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"?

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

Is Reality Closed, Open or Flat?

There are many theories out there when it concerns reality, but what are the implications?

In a closed system, there are limited resources that must be protected, as there will be dire danger if we do not "steward" these resources. While this may apply in the natural realm of conservation to the environment, does it apply to the social sciences? A naturalist view is based on natural science.

In economics, free markets allow a cyclic compounding of interests and bring about more proseperity than those that conserve in limiting risk. So, in economics, it seems that controlling the market would be the height of limiting productivity or prosperity. But, the risk is based on an understanding of an open universe, not a closed or flat one.

In a "flat system", "reality is what is, and is what is. This understanding is one of realism. It critiques or assesses the world and sees what is or has been. This is a cyclical view of history and can result in "wisdom" on principle. This understanding of reality fits best in the Christian worldview.

In this worldview, since man is understood to have certain "propensities", then there should be a wisdom about understanding the "universals" that lead to social problems, such as greed, envy, jealousy, etc. Understanding that humans do not change in their nature, our Founding Fathers understood the necessity to balance power. This is the basis of our three branches of government, federal and state balances, the Congress and the Senate and the individual vote in the electoral college.

The open understanding of reality, not only affirmed a free market economy, but also limited government, as a means for the individual and freedom of choice, which our Founding Fathers found to be important. Democracy allows the free exchange of information through our media outlets, where people can have difference of opinion and conviction. It also allows difference of commitment in intellectual understandings and convictions. Democracy allows diversity. And diversity demands openness!

So, whether one views the world as closed, flat or open, one must understand the necessity of allowing another view, so that our views can meet all the needs that are in this world. Otherwise, we will limit one aspect of human reality which will result in much suffering and pain.

Realism's Relativity

Realism is about truth based in the real experiences of life. Our experiences are the very contexts that we understand and bring meaning into our lives. Those who live in different situations think differently about "truth".

Truth is survival to those who live in poverty and disease, whereas truth is liberation for those who live under oppressive regimes. Truth is about reality, life's situatedness, and personhood. If truth is disconnected to what we experience, or our individuality, then there is cognitive disconnect from what is being touted as "universal truth".

When David ate of the shewbread in the Scriptures, he was not reprimanded, because his need for sustenence was greater than his need for the "holy". Traditionalists condemned him, but Jesus did not. Compassion looks on others in thier situatedness and does not judge, but seeks to help. On the other hand, understanding that our helpfulness can also be short-sighted unless we acknowledge that each of us is different and the differences of our experiences and understanding will always limit how much we can help.

Theology "speaks for God" in traditionalists circles, but, theology is really about "man speaking about God". We cannot attain to God's mind, or God's personhood, as we just cannot know. We only have models of experience and religious representations of God.

Some want to make absolute assertions about God and demand that others follow their suit. What transpires is tragically a "social convention" that is passed off as "God". And God's name is "used in vain" by promoting, and demanding that everyone see and experience the same thing, the same way. Apart from conformity, there is no "real salvation". I personally think this is idolatrous, for we cannot know but in part, and we certainly don't understand the "other", they way we need to.

Those who have closed minds concerning diversity/difference are doomed to oppress and stifle, while those who have no way of measurement, have no gauge, where values can even be discussed.

All of us have limited understanding and we base our understanding upon different authorities. Each authority is a limited one and we must humbly acknowledge that to one another in seeking after and commiting to "truth seeking understanding"...

Science and Religion, a Dichotomy?

Science is a journey of exploration, while religion is defined and confined. Science is open ended, where religion is closed and contained. Science reveals "god", where religion defines god!

Is this true? It depends on what avenue of science one is talking about. The natural sciences not only reveal our understanding of the natural world, but does it or can it reveal anything about the "moral world"? If Kant is right that categories exist in our mind, then can it be "proven" by neurobiological investigation? But, is the mind the same as the brain? How we construct our realities are unique, in that we are individuals, who not only have unique experiences, but we understand those same experiences differently! How is that?

C.S.Lewis became a Christian because he believed that all men were created with a sense of justice. He wrote a book about this in "Mere Christianity".

Kant believed that we should act in a way that we would want to be universal. It was his way of understanding the "Golden Rule". How are we to act in a world that does not function on the "Golden Rule", but on the principles of business models? Can the "world' function on "trust", when the world has different understandings of what is right, or good? How are we to bring about a universal understanding of what is right without undermining diversity?

Science does not tell us what is right, but what is. How do we put "what is" in a framework of "what is right"? Is there a universal framework?

I think the danger of separating the two realms, is disconnnecting the "ethical" from the "real". What is real to a human being is their personal reality, which are created by many variables. The "Golden Rule" would mean that we affirm their "reality", which is not a universal. What about "mental illness"? How do we affirm that reality without helping them out of that reality? And who is to gauge what is "normal behavior"? Many eccentrics have been geniuses, as history revealed later, just as many moral or religious reformers had impact in history, but at the time were ostracized. How are we to gauge and make our judgments?

Religion does not like to explore the world, but define the world. I find that this limits man's creative spirit. Creativity can not be boxed, defined, or manipulated, but it must be expressed. Each person is a creative spirit that needs to be freed to experience life, and express their giftedness in their own unique way.