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 meaning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label meaning. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Monday, December 26, 2011
Colors Through Life Experiences....and Their Personal Meaning
This morning a friend posted this statement on FB, "Today, some folks have to worry about running a country or keeping a multi-billion dollar business afloat. I just have to find a pink cowgirl hat."
My mind immediately tried to connect the three aspects together, which is a usual for me, as all of us try to understand what another person means by what they say or write. As the statement was meant not to CONNECT these three, but distinguish these three, I had made a categorical error in my evaluation about the meaning of the statement! She was making a comment about her grand-daughter's preferences and how she would meet those desires and how she didn't have the responsibility to oversee a government or business. And this was her emphasis about finding a Pink cowgirl hat!
When I came around to correcting myself, by reading the other comments, we "talked" about our color preferences as children, as not all girls like Pink as little girls. I preferred Red, while my friend emphasized her like for shiny things, not the usual doll. She focused on the tangible toy, while I focused on the abstract color preference.
Some people continue to love the color they loved as children, and the color defines them, while others change their preferences. I think I have come to love all colors, and the colors I've particularly been drawn to at a point in time have represented aspects of my emotional values.
Red was the color of choice as a little girl. It stood for vibrancy and life. But, when I grew toward puberty, I preferred orange. Orange is red with yellow added. Yellow produces anxiety and energy. Both expressed my entrance into puberty. When I got into the real world of dating, I preferred Green, which is yellow plus blue. Blue was the cool and calm comfort with the contrasting mix of anxiety and energy. I was attempting to find love through my college years and it represented what I sought and the effect it had on me.
When asked what my favorite color is today, I find it really hard to decide! I think it is because life has so many expressions and experiences that can't be contained in one color! That is how I "see" and understand things in my life! I just know that in decorating I love contrast! I love to see the differences and distinctions of color! And I prefer for those distinctions to play off of each other! That makes life exciting and diverse and not the drab, colorless world of beiges.
Greys are different from beiges as they combine a negative and postive, but beiges combine black with yellow and dilute it with white. Blah. Therefore, grey has become a color I enjoy.
What do colors mean and how have you come to understand them in your life, whether their emotional impact, and meaning or your decorative choice and value?
My mind immediately tried to connect the three aspects together, which is a usual for me, as all of us try to understand what another person means by what they say or write. As the statement was meant not to CONNECT these three, but distinguish these three, I had made a categorical error in my evaluation about the meaning of the statement! She was making a comment about her grand-daughter's preferences and how she would meet those desires and how she didn't have the responsibility to oversee a government or business. And this was her emphasis about finding a Pink cowgirl hat!
When I came around to correcting myself, by reading the other comments, we "talked" about our color preferences as children, as not all girls like Pink as little girls. I preferred Red, while my friend emphasized her like for shiny things, not the usual doll. She focused on the tangible toy, while I focused on the abstract color preference.
Some people continue to love the color they loved as children, and the color defines them, while others change their preferences. I think I have come to love all colors, and the colors I've particularly been drawn to at a point in time have represented aspects of my emotional values.
Red was the color of choice as a little girl. It stood for vibrancy and life. But, when I grew toward puberty, I preferred orange. Orange is red with yellow added. Yellow produces anxiety and energy. Both expressed my entrance into puberty. When I got into the real world of dating, I preferred Green, which is yellow plus blue. Blue was the cool and calm comfort with the contrasting mix of anxiety and energy. I was attempting to find love through my college years and it represented what I sought and the effect it had on me.
When asked what my favorite color is today, I find it really hard to decide! I think it is because life has so many expressions and experiences that can't be contained in one color! That is how I "see" and understand things in my life! I just know that in decorating I love contrast! I love to see the differences and distinctions of color! And I prefer for those distinctions to play off of each other! That makes life exciting and diverse and not the drab, colorless world of beiges.
Greys are different from beiges as they combine a negative and postive, but beiges combine black with yellow and dilute it with white. Blah. Therefore, grey has become a color I enjoy.
What do colors mean and how have you come to understand them in your life, whether their emotional impact, and meaning or your decorative choice and value?
One Cannot Universalize the Personal Within the Political Realm!
Humans have basic needs, which cannot be prioritized universally, but must remain the realm of the personal, as we are individuals that "make our way" within our various contexts.
The liberal wants to universalize what has to remain personal (a choice of value in the political world). And the conservative wants to universalize meaning, which has to also remain personal. Both the political life of a person and the "meaning" of life for the person must be made within a liberal form of government that does not oversee or overintend "the personal"!!! That is if the person of to remain "free" not just in a "Transcendent" sense, but a real and political sense!!!!!
The liberal wants to universalize what has to remain personal (a choice of value in the political world). And the conservative wants to universalize meaning, which has to also remain personal. Both the political life of a person and the "meaning" of life for the person must be made within a liberal form of government that does not oversee or overintend "the personal"!!! That is if the person of to remain "free" not just in a "Transcendent" sense, but a real and political sense!!!!!
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Church Gets Less Interesting and Threatening to the Personal
The message this morning was an emphasis on self-reflection, which was "well taken" and the pastor had some good observations about what the world would say to the Church. But, the whole idea of the message was a stumbling block to me. Why?
The message was taken from Jonah. The pastor spoke to the Church, as if the Church was Jonah. Jonah was the "prophet of God" who was running from what "God had called him to do". In the process of running away from God, Jonah causes difficulties to others, due to God's anger shown in a storm, which is capsizing the ship.
Though our minds look for causes, Biblical imagery makes for a pre-sceintific view of reality. When the storm came, it was caused by the "supernatural God" due to "sin". The unbelieving sailors were seeking an answer to their "weather problem" and calling out to "their gods". Jonah is disobeying "God's will" by not sharing "the Gospel". Some believers still believe that there is a direct correlation of cause and effect to "God". This is a primitive understanding of the weather, and an 'intervening God". And understanding "Jonah's predicament" as a direct "message from God" is a little presumptuous, to say the least.
The pastor's point in the sermon was "well taken", though, as he suggested that believers have as much to learn from the "unconverted" as the converted think they have to offer the "unconverted". But, the pastor was still suggesting that there is something "more" to Christianity, than humanism, or humanity. The difference is "holiness", which is a perfection in/of love.
I wonder how this pastor sees this perfection coming about? "Love" is a personal word, and is not a value or does not function in the political realm. The real world functions on "power", and the pastor suggested that those that serve "God" should do so at "great sacrifice". A "God" that demands human sacrifice isn't becoming to me. Such a "God" is a primitive view of "political power". This seems oddly "out of place", when one talks of 'love". He mentioned John Wesley's attempt to convert the 'noble Savages" (the Indians) and his experience at Aldersgate. He suggested that there was some "preparatory work" that had to be done in Wesley's heart before Wesley would be open to an experience such as Aldersgate. The preparation required for Wesley was "failure" in his missionary attempt to convert the Indians.
I find that "perfection" itself is wrongly focused, for whenever one finds themselves "perfected", then is there no more need to grow or become? This is a dangerous idea and belief because it compels those that believe this way to "perform", rather than "be", besides the ideas behind supernaturalism and an intervening "God'.
But, those that believe that they are "called" to a "Divine Destiny" are also a danger, because these believe that what they have to accomplish is mandated by "God Almighty" and it is THEIR responsibility and duty to follow through!!! This belief can damage the peace of the nation, as these will be passionate, and convicted about their "mission". Such zeal was never in our Founder's intent or persona!!! The Founders were level headed and rational.
The bottom line for me, is that people are people. All of us seek significance and value. Some of us find it in religion, and when we do, our identity is caught up in such beliefs. Others find their significance or value within our family or our jobs. Humans are seeking meaning. And "life" in a free society should allow everyone to find meaning however they want to. This is the value of Liberty. And such liberty will bring the nation "happiness" and peace, because we all are agreeing that we might differ in how we answer those questions about meaning and purpose!!!Otherwise, we will find ourselves warring against ourselves and destroying the very thing that allows us the liberty to pursue our own meaning!!!
The message was taken from Jonah. The pastor spoke to the Church, as if the Church was Jonah. Jonah was the "prophet of God" who was running from what "God had called him to do". In the process of running away from God, Jonah causes difficulties to others, due to God's anger shown in a storm, which is capsizing the ship.
Though our minds look for causes, Biblical imagery makes for a pre-sceintific view of reality. When the storm came, it was caused by the "supernatural God" due to "sin". The unbelieving sailors were seeking an answer to their "weather problem" and calling out to "their gods". Jonah is disobeying "God's will" by not sharing "the Gospel". Some believers still believe that there is a direct correlation of cause and effect to "God". This is a primitive understanding of the weather, and an 'intervening God". And understanding "Jonah's predicament" as a direct "message from God" is a little presumptuous, to say the least.
The pastor's point in the sermon was "well taken", though, as he suggested that believers have as much to learn from the "unconverted" as the converted think they have to offer the "unconverted". But, the pastor was still suggesting that there is something "more" to Christianity, than humanism, or humanity. The difference is "holiness", which is a perfection in/of love.
I wonder how this pastor sees this perfection coming about? "Love" is a personal word, and is not a value or does not function in the political realm. The real world functions on "power", and the pastor suggested that those that serve "God" should do so at "great sacrifice". A "God" that demands human sacrifice isn't becoming to me. Such a "God" is a primitive view of "political power". This seems oddly "out of place", when one talks of 'love". He mentioned John Wesley's attempt to convert the 'noble Savages" (the Indians) and his experience at Aldersgate. He suggested that there was some "preparatory work" that had to be done in Wesley's heart before Wesley would be open to an experience such as Aldersgate. The preparation required for Wesley was "failure" in his missionary attempt to convert the Indians.
I find that "perfection" itself is wrongly focused, for whenever one finds themselves "perfected", then is there no more need to grow or become? This is a dangerous idea and belief because it compels those that believe this way to "perform", rather than "be", besides the ideas behind supernaturalism and an intervening "God'.
But, those that believe that they are "called" to a "Divine Destiny" are also a danger, because these believe that what they have to accomplish is mandated by "God Almighty" and it is THEIR responsibility and duty to follow through!!! This belief can damage the peace of the nation, as these will be passionate, and convicted about their "mission". Such zeal was never in our Founder's intent or persona!!! The Founders were level headed and rational.
The bottom line for me, is that people are people. All of us seek significance and value. Some of us find it in religion, and when we do, our identity is caught up in such beliefs. Others find their significance or value within our family or our jobs. Humans are seeking meaning. And "life" in a free society should allow everyone to find meaning however they want to. This is the value of Liberty. And such liberty will bring the nation "happiness" and peace, because we all are agreeing that we might differ in how we answer those questions about meaning and purpose!!!Otherwise, we will find ourselves warring against ourselves and destroying the very thing that allows us the liberty to pursue our own meaning!!!
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Is Historical Evolution the Way to Evaluate Everything....?
Evolution is the way that some evaluate everything, but is this the right srtategy for "human flourishing? That is really the question, when one assumes that the "natural" describes everything...as in "wholism" or historicism. The difficulty in thinking in "wholistic" terms, is the problem of "thinking", itself, because "wholism" isn't logical, because everything is interdependent. That becomes a problem for liberty of conscience, because strategy is imperative to "measure success". "Thinking" is only for those who are the elites, others are to "trust and obey" and "do their duty".
Wholism is Eastern thinking, as paradox is embraced, it is dialetical thinking, where a synthesis of opposites creates a supposedly "better" outcome. It is Marxist economics in "human form", or "humans" heralding "Marxist" economical theory or equality. It is the "use" of the "poor" for the sake of "eltie"s "outcomes" and plans...
There is a philosophical dilemma between an "elite" and a "equal" society. This isn't resolvable, if one really wants to affirm the individual, as the individual must determine his own course for his life. But, when some "elite" determines (or strategically plans) how goals are to be accomplished, "the people" aren't enjoined. Theirs is the "right" of serving the interests of "the common good", for universal purposes and human evolution, both personal and corporate.. Egalitarianism is an "ideal", but not practical, as "leadership" is needed if any "goal or outcome" is to be accomplished! Therefore, choose your leaders wisely, as you will suffer the consequences!
The problem is "who is to be the leader" and how do those leaders "see" or understand "elite" and "equal"? Do they believe in liberty of conscience, where individuals are allowed the right to choose, or do they believe in a pre-determining "force" or "wholistic agenda" driven by ignoring those they lead? That is of interest "to all people" who believe and affirm "equality and justice"....as group identity will not lead us in the right direction, as it doesn't leave room for dissent, free thought, or difference....the globe cannot give us any universal..And those that believe in "wholism" are just "selling a bill of good" to those they want to manipulate toward what they believe is "human progress", and human development......Terms need to be defined, if there is to be any "consensus" about meaning.....and meaning is everything in living in a free society!!
Wholism is Eastern thinking, as paradox is embraced, it is dialetical thinking, where a synthesis of opposites creates a supposedly "better" outcome. It is Marxist economics in "human form", or "humans" heralding "Marxist" economical theory or equality. It is the "use" of the "poor" for the sake of "eltie"s "outcomes" and plans...
There is a philosophical dilemma between an "elite" and a "equal" society. This isn't resolvable, if one really wants to affirm the individual, as the individual must determine his own course for his life. But, when some "elite" determines (or strategically plans) how goals are to be accomplished, "the people" aren't enjoined. Theirs is the "right" of serving the interests of "the common good", for universal purposes and human evolution, both personal and corporate.. Egalitarianism is an "ideal", but not practical, as "leadership" is needed if any "goal or outcome" is to be accomplished! Therefore, choose your leaders wisely, as you will suffer the consequences!
The problem is "who is to be the leader" and how do those leaders "see" or understand "elite" and "equal"? Do they believe in liberty of conscience, where individuals are allowed the right to choose, or do they believe in a pre-determining "force" or "wholistic agenda" driven by ignoring those they lead? That is of interest "to all people" who believe and affirm "equality and justice"....as group identity will not lead us in the right direction, as it doesn't leave room for dissent, free thought, or difference....the globe cannot give us any universal..And those that believe in "wholism" are just "selling a bill of good" to those they want to manipulate toward what they believe is "human progress", and human development......Terms need to be defined, if there is to be any "consensus" about meaning.....and meaning is everything in living in a free society!!
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Myth Brings Meaning
Myth is known by anthropologists to bring meaning to a certain culture. And meaning is "made" or created by mythologizing history.
This morning started my thinking on myth-making. As my husband and I were discussing my grandfather and his present physical needs, I recognized that human beings love to "romanticize" their history. This is why many times we like to reminisce over the "younger years". I have been told that many mothers would not choose to have any more children, if they really remembered the reality of labor. Somehow our brains release a relaxing chemical that promotes "memory loss". And sometimes there is actual medication to further that memory loss!
Myths make for stories that we tell our children and hold meaning of ideals that help further our goals. This is what I think has happened in our culture wars.
The real history we may never really know, but scholars do have some knowledge about that "real history", as they struggle to piece it together. But, those that have agendas that must be won, mythologize history to suit their purposes. The Church has always done this, as this is what theology is about.
Our culture wars are about where science and tradition intersect, disconnect, or compliment. One political philosopher has a two culture system or way of understanding the real and the ideal. The ideal is for the common person, who must have myth to soothe their situations in life. But, the real history is for "men' who have cut their teeth on the hard discipline of discovery.
Thus, the disciplines are about the disciplined mind, which is strengthened by reality, not subsumed, or defensive toward reality. Which culture do you fit? The idealized version, or the real reality of existence in a real world?
This morning started my thinking on myth-making. As my husband and I were discussing my grandfather and his present physical needs, I recognized that human beings love to "romanticize" their history. This is why many times we like to reminisce over the "younger years". I have been told that many mothers would not choose to have any more children, if they really remembered the reality of labor. Somehow our brains release a relaxing chemical that promotes "memory loss". And sometimes there is actual medication to further that memory loss!
Myths make for stories that we tell our children and hold meaning of ideals that help further our goals. This is what I think has happened in our culture wars.
The real history we may never really know, but scholars do have some knowledge about that "real history", as they struggle to piece it together. But, those that have agendas that must be won, mythologize history to suit their purposes. The Church has always done this, as this is what theology is about.
Our culture wars are about where science and tradition intersect, disconnect, or compliment. One political philosopher has a two culture system or way of understanding the real and the ideal. The ideal is for the common person, who must have myth to soothe their situations in life. But, the real history is for "men' who have cut their teeth on the hard discipline of discovery.
Thus, the disciplines are about the disciplined mind, which is strengthened by reality, not subsumed, or defensive toward reality. Which culture do you fit? The idealized version, or the real reality of existence in a real world?
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Literalistic Bible Thumping "Models of Reality"
As I mentioned in my last post, my husband gave a lecture on his "Faith and Society" course.
Another important dimension to his course is the teaching of "models of reality". A model of reality is a type of "worldview", but is not a cultural worldview, but a naturalistic/supernaturalistic view of reality. This view is based in one's understanding of God, cosmos, and personability of God, as well as man, man's understanding of God and man's response to God. Is God the intiator, as Calvin supposed? Or is man the reasoned being, that presupposes "God"?
"Models of God" must be understood within these paradigms as they drive how we understand "theology", the "world", "culture", human beings and history.
The traditional view is a salvation history view. Jesus is God's ultimate purpose and focus in history, as Jesus is the "way of salvation". This view believes that a personal God directs the events of history using a specific nation, Israel, to perform his purpose and plan for the world.
It is an objective, hisorical, realist, and literalist view of Scripture.
A more subjective view would view God as the "divine influence" in a person's innate nature. This view views the individual as a possiblity/potentiality that needs development and direction. Determination is not the focus, as God is not personally involved, but has imprinted his image upon man. The person must respond to what God has gifted within. Salvation is viewed as fulfilling one's life purpose or plan. God's plan is more subjectively understood.
A developmental view would understand God as irrelavant, except for human development. Scripture is only useful for the purpose of 'helping" the individual to "respond" to their innate "God consciousness". Through their interaction with scripture and others in community, "God conscieousness" is re-inforced and the person responds uniquely to "meaning" within the context of community.
As I have shared, the meaning of Scripture and community has collapsed into the "normal" for me. There is no distinction for me between the sacred and secular and it irritates me when I think others "enforce" their "model of reality" upon me or anyone else. Faith is the "model of reality" that "reads" everything that "happens". In this case, Job's "model" had collapsed, and he was struggling to understand, while "Job's comforters" "read" Job's life in another way, a theologized one.
On another blog, I sometimes read, it was mentioned that there is disagreement as to how to understand "Paul's Gospel". Some believe in a "Justification by Faith"(Calvin/Lutheran), while others believe in a "moral model" approach (Catholic/Methodist/Wesleyan). But, what about an approach that leaves the individual, as the cogent interpreter? All could be understood as "models" of understanding. Faith is the primary means of grasping meaning. But, is faith necessary in supernaturalistic 'models"? That is the question that cannot be answered.
Since meaning is understood as a personal message of faith. This is only experienced when people are open or are "needy". Whenever a person outgrows a meaning of the "Gospel", or the "meaning" becomes insignificant for "other reasons", "faith in the Gospel" dies.
Scriptures then cease to have any authoriatative power, as it is viewed from a more "objective perspective". I think this view leaves room for individual development, group response to meaning, and interpretive influences.
Nihlism does not have to be the result of "loosing faith". Naive faith is just that, a childish understanding, a need-based interpretation, or a social signification.
Another important dimension to his course is the teaching of "models of reality". A model of reality is a type of "worldview", but is not a cultural worldview, but a naturalistic/supernaturalistic view of reality. This view is based in one's understanding of God, cosmos, and personability of God, as well as man, man's understanding of God and man's response to God. Is God the intiator, as Calvin supposed? Or is man the reasoned being, that presupposes "God"?
"Models of God" must be understood within these paradigms as they drive how we understand "theology", the "world", "culture", human beings and history.
The traditional view is a salvation history view. Jesus is God's ultimate purpose and focus in history, as Jesus is the "way of salvation". This view believes that a personal God directs the events of history using a specific nation, Israel, to perform his purpose and plan for the world.
It is an objective, hisorical, realist, and literalist view of Scripture.
A more subjective view would view God as the "divine influence" in a person's innate nature. This view views the individual as a possiblity/potentiality that needs development and direction. Determination is not the focus, as God is not personally involved, but has imprinted his image upon man. The person must respond to what God has gifted within. Salvation is viewed as fulfilling one's life purpose or plan. God's plan is more subjectively understood.
A developmental view would understand God as irrelavant, except for human development. Scripture is only useful for the purpose of 'helping" the individual to "respond" to their innate "God consciousness". Through their interaction with scripture and others in community, "God conscieousness" is re-inforced and the person responds uniquely to "meaning" within the context of community.
As I have shared, the meaning of Scripture and community has collapsed into the "normal" for me. There is no distinction for me between the sacred and secular and it irritates me when I think others "enforce" their "model of reality" upon me or anyone else. Faith is the "model of reality" that "reads" everything that "happens". In this case, Job's "model" had collapsed, and he was struggling to understand, while "Job's comforters" "read" Job's life in another way, a theologized one.
On another blog, I sometimes read, it was mentioned that there is disagreement as to how to understand "Paul's Gospel". Some believe in a "Justification by Faith"(Calvin/Lutheran), while others believe in a "moral model" approach (Catholic/Methodist/Wesleyan). But, what about an approach that leaves the individual, as the cogent interpreter? All could be understood as "models" of understanding. Faith is the primary means of grasping meaning. But, is faith necessary in supernaturalistic 'models"? That is the question that cannot be answered.
Since meaning is understood as a personal message of faith. This is only experienced when people are open or are "needy". Whenever a person outgrows a meaning of the "Gospel", or the "meaning" becomes insignificant for "other reasons", "faith in the Gospel" dies.
Scriptures then cease to have any authoriatative power, as it is viewed from a more "objective perspective". I think this view leaves room for individual development, group response to meaning, and interpretive influences.
Nihlism does not have to be the result of "loosing faith". Naive faith is just that, a childish understanding, a need-based interpretation, or a social signification.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Misunderstandings and Such
I have been told that I "take the ball and run" when I respond on another blog site. I have been told more than once, so there must be some truth to this. As I reflected on this, I have some 'theories about why this may be so...
1.) these who say I am "re-inventing the wheel" may have certain understandings that I do not have, so my response is "off kilter" to them. I have a different frame of reference than theirs. For instance, if someone thinks that you should be feeling guilt about something, then they will think that you "project" your guilt in your responses. They are prejudiced in a certain way, because of their own personal convictions, or bias.
2.) I have different definitions to my words, therefore, when I read their site, I "hear" something different from what they meant.
3.) I have different "interests" so what I extrapolate takes the discussion in a different direction from the one intended..
4.) I have a learning disorder.
Which one (or all) is true? and how do I know? or how do I find out?
1.) these who say I am "re-inventing the wheel" may have certain understandings that I do not have, so my response is "off kilter" to them. I have a different frame of reference than theirs. For instance, if someone thinks that you should be feeling guilt about something, then they will think that you "project" your guilt in your responses. They are prejudiced in a certain way, because of their own personal convictions, or bias.
2.) I have different definitions to my words, therefore, when I read their site, I "hear" something different from what they meant.
3.) I have different "interests" so what I extrapolate takes the discussion in a different direction from the one intended..
4.) I have a learning disorder.
Which one (or all) is true? and how do I know? or how do I find out?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Scripture's Impact on the Individual and Personal Identity in American Society
Scripture has been useful to impact the individual's "self-concept" as a special creation of God. A life filled with purpose and a future hope of rewards fill the heart of every evangelical believer. But, these understandings are a limited view of what it means to be "human".
These believers for the most part have "experienced" God's grace and seen it's manifestation within "community", where the experience is re-enforced with "belonging". Believers who believe that God inhabits these communities range the gambit from fundamentalists who believe in the literal understanding of Scripture, to the charismatic, who "finds" meaning not just within
Scripture, but also in ongoing "revelations" of the "Spirit". There are many colors in between these distinctives, which are "translated" into community through the understandings of Scripture.
Paul Tillich understood the continual "division" of the "Protestant Principle". But, the divisions have not always been along the lines of Scripture but also understandings of "god", and culture. The Jewish religion broke down in understanding of sectarians (Essenes), resurrection of the dead (Pharisees) or no resurrection (Sadduccees). Religion defines itself in numerous ways.
Individuals within traditions come to understand themselves as identified with these interpretive understandings. Meaning and significance come along with a sense of belonging and value.
But, these "messages" of significance, meaning and belonging are not just understood within religious traditions, but also other social structures, such as family, vocation and ethnicity. Individuals do not have the fullest understanding of the "human" without these social contexts. As apart from social contexts, the individual ceases to "belong" and in a sense, ceases "to be". We are known and we know, as we experience communal ways of understanding, as well as embracing the "otherness of the other".
American identity, in this sense, is a unique one, as it allows individuality in understanding and places significance of the individual's importance to society as a whole. Apart from the individual's unique understandings, giftings, and inclusion, society suffers from a lack of innovation, or creativity, which hinders the colorfulness of the "whole of society" and limits what it means to be "human".
These believers for the most part have "experienced" God's grace and seen it's manifestation within "community", where the experience is re-enforced with "belonging". Believers who believe that God inhabits these communities range the gambit from fundamentalists who believe in the literal understanding of Scripture, to the charismatic, who "finds" meaning not just within
Scripture, but also in ongoing "revelations" of the "Spirit". There are many colors in between these distinctives, which are "translated" into community through the understandings of Scripture.
Paul Tillich understood the continual "division" of the "Protestant Principle". But, the divisions have not always been along the lines of Scripture but also understandings of "god", and culture. The Jewish religion broke down in understanding of sectarians (Essenes), resurrection of the dead (Pharisees) or no resurrection (Sadduccees). Religion defines itself in numerous ways.
Individuals within traditions come to understand themselves as identified with these interpretive understandings. Meaning and significance come along with a sense of belonging and value.
But, these "messages" of significance, meaning and belonging are not just understood within religious traditions, but also other social structures, such as family, vocation and ethnicity. Individuals do not have the fullest understanding of the "human" without these social contexts. As apart from social contexts, the individual ceases to "belong" and in a sense, ceases "to be". We are known and we know, as we experience communal ways of understanding, as well as embracing the "otherness of the other".
American identity, in this sense, is a unique one, as it allows individuality in understanding and places significance of the individual's importance to society as a whole. Apart from the individual's unique understandings, giftings, and inclusion, society suffers from a lack of innovation, or creativity, which hinders the colorfulness of the "whole of society" and limits what it means to be "human".
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Legislation of Beauty
Many religious think that law will bring about the best, and the right, as it defines "right" and "wrong". I have no qualms about law defining right and wrong, but I do think that those who believe in Law should also understand what the purpose of the Law is, to maintain order and structure of a nation, and society at large and to protect the property of another.
Property rights are an important value to protect as it maintains distinction and affirms the value of difference. It also allows freedom of choice in how one deems to use the property, which is a higher moral order than a tribal commonwealth mentality.
While order and structure is important, how is beauty understood as just as important? And, yet, beauty does not have any value other than for itself alone. It has no meaning other than what is given to it by those who view it. It has no meaning other than to "entertain" (?). Is beauty's value diminished because it has no value, as in monetary or meaning making? This is the demise of the Western world and it is the demise of the materialist.
Beauty has value because it points beyond itself to something other. But, beauty's value is in the eyes of the beholder.
Wouldn't it be refreshing to look at the value of the individual as a creation of beauty that should be valued for thier own sake and not for a purpose or value of God...Then, self-expression of the individual would be allowed to flourish and the individual would be free to give of themselves oto the creation of beauty...
Property rights are an important value to protect as it maintains distinction and affirms the value of difference. It also allows freedom of choice in how one deems to use the property, which is a higher moral order than a tribal commonwealth mentality.
While order and structure is important, how is beauty understood as just as important? And, yet, beauty does not have any value other than for itself alone. It has no meaning other than what is given to it by those who view it. It has no meaning other than to "entertain" (?). Is beauty's value diminished because it has no value, as in monetary or meaning making? This is the demise of the Western world and it is the demise of the materialist.
Beauty has value because it points beyond itself to something other. But, beauty's value is in the eyes of the beholder.
Wouldn't it be refreshing to look at the value of the individual as a creation of beauty that should be valued for thier own sake and not for a purpose or value of God...Then, self-expression of the individual would be allowed to flourish and the individual would be free to give of themselves oto the creation of beauty...
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.
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....
Monday, September 29, 2008
Heart, Soul and Head
What is faith about anyway?
As children, we are made to be a part of a nuturing environment, When this does not happen, the child is left without resolution in his soul. This can distort the child's perception of himself and the world.
I had understood my faith to have "healed" these childish needs. I had found God's love "to look over my fault and see my need" (as Andre Crouch's song proclaimed). But, this was not healthy faith. Why do I say this? Because anything that does not delve into the soul to bring resolution, still is breeding ground for hurt and pain. The childish need, although met in a mythical world, is still left faltering if the nurturing environment of the Church fails.
In coming to Adulthood, we learn that no one is responsible but ourselves for what we are and what we become, because we do not allow another to define our life. And some would go so far as say that even God does not define our life, as His will is more general in how he innately gifted us. The need for safety is gone, as we have become centered on the values that bring us meaning. These values do not have to be within faith commitments, but do bring us identity.
So, faith can be defined within or without a community of faith, it is a matter of personal values and commitments to oneself as an identification factor. Who and what do I desire to bring meaning and purpose into life? And what is it that life will count for? These are the over-riding questions that face most yount adults in ther pursuit of life-calling. The university's calling of bringing resolution to the confusion during this stage of life is an important one. But, it is not an easy one.
As children, we are made to be a part of a nuturing environment, When this does not happen, the child is left without resolution in his soul. This can distort the child's perception of himself and the world.
I had understood my faith to have "healed" these childish needs. I had found God's love "to look over my fault and see my need" (as Andre Crouch's song proclaimed). But, this was not healthy faith. Why do I say this? Because anything that does not delve into the soul to bring resolution, still is breeding ground for hurt and pain. The childish need, although met in a mythical world, is still left faltering if the nurturing environment of the Church fails.
In coming to Adulthood, we learn that no one is responsible but ourselves for what we are and what we become, because we do not allow another to define our life. And some would go so far as say that even God does not define our life, as His will is more general in how he innately gifted us. The need for safety is gone, as we have become centered on the values that bring us meaning. These values do not have to be within faith commitments, but do bring us identity.
So, faith can be defined within or without a community of faith, it is a matter of personal values and commitments to oneself as an identification factor. Who and what do I desire to bring meaning and purpose into life? And what is it that life will count for? These are the over-riding questions that face most yount adults in ther pursuit of life-calling. The university's calling of bringing resolution to the confusion during this stage of life is an important one. But, it is not an easy one.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Beauty, Art and Value
In the past two weeks, I have had a number of opportunities to revel in the beauty of art! In Spain, my husband and I viewed three musuems with works from Picasso, Goya, and Dali, who are native sons of Spain, but we also saw works by van Gogh, Rembrandt, da Vinci, etc. This past Friday, a friend took me to Marjorie Merriweather Post's mansion, where we viewed interior design, jewelry, landscaping, etc. Tonight, my husband and I will go with another couple to hear some classical music and dine at a French restuarant.
What do all these things have in common? Human innovation in creative "arts" that are only representative of another realm. Beauty is not functional EXCEPT to point beyond itself to bring a sense of awe or reverence, or to make a statement of meaning that could not be expressed in the functional. The humanities are indeed important to "man" and should be respected by the Christian, for it is in experiencing life's beauty that the worship of "God" can function. Theology itself is an "art". Without beauty, life is less colorful, and lively and therefore, less enjoyable and meaningful.
Some believe that these enjoyments should be denied, as they are an extravagant and wasteful use of means. This is asceticism. I would argue that it is not the ends, but the reasons that are the important aspect of virtue. Do we with gratitude experience our lives, understanding that all is gift?
What do all these things have in common? Human innovation in creative "arts" that are only representative of another realm. Beauty is not functional EXCEPT to point beyond itself to bring a sense of awe or reverence, or to make a statement of meaning that could not be expressed in the functional. The humanities are indeed important to "man" and should be respected by the Christian, for it is in experiencing life's beauty that the worship of "God" can function. Theology itself is an "art". Without beauty, life is less colorful, and lively and therefore, less enjoyable and meaningful.
Some believe that these enjoyments should be denied, as they are an extravagant and wasteful use of means. This is asceticism. I would argue that it is not the ends, but the reasons that are the important aspect of virtue. Do we with gratitude experience our lives, understanding that all is gift?
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Is History Really About God or Man?
I have been thinking about the "themes" of history. What I mean by a "theme" is the most important structure that maintained the "norms" in man's understanding.
The beginning of my thinking begins in the medival period. The Church held "power' over man's understanding of himself and 'world". The themes of that time were "theological/spiritual".
Because of man's increasing knowledge of the "real world", his physical environment, a paradigm shift occurred. The modern world was born in the conflict between the scientific and the spiritual. Reason and faith were in the crosshairs of progress. The theme of the modern world became "reason".
A crisis and revolution, of sorts, was born out of the complexity of issues that were born out of reason. This crisis was a critique of modernity's certainty of "knowledge". Knowledge only brought forth the absolute complexity of the world. The theme for the post-modern became the "social/political".
How are we to resolve these "themes" and do they need resolving? I believe they do. And I also believe that we need to affirm all the themes as valid and bring a syntheis to them.
In our Global society, cultures do not stand alone. Cultures are renditions of the political. And the political which are the power structures that maintain society are to be held accountable to a moral base. The moral basis of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are America's ideals, but are the special blessing and priviledge of the American people to "give' to others. The moral challenge in a "free society" is maintaining the balance of "law and order" and "freedom", which is a"complexity" issue in today's Global "world".
The beginning of my thinking begins in the medival period. The Church held "power' over man's understanding of himself and 'world". The themes of that time were "theological/spiritual".
Because of man's increasing knowledge of the "real world", his physical environment, a paradigm shift occurred. The modern world was born in the conflict between the scientific and the spiritual. Reason and faith were in the crosshairs of progress. The theme of the modern world became "reason".
A crisis and revolution, of sorts, was born out of the complexity of issues that were born out of reason. This crisis was a critique of modernity's certainty of "knowledge". Knowledge only brought forth the absolute complexity of the world. The theme for the post-modern became the "social/political".
How are we to resolve these "themes" and do they need resolving? I believe they do. And I also believe that we need to affirm all the themes as valid and bring a syntheis to them.
In our Global society, cultures do not stand alone. Cultures are renditions of the political. And the political which are the power structures that maintain society are to be held accountable to a moral base. The moral basis of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are America's ideals, but are the special blessing and priviledge of the American people to "give' to others. The moral challenge in a "free society" is maintaining the balance of "law and order" and "freedom", which is a"complexity" issue in today's Global "world".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
