The Power of the Mind via Albert Einstein

The unleashing of power of the atom bomb has changed everything


except our mode of thinking, and thus we head toward unparalleled

catastrophes.”

—Albert Einstein
 
 
I wonder what Einstein would think and say about the conflicts we fact today?

Man and His Creative Mind

Ayn Rand


‎"Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: 'A rational animal.'"
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 58

It"s All About Theories and the "Mind"...

I think how one views life and all that is, is really about theories, and how one's mind engages theories and experiences.......

Think of the many types of theories in the different diciplines; literary theory, political theory, pscyhological theory, educational theory, etc...all of these theories help to formulate how a person "comes out" in their commitments in life, as to behavior and understanding.

I think this might defy a uniformity as to how adult individuals understand, internalize/criticize or incorporate/resist their environments.

Self, as Conscious Being

Individuation is the "goal" of parenting and the greatest joy is when the child comes to a sense of themselves and where they want to commit their life. This is an important step in realizing Personhood.

Those that compel or co-erce their children into certain forms of expectation do a disservice to the individual child and their gifts to society. I have been guilty of this, thinking that there was only one purpose or goal of good parenting and that was to get my children "saved" or to "behave properly". These were short-sighted goals and hindered their individality and my personl relationship to them.

Fear and a desire to "fit" into religious communities hindered my ability to engage my children and enjoy their diverse interests. Religion can hinder personal growth and goals, because it can limit perspective. The problem for most of the religious is framing their reality by tightly bound identifiers. Reality is really diverse ways of understanding " all that is". But, science can also be guilty of such manipulation. When science is convinced of its theory, science can become just as "biased" in hindering personal growth and diversity.

"Self" is a conscious being where one's reality is conncected to framing reality that parallels one's sense of self-understanding. And self-understanding has to do with one's culture, one's upbringing, one's personal interests, one's past learning experiences, and one's present  understanding of reality.

In America, "we are a people" because we believe in individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some in America have stagnated our country's unity by polarizing over individuating arenas, faith and reason.

Scientists have faith IN reason, because reason is one's ability to formulate and organize information. This makes humans distinct from other animals. All humans organize and formulate their realities, academic disciplines do so formally. Religion, on the other hand, has faith in faith. Faith is about cultural framing of reality, which includes outward forms of living in the world, in all of its diversity. American embraces both science and faith as valid ways of living in the world. But, today, America is divided by what used to bring about its unity.

Our Founders understood that humans need room to differ as to faith, but the nation needed a way to unify its diversity, as well. Our Constitution is what has brought about America's self-understanding, as each American is equal under law, with a right to petition government and to be innocent until proven guilty and a right to trial by jury. These are rights that protect and validify our nation's "protections' and value of "individuation". We must not undermine our liberties by undermining our laws, which protect Americans and their "way of life".

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.

Neither Nature or Nurture, or Universals

The individual should not be determined by Church or State, nor should the individual be determined by nature or nuruture....

Although we live in contexts which do limit us, and all individuals have distinct natural giftings, these cannot be determined in any specific outcome in free societies. There are various "outcomes" in which the individual may use their certain giftings.

Those that want to prescribe a universal value are determinists and will use power to undermine liberty. And these do so with impunity of conscience because their value is absolute, or ultimate. Aren't there various ways of understanding universals?

Children are impacted by their family or origin, but the "impact" does not have to be permanant. All humans have the capactity to enlarge their understandings, or to re-orient themselves to healthier ways of viewing the world or themselves.

Just as we are impacted by our familial envirounments, we are impacted by our physical environment. But, to say that humans are only submissive, compliant "outcomes" of such, is short of true. Humans are resposive to their environments, but aren't prescribed as to how or what they will respond to.

The human mind is a mystery in some sense. Though we respond to stimuli, do we always take the same actions? If the human brain were only a computor then it could be assumed that humans are little more than robots to various stimuli. Don't humans all have various ways of processing information and putting that information together? Isn't finishing a dissertation adding a "new dimension" of understanding and knowledge to the human race? How, then does new information come about, if humans all process their information in the same way?

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.