Many want to understand how and why religion "works", as then, they can predict religous behavior and this is all important to protect against behaviors that might endanger all of us. So, some have tried various means to understand.
One way of understanding is "belonging", where group behavior is predictable, as we are all social animals. But, group behavior can be dangerous as much as beneficial. This becomes problematic, too, when there are "free radcals" in the group that might lead the group "astray" from the "social order" to be maintained! And then, when groups become tightly identified, what happens to the "rest of society"?
Another way of understand religion is "belief". These are philosophical ways of understanding life and all that is. "God" is the beginning and end of such thinking, as it is "theological". When theology is ahistorical, people become prone to disconnect from the "real world", either through their "denial" of reality; their belief that they will change reality into some spiritualized vision; or their withdrawal from reality and the real world!
"Behavior" is really the "end" of what scientists want to understand, as behavior is "social control". Social control is needed when radical believers want to implement their vision upon society, or act in ways harmful to themselves because of such a belief. Some psychologists have believed that social conditioning is the best form of "training the human animal". But, one must understand how that must be done without co-ercive measures. That becomes problematic to a free society!
Belonging is first formed within the family of origin. A child's sense of "who he is" and where he fits in the family is an important step to furthering the child's advancement or inhibiting it.
Beliefs are also first grounded within the family of origin. These might not be formally taught as in religious communities, but are modelled by the families "way of life". These become internalized values, until the child becomes "of age" and gains his own sense or what and why he wants to own or dis-own a certain familial value.
Behaviors are the result of a person's belief system. And one's belief about themselves and the world make for how one engages the world and presents themselves.
In a free society, it becomes almost impossible to predict and control behavior at large, because individuals are free to believe differently and contingencies are numerous!
Showing posts with label free societies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free societies. Show all posts
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
The "Hope" of the Human Heart and Negotiating on Difference
Last post, I recognized that negotiation of differences, is an "ideal". Negotiation assumes mutual respect and trust. Mutual respect and trust does not exist among nations, nor does it exist in many personal relationships. Nations are self-interested, just as individual humans. Nation-states justify their actions to citizens depending on their ultimate values, just as indiviudals do. The "ideals" of the human heart are the material for "world politics".
America values individual liberty and its "ideal" is an informed citizenry. Without "freedom of the Press", there can be no liberty, because "the people" cannot have the knowledge that is necessary to hold government 'accountable'. An informed citizenry also, means that people take the time to investigate the issues, but many haven't the time to be interested, except when it concerns their present circumstances. The "ideals" are negotiated by those that are invested and interested in such matters. Propaganda is known to control the minds of the mindless, and those under dominating societies that do not value liberty and individuality. Educating the populace is the only hope for remaining a free society.
Negotiation is diplomacy, as it values cultural diversity, while upholding the value of 'world/global concerns that impose upon the nation-state. International politics underwrites much of what we read in the paper, but I wonder if all the power brokers and their negotiations are "upfront" in eye of the public? It makes one wonder when actions are taken that make one question the rationale, with little justification coming from Washington, what is really happening to the "hope of the human heart"? (the hope to be remain free).
There is little to support that we will ever find Utopian ideals realized, where all men are free, and equal. This is why we "order society" to find the "best fit" for negotiating the differences.
America values individual liberty and its "ideal" is an informed citizenry. Without "freedom of the Press", there can be no liberty, because "the people" cannot have the knowledge that is necessary to hold government 'accountable'. An informed citizenry also, means that people take the time to investigate the issues, but many haven't the time to be interested, except when it concerns their present circumstances. The "ideals" are negotiated by those that are invested and interested in such matters. Propaganda is known to control the minds of the mindless, and those under dominating societies that do not value liberty and individuality. Educating the populace is the only hope for remaining a free society.
Negotiation is diplomacy, as it values cultural diversity, while upholding the value of 'world/global concerns that impose upon the nation-state. International politics underwrites much of what we read in the paper, but I wonder if all the power brokers and their negotiations are "upfront" in eye of the public? It makes one wonder when actions are taken that make one question the rationale, with little justification coming from Washington, what is really happening to the "hope of the human heart"? (the hope to be remain free).
There is little to support that we will ever find Utopian ideals realized, where all men are free, and equal. This is why we "order society" to find the "best fit" for negotiating the differences.
Friday, April 15, 2011
The Plurality of Voices in American Society and the Autonomy of "Self"
Many have been seeking a resolution to the political conflicts we experience in today's world. When the world is smaller due to Internet connections and trade is free, nuclear arms and ideologies still plague the landscape and inhibit world peace.
America's Founders understood the need for the balance of power. Although their views were dominated by Newton's paradigm and Christian/Jewish understandings of "Providence", today, the world isn't as simply explained. "Providence" is not accepted, when "the world's" story isn't one that is explained by "ideal dreams or hopes" of "the human/humane". And Newton's paradigm isn't universally accepted as THE paradigm to explain human reality. History was understood in America as "God's story" as revealed in the Christian "Christ". The Jewish Scriptures were the context of "storying" the Christian message. But, such "messages" appeal to the "ideals" of our Founder's vision of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They were never meant to describe the "real or political" one. The story of Jesus was never intended to be historicized as a political goal, upon individuals, but as a moral ideal of a universal value, a value of "the human/humane". The Jew was the useful "tool" of forming the value of valuing the oppressed, or de-valued.
Politics seeks to address problems, and strategic planning about furthering goals of the politically empowered. The Founders, though empowered, never sought to subvert the individual's claim about his own life. The Founder's understood that society needed to function in an orderly way, but did not attempt to order it in a way that oppressed the individual's right of choice and value.
Though science has discovered much more to "life" than Newton's cause and effect, the political realm is still most effective when it is ordered after our Founder's vision of balancing and separating power. That way, the individual, no matter where they are on the spectrum of human development (intellectual, moral, or faith) or values of priority and understanding (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) can find/make their place in society, without oppressive domination by poltical or religious zealotry. Our society was meant to be a "civil one".
Political power that allowed autonomy and religious liberty, within the bounds of law, were the "ideals" of our free society. Americans should always value and take part in their country's "ideals" furthering the goals that are important to them, personally, because America will only survive when individuals take their personal values/ideals seriously and get involved in the political process. At the same time, free persons should also understand that others are free to disagree, under the "canopy of plural voices" that "speak" in our "political environment" without threatening with poltical domination, whether through nucelar arms, or legal manipulation.
America's Founders understood the need for the balance of power. Although their views were dominated by Newton's paradigm and Christian/Jewish understandings of "Providence", today, the world isn't as simply explained. "Providence" is not accepted, when "the world's" story isn't one that is explained by "ideal dreams or hopes" of "the human/humane". And Newton's paradigm isn't universally accepted as THE paradigm to explain human reality. History was understood in America as "God's story" as revealed in the Christian "Christ". The Jewish Scriptures were the context of "storying" the Christian message. But, such "messages" appeal to the "ideals" of our Founder's vision of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They were never meant to describe the "real or political" one. The story of Jesus was never intended to be historicized as a political goal, upon individuals, but as a moral ideal of a universal value, a value of "the human/humane". The Jew was the useful "tool" of forming the value of valuing the oppressed, or de-valued.
Politics seeks to address problems, and strategic planning about furthering goals of the politically empowered. The Founders, though empowered, never sought to subvert the individual's claim about his own life. The Founder's understood that society needed to function in an orderly way, but did not attempt to order it in a way that oppressed the individual's right of choice and value.
Though science has discovered much more to "life" than Newton's cause and effect, the political realm is still most effective when it is ordered after our Founder's vision of balancing and separating power. That way, the individual, no matter where they are on the spectrum of human development (intellectual, moral, or faith) or values of priority and understanding (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) can find/make their place in society, without oppressive domination by poltical or religious zealotry. Our society was meant to be a "civil one".
Political power that allowed autonomy and religious liberty, within the bounds of law, were the "ideals" of our free society. Americans should always value and take part in their country's "ideals" furthering the goals that are important to them, personally, because America will only survive when individuals take their personal values/ideals seriously and get involved in the political process. At the same time, free persons should also understand that others are free to disagree, under the "canopy of plural voices" that "speak" in our "political environment" without threatening with poltical domination, whether through nucelar arms, or legal manipulation.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
This Is the Way I Think....
E.M. Forster said, “How can I know what I think till I see what I say?” I read this on another's blog and I like the comment because it is true for me, too.
Many times there are so many "ribbons of thought" that I cannot tie them together, until I start to write. I know that my writing is dense and my thinking unrefined, but I love tying ideas together, to create new forms, or new understandings or thinking through problems, or analyzing some puzzle or something I've read. The problem remains that I don't know so much. I am ill informed in many areas, but I love to learn...
So, I enjoy my blog. It is for myself that I write and if it meets another's need, then all the better. But, I think it is important to do what is valuable to oneself, as in finding what is of value, one can benefit others, too.. I used to be attuned to what another's "need" was, or how I would offend, or bring conflict to another. But, that kind of thinking is gone now with blogging. Why?
Blogging is taking advantage of one of the liberties in our society; the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Without these liberties, we would not be free to think and thinking is the first step to rationality in framing one's life. People should not live without a rationale. And in free societies there can be different rationales in serving one's ulitmate values and commitments.
Some don't think that thinking or ideas are important, but our Founders ideals of "life, liberty" and the pursuit of happiness depend on individuals coming to terms with what these terms mean to them, personally. And personal conviction is where commitment begins, not in irrationality.
I am so grateful to live in a society that values liberty, without which I would not have the right to pursue personal interests. Without personal interests, one can only live their life under the demands of another's values, power or purpose. And whether living one's life under such conditions would be of benefit to society or not, it is not a "moral good" that such determinations happen.
Many times there are so many "ribbons of thought" that I cannot tie them together, until I start to write. I know that my writing is dense and my thinking unrefined, but I love tying ideas together, to create new forms, or new understandings or thinking through problems, or analyzing some puzzle or something I've read. The problem remains that I don't know so much. I am ill informed in many areas, but I love to learn...
So, I enjoy my blog. It is for myself that I write and if it meets another's need, then all the better. But, I think it is important to do what is valuable to oneself, as in finding what is of value, one can benefit others, too.. I used to be attuned to what another's "need" was, or how I would offend, or bring conflict to another. But, that kind of thinking is gone now with blogging. Why?
Blogging is taking advantage of one of the liberties in our society; the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Without these liberties, we would not be free to think and thinking is the first step to rationality in framing one's life. People should not live without a rationale. And in free societies there can be different rationales in serving one's ulitmate values and commitments.
Some don't think that thinking or ideas are important, but our Founders ideals of "life, liberty" and the pursuit of happiness depend on individuals coming to terms with what these terms mean to them, personally. And personal conviction is where commitment begins, not in irrationality.
I am so grateful to live in a society that values liberty, without which I would not have the right to pursue personal interests. Without personal interests, one can only live their life under the demands of another's values, power or purpose. And whether living one's life under such conditions would be of benefit to society or not, it is not a "moral good" that such determinations happen.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Religion As a Cause of Evil
Religion is a cause of evil, because humas are the only ones that can make choices. And choices are what define moral value. The religious are pre-disposed to make assumptions, or presumptions upon the universe, and others based on their "understanding " of a text, or tradition. Choices made within a religious context, are a limited view, while claiming universality. Free societies allow choice as these value individuals, in their own right. Religious humans are not more valued than non-religious ones. Stealing or murder is an absolute value that protects both the religous and non-religious from discrimination. The religious do not have "Divine rights".
Choice is about present realities, ideals, and values of an individual. It is about taking ownership of one's life and priorities. How can any other entity, no matter the justification make or define another's "ought"? The present is the only way to live life to the fullest, because it is only in the present moment that choices present themselves in light of all contigencies.
Contingencies are the varibles that also allow a free universe and choice to another individual. These choices intersect at points in time and must be considered as opportunities, or distractions. The determination over how one will judge a particular choice before them is left open and not a pre-determined value. The only absolute is the absolute of liberty of conscience before the law. Individuals being equal before law, means that there is to be liberty of choice, as there is not to be co-ercion, even by a "God". Humans are indivdiual persons and must be respected as such.
So, the religious and religion define what the 'moral ought" is and set about propagating a "purpose", or "plan" that is force fed to the unsuspecting. This is a collectivist thinking. Collectives do not allow freedom of thought and opinion because the collective;s leaders might just loose their power to promote their agendas. Individuals are never respected their own right, in a collectivist society. The individual is only a "role or function" within the "collective. Collectivist societies serve to further "moral obligations', to the collective under dictators, or Rulers that leave no room for independence of thought, value or purpose. Therefore, religion and the religious are a cause of evil.
Choice is about present realities, ideals, and values of an individual. It is about taking ownership of one's life and priorities. How can any other entity, no matter the justification make or define another's "ought"? The present is the only way to live life to the fullest, because it is only in the present moment that choices present themselves in light of all contigencies.
Contingencies are the varibles that also allow a free universe and choice to another individual. These choices intersect at points in time and must be considered as opportunities, or distractions. The determination over how one will judge a particular choice before them is left open and not a pre-determined value. The only absolute is the absolute of liberty of conscience before the law. Individuals being equal before law, means that there is to be liberty of choice, as there is not to be co-ercion, even by a "God". Humans are indivdiual persons and must be respected as such.
So, the religious and religion define what the 'moral ought" is and set about propagating a "purpose", or "plan" that is force fed to the unsuspecting. This is a collectivist thinking. Collectives do not allow freedom of thought and opinion because the collective;s leaders might just loose their power to promote their agendas. Individuals are never respected their own right, in a collectivist society. The individual is only a "role or function" within the "collective. Collectivist societies serve to further "moral obligations', to the collective under dictators, or Rulers that leave no room for independence of thought, value or purpose. Therefore, religion and the religious are a cause of evil.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Free Societies and Accountability
Free societies only remain free when the people hold leaders accountable. This is what the "tea party movement' is attempting to do.
American society can be restored by political activism and change of leadership. This past November demonstrated the "power of the people". It is only when leaders know that their power is only "entrusted" to them by the voters that they will maintain a stance of humility in the place of power. But, if political leaders ever get to the point where they do not fear the people, do not hear the people and their voice, and do not care to "serve" their nation's interests in the place of power, then the nation and its people will suffer.
Americans must remain diligent and awake as to their country's interests and attempt to make a difference in any way they can.
The Constitution must be upheld so that our country will be "ordered" by the "rule of law" and not people who vie for political power irregardless of proper procedure.
American society can be restored by political activism and change of leadership. This past November demonstrated the "power of the people". It is only when leaders know that their power is only "entrusted" to them by the voters that they will maintain a stance of humility in the place of power. But, if political leaders ever get to the point where they do not fear the people, do not hear the people and their voice, and do not care to "serve" their nation's interests in the place of power, then the nation and its people will suffer.
Americans must remain diligent and awake as to their country's interests and attempt to make a difference in any way they can.
The Constitution must be upheld so that our country will be "ordered" by the "rule of law" and not people who vie for political power irregardless of proper procedure.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Ayn Rand and the Virtue of Selfishness
Ayn Rand
"Since there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals, any claimed or implied conflict of 'the public interest' with private interests means that the interests of some men are to be sacrificed to the interests and wishes of others."
“The Monument Builders,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 88.
This statement means that "public interest" is a negotiated contract with the individual in free societies. Public service as a vocation is an individual choice of value. The government should not make demands upon individuals without individual consent. Otherwise, special interests over-ride indvidual rights, and promote corrupting influence on government.
"Since there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals, any claimed or implied conflict of 'the public interest' with private interests means that the interests of some men are to be sacrificed to the interests and wishes of others."
“The Monument Builders,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 88.
This statement means that "public interest" is a negotiated contract with the individual in free societies. Public service as a vocation is an individual choice of value. The government should not make demands upon individuals without individual consent. Otherwise, special interests over-ride indvidual rights, and promote corrupting influence on government.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Character, As the Unseen
Character is about actions, gifting, and personality. But, character is also about the internal motivations of a given action.
Does someone act in a certain way because it is the 'expected thing to do"? Then, the character of this person is a social conformist. These are people that "fit in" because they are understood to be the "good guys". But, is this considered to be the highest motivation of choosing a certain course of action? Certainly, people should act in ways that are usually expected, because this is what promotes social stability. But, if someone does something that is not according to conformity, then how is that action judged?
Some would judge a 'non-conformist' action by the action's results, others would judge the action's principle value, while still others, would judge the action itself as wrong because the action was not in accordance with "tradition", or social conformity.
Most of us are not consistant in our judgments, because we are not aware of why we judge a certain action. And some would never understand "consistancy" or "principle" as a "right action" , because these are people who believe that individuals are more important than "ideologies", agendas, or "principled conscience". These are considered the "humanists" amongst us.
Character cannot be understood by any one aspect, as character is about the whole "package of a person"; their action, their innate nature, their experiences, and their values.
Because people are so diverse in their understandings and "ways of being", free societies are the best form of government for human flourishing. Free societies can affirm the disciplines of scientific exploration and questioning the status quo that can help man understand what is best for human flourishing, and at the same time be humane in affirming opportunity for the individual as equal under law.
Does someone act in a certain way because it is the 'expected thing to do"? Then, the character of this person is a social conformist. These are people that "fit in" because they are understood to be the "good guys". But, is this considered to be the highest motivation of choosing a certain course of action? Certainly, people should act in ways that are usually expected, because this is what promotes social stability. But, if someone does something that is not according to conformity, then how is that action judged?
Some would judge a 'non-conformist' action by the action's results, others would judge the action's principle value, while still others, would judge the action itself as wrong because the action was not in accordance with "tradition", or social conformity.
Most of us are not consistant in our judgments, because we are not aware of why we judge a certain action. And some would never understand "consistancy" or "principle" as a "right action" , because these are people who believe that individuals are more important than "ideologies", agendas, or "principled conscience". These are considered the "humanists" amongst us.
Character cannot be understood by any one aspect, as character is about the whole "package of a person"; their action, their innate nature, their experiences, and their values.
Because people are so diverse in their understandings and "ways of being", free societies are the best form of government for human flourishing. Free societies can affirm the disciplines of scientific exploration and questioning the status quo that can help man understand what is best for human flourishing, and at the same time be humane in affirming opportunity for the individual as equal under law.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Abortion, Pro-Choice, or Anti-Life
Abortion divides our country down the middle between the conservative and the liberal, or so it seems.
I was glad to hear on the radio today that someone understood that one can value the right of choice, without affirming an "outcome" (abortion).
Abortion is the actual procedure that dissolves the possibility that the woman will have the child. A "D&C" is a medical procedure that "cleans out the uterus" and is used for various medical conditions. It helps the woman to stop bleeding, and is used for other diseases of the uterus.
Pro-choice is the right to choose to abort. This right is the individual right to decide for themselves whether they want or will to have the probability of a child.
Anti-Life is an attitude toward life that denies life, not just its physical existance, but its quality. Life should be about more than quantity.
The conservative views life as given by God. Some believe that God actually "causes" the life to come into being, as a product of his intervention in history and they use Psalm 139 as "proof" of God's view. These believe that God directly directs a "special creation", in the human child. God is a personal God.
Others take a more moderate view of life as a gift, whether directly "caused" or not. These believe that life, even as an evolutionary "product", is the result of a Creative Being. These can be Diests, Intelligent Designers, Theistic evolutionists or agnostics (leaning toward statistical probability).
And still, other believe that life is the product of chance, a mere product of physicality. These people believe that life is valued not because of any innate nature, or divine gifting, but only as the quality and function of life, as human life is no more than any other "life form".
Why is this debate important? I believe it is important not because of one's view of God's intervention in history or how life got here, but how we view human life as "different" from other life forms and the responsibility of government in respecting that difference. It has a lot to do with how the government will decide medical decisions, if our healthcare becomes "universalized".
Even, if our healthcare is not universalized, we must face the fact that we must come to understand some kind of ethical standard and value for human life, so that human life will be protected and valued. These are pivotal decisions that probably will impact us in one way or another through family members, friends, or neighbors.
I believe that the radio talk host was correct in describing a moral imperative to "life", which is choice. Choice must be valued and affirmed in every way possible to maintain a free society and to affirm the value of a "higher life form". Choice is the only difference between human life and any other form of life. We should not be intruding into other's lives and evaluating their decisions. These are personal issues of faith, personal responsiblity and conviction.
Pro-choice does not have to be "anti-life", for if one does not have the freedom to choose, then is life of value? If a life is only carrying out another's "will", whether political (Hitler) or religious (Taliban), then is a particular life "owned"or valued by its owner, as well as the larger society? Self responsiblity for one's choices, is the first freedom that a free society should guarantee its citizens.
And because life is valued for its quality and not its quantity, Americans "fight" for freedom.
I was glad to hear on the radio today that someone understood that one can value the right of choice, without affirming an "outcome" (abortion).
Abortion is the actual procedure that dissolves the possibility that the woman will have the child. A "D&C" is a medical procedure that "cleans out the uterus" and is used for various medical conditions. It helps the woman to stop bleeding, and is used for other diseases of the uterus.
Pro-choice is the right to choose to abort. This right is the individual right to decide for themselves whether they want or will to have the probability of a child.
Anti-Life is an attitude toward life that denies life, not just its physical existance, but its quality. Life should be about more than quantity.
The conservative views life as given by God. Some believe that God actually "causes" the life to come into being, as a product of his intervention in history and they use Psalm 139 as "proof" of God's view. These believe that God directly directs a "special creation", in the human child. God is a personal God.
Others take a more moderate view of life as a gift, whether directly "caused" or not. These believe that life, even as an evolutionary "product", is the result of a Creative Being. These can be Diests, Intelligent Designers, Theistic evolutionists or agnostics (leaning toward statistical probability).
And still, other believe that life is the product of chance, a mere product of physicality. These people believe that life is valued not because of any innate nature, or divine gifting, but only as the quality and function of life, as human life is no more than any other "life form".
Why is this debate important? I believe it is important not because of one's view of God's intervention in history or how life got here, but how we view human life as "different" from other life forms and the responsibility of government in respecting that difference. It has a lot to do with how the government will decide medical decisions, if our healthcare becomes "universalized".
Even, if our healthcare is not universalized, we must face the fact that we must come to understand some kind of ethical standard and value for human life, so that human life will be protected and valued. These are pivotal decisions that probably will impact us in one way or another through family members, friends, or neighbors.
I believe that the radio talk host was correct in describing a moral imperative to "life", which is choice. Choice must be valued and affirmed in every way possible to maintain a free society and to affirm the value of a "higher life form". Choice is the only difference between human life and any other form of life. We should not be intruding into other's lives and evaluating their decisions. These are personal issues of faith, personal responsiblity and conviction.
Pro-choice does not have to be "anti-life", for if one does not have the freedom to choose, then is life of value? If a life is only carrying out another's "will", whether political (Hitler) or religious (Taliban), then is a particular life "owned"or valued by its owner, as well as the larger society? Self responsiblity for one's choices, is the first freedom that a free society should guarantee its citizens.
And because life is valued for its quality and not its quantity, Americans "fight" for freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
