What I Am Reading...

I have been reading and am committed to finish some books within the week.

One is on "Ten Philosophical Mistakes" by Mortimer J. Adler, I have just finished. I have learned that there is a difference in intellect and sense perception. This difference distinguishes the human from the animal kingdom.

I have also learned that potentialities are what distinguishes the differences in behavior from the animal and human. And I believe that liberty is the only means of attaining and developing potential.

I also am thinking through "natural state", "the state of nature" and "social contract", and the development of "constitutional government" as the "ideal" of the real historical understanding of "context".

Another book I am beginning, " The Discovery of Freedom" (Man's Struggle Against Authority), by, Rose Wilder Lane and "A Plea for Liberty", a mixture of writers writing on the topic of liberty.

I plan on furthering my understanding and education in what has interested me.

I find the topic of liberty always pertinent to man's "identity", but especially in today's climate of maintaining a "social agenda", which politicizes the "moral", at the costs of other necessary truths. I must resolve what I believe to be the undermining of what makes the human different from the animal. And that is the diversity and uniqueness that is only granted under a "constitutional republic" ( or is it a "liberal democracy"?).

Against Rights?

I just recently read where the politically conservative are concerned over the Bill of Rights, in our Constitution. They seem to have a distaste for the "freedoms" that are written therein.

Where it concerns civil liberties, these believe that they must hold the ropes to a 'decent" and moral base, as understood in Scripture, otherwise our country will be doomed to suffer the judgment of God.

Conservatives of this stripe understand the "world" as a world where God superintends his "design and plan" upon others, even over the uncooperative. God does not rain on the just and the unjust, but "picks the chosen" those that are cooperative to bring in "His Kingdom". And the "Kingdom" is materialized in the way of their interpretive frame.

We all interpret our realities within our frames, this is normal mental health. The problem is when those in power deem anothers frame as "mentally ill" or mentally incompetant". Then the social structure of government has determined a cultural "norm" apart from a religious one. This happens under Communist Regimes where the religious are deemed the "mentally ill". Political activists are also shunned, as communism does not take kindly to dissention.

Something similar happens in Religious Regimes where those that disagree with their ideas of "dress, behavior and belief" are considered the "infidel", the "enemy", or worse. Those who maintain an exclusivist model of reality ostericize, shun, abuse or torment those who they deem to be outside their understanding of reality.

Both types of governing have an authroitarian way of maintaining the social order. This may make for "peace", but it does not allow diveristy of opinion, academic freedom, artistic expression or many other freedoms that we have in free societies.

So, why on earth are the conservatives hoping to reform the "Bill of Rights"?

Cleaning Out the Old

We have been cleaning our house, sort of a "spring cleaning" done "late" and long needed. The twelve years of accumulation brought back many memories, fond and "not so fond".

My husband was going through our cabinets in his study and found a large box of cassette tapes. Since cassettes aren't in vogue anymore, we decided to get rid of them. But, we did save the ones that would be good for our grandchildren, such as "books on tape".

What we found were many tapes from a "church" that underwrote a "bible school" on "spritual warfare", and various aspects of one's consecration and "walk with God". I cringed to think that this was where I used to be. I really believed this stuff. And it brought back memories of how I behaved because of my staunch belief, as The Truth.

The founder of this particular "organization" used to be a missionary and so his focus was just that. His understanding was a very sectarian view of faith. There is "the world" and there is "the flesh and the devil" and never the twain shall meet. Those that attended there (and I had quite a few from my family) were indoctrinated by this type of "faith tradition".

The "dichotomy" between the "real world" and the transcendental world is very limiting, as it defines everything according to scripture. As scripture was never intended to be handled in this way, it breeds all kinds of presumptuous attitudes and actions. People become dogmatic, opinionated and hard to get along with in the "real world" unless you agree with them. Agreement means that you are on "the Lord's side", if not, then you are considered "the enemy".

My husband and I talked about whether to give these tapes to a local charity, but I didn't want to promote that type of "faith". I think it is not just limiting one's "worldview", but also limiting to the person who believes it. And I certainly don't want to be a part of limiting others to a confined understanding of a particular tradition.

It was good to throw these tapes in the garbage, as they represented my past, which though was a part of my history, does not have to confine my frames of reference in the present. I do believe that we learn and grow, as we are open and this is the primary reason why I resist fundamentalistic thinking. Fundamentalism is afraid of reason. Ane yet, fundamentalists use reason to determine their "absolute" fundamentals! How odd.

Tolerance is Another Name....

A lot of "talk" today is about tolerance, mainly, I think because there is so much diversity and those that are intolerant want others to be "tolerant" to them.....This got me thinking.

Tolerance is another Name for submission to those you don't like, and/or agree with. What is wrong with this picture? Well, it depends.

Those who one doesn't like can range the gambit from how they dress to what they do. What someone does that is wrong, is not to be "tolerated". "Wrong" is trespassing. And wrong is not loving, kind, or tolerant. So, should we be tolerant of those who are terrorists amongst us?

I think that sanctions work in giving another a boundary, so that there will be no more trespassing. Trespassing in this regard is disregarding another's "person", whereas disregarding a standard of dress is trespassing against another's taste or personal opinion. One annihlates and destroys a sense of security, whereas the other offends.

Tolerance should never be granted to those who are hardened toward another's very life. Life is not up for grabs and should not be a tolerable mistake.

No, trespasses of this kind demand an accounting. This is why negoitiating with those that do not adhere to the same values of life is dangerous, because their ideology drives them beyond the bounds of reasonable dialogue.

Measuring Up or Messing Up

I have learned a lot through parenting my children. But, the one thing that I didn't realize was how my 'standards" of measurement were messages of "messing up" to my children.

I didn't intend to give them a low sense of "self", in fact, I thought "self" was the problem, as a "Christian parent". After all, I was taught that all of us were "born in sin". And sin was rebellion against God and "proper authorities". I didn't see myself as a "good parent" that "had all the answers" that would "lead others", but as a struggling parent that wanted to do "right" and "please God". I assumed that "pleasing God" meant "measuring up" and therefore, my children had to "measure up".

Inadvertly, I gave my children the message that all I wanted from them was a "performance of behavior", which in reality, I probably did. I lacked heart, because I was so "caught up" in performance myself. I wanted to see obedience and submission, which was verifiable.

I was performing my parental duties before an audience of "Christian people", who in my mind were the "ultimate authorities" of "proper parenting". I have learned there is no such thing. Parents of all stripes and colors of faith commitments and those who have none, love their children and want to do well by them. Parenting is a universal model of "listening, learning and growing along with your children".

Perhaps, it was my low self-esteem and my lack of confidence and my fear of responsibility that made me an over-anxious parent. My goal growing up was to be a "good parent". But, as most of us, I have learned how much I failed my children. I didn't listen so much as hold a standard before them, which was an oppressive means of "control".

Half-way through my parenting years, we moved and I had learned and grown, but "life happened" and I found myself "unavailable" many time and in many ways. Of course, at the time, I did not think I was unavailable, I was only trying to survive myself.

So, I gave two "whammy" messages inadvertedly to my children. Early on the message was, "Shape up" and the latter message was "Ship out".

Our youngest son is going into the military shortly and as I interact with him, I groan inside with pain. The pain of lost years, lost opportunities, and anticipation of a "lost presence" in my life. I have been fortunate to have our children around us and our youngest leaving is the first "child" to"move away" and he is 22.

Why am I thinking about all of this? Because I think that Christian is a label that can mess up people's lives. Christian "confines, conforms and confuses", what should be "human". The 'human' is universal within a context. The human is parental love in context of the individual child. No performance needed. And messes are expected to bring about learning. There is nothing especially "Christian" about that. I have learned that the message of acceptance and love is what I want to give my grandchildren. No strings attached.

Government's Intrusion Limits Choice

Government knows how to "give" at other's costs. They do it well, as they pay their contractors over and above the "local price". Such is the state of beauracratic governments that try to be "moral".

Governments cannot be "moral", as they do not have choice. People can only be moral, because they do or, at least, should have choice. Government binds choice in beaucratic "mess", so it limits the choices of individuals. Some seem to think that this "limitation of choice" is "good", because it will re-distribute wealth or "benefit the public". The "moral socialists" think it is "immoral" to make too much money! And countries that adhere to capitalism are culprits of corruption due to corporate greed.

Is it any less "immoral" to take from one to give to another? or to limit individual choice in giving or not giving? Those in powerful beauracratic systems do not seem to be "more moral" than the corporate world. But, what happens when govenment and the corporate world combine to "do good", or to "do business" for the "public good", at the costs of the taxpayer? I believe this is what we are seeing happen in our country today. Those in powerful positions are taking advantage of those who are dependent on the "power".

Americans used to be those who were independent, self-reliant and industrious, but now, it seems we have lost our "will" to be independent from government help. We depend on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability, Unemployment, etc. and now, we are told that we cannot do without the government's "help" in our healthcare! I think we have become indulgent and "entitled", without even realizing what we give up when we do limt our "independence".

I agree that some system shoud be in place for the disadvantaged, disabled, and those who cannot help their situations. But, our country has become too lethargic in becoming informed and understanding the issues, so that they can be "good citizens".

I hope that the healthcare "transformation", or "takeover" will be America's "wake-up" call!

The "Forever" Pursuit of Finding a Universal

People like to understand universals, because only in the universal, can all things be understood. The "universal" holds the "common thread" to understand human beings and and the "world". Universals, though, will never be found apart for specificities, because we are bound within frames of references of personal and cultural histories and we "put our worlds" together differently, depending not only on these universals of personal and cultural history, but also the individual and thier value system.

Our contextuality has been understood and accepted in postmodernity. The individual is the 'universal". But, scientists, who like to explain the "world" more thoroughly, are investigating different aspects of the individual. The individual could be viewed in physical ways, metaphysical ways and social ways. Somewhere in the midst of the physical and social is the answer. The metaphysical can only be understood thorough the understanding of the "mind", as the metaphysical is about the individual's "construct" of "mind".

Universal ideology is a dangerous way to approach individual situations and contexts, as these are not understood "out there" but "in here", by the individual and within his framing of mind. Biblical scholars all understand that it is impossible to know for certain what was in the "mind" of the Prophets, the disciples, or Paul, for instance. This is the modern paradigm of understanding context, socially, historically, and contextually. But, these understandings are limited as we do not know the whole story around the "stories" contained in the biblical text. We can only surmise and think as far as probabilities. So, to extract universals from the biblical text is dangerous and misguided.

Not only is it problematic to make the Biblical text universal, but also theology has its limitations. Any theologian also, knows that there are as many theologies as there are contexts and "themes" and ways of approaching and understanding "god". This is why some think that theology is contextually bound. But, God is not a 'universal. God cannot be a universal, because of the lack of understanding to a "universal metaphysics".

I think that the Church is seeking a way to explain without explaining away, but this is almost impossible when modernity undercuts the universal in the text and the contextual undercuts the universal in theology. The only universal left is the "human", but what makes the human, "human", or a "universal". That is the biggest question facing anyone of any faith, whether of a traditional kind or an atheistic one.