Religion is well-known to bring about oppression. It describes the world in "old ways", using "god language". Such "god language" is "theology speak". Natural real world experiences are interpreted by rational explainations about theodicity. God is present, just not understood. Faith is trust irregardless of pain and suffering, as "God is in control". Such thinking leaves one cold from the "rational". There is "no heart" there.
On the other hand, science can be just as heartless. Science is useful to bring about new discoveries and create new realities that help humankind. But, science is just as blind as religion sometimes in its universalizing what can't be understood readily without experimentation. But, even with experimentation, who is to know how to gauge whether a particular human being will respond as all human beings given particular stimuli? How does one understand a "human universal", even when experience is common?
Sciene seeks to describe reality in uniform and monistic ways, as this helps science to formulate "natural laws". But, when human persons are put within a framework of uniformity, conformity and monistic understanding of reality, then, science has become just as oppressive as religion.
Somewhere between absolute scientific materialism and religious idealism is a new understanding for the "human". I think our Founders came close to granting that in our form of government, where individual liberty is appreciated within the boundaries of an ordered society and leaders being accountable to the people they are to serve. Then, there is no empowered "vision" for mankind through uniformity, that is granted primary status over society, either through scienctific investigation and technological advances, or religious idealism/abolutism and confomity.
Showing posts with label humankind. Show all posts
Showing posts with label humankind. Show all posts
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Saturday, March 5, 2011
The Movie, "The Power of Words"
Interesting movie tonight on a DVD we bought for a couple of dollars. The theme was about trauma and its effects.
The nurse doctored a patient who'd lost his sight due to an explosion on an oil rigg, was the main character. She was withdrawn and obviously emotionally distant, but no one knew the reason, until the tension had built in the moive such that when she revealed "her secret", the audience could "feel a release" of tension, which added to the feeling of anger toward her revelation, i.e., the problem.
The secret was of her political and emotional abuse by the police in her country of Yugoslavia. She's been repeatedly raped, seen her best friend die in front of her, bleeding slowly to death. She had witnessed an officier putting a gun in the hands of another prisoner and "helping" her insert the gun into her vagina, pulling the trigger. Such emotional and physical abuse one cannot imagine. But, the full impact was revealed by her psychologist to her former patient.
The patient had fallen in love with her, but she left him before he had had surgury to regain his eyesight. The fully recovered patient found her psychologist and asked if she could help him. The psychologist warned him that she would be affected possibly forever by such experiences. The effect of surviving such an incident is "shame". The questions that continue to haunt her about her survival when the rest had died would not be easy to get over, if at all.. But, he still wanted to find her.
When he finally found her, he gave her the satchel she'd left behind. She started to walk away, only to hear him tell her he wanted her to come with him. She told him that she was afraid that if she did, she'd start to cry at some point and never be able to stop and they'd both drown. He smiled and told her he'd learn to swim.
The pain she carried in her heart was not something that can be reconciled with any belief in "Providence", God, or a caring or just world. That kind of pain is brought about by those that seek to inflict their control and domination of others. Such behavior is more common in groups, where there is a comaradie about why "the other" deserves such abuse. Those that are different and outside the scope of humankind.
What is "humankind"? What makes us all human? The ability to think, reason, feel and commit to certain behaviors? Humans have a lot to learn before we all will come to understand all the answers to that question. But, the answers might just give us insight into how to prevent such atrocities in the future.
The nurse doctored a patient who'd lost his sight due to an explosion on an oil rigg, was the main character. She was withdrawn and obviously emotionally distant, but no one knew the reason, until the tension had built in the moive such that when she revealed "her secret", the audience could "feel a release" of tension, which added to the feeling of anger toward her revelation, i.e., the problem.
The secret was of her political and emotional abuse by the police in her country of Yugoslavia. She's been repeatedly raped, seen her best friend die in front of her, bleeding slowly to death. She had witnessed an officier putting a gun in the hands of another prisoner and "helping" her insert the gun into her vagina, pulling the trigger. Such emotional and physical abuse one cannot imagine. But, the full impact was revealed by her psychologist to her former patient.
The patient had fallen in love with her, but she left him before he had had surgury to regain his eyesight. The fully recovered patient found her psychologist and asked if she could help him. The psychologist warned him that she would be affected possibly forever by such experiences. The effect of surviving such an incident is "shame". The questions that continue to haunt her about her survival when the rest had died would not be easy to get over, if at all.. But, he still wanted to find her.
When he finally found her, he gave her the satchel she'd left behind. She started to walk away, only to hear him tell her he wanted her to come with him. She told him that she was afraid that if she did, she'd start to cry at some point and never be able to stop and they'd both drown. He smiled and told her he'd learn to swim.
The pain she carried in her heart was not something that can be reconciled with any belief in "Providence", God, or a caring or just world. That kind of pain is brought about by those that seek to inflict their control and domination of others. Such behavior is more common in groups, where there is a comaradie about why "the other" deserves such abuse. Those that are different and outside the scope of humankind.
What is "humankind"? What makes us all human? The ability to think, reason, feel and commit to certain behaviors? Humans have a lot to learn before we all will come to understand all the answers to that question. But, the answers might just give us insight into how to prevent such atrocities in the future.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Banality of the "Common Good"...
If we think we live isolated lives that do not matter in the large scheme of things, we are mistaken. Our country does value and affirm the individual and for the most part, allows the individual the freedom to choose his "way of life". Is this changing in our globalized world? I believe it is, because we don't choose to do what is wrong or shady alone. We must have co-operation from a larger "group".
This morning it was reported that the SEC person who should have overseen Bernie Madoff, "overlooked" his indiscrepencies. Her "indiscrepency" encouraged Bernie's "greed" and has made her culpable in the "scheme of things". She has resigned. Bernie's actions have affected many, but he obviously did not do it alone. This is how the "system" works. And it has become more and more prevalent as our world has become interconnected.
I think that without individual choice and responsibiltiy for "self", that there is no real morality, because it alleviates personal decision making, which salves consciences from what would otherwise be reprehensible. And many times the "evil" is done in the name of "good", so it further gives credibility to the pressure to conform to the "system's" role and function appropriately.
Also, this morning, it was reported that our country was headed for socialized medicine. Whil many countries have this style of medical insurance, socialism has not bred the best environment for medical research and development. Systems do not allow the individual as many choices in being responsible for their own health-care. Insurance companies would not cover certain surguries or treatments, as these would be considered prohibitive in costs, or "outside" the scope of "common" concern. Again, we will not be allowed the freedom to choose whether we can or will afford a certain treatment. But, I am sure the socialists would approve of this design in the name of the common good!
Last night, during his presidental address, I got the impression that Obama was cautious in his word selection concerning Iran and what our future actions would be toward that nation. While I respect his carefulness, if it was due to lack of information at this point about our future actions, I do not condone an attitude of tolerance toward those who would subvert the "rule of law".
Boundaries are necessary to maintain identification factors and allow a consideration of difference. Otherwise, humankind looses their identification factors and I think, this leads to violent fear and anxiety. Identity breeds security because "we know who we are and what we stand for". Otherwise, the human is dissolved into social and political "forces/issues" that don't regard the person, but uses the person for the "system's interest".
"Sin" is not just a personal issue, but a systemic one. Individuals must resist the "group mentality" that would subvert "proper respect" and regard for another human being. Justice is standing for and up to these forces/factors in the name of individuals who have no voice. Our country has sought to bring that freedom to other nations, so that their people can have a voice. Just recntly, elections were held in Iraq and women were on the ballot. This is dramatic social change. And yet, we do not hear about this change on our major news networks.
Humankind is not a personal word, nor is, the "common good". Socialism, communism and political dictatorships all breed on "group think" and "common purposes", which disregard personal interests, disrespecting the individual. These are manavolent factors in the world that do not breed "freedom" in any shape or form. This is why our Founding Fathers were so careful to allow the individual the freedoms that we tout in our Bill of Rights. Without these laws, we cannot make any difference for others, because we, ourselves, will be slaves to the "common good", which will be "dictated" by "elite rulers" and not the "common person". We must fight the "banality of the common good".
This morning it was reported that the SEC person who should have overseen Bernie Madoff, "overlooked" his indiscrepencies. Her "indiscrepency" encouraged Bernie's "greed" and has made her culpable in the "scheme of things". She has resigned. Bernie's actions have affected many, but he obviously did not do it alone. This is how the "system" works. And it has become more and more prevalent as our world has become interconnected.
I think that without individual choice and responsibiltiy for "self", that there is no real morality, because it alleviates personal decision making, which salves consciences from what would otherwise be reprehensible. And many times the "evil" is done in the name of "good", so it further gives credibility to the pressure to conform to the "system's" role and function appropriately.
Also, this morning, it was reported that our country was headed for socialized medicine. Whil many countries have this style of medical insurance, socialism has not bred the best environment for medical research and development. Systems do not allow the individual as many choices in being responsible for their own health-care. Insurance companies would not cover certain surguries or treatments, as these would be considered prohibitive in costs, or "outside" the scope of "common" concern. Again, we will not be allowed the freedom to choose whether we can or will afford a certain treatment. But, I am sure the socialists would approve of this design in the name of the common good!
Last night, during his presidental address, I got the impression that Obama was cautious in his word selection concerning Iran and what our future actions would be toward that nation. While I respect his carefulness, if it was due to lack of information at this point about our future actions, I do not condone an attitude of tolerance toward those who would subvert the "rule of law".
Boundaries are necessary to maintain identification factors and allow a consideration of difference. Otherwise, humankind looses their identification factors and I think, this leads to violent fear and anxiety. Identity breeds security because "we know who we are and what we stand for". Otherwise, the human is dissolved into social and political "forces/issues" that don't regard the person, but uses the person for the "system's interest".
"Sin" is not just a personal issue, but a systemic one. Individuals must resist the "group mentality" that would subvert "proper respect" and regard for another human being. Justice is standing for and up to these forces/factors in the name of individuals who have no voice. Our country has sought to bring that freedom to other nations, so that their people can have a voice. Just recntly, elections were held in Iraq and women were on the ballot. This is dramatic social change. And yet, we do not hear about this change on our major news networks.
Humankind is not a personal word, nor is, the "common good". Socialism, communism and political dictatorships all breed on "group think" and "common purposes", which disregard personal interests, disrespecting the individual. These are manavolent factors in the world that do not breed "freedom" in any shape or form. This is why our Founding Fathers were so careful to allow the individual the freedoms that we tout in our Bill of Rights. Without these laws, we cannot make any difference for others, because we, ourselves, will be slaves to the "common good", which will be "dictated" by "elite rulers" and not the "common person". We must fight the "banality of the common good".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
