"Self" does not exist apart from society, as "self" functions within society in some form. But, a fully developed "Ego" is the only "human self". Society is formed by collective "selves", but society is not an entity itself, unless one is committed to something other than the "human".
Self-understanding is formed within societal structures. The first being the family and whether it is extended, and/or dysfunctional. "Self-understanding" is first understood within such an intimate "collective". The child learns how to love, be nurtured and what is of value within the family unit.
But, when the family unit is not functioning or functioning improperly, then the developing "Ego" has little to help form his self-understanding. The "getting over" the "Who Am I?" stage might never develop apart from intervention. And this is where society's structures might help the child to form a healthy self -understanding and image.
A child who hasn't learned appropriate behavior, or had good examples of care will develop behavioral problems or mental illness. Society suffers when its children are disadvantaged in this way.
"Self-understanding" in religious communities can be damning if the child sees himself as "evil". or has a personality that would tend to be exasperated, or hindered by such teaching. Such children might "act out" because they can never meet "perfection", or be reticient about thier interests for fear their very interests or passions are detours away from their first allegience. Such "self-understanding" is not healthy, but annihlates "self" altogether. Such messages are "self rejective" messages and are not the foundations to form a healthy and separate identity.
"Self" is where the distinctive person resides. "Self" is identity. The particularity of the "self" might never be known apart from "self"'s ability to free itself from the demands of a overly zealous religious consicence, where "self-denial" or the "culture of death" is applauded and promoted.
"Selves" that have not become "true selves" in their particularities are prone to over-react to threats to their identifying factors, whether it is a fundamentalist religious tradition, "Truth claims", familial identities, or political ideologies. All form a bulwark against "things that would challenge and bring self-reflection instead of promoting the prevailling "self opinion". Change and maturation does not happen when such defensiveness is embraced. Such defensiveness should be understood when "self" is fragile and based on its defensive identification factors. "Self"s very existence is "felt" annilhlated, when, these dependent factors are undermined.
The human person cannot accomplish, grow and expeience his own accomplishments apart from distancing himself from such emblemic self understanding. "Self" must distance and then choose to embrace the chosen goals, values and purposes, for "self's own reasons. It is only then, that "self" has come into its own and become a "human being" and not a human clone or a human doing. It is the understanding of "self's existance apart from society, and then, the embrace of society that forms the adult "self" fully and functionally.
Otherwise, "self" remains only a functon of society and not understood as a being apart from society. "Self's" function must be a chosen one, apart from anyone else's value or goals.
Showing posts with label human development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human development. Show all posts
Monday, March 14, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Review of Eat, Pray and Love, with Julia Roberts
I love movies by Julia Roberts. She plays real life people and she does so, well!
Last night my family watched, "Eat, Love and Pray". The story was about a twenty/thirty something young woman that was seeking to "find herself". The problem was, she had committed to a marriage before she was really ready. She found that her identity was tied up in pleasing her husband and not based real world values, but a futile attempt to "find onself in marriage"! She learned a human lesson that many times ends "empty marriages"; co-dependency.
She eventually asks for a divorce, and ends up seeking her fulfillment with another male companion and a religious identity. Her shallow and under-developed ego grasped onto another relationship and tried to make her own meaning from another's meaning. Her close friend advises her that her religious identity was another "way of escape "dressed up in different form"! She again, eventually faces the fact that she cannot escape her need to "find her own way". She plans again to escape a "wrong relationship" and made plans to travel to Italy, India and Bali.
In her travels abroad, she learns a new language, experiences the kindness of strangers, who become good friends, that offer her comfort, and a challenge to forgive herself for her failures and not to let her failures hinder her future happiness.
She eventually meets her match in Bali. This man had raised his boys alone and she was captivated by his tenderness and kindness. But when he finally faces his own fear of "loving again", she runs for fear of "loosing herself". She has to also face her fear of "love" and acknowledge that loving freely is a choice of value, which is not an enmeshed identity, but a offering of "self" to the other. Her fear of enmeshment was not ungrounded, but needed the challenge of others to help her overcome.
The end of the movie show her taking the challenge of "loving again" and one is left with a sense that this time things will be different. She and he will be free to choose, and live in open dialogue about their needs, fears and visions about their future. This is when love is healthy and of mutual benfit to both parties involved!
I would recommend the movie to anyone that is interested in a journey of human courage and hope.
Last night my family watched, "Eat, Love and Pray". The story was about a twenty/thirty something young woman that was seeking to "find herself". The problem was, she had committed to a marriage before she was really ready. She found that her identity was tied up in pleasing her husband and not based real world values, but a futile attempt to "find onself in marriage"! She learned a human lesson that many times ends "empty marriages"; co-dependency.
She eventually asks for a divorce, and ends up seeking her fulfillment with another male companion and a religious identity. Her shallow and under-developed ego grasped onto another relationship and tried to make her own meaning from another's meaning. Her close friend advises her that her religious identity was another "way of escape "dressed up in different form"! She again, eventually faces the fact that she cannot escape her need to "find her own way". She plans again to escape a "wrong relationship" and made plans to travel to Italy, India and Bali.
In her travels abroad, she learns a new language, experiences the kindness of strangers, who become good friends, that offer her comfort, and a challenge to forgive herself for her failures and not to let her failures hinder her future happiness.
She eventually meets her match in Bali. This man had raised his boys alone and she was captivated by his tenderness and kindness. But when he finally faces his own fear of "loving again", she runs for fear of "loosing herself". She has to also face her fear of "love" and acknowledge that loving freely is a choice of value, which is not an enmeshed identity, but a offering of "self" to the other. Her fear of enmeshment was not ungrounded, but needed the challenge of others to help her overcome.
The end of the movie show her taking the challenge of "loving again" and one is left with a sense that this time things will be different. She and he will be free to choose, and live in open dialogue about their needs, fears and visions about their future. This is when love is healthy and of mutual benfit to both parties involved!
I would recommend the movie to anyone that is interested in a journey of human courage and hope.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Self-Interest Is Important to Acknowledge
Self-interest is an important value to acknowledge and affirm. Self-interest protects boundaries of personal values and concerns. If self-interest is not acknowledged, then there is a more likely occasion of "sin". Sin being defined by missing the mark of affirming both self and other.
Self interest has been given a bad "rap" in many religious groups, as self-interest is in opposition to God's purposes or plan. God's purposes and plans are understood in various ways. But, God's purposes and plans are usually understood as something superior to what the individual might want to pursue. Selfishness is the height of sin in this sense, because "God comes first". But,self-interest is not necessarily selfish. Selfish is a label given to those who may not choose to have the same value or ultimate goals. There is room in free societies to "walk away" if another's goals don't fall in line with yours. This is not selfish, but self awareness. And self-awareness is the first step toward becoming concerned with one's own personal goals, what one wants to do with their life.
Self-interest protects one's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is an American's right by birth. And Americans use their liberty to choose their course and determine their life. American's are self-interested, in this way. Is there anything "wrong" with this?
Religion would say that one must deny oneself and take up their cross, meaning that self-interest would be in opposition to what "God wills". And that "will" is defined depending on the Christian group one is associated with. The social gospelers would think your life should be about the business of bringing in "God's Kingdom" through social justice. Their view is social and economic equality and political liberty. But, how is this different from the "secular human rights movement" or other forms of liberal organizations that are interested in bringing in Utopian dreams?
The conservative/evangelical would believe that self-interest would be in opposition to what they regard as most important, salvation. Salvation has many meanings depending on what denomination one asks. Some believe that being "born again" is an all important goal, while other believe that one must prove their faith through their life choices of "Kingdom building", etc.
I really believe that all of these people can be and are duped if they do not acknowledge and accept that one must be self-interested, if they do not want others to determine their course of action. Self-interest acknowledges one's values, personal goals, and personal life, which must be considered whenever one commits to anything. And negotiation of these aspects of personal concerns must be brought to the table early on, otherwise, one will be labelled as un-cooperative, rebellious, etc. We, in the West, would think it would be abhorrent for a man to pay the bride's family and take her away to become his wife, without any concern about the woman's personal choice. But, some religions/cultures think this is "right".
Some cultures believe that one doesn't have a right to freedom of speech if it subverts the government. But, these cultures are not free societies. This is what has happened over the years for political dissidents. Our Constitution guarantees that Americans have the right to free speech. But, recently, free speech has come under fire, because of religious or personal offenses. And individuals need to be honest and self-aware about why they are speaking out. Why are they doing what they are doing. Be self-aware and have valid reasons why one chooses to cause political "upheaval" and another's personal pain.
Self-interest makes sure that one is free to choose and is not doing what they do for approval, or to "fit in", but are doing what they do because they choose to do what they choose to do.These people are the only ones that are "free to choose" in the first place. Those that have come to understand themselves and what they will or will not do and what is of ultimate concern are those that are free "to be" and then, are free "to do".
And it is only free societies that allow such human development and choice.
Self interest has been given a bad "rap" in many religious groups, as self-interest is in opposition to God's purposes or plan. God's purposes and plans are understood in various ways. But, God's purposes and plans are usually understood as something superior to what the individual might want to pursue. Selfishness is the height of sin in this sense, because "God comes first". But,self-interest is not necessarily selfish. Selfish is a label given to those who may not choose to have the same value or ultimate goals. There is room in free societies to "walk away" if another's goals don't fall in line with yours. This is not selfish, but self awareness. And self-awareness is the first step toward becoming concerned with one's own personal goals, what one wants to do with their life.
Self-interest protects one's life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is an American's right by birth. And Americans use their liberty to choose their course and determine their life. American's are self-interested, in this way. Is there anything "wrong" with this?
Religion would say that one must deny oneself and take up their cross, meaning that self-interest would be in opposition to what "God wills". And that "will" is defined depending on the Christian group one is associated with. The social gospelers would think your life should be about the business of bringing in "God's Kingdom" through social justice. Their view is social and economic equality and political liberty. But, how is this different from the "secular human rights movement" or other forms of liberal organizations that are interested in bringing in Utopian dreams?
The conservative/evangelical would believe that self-interest would be in opposition to what they regard as most important, salvation. Salvation has many meanings depending on what denomination one asks. Some believe that being "born again" is an all important goal, while other believe that one must prove their faith through their life choices of "Kingdom building", etc.
I really believe that all of these people can be and are duped if they do not acknowledge and accept that one must be self-interested, if they do not want others to determine their course of action. Self-interest acknowledges one's values, personal goals, and personal life, which must be considered whenever one commits to anything. And negotiation of these aspects of personal concerns must be brought to the table early on, otherwise, one will be labelled as un-cooperative, rebellious, etc. We, in the West, would think it would be abhorrent for a man to pay the bride's family and take her away to become his wife, without any concern about the woman's personal choice. But, some religions/cultures think this is "right".
Some cultures believe that one doesn't have a right to freedom of speech if it subverts the government. But, these cultures are not free societies. This is what has happened over the years for political dissidents. Our Constitution guarantees that Americans have the right to free speech. But, recently, free speech has come under fire, because of religious or personal offenses. And individuals need to be honest and self-aware about why they are speaking out. Why are they doing what they are doing. Be self-aware and have valid reasons why one chooses to cause political "upheaval" and another's personal pain.
Self-interest makes sure that one is free to choose and is not doing what they do for approval, or to "fit in", but are doing what they do because they choose to do what they choose to do.These people are the only ones that are "free to choose" in the first place. Those that have come to understand themselves and what they will or will not do and what is of ultimate concern are those that are free "to be" and then, are free "to do".
And it is only free societies that allow such human development and choice.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Asher Lev's Rejection of Traditional Answers
My husband and I went to see the play, "Asher Lev", based on a book that freshmen had to read for a mandantory course. It is about the life of a Hasidic Jew, who is a gifted artist and his coming to "crossroads" about where his ultimate commitment will be.
Art is a "tradition" itself, Asher is told by another artist, who becomes his mentor. Art has certain values, that conflicted with Asher's religious tradition. Art is studying the form of the body, the nude, which is forbidden under religious laws. And art is valued by those that usually don't value his religious tradition.
Asher chooses to "find himself" rather than submit to his religious tradition. This is where he has to "let go" of his former life, as he understood it. He comes into an understanding of himself as an artist and not just as a Jewish man.
I find most conservative religious traditions prescribe these types of limitations. Limitations about what one should or shouldn't do, and what one should or shouldn't believe. Such nonsense, when the supernatural is not understood in real world terms, but only in the speculations of religious visionaries that tend to be authoritarian because of such understandings.
America is the "land of the free" because it understands itself as the home of the brave. Americans were the pioneers in a new world and with a new world order. We understood the value of equality under law, liberty as a value, and made a commitment that we would universalize these values as human rights.
Human rights is not just a universal, but is understood to be for the individual. We are diverse, becasue we believe in individual liberties, and the right to pursue one's own ends in volutary association of contractual relationships. Humans can flourish and find themselves in such a system of government. And Americans believe, for the most part, that this is a universal right, the right of a representative government.
Art is a "tradition" itself, Asher is told by another artist, who becomes his mentor. Art has certain values, that conflicted with Asher's religious tradition. Art is studying the form of the body, the nude, which is forbidden under religious laws. And art is valued by those that usually don't value his religious tradition.
Asher chooses to "find himself" rather than submit to his religious tradition. This is where he has to "let go" of his former life, as he understood it. He comes into an understanding of himself as an artist and not just as a Jewish man.
I find most conservative religious traditions prescribe these types of limitations. Limitations about what one should or shouldn't do, and what one should or shouldn't believe. Such nonsense, when the supernatural is not understood in real world terms, but only in the speculations of religious visionaries that tend to be authoritarian because of such understandings.
America is the "land of the free" because it understands itself as the home of the brave. Americans were the pioneers in a new world and with a new world order. We understood the value of equality under law, liberty as a value, and made a commitment that we would universalize these values as human rights.
Human rights is not just a universal, but is understood to be for the individual. We are diverse, becasue we believe in individual liberties, and the right to pursue one's own ends in volutary association of contractual relationships. Humans can flourish and find themselves in such a system of government. And Americans believe, for the most part, that this is a universal right, the right of a representative government.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
A Synthesis of the Id and Super-Ego...
A synthesis of the Id and Super-Ego is probably the most healthy way of functioning in society and as an adult.
A synthesis affirms both the individual's desires and innatedness, as well as positions the person to his service in society. So, the Id's desires must be honed by a specific and special training. It is the becoming of a 'self" to give. The Ego is the "gate-keeper" of both the Id and Super-Ego and must be appropriately "equipped" by society, if the individual is to "give back" to society. But, society cannot and must not determine the individual's place. That is to be left to "the consent of the governed".
Society is the public domain, whereas, the private domain of "self-development" is the "gated" domain of friends and family. The cheer-leaders of "self-development" are not disregarding and disrespectful of the "quirks" of the individual, but allow that individual the freedom to "become" without obfuscating his "vision", and "goals".
No individual is developed by groupish following of "the leader", but by critical engagement and challenge to the individual's giftings and interests.
A synthesis affirms both the individual's desires and innatedness, as well as positions the person to his service in society. So, the Id's desires must be honed by a specific and special training. It is the becoming of a 'self" to give. The Ego is the "gate-keeper" of both the Id and Super-Ego and must be appropriately "equipped" by society, if the individual is to "give back" to society. But, society cannot and must not determine the individual's place. That is to be left to "the consent of the governed".
Society is the public domain, whereas, the private domain of "self-development" is the "gated" domain of friends and family. The cheer-leaders of "self-development" are not disregarding and disrespectful of the "quirks" of the individual, but allow that individual the freedom to "become" without obfuscating his "vision", and "goals".
No individual is developed by groupish following of "the leader", but by critical engagement and challenge to the individual's giftings and interests.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
This I Believe....a Personal Confession
I believe that man is made to become independently self sustaining and independent. This is not to say that man lives alone, or doesn't need companionship. Nor does it mean that man cannot learn from another, as we all learn in many ways from others. But, man is made to become a rational being that can ascertain the values that he holds most dear, that decide the course of his life and commitments. There should never be group imposition upon another human life, without full acknowledgment and consent of those so governed.
I believe that many times these commitments might conflict and cause one to choose the greater value.
I believe that self responsible behavior is one of the most important gifts parents can give their children and that authority is respected when they give the respect to individuals under their responsibility. Right attitudes is mandatory in all relationships, whether they are personal and intimate, as in the family, or contractual, as in business dealings.
The church is one of many social structures in society that give men a place to become, but should never be ultimate in their authority, as authority is not the purpose of any government.
Government is to respect the rights of the individual. Government was made for man, not man for the government. Therefore, government must not intrude into private life, not demand public service. Public service is to be given freely by grateful citizens that benefit from the protection their government provides. But, government should always limit itself, just as men must learn to limit themselves.
Marriage is a social contract that should be respected by the parties entering into it. These parties must determine for themselves how they want their contract to work. Society, in return, should expect the parties to respect the contract as a social structuring in securing an environment for society's flourishing.
Social institutions are to provide environments that help further the cause of human flourishing and society's structuring.
I believe no one should impose their view of virtue on another. Virtue cannot be forced, as virtue could be just as much resistance to oppression, as submission to a social structure. Virtue must come from a conviction within, not without.
Morality is determined by one's social group and society at large,. as morality are the rules that define the specified society's values and ultimate concerns.. Morality are the social norms in society, which are legislated in our laws to protect our liberty. Liberty of conscience must be maintained in matters of personal interests, such as religious worship. Otherwise, the society demands what cannot be demanded without coercive government interference into another's life.
I believe that what one chooses to do with one's life is a personal matter and not the matter of the church or society. Society and its social institutions can help further the goals of an individual, but government should never determine another's life choices or values.
I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These will be defined differently by individuals within our free society and that is the greatness of America.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
What I Find Interesting in Language
As I have been intereacting on different blog sites, it occurs to me that each subject or discipline has its own language, which different "communities" or "peoples" use, understand and value.
I think that for one to be a good social constructionist, all languages must be used. For without the different languages, and ability to translate into other languages amongst the disciplines, then the disciplines cannot colaborate about the "whole" truth of a certain subject.
Since the human being or person is the unifying factor amongst all subjects, then one must ascertain what defines the human person.
Social scientists inform us that we are products of our environment. These are determining factors, while the more recent intersection of the neurosciences suggest that the human is determined by his DNA. Which is true? Both.
Religion and anthropoligists say that the human is bound by his particular context and understanding in his cultural framework. While this is true it undermines what moral philosophers and moral development has found to be true.
Moral philosophers and moral developmental has shown that the human person is a free agent. A free agent is determined by his free choice in a free society. But, what defines morality in a free society? This is where moral philosophy that was wrought in America's founding is useful.
I find that all of these subjects are profoundly interesting. And this is why I am wanting to learn the languages.
I think that for one to be a good social constructionist, all languages must be used. For without the different languages, and ability to translate into other languages amongst the disciplines, then the disciplines cannot colaborate about the "whole" truth of a certain subject.
Since the human being or person is the unifying factor amongst all subjects, then one must ascertain what defines the human person.
Social scientists inform us that we are products of our environment. These are determining factors, while the more recent intersection of the neurosciences suggest that the human is determined by his DNA. Which is true? Both.
Religion and anthropoligists say that the human is bound by his particular context and understanding in his cultural framework. While this is true it undermines what moral philosophers and moral development has found to be true.
Moral philosophers and moral developmental has shown that the human person is a free agent. A free agent is determined by his free choice in a free society. But, what defines morality in a free society? This is where moral philosophy that was wrought in America's founding is useful.
I find that all of these subjects are profoundly interesting. And this is why I am wanting to learn the languages.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Mulling Over Many Things....And "Coming to Terms" With None....
My husband and I just got back from visiting friends and family in Europe. I love Europe's beauty, diversity, and history, but will maintain my loyalty to the values of "unity and diversity" within my own country, the U. S. A. More specifically, my sis and bro in law accompanied us on this trip, to see some sights in Italy, which was an educational experience, as well, as familial fellowship.
I will have to say that there were so many things that impressed me (from art in the Sistine Chapel ; to an inteview on CNN of the famous fashion designer, Prada; to a movie I saw on the way home, "New In Town"). I will have to take the time to process them all. And as I do, as always, I will write.
I think humans are made to "think on these things", and in doing so, grow in understanding of
"what matters" and how to evaluate concepts that affect one's life. This brings wisdom in knowing what to do and how to respond in different situations, as history is a "teacher" of wisdom.
I am sorry to say that many do not think that "thinking" is valuable, as they understand faith to be a variance with "reason". That is fine, as long as they maintain their irrationality within their specific "sect" and do not disturb the rest of us.
Science cannot be devoid of beauty, but how is beauty to be "a science"? Beauty, as well as science, points beyond itself to another realm that has always mystified. Man has sought to understand this realm in many ways, and man's understanding of faith has evolved over the eons of time.
The individual, also "evolves", or grows, in "coming to terms" with what is true, good and beautiful. These are the concepts that define the individual's values and goals. These "concepts" cannot be confined to any one realm of understanding, but are representative of the "whole" concept in understanding.
I will continue to ponder as I live and move and have my being. I think we need more ponderers, how about you?
I will have to say that there were so many things that impressed me (from art in the Sistine Chapel ; to an inteview on CNN of the famous fashion designer, Prada; to a movie I saw on the way home, "New In Town"). I will have to take the time to process them all. And as I do, as always, I will write.
I think humans are made to "think on these things", and in doing so, grow in understanding of
"what matters" and how to evaluate concepts that affect one's life. This brings wisdom in knowing what to do and how to respond in different situations, as history is a "teacher" of wisdom.
I am sorry to say that many do not think that "thinking" is valuable, as they understand faith to be a variance with "reason". That is fine, as long as they maintain their irrationality within their specific "sect" and do not disturb the rest of us.
Science cannot be devoid of beauty, but how is beauty to be "a science"? Beauty, as well as science, points beyond itself to another realm that has always mystified. Man has sought to understand this realm in many ways, and man's understanding of faith has evolved over the eons of time.
The individual, also "evolves", or grows, in "coming to terms" with what is true, good and beautiful. These are the concepts that define the individual's values and goals. These "concepts" cannot be confined to any one realm of understanding, but are representative of the "whole" concept in understanding.
I will continue to ponder as I live and move and have my being. I think we need more ponderers, how about you?
Monday, January 12, 2009
Religious Identities, Tradition, and "Self"
Last night I was scrolling the T.V. channels when I came across the last bit of "talk" on CNN. One was a Jew, the other ?, but they were talking about identities and how the authentic self comes "after tradition".
This would fall in line with Kohlberg's assessment of moral development, as tradition is conventional morality, whereas, reason supercedes that morality with the individual's understanding of justice.
In reading about the recent situation in the Middle East, which is really a continuation of the "same old same old" insanity, I think this is a pivotal "truth". Tradition does not regard individuality as it does not base its understanding on the "rule of law" but "religious tradition". Religious tradition justifies actions by "god's will" in text, or tradition. When tradition's understandings collide, we have what we have in the Middle East.
Although Israel is a state that maintains its boundaries by "law", Hamas has not respected those boundaries. It is not "right" according to our understanding of "justice" (rule of law) for Hamas to attack Israel. Is it "right" for the Palestinians to have any recourse for action because these civilians who Hamas "uses" do not have the recourse of a "stste". What does the international community do with this in seeking justice for Palestianian civilians and yet, respecting Israel's right to boundary maintenence. This the the million dollar question, as tribal identities do not die passively, and are resistant to change.
In understanding what is necessary, these humans do not have the environment to develop their 'authentic selves". They are serving a tradition and the role they think tradition demands of them in obtaining the transcentdent....
This would fall in line with Kohlberg's assessment of moral development, as tradition is conventional morality, whereas, reason supercedes that morality with the individual's understanding of justice.
In reading about the recent situation in the Middle East, which is really a continuation of the "same old same old" insanity, I think this is a pivotal "truth". Tradition does not regard individuality as it does not base its understanding on the "rule of law" but "religious tradition". Religious tradition justifies actions by "god's will" in text, or tradition. When tradition's understandings collide, we have what we have in the Middle East.
Although Israel is a state that maintains its boundaries by "law", Hamas has not respected those boundaries. It is not "right" according to our understanding of "justice" (rule of law) for Hamas to attack Israel. Is it "right" for the Palestinians to have any recourse for action because these civilians who Hamas "uses" do not have the recourse of a "stste". What does the international community do with this in seeking justice for Palestianian civilians and yet, respecting Israel's right to boundary maintenence. This the the million dollar question, as tribal identities do not die passively, and are resistant to change.
In understanding what is necessary, these humans do not have the environment to develop their 'authentic selves". They are serving a tradition and the role they think tradition demands of them in obtaining the transcentdent....
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Defining Faith in Scientific Terms
Thinking about faith, I have come to understand the complexity of defining faith. I have come to understand my faith in completely ethical terms. While this does not dismiss different opportunities for playing out that ethical "commitment", faith, itself, is undefined and is meaningful only to the individuals that give meaning to their lives by the things they choose to do or commit to because of various understandings of faith. This view can be applauded by Lutherans, Anglicans and their cousins. I don't think that Roman Catholicism or the Reformed traditions understand their faith in this way, as they look to define their faith too stringently on 'other wordly" terms or " this worldly" terms.
Just recently the Roman Catholics have decided that stem cell research, the morning after pill, and in vitro fertilization are wrong for people of faith! Their tradition defines their faith from the top down, while the Reformed and charismatics define their faith from their theology or experience. Their faith is one of common understanding as well. I think both kinds of Christian traditions are limited in their frameworks! One uses the Church as a means to define everyone's behavior, while the other defines everyone's understanding or experience! Both are exclusivistic in their ways and understandings.
I think the Church at large should not be defined upon these things, as they limit everyone's personal growth. That growth should not be gauged and determined by another, but should be the fruition of the relationships that are wrought within the walls of the Church, as well as society at large. The individual cannot grow if there is limitations upon his education, because the parents define and determine the particular job the individual will do. This limits growth, as it does not allow the child freedom to explore themselves. And most of us know that young adults in college change their majors, as they become aware of another subject that intrigues them. Who are the parents, to limit that young person's growth by deciding and determining what that child may become? Some cultures, of course, allow this type of upbringing and the parents even determine the child's marriage partner. While it may help further the tradition and the families' "name", deciding or determination by the parent limits the child's awareness of himself and the "other". It breeds prejuidice toward those "outside the tradition". These kinds of cultures are not ethical in their understandings of themselves or the broader world, as they judge the outside world as "evil", "immoral", "bad", or etc. It does not breed in the child a desire to investigate, explore or value "becoming". Tradition is limiting in this way.
While Christian faith has been defined upon tradition, experience, and text, all of these hinder the broader scope of moral development in ethical understandings of those outside one's denomination or tradition. And it limits all of us in our coming to terms of peaceful co-existence!
Just recently the Roman Catholics have decided that stem cell research, the morning after pill, and in vitro fertilization are wrong for people of faith! Their tradition defines their faith from the top down, while the Reformed and charismatics define their faith from their theology or experience. Their faith is one of common understanding as well. I think both kinds of Christian traditions are limited in their frameworks! One uses the Church as a means to define everyone's behavior, while the other defines everyone's understanding or experience! Both are exclusivistic in their ways and understandings.
I think the Church at large should not be defined upon these things, as they limit everyone's personal growth. That growth should not be gauged and determined by another, but should be the fruition of the relationships that are wrought within the walls of the Church, as well as society at large. The individual cannot grow if there is limitations upon his education, because the parents define and determine the particular job the individual will do. This limits growth, as it does not allow the child freedom to explore themselves. And most of us know that young adults in college change their majors, as they become aware of another subject that intrigues them. Who are the parents, to limit that young person's growth by deciding and determining what that child may become? Some cultures, of course, allow this type of upbringing and the parents even determine the child's marriage partner. While it may help further the tradition and the families' "name", deciding or determination by the parent limits the child's awareness of himself and the "other". It breeds prejuidice toward those "outside the tradition". These kinds of cultures are not ethical in their understandings of themselves or the broader world, as they judge the outside world as "evil", "immoral", "bad", or etc. It does not breed in the child a desire to investigate, explore or value "becoming". Tradition is limiting in this way.
While Christian faith has been defined upon tradition, experience, and text, all of these hinder the broader scope of moral development in ethical understandings of those outside one's denomination or tradition. And it limits all of us in our coming to terms of peaceful co-existence!
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Personal Identity, Group Attachment and Abuse
In our local paper, one of the leaders at our university, states that "respect is yours, have it"! This is important news, because the context is a local domestic violence organization called "Hands of Hope". The abused need to know that they can have hope beyond the definitions that their abusor have given them. Hope is inspired when the heart is strenghtened with encouragement and empowerment.
Why is respect necessary to break free of abusive systems? Self respect is negated in environments that teach dependence or group mentality. Psychologists say this is an unhealthy attachment, because personal identity ceases to exist in such environments. The group defines what is right for the individual. The individual is negated because the individual has no choice about the matter. They are to obey and submit to what the system designs and desires.
A system is organizational structuring and is not wrong, in and of itself. But, if the system is not focused on giving freedom to individuals, but defining them, then the system ceases to be a healthy one. Cultures define individuals, but are not necessarily unhealthy, unless they take away the right of the individual to freely choose and determine their own life. Children, of course, are defined by their families, but young adults should come to a place where they understand their own person. This is personal identity.
Personal identity is important to develop, as it helps the individual to define their values and commitments. Reason is engaged in this formative stage and can bring about transformation of the person's understanding of themselves, their true values, and their reasons for choosing those values. This is an important stage in coming to terms with life calling. A life calling is not defined by others, only developed. And developing others in thier gifts is a life calling itself!
Why is respect necessary to break free of abusive systems? Self respect is negated in environments that teach dependence or group mentality. Psychologists say this is an unhealthy attachment, because personal identity ceases to exist in such environments. The group defines what is right for the individual. The individual is negated because the individual has no choice about the matter. They are to obey and submit to what the system designs and desires.
A system is organizational structuring and is not wrong, in and of itself. But, if the system is not focused on giving freedom to individuals, but defining them, then the system ceases to be a healthy one. Cultures define individuals, but are not necessarily unhealthy, unless they take away the right of the individual to freely choose and determine their own life. Children, of course, are defined by their families, but young adults should come to a place where they understand their own person. This is personal identity.
Personal identity is important to develop, as it helps the individual to define their values and commitments. Reason is engaged in this formative stage and can bring about transformation of the person's understanding of themselves, their true values, and their reasons for choosing those values. This is an important stage in coming to terms with life calling. A life calling is not defined by others, only developed. And developing others in thier gifts is a life calling itself!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
