Pragmatism is living in the real world. It application of knowledge, as in technology. It is life experience, which is activism, and service oriented jobs. So, why does pragmatism leave some humans "cold"? Why are "ideals" so important to move "the human", whether ideals are used by the poltician to gain the vote, or the marketer to gain the sale. Humans respond to ideals.
Those with artistic bents, are not prone to be moved by the statistics and analysis or the facts of "science". Art, though, is the expression of "the human". It is connection to human feelings, thoughts and experiences that brings more to life than monotonous existence. Art is beauty. Art is creativity. Art is self expression. Art is philosophy. And art can't be appreciated if there is no liberty for expression. Expression is art!
The question of the value of art in today's technologically oriented society makes for questions about the "humanizing forces" of art.
Our brains, bodies and very being are affected by our senses. The senses are engaged in art and have an impact on emotion, or the sentinent portion of "the human". Art can help relieve stress, or process grief. Art is therapeutic for "Man".
Art is imagery in poetry, as in painting. Art is fashion and interior design. Art is drama and dance. Art is about color.
Art has not always been appreciated, as art is representative of something that humans can all understand and this is what has made art "idolatrous" to religious ideals. Relgious ideals either translate "God" into the practical, which is religion, or the mystical, which is the spiritual. Because "God" isn't understood as a metaphor of human expression, but as a real and active being, "the human" has been crushed under the "foot of God". This is why I much prefer being atheistic in understanding of "art", as even art must be interpreted. And art's expression and interpreted meaning is about personal realities. What was the artist thinking or meaning by a particular painting, essay or drama? "God" is really about human expression. And human expression must have liberty for "the human" to fulfill potential. "God" interferes with "life", because of some projected and protected meaning about/to/for life.
Our Founders understood the value of protecting liberty for conscience's sake. And conscience is about "art"!
Showing posts with label interpretation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label interpretation. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Monday, March 14, 2011
"Reality" in the Movie, "The Unknown"
I have recommended the movie, "The Unknown", because of its excellent direction. The movie keeps one spellbound. It captures the audience's attention and emotion, when "Martin"s memory is partially impaired.
Humans live from memory. We learn our language and remember the right words to even communicate with others when we grow up. What if we couldn't remember our words? This was not the case in "The Unknown", as his memory of important emotional facts was intact, but some of the other facts were forgotten due to an accident. Due to the "missing links", he is living in "limbo" land, not able to understand many things happening to him. How does he interpret them?
Whenever humans don't have a grasp on reality, such that they can find security, they find themselves anxious. Anxiety is the state of "not knowing", or fearing that which "might come". Why would this anxiety have any hold on a human being? When experiences continue to confound and there is no rationale for what is happening, humans become anxious about their futures. A "state of peace" or psychologial security is the result of learning about "cause and effects". Behaviors are conditioned by "causes and effects". But, "sometimes the "causes and effects" are not straightforward "laws of nature". These have damaging effects on the psyche. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder could be the result and might have a disorienting effect on the personality.
Humans must have some sense of control about thier life to maintain a sense of dignity and personal orientation about "reality" itself. "The Unknown" brought to light what it is like to experience a dis-orienting experience where 'life doesn't make sense. The Unknown gave a sense of what life would be like if one lost partial memory and had to "live with it".
Memory or the brain's recording or experience is not the "whole story". Memories have to be itnerpreted to be meaningful, but when some information is "lost" and one is left to interpret without all the 'facts", then what? This made for a great movie.
Go see it. You won't be disappointed!
Humans live from memory. We learn our language and remember the right words to even communicate with others when we grow up. What if we couldn't remember our words? This was not the case in "The Unknown", as his memory of important emotional facts was intact, but some of the other facts were forgotten due to an accident. Due to the "missing links", he is living in "limbo" land, not able to understand many things happening to him. How does he interpret them?
Whenever humans don't have a grasp on reality, such that they can find security, they find themselves anxious. Anxiety is the state of "not knowing", or fearing that which "might come". Why would this anxiety have any hold on a human being? When experiences continue to confound and there is no rationale for what is happening, humans become anxious about their futures. A "state of peace" or psychologial security is the result of learning about "cause and effects". Behaviors are conditioned by "causes and effects". But, "sometimes the "causes and effects" are not straightforward "laws of nature". These have damaging effects on the psyche. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder could be the result and might have a disorienting effect on the personality.
Humans must have some sense of control about thier life to maintain a sense of dignity and personal orientation about "reality" itself. "The Unknown" brought to light what it is like to experience a dis-orienting experience where 'life doesn't make sense. The Unknown gave a sense of what life would be like if one lost partial memory and had to "live with it".
Memory or the brain's recording or experience is not the "whole story". Memories have to be itnerpreted to be meaningful, but when some information is "lost" and one is left to interpret without all the 'facts", then what? This made for a great movie.
Go see it. You won't be disappointed!
Sunday, January 30, 2011
It"s All About Theories and the "Mind"...
I think how one views life and all that is, is really about theories, and how one's mind engages theories and experiences.......
Think of the many types of theories in the different diciplines; literary theory, political theory, pscyhological theory, educational theory, etc...all of these theories help to formulate how a person "comes out" in their commitments in life, as to behavior and understanding.
I think this might defy a uniformity as to how adult individuals understand, internalize/criticize or incorporate/resist their environments.
Think of the many types of theories in the different diciplines; literary theory, political theory, pscyhological theory, educational theory, etc...all of these theories help to formulate how a person "comes out" in their commitments in life, as to behavior and understanding.
I think this might defy a uniformity as to how adult individuals understand, internalize/criticize or incorporate/resist their environments.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Politicizing the Census
The Democrats are on the war path this morning. The census is being discussed and a question came in about the wisdom of giving out this information to the government. The discussion then turned into an opportunity for politics. The Republicans were demonized by saying that the Republicans had politicized the census by sending out questionaires for fund-raising, insinuating that Republicans were being deceptive. These were not the overt words of the discussion, but it was the insinuation. Were the Democratically leaning panel not politicizing the discussion?
The census is done because the Founders believed that it would be the best way for the publics' interest to be represented, as it determines where the boundaries are that will determine a certain district.
Giving the Republicans the benefit of the doubt, could the Republcans be sincerely interested in what the American people want? After being "dismissed" and not being allowed to be players in the major decisions facing our nation, could they have learned that it is important that we all have a voice? Certainly, the tea parties and the town hall meetings over the summer gave these politicians a clear picture of how the American people feel about being left out of the political process by the dismissal of their voice!
I find that today so much is politicized that the American people cannot discern what or whom to believe. Has this always been so, and I am only waking up to the real world of politics? Perhaps so, but this morning's presentation by the Democrats made me more aware of how a "fact" can be interpreted.
The census is done because the Founders believed that it would be the best way for the publics' interest to be represented, as it determines where the boundaries are that will determine a certain district.
Giving the Republicans the benefit of the doubt, could the Republcans be sincerely interested in what the American people want? After being "dismissed" and not being allowed to be players in the major decisions facing our nation, could they have learned that it is important that we all have a voice? Certainly, the tea parties and the town hall meetings over the summer gave these politicians a clear picture of how the American people feel about being left out of the political process by the dismissal of their voice!
I find that today so much is politicized that the American people cannot discern what or whom to believe. Has this always been so, and I am only waking up to the real world of politics? Perhaps so, but this morning's presentation by the Democrats made me more aware of how a "fact" can be interpreted.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
A Human Book That Can Be Dangerous
Last post I was personal. And in sharing my journey I do not want to give the impression that "I have no hope" or that I am distraught. No, in fact, what I have come to understand has enlarged me as a person. I am grateful for it, but it has been challenging and at times, painful.
When I call scripture a human book, I mean that humans wrote the book with certain understandings, and assumptions. Some of these are personal assumptions, just as the "image" of Father was an important one for me, because of my past. Each gospel writer have different emphasis' and different rememberances. This is not unusual, as when two people are asked about a certain situation, there are ususually areas of disagreement.
Why do I say that a human book, much less the Bible is a danger? Whenever there is something that is considered "special" or"holy" then humans tend to treat it differently. This should not be, as scripture was written by human beings, and though, inspired, were not inspired any more than what any other human being can be inspired. These writers did not become some "superman" before they wrote the scriptures. They were ordinary people who had had an extraordinary experience that had impacted their lives. Because of the impact, these writers were "inspired", but it was not a supernatural kind of inspiration. Without knowing really what the writer's intent was, nor can one understand how they "hoped in god", but we do know that these were "worldviews" as well as personal views of the writers. Therefore the text should not be accepted at face value because our world is different.
I find that faith is more enlarging and mores inclusive of others when there is an understanding of the text's limitation and not believeing that the text is somehow superior to the human being. The text cannot talk, interpret, or reason. So, understanding the text is "work". Ancient paradigms, language expressions, bring much confusion as how to apply the text Our modern West does not seek to apply it, but dismiss it altogether, while the conservative evangelical tries to obey it, with limited understanding of how wrongly their application might be. This is dangerous to the individual interpreter but also, others, as judgements will be based on this limited viewpoint.
When I call scripture a human book, I mean that humans wrote the book with certain understandings, and assumptions. Some of these are personal assumptions, just as the "image" of Father was an important one for me, because of my past. Each gospel writer have different emphasis' and different rememberances. This is not unusual, as when two people are asked about a certain situation, there are ususually areas of disagreement.
Why do I say that a human book, much less the Bible is a danger? Whenever there is something that is considered "special" or"holy" then humans tend to treat it differently. This should not be, as scripture was written by human beings, and though, inspired, were not inspired any more than what any other human being can be inspired. These writers did not become some "superman" before they wrote the scriptures. They were ordinary people who had had an extraordinary experience that had impacted their lives. Because of the impact, these writers were "inspired", but it was not a supernatural kind of inspiration. Without knowing really what the writer's intent was, nor can one understand how they "hoped in god", but we do know that these were "worldviews" as well as personal views of the writers. Therefore the text should not be accepted at face value because our world is different.
I find that faith is more enlarging and mores inclusive of others when there is an understanding of the text's limitation and not believeing that the text is somehow superior to the human being. The text cannot talk, interpret, or reason. So, understanding the text is "work". Ancient paradigms, language expressions, bring much confusion as how to apply the text Our modern West does not seek to apply it, but dismiss it altogether, while the conservative evangelical tries to obey it, with limited understanding of how wrongly their application might be. This is dangerous to the individual interpreter but also, others, as judgements will be based on this limited viewpoint.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Truth is Political
I think that truth is political. Although science discerns facts, which facts are used and how they are used to form the policy that determines reality, is what determines "truth" or "reality" for the average person.
Anyone in leadership is responsible for what facts are offered, how they are heard and understood and then implemented into practice. Any policy is a practical philosophy. And philosophy is where the discussion of truth lies.
In the Biblical text, many understand that the context of the book is an important determination, as the context determines what the interpretation is. Context is the political domain, nothing more nor nothing less. Therefore, the bibilcal text is a product not just of the author's political context, but the Church's in its canonization.
I think it is shallow to argue for the "bible", as in "battle for the bible", as it undermines the human contexts and the human authors. The text of scripture is a human construct. It was an attempt to rationalize and theologize about God, Jesus, and the human condition.
It is unfortunate that more people are not aware of how limited their life is, by living passively and restrictively because of an anceint text, such as scripture.
Anyone in leadership is responsible for what facts are offered, how they are heard and understood and then implemented into practice. Any policy is a practical philosophy. And philosophy is where the discussion of truth lies.
In the Biblical text, many understand that the context of the book is an important determination, as the context determines what the interpretation is. Context is the political domain, nothing more nor nothing less. Therefore, the bibilcal text is a product not just of the author's political context, but the Church's in its canonization.
I think it is shallow to argue for the "bible", as in "battle for the bible", as it undermines the human contexts and the human authors. The text of scripture is a human construct. It was an attempt to rationalize and theologize about God, Jesus, and the human condition.
It is unfortunate that more people are not aware of how limited their life is, by living passively and restrictively because of an anceint text, such as scripture.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
OOPS...Tradition and How It Came To BE
In my last post, I said that tradition grew up around the text, which is true if one is upholding the Protestant evangelical frame, as meaning was created primarily by the text's message, whereas, tradition was the early Church Fathers way of creating meaning from ancient texts and myths that became "tradition" of the Church....which is orthodoxy. And the Church Fathers had reasons for developing the Tradition in the way in which they did.
But, Scripture is about the OT, as well as the NT and this is where the rub comes in, in theological reflection and evangelicalism's faith! Calvinism developed a "complete system" of understanding Scripture 's meaning and has become the "Christian evangelical meaning", without critiquing the historical process or context of developing that system. As theological systems answer questions about meaning and value.
But, Scripture is about the OT, as well as the NT and this is where the rub comes in, in theological reflection and evangelicalism's faith! Calvinism developed a "complete system" of understanding Scripture 's meaning and has become the "Christian evangelical meaning", without critiquing the historical process or context of developing that system. As theological systems answer questions about meaning and value.
Ancient Scripture's Meaning and Modern Man
Christians organize their life around different authorities and different activities. But, whenever one source becomes a pominient one, then we are headed for disaster. This is the case for the Chirstian Protestant evangleical Church, which interprets Scripture as their prime source of authority.
Christian scholars seek to understand the original meaning of the text, and in doing so they must use reason in addressing the questions of context, social history, and cultural history. I think that whenever we assume that the text is undestood in a certain traditional way (as Christian Scripture, for instance), without understanding how modern scholarship has come to understand the text(s) with their new investigative tools, then we are doomed to live within traditional frames, which limit reason's discovery for a new age.
Throughout Church history, the Church has sought to understand the Scriptures, and what Christ's life meant, this was done within the text in polemics and without the text, in apologetics. Tradition was what formulated around the text and became it's meaning. Today's apology cannot disregard scholarship, which is scientific investigation into sources, and meaningful dialogue with a diverse understanding of these issues.
Today's scholarship uses many "tools" in ascertaing what the text meant in ancient historical realms...
Ancient history is a valid area of "discovery", not just within the text alone, otherwise, we create a system of understanding that is not its original meaning nor intent, as ancient Greek values, ancient myths, etc. were incorporated into the Scripture, which was man seeking to make meaning and create value to and for his life...
Christian scholars seek to understand the original meaning of the text, and in doing so they must use reason in addressing the questions of context, social history, and cultural history. I think that whenever we assume that the text is undestood in a certain traditional way (as Christian Scripture, for instance), without understanding how modern scholarship has come to understand the text(s) with their new investigative tools, then we are doomed to live within traditional frames, which limit reason's discovery for a new age.
Throughout Church history, the Church has sought to understand the Scriptures, and what Christ's life meant, this was done within the text in polemics and without the text, in apologetics. Tradition was what formulated around the text and became it's meaning. Today's apology cannot disregard scholarship, which is scientific investigation into sources, and meaningful dialogue with a diverse understanding of these issues.
Today's scholarship uses many "tools" in ascertaing what the text meant in ancient historical realms...
Ancient history is a valid area of "discovery", not just within the text alone, otherwise, we create a system of understanding that is not its original meaning nor intent, as ancient Greek values, ancient myths, etc. were incorporated into the Scripture, which was man seeking to make meaning and create value to and for his life...
Thursday, January 8, 2009
The Problem With History
I have been listening to and thinking about myth and how it works in our lives. I don't really care about myth, in one sense, because myth to me is not honesty, which is factual truth or based in the real world.....This is the problem with Scripture and its message, which I find to be unbelievable.
Some, though, believe that Scripture is the scribal attempts at re-construction or re-creation of life's encounters with literature, etc. But, here is where even describing history in this way is problematic. I will try to describe the problem, at least as I see it (for I am not a scholar).
(I will change the circumstances to protect the identities of those who I am writing about)
Some think that personal history is straightforward, but it is not. There is a real objective experience of a life (a fact, based in time, based on the objective), but that very life is still understood within many contexts (social, political, spiritual). This one life exchanged information about the "facts" and understood the "problem". The problem was interpretation.
In discussing this life, it was assessed that it had no "discipline" by one judgment, but by another's judgment, this life had only had "discipline". One based their interpretation on the facts of specific occurance of punishment. The other based their understanding upon the whole message or thrust given to that life. This interpretation was a more consuming, prevasive message of "disicpline", meaning, annihlation of life through invisibility. I am sure they both thought they were right in regards to this one life. Which one was right? It depends on what one understands discipline to mean and what life means, or should mean.
So, the problem of history is one of perspective, purpose, and meaning. These problems are historical, social and contextual problems, which means that language, culture and literature is everything....
Some, though, believe that Scripture is the scribal attempts at re-construction or re-creation of life's encounters with literature, etc. But, here is where even describing history in this way is problematic. I will try to describe the problem, at least as I see it (for I am not a scholar).
(I will change the circumstances to protect the identities of those who I am writing about)
Some think that personal history is straightforward, but it is not. There is a real objective experience of a life (a fact, based in time, based on the objective), but that very life is still understood within many contexts (social, political, spiritual). This one life exchanged information about the "facts" and understood the "problem". The problem was interpretation.
In discussing this life, it was assessed that it had no "discipline" by one judgment, but by another's judgment, this life had only had "discipline". One based their interpretation on the facts of specific occurance of punishment. The other based their understanding upon the whole message or thrust given to that life. This interpretation was a more consuming, prevasive message of "disicpline", meaning, annihlation of life through invisibility. I am sure they both thought they were right in regards to this one life. Which one was right? It depends on what one understands discipline to mean and what life means, or should mean.
So, the problem of history is one of perspective, purpose, and meaning. These problems are historical, social and contextual problems, which means that language, culture and literature is everything....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
