"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792
American government was created to protect its citizens from abuses of power. Those that hold positions of power are accountable to "the people" and the checks and balances in our government. Our Founders understood that men were limited and were not always to be trusted when it came to power. Lord Acton's quote was probably in their minds when they formed a "more perfect union". "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Power was understood in the public domain as service, not priviledge. Priviledged positions were not viewed apart from their responsibility of representation. Public officials understood that good leaders, "do not lord it over" their contituencies, but protected and represented their interests.
The balance of power and accountability were what protected those in leadership from becoming short-sighted and narrowly focused on goals that might end up usurping another's right of liberty. Liberty was of utmost importance to American principles of "good government". Limited government meant that government was to "check" its own over-bearing nature, not just the people's.
Showing posts with label representation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label representation. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
What is the Rationale?
This morning I watched an Ethics panel that consisted of many Supreme Court Judges. It got me thinking about minority rights, common sense, and public interest.
One of the questions was about "Originalist" interpretation of the Constitution and whether this would be the value to be upheld. The discussion went back and forth over what did it mean to interpret according to "original intent" versus what society's needs, or problems were at a given time. The conservative, versus the progressive use of the law always leaves one to question, "what is the rationale behind these views"?
Then, one of the justices said something that perked my interest and made me question, "what is the rationale", today?
She said, that she was older and had seen many changes come about over the years she has served on the Supreme Court. But, today's attitude that dismisses the judge's decision and may even take the judge to jail was "disturbing" to her. I would concur with her assessment!
How is justice to be maintained or a free society upheld, when the ones who hold the key to our laws are in "fear and trembling' that they may be targets of "mob rule"? This was not the original intent of our Founding Fathers. They wanted the court free to judge, so that power could be balanced and society could function under the social norms that "ruled" under their interpretive hand.
If such a situation is ever allowed, where judges are accountable to the people, then we have anarchy, indeed! Judges make the judgments about our laws, in how they are applied. The legislature make the laws of our land. And maybe this is where the cupability lies.
If the legislature is making the laws that guard or guide our country, then they are the ones that are accountably to the people throught the voting booth. These legislatures need accountability through term limits, I believe, so that none can make "empires' for themselves, using the law to do so.
We found our country upon the principle that we would not be taxed without being represented. Our property was to be protected from government's grab by our vote and our Constitutonal right to representation in Congress.
At the same time the peasantry were to be represented, the States were also to have their interests represented.
Arizona has made laws that further the Constitutional obligation of protecting our nation. But, the federal government doesn't see any "power grab" in subverting the Constitution's obligation to protect our nation's interests. What is more important, it seems, is to protect illegal immigrants. But, at what costs? Only the American taxpayer. We, the people has become "We, the Government". Individual citizens are loosing their right to privacy, protection, and the right to their nation under the auspices of "greater good" language. But, at what costs? What is the rationale? Is it about politics, and the next election?
The executive branch is asserting more and more power from other branches and this was not the balance of power the Founders intended, either. What is the rationale? Is it about ruling at the costs of governing? Is it about power, rather than about liberty?
I think our country and all its inhabitants need to ask their government, "What is the rationale"?
One of the questions was about "Originalist" interpretation of the Constitution and whether this would be the value to be upheld. The discussion went back and forth over what did it mean to interpret according to "original intent" versus what society's needs, or problems were at a given time. The conservative, versus the progressive use of the law always leaves one to question, "what is the rationale behind these views"?
Then, one of the justices said something that perked my interest and made me question, "what is the rationale", today?
She said, that she was older and had seen many changes come about over the years she has served on the Supreme Court. But, today's attitude that dismisses the judge's decision and may even take the judge to jail was "disturbing" to her. I would concur with her assessment!
How is justice to be maintained or a free society upheld, when the ones who hold the key to our laws are in "fear and trembling' that they may be targets of "mob rule"? This was not the original intent of our Founding Fathers. They wanted the court free to judge, so that power could be balanced and society could function under the social norms that "ruled" under their interpretive hand.
If such a situation is ever allowed, where judges are accountable to the people, then we have anarchy, indeed! Judges make the judgments about our laws, in how they are applied. The legislature make the laws of our land. And maybe this is where the cupability lies.
If the legislature is making the laws that guard or guide our country, then they are the ones that are accountably to the people throught the voting booth. These legislatures need accountability through term limits, I believe, so that none can make "empires' for themselves, using the law to do so.
We found our country upon the principle that we would not be taxed without being represented. Our property was to be protected from government's grab by our vote and our Constitutonal right to representation in Congress.
At the same time the peasantry were to be represented, the States were also to have their interests represented.
Arizona has made laws that further the Constitutional obligation of protecting our nation. But, the federal government doesn't see any "power grab" in subverting the Constitution's obligation to protect our nation's interests. What is more important, it seems, is to protect illegal immigrants. But, at what costs? Only the American taxpayer. We, the people has become "We, the Government". Individual citizens are loosing their right to privacy, protection, and the right to their nation under the auspices of "greater good" language. But, at what costs? What is the rationale? Is it about politics, and the next election?
The executive branch is asserting more and more power from other branches and this was not the balance of power the Founders intended, either. What is the rationale? Is it about ruling at the costs of governing? Is it about power, rather than about liberty?
I think our country and all its inhabitants need to ask their government, "What is the rationale"?
Monday, April 19, 2010
Revolution, Reform, and Reactionary Politics
Humans are made to be engaged in their environments. They are creative innovators of their 'worlds". And this is as it should be, for humans are unique in their individualities. It is only in a free and open society that such uniqueness can be formed, cultivated and sanctioned. Humans are made for liberty, for without it, there is an oppressive authoritarianism that over-rules the 'human element'.
Reactions are normal responses to oppressive government. History has borne out the facts of the matter when government becomes a boundary unto itself. Our Founders did not want government that ruled over humans, but humans to rule government. The Founders created our form of government because of another government's abuse of power. Representation is an important aspect of accountability and responsibility in government's leadership.
Reactions that have formed the "tea party" movement have been based on affirmations of individual liberty to pursue one's own ends. And this is what has helped to further liberty in general in American culture.
But, some have "moral concern' over America's de-meaning of values that form the child, and affirm human dignity. These political concerns are what the evangelicals have understood to be about abortion, euthanasia, and family values.
While the evangelical has sought to protect indivdual liberty in regards to monetary interests and certain choices of lifestyle, the religious left have "social concern" for the poor, not only within our own nation, but in other countries, as well. This has led to the "social gospel" movement.
Both these brands of Christian concern have united politics and religious understanding to further agenda about the individual's values. (What should drive a particular individual in their life choices?) Some have suggested that both sides must unite to bring about a fuller view of what concerns "the world", which if one is religous, is of concern to "god".
On the other side of the spectrum, the naturalists believes in limited resources that must be maintained by stewarship. This leftist political agenda supports the religious and their value of stewarding the world "under God". So, "world concerns" become religious concerns, such as the environment, healthcare, poverty, etc.
"One world" is what is of concern to all of us, but for different reasons. Values can unite, but just as readily disunify.
Reform is good for any society because it helps society to re-evaluate what is good or bad at a given time, and explains the reasons for such concern.
But, reactionary politics drives the stakes down without understanding or seeking to hear other people at the table. Arrogance of this sort dissolves our democratic process. And such attitudes of reaction make for revolution.
Revolution is what happens when there is no other recourse. Revolution is necessary when government has abused power, dishonored individuals, disrespected culture and ignored the law.
Such revolutionary times, are time that try men's souls!
Reactions are normal responses to oppressive government. History has borne out the facts of the matter when government becomes a boundary unto itself. Our Founders did not want government that ruled over humans, but humans to rule government. The Founders created our form of government because of another government's abuse of power. Representation is an important aspect of accountability and responsibility in government's leadership.
Reactions that have formed the "tea party" movement have been based on affirmations of individual liberty to pursue one's own ends. And this is what has helped to further liberty in general in American culture.
But, some have "moral concern' over America's de-meaning of values that form the child, and affirm human dignity. These political concerns are what the evangelicals have understood to be about abortion, euthanasia, and family values.
While the evangelical has sought to protect indivdual liberty in regards to monetary interests and certain choices of lifestyle, the religious left have "social concern" for the poor, not only within our own nation, but in other countries, as well. This has led to the "social gospel" movement.
Both these brands of Christian concern have united politics and religious understanding to further agenda about the individual's values. (What should drive a particular individual in their life choices?) Some have suggested that both sides must unite to bring about a fuller view of what concerns "the world", which if one is religous, is of concern to "god".
On the other side of the spectrum, the naturalists believes in limited resources that must be maintained by stewarship. This leftist political agenda supports the religious and their value of stewarding the world "under God". So, "world concerns" become religious concerns, such as the environment, healthcare, poverty, etc.
"One world" is what is of concern to all of us, but for different reasons. Values can unite, but just as readily disunify.
Reform is good for any society because it helps society to re-evaluate what is good or bad at a given time, and explains the reasons for such concern.
But, reactionary politics drives the stakes down without understanding or seeking to hear other people at the table. Arrogance of this sort dissolves our democratic process. And such attitudes of reaction make for revolution.
Revolution is what happens when there is no other recourse. Revolution is necessary when government has abused power, dishonored individuals, disrespected culture and ignored the law.
Such revolutionary times, are time that try men's souls!
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Representative Government
Representative Government is what we need today. We, the people, are to be valued. We are not a theocracy or a democracy, in the proper sense.
When we represent someone, whether a lawyer in the courts, or a Congressman in the House or Senate, these are to be servant leaders, not arrogant or self-serving in their interests in public office. The people vote because of their confidence in a particular candidate. They believe in the campaign promises, and value the platform the candidate represents.
But, all too often, our representatives are bought off by Big Interests, Special Interests and slough it off as a necessary "gain" for the public interest. The public thinks it has been hoodwinked and it is a recipe for damaging the public's interest in their government and civic duty, at large. There is no end to the news about public officials and their indiscretions when it comes to their public trust.
I wonder, since history has borne out that our Founders, or any of those who we "idealize" have feet of clay, just as our present day politicians do? What we want to remember are the "ideals" that we value. But, because of the public's intense interest in private life, biographies have been written that expose such indiscretions of past representatives. And these books sell. Does America want to be ambivalant toward their government and their Representatives in public office?
Representation is known first in one's family of origin. Psychologists have known that children get their view of "God" through their family, the father, being an important imprinter of the child's value.
In ancient societies where the peasant class had no say about their life, other than to serve their patrons, or slave-masters, "God" was know to be represented by leadership. This was how the peasant class came to formulate their understanding of "God". If an unjust ruler ruled, they deemed that God was "above" or "over" that unjust ruler. Theirs was a passive state of submission to the dominating culture.
Enlightened societies have understood that all people should have a voice and have a sense of empowerment when it comes to their government. This was our Founder's "formula" in the Declaration of Independence. Government was no longer to represent "God", or the "King", but the people.
In the light of limited power and limited government, I wonder if limiting terms in Congress would be a good idea? Would limiting terms to 6 or 8 years, and rotating state elections, where there would always be someone in power that has "been there", and had the experience to "inform" the "freshmen", who are new in the "halls of Congressional power". Would it not only limit Congressmen from building 'empires", legislating laws that promote their own personal interests, and get more people involved in serving their country?
Maybe I need to read up on the reasons why Congress was set to serve with unlimited terms of power. Is it a possibility that what has transpired today was never imagined in the past?
When we represent someone, whether a lawyer in the courts, or a Congressman in the House or Senate, these are to be servant leaders, not arrogant or self-serving in their interests in public office. The people vote because of their confidence in a particular candidate. They believe in the campaign promises, and value the platform the candidate represents.
But, all too often, our representatives are bought off by Big Interests, Special Interests and slough it off as a necessary "gain" for the public interest. The public thinks it has been hoodwinked and it is a recipe for damaging the public's interest in their government and civic duty, at large. There is no end to the news about public officials and their indiscretions when it comes to their public trust.
I wonder, since history has borne out that our Founders, or any of those who we "idealize" have feet of clay, just as our present day politicians do? What we want to remember are the "ideals" that we value. But, because of the public's intense interest in private life, biographies have been written that expose such indiscretions of past representatives. And these books sell. Does America want to be ambivalant toward their government and their Representatives in public office?
Representation is known first in one's family of origin. Psychologists have known that children get their view of "God" through their family, the father, being an important imprinter of the child's value.
In ancient societies where the peasant class had no say about their life, other than to serve their patrons, or slave-masters, "God" was know to be represented by leadership. This was how the peasant class came to formulate their understanding of "God". If an unjust ruler ruled, they deemed that God was "above" or "over" that unjust ruler. Theirs was a passive state of submission to the dominating culture.
Enlightened societies have understood that all people should have a voice and have a sense of empowerment when it comes to their government. This was our Founder's "formula" in the Declaration of Independence. Government was no longer to represent "God", or the "King", but the people.
In the light of limited power and limited government, I wonder if limiting terms in Congress would be a good idea? Would limiting terms to 6 or 8 years, and rotating state elections, where there would always be someone in power that has "been there", and had the experience to "inform" the "freshmen", who are new in the "halls of Congressional power". Would it not only limit Congressmen from building 'empires", legislating laws that promote their own personal interests, and get more people involved in serving their country?
Maybe I need to read up on the reasons why Congress was set to serve with unlimited terms of power. Is it a possibility that what has transpired today was never imagined in the past?
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Projection As a Source of Psychological Survival and Goal /Value Formation
Heroes are the leaders that represent our values. Those who represent these values are prone to gain a following, even though this may not be their intent. And those that represent our values in a Representative Republic are valued for thier defense of our ideals of life and liberty.
Our representative Republic was formed to create a more 'perfect union', where individuals could attain the "right to life". The right to life is a basic need in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, as without the basics of physical and emotional sustenance, there will be no 'goal setting" or reaching human potential.
Although the "right to life' is a basic need, our Founders understood that without liberty, life would not be valued. Liberty is of primary importance to uphold human value, because without it, an individual is a product, a number, or a project. Liberty must be first for life to survive fully and abundantly to reach its full potential. No one has the right to suggest how another human being should live their life. Life is valued not because of how one behaves within the boundary of law, or what job one has, but because life is a value in itself. And these liberties are what are protected by the Constitution.
Life and liberty will always breed "bones of contention" between the values of the consevative and liberal, and how these views are held in social and fiscal areas of policy making. None of us will agree on every single issue. And this is as it should be in a free society, where we are free to disagree, discuss, dissent, and petition our Representatives for a "more perfect union".
The "pursuit of happiness" is allowing liberty of conscience. No one should judge another in how they choose to live thier life, within the boundary of law. Persuasion can be useful for those that feel so constrained to make a difference in others lives for change. But, authoritarianism in any form is anathema to a free society. We elect our leaders to represent our interests And our representatives in Congress are responsible for maintaining a culture for/of peace, as this is what the 'rule of law' should do; bring peaceful resolution. I do not believe that we should have a positive view of the law, but a negative view, because of the primary value of liberty of conscience.
We value our laws as these are what make for "our perfect union". And this is the ethical "ideal" of human value in life and liberty.
Our representative Republic was formed to create a more 'perfect union', where individuals could attain the "right to life". The right to life is a basic need in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, as without the basics of physical and emotional sustenance, there will be no 'goal setting" or reaching human potential.
Although the "right to life' is a basic need, our Founders understood that without liberty, life would not be valued. Liberty is of primary importance to uphold human value, because without it, an individual is a product, a number, or a project. Liberty must be first for life to survive fully and abundantly to reach its full potential. No one has the right to suggest how another human being should live their life. Life is valued not because of how one behaves within the boundary of law, or what job one has, but because life is a value in itself. And these liberties are what are protected by the Constitution.
Life and liberty will always breed "bones of contention" between the values of the consevative and liberal, and how these views are held in social and fiscal areas of policy making. None of us will agree on every single issue. And this is as it should be in a free society, where we are free to disagree, discuss, dissent, and petition our Representatives for a "more perfect union".
The "pursuit of happiness" is allowing liberty of conscience. No one should judge another in how they choose to live thier life, within the boundary of law. Persuasion can be useful for those that feel so constrained to make a difference in others lives for change. But, authoritarianism in any form is anathema to a free society. We elect our leaders to represent our interests And our representatives in Congress are responsible for maintaining a culture for/of peace, as this is what the 'rule of law' should do; bring peaceful resolution. I do not believe that we should have a positive view of the law, but a negative view, because of the primary value of liberty of conscience.
We value our laws as these are what make for "our perfect union". And this is the ethical "ideal" of human value in life and liberty.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
A GAG ORDER???
What is happening to our free society? Why are the American people left in the dark in regards to healthcare legislation?
Congress has to vote on this issue without knowing how much it will costs the American taxpayer!! And yet, these Comgressmen are to be OUR representatives!! American people WAKE UP!! We are being scammed....and why and what for and who is driving this legislation. I think there is more than meets the eye...
Healthcare is 1/6th of the American economy. And we believe AFTER A.C.O.R.N. that we can trust government to do things "right"??? Someone is asking for "blind faith" on our Congressmen's part and "blind trust" on the American people's part....Who is running the "ship" in America?
American doctors are already selling out their 'businesses" so that they do not have to be an assembly line of "healthcare service" under a government beauracracy. I don't blame them. The doctors who have a desire to really take care of their patients needs, do their jobs with utmost excellence, and not regard their patients as another number or quota to make their ends meet, are abandoning ship. They can't afford to make the money they need to and take care of the patients in the way they want to...I admire them.
What will be left of our healthcare providers once these are gone? What young person will seek to serve in this capacity when government will limit them? Will government then "mandate" who will be going to medical school and on what basis will these young people be determined? Will our professionals be governmental "pawns"?
A lot has to be seen. The American people are waiting. And we hope for the best.
Congress has to vote on this issue without knowing how much it will costs the American taxpayer!! And yet, these Comgressmen are to be OUR representatives!! American people WAKE UP!! We are being scammed....and why and what for and who is driving this legislation. I think there is more than meets the eye...
Healthcare is 1/6th of the American economy. And we believe AFTER A.C.O.R.N. that we can trust government to do things "right"??? Someone is asking for "blind faith" on our Congressmen's part and "blind trust" on the American people's part....Who is running the "ship" in America?
American doctors are already selling out their 'businesses" so that they do not have to be an assembly line of "healthcare service" under a government beauracracy. I don't blame them. The doctors who have a desire to really take care of their patients needs, do their jobs with utmost excellence, and not regard their patients as another number or quota to make their ends meet, are abandoning ship. They can't afford to make the money they need to and take care of the patients in the way they want to...I admire them.
What will be left of our healthcare providers once these are gone? What young person will seek to serve in this capacity when government will limit them? Will government then "mandate" who will be going to medical school and on what basis will these young people be determined? Will our professionals be governmental "pawns"?
A lot has to be seen. The American people are waiting. And we hope for the best.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Power Politics and Freedom of Information
Knowledge is power and if you can keep others from knowing what is going on behind the scenes, then the people in the know can thrawt the social contract. I hope there are people aware of what is going on in our country to hold others accountable and not allow power to rule access to knowledge about our nation's business.
Social contract is the result of negotiating interests, coming to terms with differences, giving equal respect between employer and employee. A contract is a binding agreement of known variables. Our representatives are to represent the electorate's interests, not their own interests. But, it seems that sometimes interests collide and this is what power politics determines, who wins the argument. but, these arguments cannot be had, if power limits the discussion in the first place.
Social contract is based on democratic ideals, where reason is the cash of discussion. Woe be to those who live in societies where freedom of information is limited and power determines "what will be". We will no longer be free, but enslaved to those who think they do "what's right", because they are "in the know".
Social contract is the result of negotiating interests, coming to terms with differences, giving equal respect between employer and employee. A contract is a binding agreement of known variables. Our representatives are to represent the electorate's interests, not their own interests. But, it seems that sometimes interests collide and this is what power politics determines, who wins the argument. but, these arguments cannot be had, if power limits the discussion in the first place.
Social contract is based on democratic ideals, where reason is the cash of discussion. Woe be to those who live in societies where freedom of information is limited and power determines "what will be". We will no longer be free, but enslaved to those who think they do "what's right", because they are "in the know".
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Politics, Fairness, and Representation
Politics is the domain of campaigning for power. Politics disregards the other side's interest as they are out to win. The Campaign and the partisanship is what we have come to expect in any political campaign. But, what are the results in our democratic form of government?
Politicians should be people of character, who represent others fairly, as ours is a representative government. Representation is necessary for the free to remain free, as each group has a right to exist and to be free in their understanding and practice of their particular life choices.
Fairness was brought home to me in answering a person's question on my blog site. He was questioning an application of my "ideals". As I answered him I used several terms that he furthur wanted information about where I stood. In responding more speicifically and conclusively, I realized and recgnized certain priorities for the politician that is important.
The politician must answer questions, with his opinion and then give reasons why he finds this position most reasonable. While his position can be stated forthrightly, it only furthers his cause to be informed of the other side, and/or how another application that would "speak" to the particular person would enlighten and enlarge the questioner, while underlining why he believes what he does.
I really enjoy the debate, I guess, as I answer the question, considering the sides and weighing my own convictions, again. I have changed my opinion about some things in my lifetime, as we all have.
So, in thinking about politics tonight, I became convinced that the politician should be a person of conviction, while being educated, open-minded, and fair. I wish I could say that all politicians behaved this way, but that is why we have the campaign and free elections...as the voters are the ones who hold the reigns of power first.
Politicians should be people of character, who represent others fairly, as ours is a representative government. Representation is necessary for the free to remain free, as each group has a right to exist and to be free in their understanding and practice of their particular life choices.
Fairness was brought home to me in answering a person's question on my blog site. He was questioning an application of my "ideals". As I answered him I used several terms that he furthur wanted information about where I stood. In responding more speicifically and conclusively, I realized and recgnized certain priorities for the politician that is important.
The politician must answer questions, with his opinion and then give reasons why he finds this position most reasonable. While his position can be stated forthrightly, it only furthers his cause to be informed of the other side, and/or how another application that would "speak" to the particular person would enlighten and enlarge the questioner, while underlining why he believes what he does.
I really enjoy the debate, I guess, as I answer the question, considering the sides and weighing my own convictions, again. I have changed my opinion about some things in my lifetime, as we all have.
So, in thinking about politics tonight, I became convinced that the politician should be a person of conviction, while being educated, open-minded, and fair. I wish I could say that all politicians behaved this way, but that is why we have the campaign and free elections...as the voters are the ones who hold the reigns of power first.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Views of Truth
There are three ways of understanding "truth" or reality; correspondence, coherent and pragmatic. These understanding relate to the Quadralateral in different ways.'
Correspondence truth is truth in the transcendental realm where the real world should coincide with the spiritual. The different understandings of the transcentdent, then become problematic. The real world becomes defined upon texts, or tradition, unless one understands human representation. Plato would be a good representative of correspondence theory to truth.
Coherent truth is based on the "real world' of experience. Whenever cognitive dissonance happens people try to resolve the dissonance by philosophizing. Aristotle would be a good example of trying to bring coherence in life. This can be done in many ways, some choose to live with a Stoic attitude of resignation that life will not be coherent and this may bring them to a pragmatic view, where what is important is decided upon the priority of value.
The third view, Pragmatism believes that what works is the epitome of truth. Pragmatists understand their reality or real world in the material realm with utilitarian goals. The dissonance happens whenever believing pragmatists encounter ethical dilemmas. Is any means useful to justify the end? The answer again,will depend on the values affected and which has priority.
Three different ways of understanding "truth" in the real world. What defines your understanding to truth?
Correspondence truth is truth in the transcendental realm where the real world should coincide with the spiritual. The different understandings of the transcentdent, then become problematic. The real world becomes defined upon texts, or tradition, unless one understands human representation. Plato would be a good representative of correspondence theory to truth.
Coherent truth is based on the "real world' of experience. Whenever cognitive dissonance happens people try to resolve the dissonance by philosophizing. Aristotle would be a good example of trying to bring coherence in life. This can be done in many ways, some choose to live with a Stoic attitude of resignation that life will not be coherent and this may bring them to a pragmatic view, where what is important is decided upon the priority of value.
The third view, Pragmatism believes that what works is the epitome of truth. Pragmatists understand their reality or real world in the material realm with utilitarian goals. The dissonance happens whenever believing pragmatists encounter ethical dilemmas. Is any means useful to justify the end? The answer again,will depend on the values affected and which has priority.
Three different ways of understanding "truth" in the real world. What defines your understanding to truth?
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Leadership and Representation
Fortunately, the presidential campaign is over. It was a bloody battle that divided our country.
Politics has come to be known as a competitive, dog-eat-dog world of survival of the fittest. The fittest being those who have great rhetorical skills, can make friends with the right people to gain support and momentum for their agenda and choose the right campaign managers, so that their campaigns are productive, as well as lucrative. Politics, which was supposed be the realm of the practical representation of "real people", has become the world of selfishness, greed and dishonesty. And this is good leadership?
Politics has come to be known as a competitive, dog-eat-dog world of survival of the fittest. The fittest being those who have great rhetorical skills, can make friends with the right people to gain support and momentum for their agenda and choose the right campaign managers, so that their campaigns are productive, as well as lucrative. Politics, which was supposed be the realm of the practical representation of "real people", has become the world of selfishness, greed and dishonesty. And this is good leadership?
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Images
Images are appearances. That we can all agree upon. The difference lies in what do the images represent? Do images represent the absolute REAL? If so, is there numerous ways of understanding the real, through the interpretaion? These interpretaions are evaluated based upon our experiences in education (life, formal, cultural, familial). These are social constructed interpretations. Therefore, our understanding would be limited by our education.
What if the images are just images that are representative of cultural values? They are not images that reflect something of the "real world", but are a means of communication and expression of those values? Then, our understanding would be culturally framed based upon that culture's value structure.
Which is it?
A REAL world that we battle on the basis of Truth that is still dependent on interpretation.
OR, is it a symbolic world of cultural values that have no basis in "Truth", but are just cultural values?
What if the images are just images that are representative of cultural values? They are not images that reflect something of the "real world", but are a means of communication and expression of those values? Then, our understanding would be culturally framed based upon that culture's value structure.
Which is it?
A REAL world that we battle on the basis of Truth that is still dependent on interpretation.
OR, is it a symbolic world of cultural values that have no basis in "Truth", but are just cultural values?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
