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.
Showing posts with label the human being. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the human being. Show all posts
Monday, November 8, 2010
Saturday, September 26, 2009
"Surrogates", the Movie
My husband and I went to see "Surrogates" this afternoon. It was a movie that historicizes "virtual reality".
"Surrogates" are robot type "models" of humanity that function for the individual in society. The living human being is "connected" to the surrogate via a "computorized system". "Surrogates" Live for the human, as the human only experiences their life within the confines of their "chair".
The meaning of the movie to me was how disconnected the "connected" were. Relationships were dissolved of intimacy and humans were denied their "humanity".
Is this where we are today, even though we don't "officially" function as a "surrogate" society?
"Surrogates" are robot type "models" of humanity that function for the individual in society. The living human being is "connected" to the surrogate via a "computorized system". "Surrogates" Live for the human, as the human only experiences their life within the confines of their "chair".
The meaning of the movie to me was how disconnected the "connected" were. Relationships were dissolved of intimacy and humans were denied their "humanity".
Is this where we are today, even though we don't "officially" function as a "surrogate" society?
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Cinderella, "Happily Ever Afters" and Prejuidice
"Blood runs deeper than water", or so the saying goes.
My grand-daughter is watching "Cinderella". It is a "moral story" that has a significant message about prejuidice, justice, and "hope".
The story, as most Americans know, is about a girl's hopes of "becoming" and the wicked step-mother's determination that Cinderella's future will be undermined by limitations of her determination.
I walked into our family room, just at the moment in the movie when the invitation is opened to attend the "Ball". When the step-mother reads it out loud to her two daughters in Cinderella's presence, Cinderella exclaims that she also should be included. (The invitation is addressed to "All")
The step-mother says that Cinderella can go IF she gets all her chores done. (Cinderella is a "slave") She hurries to get everything done and get dressed, only to get attacked by her step-sisters and her step-mother. She is left destitute and runs away crying because she has "no hope". Prejuidice never allows another any "hope" of accomplishing their own ends. Prejuidice determines beforehand where one "fits" and doesn't make for any allowances.
There is something that resonates within the human heart about "hope", possibilities and potential. Cinderella has potential but she is disadvantaged.
The story ends in a happily ever after of a "fairy god-mother" who uses "magic" that makes everything "all right". Cinderella gets to attend the Ball and gets the Prince's attention. Cinderella and the Prince end up living happily ever after. Such are the dreams of every little girl. But, it is also the hope of the human heart.
Our American society allows such "creations" of human happiness, potentialities and justice. We believe in the ability of obstacles to be overcome and the underdog's ability to not be "kept under". And our society values the rule of law and civil liberties.
Our sense of justice is valued by our understanding of "blind justice". We do not believe that prejuidice or priviledge is in any way allowed within our courts of law! We believe that irregardless of "blood ties", or other ways of defining ourselves within our contexts, the/a human being is more important. And the/a human being must be allowed the freedom to attend the Ball, if she chooses and not be designated to "housefhold chores" (cleaning up another's mess).
The Founders believed, "all people are created equal, with certain inalienable rights. These are the rights of life, liberty and the 'pursuit of happiness".
My grand-daughter is watching "Cinderella". It is a "moral story" that has a significant message about prejuidice, justice, and "hope".
The story, as most Americans know, is about a girl's hopes of "becoming" and the wicked step-mother's determination that Cinderella's future will be undermined by limitations of her determination.
I walked into our family room, just at the moment in the movie when the invitation is opened to attend the "Ball". When the step-mother reads it out loud to her two daughters in Cinderella's presence, Cinderella exclaims that she also should be included. (The invitation is addressed to "All")
The step-mother says that Cinderella can go IF she gets all her chores done. (Cinderella is a "slave") She hurries to get everything done and get dressed, only to get attacked by her step-sisters and her step-mother. She is left destitute and runs away crying because she has "no hope". Prejuidice never allows another any "hope" of accomplishing their own ends. Prejuidice determines beforehand where one "fits" and doesn't make for any allowances.
There is something that resonates within the human heart about "hope", possibilities and potential. Cinderella has potential but she is disadvantaged.
The story ends in a happily ever after of a "fairy god-mother" who uses "magic" that makes everything "all right". Cinderella gets to attend the Ball and gets the Prince's attention. Cinderella and the Prince end up living happily ever after. Such are the dreams of every little girl. But, it is also the hope of the human heart.
Our American society allows such "creations" of human happiness, potentialities and justice. We believe in the ability of obstacles to be overcome and the underdog's ability to not be "kept under". And our society values the rule of law and civil liberties.
Our sense of justice is valued by our understanding of "blind justice". We do not believe that prejuidice or priviledge is in any way allowed within our courts of law! We believe that irregardless of "blood ties", or other ways of defining ourselves within our contexts, the/a human being is more important. And the/a human being must be allowed the freedom to attend the Ball, if she chooses and not be designated to "housefhold chores" (cleaning up another's mess).
The Founders believed, "all people are created equal, with certain inalienable rights. These are the rights of life, liberty and the 'pursuit of happiness".
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The Banality of the "Common Good"...
If we think we live isolated lives that do not matter in the large scheme of things, we are mistaken. Our country does value and affirm the individual and for the most part, allows the individual the freedom to choose his "way of life". Is this changing in our globalized world? I believe it is, because we don't choose to do what is wrong or shady alone. We must have co-operation from a larger "group".
This morning it was reported that the SEC person who should have overseen Bernie Madoff, "overlooked" his indiscrepencies. Her "indiscrepency" encouraged Bernie's "greed" and has made her culpable in the "scheme of things". She has resigned. Bernie's actions have affected many, but he obviously did not do it alone. This is how the "system" works. And it has become more and more prevalent as our world has become interconnected.
I think that without individual choice and responsibiltiy for "self", that there is no real morality, because it alleviates personal decision making, which salves consciences from what would otherwise be reprehensible. And many times the "evil" is done in the name of "good", so it further gives credibility to the pressure to conform to the "system's" role and function appropriately.
Also, this morning, it was reported that our country was headed for socialized medicine. Whil many countries have this style of medical insurance, socialism has not bred the best environment for medical research and development. Systems do not allow the individual as many choices in being responsible for their own health-care. Insurance companies would not cover certain surguries or treatments, as these would be considered prohibitive in costs, or "outside" the scope of "common" concern. Again, we will not be allowed the freedom to choose whether we can or will afford a certain treatment. But, I am sure the socialists would approve of this design in the name of the common good!
Last night, during his presidental address, I got the impression that Obama was cautious in his word selection concerning Iran and what our future actions would be toward that nation. While I respect his carefulness, if it was due to lack of information at this point about our future actions, I do not condone an attitude of tolerance toward those who would subvert the "rule of law".
Boundaries are necessary to maintain identification factors and allow a consideration of difference. Otherwise, humankind looses their identification factors and I think, this leads to violent fear and anxiety. Identity breeds security because "we know who we are and what we stand for". Otherwise, the human is dissolved into social and political "forces/issues" that don't regard the person, but uses the person for the "system's interest".
"Sin" is not just a personal issue, but a systemic one. Individuals must resist the "group mentality" that would subvert "proper respect" and regard for another human being. Justice is standing for and up to these forces/factors in the name of individuals who have no voice. Our country has sought to bring that freedom to other nations, so that their people can have a voice. Just recntly, elections were held in Iraq and women were on the ballot. This is dramatic social change. And yet, we do not hear about this change on our major news networks.
Humankind is not a personal word, nor is, the "common good". Socialism, communism and political dictatorships all breed on "group think" and "common purposes", which disregard personal interests, disrespecting the individual. These are manavolent factors in the world that do not breed "freedom" in any shape or form. This is why our Founding Fathers were so careful to allow the individual the freedoms that we tout in our Bill of Rights. Without these laws, we cannot make any difference for others, because we, ourselves, will be slaves to the "common good", which will be "dictated" by "elite rulers" and not the "common person". We must fight the "banality of the common good".
This morning it was reported that the SEC person who should have overseen Bernie Madoff, "overlooked" his indiscrepencies. Her "indiscrepency" encouraged Bernie's "greed" and has made her culpable in the "scheme of things". She has resigned. Bernie's actions have affected many, but he obviously did not do it alone. This is how the "system" works. And it has become more and more prevalent as our world has become interconnected.
I think that without individual choice and responsibiltiy for "self", that there is no real morality, because it alleviates personal decision making, which salves consciences from what would otherwise be reprehensible. And many times the "evil" is done in the name of "good", so it further gives credibility to the pressure to conform to the "system's" role and function appropriately.
Also, this morning, it was reported that our country was headed for socialized medicine. Whil many countries have this style of medical insurance, socialism has not bred the best environment for medical research and development. Systems do not allow the individual as many choices in being responsible for their own health-care. Insurance companies would not cover certain surguries or treatments, as these would be considered prohibitive in costs, or "outside" the scope of "common" concern. Again, we will not be allowed the freedom to choose whether we can or will afford a certain treatment. But, I am sure the socialists would approve of this design in the name of the common good!
Last night, during his presidental address, I got the impression that Obama was cautious in his word selection concerning Iran and what our future actions would be toward that nation. While I respect his carefulness, if it was due to lack of information at this point about our future actions, I do not condone an attitude of tolerance toward those who would subvert the "rule of law".
Boundaries are necessary to maintain identification factors and allow a consideration of difference. Otherwise, humankind looses their identification factors and I think, this leads to violent fear and anxiety. Identity breeds security because "we know who we are and what we stand for". Otherwise, the human is dissolved into social and political "forces/issues" that don't regard the person, but uses the person for the "system's interest".
"Sin" is not just a personal issue, but a systemic one. Individuals must resist the "group mentality" that would subvert "proper respect" and regard for another human being. Justice is standing for and up to these forces/factors in the name of individuals who have no voice. Our country has sought to bring that freedom to other nations, so that their people can have a voice. Just recntly, elections were held in Iraq and women were on the ballot. This is dramatic social change. And yet, we do not hear about this change on our major news networks.
Humankind is not a personal word, nor is, the "common good". Socialism, communism and political dictatorships all breed on "group think" and "common purposes", which disregard personal interests, disrespecting the individual. These are manavolent factors in the world that do not breed "freedom" in any shape or form. This is why our Founding Fathers were so careful to allow the individual the freedoms that we tout in our Bill of Rights. Without these laws, we cannot make any difference for others, because we, ourselves, will be slaves to the "common good", which will be "dictated" by "elite rulers" and not the "common person". We must fight the "banality of the common good".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
