flourishing human existence. Therefore, I have faith in liberal democracy to create the best environment for humans.

Why I Think "God" Is the Problem

I think "God" is a problem for humans, because God, if he exists, is beyond our capacity to verify. And because there are so many ways in which God has been understood, it only leads to endless speculations.

Those that think that God has given them special priviledge or rights can act arrogantly or presumptively toward others, who differ in their understandings. And those that think that God has revealed all that needs to be known in scriptures, are doubly dangerous.

Some have thought that "God" was a projection of our wishes, others think that "God" is a fulfillment of our wishes. These views are underwritten by psychological science.

Anthropologists understand myth as a cultural value in describing "God" and these myths bring meaning to life in various cultural contexts. But, is meaning important when meaning skews the real world of values?

Sociologists understand that communities of faith are ways that humans find significance, value and belonging and sometimes, even their very identity. But, the basis of our identity is multi-dimensional. We are identified by our families of origin, our religion, our country, our friends, our social connections, our jobs, our personalities, and what we value most.

Each of these social sciences are not interested in whether there is really a "real God" who exists, but the practical reasons, and implications of such belief.

If one believes that family is the most basic foundation of identity, an individual's life is formed by the values that are held within the family. But, American society has dissolved family connections through many avenues of pursuing the American Dream. And the pursuit of the American Dream has led to countless divorce, child neglect, blended families, domestic abuse, and a de-valueing of family, as a whole.

The child so formed in such an environment of disorder and chaos, leaves the child with little to identify with, and a depth of loss that cannot be filled easily with finding other solutions. These need a healthy dose of therapy and help from others in society.

These children can experience osterizicism and criticism from the "Chrstian world" where things are "nice and neat". The attitude can be: "What's wrong with "That" family", or " We don't want our children to be influenced by "them". The child so labelled suffers doubly from isolation and a sense that everything is their fault.

So, "God" is useful to promote moral outrage at those who need what society needs to give. The "Christian Ideal" is seldom the real truth of the matter, no matter how devout or devoted. And Christians should be honest about this. Otherwise, there is no hope for anyone.

"God" is useless, as far as I am concerned for real solutions in the real world. Christians need to stop running to be "christian" and attempt to be human and learn to be a real person in a real world with real needs.

I used to believe in "God" as anesthesia to my pain. And I used "God" as a replacement for self-acceptance and coming to terms with reality. If God accepted me, then I could have permission to accept myself. But, self-acceptance is taking responsibility for one's own personal choices and decisions and not looking to communities, whether of faith or not, to validate one's choice, and commitments.

Reality is painful because there are many problems in the world and no theology, scripture, doctrine, church, or christian will "fix it", because the world is broken beyond repair. And our only hope is recognizing that and being there for another, while attempting to rectify what we personally think will help most.

Economics and Choice

I just recieved an "invitation" to a conference on "socio-economics" that had attached a file about psychological/sociological questions concerning economics. It was interesting. And it got me thinking about the reasons of individual choice myself.

The article posed that there was no over-arching theory that unified all the facts about economic behavior, which I didn't find very surprising. Economic behavior seems to be at odds with "neo-classical theory".

Of course, there is suggestion that one's upbringing which not only includes one's personal family, but one's culture will determine what will bring about a "rational choice". The values "caught" or taught are internalized into the individual's cognitive frame of reference in decision-making. But, I question this "universal", because, our children were all raised with the same value orientation, but have vast differences in their "rational choices" when it concerns money decisions. So, are their differences due to their birth order, their personality, their peer group influence, or their genetic determination? And how are these understood in the "cut of the pie" (statistically speaking)?

I think that it is imperative to also include the "meaning of money" in a given familial culture. Was money the most important value for the family, or was it just a "means" to an end? And what was the end? Those who have been pampered materially, but impoverished in other ways, have attached certain "meanings" to money that other would not have and give the impression that they are materialistically motivated, but really, they are motivated more by what is meant by the "meaning or value" given to money. Was there a value of liberty, when it came to the choice about money?

Self-perception is also an avenue of exploration in economic behavior. Has the family of origin given a certain perception about the value of the individual due to its emphasis on money and its behavior toward the child in its monetary decisions? But, this variable must also consider the individual child's personality/temperament in economic behavior. Is the child's personality or pre-disposition toward money 'inherited" genetically, or environmentally?

I think that beginning with the assumption that all people will base their choices on economic gain, is short-sighted. There are other values that an individual might hold that are dearer to him. And this is the ultimate mistake of those studying such matters in the West. It is assumed that ALL individuals in the West will consider economic gain as the ultimate value. The unifying value of the West is not money, but liberty. And liberty is the "environment' of capitalistic enterprise.

Moreover, an individual will also change or prioritize certain values over the course of his life, depending on what he is facing, or has to consider. The complexity is astounding, when one begins to think about all the possibilties and probabilities for the individual, much less formulate a universal theory of a whole population. This is why capitalists argue that theirs is the most "productive" means of propering society. It allows the openness and opportunity of all possibilities and probabilities in a given population and individual choice.

I Used to Like Sociology

My "first love" was psychology, but since my family was fundamentalists, they didn't want me to major in psychology. (They really didn't want me to go to college, but become a dental hygenist.) So, right out of high school, I chose to major in English. But, later chose to major in Sociology.

Since I married before finishing college, I was going to transfer to the new college shortly after moving and finish my degree. But, out of state tuition was prohibitive, so we decided to wait the year to establish residency and a lower tuition bill. But, an uplanned pregnancy changed the plans of my life for the next 13 years. I was too busy raising my family and establishing a "home".

As my husband changed vocations and tuition was underwritten by his institution, he encouraged me to finish my degree. But, the institution did not have a major in Sociology, only Social Work. I couldn't see myself committing to the socialistic view of welfare (at least that was the way I understood social work). And I still can't. I am too much of an individualist.

I used to like Sociology, as I used to be "enamored with family". But, family, and organizational structures as a whole leave a lot to be desired, when one comes to understand that these structures do not "care" about the individual, only their agenda, or goals. This is not as it should be in families, but all too often the conservative have a "right way" of teaching that they can't see the child themself. Or the more liberalized are too concerned for their career to be bothered with "such nonsense" of child-rearing to consider the needs of the child. (I know that I am overly sterotyping "cultures", but just to make my point...).

And then, there is the "culture" of "evil", which is "inhabiting" a organizational structuring that doesn't "see" the parts for the whole. This is the culture of "social death", and "isolation". The individual's own life is consumed and assumed by the organizational structure. And it kills and dishonors the life of the individual. This is what collectivism does, because it is caught up with its own vision, purpose, plan or "image". The politics of collectivism is demeaning and demoralizing, unless one is "at the top".

So, I don't think I like Sociology, like I once did. And yet, I know that the world must survive by organization.

Literalizing Text, Tradition, and Science

For the past number of years, people have been analyzing Scripture as if "every dot and tittle" is true. The analysis assumes that the message is literally and universally true. The problem is that literalizing the life of Christ is absurd if one wants to have people that live in the "real world". The fundamentalists/evangelicals are pruod of this endeavor. But, no less proud are the literal scientific types.

These scientific types think that bringing about the "real Jesus" movement will bring in the Kingdom of God. These are the theologically and eschalogical literalists.

Others are more open to experiment upon actual "case studies" so they can further their speicific Christian disicpline to prove scientifically the "facts" of faith. And still others, are interested in building the church.

International business minds find they can "get a cut" out of the deal, as their are so many fundamentalists and evangelicals in the U.S. Play the game and get the benefit.

So many, the believers, un-believers and the ambitious are all "on board" to bring in the Kingdom of God.

But, what about those who have been so pre-ordained? How do they think and feel about such a method of crucifixion or "usefulness"? Is this loving? No, but it will train or teach or form the person into "God's image", the very image of Christ. The pietists and Kantians are enamored.

But, is this methoc kind and considerate? No, but the greater good will benefit and the "guinea pig" will learn to be "selfless". The educators and utiltarians are "lured".

And what about the poor, who are "useful" for political ends? Are they truely cared about by those that use them as a "means"?

You get the message. "Doing justly and loving mercy" is not about planning the Kingdom, or carrying out specific purposes of others. A man or woman of character cannot objectify another life in such a way, as the means de-means the very image of God. The means controls, manipulates, assumes, presumes, and thinks of an 'apology". And yet, these think they "do God's work" and "co-create with God". What they create is a monstrosity. It is evil itself, not "good".

This morning I was sent an e-mail from a friend about Shaine Clayborn, who wrote "Irresitible Revolution". This was the 'primer" of this "entry". Our university used it in thier "World Changers" course. My husband and I tried to use it to help these students understand that their lives could be used just as pursposefully, in a different way, than Shaine's "radicalism". That anything they choose to do can be useful in the world for God.

Shaine's premise is the love of God for the poor, which has become the politically and religiously correct view these days. His interest in the poor is because God is love. He has obviously experienced this love, to be able to know and share it. Fine. But, for those who do not have that "message" to impart, then what is the "Kingdom" for them?

Are others allowed to have different lives and not be "judged" as lacking commitment? Maybe this is a good "weeding out" as the radicals like to say, of those "chosen" and those "not chosen". That is fine, too. I just know I am not going to share what is not "reality" to me. And who should?