Questions About Reality

My husband is reading a book, to review it, "Is God a Mathematician? And I had not really connected that dot to another in my thinking. Was the American Revolution based on an understanding of Newton's empiricism, and understanding of "Nature"? Or did the Founders really think their revolution was a "New Creation"?

I don't know enough about the history of law to know what the foundations of Law were. But, it would be an interesting story. Our nation has been based on Greek and Roman understanding of law and liberty. Were the Founders looking at "Nature" as a law, when the DOI says that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". These rights were granted "BY MEN". So government is what protects these rights in the "real and political world"!

Science was the revolution of an enlightenment. Man was not the center of the Universe, but a part. This paradigm shift shook Christiandom to its roots. Man wasn't looked upon as a special creation. Then came Darwin's evolutionary theory, which associated man to the animal Kingdom. No longer was man created in "God's image", but an animal image. How did this affect man's understanding of himself, the world in which he lived and what these theories meant to man's life in the real world?

In mathmatical theory, there is a disagreement about whether man discovers the "laws of Nature' OR man "creates expressions that describe Nature" more effectively. Which is it? Does it matter?

Everything rests on theory. As the saying goes, "the Devil is in the details"!

When We Get to Write Our Own Story

Children are known to love fairy tales. But fairy tales are not "fairy tales" to them. "Fairy tales" are real. Little girls envision the day that they will become a Princess. But, then, their little hearts are broken on the 'hard facts" of life. Life is not a "fairy tale", unless you believe in liberty.

My grand-daughter is just such a little girl. She dresses up and loves to watch for the "happily ever after". Just recently, she was the flower girl in my son's wedding. I couldn't help but notice how she was looking up at the bride. She was mesmerized. Her eyes were glowing and her little mouth was slightly smiling. I realized she was envisioning the bride as a "Princess". I wondered what she was thinking. Then, I learned that my daughter had told her that this would be a "Princess Day"! She readily accepted that rhe reality in her head, was the reality standing before her. They corresponded and confirmed to her little heart that "fairy tales" do come true.

Humans have a need and capacity to imagine, dream, hope and envision. They long for "a better tomorrow". This tendency can be a good incentive for future goals, or a passive longing and hoping for a "fairy godmother" to show up, always longing for "the grass on the other side".

America is known for making dreams possible, because we believe in individual liberty. Walt Disney took human nature and enlarged its dreams with color,. image and myth-making to make billions as this is the "stuff dreams are made of".

Self-interest is not a vice, but a virtue, because the individual is "the king of his own ship". Liberty is the ultimate value for human flourishing, otherwise overlords or rulers destroy the making of individual dreams and take away human desire to initiate. Liberty means one can write thier own story. And most of the time they succeed with a "happily ever after".

Anger About One's Own Naivete'

Today, a friend from far away called. She and I understand and accept one another because we "know" each other. This is "Human Nature" in relationship. One's way of viewing reality can be different but the ability to tolerate difference is really dependent on one's self development and where one personally chooses to draw their boundaries and what one ultimately thinks is valuable. I think that prejudice cannot be avoided for this very reason.

Today, I was expressing my journey and she picked up my anger and told me that if she didn't know me, she'd think I was angry at HER. She knows me better than that. I understood and confessed that I was really angry at myself. I had made many choices based on what I had understood to be a universal understanding, and it wasn't.

All political dialogue is based on terminology that must be investigated as to definition. Definitions define and reveal assumptions, ends, and ultimately whether values are on the "same page" or not.

Politics has a habit of using such rhetoric and not revealing the underlying assumptions of value. Those that are not educated in critically thinking through whether what is said, is equatable to what is understood. might just be duped into believing that we "all" agree! when we really don't!

I am angry, but I will eventually "get over it", because I am changing my allegiances, and understandings. I am pursuing and investigating. I am just glad to have friends that value me apart from what I believe or don't believe, or what I value as ultimate or not ultimate, because these are true friends, indeed....And true friends are one of life's greatest values, because they support you in your journey in life, no matter where it leads!

What Is the Use of "Christian"?

To become truly great, one has to stand with people, not above them.


Charles de Montesquieu

This is the "means for Christian religion", as far as Montesquieu is concerned. The Christian religion upholds Jesus of Nazereth as a "moral example" and his was an example of compasssion for those that didn't "fit". America is great because it is a land of opportunity where all men have inalienable rights to pursue their goals.

Montesquieu was not a "Christian", but was a political philosopher that had a great impact on America's Founding.

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen."


~John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813.

Christian education should not be about Scripture as an inerrant, infallible "Word of God", but as a philosophy of human nature. The law is the equalizer among men, as the law protects human nature from itself. Human nature is prone to err, as it is limited in scope, self-interested, and opinionated by one's "culture". Scientists understand "human nature" as "survival of the fittest".

Virtue is a defense for civility. Without virtue, civilization would be lost on war, revenge, and spitefulness. Self interest is not bad, it just is. This is why we need to acknowledge and identify what our self interest is about and negotiate our differences. This is where social contract can protect peace and uphold justice.

Without an understanding of human nature, which scientists still are investigating, the world cannot live in peace.

Questions On the "Human"

I have many questions on the "human". And wonder if scientists 'see" or understand the "human" as more than...

Are "humans" more than the "sum of their parts"? Or are 'humans" just a product of their culmulative "memory"? Are they only geared toward "group think"?

Do "humans' have a "human nature", as a unique individual? Or do "humans" have a "Human Nature", a universal type of 'human nature"? How is this to be understood? How can scientists, who themselves are human, be objective about their own humanity when "observing" the "other human"? Does the very experiment, of objectifying or observing the 'human", create a distance that de-humanizes "the other", the one studied?

Are "humans" different from animals? Is so, how? And, how do we know? Are human only different because of their social structures? Or is the human "mind" something that makes the "human" distinct?

And what is the "human mind"? Can we understand how the brain and mind "connect" when various individuals will respond differently? And how can one have a "control group", when there are so many various memories and personalities that would inhibit creating a "Human Person"?

What is the "common denominator"? Our common denominator is our brain. But, the physical aspects of man are not the determining factor to the "human", only a part.