Much has been said these days about social identity, community, social responsibility, and the "common good". These are ways of helping us to understand that we are not islands, but that our lives are interconnected. But, those that think that they are the "leader" or are more compssionate, or spiritual are prone to think that they must lead others toward whatever their passion is. They must implement thier passion upon the world.
I have learned that those that feel so self-righteous in their "care", do not care for those who don't, unless it is to "train" them to "care". These have a mistaken idea of "care". Their need is to 'parent" another, to make them into their own image and likeness. Those that don't care must care, and be made to care...about the same things. If there is a starving child dying of AIDS, then that is what must be the focus of everyone, interior designers, beware. You might be labeled as 'uncaring and materialistic'!
The height of arrogance, at least for me, is to assume that one's passion, ultimate concern, or conviction should be everyone's. The whole world should stop and take notice of the concern that some think are of ultimate importance. There are many important concerns in and about the world. One must not think that there should or will be only one.
I get rebellious over this way of thinking, because it is disrespectful of another's difference of value. For, those that judge another because they do not have the same concerns, are doing an injustice to so many.
I have learned that the compassionate can be the most attentive to specified needs, but completely dead when it concerns other kinds of needs. The driven need to be concerned is a type of addiction to "feeling needed" or "feeling important", as if one is a "savior".
The compassionate are never labelled compassionate, in my book, if they have not shown compassion toward those they deem uncompassionate.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Interesting Media Program
Last night I turned on the T.V. to find a program discussing the issue of "news". The people were all associated in some way with the news media and they were talking about all the ways in which news was gotten and the implications for the media in general.
I thought that their concern for what was on the internet was revealing. They were concerned that people were following news stories that were not "up to par" or downright rumor mill. What is their real concern? Is it the loss of power and control? Do these think the same way about tabloids or 'women's magazines" or gossip comunists? Should we ban these as profaning the minds of our populace?
Although I do agree that there are many alternatives that I deem unhealthy and "profane", where do draw our lines in limiting our freedom of the press? I think that allowing everyone to discover the news and investigate what is "out there" is a healthy way to not only protect our liberties, but get people involved in the process of critical thinking for themselves. Should the average person be able to read and assess what he reads?
It was a program I didn't watch all the way through, as I didn't have to. It was obvious that the media has lost some of its power and they were trying to assess the damage. I am hoping that these will not deem it necessary to control our access to information...
I thought that their concern for what was on the internet was revealing. They were concerned that people were following news stories that were not "up to par" or downright rumor mill. What is their real concern? Is it the loss of power and control? Do these think the same way about tabloids or 'women's magazines" or gossip comunists? Should we ban these as profaning the minds of our populace?
Although I do agree that there are many alternatives that I deem unhealthy and "profane", where do draw our lines in limiting our freedom of the press? I think that allowing everyone to discover the news and investigate what is "out there" is a healthy way to not only protect our liberties, but get people involved in the process of critical thinking for themselves. Should the average person be able to read and assess what he reads?
It was a program I didn't watch all the way through, as I didn't have to. It was obvious that the media has lost some of its power and they were trying to assess the damage. I am hoping that these will not deem it necessary to control our access to information...
Monday, December 28, 2009
In Light of the Comments
In light of the comments, I want to write about sectarianism.
Sectarianism is a focus on specific or special forms of identification factors. Universalism, on the other hand, is a focus on a generalized or common trait.
Sectarians separate themselves due to offense to specified behaviors or beliefs that they think are heretical. Sectarians separate to maintain their identity and define themselves as "special" or "set apart" or "holy". But, they limit their understanding of themselves in real ways and in real terms of a human being. Thus, labels are good for defining these behaviors or beliefs and creating a "false sense" of protection and distance from "evil" and "the world".
Sectarians define things in black and white terms. They do not like or think in bridging the gaps, thinking in shades of grey, because they fear stepping over a forbidden boundary. These are religious ways of understanding oneself and can be damning in developing a self identity.
What sectarians don't know is that all boundaries are made by men, even when they are in texts or define the boundaries of a culture. Cultrues are defined by social norms, and values. The "human" way of looking at things is to identify with another as a "person", a human being. Then, relationship is more about mutual commonality, than in differences.
Sectarianism is a focus on specific or special forms of identification factors. Universalism, on the other hand, is a focus on a generalized or common trait.
Sectarians separate themselves due to offense to specified behaviors or beliefs that they think are heretical. Sectarians separate to maintain their identity and define themselves as "special" or "set apart" or "holy". But, they limit their understanding of themselves in real ways and in real terms of a human being. Thus, labels are good for defining these behaviors or beliefs and creating a "false sense" of protection and distance from "evil" and "the world".
Sectarians define things in black and white terms. They do not like or think in bridging the gaps, thinking in shades of grey, because they fear stepping over a forbidden boundary. These are religious ways of understanding oneself and can be damning in developing a self identity.
What sectarians don't know is that all boundaries are made by men, even when they are in texts or define the boundaries of a culture. Cultrues are defined by social norms, and values. The "human" way of looking at things is to identify with another as a "person", a human being. Then, relationship is more about mutual commonality, than in differences.
Universal Healthcare Is Universalized Medicine....
I heard an interesting discussion on NPR yesterday on our way home from S.C. The guest was a health specialist of sorts, believing that the body's innate nature is to heal itself given the proper nutrients and environment. His view was "preventative medicine", but what was more interesting was his analysis of the drug companies, healthcare, and special interests...
He thinks that the special interests of the lobbyists for the pharmecudical companies were committed to drugging as many Americans as possible. Every ailment would and has been taken care of by a drug. Many of these drugs have dire side effects. But, the drug companies are happy as long as they can buy off governmental agencies, Congressmen and doctors.
I started thinkiing that maybe this was the reason for universal healthcare, as universalizing healthcare takes care of any "lone ranger" doctors that can't be paid off by freebies. Now, they can just use government force to prescribe the drug of choice. Is this how and why our economy is being pilfered through corporate excess? The common person sits by to pay his dues to those in seats of power that undermine his interests to support "Big Interests".
All I can say is that we need another revolution to take back the country from those who assume too much about and for the American people. Little businessmen are going to go out of business or be forces to choose a public option to meet any profit margin whatsoever in today's economy. Is this the intent?
The poor are being a useful tool in the hands of the rhetorticians for the "common good". Morality is in the eyes of the beholder, I guess...
He thinks that the special interests of the lobbyists for the pharmecudical companies were committed to drugging as many Americans as possible. Every ailment would and has been taken care of by a drug. Many of these drugs have dire side effects. But, the drug companies are happy as long as they can buy off governmental agencies, Congressmen and doctors.
I started thinkiing that maybe this was the reason for universal healthcare, as universalizing healthcare takes care of any "lone ranger" doctors that can't be paid off by freebies. Now, they can just use government force to prescribe the drug of choice. Is this how and why our economy is being pilfered through corporate excess? The common person sits by to pay his dues to those in seats of power that undermine his interests to support "Big Interests".
All I can say is that we need another revolution to take back the country from those who assume too much about and for the American people. Little businessmen are going to go out of business or be forces to choose a public option to meet any profit margin whatsoever in today's economy. Is this the intent?
The poor are being a useful tool in the hands of the rhetorticians for the "common good". Morality is in the eyes of the beholder, I guess...
I Find It Disturbing...
The failed attempt to blow up a transatlantic flight out of Amsterdam recently adds "fuel to the fire" that education does not "transform" one's commitment to religion's claims to radicalism. I find this disturbing, when educators think that all that is needed to transform the world is a little more information.
Philosophy is Not Palatable to the Fundamentalist
Philosophy is how we understand or our ability to know what we know. Some think that one aspect of understanding is "all there is". But, there are many aspects of understanding and knowing about the world.
ge
Knowledge is understood as reason's ability to grasp or understand the real world in investigation and analysis. This is where the Academy excels and explores. But, reason is not the only avenue of understanding or analyzing the world.
Experience is the common person's understanding of life. Experience give wisdom to those that are open to grasp and grapple with life. But, wisdom is not an absolutist position, but a tenuable one, because experience helps to temper and tame the most ardent ideologues. But, experience without knowledge is blind in some ways and cannot speak in terms that are more palatable to larger audiences.
Religion understands itself through texts, and tradition. These help to form the culture of a society. But religion's knowledge can be damaging to others without understanding experience's wisdom and the Academy's knowledge. Religion creates the environment of society's social norms and values. Without religion then, there is little or no ability to appeal to a "higher authority" to gain a 'ear" or exert a moral influence in society in maintaining social control.
Philosophy is understanding that knowledge itself is created or formed within certain frames of reference, vision, passion, and concern. These ways of reference and vision should never be seen as absolute, otherwise, we create an environment shorn of the diversity that enlarges the world and its complexity. And whenever we limit the world and human beings in this way, we cultivate a climate that dismisses the humane for the "ideal" in "two-dimensional" universe.
ge
Knowledge is understood as reason's ability to grasp or understand the real world in investigation and analysis. This is where the Academy excels and explores. But, reason is not the only avenue of understanding or analyzing the world.
Experience is the common person's understanding of life. Experience give wisdom to those that are open to grasp and grapple with life. But, wisdom is not an absolutist position, but a tenuable one, because experience helps to temper and tame the most ardent ideologues. But, experience without knowledge is blind in some ways and cannot speak in terms that are more palatable to larger audiences.
Religion understands itself through texts, and tradition. These help to form the culture of a society. But religion's knowledge can be damaging to others without understanding experience's wisdom and the Academy's knowledge. Religion creates the environment of society's social norms and values. Without religion then, there is little or no ability to appeal to a "higher authority" to gain a 'ear" or exert a moral influence in society in maintaining social control.
Philosophy is understanding that knowledge itself is created or formed within certain frames of reference, vision, passion, and concern. These ways of reference and vision should never be seen as absolute, otherwise, we create an environment shorn of the diversity that enlarges the world and its complexity. And whenever we limit the world and human beings in this way, we cultivate a climate that dismisses the humane for the "ideal" in "two-dimensional" universe.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
The Authoritarian Relgious
I just realized when I re-read my last enty, that a religion that works like the miltary is what some deem "Christian discipleship". It is nothing more than abuse of power over individual lives, in the name of God.
Christianity's close affliation with Islam should help us understand why some would see thier Christian faith in such anti-cultural and authoritarian ways.
Sacrifice is the epitome of this type of religious conviction, as it shows how much one trusts God or is willing to serve God above all other gods. The use of Abraham in Genesis is useful to illustrate "what God requires", the sacrifice of any "hope", as the promised one, is to be the sacrifice. It is called covenant theology.
The story ends with Abraham's "trust in God' being defined by the test of sacrifice and God's provision of a "lamb" in Isaac's stead.
Christians have used this to illustrate their message of provision of a "savior", in Christ.
But, what kind of God demands sacrifice and testing to prove that He is first and foremost the most important in one's life? Does a father or mother ever think that this would be appropriate to request of a child? or a spouse? or even a friend? Is God above our understanding of common decency and care of human desires and emotion?
Some would say that God is interested in purifying our desires and our interests, as he is to be worshipped above all gods and this is the way in which his purification comes.
I think Voltaire's "Candid" would be my response. God is in control of everything therefore any danger should not be seen as a danger. Any obstacle can be removed by faith, if one only believes. Healing can come to the sick if they only have enough faith, etc....God is in Control. God intervenes, but he doesn't always answer our prayers the way that we want him to. But, what if we have requested something that must be "his will" and yet, the prayer is unanswered?
I have heard Christians defend God's "lack of response" by saying that "his ways are not our ways", "he has higher purposes or plans", "he knows best", " God works it all out in the end", " God is just, we just don't undestand everything about his justice", ad nauseum....theologizing pain, suffering, death, suicide, and other human tragedies.
The other answer is that "God is disciplining you", so that you may partake of his holiness! Thank you, but no thank you. Why is it that he "picks on some" as he is supposed to have 'no favorites, as he is no respector of persons.
So, those that hold these views believe that the only thing that is required is absolute faith or trust, withholding one's reason, in fact, reason is the enemy in these cases, because reason will supplant faith.
In the real world, those who have gotten burned when their heart was right and they trusted with all their might and they died, or they were immensely disappointed, or etc...Do these continue to go down the same road and perform the same behavior of "trust", believing somehow that they were at fault, somehow? Or do they learn that this is not the way the world works and then set out to learn what is expected in the "real world"?
I think that those who believe in this type of supernaturalism are really half crazy. I was. And I am trying to come to some sort of sanity, where reality is not disconnected from any other source of knowledge, or life experience.
I really fear for these, as they ignore the "world" thinking that the world will 'take care of itself', because these are to be separate from the world and everything in it. These miss so much of life and the joy of living.
Christianity's close affliation with Islam should help us understand why some would see thier Christian faith in such anti-cultural and authoritarian ways.
Sacrifice is the epitome of this type of religious conviction, as it shows how much one trusts God or is willing to serve God above all other gods. The use of Abraham in Genesis is useful to illustrate "what God requires", the sacrifice of any "hope", as the promised one, is to be the sacrifice. It is called covenant theology.
The story ends with Abraham's "trust in God' being defined by the test of sacrifice and God's provision of a "lamb" in Isaac's stead.
Christians have used this to illustrate their message of provision of a "savior", in Christ.
But, what kind of God demands sacrifice and testing to prove that He is first and foremost the most important in one's life? Does a father or mother ever think that this would be appropriate to request of a child? or a spouse? or even a friend? Is God above our understanding of common decency and care of human desires and emotion?
Some would say that God is interested in purifying our desires and our interests, as he is to be worshipped above all gods and this is the way in which his purification comes.
I think Voltaire's "Candid" would be my response. God is in control of everything therefore any danger should not be seen as a danger. Any obstacle can be removed by faith, if one only believes. Healing can come to the sick if they only have enough faith, etc....God is in Control. God intervenes, but he doesn't always answer our prayers the way that we want him to. But, what if we have requested something that must be "his will" and yet, the prayer is unanswered?
I have heard Christians defend God's "lack of response" by saying that "his ways are not our ways", "he has higher purposes or plans", "he knows best", " God works it all out in the end", " God is just, we just don't undestand everything about his justice", ad nauseum....theologizing pain, suffering, death, suicide, and other human tragedies.
The other answer is that "God is disciplining you", so that you may partake of his holiness! Thank you, but no thank you. Why is it that he "picks on some" as he is supposed to have 'no favorites, as he is no respector of persons.
So, those that hold these views believe that the only thing that is required is absolute faith or trust, withholding one's reason, in fact, reason is the enemy in these cases, because reason will supplant faith.
In the real world, those who have gotten burned when their heart was right and they trusted with all their might and they died, or they were immensely disappointed, or etc...Do these continue to go down the same road and perform the same behavior of "trust", believing somehow that they were at fault, somehow? Or do they learn that this is not the way the world works and then set out to learn what is expected in the "real world"?
I think that those who believe in this type of supernaturalism are really half crazy. I was. And I am trying to come to some sort of sanity, where reality is not disconnected from any other source of knowledge, or life experience.
I really fear for these, as they ignore the "world" thinking that the world will 'take care of itself', because these are to be separate from the world and everything in it. These miss so much of life and the joy of living.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
