Rumor seems to be the "rule of the game" concerning Brown's candidacy in MA. But, what else in new in politics?
It seems that a religious writer for a well-known newspaper revealed that Brown posed semi-nude. Since conservatives are the base of the Republican Party, is this a way of low-balling a candidate's character and marginalizing his political career?
It also seems that the story is more than rumor, as Brown did pose, it was stated, in Comopolitan in 1982! How many candidates would be left to run for public office if there was an investigation of all past mistakes, bad choices, or raw deals? Most humans cannot brag about a pristine past, free of sordid details, but humans thrive on such knowledge.
Just remember that there have been actual hired professional investigators digging up "messes" of the past life of other candidates or competitors. Human nature does not change when it comes to politics. And if there has never been a "past", I wonder how many can remain free from "tarnish" after running for political office. Humans have marvelous ways of rationalizing their choices.
So, how do you think character should be judged? Should the past play into how one views a person and their ability to run for public office? Is the particular type of past indiscretaion, sin, or mistake important? Is the candidate's readiness dependent on how many enemies the candidate has? Or how he can be portrayed by the media? Or are his religious views relavant? And do these views have direct relationship to policy, or to religious doctrine?
What constitutes a "justified" candidate, one that is capable of doing a job and doing it well? And what factors determine that ability? Is experience important?
I would love to understand how the public views political candidates and their viability politically.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Question Is...
THE QUESTION IS:
Do human societies work like the latest scientific discovery, say in genetics/biology? That is what some think, and the human experiment may or may not work. And all of us will be prone to the outcome of such experiments...
Do human societies work like the latest scientific discovery, say in genetics/biology? That is what some think, and the human experiment may or may not work. And all of us will be prone to the outcome of such experiments...
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Seriously....Human
I have a hunch about human nature that I think is universal. Humans want to be taken seriously. What does that mean?
Humans want to be valued for their own sake. This means that humans will not be agendas on another's plate of delicacy. They do not have to fear being devoured by another's ferocious and unwhetted appetite or passion. The individual can live peacefully in his society without fear of intrusion of his personal space, whether physical, spiritual or psychological. Society exists for the individual's well-being, and as the individual flourishes, then society will flourish as a result.
Socialistic understanding is necessary for foundational learning, as in the establishment of a social identity, but adults do not always understand themselves in liberal or free societies as always functioning within their familial frames. Individuals, in this sense, are unique in framing or forming their identifying factors.
People desire to be known, and that means that we allow another to grow, become and be without dominating their "way of being" in the world.
Although my hunch and my analysis is "ideal" and won't be found in this world in all places at all times, I believe it is what a human "is".
I recently read a review of a book on a new understanding of genetics and biology. The review was supporting the book's contention that Darwin's evolutionary theory was too simplistic. Even a Neo-Darwinian view will not describe a philosophical or theological coherent view of the world in natural terms.
The nature/nurture debate should not be viewed as separate or conflicting compartments of personhood, but interdependent, just as the "self" and society are interdependent. Internalization of "all that is" is uniquely configured, it seems, just as our DNA coding.
The "new" understanding it seems is a cooperative wholistic view that is immensely complex and irreducible.
How do we take this complexity seriously, when there are so many trying to "take it apart" so that humans can be understood? And what is the reason for wanting this understanding? What will this kind of knowledge breed?
I am not suggesting that psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, natural scientists should not investigate human beings or human societies. I just wonder what is the purpose of such knowledge, and if it is worth the costs to gain that knowledge.
Humans want to be valued for their own sake. This means that humans will not be agendas on another's plate of delicacy. They do not have to fear being devoured by another's ferocious and unwhetted appetite or passion. The individual can live peacefully in his society without fear of intrusion of his personal space, whether physical, spiritual or psychological. Society exists for the individual's well-being, and as the individual flourishes, then society will flourish as a result.
Socialistic understanding is necessary for foundational learning, as in the establishment of a social identity, but adults do not always understand themselves in liberal or free societies as always functioning within their familial frames. Individuals, in this sense, are unique in framing or forming their identifying factors.
People desire to be known, and that means that we allow another to grow, become and be without dominating their "way of being" in the world.
Although my hunch and my analysis is "ideal" and won't be found in this world in all places at all times, I believe it is what a human "is".
I recently read a review of a book on a new understanding of genetics and biology. The review was supporting the book's contention that Darwin's evolutionary theory was too simplistic. Even a Neo-Darwinian view will not describe a philosophical or theological coherent view of the world in natural terms.
The nature/nurture debate should not be viewed as separate or conflicting compartments of personhood, but interdependent, just as the "self" and society are interdependent. Internalization of "all that is" is uniquely configured, it seems, just as our DNA coding.
The "new" understanding it seems is a cooperative wholistic view that is immensely complex and irreducible.
How do we take this complexity seriously, when there are so many trying to "take it apart" so that humans can be understood? And what is the reason for wanting this understanding? What will this kind of knowledge breed?
I am not suggesting that psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, natural scientists should not investigate human beings or human societies. I just wonder what is the purpose of such knowledge, and if it is worth the costs to gain that knowledge.
Friday, January 8, 2010
What Does a Good Citizen Do?
What does a good citizen do? That question could be answered in various ways, depending on how one understand the individual and society.
A good citizen is defined by individuals based on certain values they hold. Do they hold liberty as the ultimate social value or is society itself of ultimate value and concern. The latter are more socialistic in thier view politically.
The political ideal for the socialist is equality of property versus an elitist view that supports capital and investments and individual initiative.
Religion has been useful to serve the ends of socialist's agendas. But religion itself is a question of value. Does one believe that the world was "caused"? Is God personal or an abstraction? Should someone act in faith without evidence? Or should one base their decisions on reason alone?
Is society the basis of values, or is there a moral theist view about society?
Are individual's free, or determined and how hard is the determination? What determines an individual, genetics, or environment? Can someone be held accountable to actions that are beyond his control because of a genetic predisposition or environmental conditioning? What is justice, then?
Is justice or morality relative, or are they absolute? Multiculturalism would uphold a relativistic view, but international law, human rights activists, and the Founding Fathers believed that all people were created with certain inalienable rights, the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Is happiness the only ultimate value, or are there a "world of values" in a pluralistic view?
Where people answer these questions will determine their commitments and behavior in certain situations.
Humans are thinkers, whether they think so or not. They are always being influenced by the things they read, hear or see. And in free societies, we allow most any information to be sorted by the individual's free determination. But, the value question comes in, as to what sort of information is productive? Should there be an evaluation of what is productive based on what society wants the outcome to be? And organist view of society would believe so, as would the socialist and moral theist.
But, if one thinks of society as a social contract, one will come to different conclusions than one who thinks of society as an organism, itself. The individual will be of uptmost importance because he, the individual cannot be dissolved into his function in society alone. He is a human being, who has his own desires, purposes and goals, which should never be stolen.
A social contract view of society affirms individuals making an agreement about their affliation with society in a certain culture. This is what makes for liberty, in regards to choices about one's life commitments, and values. "Big Brother' does not determine what one should or should not to in the speicific choices of vocation or mate selection. And this is what has made America great because the individual is motivated by his own goals, for his own life. He owns his life, no one owns it for
Life cannot be lived fully without the freedom to choose and be in the world as one comes to understand the world. And as one understands that many in the world do not have the choice or right of individuality, and live in fear of torture or torment from government or religion, one comes to value the American ideals of individuality and liberty.
A good citizen is defined by individuals based on certain values they hold. Do they hold liberty as the ultimate social value or is society itself of ultimate value and concern. The latter are more socialistic in thier view politically.
The political ideal for the socialist is equality of property versus an elitist view that supports capital and investments and individual initiative.
Religion has been useful to serve the ends of socialist's agendas. But religion itself is a question of value. Does one believe that the world was "caused"? Is God personal or an abstraction? Should someone act in faith without evidence? Or should one base their decisions on reason alone?
Is society the basis of values, or is there a moral theist view about society?
Are individual's free, or determined and how hard is the determination? What determines an individual, genetics, or environment? Can someone be held accountable to actions that are beyond his control because of a genetic predisposition or environmental conditioning? What is justice, then?
Is justice or morality relative, or are they absolute? Multiculturalism would uphold a relativistic view, but international law, human rights activists, and the Founding Fathers believed that all people were created with certain inalienable rights, the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Is happiness the only ultimate value, or are there a "world of values" in a pluralistic view?
Where people answer these questions will determine their commitments and behavior in certain situations.
Humans are thinkers, whether they think so or not. They are always being influenced by the things they read, hear or see. And in free societies, we allow most any information to be sorted by the individual's free determination. But, the value question comes in, as to what sort of information is productive? Should there be an evaluation of what is productive based on what society wants the outcome to be? And organist view of society would believe so, as would the socialist and moral theist.
But, if one thinks of society as a social contract, one will come to different conclusions than one who thinks of society as an organism, itself. The individual will be of uptmost importance because he, the individual cannot be dissolved into his function in society alone. He is a human being, who has his own desires, purposes and goals, which should never be stolen.
A social contract view of society affirms individuals making an agreement about their affliation with society in a certain culture. This is what makes for liberty, in regards to choices about one's life commitments, and values. "Big Brother' does not determine what one should or should not to in the speicific choices of vocation or mate selection. And this is what has made America great because the individual is motivated by his own goals, for his own life. He owns his life, no one owns it for
Life cannot be lived fully without the freedom to choose and be in the world as one comes to understand the world. And as one understands that many in the world do not have the choice or right of individuality, and live in fear of torture or torment from government or religion, one comes to value the American ideals of individuality and liberty.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
On Character....
Character is described by one's attitudes, as well as one's actions, as character reflects conviction and commitment. This is a simplistic view that doesn't take into account any dimension of psychological science. It is as if humans are two demensional beings, while the world is know to be multi-deminsional. It could be termed the "human" "flat-landers.
This is where I believe that Christians are amiss.
Character is not one definitive way of being in the world, otherwise, there would not be various commitments and convictions. One's values do not necessarily determine how one will behave within their value system. Free societies allow individual the liberty, in fact, protect the right of the individual , as this is the classical definition of liberalism.
Authoritarian structures were never meant to be sanctioned within our form of government, as coercion is not the terminology of liberty or justice. All of us are equal under law, as the law in no respector of persons. And Christians, as well as non-Christians, are "not above the law".
Today, we have those in places of power who take advantage of their power for their own purposes, while diminishing their responsibility and accountability to 'we, the people". This is the formula for depotism. And it was not what the Founder's intended when they sought to make a "more perfect union".
A person of character chooses his course of action based upon his highest ideals, or principles. This cannot be defined by religious texts, unless one wants to limit religious freedom and conscience.
Politics does not allow principle when needs are immanant. Politics is a pragmatic science. Is a senator to 'vote no" on legislation that will be the death knell to his particular state, while understanding that the needs in his state are not as immanant as another? Survival of the fittest defines appropriately the political realm. Politics demands attention and decisions to be made with compromise and negotiation, so that something can get accomplished. Politics is "dirty business". Those who hold high ideals will be sorely disappointed if they think that anyone can survive in a climate of partisanship and individual competition, where money and power speak.
Sometimes it is the 'little guy" who can maintain his character, without compromising his principle, because he doesn't have to represent many and diverse voices in our country. He is held up to be the "ideal in virtuous character". This is the traditional "position" of the Christian, the peasant class, where they submitted unto death for the sake of the principle of peace.
The principle of peace should never further tyrannical means, to peaceful ends. Tyranny demands resistance, because otherwise, tyranny will win over all, until there is only one standing. Egoism is necessary for a balance of power and the little guy must not give in to tyranny in any shape or form.
Character is as much about the strength of resolve, as it is about the quiet and submissive. Christians tend to define their terms on the anceint texts that had ancient social situations that are not to be promoted today.
Sometimes character cannot be willed, as there are other intervening factors that must be considered. Last night I watched a program on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression. These are psychological illnesses that impact a person's ability to have control over their emotions or behavior. No one should fault another for a "lack of character" when stressors or illness is the real culprit.
Christians so often have a two dimensional view on the world. And those that don't see in "black and white" are doomed to be labelled as a "liberal", a "heretic", "not a Christian", "unbeliever", "reprobate", "morally stupid", "unrighteouss", "an infidel", etc.
Character is much more about how one handles oneself in a civil society, than it is about a definitive way of believing or behaving. Is one kind, considerate, polite, etc. These are qualities that are applauded across the spectrum of belief systems. One wonders, then what is the importance of the belief system?
This is where I believe that Christians are amiss.
Character is not one definitive way of being in the world, otherwise, there would not be various commitments and convictions. One's values do not necessarily determine how one will behave within their value system. Free societies allow individual the liberty, in fact, protect the right of the individual , as this is the classical definition of liberalism.
Authoritarian structures were never meant to be sanctioned within our form of government, as coercion is not the terminology of liberty or justice. All of us are equal under law, as the law in no respector of persons. And Christians, as well as non-Christians, are "not above the law".
Today, we have those in places of power who take advantage of their power for their own purposes, while diminishing their responsibility and accountability to 'we, the people". This is the formula for depotism. And it was not what the Founder's intended when they sought to make a "more perfect union".
A person of character chooses his course of action based upon his highest ideals, or principles. This cannot be defined by religious texts, unless one wants to limit religious freedom and conscience.
Politics does not allow principle when needs are immanant. Politics is a pragmatic science. Is a senator to 'vote no" on legislation that will be the death knell to his particular state, while understanding that the needs in his state are not as immanant as another? Survival of the fittest defines appropriately the political realm. Politics demands attention and decisions to be made with compromise and negotiation, so that something can get accomplished. Politics is "dirty business". Those who hold high ideals will be sorely disappointed if they think that anyone can survive in a climate of partisanship and individual competition, where money and power speak.
Sometimes it is the 'little guy" who can maintain his character, without compromising his principle, because he doesn't have to represent many and diverse voices in our country. He is held up to be the "ideal in virtuous character". This is the traditional "position" of the Christian, the peasant class, where they submitted unto death for the sake of the principle of peace.
The principle of peace should never further tyrannical means, to peaceful ends. Tyranny demands resistance, because otherwise, tyranny will win over all, until there is only one standing. Egoism is necessary for a balance of power and the little guy must not give in to tyranny in any shape or form.
Character is as much about the strength of resolve, as it is about the quiet and submissive. Christians tend to define their terms on the anceint texts that had ancient social situations that are not to be promoted today.
Sometimes character cannot be willed, as there are other intervening factors that must be considered. Last night I watched a program on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression. These are psychological illnesses that impact a person's ability to have control over their emotions or behavior. No one should fault another for a "lack of character" when stressors or illness is the real culprit.
Christians so often have a two dimensional view on the world. And those that don't see in "black and white" are doomed to be labelled as a "liberal", a "heretic", "not a Christian", "unbeliever", "reprobate", "morally stupid", "unrighteouss", "an infidel", etc.
Character is much more about how one handles oneself in a civil society, than it is about a definitive way of believing or behaving. Is one kind, considerate, polite, etc. These are qualities that are applauded across the spectrum of belief systems. One wonders, then what is the importance of the belief system?
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
On Forgiveness....
Today in my e-mail, I noticed on a Science and Religion newmail that research had been done on forgiveness. It talked about how there was a decision making process to forgive before one could experience the emotional feeling and health benefits. It also covered various ways forgiveness is manifested toward self, other and God. (Apologies to the one who did the research, but it seems like a overly simplistic view on forgiveness, although I understand that the newsmail could not ever cover all of the information that the researcher uncovered or evaluated. I am only responding to what was stated.)
Forgiveness cannot be demanded by another, (this was affirmed in this newsmail ), as forgiveness was an experience of offering, seeking and reconciling. Forgiveness is not something that is sought for any other reason than the relationship, otherwise, it is predatory. So, reconcilliation is not possible in all circumstances.
I have qualms about certain aspects of generalized suppositions about forgiveness and reconcilliation. Although I can forgive my rapist, I will not trust him and until he has spent time building that trust (that is, if he wants a relationship to me), then, I would be foolish to pursue any type of relationship. So, forgiveness does not mean reconcillation, or that the relationship will be restored. In fact, unhealthy relationships are numerous because of forgiveness being absolutized as the epitome of character, while dismissing the offenses of the predator. Forgiveness can only happen in these situations when the offended feels "safe".
Forgiveness can only be offered to those we trust, so the offender cannot manipulate or demand it from us. Why is this so? Forgiveness means that someone has been wronged and if the offender does not recognize his offence, then, he does not recognize the damage. The offender cannot seek forgiveness for something he has no recognition of. This is when it is necessary to work through the issues, but allow the other "to be". Do not try to have a relationship with such persons, as it is an excercise in futility. Some people will not have the capacity to understand how you understood or took their offending behavior. And others don't care, because they don't value the relationship to you. Move on. Do not think that it is you fault. Many predators love to manipulate their prey into responding out of guilt.
I believe that the Christian community, as a whole, has an unhealthy view of forgiveness. Forgiveness means that there is no consequence in or to the relationship. I believe that relationship is only granted to those who value the person enough to want to make amends. But, the people involved must determine how that will be worked out. Sometimes outsiders mean well, but can exasperate the problem and make one or ther other feel defensive and unsafe. This will never breed an environment of acceptance.
If the relationship has gotten to the 'point of no return", then there are legal ways to rectify the injustice. Divorce is always an option for the victims of damage and devastation. There is no need to put youself or you children or others you love into harm's way.
Today's world is filled with the need for countries and people to be "reconcilled". This term rolls off the tongue of evangelicals without understanding the full implication or impact of what they are saying. The greviances are deep and historical. There is no simple solution in asking for forgiveness, turning the other cheek or making a decision to rectify the situation. Both or all parties involved have to be reconcilled. And in the world of politics there are many duplicities, and inconsistancies to count, much less to rectify. Forgiveness must be a personal term, while reconcilliation is an "ideal" and imaginary one.
Peace is an "ideal" that will never come as long as "God" is useful to justify actions that disadvantage, dominate, and demean another, while seeking promotion for oneself. And I really wonder, since all of us are so short-sighted and limited in our understanding if peace is even a value that can be held realistically in this world.
Forgiveness cannot be demanded by another, (this was affirmed in this newsmail ), as forgiveness was an experience of offering, seeking and reconciling. Forgiveness is not something that is sought for any other reason than the relationship, otherwise, it is predatory. So, reconcilliation is not possible in all circumstances.
I have qualms about certain aspects of generalized suppositions about forgiveness and reconcilliation. Although I can forgive my rapist, I will not trust him and until he has spent time building that trust (that is, if he wants a relationship to me), then, I would be foolish to pursue any type of relationship. So, forgiveness does not mean reconcillation, or that the relationship will be restored. In fact, unhealthy relationships are numerous because of forgiveness being absolutized as the epitome of character, while dismissing the offenses of the predator. Forgiveness can only happen in these situations when the offended feels "safe".
Forgiveness can only be offered to those we trust, so the offender cannot manipulate or demand it from us. Why is this so? Forgiveness means that someone has been wronged and if the offender does not recognize his offence, then, he does not recognize the damage. The offender cannot seek forgiveness for something he has no recognition of. This is when it is necessary to work through the issues, but allow the other "to be". Do not try to have a relationship with such persons, as it is an excercise in futility. Some people will not have the capacity to understand how you understood or took their offending behavior. And others don't care, because they don't value the relationship to you. Move on. Do not think that it is you fault. Many predators love to manipulate their prey into responding out of guilt.
I believe that the Christian community, as a whole, has an unhealthy view of forgiveness. Forgiveness means that there is no consequence in or to the relationship. I believe that relationship is only granted to those who value the person enough to want to make amends. But, the people involved must determine how that will be worked out. Sometimes outsiders mean well, but can exasperate the problem and make one or ther other feel defensive and unsafe. This will never breed an environment of acceptance.
If the relationship has gotten to the 'point of no return", then there are legal ways to rectify the injustice. Divorce is always an option for the victims of damage and devastation. There is no need to put youself or you children or others you love into harm's way.
Today's world is filled with the need for countries and people to be "reconcilled". This term rolls off the tongue of evangelicals without understanding the full implication or impact of what they are saying. The greviances are deep and historical. There is no simple solution in asking for forgiveness, turning the other cheek or making a decision to rectify the situation. Both or all parties involved have to be reconcilled. And in the world of politics there are many duplicities, and inconsistancies to count, much less to rectify. Forgiveness must be a personal term, while reconcilliation is an "ideal" and imaginary one.
Peace is an "ideal" that will never come as long as "God" is useful to justify actions that disadvantage, dominate, and demean another, while seeking promotion for oneself. And I really wonder, since all of us are so short-sighted and limited in our understanding if peace is even a value that can be held realistically in this world.
How Do You Understand?
Another blogger got me thinking about how we understand the world. I didn't realize when I responded to her that my response was based on different emphasises of the Quadralateral.
Do you understand your faith by doctrine? Do you "take by faith", the doctrines in the creeds, without tearing apart the doctrinal truths to see if they correlate to sicentific inquiry? Or do you understand your faith as a lifestyl with others is lived out within the community of faith? The convictions that bind you together are those that define "your world" and sometimes it clouds your "sight" to see or understand differences in approach to faith, after all, these have given their life to these "commitments" and "values". Or do you think that faith is more about understanding and knowing God?
Doctrine is based on a tradtionalist's view, while lifestyle is an experiential view. Reason upholds a theological view, and Scripture is multivaried, depending on which view is primarily driving "faith".
But, though these views all define different people of faith, there are others that define their faith apart from belief systems, and institutions. These people would be understood as agnostic or atheistic in their belief.
The agnostic holds that though we seek God, we cannot know him, because God is beyond our capacity to understand and grasp. One must live within the contexts that define one's life and understand that all men have sought to understand and explain God, throughout the Ages. These are the scientifically minded, as they re-define God, or explain things in "new ways". The Academy defines the faith of the agnostic, as the Academy helps to keep reason humble, because of the vastness and diversity of human knowledge.
The atheists doesn't seek to understand or define God, as God is irrelvant, in their book, in helping to solve the world's problems. These like to be pragmatic in their approach to life and its problems in this world. They do not like the "sweet by and by", or "pie in the sky" promises or imaginings. But, these can be arrogant in their approach to life when it comes to their own reason, and to people of faith. And this is when problems occur in structuring government or laws that allow diversity of views that don't discriminate as to difference.
The agnostic is really atheistic in practicality because the basis of understanding the world is not faith, but the disciplines. Those that seek to understand "faith concerns" will study the philosophy of religion, or history of traditions, or religious studies, etc. And these will find in their "camp" people of faith and people without faith ( in the traditional sense).
So, how do you understand the world?
Do you understand your faith by doctrine? Do you "take by faith", the doctrines in the creeds, without tearing apart the doctrinal truths to see if they correlate to sicentific inquiry? Or do you understand your faith as a lifestyl with others is lived out within the community of faith? The convictions that bind you together are those that define "your world" and sometimes it clouds your "sight" to see or understand differences in approach to faith, after all, these have given their life to these "commitments" and "values". Or do you think that faith is more about understanding and knowing God?
Doctrine is based on a tradtionalist's view, while lifestyle is an experiential view. Reason upholds a theological view, and Scripture is multivaried, depending on which view is primarily driving "faith".
But, though these views all define different people of faith, there are others that define their faith apart from belief systems, and institutions. These people would be understood as agnostic or atheistic in their belief.
The agnostic holds that though we seek God, we cannot know him, because God is beyond our capacity to understand and grasp. One must live within the contexts that define one's life and understand that all men have sought to understand and explain God, throughout the Ages. These are the scientifically minded, as they re-define God, or explain things in "new ways". The Academy defines the faith of the agnostic, as the Academy helps to keep reason humble, because of the vastness and diversity of human knowledge.
The atheists doesn't seek to understand or define God, as God is irrelvant, in their book, in helping to solve the world's problems. These like to be pragmatic in their approach to life and its problems in this world. They do not like the "sweet by and by", or "pie in the sky" promises or imaginings. But, these can be arrogant in their approach to life when it comes to their own reason, and to people of faith. And this is when problems occur in structuring government or laws that allow diversity of views that don't discriminate as to difference.
The agnostic is really atheistic in practicality because the basis of understanding the world is not faith, but the disciplines. Those that seek to understand "faith concerns" will study the philosophy of religion, or history of traditions, or religious studies, etc. And these will find in their "camp" people of faith and people without faith ( in the traditional sense).
So, how do you understand the world?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
