"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
Such is the problem with corrupt, good ole boy systems in government!
Showing posts with label understandings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label understandings. Show all posts
Friday, February 11, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
It"s All About Theories and the "Mind"...
I think how one views life and all that is, is really about theories, and how one's mind engages theories and experiences.......
Think of the many types of theories in the different diciplines; literary theory, political theory, pscyhological theory, educational theory, etc...all of these theories help to formulate how a person "comes out" in their commitments in life, as to behavior and understanding.
I think this might defy a uniformity as to how adult individuals understand, internalize/criticize or incorporate/resist their environments.
Think of the many types of theories in the different diciplines; literary theory, political theory, pscyhological theory, educational theory, etc...all of these theories help to formulate how a person "comes out" in their commitments in life, as to behavior and understanding.
I think this might defy a uniformity as to how adult individuals understand, internalize/criticize or incorporate/resist their environments.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Presumption
This morning I was thinking about presumption. Presumption causes many problems in relationships, whether they be between two individuals or nations. Presumptions holds one's own views as the "only view" and acts without thought or understanding. This is what offends many about Americans. Traditions are individually oriented by the individual families that make up our nation's "tradition of diversity".
Everyone has heard and seen pictures of the stereotypical "American in Paris". This is funny, but not so funny. People have pride in their cultural traditions and some do not seem to respect these in today's inter-related world.
Our inter-related world has brought about more understanding, but there are still certain courtesies that those not privy to the "inside of culture" might not be aware. Such is the nature of unexposure to another culture.
Many years ago, when we travelled with our children to Paris and were seated at a corner table, as group of American students came in and were seated within our hearing. As they looked over the menu, one loudly asked if the "water was pure enough to drink"! IN PARIS! I was embarassed for her/them/me/Americans. What would make this teen so insensitive? Paris is not a 'third world country"!
I think sometimes insensitivity can happen because of a lack of exposure, or a lack of openness to life itself. The lack of openness can hinder even the experiences we have by being transcribed into our way of understanding or thinking about life especially if the cultural value is not based on rational discourse. This is what causes presumptuous behavior.
This has led me to question the value of culture, and which cultural value is most important. Cultural values have meaning to those that still partake of them. My husband's family has an "unspoken rule" about tea and cookies. There is a "proper way" to make and partake of "tea time". Americans have a casual attitude about such matters, because of our inability to understand why people don't value differences of opinion about ways of doing things. Our differences have made us tolerant, except where it concerns intolerance.
Today's problems "turn" around the intolerant cultures, which demand a strict obedience to certain standardized behaviors. These cultures are dangerous because they cannot tolerate the vast differences in the world. And those that adhere to "a one way of being" in the world are prone to subvert another's liberty in the name of "right", "the sacred", or some other type of presumptuous thinking.
Today, it is probably more important to remember the reasons for certain cultural traditions. These help to bind together a culture/nation and give it an identity. But, it also intensifies one's ethnic identification. This can be damning in today's world, where the world is attempting to "bind" all together, at least in understanding. But, understanding has to be premised upon rationality. And sometimes there is no way to agree or come to a compromise, because the values of certain cultures are so different and so obstinant.
Identity in America is understood, not just within ethnicity, but one's individuality. What does one want to do and how does one want to be in the world. The "world is the limit", because we attempt to protect the minority's right to opportunity and not limit or inhibit "difference".
Everyone has heard and seen pictures of the stereotypical "American in Paris". This is funny, but not so funny. People have pride in their cultural traditions and some do not seem to respect these in today's inter-related world.
Our inter-related world has brought about more understanding, but there are still certain courtesies that those not privy to the "inside of culture" might not be aware. Such is the nature of unexposure to another culture.
Many years ago, when we travelled with our children to Paris and were seated at a corner table, as group of American students came in and were seated within our hearing. As they looked over the menu, one loudly asked if the "water was pure enough to drink"! IN PARIS! I was embarassed for her/them/me/Americans. What would make this teen so insensitive? Paris is not a 'third world country"!
I think sometimes insensitivity can happen because of a lack of exposure, or a lack of openness to life itself. The lack of openness can hinder even the experiences we have by being transcribed into our way of understanding or thinking about life especially if the cultural value is not based on rational discourse. This is what causes presumptuous behavior.
This has led me to question the value of culture, and which cultural value is most important. Cultural values have meaning to those that still partake of them. My husband's family has an "unspoken rule" about tea and cookies. There is a "proper way" to make and partake of "tea time". Americans have a casual attitude about such matters, because of our inability to understand why people don't value differences of opinion about ways of doing things. Our differences have made us tolerant, except where it concerns intolerance.
Today's problems "turn" around the intolerant cultures, which demand a strict obedience to certain standardized behaviors. These cultures are dangerous because they cannot tolerate the vast differences in the world. And those that adhere to "a one way of being" in the world are prone to subvert another's liberty in the name of "right", "the sacred", or some other type of presumptuous thinking.
Today, it is probably more important to remember the reasons for certain cultural traditions. These help to bind together a culture/nation and give it an identity. But, it also intensifies one's ethnic identification. This can be damning in today's world, where the world is attempting to "bind" all together, at least in understanding. But, understanding has to be premised upon rationality. And sometimes there is no way to agree or come to a compromise, because the values of certain cultures are so different and so obstinant.
Identity in America is understood, not just within ethnicity, but one's individuality. What does one want to do and how does one want to be in the world. The "world is the limit", because we attempt to protect the minority's right to opportunity and not limit or inhibit "difference".
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Theology's Task Today (continued)
In my last post, I said that there needed to be a globalized faith. This means that several things must change in the Christian world, where it concerns faith.
Science deals in the real world and describes many aspects of life in this world. Anthropological study of man within context, psychological study, which studies everything from neuroscience, cognitive science, learning theories, to how people respond and understand religion and God...Church history has focused on questions that confronted the Church and how they should be answered using philosophy. This is how theology should be done today, as it connects the real world with the transcendent. There is no superspiritual message of salvation in the sweet by and by, as we really do not know about the transcendent. We only know about how man has functioned within the world. This is a theological humanism, as all men are created in God's image.
Some would like to protect the Bible as a special revelation to man, but I find this is misguided. The material in Scriptures has always been interpreted differently throughout the ages, but some would like to protect Jesus as a unique figure, instead of understanding him within a moral framework as natural theology would. A natural theology could be palatable to many atheists, I believe for it would not deny or detract from reason or reasonble scientific understandings of "truth" and theology. Of course, many would say that the wall between science and religion should remain intact, but why is this necessary? To protect the Church's interests? The Church's interests should be first and foremost about man and the world.
Augustine understood man within a certain framework that I think is downright wrong. Why? because of many atrocities that happen when one religion thinks it owns truth! And more so when there is correction in the name of God that must be made because man is fallen and will go to hell if he is not saved (spiritually). This attitude and focus breeds a radicalization of faith that breeds what Wesley would call enthusiasm. We do not need such thinking and feeling about faith today. We need a re-structuring that breeds understanding, listening, and a wideness in understanding God's grace, mercy and love. This theological framework would be diplomatic in its undertaking of peace in the world and would help to alleviate much miscommunication.
Jesus has been interpreted in so many ways that there is not "right way" of understanding him. He was a moral model, but was one among many in the world of religion. Religious understanding should include moral, ethical, social and political models within all cultures. Understanding others and their cultural heroes help to breed understanding and trust, which helps communication.
What do Christians really want? Do they want to have the "ultimate and only" truth? Or are they open to struggling to breech the wide gap amongst the religions of the world and bring a larger vision of hope?
According to the science and religion debate, this view is NOT complementary, but integrative. This is necessary and mandantory, as education has left faith altogether, which has bred the atheist we see today.
Science deals in the real world and describes many aspects of life in this world. Anthropological study of man within context, psychological study, which studies everything from neuroscience, cognitive science, learning theories, to how people respond and understand religion and God...Church history has focused on questions that confronted the Church and how they should be answered using philosophy. This is how theology should be done today, as it connects the real world with the transcendent. There is no superspiritual message of salvation in the sweet by and by, as we really do not know about the transcendent. We only know about how man has functioned within the world. This is a theological humanism, as all men are created in God's image.
Some would like to protect the Bible as a special revelation to man, but I find this is misguided. The material in Scriptures has always been interpreted differently throughout the ages, but some would like to protect Jesus as a unique figure, instead of understanding him within a moral framework as natural theology would. A natural theology could be palatable to many atheists, I believe for it would not deny or detract from reason or reasonble scientific understandings of "truth" and theology. Of course, many would say that the wall between science and religion should remain intact, but why is this necessary? To protect the Church's interests? The Church's interests should be first and foremost about man and the world.
Augustine understood man within a certain framework that I think is downright wrong. Why? because of many atrocities that happen when one religion thinks it owns truth! And more so when there is correction in the name of God that must be made because man is fallen and will go to hell if he is not saved (spiritually). This attitude and focus breeds a radicalization of faith that breeds what Wesley would call enthusiasm. We do not need such thinking and feeling about faith today. We need a re-structuring that breeds understanding, listening, and a wideness in understanding God's grace, mercy and love. This theological framework would be diplomatic in its undertaking of peace in the world and would help to alleviate much miscommunication.
Jesus has been interpreted in so many ways that there is not "right way" of understanding him. He was a moral model, but was one among many in the world of religion. Religious understanding should include moral, ethical, social and political models within all cultures. Understanding others and their cultural heroes help to breed understanding and trust, which helps communication.
What do Christians really want? Do they want to have the "ultimate and only" truth? Or are they open to struggling to breech the wide gap amongst the religions of the world and bring a larger vision of hope?
According to the science and religion debate, this view is NOT complementary, but integrative. This is necessary and mandantory, as education has left faith altogether, which has bred the atheist we see today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
