Last post I wrote about a certain type of mental illness, Borderline Personality Disorder. Mental illness is a label given to the individual by psychological science. Psychological science has "defined" what is normal or abnormal behavior and developed a system that defines what is proper behavior in society. Deviant behavior is labeled as socially disturbing and undermining.
Interestinly enough, some who have been labeled with Manic Depressive Disorder are known to be the most creative and productive individuals throughout history. A prominent psychologist from a major research institute revealed her own "diagnosis" and then revealed how many "creative spirits" would have been "eliminated" by the "system" if medical science had medicated them. These were well know writers such as, Emerson, Dickinsom and painters, such as van Gogh, Rembrandt, and artists such as Beethovan. Creators of many of our "great humanitites". What would the world be like without their contributions?
But, what about moral reformer and revolutionaries, which circumvented the "norm" for something of higher value? These reformers were not seen as society's supporters, as these were ones who saw a more universalized way of understanding the world, tradition, society, and culture. These were usually killed by those they sought to reform or change. These would have been labelled by sociologists as deviants.
The previous blog entry got me thinking about the film I saw about this subject and it made me wonder of what us is medicating those whose "disease" "helps" their creative bent. Most of the geniuses of the past have been deviant in one way or another.
I hope somehow to resolve in my thinking how social norms and values, which are important, at the same time, undermine some of the ones amongst us that would otherwise contribute greatly. How can we know?
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Borderlines or Border Lines?
Border lines define boundaries. And boundaries define "self", others, social groups, and nations. Boundaries are maintained by the "laws" or "rules" . These rules or laws define what is "approved" or "disapproved". These laws and rules maintain the identity and values of a certain "culture".
In American culture, where the individual is "free", the group identifiers are as many as there are types of people. This leaves room for the individual to find a place where personal values are upheld and the individual can give back in the place where the culture is condoning of those personal values.
Border lines are therefore, important as they define identity and formulate what is of ultimate value. But, borderlines are a different matter. Borderlines are defined by their personality disorder. Borderlines fear abandonment, reject before they are rejected, use self destructive and mutilating behavior to affirm their self hatred and low self-esteem. They flucuate their ideation and disgust of others, which hinders intimacy, and have tendencies toward implusivity. These people feel "bad" and empty. They lack a definitive identity, as they have lacked the nurturance that develops identity, so trust is of uptmost importance for these.
So, how do social structures that define themselves by their rules and laws "help" define the borderline, when the borderline themselves, feel as if they don't fit, or fear abandonment and rejection without any reasonable reason?
It is imperative that those in the public spheres of influence are informed about the generalities of mental illness, so that they do not exasparate the problem within these individuals. Individuals with certain mental illnesses need medication, counselling, and "help", not condemnation and criticism.
I find that the Church sometimes does nothing to help these individuals, as fundmentalists do not adhere to psychological science. Fundamentalists deny that any reality is real, except the spiritual. These live in denial and hinder others from embracing reality and taking responsibility for their life.
It is imperative in this day and age, that we take advantage of what modern science has given us. We should not live in the Dark Ages when we had no options available to us. And we should never ostericize, criticize, or condemn what we don't understand.
In American culture, where the individual is "free", the group identifiers are as many as there are types of people. This leaves room for the individual to find a place where personal values are upheld and the individual can give back in the place where the culture is condoning of those personal values.
Border lines are therefore, important as they define identity and formulate what is of ultimate value. But, borderlines are a different matter. Borderlines are defined by their personality disorder. Borderlines fear abandonment, reject before they are rejected, use self destructive and mutilating behavior to affirm their self hatred and low self-esteem. They flucuate their ideation and disgust of others, which hinders intimacy, and have tendencies toward implusivity. These people feel "bad" and empty. They lack a definitive identity, as they have lacked the nurturance that develops identity, so trust is of uptmost importance for these.
So, how do social structures that define themselves by their rules and laws "help" define the borderline, when the borderline themselves, feel as if they don't fit, or fear abandonment and rejection without any reasonable reason?
It is imperative that those in the public spheres of influence are informed about the generalities of mental illness, so that they do not exasparate the problem within these individuals. Individuals with certain mental illnesses need medication, counselling, and "help", not condemnation and criticism.
I find that the Church sometimes does nothing to help these individuals, as fundmentalists do not adhere to psychological science. Fundamentalists deny that any reality is real, except the spiritual. These live in denial and hinder others from embracing reality and taking responsibility for their life.
It is imperative in this day and age, that we take advantage of what modern science has given us. We should not live in the Dark Ages when we had no options available to us. And we should never ostericize, criticize, or condemn what we don't understand.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Conforming Tradition
Those who subscribe to social construction must understand how tradition "works", so that a successful re-definition can be accomplished. Re-defining tradition is important to bring about transformation. The question today is what is tradition's role, when science is understanding human development in such a way that undermines the prominent role of tradition in past centuries.
Tradition, in the past, when there were hierarchal understandings of government, brings about "hope" to oppressed people, by giving a future judgment to the injustices suffered today. The "constructors" of tradition (theologians/philosophers) also use "moral modelling" to give a "vision of life", so that moral example can be followed. These images, whether real historical figures, or mythical ones are literary devices that "conform" the individual to group norms and values. Because these cultures are hierarhcal in governing, the "role model" is one of personal sacrifice. The personal sacrifice of one class for another is the moral model for an aristocratic class, which is what "inspired" Luther to bring about the Reformation in questioning the Church authorities. Tradition is not based on democratic ideals. The book of Hebrews in the Christian scripture and "The Chronicles of Narnia" are two examples of these types of Christiaan literature.
The social sciences are revealing that men develop through the use of education, where critical thinking is valued and helps the individual to come to terms with his own values, apart from traditional conformity. This is not to say that tradition will not become a dominant value to one such educated, as the indiviudal must determine for himself what is of ultimate concern. But, it does mean that the individual could leave tradition's role and re-define himself according to his own personal interests and values.
Traditional cultures depend on religion to maintain their identification and define values. These values are interpreted by religious authorities that rule and dominate another's conscience and choice. These cultures do not value freedom in any form, as freedom of information through academia, the media, and life choice would undermine tradition's role of dominance and determination, which would limit and undermine the aristocrat in their purpose of maintaining "social order", whether the "aristocrat" is a political or religious leader.
Tradition, in the past, when there were hierarchal understandings of government, brings about "hope" to oppressed people, by giving a future judgment to the injustices suffered today. The "constructors" of tradition (theologians/philosophers) also use "moral modelling" to give a "vision of life", so that moral example can be followed. These images, whether real historical figures, or mythical ones are literary devices that "conform" the individual to group norms and values. Because these cultures are hierarhcal in governing, the "role model" is one of personal sacrifice. The personal sacrifice of one class for another is the moral model for an aristocratic class, which is what "inspired" Luther to bring about the Reformation in questioning the Church authorities. Tradition is not based on democratic ideals. The book of Hebrews in the Christian scripture and "The Chronicles of Narnia" are two examples of these types of Christiaan literature.
The social sciences are revealing that men develop through the use of education, where critical thinking is valued and helps the individual to come to terms with his own values, apart from traditional conformity. This is not to say that tradition will not become a dominant value to one such educated, as the indiviudal must determine for himself what is of ultimate concern. But, it does mean that the individual could leave tradition's role and re-define himself according to his own personal interests and values.
Traditional cultures depend on religion to maintain their identification and define values. These values are interpreted by religious authorities that rule and dominate another's conscience and choice. These cultures do not value freedom in any form, as freedom of information through academia, the media, and life choice would undermine tradition's role of dominance and determination, which would limit and undermine the aristocrat in their purpose of maintaining "social order", whether the "aristocrat" is a political or religious leader.
A Call to Uniformity?
I had the radio on, while I was doing some "chores" today and heard an "annonymous" call to consider the social /communal, instead of the individual. This irked me, because it "calls others to the table, when the table is already set". Predetermination is not a value of American ideals in individual liberties of conscience. Paternalistic and patronizing ways of understanding one's social obligation and concern "rub me the wrong way", because it is presumptive of what "should be" of ultimate concern to the individual!
What ultimately is the "outcome" of such a "call" of concern? A uniformity of vision. A "moral obligation". A "religious duty". All subvert independece, liberty and creativity.
Much has been said about America's "universal" ideology, which is true. But, those whose commitment is to the "greater good" of humanity are not affirming of individual nation-states, but a globlaized "one world". How can American ideals be universal, while America holds to a sovereign right to maintain their own boundaries/securities/interests, and yet, maintain the "moral high ground"?
The religious have 'played into the hands" of these globalists for the "sake of humanity or God". These use terms like "building God's Kingdom", "missional", "communal", 'worldview", world changers", etc. focus on "wholistic understanding". These are rational in their commitments, but they call also for postmodernity's "localism", contextualizing the universal into specificities. This is the understanding of the universal and particular.
I think the height of immorality and injustice is limiting individuality in choice and liberty of conscience and conviction. Traditions do not adhere to such liberties, as they demand comformity of opinion and conviciton and commitment. They gauge each individual by the definitions of the "approved" authority. These authorities seek to bring about a uniform and unified "vision" of " god" or "purpose". There is no diversity in such groups, only conformity. So, beware of the rationalists who "use" relgion as a means of accomplishing ends that subvert individual liberties.
What ultimately is the "outcome" of such a "call" of concern? A uniformity of vision. A "moral obligation". A "religious duty". All subvert independece, liberty and creativity.
Much has been said about America's "universal" ideology, which is true. But, those whose commitment is to the "greater good" of humanity are not affirming of individual nation-states, but a globlaized "one world". How can American ideals be universal, while America holds to a sovereign right to maintain their own boundaries/securities/interests, and yet, maintain the "moral high ground"?
The religious have 'played into the hands" of these globalists for the "sake of humanity or God". These use terms like "building God's Kingdom", "missional", "communal", 'worldview", world changers", etc. focus on "wholistic understanding". These are rational in their commitments, but they call also for postmodernity's "localism", contextualizing the universal into specificities. This is the understanding of the universal and particular.
I think the height of immorality and injustice is limiting individuality in choice and liberty of conscience and conviction. Traditions do not adhere to such liberties, as they demand comformity of opinion and conviciton and commitment. They gauge each individual by the definitions of the "approved" authority. These authorities seek to bring about a uniform and unified "vision" of " god" or "purpose". There is no diversity in such groups, only conformity. So, beware of the rationalists who "use" relgion as a means of accomplishing ends that subvert individual liberties.
Order or Rights?
Government exists to maintain order, while rights defend the human. Human rights are only acknowledged within governments that allow difference, liberty of conscience, and dissention. These rights are granted to Americans in their "Bill of Rights".
So, while order, structure, law, and authority are necessary to protect society, these aspects of society are to be open to change, evaluation, scrutiny, accountability and dissent. Otherwise, the government becomes oppressive, dictatorial and limiting of human freedom.
So, while order, structure, law, and authority are necessary to protect society, these aspects of society are to be open to change, evaluation, scrutiny, accountability and dissent. Otherwise, the government becomes oppressive, dictatorial and limiting of human freedom.
Scientific Understanding and Morality
On "Exploring Our Matrix", there was a blog entry which correlated Scripture's "strong and week" to those who believe in evolutionary thinking. It was argued that using Galatians or Romans depended on which one was using the argument. But, a response in the comment section argued that arguing for or against circumcision, a religious rite, was not to be compared to the science/religion debate. The science/religion debate is based on "fact", whereas, circumcision is based on "faith".
In the context of a religious community, the science/religion argument as to the strong would stand, whereas, generally, it would not. Scripture is not to be used as a proof-text against "knowledge" in general, as the fundamentalist argue, as this would take the individual books of scripture out of original context.
Scientific understanding are based on the facts of reason and not on faith, although one can adhere to faith in reason's understanding, without upholding an allegience to reason's understanding in an absolute sense. Reason's understanding is always historically bound, because science is always enlarging our understanding and our views. We have to revise and re-formulate what and how we believe and understand. This re-formulation and revision is part of growth, intellectually and morally.
Behavior, which is based on understandings of morality, is understood within a certain context. Different denominations understand faith differently (beliefs), and therefore, behavior is understood within that context. Each denomination uses "reason" to understand and defend a specified way of "seeing". And membership in a particular denomination means that one "belongs".
In our open and free society, we understand that one's view of behavior is limited by the laws that define what is "right or wrong". These laws are "hammered out" in Congress or decided by our "Supreme Court". We are a people because we are defined by the "rule of law" and not the Divine Right of Kings.
It is first and foremost important to uphold freedom of conscience, because without it, we will limit another's freedom, which may just as well limit the basis of our society. The difficulty facing the West today is how does one uphold our liberal democratic ideals, when certain religious fundamentalists want to subvert liberty for another. Where do civil liberties end without undermining the basis of society itself?
The discussion is a two-edged sword. How do you define liberty and law?
In the context of a religious community, the science/religion argument as to the strong would stand, whereas, generally, it would not. Scripture is not to be used as a proof-text against "knowledge" in general, as the fundamentalist argue, as this would take the individual books of scripture out of original context.
Scientific understanding are based on the facts of reason and not on faith, although one can adhere to faith in reason's understanding, without upholding an allegience to reason's understanding in an absolute sense. Reason's understanding is always historically bound, because science is always enlarging our understanding and our views. We have to revise and re-formulate what and how we believe and understand. This re-formulation and revision is part of growth, intellectually and morally.
Behavior, which is based on understandings of morality, is understood within a certain context. Different denominations understand faith differently (beliefs), and therefore, behavior is understood within that context. Each denomination uses "reason" to understand and defend a specified way of "seeing". And membership in a particular denomination means that one "belongs".
In our open and free society, we understand that one's view of behavior is limited by the laws that define what is "right or wrong". These laws are "hammered out" in Congress or decided by our "Supreme Court". We are a people because we are defined by the "rule of law" and not the Divine Right of Kings.
It is first and foremost important to uphold freedom of conscience, because without it, we will limit another's freedom, which may just as well limit the basis of our society. The difficulty facing the West today is how does one uphold our liberal democratic ideals, when certain religious fundamentalists want to subvert liberty for another. Where do civil liberties end without undermining the basis of society itself?
The discussion is a two-edged sword. How do you define liberty and law?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
