The Healthy, The Normally Shaky and The Insane...

Humans are works of art. And art has been made in many images, the realist, the impressionist and the insane! Such can be useful to define mental health issues...

The healthy are common sense realist. They don't imagine, they just see. They don't envision, they just are. And they think that this is the way things "should" be for everyone. Possibly so, but, probably not. So, the healthy are not prone to bouts of emotional expressiveness, or overly cautious questioning, these people trust life. And they look down on those that struggle, doubt, and question life. They wonder why we don't learn.

The Normally Shaky is most of us. We sometimes don't see clearly and have an over-reactive reaction to some tragedy. We become anxious about the unknown realites that might be, but are not loosing sleep over it. But, sometimes, we do. And we think in terms of "the human", because we understand that sometimes life gives you a curve ball. And we understand that it is normal to need support, care and concern, during those times. These are the impressionist, who see through a glass darkly.

Then, there are those that cannot realize any normalcy, because these have blinders where they can't see any blessings. They focus on the imperfections, and cannot let go of their ideals long enough to recognize that these ideals are walls that keep them from embracing life and accepting others. These are the ones that are never content. They want change. These are the surrealists, who imagine, shake and prod reality for all it is. These are restless souls that have no home. And  they find themselves constantly struggling against whatever is precieved to be in their way. Most of the time they are self-destructive because they can't believe that life has anything positive for them.

I think we can move in and out of these categories from time to time and sometimes live in them at stages of our life. But, hopefully, we find ourselves in the stage of impressionism, where life is seen and embraced as not a clean cut experiment or ideal, but a life full of both the tragic and the celebrative! Then we can learn to live with ourselves and others in an understanding way, not demanding, demeaning, or destroying life. Life can be healthy without perfection and THAT is the ideal!

Origins Are Difficult But Are Necessary Means of Identification

Origins are difficult for most subjects and peoples. Some people find that geneology is of uptmost importance because one's pedigree shows one's roots. And roots show connection. Connection is about belonging. Instead of looking at one's individual geneology, others look to one's historical context, whether that be a specific nation or religion. Men seek to understand where and how they belong.

Family connections are useful for identifiers. As the child grows to understand and expand in his knowledge, the child comes to choose where he will belong. Will he remain within his familial context, or will he find a different "place" of belonging?

Some find their identity in their religion. These have committed because of "conversion experiences", or cultural upbringing. Religious identification are a means of coming to terms with one's need to "belong".

Still, others find meaning in their discipline of choice. These have a passion to know in depth and understand a certain subject of knowledge. These also have a "fraternity" of sorts.

Every human alive needs to belong, as only in belonging is there a sense of "being". Humans define themselves according to their greatest values. And these values define where one's commitment will be in vocation.

Belonging to a defined group also affirms certain beliefs, which are the chosen group's identifying boundary markers. These define the person's understanding of themselves within the group, as well as defining what is the expected behavior that represents the group's ideals.

Democracy does not have specified boundary markers. Democracy lends itself to various ways of group identification. Therefore, the individual is free to choose the path of his own values.

Belief, belonging and behavior all are "sign posts" that help the individual to function within a framework. All are needful for the individual to find meaning and purpose.

Some unfortunate souls are under the compulsion of others to define themselves by other's definitions. It is only in a democracy that one can fulfill one's dreams without compulsion from the outside, but from passion within.

Questions and Quandaries About Faith and Reason

It has been a number of years since I sat in or read my husband's course on Science and Faith, as it affects society. He won a John Templeton award for it a number of years ago. So, I don't remember many details, as I have been doing my own thinking and coming to terms with faith and reason.

I think coming to terms with one's faith, is addressing many issues that concern one personally, as well as the meaning of these concepts. How these all "fit together" is a quadmire of "mystery", at least, to me.

I understand how our environments are "supposed" to affect us, but how is it possible to assess that each and every individual processes information the same way? There are so many variables concerning our choices, understandings, and the prioritizing our values.

I think that if I spent the rest of my life trying to understand this subject, I would never exhaust the subject, but possibly I would exhaust myself. But, isn't the pursuit of truth what man was made to pursue? The reality is that it takes courage to face what one thought was "real and true" and universal is somehow questioned and questionable. This is the way of learning, and growing and enlarging oneself, so that one can "be" and "become".

I do agree that one's faith "fills in gaps" in a person's psychological make-up, if one has not been brought up to identify with a certain tradition. The basic needs of man are understood and met within the different frames of of understanding. This is where the psychology of religion meets the philosophy of religion, as it answer the question of how one understands or comes to "faith", at least this is how I am thinking it 'happens".

We all have early images that make up the meaning of life. These images are represented by "words". And since our experiences with these images and thier meanings have different understandings, depending on our "connections", then we react or respond differently to the same stimuli.

Reason understands things in "flat language", or "one dimensional language", as each discipline is "one language among many" and each language, even within a discipline has many "languages". It has almost become impossible to communicate between the specialties because of the difference of focus of the discipline.

Understanding an individual takes a lifetime, as any married person knows. There are so many aspects to the personhood of the person, that is negated and missed when one trivializes "meaning" and value. This is why it is so hard to bring about reconciliation between those that see things so differently, as each has their own reality and to deny that reality, is to deny a basic tenet that makes up their personhood and identity. But, how in the name of "reality" or "real history" is there to be a reasonable resolution to those who insist the Holocost did not happen. Or we ask those who have been denied a voice in their life to deny their very "need" for a voice, to deny it for the other? This is human cruelty, and yet, the world must function on some basis of understanding in formulating foreign and domestic policy.

I have found that the questions and quandaries are greater than any answer where it concerns faith and reason. But, it is a fascinating endeavor to pursue "truth" anywhere one finds it.

"Order" and "Rights" as Justice

Yesterday's blog entry was about the grounding of justice. I believe that "somehow" these two views, 'order" and "rights" are definitive of true justice. Today, I was thinking about justice and how "order and rights" defined "justice" as it involved the growth of our grandson.

My daughter called this afternoon to report on our grandchildren and their day at "pre-school". As she and I were discussing the children, I commented on how I thought that Drayton was acting with more confidence and I had heard him using consonant sounds more often. She had previously expressed concern over his not making consonant sounds And we have all been concerned over his delayed speech and this was one factor in deciding to put them in pre-school.

She disagreed with me and then started to compare him with another child in her husband's family, who is half as old. I cautioned her about making comparisons, as each child has such differences, and that true development or growth should be compared with his own "past".

I, then, started thinking about how this applies to "order" and justice. Order is structure, or universality. Whereas, much has been written on child development, most psychologists would agree that these universals cannot be so strigently understood and applied that there is little room for unique, diverse and individual children. Usually, the pediatrician depends on the parent's assessment of the child's behavior to determine if the child is acting "out of character" to determine if the child is not feeling well.

Justice is defined by law in the West. These are rules that society understands keeps "order". While "order" is society's "right", the individual also has a "right" of difference within that "order", just as Drayton's "growth" should be "gauged", measured, or evaluated within his own "past". So, true justice takes into account a person's context, present understanding, and personal maturity. All of these are considerations in our courts of law.

So, while a good and functioning society should maintain order, which is defined by the "rule of law". There is an allowance also, within good government that allows for "freedom" of individuality, expression, and conviction based upon the individual's growth. Good societies allow for this "wideness" of difference. And the wideness of difference is what human rights is all about, as it concerns the social structures that "order" life.

A Childish Faith Births a Faithful Skeptic

I used to believe in fairy tales that there was a prince that would come and take me away to a fairy land to live happily ever after. But, life is more tragic than a child's imaginings. We are not protected by God and there are no supernatural interventions, at least in my life. That does not mean that I don't believe that blessings are from God, as all things are blessings. But, to me, to assume in a supernatural intervention and presume upon that in plans is presumptuous. David prayed that God would keep him from presumptuous sins. Presumption is taking things into one's own hands. Faith is much more like my husband's life of quiet trust, a lack of worry, fear and anxiety. He believes that things will work out. Unfortunately, for me my grandmother used to tell me that all the time (usually during periods of tragedy). But, life did not work out as my heart desired. So, I don't believe that things work out. I used to.

When I came to faith, I understood it to be the best news on earth, because I didn't have to perform, because God loved me like I was. That meant that I was loveable, and since I'd neve felt loveable all my life, this was exciting for me. In fact, I thought that my identification with Christ's death was good news. Why? Because I hated myself so much that this was an easy emotional suicide of 'self". This way a better person could live, Christ. I practiced my faith and continued to believe irregardless of any trial that this was the way of learning how to be holy and like Christ. I was crucifying my flesh, so that Christ could live in me. But, what I came to experienc in the end was an annihlation of my very identity and self. This is not good news, as it leaves no person and no sense of personhood or boundaries, which are a healthy necessity for personal identity and a healthy sense of self. So, lately, whenever I hear of "dying to self", "being crucified with Christ", etc. It has connotations for me of an emotional pain that I cannot describe. This is not healthy Christian faith. And those who believe that I am only protecting myself are unfortunately, misguided, as whenever someone has no sense of "self' there is a tendency for others to trample boundaries that must be maintained. This is a healthy self-respect and regard. It is not selfhishness, as I had always thought and had practiced denying myself in this regard. Sometimes, those like me with little of no identity attach to a religious identity to bulwark a lack of development. Recently, I have come to recognize that boundary maintenance is a discipline that I must practice, just as much as those who are presumptuous must practice self-control.

Now, my faith is tattered, worn, faltering at times, wondering for a reason, and thinking about a faith that has died and birthed a critical doubt, sometimes skepticism,. The death of my previous faith breeds anger at those who propose a simplistic faith and trust, and a grief and self-recrimination over being so naive and gullible. This is a place of learning about myself, my values, my friends, my family, and my own sense of self identity. It is a place of growth and a place of faith, nonetheless.

Truth and Values

I came upon an article that discussed the interface of truth claims based on history and value claims based on personal conviction. The article sounded as if there was no interface, but two distinct realms, vying for affirmation. One starts with history's historical analysis and lays a foundation of True or False. The other lays claims to relativity of personal choice, conviction, and commitment. Which is true?

Is there really to be a separation in the two realms of "truth"? I don't think so. The Academy believes, and rightfully so, that the disciplines are the way to truth. This is the objective realm.

But, what about personal truth? These truth claims are also true, as this truth becomes a personal value system,. The individual develops within certain frameworks and his/her identity is formed by those "truths" of experience. While these personal identification factors are important, as they are tradition's values held within "culture", the academic understanding of "truth" is more important for humanity's sake, or the greater good.

The greater good is the public's good, which is the arena of political discourse, which should involve diversity of opinion. Opinions should be open to change, where evidence shows that it is better to "see" things another way. Change is hard for traditional understandings that maintain personal values. But, if these traditions are challenged along lines of objectivity or rationale, then there should be an openness to discussion and a tolerance for change, while at the same time, allowing others the right to choose another path. Cooperation with/in change can only be brought about with full disclosure to everyone involved, otherwise, there will always be "outsiders and insiders", which troubles the waters of change and hinders growth of understanding and acceptance.

In America's climate of diversity and tolerance, we do not have tradition tightly defined around cultural norms or values, as we value freedom of individual conscience. While conscience is formed within the frameworks of traditional social structures, America's government has protected civil rights at the expense of traditional values. Therein lies our cultural conflict, but, also our greatness. Because we value the individual conscience, even while the traditional social structures have undergone great stress and change, we, Americans are open to be educated. Education was what our Bill of Rights is about in allowing the Freedom of the Press, the Freedom of Assembly, the Freedom of Speech, ETC. We are a free nation, which should value civil discourse, which should include religious freedom and expression as well!

I think that American ideals are the great future for the Globe!