Pragmatic Solutions Don't Answer the Ideals

On another blog site, Experimental Theology, it was suggested that boundaries are a problem. I imagine that this is the way people are trying to "connect" across cultural, and racial boundaries. It is the "usefulness" of the Church's message of "Christ". (A rose by any other name is just as sweet!). And such image/myth making is how our Founders understood and formed our government.

The question of whether one internalizes their culture in such a way that one's very identity is compromised and whether one's "self" is rooted in such a way that universalizes such myths, and destroy or damage "self". Can one who has gone beyond a "group identity" give up their "self"? This is the question of alturism. It obviously has been done, but is everyone predisposed to alturistic "service"? Is it an innate nature that needs challenge to become "alturistic", or is such a challenge futile because one's tendency is genetically determined? These are questions that will transform our understanding of psychotherapy itself.

I tend to think that one's racial and cultural background is internalized to such an extent that without being exposed to a "wider world", there is no hope for any change. And I also think that it is really myth that holds the "universalization" that is necessary for "alturistic concerns". But, I also believe that there is a tension between one's genetic nature and one's cultural examples. Some might not identity with others, but be independent in their thinking and being in the world.

Mystics aren't logical in their thinking, but romantic/transcendental. "Images" make for meaning in such minds/brains. Such thinking can be useful to "sell goods" such as marketers do, but is not the way to govern. Governance needs "real life" solutions to "real life" problems, not image making images that give some ungrounded hope about tomorrow. Politicians use such salesmanship to get elected, but how many prove themselves to really be true to their compaign promises. Such is the reality of the "real world". The real world is not based on "ideal solutions" but pragmatic ones.

Our Founders recognized that man was made for "ideals" to hope and dream. This was their "promise in their creation of our government" where all men are created equal. But practically speaking, when one has a job in the real world, all are not equal in position, nor in abilities. Therefore, "equal" has a limited application.

Internationalists would like to see our nation-state export such democratic ideals. But, the reality is that we have needs at home right now, that make it pragmatically improbable if not impossibe to meets "everyone's need" for democracy or humanitarian aid...There are just too many problems for one nation (or the West) to address! Politicians are trying to come to solutions that will pacify the Internationalist and the Localist, the essentialists and the non-essentialist. And scientists are wondering if "myth" might be a pragmatic solution to "real world" problems. Others think that the problem is religion itself, that uses myth to promote such "self-annilhilation" or "alturistic concern".

Social Problems Have Different Solutions.

Social problems have many different solutions, depending on how one understand and evaluates them. Take for instance homosexuality.

Does one see the homosexual as a human being, first and foremost? Or does one see the value of society's order and structure of primary importance? So, then, it is defined as "sin" or "crime"?

How is homosexuality understood?
As a behavior where the homosexual doesn't deserve equal respect or dignity as to human value?
Why? Because of "sin" or society?

As a abherrant behavior? is this abherrancy something that is something beyond the control of the individual homosexual, like genetic or upbringing?
Or is there a predisposition to this behavior and the individual choice of the homosexual is what makes for morality, as to society's "good"? or is homoseuxality to be the next social change because society's values are really dependent on boundaries around relationships? It is loyalty and stability in relationships that structure and maintain society's order?

The questions about what is "Human Nature" and where the  needs of the human and societal needs and values intersect are important and significant to address, if one wants to allow for liberty of conscience and the value of human choice.

The Ethical Questions Posed....

I went to hear two of our professors talk about genetic engineering yesterday, in regards to changing behavior. The two professors represented religion, and biology. And the discussion crossed those disciplinary lines concerning sin, salvation and sanctification.

The discussion is not new to me, as my husband is a Bio-physist and we had been exposed to these discussions over 25 years ago at the University of Rochester during his post-doctoral experience.

The premise was that if behavior is determined to be genetic, such as alcoholism and certain mental disorders have been, then, the solution for "sin", salvation and sanctification would be to genetically correct the problem.

I have nothing against changing genes, per se. But, this opens up a "can of worms" for me concerning ethics. When is the genetic predisposition determined? at birth or when the behavior manifests itself? Or when families have this propensity? Who keeps the records, the State?

What is sin? How is it defined and by what authority? Will there be religious freedom if one believes in another type of authority, than societal? Is genetic "salvation" mandated by the State? the Chruch?

What is sanctification, then? Is it only behaving in a certain way, when the predisposition is there but the societal norm is prohibitive?

Is the determination of human genetic predisposition to be based upon any finding in the physical world, as it was argued that homosexual behavior among certain insects showed this tendency? If so, how does one keep from reducing man to the physical alone, i.e. reductionism?

I recognize that the Scriptures are written in an ancient context and it must be "transformed" in some way to have relavancy at large, but how do we protect religious freedom? Or should we look to ethics as a means to answer the questions concerning man in the face of scientific discovery, so that man is not reduced to his lowest denominator. And should we also limit the political realm of deeming a scientific "solution" mandated, thus, protecting religious conscience?

These are interesting questions that must be discussed by all of the disciplines, so that all voices that represent man, are heard and heard loudly, before any political determinants can be made...Science has always given "grief" to the Church, but it has also blessed man. We must understand how to use science, politics, and religion as a means of blessing. These areas are of most importance in today's climate of globalization.