Does it make you "ill" when people that are adults believe in "Providence"? It does me. I think all meaning or interpretation is a matter of correlation in one's mind to past memories and present preception of oneself, as well as past perceptions of oneself.
Humanists and scientists are trying to understand what makes for alturistic concern. They have found alturism in animal behavior and wonder what makes some people compassionate, and others, not so much. Some reasearch has revealed that children that were not nurtured as infants tend to not be as compassionate. There is information that suggests there are differences between the sexes. And, then, there is the chemical imbalances in the brain that make for mental illnesses. What does compassion have to do with "Providence", you ask?
"Providence" understands or interprets happenings as "God's intervention" in the world. These "happenings" are the result of people who experience "God" through others' acts of compassion. And science it seeking to understand if compassion can be "learned" behavior, as well. Can the physical properties of the brain and one's perception be changed over time with "conditioning"? Obviously, animals respond to discipline and learn how to behave. Authoritarian religions, as well as Totalitarian States believe that "discipline" is needed to bring about the 'salvation of mankind".
Atheistic States and authoritarian Religions believe that social conditioning is needed to protect against 'savagery" and can provide a "better society". This is the reason for propaganda and manipulation of the public or indoctrination in relgious climates. There is no real reverence for an individual's life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. We are a collective, so "individuality" is a threat to progress and conformity! Scientific materialism or religious conformity is much too important. Some scientists believe that even our experience of art and beauty is a result of stimuli to our physical properties, while religions see these "expressions' to be "useful" for "glorifying God". What makes for an artist's imagination? And is the artist's imagination as productive in a regimented and oppressive environment?
Religions have brought solace and comfort to those under authoritarian regimes, because of the need for the human to experience their own "reality". But, religions have also oppressed as much as any absolute State. The sense of "self" and one's own control of their life, is an important aspect of "feeling free". None of us are totally free, as we live under governments, and societies, and if not, we all live under the constraints of natural resources.
Natural resources are seen as limited unless science provides new ways or making them or limiting our use of them. And the environmental consequences to such use is also of concern. The question, then becomes who, what, and how will the policy decisions be made , how will they be prioritized, when there are so many variables? These are the conflicts within an open and free society. Those that hold the power make the determinations about policy and this is where "Providence" is an absurd understanding about life and what happens.
Unless one wants to affirm and confirm a Totalitarian State, where there is not "representation", then one must understand and see that it is "the people" who will vote, petition and make the differences to "outcomes" in their government, which isn't about "Providence", but about responsibility and concern.
"Providence" is a term useful for those that believe in authoritarianism! And good government is NOT authoritarian, not at all.
Showing posts with label natural resources. Show all posts
Showing posts with label natural resources. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Binary Thinking, Deconstruction, and the Reconstruction in the "New World Order"
Binary thinking is understanding things in "black and white". It is necessary in understanding and making meaning and organizing an organization in the West. But, those that want to bring about a re-construction seek to undermine the priviledged position. structuralism, and making understanding of life in "black and white" thinking, but in multi-dimensioanl thinking. This has significance if anyone want to go beyond the "us"/"them" dichotomy. But, we must ask, if such thinking is the undermining of "self-identity" itself. (I think it is, but that is of necessity to those that want to form global initiatives).
Priviledge is about position, and power. It is a hierarchal structuring of the world that limits, defines and controls from "above". But, new leadership principles understand the need to build "team", "community", or a more equalized "playing field". This is done by sharing information and allowing others to have a "voice" in formulating the "organization", "corporation", or nation.
America was founded on such principles of "equality and fraternity". Today is a global context where those that seek to equalize power, also seek to undermine priviledge to America and/or the West. But, at what costs are we giving up our rationale and rationality? It seems to be a necessary "evil" for a "greater good", at least for those "at the top". And such a "vision" is a communist's one.
The "political" problems that face our world are complex "wars" about power and position. Solutions have been proposed to form a governmental "Leviathan" to control such problems of individual "warfare", as to identity, and goods. Others have proposed "the market" as the "Leviathan" that will control human behavior. But scientists see a forboding future for limited resources that make for "wars". Scientists view the problem as one that must be addressed by science.
Neuroscience is the "ground-breaking" science that will define "Man's future". Today, besides government, and "the market" controlling "world affairs", it is the 'Human Brain". The Brain as responsive to stimuli is on the forefront of sicentific advance to understand how to "control man's behavior", create "a new reality" and form a "new world".
Such a "world" will not be based on binary thinking (ethnocentric mentality) but a synthetic thinking where the "dialectical" is embraced in a new reality created by "new forms" of understanding the world and all that is. The Church is a useful source of "revenue" because religion has been a cause of "war" in the past and is a present reality for the West. The use of "symbol" is a way of reframing reality so 'Unity" and the "Global" will overcome one's identity within a specified "form". And the dialectical is how the Church has framed its reality "in Christ", in "the Cross" and in a "New Hope" of a "Future".
A unificaton of purposes will create the 'new world order" where government, the market and the Church will have a unified purpose and goal or bringing order, that will prevent "war" over limited resources, and hope for future development in science.
I wonder what the "new world government:" will look like and how that will happen, when so many countries do not hold our values, vision or purpose? Will we be "dumbing down" our Founder's vision, without a separation and division of power? Or will Power control the "new World" under "Leviathan"?
Priviledge is about position, and power. It is a hierarchal structuring of the world that limits, defines and controls from "above". But, new leadership principles understand the need to build "team", "community", or a more equalized "playing field". This is done by sharing information and allowing others to have a "voice" in formulating the "organization", "corporation", or nation.
America was founded on such principles of "equality and fraternity". Today is a global context where those that seek to equalize power, also seek to undermine priviledge to America and/or the West. But, at what costs are we giving up our rationale and rationality? It seems to be a necessary "evil" for a "greater good", at least for those "at the top". And such a "vision" is a communist's one.
The "political" problems that face our world are complex "wars" about power and position. Solutions have been proposed to form a governmental "Leviathan" to control such problems of individual "warfare", as to identity, and goods. Others have proposed "the market" as the "Leviathan" that will control human behavior. But scientists see a forboding future for limited resources that make for "wars". Scientists view the problem as one that must be addressed by science.
Neuroscience is the "ground-breaking" science that will define "Man's future". Today, besides government, and "the market" controlling "world affairs", it is the 'Human Brain". The Brain as responsive to stimuli is on the forefront of sicentific advance to understand how to "control man's behavior", create "a new reality" and form a "new world".
Such a "world" will not be based on binary thinking (ethnocentric mentality) but a synthetic thinking where the "dialectical" is embraced in a new reality created by "new forms" of understanding the world and all that is. The Church is a useful source of "revenue" because religion has been a cause of "war" in the past and is a present reality for the West. The use of "symbol" is a way of reframing reality so 'Unity" and the "Global" will overcome one's identity within a specified "form". And the dialectical is how the Church has framed its reality "in Christ", in "the Cross" and in a "New Hope" of a "Future".
A unificaton of purposes will create the 'new world order" where government, the market and the Church will have a unified purpose and goal or bringing order, that will prevent "war" over limited resources, and hope for future development in science.
I wonder what the "new world government:" will look like and how that will happen, when so many countries do not hold our values, vision or purpose? Will we be "dumbing down" our Founder's vision, without a separation and division of power? Or will Power control the "new World" under "Leviathan"?
Friday, February 4, 2011
What If
What if science proves that there is probably no god? Would it make a difference in how man understands "Man" and/or society? How would man organize society? Would man structure society so that those that are "Not the Fittest" would have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, such as in our Constitutional Republic? Or would society be better off with allowing those that are not fit to die, abort, or euthanize? Would it matter if society would be "better off"?
Wouldn't any ethical decision have to take limited resources into account? If natural resources are scarce, would we beocme like China and allow only one child per family? Or would we have inspections to insure that people did not "hoard resources" or use resources unwisely? Since resources would become more expensive would government be more likely to increase taxes on these resources, and would they want to penalize those that did not abide by the "book"? Would competition ensue over new discorveries that might help eliminate our dependence on these natural resources? Would we want to take advantage of our own natural resources? Would there be a fight for environmental concerns if we did drill for oil?
Would limited resources in healthcare also mean that all of us, and not just some of us have to make the hard choices about "end of life" decisions? Would we value the elderly, still? Or has our culture already become so driven by youthfulness that we don't apprectiate the wisdom of the elderly, even now?
And what about those countries that now have a waiting list for operations that determine, not just quality of life, but life and death? Would this be the scenario in America if healthcare is not repealed?
What if brain science becomes a means to control those in society, so society functions as those in power want it to?
Are such things impossible, improbable or variable? And what will determine whether or not our society, our nation, and our globe becomes acclaimated to such thinking and being in the world?
We have a lot to challenge us if the future is to be open-ended and not determined by these limitations. Such limitations will cause fear, instability and anxiety as to what should be done next. Rest assured that just as chaos ensued in Greece, and is now happening in Egypt, it will not be pretty.
Wouldn't any ethical decision have to take limited resources into account? If natural resources are scarce, would we beocme like China and allow only one child per family? Or would we have inspections to insure that people did not "hoard resources" or use resources unwisely? Since resources would become more expensive would government be more likely to increase taxes on these resources, and would they want to penalize those that did not abide by the "book"? Would competition ensue over new discorveries that might help eliminate our dependence on these natural resources? Would we want to take advantage of our own natural resources? Would there be a fight for environmental concerns if we did drill for oil?
Would limited resources in healthcare also mean that all of us, and not just some of us have to make the hard choices about "end of life" decisions? Would we value the elderly, still? Or has our culture already become so driven by youthfulness that we don't apprectiate the wisdom of the elderly, even now?
And what about those countries that now have a waiting list for operations that determine, not just quality of life, but life and death? Would this be the scenario in America if healthcare is not repealed?
What if brain science becomes a means to control those in society, so society functions as those in power want it to?
Are such things impossible, improbable or variable? And what will determine whether or not our society, our nation, and our globe becomes acclaimated to such thinking and being in the world?
We have a lot to challenge us if the future is to be open-ended and not determined by these limitations. Such limitations will cause fear, instability and anxiety as to what should be done next. Rest assured that just as chaos ensued in Greece, and is now happening in Egypt, it will not be pretty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
