I have concerns for our nation with the recent subway shootings at the Pentagon!
The disenchanted and disillusioned culprit was a man who felt helpless about making a difference in his government. He had become angered by ethics violation and abuse of power that runs rampant in the halls of power. I don't blame him there.
But, is there some other way to express anger than taking a gun to shoot others. This is where public engagement diminshes into tribal slug fests! And where bombing of abortion clinics outweigh reasonable influence.
I am concerned because of the demonization of the "world of ideas". Ideas are what our Founders based the "founding of our country". These were what created our "worlds" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"!
But, what most don't stop to think about is that these ideals have to be defined in real world terms. And what does "THAT" mean? Real world terms is real world values that are reasoned expression of support for one's position.
Take the word "life" for instance. What is life? What makes for "life"? What is important to "life"? Who determines the value of life? Why do you believe these things? or How do you support your position?
What about "liberty"? What does "liberty" mean? How does one promote liberty as a value? Is liberty absolute? Where does one draw a line around liberty? Why does one think liberty should be limited? What values limit liberty? ETC....
We must understand that our country values diversity, so we will understand and frame these terms differently. But, we are all Americans, who value these "ideals" and we must stop fighting each other and determine to engage ourselves within our value systems and commit to being engaged politically.
Public engagement without abusing power is what I hope for America, without this "ideal", then there is no hope!
Showing posts with label public engagement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public engagement. Show all posts
Friday, March 5, 2010
Sunday, February 14, 2010
A Synthesis of the Id and Super-Ego...
A synthesis of the Id and Super-Ego is probably the most healthy way of functioning in society and as an adult.
A synthesis affirms both the individual's desires and innatedness, as well as positions the person to his service in society. So, the Id's desires must be honed by a specific and special training. It is the becoming of a 'self" to give. The Ego is the "gate-keeper" of both the Id and Super-Ego and must be appropriately "equipped" by society, if the individual is to "give back" to society. But, society cannot and must not determine the individual's place. That is to be left to "the consent of the governed".
Society is the public domain, whereas, the private domain of "self-development" is the "gated" domain of friends and family. The cheer-leaders of "self-development" are not disregarding and disrespectful of the "quirks" of the individual, but allow that individual the freedom to "become" without obfuscating his "vision", and "goals".
No individual is developed by groupish following of "the leader", but by critical engagement and challenge to the individual's giftings and interests.
A synthesis affirms both the individual's desires and innatedness, as well as positions the person to his service in society. So, the Id's desires must be honed by a specific and special training. It is the becoming of a 'self" to give. The Ego is the "gate-keeper" of both the Id and Super-Ego and must be appropriately "equipped" by society, if the individual is to "give back" to society. But, society cannot and must not determine the individual's place. That is to be left to "the consent of the governed".
Society is the public domain, whereas, the private domain of "self-development" is the "gated" domain of friends and family. The cheer-leaders of "self-development" are not disregarding and disrespectful of the "quirks" of the individual, but allow that individual the freedom to "become" without obfuscating his "vision", and "goals".
No individual is developed by groupish following of "the leader", but by critical engagement and challenge to the individual's giftings and interests.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The Church, The State, Progressives and Conservatives
The Church has been understood as a universal community, at least by the apostle Paul. Perhaps a better terminology is the household of God, as Ken Schenck uses in Quadralateral Thoughts.
But, how is this universality understood today? Conservatives of course point to Scriptures, while the Progressives point to science. Conservatives believe that God made one humanity in Christ, while progressives believe that we are one humanity.
Conservatives do things for the glory of God, while progressive do things for the "common good", the betterment of mankind. Conservatives tend to understand their identity in specified and special terms. Progressives understand this tendency as group identification. Group identification distinctifies one group from another, as this was what has transpired throughout the course of history with any kind of group; religious, political, cultural, etc. Humans love to create an identity by maintaining their distinct boundary markers. But, progressives question whether some boundary markers are healthy to maintain.
The question of mental health and "the common good" is the question of one's reason for boundary markers. What is a healthy boundary marker? Both conservative and progressives would agree that a good boundary marker would be the personal convictions, or commitments of a person, or the laws that define a nation's culture. Laws define what is deviant. While deviancy is an important value to uphold in a civilized society, what defines unhealthy reasons for boundary maintainence?
When one describes an individual commitment or conviction, or a nation's laws, both conservative and progressives agree that these should be respected. But, religious identifiers or boundary markers are harder to rally full agreement. Religion defines itself upon the "rules of faith", but progressives question the "rules" as being "right" in describing faith, as faith is a personal commitment to value. Religion, on the other hand, has many ways of maintaining its group identity.
Religion bases its claims of identification of beliefs, a divine figure, a culture, group "rules". Religion delights in coformity and thinks of itself in conservative circles, as exclusivist. Relgion colors one's perception and perspective and breeds prejuidice, and the prejuidice is reinforced by sacred texts, or sacred persons. Progressives are more open to define religion in objectified terms.
With many distinctions between the conservative and progressive, there has been an attempt to unify both through "purpose" or "teleos". In Chrisiian circles, this attempt has been based on "the Kingdom of God" and the "common good". The public square meets the Church on the Church's "terminology' , while using the Church's gifts for "the common good" of humanity. There is nothing wrong with this unity of purpose, as long as all individuals that are affected are informed of the specific requirements upon their life. If a "purpose" is useful for the "common good" (pragmatism), especially if it is underwritten in the conservative's mind, by "God", then the State can bring about its plans in a peaceful and unified way.
True progressives, though, would question the wisdom of combining Church and State in this way, as it brings about an intrusion of government into private lives. Privacy is a value in American culture for it repects the individual. But, both conservative and progressive moralists bring "the rule of law" upon others in the "name of God" (reconstruction, restoration, or social gospel), to teach others about God's rule. I question how this is anything other than Shai ria Law, or Constiantine's Empire...
Although I am not clear as to how I view Church and State, I question the ways in which moralists understand themselves as a "superior" breed of humanity. Whether one rules as the Taliban, or "legislating the Pentateuch", both do not breed tolerance for difference, or an openness to intepretation of that law. Laws define a nation's values, and America was founded on freedom of religion and a separation of Church and State. This separation was not to be a "wall", as a Founding Father claimed, but was to maintain the boundary of public/private, so that individuals could come to their own convictions, values, and faith, which is found within the culture's social structures of family, church and comminity. Objectifying morals transgresses the universal ethic of "doing unto others", "the categorical imperative", even when the moralists is convinced of their "rightness" of conviction. The battle of morality should be for the conservative in love from a pure heart, while the progressive should use reason to explore morality's reasonableness in scienctific discovery and philosophical discussion.
But, how is this universality understood today? Conservatives of course point to Scriptures, while the Progressives point to science. Conservatives believe that God made one humanity in Christ, while progressives believe that we are one humanity.
Conservatives do things for the glory of God, while progressive do things for the "common good", the betterment of mankind. Conservatives tend to understand their identity in specified and special terms. Progressives understand this tendency as group identification. Group identification distinctifies one group from another, as this was what has transpired throughout the course of history with any kind of group; religious, political, cultural, etc. Humans love to create an identity by maintaining their distinct boundary markers. But, progressives question whether some boundary markers are healthy to maintain.
The question of mental health and "the common good" is the question of one's reason for boundary markers. What is a healthy boundary marker? Both conservative and progressives would agree that a good boundary marker would be the personal convictions, or commitments of a person, or the laws that define a nation's culture. Laws define what is deviant. While deviancy is an important value to uphold in a civilized society, what defines unhealthy reasons for boundary maintainence?
When one describes an individual commitment or conviction, or a nation's laws, both conservative and progressives agree that these should be respected. But, religious identifiers or boundary markers are harder to rally full agreement. Religion defines itself upon the "rules of faith", but progressives question the "rules" as being "right" in describing faith, as faith is a personal commitment to value. Religion, on the other hand, has many ways of maintaining its group identity.
Religion bases its claims of identification of beliefs, a divine figure, a culture, group "rules". Religion delights in coformity and thinks of itself in conservative circles, as exclusivist. Relgion colors one's perception and perspective and breeds prejuidice, and the prejuidice is reinforced by sacred texts, or sacred persons. Progressives are more open to define religion in objectified terms.
With many distinctions between the conservative and progressive, there has been an attempt to unify both through "purpose" or "teleos". In Chrisiian circles, this attempt has been based on "the Kingdom of God" and the "common good". The public square meets the Church on the Church's "terminology' , while using the Church's gifts for "the common good" of humanity. There is nothing wrong with this unity of purpose, as long as all individuals that are affected are informed of the specific requirements upon their life. If a "purpose" is useful for the "common good" (pragmatism), especially if it is underwritten in the conservative's mind, by "God", then the State can bring about its plans in a peaceful and unified way.
True progressives, though, would question the wisdom of combining Church and State in this way, as it brings about an intrusion of government into private lives. Privacy is a value in American culture for it repects the individual. But, both conservative and progressive moralists bring "the rule of law" upon others in the "name of God" (reconstruction, restoration, or social gospel), to teach others about God's rule. I question how this is anything other than Shai ria Law, or Constiantine's Empire...
Although I am not clear as to how I view Church and State, I question the ways in which moralists understand themselves as a "superior" breed of humanity. Whether one rules as the Taliban, or "legislating the Pentateuch", both do not breed tolerance for difference, or an openness to intepretation of that law. Laws define a nation's values, and America was founded on freedom of religion and a separation of Church and State. This separation was not to be a "wall", as a Founding Father claimed, but was to maintain the boundary of public/private, so that individuals could come to their own convictions, values, and faith, which is found within the culture's social structures of family, church and comminity. Objectifying morals transgresses the universal ethic of "doing unto others", "the categorical imperative", even when the moralists is convinced of their "rightness" of conviction. The battle of morality should be for the conservative in love from a pure heart, while the progressive should use reason to explore morality's reasonableness in scienctific discovery and philosophical discussion.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Concern for America
Today is Constitution Day. I love my country, but have not been taught enough about it. This brings me to my blog entry today.
The Constitution says that we are a government that is "By the People and For the People"! This is Good News, as all men (gender neutral) are created equal. But, the bad news is that because we live in the land of the free, we Americans have sought our own lives at the costs of the nations. We have not been engaged in the public's business. And because we have become callous to our freedoms and allow other people to take care of it for us, we are becoming an enslaved nation!
Our enslavement is to our lavious lifestyles, where we live beyond our means and the creditors are knocking on our doors. The market is what drives our economy, which is fed on our greed and lust for power, money and stuff!
It is not just in economic concerns where we are enslaved, but we are also enslaved by our lack of engagement. Our government's framers created a government where all could be engaged. But, because of our lack of interest, those who hold the reigns of power have become the ones who run our country. Instead of our country being by the people and for the people, we are being led by others and for others' self interest.
Our news media on the major networks do not even cover news in depth, because most of us are not interested. We get a few dribbles about the economy, so we can complain about our government, but we don't get involved. We hear about things that concern our own pockets and have little interests in anything other than where it concerns our own domesic policy. I'm not arguing for a "one world "government, but only that our eyes would be opened to a larger engagement in our world. When the rulers become unaccountable and have conflicted interest, these rulers will choose their own self interest above the interst of the people! This attitude is not one of public service, but of self-indulgence.
We Americans need to wake up and smell the roses before it is too late. We are a free nation because of public concern and engagement. We are relying too much on our rulers to make the decisions for us and then we complain again if they use the military for interests that we would not approve.
We (I) need to care and become informed and involved.
The Constitution says that we are a government that is "By the People and For the People"! This is Good News, as all men (gender neutral) are created equal. But, the bad news is that because we live in the land of the free, we Americans have sought our own lives at the costs of the nations. We have not been engaged in the public's business. And because we have become callous to our freedoms and allow other people to take care of it for us, we are becoming an enslaved nation!
Our enslavement is to our lavious lifestyles, where we live beyond our means and the creditors are knocking on our doors. The market is what drives our economy, which is fed on our greed and lust for power, money and stuff!
It is not just in economic concerns where we are enslaved, but we are also enslaved by our lack of engagement. Our government's framers created a government where all could be engaged. But, because of our lack of interest, those who hold the reigns of power have become the ones who run our country. Instead of our country being by the people and for the people, we are being led by others and for others' self interest.
Our news media on the major networks do not even cover news in depth, because most of us are not interested. We get a few dribbles about the economy, so we can complain about our government, but we don't get involved. We hear about things that concern our own pockets and have little interests in anything other than where it concerns our own domesic policy. I'm not arguing for a "one world "government, but only that our eyes would be opened to a larger engagement in our world. When the rulers become unaccountable and have conflicted interest, these rulers will choose their own self interest above the interst of the people! This attitude is not one of public service, but of self-indulgence.
We Americans need to wake up and smell the roses before it is too late. We are a free nation because of public concern and engagement. We are relying too much on our rulers to make the decisions for us and then we complain again if they use the military for interests that we would not approve.
We (I) need to care and become informed and involved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
