Rules/laws define and bring clarity and this is important for any society. Today, though, these rules or the laws in our Constitution are being dismissed because of higher, more alturistic goals. But, such thinking leaves little room for identification factors or for justice. Justice, in this context, means respect for the society that is defined by such rules and protection for the members/citizens of such a context. Justice is defined by protecting and upholding the "rule of law'.
Today's scientists wonder if one's identity is defined by one's environment, or one's universal mind via categories. If one's identity is defined by one's environment, then it is suggested that people need to be exposed, so that their identity can be expanded to be "inclusive". "Humans", after all, are all similar.
On the other hand, if it is suspected that the human mind holds the universal categories, then education is the answer to such questions. Education would inform the mind of its moral obligations to the 'human race". But, what of diversity of interpretation of such exposure, or the creative element of the mind? or coginitive affirmation of one's "religious frame"? Even though the mind can be stimulated does that stimulation bring about the same response, behavior, or understanding? How does previous experience impact how one interprests such stimulation?
What if 'universal identity is a undefined identity? What if the mind needs a context to define itself? What if the mind uses difference to determine identity, and not uniformity? Understanding oneself in opposition to another doesn't necessarily mean oppostional behavior. It would only help to clarify and distinctify and bring more understanding to the "table" in negotiation.
I think we have found that the religious hold to identification factors apart from "constitutional forms of government" or "self-identity", as a chosen identity. Constitutional forms of government' allow for a more definitive identity via religion. But, this is a problem for the modern mind that identifies with a nation-state, and a religious tradition that undermines the "humane laws" that the nation-state holds. How is identity to be expanded or informed without undermining the nation-state? And should one consider such religious identity as a " human right"? Some don't believe that such identity can be changed. And this is why they call for America to take care of its own business.
So, which is it, environment or education that is to be the "enlightenment" of identity? And how does one know if the identity is internalized such that it would be highly improbable for the religious to re-identify? De-conversions happen all that time, but only within the context of a free and open society. So, what should we do? Should we be engaged with spreading democracy and constitutional government? Should we continue to trade with such environments? Or should we leave the religious alone hoping that they will leave us alone?
Showing posts with label social sciences. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social sciences. Show all posts
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Solutions Produce Other Problems
I believe in irreducibly complexity, when it comes to the human animal, therefore, I resist any type of "production" when it comes to the human. I can "see", understand and agree to a certain extint when it comes to the scientific discoveries concerning the human. Humans are just not the same as "matter in motion". And "matter in motion" is what some would value, as to action/behavior. Alturism is their goal, as life is without "hope" for those deemd to live in the lower caste status. Does such social engineering salve the conscience of the "elite" because of their "good intentions"?
Alturism has been of interest to scientists of late, because of "social Darwininism" and the concern for social control/order. But, control/order is a problem itself, as whenever we seek to control,, even with alturistic intentions, then we also limit and define. Limitation and definition of "goods" or social goals, inevitably leads to 'government regulation" which inhibits creativity and growth. Government regulation is not a liberal ideal. And liberal ideals are what made our country great and protected the value of the individual.
Individuals have their own dreams, destinies and desires to fulfill. And those that appealled to this human need, have "won the race" in our elections. Americans believe in the value of individual liberty in regards to life. And no one should define or limit another's life.
Alturism has been of interest to scientists of late, because of "social Darwininism" and the concern for social control/order. But, control/order is a problem itself, as whenever we seek to control,, even with alturistic intentions, then we also limit and define. Limitation and definition of "goods" or social goals, inevitably leads to 'government regulation" which inhibits creativity and growth. Government regulation is not a liberal ideal. And liberal ideals are what made our country great and protected the value of the individual.
Individuals have their own dreams, destinies and desires to fulfill. And those that appealled to this human need, have "won the race" in our elections. Americans believe in the value of individual liberty in regards to life. And no one should define or limit another's life.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
The "Scary Part" of Science
Natural science has been understood to be the "order" that establishes the universe. These "laws" are what physicists call "natural laws" that "rule" over what we know about the world. Today, science asks and is seeking the answer to "an order" that defines the universe. These 'laws" would be 'universal' and would underwrite the "world's structure".
Social scientists are also interested in what maintains the "social order". It has been thought that social structures themselves were what defined social norms and created the environment where humans flourished. These are family therapists, social psychologists, and social structuralists.
But, where the social sciences have defined "order" by the environment, these sciences are now trying to understand and integrate what biological science is finding to be true in the physical aspects of "being human". The brain is thought to carry the signature of the universe within its structure. This intersection of environment and biology has wrought much wrangling in its wake, as religion is being "outsourced" to the physical sciences.
But my concern is; so what if the brain reveals a "universal structure"? Does that necessitate a certain monistic understanding of "life", as far as environment? Are differences to be appreciated and affirmed or controlled and stipulated by "proper form" according to "brain science". This is where the "mind/brain" understanding comes into discussion and what makes for "the human", as far as I can understand. Without diversity of culture and personality, the world will be less colorful and enjoyable to the individual.
The individual will be defined by a "scientific society" that will form the rules that define tightly what is proper order. And this order will be defined by a certain culture, religion, race, and this "form" of thinking is what has led to genocide, ethnic cleansing, discrimination, and such. We must be aware of the social aspects of applications of science, so that science does not do disservice to mankind.
Order is what is created in societies by laws. But, order that is not flexible or accomodating to individuality is tyrannical. This is where science is limited, because "who can know another's mind" except one who has personal exposure and experience with another. Minds are different in this way.
Social scientists are also interested in what maintains the "social order". It has been thought that social structures themselves were what defined social norms and created the environment where humans flourished. These are family therapists, social psychologists, and social structuralists.
But, where the social sciences have defined "order" by the environment, these sciences are now trying to understand and integrate what biological science is finding to be true in the physical aspects of "being human". The brain is thought to carry the signature of the universe within its structure. This intersection of environment and biology has wrought much wrangling in its wake, as religion is being "outsourced" to the physical sciences.
But my concern is; so what if the brain reveals a "universal structure"? Does that necessitate a certain monistic understanding of "life", as far as environment? Are differences to be appreciated and affirmed or controlled and stipulated by "proper form" according to "brain science". This is where the "mind/brain" understanding comes into discussion and what makes for "the human", as far as I can understand. Without diversity of culture and personality, the world will be less colorful and enjoyable to the individual.
The individual will be defined by a "scientific society" that will form the rules that define tightly what is proper order. And this order will be defined by a certain culture, religion, race, and this "form" of thinking is what has led to genocide, ethnic cleansing, discrimination, and such. We must be aware of the social aspects of applications of science, so that science does not do disservice to mankind.
Order is what is created in societies by laws. But, order that is not flexible or accomodating to individuality is tyrannical. This is where science is limited, because "who can know another's mind" except one who has personal exposure and experience with another. Minds are different in this way.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Belonging, Belief, and Behavior "Revisited"
On Richard Beck's 'Experimental Theology" he wrote about "Third Places". I think these "third places" are what humans need in their experience of life. It is one of the basic needs of being human. It is the need to "belong". Humans are social beings.
Behavior that is inclusive is also about belonging to the "human race". This is about being and acting humanely.
Beliefs, though, can inhibit humans from crossing the divide of difference and acting in a humane way. Many times these inhumane ways of behaving is because of a person's understanding of "god". And other times, prejuidice is due to conditioning within a certain social context.
In America, we live with difference, as we live in a diverse culture, although Beck seems to think that we don't. I guess it might depend on if we have ever lived in a city, even in surburbia. Larger populations in America are almost always diverse.
Human love to categorize, generalize, and universalize. This is one way that the social sciences understand the 'human". But, while social scientists generalize, humans are also unique individuals, with personal experiences, personal values, and personal gifts that go beyond their identification to a certain specification.
Some behaviorists think that change to an individual happens because of exposure. But, this is not always the case. Research has shown that not only do some people "read" their bias and prejuidice into a situation or encounter with another different from themselves, but there is also a type of 'prejuidicial personality type.
So, while instigating behavior is an important factor in evaluating or determining research for social scientists, it is a variable that is not easily "controlled" or evaluated as to its universiality.
In postmodernity's need to find "reason", human experience is the only "universal" human category. And the category itself is very diverse in its true understanding.
Behavior that is inclusive is also about belonging to the "human race". This is about being and acting humanely.
Beliefs, though, can inhibit humans from crossing the divide of difference and acting in a humane way. Many times these inhumane ways of behaving is because of a person's understanding of "god". And other times, prejuidice is due to conditioning within a certain social context.
In America, we live with difference, as we live in a diverse culture, although Beck seems to think that we don't. I guess it might depend on if we have ever lived in a city, even in surburbia. Larger populations in America are almost always diverse.
Human love to categorize, generalize, and universalize. This is one way that the social sciences understand the 'human". But, while social scientists generalize, humans are also unique individuals, with personal experiences, personal values, and personal gifts that go beyond their identification to a certain specification.
Some behaviorists think that change to an individual happens because of exposure. But, this is not always the case. Research has shown that not only do some people "read" their bias and prejuidice into a situation or encounter with another different from themselves, but there is also a type of 'prejuidicial personality type.
So, while instigating behavior is an important factor in evaluating or determining research for social scientists, it is a variable that is not easily "controlled" or evaluated as to its universiality.
In postmodernity's need to find "reason", human experience is the only "universal" human category. And the category itself is very diverse in its true understanding.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Quantum Theory and the Social Sciences
My husband tells me that in quantum mechanics that whenever a measurement is taken, the measurement affects the object measured. I wonder how this affects the "outcome" of social science measurements. How would social scientists be able to "tell" if their measurements are true, or if, indeed, as in quantum theory, the stats are skewed??
Surely, when one observes, they cannot have "pure motives", as in the Golden Rule.
Surely, when one observes, they cannot have "pure motives", as in the Golden Rule.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
