Destiny is but a phrase of the weak human heart, the dark apology for every error. The strong and virtuous admit no destiny.
On earth conscience guides; in heaven God watches. And destiny is but the phantom we invoke to silence the one and dethrone the other.
Edward Bulwer-Lytton
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Bertrand Russell
These two quotes are relevant to those that are so cocksure about their destiny and knowledge! Those that think they understand and know everything, whether the believer or unbeliever know not what they speak! We are all ignorant in areas, and we are all in the 'dark" no matter how "enlightened", OR how much "revelation" we can understand!
Experience should teach us that none of us are immune to any of the vices of heart, that we try to "win" at another's costs! And for what, and why? For "God" or for "Man"? For the "Greater Good"? Do you suppose the costs to another when you plan your destiny?
Destiny means an "ultimate end". It can be understood by the religous to be predestination, and to the unbeliever as the "work" of "gods" (men). Oligarchies are what are made from small groups of elite that design such plans. Our Founders were not impressed by oligarchies, because they sought to defend the right of all under the "rule of law"!
Is there an "ulitmate end"? The religous believe so, as these believe in rewards and punishment in eternity, but not all religous believe such. Some believe that we are rewarded or punished in the here and now. The unbeliever believes that by his "wisdom" or "shrewdness" he earns his "keep" and people should applaud his ability to "control the situation".
Experience is a teacher, all right. A teacher that Man is just man. And that despite man's noble qualities, man can't help but flounder, faulter and fail if he has not been reflecting on his life long enough to evaluate its values as to ends. Are all 'ends" equal? Or there more noble ends, than others? Do others have a right to choose their end, or is your end the only one to be promoted? Why? Who are you?
Some presuppose that humans identify through experience! These like to promote human experiments so their "end" will be verified! Empirical evidence in human form! Others like to use sacred texts to evaluate human history! And what will the knowledge bring mankind? Of what use is it?
How do we frame our lives? How do we understand our values? What are our priorities? Why do we prioritize the way we do? What do we want to accomplish? What do we ultimately desire? and Why?
Some questions I do not know how to answer. I cannot answer them until I study further as to my frame of reference, which is nature herself. This is work that must be done. Otherwise, I will not know what I value and why? It is my life. I have only one to live and I don't believe in eternal life, heaven or hell. "From dust we came, and from dust we will return".
Showing posts with label knowledge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label knowledge. Show all posts
Friday, March 25, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Man and His Creative Mind
Ayn Rand
"Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: 'A rational animal.'"
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 58
"Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: 'A rational animal.'"
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 58
Monday, October 11, 2010
Liberty FOR Expression
The ARTS are a universal language, and I am committed to "free speech". The two complement one another in individual expressions of gifting. Free and open government is a needed environment for such development. It is the devleopment of creativity. Religion does not lend itself to liberal expression, as things are labeled as "holy" or defiled, etc.
The Reformation's destruction of many art works is a case in point. Because the Reformers believed in a literal "Thou Shalt Not Make Any Graven Image....", they believed that they had an obligation to destroy works of art that symbolized the transcendent world. How sad.
Science invents new ways of understanding reality which also challenges the religious world, because God isn't seen as the absolute cause.
Both the humanities and science have brought untold advantages and benefit to society. We must continue to protect and advance these areas of knowledge.
The Reformation's destruction of many art works is a case in point. Because the Reformers believed in a literal "Thou Shalt Not Make Any Graven Image....", they believed that they had an obligation to destroy works of art that symbolized the transcendent world. How sad.
Science invents new ways of understanding reality which also challenges the religious world, because God isn't seen as the absolute cause.
Both the humanities and science have brought untold advantages and benefit to society. We must continue to protect and advance these areas of knowledge.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Hearing Voices Is Not Rational
"Hearing God's voice" is a major emphasis in revelational faith. These people believe that God is really alive and speaks to the "chosen". Others believe that God's revelation is totally revealed in the written text of "Scripture". These believe that "God speaks" to "His chosen" through "His Word".
Recently, a radio program that "preaches" the latter, has become of concern to my husband. He has listened to this program on and off for years. But, lately, this "Bible-believing" Christian has become convinced that he knows the date of Christ's return, May 21st, 2011!
Why has this become of concern? First, this person's ministry was the "dot and tittle" of the written "Word", but has now become a "rhema Word". What changed this person and how did he become so convinced that he would suggest that those who don't adhere to the May 21st date are not "saved"?!? Has this person become deluded? demented? What caused the change and how does he "know" what he "knows"?
This is why revelational religious claims are not dependable ways of "doing business" in the "real world", where rationality is needed, so that "contracts" can be negotiated and the terms met. Contracts, whether social, or business are based on laws that define the terms and conditions of such relationships. This is why personal words, such as "love" is not the way to term such "real world" problems.
"Hearing voices" is how spiritual leaders many times lead those that have belief in such ways of 'knowing". These do not accept the naturalistic way of understanding such voices, and this is dangerous, as it leads to emphatic demands and fearful reactions about "God's will", which limits others in their understandings. And it damages diversity, and creates religious wars.
Recently, a radio program that "preaches" the latter, has become of concern to my husband. He has listened to this program on and off for years. But, lately, this "Bible-believing" Christian has become convinced that he knows the date of Christ's return, May 21st, 2011!
Why has this become of concern? First, this person's ministry was the "dot and tittle" of the written "Word", but has now become a "rhema Word". What changed this person and how did he become so convinced that he would suggest that those who don't adhere to the May 21st date are not "saved"?!? Has this person become deluded? demented? What caused the change and how does he "know" what he "knows"?
This is why revelational religious claims are not dependable ways of "doing business" in the "real world", where rationality is needed, so that "contracts" can be negotiated and the terms met. Contracts, whether social, or business are based on laws that define the terms and conditions of such relationships. This is why personal words, such as "love" is not the way to term such "real world" problems.
"Hearing voices" is how spiritual leaders many times lead those that have belief in such ways of 'knowing". These do not accept the naturalistic way of understanding such voices, and this is dangerous, as it leads to emphatic demands and fearful reactions about "God's will", which limits others in their understandings. And it damages diversity, and creates religious wars.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
An "Enlightenment" to One's Own Bias
Today, I realized that whenever one has an agenda, there is biased opinion. Things that are read, or heard are "heard" with that "frame" in mind. This "frame", in turn, predisposes one to connect and make associations, that are not in what is read or heard. This the the major problem of reporting objectively. We all have bias, don't we?
Why would I assume that everyone has bias? Would it be that humans are context bound and are dependent beings on what they know, and what effect that has had on them? The totality of an experience, in sense and formal education, is the important thing to recognize. One person's highlight, is another's bland boredom. Why would this be? Expectations and information.
Our expectations do predispose us and bias us toward how we experience and understand. Whenever we expect "ideals" to be realized, most usually, we are disappointed, at least, if we expect these disconnected with the "real world" of less than ideal contexts and people.
Our expectations may disappoint, but not as sorely as when we have knowledge. Knowledge equips us for the real world, and not an ideal one. The pragmatist knows and understands the limitations of life and is prepared to embrace what comes into one's experience.
Today, while attempting to interact on a blog, I was told that I had run away with "the store", so to speak. By the time I had ended my "interaction", there was little connection to what had been shared. Why was this so? I had an agenda.
Because of recent politics, I have grave concern over our nation and its future. Therefore, I sought to understand America's origins, its Founders, and understand how politicians and the populace were understanding the issues and contexts they were in. This set me on a course for over the last couple of years, that has fascinated me. My worldview was challenged and changed. I will never be the same. But, in the mean-time, until I "settle", then I will probably "read" into the things I am reading, gleaning what I "need" to fill in the gaps of my understanding....This presupposition limits my critical ability to engage the issues before me. But, then, again, I want independence of thought. I do not desire to be spoon-fed. But, I do desire to be educated, by the educated.
In conclusion, we must undestand whenever we have agendas or things that are being reconciled in our lives and thinking. For if we are not careful, we will misunderstand and miscommunicate. And others will be baffled over how we have come to our conclusions. So, be aware of where you are, before you speak and think before you write. Otherwise, people will not be any better off, than before you opened your mouth or picked up your pen.
Why would I assume that everyone has bias? Would it be that humans are context bound and are dependent beings on what they know, and what effect that has had on them? The totality of an experience, in sense and formal education, is the important thing to recognize. One person's highlight, is another's bland boredom. Why would this be? Expectations and information.
Our expectations do predispose us and bias us toward how we experience and understand. Whenever we expect "ideals" to be realized, most usually, we are disappointed, at least, if we expect these disconnected with the "real world" of less than ideal contexts and people.
Our expectations may disappoint, but not as sorely as when we have knowledge. Knowledge equips us for the real world, and not an ideal one. The pragmatist knows and understands the limitations of life and is prepared to embrace what comes into one's experience.
Today, while attempting to interact on a blog, I was told that I had run away with "the store", so to speak. By the time I had ended my "interaction", there was little connection to what had been shared. Why was this so? I had an agenda.
Because of recent politics, I have grave concern over our nation and its future. Therefore, I sought to understand America's origins, its Founders, and understand how politicians and the populace were understanding the issues and contexts they were in. This set me on a course for over the last couple of years, that has fascinated me. My worldview was challenged and changed. I will never be the same. But, in the mean-time, until I "settle", then I will probably "read" into the things I am reading, gleaning what I "need" to fill in the gaps of my understanding....This presupposition limits my critical ability to engage the issues before me. But, then, again, I want independence of thought. I do not desire to be spoon-fed. But, I do desire to be educated, by the educated.
In conclusion, we must undestand whenever we have agendas or things that are being reconciled in our lives and thinking. For if we are not careful, we will misunderstand and miscommunicate. And others will be baffled over how we have come to our conclusions. So, be aware of where you are, before you speak and think before you write. Otherwise, people will not be any better off, than before you opened your mouth or picked up your pen.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Philosophy is Not Palatable to the Fundamentalist
Philosophy is how we understand or our ability to know what we know. Some think that one aspect of understanding is "all there is". But, there are many aspects of understanding and knowing about the world.
ge
Knowledge is understood as reason's ability to grasp or understand the real world in investigation and analysis. This is where the Academy excels and explores. But, reason is not the only avenue of understanding or analyzing the world.
Experience is the common person's understanding of life. Experience give wisdom to those that are open to grasp and grapple with life. But, wisdom is not an absolutist position, but a tenuable one, because experience helps to temper and tame the most ardent ideologues. But, experience without knowledge is blind in some ways and cannot speak in terms that are more palatable to larger audiences.
Religion understands itself through texts, and tradition. These help to form the culture of a society. But religion's knowledge can be damaging to others without understanding experience's wisdom and the Academy's knowledge. Religion creates the environment of society's social norms and values. Without religion then, there is little or no ability to appeal to a "higher authority" to gain a 'ear" or exert a moral influence in society in maintaining social control.
Philosophy is understanding that knowledge itself is created or formed within certain frames of reference, vision, passion, and concern. These ways of reference and vision should never be seen as absolute, otherwise, we create an environment shorn of the diversity that enlarges the world and its complexity. And whenever we limit the world and human beings in this way, we cultivate a climate that dismisses the humane for the "ideal" in "two-dimensional" universe.
ge
Knowledge is understood as reason's ability to grasp or understand the real world in investigation and analysis. This is where the Academy excels and explores. But, reason is not the only avenue of understanding or analyzing the world.
Experience is the common person's understanding of life. Experience give wisdom to those that are open to grasp and grapple with life. But, wisdom is not an absolutist position, but a tenuable one, because experience helps to temper and tame the most ardent ideologues. But, experience without knowledge is blind in some ways and cannot speak in terms that are more palatable to larger audiences.
Religion understands itself through texts, and tradition. These help to form the culture of a society. But religion's knowledge can be damaging to others without understanding experience's wisdom and the Academy's knowledge. Religion creates the environment of society's social norms and values. Without religion then, there is little or no ability to appeal to a "higher authority" to gain a 'ear" or exert a moral influence in society in maintaining social control.
Philosophy is understanding that knowledge itself is created or formed within certain frames of reference, vision, passion, and concern. These ways of reference and vision should never be seen as absolute, otherwise, we create an environment shorn of the diversity that enlarges the world and its complexity. And whenever we limit the world and human beings in this way, we cultivate a climate that dismisses the humane for the "ideal" in "two-dimensional" universe.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Theology and Philosophy?
Theology assumes God exists. The question for the theologian is how to defend God in today's world of scientific exploration. Many have given an "apologetic" for the faith, as this is what the Church Fathers did throughout Church history. This is the stance of the theologian; faith in using philosophy to formulate thier particular theological "form". But, is faith in faith viable, really? How do you use reason? Do you depend on experience? I think this is a dangerous stance.
While the theologian assumes God, the philosopher does not. He begins with reason as his resource, but those philosophers who believe in God have faith in reason and seek to explain God within that frame through the disciplines.
Other philosophers, whether agnostic or atheistic, do not believe that God actually exists, but that God is a "function" within society or for the individual. These believe in the development of persons and societies because God is a needed resource for those whose contexts have been "barren".
Agnostics don't really want to defend God, as they are humanists at heart and think that this is the proper focus of life. If God exists, the agnostic believes that God's interaction with the world remains a mystery as we cannot observe God's intervention directly, except through faith.
Atheists believe that God only functions as an illusion in one's mind that is a needed representation of the mind, so development can occur.
Which one are you? Do you begin with faith, assuming God's existance, or do you have faith in reason, as God's gift, and believe that one can ascertain God in whatever one encounters in faith?
Or do you hold God tentatively, because there is no way to "prove" God. God has to be a presuppostion.
Or are you an atheist that believes that "god" is good because he is useful for a purpose?
While the theologian assumes God, the philosopher does not. He begins with reason as his resource, but those philosophers who believe in God have faith in reason and seek to explain God within that frame through the disciplines.
Other philosophers, whether agnostic or atheistic, do not believe that God actually exists, but that God is a "function" within society or for the individual. These believe in the development of persons and societies because God is a needed resource for those whose contexts have been "barren".
Agnostics don't really want to defend God, as they are humanists at heart and think that this is the proper focus of life. If God exists, the agnostic believes that God's interaction with the world remains a mystery as we cannot observe God's intervention directly, except through faith.
Atheists believe that God only functions as an illusion in one's mind that is a needed representation of the mind, so development can occur.
Which one are you? Do you begin with faith, assuming God's existance, or do you have faith in reason, as God's gift, and believe that one can ascertain God in whatever one encounters in faith?
Or do you hold God tentatively, because there is no way to "prove" God. God has to be a presuppostion.
Or are you an atheist that believes that "god" is good because he is useful for a purpose?
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Power Politics and Freedom of Information
Knowledge is power and if you can keep others from knowing what is going on behind the scenes, then the people in the know can thrawt the social contract. I hope there are people aware of what is going on in our country to hold others accountable and not allow power to rule access to knowledge about our nation's business.
Social contract is the result of negotiating interests, coming to terms with differences, giving equal respect between employer and employee. A contract is a binding agreement of known variables. Our representatives are to represent the electorate's interests, not their own interests. But, it seems that sometimes interests collide and this is what power politics determines, who wins the argument. but, these arguments cannot be had, if power limits the discussion in the first place.
Social contract is based on democratic ideals, where reason is the cash of discussion. Woe be to those who live in societies where freedom of information is limited and power determines "what will be". We will no longer be free, but enslaved to those who think they do "what's right", because they are "in the know".
Social contract is the result of negotiating interests, coming to terms with differences, giving equal respect between employer and employee. A contract is a binding agreement of known variables. Our representatives are to represent the electorate's interests, not their own interests. But, it seems that sometimes interests collide and this is what power politics determines, who wins the argument. but, these arguments cannot be had, if power limits the discussion in the first place.
Social contract is based on democratic ideals, where reason is the cash of discussion. Woe be to those who live in societies where freedom of information is limited and power determines "what will be". We will no longer be free, but enslaved to those who think they do "what's right", because they are "in the know".
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Knowledgy, Social Construction and Reality
We form our identities from our cultures, which contain the values, mores, and traditions that define our lives. Identities are culturally bound until education enlightens our minds to another reality, which is larger than our previous "world". This is growth and change.
People who are educated are informed to a larger context than specific communities, or specific cultures. Cultures are defined by religious tradition, which are limited ways of understanding. This limitation breeds environments of prejuidice, as it defines right and wrong upon supernaturalistic understandings, which are usually absolute in understanding.
Reason, on the other hand, is necessary for man's understanding of his own values, opinions, and convictions. It is ethical development, not spiritual development that is a necessary focus.
Although reason is absolute as far as the individual's development in critical thinking and evaluation of convictions, reason cannot be absolute in determination of another's reality. Therefore, in organizational structures, there must be a room for each individual to find their place, or to "get out". Leadership is the determining drivers behind organizations. Each organization has a vision or purpose that drives their goals. These goals must be in line with the individual's desires, convictions, and purposes. This is the proper order and structuring of free socieities.
People who are educated are informed to a larger context than specific communities, or specific cultures. Cultures are defined by religious tradition, which are limited ways of understanding. This limitation breeds environments of prejuidice, as it defines right and wrong upon supernaturalistic understandings, which are usually absolute in understanding.
Reason, on the other hand, is necessary for man's understanding of his own values, opinions, and convictions. It is ethical development, not spiritual development that is a necessary focus.
Although reason is absolute as far as the individual's development in critical thinking and evaluation of convictions, reason cannot be absolute in determination of another's reality. Therefore, in organizational structures, there must be a room for each individual to find their place, or to "get out". Leadership is the determining drivers behind organizations. Each organization has a vision or purpose that drives their goals. These goals must be in line with the individual's desires, convictions, and purposes. This is the proper order and structuring of free socieities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
