Many assert that human rights are the ulitmate universal. While I have no doubt that American liberties are what I value, is this what everyone else values as an ultimate? It seems that human rights has been a useful means to manipulate the American public to undermine public policy in our own nation, to benefit those that are not as tolerant! Are there universals that can be accepted by everyone? This is a question about what is 'human": one's cultural values, or the moral order that should rule all interests??? One is based on personal conscience and/or values", the other is based on "law". One values culture, and the individual, while the other values the nation state. What is really Sovereign, one's conscience, as to " values", or law? Is moral order more important than diversity? Are one's duties more important than one's choices? Or is choice to be limited by the State, such that we become militaristic/deterministic in our culture?
American society has been an open society, as to choices about values. Those that want to regulate human behavior might be seeking somethng other than liberty of conscience as to one's personal choices about values. These want to control and conform, not allow tolerance toward difference and diversity of interests.
Our society needs "shape", but not at the costs of liberty, otherwise, those that have intolerant philosophies might just use them to manipulate to conform our nation to their own designs! And all America looses! And citizens will be clones, of the State, whether relgious or political.
Showing posts with label American society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American society. Show all posts
Friday, September 2, 2011
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Individual Rights and Expectations
Ayn Rand
Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.
“Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 84
The other day, I heard a psychologist talk about expectations in relationships. He made the point that expectations make for conflict/"war". Expectations are those "goals", images, desires, hopes, and dreams that are put upon the relationship or the other individual. Though our culture "romanticizes" love and creates what "happily ever afters" must look like, real people must step back long enough to ask themselves and thier mates what are their goals, hopes, dreams, desires, and images of marriage. Otherwise, one will always be frustrated because thier "mate just doesn't get it", and you really won't understand why. But, this way, you can count on having a "real relationship" that is based on real communication with another person, which is not defined by a role or function of one marital partner, but mutuality, compromise, negotiation, and respect.
In civil societies, we come to expect that people will obey the law, where we can live peaceable lives, depending on the mutuality that paints our society. Time has meaning in our society, because Americans believe that deadlines are respect for those that are waiting on you to meet them. When an American makes a date, whether a professional or social one, it is considered disrespectful and dishonoring to be late, without calling with an explaination and apology. This is a common courtesy to not presume upon another individual's time/life. And it doesn't much matter whether the one late is the employer or the employee, as to its message. Americans understand that business does not function apart from the employee, and good businessman knows how to entice and convince an employee to join his enterprise. Collaboration is the "food" of business partnerships, and building teams that meet the expectations of their investors. This is what has prospered America economically; trust, respect, co-operation, and mutuality.
How does free and open communicaton and a respect for individual lives make for a better life? It doesn't if one believes that men and women are unequal, in their personhood. If men and women are looked at as only thier gender identity and form their expectations based on that alone, then, it limits personhood to a particular role or function that is "expected Such structuring of a relationship might be easier to "correct", but it is not fulfilling to the individuals involved. Society might function smoothly, and might benefit by these simple roles/functions, but is society where the ultimate focus should be? Society, as the predominat value in this scenario, is justified to over-ride individual liberties because society cannot function apart from a fully functioning family. And a functioning family is considered in some circles to be a man and a woman, producing children. Society does not have the complexities to discuss when such limitations are the norming "norms". But, how do we address those at either "ends" of marital definition?
Those, who believe that polygamy should be allowed to define marriage, have different expectations of women and the relationship between the husband and wife, than a traditional marriage would. The woman is useful for the man's pleasure and procreation of his familial line. But, the woman has little say, even when they have the "right" to approve of a "newly elected" wife. Should this type of marriage be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Wouldn't it meet the requirements of a fully functioning marriage, a family? Polygomous marriages is a partiarcial view (expectation) of marriage.
On the opposite end, are same sex couples that expect that marriage should be defined by mutual consent, commaradie, and expectations. Is this not similar to the first communicative relationship that was affirmed? Is this kind of marriage to be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Is marriage about one's gender and function within the marital bed/relationship? Is marriage primarily about the ability to procreate?
In America, religious liberty is a value that cannot be undermined, unless we change our Constitutional government. We believe that the individual has a right to conscience in worshipping 'God' however he./she sees fit. No one can deny that priviledge, but it stops at the door of another's conscience, as one individual cannot impose their views, without hindering another's right to civil protections under law.
So, what should we desire for and in America, as to our expectations? Should we desire everyone have the same liberty we desire for ourselves? Should we desire that everyone believe like we do? How possible is it that with America's diversity that we will all see "eye to eye" on most everything? Aren't our diverse views understandings that make for great science in investigating such questions? Should we limit the diversity that is the seed-bed to discovery? I think not, that is my hope and expectation!
Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at everybody else’s expense.” An individualist is a man who recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and those of others.
“Textbook of Americanism,” The Ayn Rand Column, 84
The other day, I heard a psychologist talk about expectations in relationships. He made the point that expectations make for conflict/"war". Expectations are those "goals", images, desires, hopes, and dreams that are put upon the relationship or the other individual. Though our culture "romanticizes" love and creates what "happily ever afters" must look like, real people must step back long enough to ask themselves and thier mates what are their goals, hopes, dreams, desires, and images of marriage. Otherwise, one will always be frustrated because thier "mate just doesn't get it", and you really won't understand why. But, this way, you can count on having a "real relationship" that is based on real communication with another person, which is not defined by a role or function of one marital partner, but mutuality, compromise, negotiation, and respect.
In civil societies, we come to expect that people will obey the law, where we can live peaceable lives, depending on the mutuality that paints our society. Time has meaning in our society, because Americans believe that deadlines are respect for those that are waiting on you to meet them. When an American makes a date, whether a professional or social one, it is considered disrespectful and dishonoring to be late, without calling with an explaination and apology. This is a common courtesy to not presume upon another individual's time/life. And it doesn't much matter whether the one late is the employer or the employee, as to its message. Americans understand that business does not function apart from the employee, and good businessman knows how to entice and convince an employee to join his enterprise. Collaboration is the "food" of business partnerships, and building teams that meet the expectations of their investors. This is what has prospered America economically; trust, respect, co-operation, and mutuality.
How does free and open communicaton and a respect for individual lives make for a better life? It doesn't if one believes that men and women are unequal, in their personhood. If men and women are looked at as only thier gender identity and form their expectations based on that alone, then, it limits personhood to a particular role or function that is "expected Such structuring of a relationship might be easier to "correct", but it is not fulfilling to the individuals involved. Society might function smoothly, and might benefit by these simple roles/functions, but is society where the ultimate focus should be? Society, as the predominat value in this scenario, is justified to over-ride individual liberties because society cannot function apart from a fully functioning family. And a functioning family is considered in some circles to be a man and a woman, producing children. Society does not have the complexities to discuss when such limitations are the norming "norms". But, how do we address those at either "ends" of marital definition?
Those, who believe that polygamy should be allowed to define marriage, have different expectations of women and the relationship between the husband and wife, than a traditional marriage would. The woman is useful for the man's pleasure and procreation of his familial line. But, the woman has little say, even when they have the "right" to approve of a "newly elected" wife. Should this type of marriage be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Wouldn't it meet the requirements of a fully functioning marriage, a family? Polygomous marriages is a partiarcial view (expectation) of marriage.
On the opposite end, are same sex couples that expect that marriage should be defined by mutual consent, commaradie, and expectations. Is this not similar to the first communicative relationship that was affirmed? Is this kind of marriage to be allowed in our society? Why or why not? Is marriage about one's gender and function within the marital bed/relationship? Is marriage primarily about the ability to procreate?
In America, religious liberty is a value that cannot be undermined, unless we change our Constitutional government. We believe that the individual has a right to conscience in worshipping 'God' however he./she sees fit. No one can deny that priviledge, but it stops at the door of another's conscience, as one individual cannot impose their views, without hindering another's right to civil protections under law.
So, what should we desire for and in America, as to our expectations? Should we desire everyone have the same liberty we desire for ourselves? Should we desire that everyone believe like we do? How possible is it that with America's diversity that we will all see "eye to eye" on most everything? Aren't our diverse views understandings that make for great science in investigating such questions? Should we limit the diversity that is the seed-bed to discovery? I think not, that is my hope and expectation!
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Liberty and Faith
America was founded on the principle of liberty. Liberty was of value to protect from factions (Federalist #10) because factions divided the nation into special interests. And special interests did not protect justice or liberty. Therefore, "faith" in American society is undefined faith, because the Founders did not want to establish a religious tradition (The First Amendment). But, "faith" was understood to be an important value to protect the social structures of the family. Our nation was a mix of Enlightenment understanding and "faith" principles. Today's challenge is to combine such understanding with principles. Pragmatism and moral idealism were the 'standards' the Founders used to serve the nation's interests.
Enlightenment was the knowledge of man in scientific terms. Today's scientific understanding of man and his society has pushed aside the need for "faith" principles. In fact, "faith" has become a natural faith in reason, not revelation. All aspects of man and his environment is undestood within the Academy. The religious find it hard to defend religious texts as special revelation, other than defending "personal faith".
"Personal faith" is just that, "personal". It canot be defined, controlled, or reasoned from the outside. It is a faith development model, that understands "faith" as symbolic and human development as the real understanding to "faith".
"Faith principles" are understood as character, in personal terms, as to values. These are not formed from without but are worked out from within. "God" is understood in symbolic ways of leadership in the here and now, not defined as a supernatural Being. The needed character for a "god" (government) is humility. And this is learned first in the family and "moral education". Fully formed "faith principles" is "self-governance, because self-governance was also self-resposible behavior". "Self-goverance" was a high value to our Founders, as without it, there could be "no union" because self-interested parties would undermine and make "war" for thier personal investments. This was one of the very reasons why "religion" was not to drive public policy, because it would inevitably bring about factions. Factions base their understanding of "faith" on "real understanding" of the transcendent. As the transcendent can only be appealed to but never "proved", these will always cause divisions in the nation. It takes humility to unite when "faith" is so important that "faith communities" divide over its definition.
Humility requires an acknowledgement that leaders are needed if anything gets done. Humility frames the "personal" to be a part of what is needed to protect and prosper society, as a whole. The principle of the "personal" is also, an understood boundary to leadership. Good leadership does not presume and doesn't take advantage or intrude upon another's "personal". This is a character principle of humility and mutural respect. Though humility is needed, it does not "put its head in the sand" but uses the best information that is known in the Academy to further the "ends" of societal flourishing.
Today's sermon tried to balance the supernaturalists and the naturalists undestanding of religion, for societal benefit. The supernaturalists were appealed to on the basis of "God's vision" of love and hope....and the Church being of importance. The naturalists, on the other hand, were appealed to understand the need to the disadvantaged children in our society for education and encouraging character development. These children who have no healthy role models are those that need the impact from those that care about society's health as a whole.
Factions were never the intent of the Founders. They intended to build one nation "under God", but "God" was understood as a "faith principle", because we were mostly a Protestant nation. And faith can't be defined, except as a personal commitment of value in a free society. Those that seek to prevert or co-erce another's life in forming "faith" through "works" are "using scripture to over-ride" the moral principles of our Constitutional government, because the scriptures also say, that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin". And if the "just" live by "faith", then there is no more room for discussion, as whether one is a believer or unbeliever, faith is foremost a principle of character. A character that will not bend under the principle of Liberty and Faith.
Enlightenment was the knowledge of man in scientific terms. Today's scientific understanding of man and his society has pushed aside the need for "faith" principles. In fact, "faith" has become a natural faith in reason, not revelation. All aspects of man and his environment is undestood within the Academy. The religious find it hard to defend religious texts as special revelation, other than defending "personal faith".
"Personal faith" is just that, "personal". It canot be defined, controlled, or reasoned from the outside. It is a faith development model, that understands "faith" as symbolic and human development as the real understanding to "faith".
"Faith principles" are understood as character, in personal terms, as to values. These are not formed from without but are worked out from within. "God" is understood in symbolic ways of leadership in the here and now, not defined as a supernatural Being. The needed character for a "god" (government) is humility. And this is learned first in the family and "moral education". Fully formed "faith principles" is "self-governance, because self-governance was also self-resposible behavior". "Self-goverance" was a high value to our Founders, as without it, there could be "no union" because self-interested parties would undermine and make "war" for thier personal investments. This was one of the very reasons why "religion" was not to drive public policy, because it would inevitably bring about factions. Factions base their understanding of "faith" on "real understanding" of the transcendent. As the transcendent can only be appealed to but never "proved", these will always cause divisions in the nation. It takes humility to unite when "faith" is so important that "faith communities" divide over its definition.
Humility requires an acknowledgement that leaders are needed if anything gets done. Humility frames the "personal" to be a part of what is needed to protect and prosper society, as a whole. The principle of the "personal" is also, an understood boundary to leadership. Good leadership does not presume and doesn't take advantage or intrude upon another's "personal". This is a character principle of humility and mutural respect. Though humility is needed, it does not "put its head in the sand" but uses the best information that is known in the Academy to further the "ends" of societal flourishing.
Today's sermon tried to balance the supernaturalists and the naturalists undestanding of religion, for societal benefit. The supernaturalists were appealed to on the basis of "God's vision" of love and hope....and the Church being of importance. The naturalists, on the other hand, were appealed to understand the need to the disadvantaged children in our society for education and encouraging character development. These children who have no healthy role models are those that need the impact from those that care about society's health as a whole.
Factions were never the intent of the Founders. They intended to build one nation "under God", but "God" was understood as a "faith principle", because we were mostly a Protestant nation. And faith can't be defined, except as a personal commitment of value in a free society. Those that seek to prevert or co-erce another's life in forming "faith" through "works" are "using scripture to over-ride" the moral principles of our Constitutional government, because the scriptures also say, that "whatsoever is not of faith is sin". And if the "just" live by "faith", then there is no more room for discussion, as whether one is a believer or unbeliever, faith is foremost a principle of character. A character that will not bend under the principle of Liberty and Faith.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Free Societies and Accountability
Free societies only remain free when the people hold leaders accountable. This is what the "tea party movement' is attempting to do.
American society can be restored by political activism and change of leadership. This past November demonstrated the "power of the people". It is only when leaders know that their power is only "entrusted" to them by the voters that they will maintain a stance of humility in the place of power. But, if political leaders ever get to the point where they do not fear the people, do not hear the people and their voice, and do not care to "serve" their nation's interests in the place of power, then the nation and its people will suffer.
Americans must remain diligent and awake as to their country's interests and attempt to make a difference in any way they can.
The Constitution must be upheld so that our country will be "ordered" by the "rule of law" and not people who vie for political power irregardless of proper procedure.
American society can be restored by political activism and change of leadership. This past November demonstrated the "power of the people". It is only when leaders know that their power is only "entrusted" to them by the voters that they will maintain a stance of humility in the place of power. But, if political leaders ever get to the point where they do not fear the people, do not hear the people and their voice, and do not care to "serve" their nation's interests in the place of power, then the nation and its people will suffer.
Americans must remain diligent and awake as to their country's interests and attempt to make a difference in any way they can.
The Constitution must be upheld so that our country will be "ordered" by the "rule of law" and not people who vie for political power irregardless of proper procedure.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The Military and American Unity
Today, on NPR, a Princeton professor said that ROTC was to be welcomed on the Ivy League campuses. The reason given was that our culture had suffered because the elite schools are sending their graduates in to every avenue of service; business, law, government, international relations, and, yet, they are not impacting the military, nor is the military impacting them. I applaud this attempt to unify our diversity. Because it is when we all have a unified vision that doesn't negate our Constitutional Republic that we all "win".
Intellectual development does have its bias, because of coming to terms with the philosophical complexity of "the world". One seeks to commit to a certain area of knowledge and "give back" to society in that given area. But, the unfortunate implication of the military being banned from the Ivy League schools, is that those students that are our brightest are not prone to use their gifts in service to their country. And the ideological commitments that do not value our Constitutional Republic has brought about the culture wars of today.
I applaud and I am very happy to hear that there is openness to serving our country during her greatest need of great minds.
Intellectual development does have its bias, because of coming to terms with the philosophical complexity of "the world". One seeks to commit to a certain area of knowledge and "give back" to society in that given area. But, the unfortunate implication of the military being banned from the Ivy League schools, is that those students that are our brightest are not prone to use their gifts in service to their country. And the ideological commitments that do not value our Constitutional Republic has brought about the culture wars of today.
I applaud and I am very happy to hear that there is openness to serving our country during her greatest need of great minds.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Self, as Conscious Manager
Our Founders "founded" a government based on "self-governance". Self-governance was one's ability to be one's "own manager". And this is what has made for the greatness of the American experiment/experience!
The individual is allowed the liberty to pursue his own goals and opportunities to enlarge himself with education, freedom of information, free access to worship, as one chooses, or does not choose. This is a form or governing that is limited, because it does not intrude or interfere with the human right to liberty of conscience. Laws were to protect the individual which formed society, as well as society being protected by the laws that framed its realities.
Today, both liberals and conservatives like to use the law to demand obedience to their "form of understanding" society. The conservative likes to frame society based on thier understanding of "Creation", "God" and Scripture, while the liberal also wants to frame society on that basis, but has a different way of understanding those terms. What both seem to not balance is the individual's right in the midst of society. The majority (society) does not have a right against the minority (the individual) otherwise, there would be not "protections under law". This is where the libertarian view affirms individuality, as it concerns liberty.
The libertarian would affirm the right of the individual in regards to religion, their life, and the market. Social interests, "the common good", society's protections, etc. do not limit government or the majority in its demands upon the individual and conscience. Liberty is an important value for America in this regard. Otherwise, we do use the 'force of the law" to impose our understanding of "what is best" without understanding that our fellow citizen also has a right to his understanding. We do not want coercion, either in the name of the "God of our understanding" or the "god of the nature". Both are hard task-masters.
The individual is allowed the liberty to pursue his own goals and opportunities to enlarge himself with education, freedom of information, free access to worship, as one chooses, or does not choose. This is a form or governing that is limited, because it does not intrude or interfere with the human right to liberty of conscience. Laws were to protect the individual which formed society, as well as society being protected by the laws that framed its realities.
Today, both liberals and conservatives like to use the law to demand obedience to their "form of understanding" society. The conservative likes to frame society based on thier understanding of "Creation", "God" and Scripture, while the liberal also wants to frame society on that basis, but has a different way of understanding those terms. What both seem to not balance is the individual's right in the midst of society. The majority (society) does not have a right against the minority (the individual) otherwise, there would be not "protections under law". This is where the libertarian view affirms individuality, as it concerns liberty.
The libertarian would affirm the right of the individual in regards to religion, their life, and the market. Social interests, "the common good", society's protections, etc. do not limit government or the majority in its demands upon the individual and conscience. Liberty is an important value for America in this regard. Otherwise, we do use the 'force of the law" to impose our understanding of "what is best" without understanding that our fellow citizen also has a right to his understanding. We do not want coercion, either in the name of the "God of our understanding" or the "god of the nature". Both are hard task-masters.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
American Government and Power
"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792
American government was created to protect its citizens from abuses of power. Those that hold positions of power are accountable to "the people" and the checks and balances in our government. Our Founders understood that men were limited and were not always to be trusted when it came to power. Lord Acton's quote was probably in their minds when they formed a "more perfect union". "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Power was understood in the public domain as service, not priviledge. Priviledged positions were not viewed apart from their responsibility of representation. Public officials understood that good leaders, "do not lord it over" their contituencies, but protected and represented their interests.
The balance of power and accountability were what protected those in leadership from becoming short-sighted and narrowly focused on goals that might end up usurping another's right of liberty. Liberty was of utmost importance to American principles of "good government". Limited government meant that government was to "check" its own over-bearing nature, not just the people's.
-- James Madison, National Gazette essay, March 27, 1792
American government was created to protect its citizens from abuses of power. Those that hold positions of power are accountable to "the people" and the checks and balances in our government. Our Founders understood that men were limited and were not always to be trusted when it came to power. Lord Acton's quote was probably in their minds when they formed a "more perfect union". "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Power was understood in the public domain as service, not priviledge. Priviledged positions were not viewed apart from their responsibility of representation. Public officials understood that good leaders, "do not lord it over" their contituencies, but protected and represented their interests.
The balance of power and accountability were what protected those in leadership from becoming short-sighted and narrowly focused on goals that might end up usurping another's right of liberty. Liberty was of utmost importance to American principles of "good government". Limited government meant that government was to "check" its own over-bearing nature, not just the people's.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
A Conference on Education
The Founding Fathers warned that a "free people" would not remain free without information, or education. Did the Founders mean formal education or information forthcoming from the government (or leadership)? And what is eduation after all? It seems that today, we have had those that have "set a new vision" for change, that is to globalize the "nation-state". And globalization has been done in the name of the environment, poverty, and education.
This conference was led by elite educators, a community college President, a representative from a minority group, an innovative thinker, authors, and administrators concerned in general for our country and citizens's future well-being.
The discussion covered aspects of the changing needs of our society, and the world and the change of the student population. Questions concerning tuition costs, and state budget strains were driving the innovative ideas, as well, as the ethical questions of business taking over such aspects of our culture.
The concern for the students of today, costs of education, the needs of society, and the preparation of the future work-force are all of grave concern. There were no solid solutions, except for the possibility of university "patronage".
University "patronage" is not a different concept, as the university was a "patron" of the Church in the Middle Ages. But, I just wonder how liberal an education might be under the auspices of the Church. We do have historical accounts as to how "open" the Church was to modernity/Enlightenment thinking. And how free are certain forms of learning, such as theology, law and medicine, when they are done under Kant's "form" or structuring of the university?
On the other hand, education under the auspises of government oversight is a centralization, beauracrazation and nothing unlike China's. The Church is a "patron" to the nation-state, as is education, itself in this "model".
Kant believed that the academics in other disciplines, the philosophers, made judgment over these three "higher forms" of education. The practical aspects of 'life', theology, medicine and law were to benefit society's "good", while the leisured philosopher was to "take his time" to understand the "finer things" of life.
Reason or the intellectual aspects of man are what make man different from the animal kingdom, and is to be cultivated, if we believe that civilization is of value. Otherwise, humans are prone to be a pawn of their lower passions. And so it is today, for the most part. The disciplined mind is not valued in our society anymore.
The generation that is facing the university today has been over-stimulated by many media "forms" and information outlets that have impacted how the brain recieves information. The previous way of teaching and learning, via 'content" dissemination is "dull" and "out of date" for most of today's students.
Europe is already establishing "standards" across borders, where information./ education can be shared. This is an 'ideal" concept, but what of the security of the West? How are we to protect against certain information that might be dangerous in certain segments of the world? Or do educators believe that education can be "co-erced" and recieved by these segments, so that change to the students might happen? And what of the governance of education, itself, if it is to be globalized? We see how "mass production" has affected education in our own country, so how do we "do" education in such a "global" context"?
I believe that research has proven that without stimulating the student where he volutarily desires an education, the information is "lost". The information will not be internalized, but disregarded out-right, or defensive strategies of rationalization will occur that support an irrational "worldview". This is what religions do all the time to support their "life".
The recent release of classified information has put many in danger of their lives, because to betray a 'faith" is a betrayal of 'god" which is blasphemous. And such behavior demands accountability and judgment! One will not overcome terror through a naive view of education. Terror is a 'worldview', and an experience of life. Cult de-programmers are needed to overcome such a mind-set.
Perhaps, the view that medicine, law, and theology, as a practical disciplines, should be "useful" under government auspices, since it is to benefit society, instead of individual physicians, lawyers, and individual theologians. Does this mean that those in these disciplines are "pawns of the State" and the philosophers? '
I believe that setting up such a "caste system" does disservice to philosophy itself, as well as underming certain segments of society, because it makes the "elite" more pompous about their certain discipline. And wasn't it the scenario that Nazi Germany set up to do their research? or the Roman Empire? Medicine, law, and theology supported such national ambition. Today, the problem is not with nationalism, but globalism. Whenever a universalization is sought there is a discrimination against another group. This is why the "individual" is important to America's understanding of liberty in individual conscience. A globalized world will be a world run by an identified elite, which will be "out in the open" oppression, because it will be considered "legal"!
I am afraid we are playing into the hands of those that want to destroy America's exceptionalism, as it concerns individual liberties and it will be done in the name of society, or "morality". One will be a communistic leaning, the other will be a theocracy under Shairia.
This conference was led by elite educators, a community college President, a representative from a minority group, an innovative thinker, authors, and administrators concerned in general for our country and citizens's future well-being.
The discussion covered aspects of the changing needs of our society, and the world and the change of the student population. Questions concerning tuition costs, and state budget strains were driving the innovative ideas, as well, as the ethical questions of business taking over such aspects of our culture.
The concern for the students of today, costs of education, the needs of society, and the preparation of the future work-force are all of grave concern. There were no solid solutions, except for the possibility of university "patronage".
University "patronage" is not a different concept, as the university was a "patron" of the Church in the Middle Ages. But, I just wonder how liberal an education might be under the auspices of the Church. We do have historical accounts as to how "open" the Church was to modernity/Enlightenment thinking. And how free are certain forms of learning, such as theology, law and medicine, when they are done under Kant's "form" or structuring of the university?
On the other hand, education under the auspises of government oversight is a centralization, beauracrazation and nothing unlike China's. The Church is a "patron" to the nation-state, as is education, itself in this "model".
Kant believed that the academics in other disciplines, the philosophers, made judgment over these three "higher forms" of education. The practical aspects of 'life', theology, medicine and law were to benefit society's "good", while the leisured philosopher was to "take his time" to understand the "finer things" of life.
Reason or the intellectual aspects of man are what make man different from the animal kingdom, and is to be cultivated, if we believe that civilization is of value. Otherwise, humans are prone to be a pawn of their lower passions. And so it is today, for the most part. The disciplined mind is not valued in our society anymore.
The generation that is facing the university today has been over-stimulated by many media "forms" and information outlets that have impacted how the brain recieves information. The previous way of teaching and learning, via 'content" dissemination is "dull" and "out of date" for most of today's students.
Europe is already establishing "standards" across borders, where information./ education can be shared. This is an 'ideal" concept, but what of the security of the West? How are we to protect against certain information that might be dangerous in certain segments of the world? Or do educators believe that education can be "co-erced" and recieved by these segments, so that change to the students might happen? And what of the governance of education, itself, if it is to be globalized? We see how "mass production" has affected education in our own country, so how do we "do" education in such a "global" context"?
I believe that research has proven that without stimulating the student where he volutarily desires an education, the information is "lost". The information will not be internalized, but disregarded out-right, or defensive strategies of rationalization will occur that support an irrational "worldview". This is what religions do all the time to support their "life".
The recent release of classified information has put many in danger of their lives, because to betray a 'faith" is a betrayal of 'god" which is blasphemous. And such behavior demands accountability and judgment! One will not overcome terror through a naive view of education. Terror is a 'worldview', and an experience of life. Cult de-programmers are needed to overcome such a mind-set.
Perhaps, the view that medicine, law, and theology, as a practical disciplines, should be "useful" under government auspices, since it is to benefit society, instead of individual physicians, lawyers, and individual theologians. Does this mean that those in these disciplines are "pawns of the State" and the philosophers? '
I believe that setting up such a "caste system" does disservice to philosophy itself, as well as underming certain segments of society, because it makes the "elite" more pompous about their certain discipline. And wasn't it the scenario that Nazi Germany set up to do their research? or the Roman Empire? Medicine, law, and theology supported such national ambition. Today, the problem is not with nationalism, but globalism. Whenever a universalization is sought there is a discrimination against another group. This is why the "individual" is important to America's understanding of liberty in individual conscience. A globalized world will be a world run by an identified elite, which will be "out in the open" oppression, because it will be considered "legal"!
I am afraid we are playing into the hands of those that want to destroy America's exceptionalism, as it concerns individual liberties and it will be done in the name of society, or "morality". One will be a communistic leaning, the other will be a theocracy under Shairia.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Review of "The Final Cut"
"The Final Cut" was an interesting sci-fi type film, which had implications to society, the greater good, and privacy.
The Zoe implant was a kind of memory system implanted at birth (or later) that videoed a person's life. At the end of life, a person's family would have a "cutter" cut out any extraneous or unwanted memories to present at a 'memorial service".
As this was an expensive "investment" in one's future, not everyone could afford such a "blessing". Those that had the money could afford to control what and how they were remembered. The problem was when a family wanted to "cut out " certain inappropriate behavior of the "remembered video", or when one happened upon their Zoe and got the memories, while still alive. The Zoe was not to be "inspected", except after one's death, and then was "cut" at the discretion of one's family. It was a form of "heritage", I suppose.
At the beginning of the movie, Allan, "the cutter" had had an experience that had impacted his memory such that he became "a cutter". As a boy, he had visited another city and met Louis, who went to investigate an old barn, where Allan proceeded to walk across an old plank and encouraged the other boy to follow. Louis fell to "his death". Allan found Louis, in what he remembered as "a pool of blood". Allan, had felt responsible for Louis' "death", until the day his memory was retrieved, and he discovered that "the pool of blood"' was only a can of paint that spilt nearby.
Two situations were illustrative of the problems of "solving bad behaviors" by "cutting". Isabel wasn't allowed to remember her father's abuse at her father's "cutting". Zoe prevented the "victim" a way to affirm their own sense of reality and gain their respect and dignity.
The other situation was when a woman found her "memories" before her death, and re-lived those private moments of a past romance. She was rightly outraged at the invasion of privacy.
The moral character that kept warning Alan of the injustice of what he was doing got "his justice" in the end, when Alan was killed and the moral character, retrieved the Zoe implant and got to inspect the "cut" information from other's lives. These memories were something that could reveal crimes against society, but at what costs?.
I thought the film's re-interpretation of "eternal life" as one's "memory" was an interesting one. And I thought that the message of false guilt and shame that drives people to "atone" for their "sin" was also insightful. And I thought that the aspect of a "moral policemen" whether to justify by "cutting" or to judge by "investigating" another life were two sides of extremist views.
But, justice and forgiveness was at the forefront of the film's message. Alan could not forgive himself and found himself driven to help others deny their failings by becoming a "cutter". But, what Allan did, in effect, was to further enable the abusor, and deny the victim, justice.
The invasion of privacy is always of importance to free societies where one's feeling and sense of "independence" is an important value. Zoe, in this sense, was like Big Brother. But, while Zoe helped to further "family image", at the expense of societal norms, Big Brother bans independence from government in personal matters.
Image and reality were the intermingled aspects of this film. Was the memory (image) real? It was, and wasn't.
In Allan's case, he thought his guilt was real, but was imaginary. Myth was an excrusiating "reality" that needed dismantling by reality.
In the case of the little girl and her father, the "reality" and Image was a created one. Myth doesn' t serve anyone's interests in this situation.
So, it seems that myth in real situations can hinder real realities in the real world.
The Zoe implant was a kind of memory system implanted at birth (or later) that videoed a person's life. At the end of life, a person's family would have a "cutter" cut out any extraneous or unwanted memories to present at a 'memorial service".
As this was an expensive "investment" in one's future, not everyone could afford such a "blessing". Those that had the money could afford to control what and how they were remembered. The problem was when a family wanted to "cut out " certain inappropriate behavior of the "remembered video", or when one happened upon their Zoe and got the memories, while still alive. The Zoe was not to be "inspected", except after one's death, and then was "cut" at the discretion of one's family. It was a form of "heritage", I suppose.
At the beginning of the movie, Allan, "the cutter" had had an experience that had impacted his memory such that he became "a cutter". As a boy, he had visited another city and met Louis, who went to investigate an old barn, where Allan proceeded to walk across an old plank and encouraged the other boy to follow. Louis fell to "his death". Allan found Louis, in what he remembered as "a pool of blood". Allan, had felt responsible for Louis' "death", until the day his memory was retrieved, and he discovered that "the pool of blood"' was only a can of paint that spilt nearby.
Two situations were illustrative of the problems of "solving bad behaviors" by "cutting". Isabel wasn't allowed to remember her father's abuse at her father's "cutting". Zoe prevented the "victim" a way to affirm their own sense of reality and gain their respect and dignity.
The other situation was when a woman found her "memories" before her death, and re-lived those private moments of a past romance. She was rightly outraged at the invasion of privacy.
The moral character that kept warning Alan of the injustice of what he was doing got "his justice" in the end, when Alan was killed and the moral character, retrieved the Zoe implant and got to inspect the "cut" information from other's lives. These memories were something that could reveal crimes against society, but at what costs?.
I thought the film's re-interpretation of "eternal life" as one's "memory" was an interesting one. And I thought that the message of false guilt and shame that drives people to "atone" for their "sin" was also insightful. And I thought that the aspect of a "moral policemen" whether to justify by "cutting" or to judge by "investigating" another life were two sides of extremist views.
But, justice and forgiveness was at the forefront of the film's message. Alan could not forgive himself and found himself driven to help others deny their failings by becoming a "cutter". But, what Allan did, in effect, was to further enable the abusor, and deny the victim, justice.
The invasion of privacy is always of importance to free societies where one's feeling and sense of "independence" is an important value. Zoe, in this sense, was like Big Brother. But, while Zoe helped to further "family image", at the expense of societal norms, Big Brother bans independence from government in personal matters.
Image and reality were the intermingled aspects of this film. Was the memory (image) real? It was, and wasn't.
In Allan's case, he thought his guilt was real, but was imaginary. Myth was an excrusiating "reality" that needed dismantling by reality.
In the case of the little girl and her father, the "reality" and Image was a created one. Myth doesn' t serve anyone's interests in this situation.
So, it seems that myth in real situations can hinder real realities in the real world.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The ARTS, As a Universal Language
Tonight, we went with friends to our church to see an organ concert. But, it was more than the organ, it was also a Chamber orchestra, and solos on the violin, trumpet, and saxophone. All of these musicians were professionals, hired by local orchestras. And the concert was Free!
The thing that struck me was that we have been going to this church for most of the year and it was never filled like it was tonight. Granted many in the audience had come from other places, if they even attended church. But, what came to mind was; music is a universal language. It gets beyond the cognitive, prepositional to the emotive, where the walls are not up. And it touches where everyone can be touched, as humans.
This is not a new insight, I know, but it came to me, as new and important tonight, because of the movie we saw yesterday.
Yesterday, we saw a moive, "Never Let Me Go". It was a movie made from a best-selling novel. And it was done in a literary style. But, the story was starkly is contrast to its style, which might have made it more impacting to the human pscyhe.
The story was about the developing relationships between three young people in an English boarding school. This boarding school was unlike other boarding schools, because it was used for the sole purpose of protecting and providing an environment to "grow" human specimens to "harvest" their organs.
Soceity was the focus and goal of such an experiment of human "souls". It was all done for the greater good. But, at the end, after much heartache of separation and dehumanization, one of the main characters rationalizes her "lot in life", by saying that her last days were at least happy, as they granted her a few days with the man she loved. And after all, the organ beneficiaries' lives were not unlike her own, as they all must in the end, die!!!
I found myself repulsed, and intensely angered by the "realistic" scenario of such a movie. The reality is the basis of a scientific experiment that treated humans as objects! My heart was wrenched over their "lot in life". Who got the right to determine another human's life? I was outraged!
And then, tonight, the music helped me see that irregardless of differences of ideology, belief systems, or other things that would inhibit communication, music or art was the way that would get beyond those differences and help us to understand and unite as humans!
I think Condelezza Rice, when she was the Secretary of State, did try to cross culturally communicate by sharing of the "human arts" or humanities.
The thing that struck me was that we have been going to this church for most of the year and it was never filled like it was tonight. Granted many in the audience had come from other places, if they even attended church. But, what came to mind was; music is a universal language. It gets beyond the cognitive, prepositional to the emotive, where the walls are not up. And it touches where everyone can be touched, as humans.
This is not a new insight, I know, but it came to me, as new and important tonight, because of the movie we saw yesterday.
Yesterday, we saw a moive, "Never Let Me Go". It was a movie made from a best-selling novel. And it was done in a literary style. But, the story was starkly is contrast to its style, which might have made it more impacting to the human pscyhe.
The story was about the developing relationships between three young people in an English boarding school. This boarding school was unlike other boarding schools, because it was used for the sole purpose of protecting and providing an environment to "grow" human specimens to "harvest" their organs.
Soceity was the focus and goal of such an experiment of human "souls". It was all done for the greater good. But, at the end, after much heartache of separation and dehumanization, one of the main characters rationalizes her "lot in life", by saying that her last days were at least happy, as they granted her a few days with the man she loved. And after all, the organ beneficiaries' lives were not unlike her own, as they all must in the end, die!!!
I found myself repulsed, and intensely angered by the "realistic" scenario of such a movie. The reality is the basis of a scientific experiment that treated humans as objects! My heart was wrenched over their "lot in life". Who got the right to determine another human's life? I was outraged!
And then, tonight, the music helped me see that irregardless of differences of ideology, belief systems, or other things that would inhibit communication, music or art was the way that would get beyond those differences and help us to understand and unite as humans!
I think Condelezza Rice, when she was the Secretary of State, did try to cross culturally communicate by sharing of the "human arts" or humanities.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Is Law Our Basis?
The rule of law is the basis of maintaining order in our society. Our Constitutional Republic is understood as a representative government where the individual and religious liberty was an important value.
The problem today is when our nation-state has been impacted and threatened by those who voice their "religious right" to undermine our humane laws.
Right now, the Supreme Court will rule on whether the Baptist Church had a right to religious speech when they caused emotional pain to the parents at their son's funeral.
When other religious "speech" such as terrorists acts are committed against our society, we treat them as criminals. Should there be a distinction between the nation-state's right and the individual's right? Is the individual a private citizen, or a public pawn? Where do we draw our distinctions? Weren't we basically a Judeo-Christian nation in our earliest days? We have affirmed both public responsibility and the private right of citizens. Which one will win in the end? The tension must be maintained if we want to continue to have religious freedom and private lives.
Our laws are not based on "God", but are based on the individual's right to his "own person". How does a humane nation uphold the "rule of law" and yet, allow religious liberty to those that undermine that law? Don't we hold them accountable to the law for the sake of our society? Or is freedom of speech too important a value to undermine? If we go down the road of limiting speech, then won't it undermine most speech in the end?
While our laws are not based solely on "God", neither are the values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness based on science.
Just recently, there was a British "commercial" for an organization that promotes Climate Control. In that "commercial" the teacher is asking if her students would choose to further the flourishing of mankind through limiting their comsumption of energy and the emission of "gases". Would they take public transportation? Two of these students stood up to such governmental control over their choice. The teacher affirmed their right of choice, but in the end, pushes a button that kills them, splattering their blood on the others in the classroom.
This "outrage" of inhumanity is not the only 'outrage", as it was shown on a talk show recently, in Britian, that a well-known scientist suggested that she would smother her child, rather than allow the child to suffer. There was obvious discomfort from the interviewer to her response. The question was asked again, but the scientist still held to her view that it was important to protect her child from suffering by killing.
Whether Western society survives the onslaught of religious fanaticism or scientific positivism is the question. The West is at a crossroads to what our future will be and how we will go forward, or will we be destroyed?
The problem today is when our nation-state has been impacted and threatened by those who voice their "religious right" to undermine our humane laws.
Right now, the Supreme Court will rule on whether the Baptist Church had a right to religious speech when they caused emotional pain to the parents at their son's funeral.
When other religious "speech" such as terrorists acts are committed against our society, we treat them as criminals. Should there be a distinction between the nation-state's right and the individual's right? Is the individual a private citizen, or a public pawn? Where do we draw our distinctions? Weren't we basically a Judeo-Christian nation in our earliest days? We have affirmed both public responsibility and the private right of citizens. Which one will win in the end? The tension must be maintained if we want to continue to have religious freedom and private lives.
Our laws are not based on "God", but are based on the individual's right to his "own person". How does a humane nation uphold the "rule of law" and yet, allow religious liberty to those that undermine that law? Don't we hold them accountable to the law for the sake of our society? Or is freedom of speech too important a value to undermine? If we go down the road of limiting speech, then won't it undermine most speech in the end?
While our laws are not based solely on "God", neither are the values of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness based on science.
Just recently, there was a British "commercial" for an organization that promotes Climate Control. In that "commercial" the teacher is asking if her students would choose to further the flourishing of mankind through limiting their comsumption of energy and the emission of "gases". Would they take public transportation? Two of these students stood up to such governmental control over their choice. The teacher affirmed their right of choice, but in the end, pushes a button that kills them, splattering their blood on the others in the classroom.
This "outrage" of inhumanity is not the only 'outrage", as it was shown on a talk show recently, in Britian, that a well-known scientist suggested that she would smother her child, rather than allow the child to suffer. There was obvious discomfort from the interviewer to her response. The question was asked again, but the scientist still held to her view that it was important to protect her child from suffering by killing.
Whether Western society survives the onslaught of religious fanaticism or scientific positivism is the question. The West is at a crossroads to what our future will be and how we will go forward, or will we be destroyed?
Monday, October 4, 2010
News About Immigration, and" Hate Speech"
Today, I read the following article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101004/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_hate_speech
I think the suggestion to require citizenship classes for immigrants that they have to pay for, might limit those who are not serious about assimilation or for other more important reasons (religious) might not want to submit to our form of government. Wouldn't this limit the possibility of radicals intruding into our culture and undermining our laws?
Europe has started to change concerning their "tolerance policy". But, what is considered as "Facist"? Authoritarianism was the bane of our liberal and tolerant society. Americans do not believe that absolutism, when it concerns faith claims, can be made. This is what has polarized our culture wars and undermined our civility. We cannot "see" because of our emotional reactions to what we deem as "evil". We must come to understand what we "see" is, after all, a value system and we must cease to fear those that think or believe differently than we do.. And if we want to protect our liberties, we must embrace ordered liberty as the height of our value system. The problem will be in winning the war about what should be legislated to order our society.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101004/ap_on_re_eu/eu_netherlands_hate_speech
I think the suggestion to require citizenship classes for immigrants that they have to pay for, might limit those who are not serious about assimilation or for other more important reasons (religious) might not want to submit to our form of government. Wouldn't this limit the possibility of radicals intruding into our culture and undermining our laws?
Europe has started to change concerning their "tolerance policy". But, what is considered as "Facist"? Authoritarianism was the bane of our liberal and tolerant society. Americans do not believe that absolutism, when it concerns faith claims, can be made. This is what has polarized our culture wars and undermined our civility. We cannot "see" because of our emotional reactions to what we deem as "evil". We must come to understand what we "see" is, after all, a value system and we must cease to fear those that think or believe differently than we do.. And if we want to protect our liberties, we must embrace ordered liberty as the height of our value system. The problem will be in winning the war about what should be legislated to order our society.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Neither Church or State
I believe that neither Church or State should have authority, or pre-eminence over the individual and his life choices.
Individuals need to have the liberty to find their own way in the world, and how they "fit". But, because the individual is not alone in the world, the State is necessary. Government should seek to order society so that the individual can have liberty to define his own life. Government creates the laws to uphold the rights of individual liberty, so that justice can be for "all". A just society can be no less.
Liberty must be the foremost value is one values a free society, where individuals are valued in their own right. Otherwise, some other value is more important, such as God or society, itself. This is when authoritarianism whether the State, or Spiritual "Elders" are Rulers and dictators over the individual conscience. These kinds of governments demand obedience of individual consciences to their brand or form of "virtue", whether it be for the poor, the destitute, or dis-enfranchised. And these social "concerns" are useful for the empowered class to "use" other individuals in sevitude to their 'agenda'.
All individuals will not find that their agenda will be implemented, but laws should protect the rights of others, so that Rulers will not become oppressors, in the name of their agenda. We are, after all, a Representative Republic.
Individuals need to have the liberty to find their own way in the world, and how they "fit". But, because the individual is not alone in the world, the State is necessary. Government should seek to order society so that the individual can have liberty to define his own life. Government creates the laws to uphold the rights of individual liberty, so that justice can be for "all". A just society can be no less.
Liberty must be the foremost value is one values a free society, where individuals are valued in their own right. Otherwise, some other value is more important, such as God or society, itself. This is when authoritarianism whether the State, or Spiritual "Elders" are Rulers and dictators over the individual conscience. These kinds of governments demand obedience of individual consciences to their brand or form of "virtue", whether it be for the poor, the destitute, or dis-enfranchised. And these social "concerns" are useful for the empowered class to "use" other individuals in sevitude to their 'agenda'.
All individuals will not find that their agenda will be implemented, but laws should protect the rights of others, so that Rulers will not become oppressors, in the name of their agenda. We are, after all, a Representative Republic.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Addendum to the Nation State
Nation States do not have any rights that their citizens don't give it voluntarily. The difference in a free society is the voluntary nature of it citizens participation. But, for a society to remain free, and continue to represent its people, " the citizen" must involve themselves!
Myth Brings Meaning
Myth is known by anthropologists to bring meaning to a certain culture. And meaning is "made" or created by mythologizing history.
This morning started my thinking on myth-making. As my husband and I were discussing my grandfather and his present physical needs, I recognized that human beings love to "romanticize" their history. This is why many times we like to reminisce over the "younger years". I have been told that many mothers would not choose to have any more children, if they really remembered the reality of labor. Somehow our brains release a relaxing chemical that promotes "memory loss". And sometimes there is actual medication to further that memory loss!
Myths make for stories that we tell our children and hold meaning of ideals that help further our goals. This is what I think has happened in our culture wars.
The real history we may never really know, but scholars do have some knowledge about that "real history", as they struggle to piece it together. But, those that have agendas that must be won, mythologize history to suit their purposes. The Church has always done this, as this is what theology is about.
Our culture wars are about where science and tradition intersect, disconnect, or compliment. One political philosopher has a two culture system or way of understanding the real and the ideal. The ideal is for the common person, who must have myth to soothe their situations in life. But, the real history is for "men' who have cut their teeth on the hard discipline of discovery.
Thus, the disciplines are about the disciplined mind, which is strengthened by reality, not subsumed, or defensive toward reality. Which culture do you fit? The idealized version, or the real reality of existence in a real world?
This morning started my thinking on myth-making. As my husband and I were discussing my grandfather and his present physical needs, I recognized that human beings love to "romanticize" their history. This is why many times we like to reminisce over the "younger years". I have been told that many mothers would not choose to have any more children, if they really remembered the reality of labor. Somehow our brains release a relaxing chemical that promotes "memory loss". And sometimes there is actual medication to further that memory loss!
Myths make for stories that we tell our children and hold meaning of ideals that help further our goals. This is what I think has happened in our culture wars.
The real history we may never really know, but scholars do have some knowledge about that "real history", as they struggle to piece it together. But, those that have agendas that must be won, mythologize history to suit their purposes. The Church has always done this, as this is what theology is about.
Our culture wars are about where science and tradition intersect, disconnect, or compliment. One political philosopher has a two culture system or way of understanding the real and the ideal. The ideal is for the common person, who must have myth to soothe their situations in life. But, the real history is for "men' who have cut their teeth on the hard discipline of discovery.
Thus, the disciplines are about the disciplined mind, which is strengthened by reality, not subsumed, or defensive toward reality. Which culture do you fit? The idealized version, or the real reality of existence in a real world?
Monday, July 19, 2010
Challenging Social Conventions
Social conventions are considered to be the "norm". And norms are the values a certain society holds. This week-end, my husband and I saw two plays that challenged two values in our society; appearance, and conventional ideas.
"Fat Pig" was a humorous jab at our society's value of "being fit". Being overweight, Helen had had numerous encounters of being the brunt of society's "convention". She coped with the ostericism by learning to "make fun of herself", and to be bluntly forthright about another's thoughts about her "fatness".
Helen had not had a chance at love, as she had been rejected before anyone took the time to know the person behind the "facade", until she met "Ben". The play ended with the sacrifice of Helen, on the altars of society's conventional wisdom; one cannot succeed with a fat wife!
The other play, "The Trial of Barach Spinoza" was a true rendition of a Jewish philosopher, who challenged the conventional wisdom of Judiasm, as well as the status quo in a Dutch Reformed Amersterdam in the 1600's.
Spinoza was painted as a radically committed person who was willing to "die" for his faith. But, his faith was not one of conventional wisdom, and his death would not be a physical, but social one.
Society, as an entity itself, maintains its conventions with rules that guard and guide the "faithful". Society has much to loose if it conventions do not maintain their power, as society would end in chaos and be destroyed. The "gatekeepers" of tradition are those that help to maintain these conventions.
The individual, as a person, is lost within these systems, if these systems are too constrictive.
Helen's "rebuke" was not a trial, like Spinoza's, but it was nevertherless, a painful realization that she was to be an outcast to a life of being loved and valued, in her own right.
Spinoza's freethought threatened the status quo. And the choice for Spinoza was inevitably a painful realization that he would not be the "choir boy" within his "Jewish tradition". But, being the "choir boy" was never Spinoza's goal in the first place. Spinoza's friend, who betrayed him to the "authorities", was seeking to be a "choir boy", at least at first. Spinoza's intellectual honesty and commitment to be "true to himself" was the threat to society's traditional view.
One has to ask whether the values that society affirms are values that are truly "righteous"? Or are these conventional values "self affirming rights" to discriminate against another? And if one discriminates, then is there a conscious choice about the reasons why one discriminates?
People, for the most part, are not self-reflective enough to consider whether the value of a human being is to be put above social convention. Social convention is "an easy way out" of an uncomfortable challenge to one's social values.
I haven't come to my conclusions about all the why's or why not's, but I will be thinking about it this week.
"Fat Pig" was a humorous jab at our society's value of "being fit". Being overweight, Helen had had numerous encounters of being the brunt of society's "convention". She coped with the ostericism by learning to "make fun of herself", and to be bluntly forthright about another's thoughts about her "fatness".
Helen had not had a chance at love, as she had been rejected before anyone took the time to know the person behind the "facade", until she met "Ben". The play ended with the sacrifice of Helen, on the altars of society's conventional wisdom; one cannot succeed with a fat wife!
The other play, "The Trial of Barach Spinoza" was a true rendition of a Jewish philosopher, who challenged the conventional wisdom of Judiasm, as well as the status quo in a Dutch Reformed Amersterdam in the 1600's.
Spinoza was painted as a radically committed person who was willing to "die" for his faith. But, his faith was not one of conventional wisdom, and his death would not be a physical, but social one.
Society, as an entity itself, maintains its conventions with rules that guard and guide the "faithful". Society has much to loose if it conventions do not maintain their power, as society would end in chaos and be destroyed. The "gatekeepers" of tradition are those that help to maintain these conventions.
The individual, as a person, is lost within these systems, if these systems are too constrictive.
Helen's "rebuke" was not a trial, like Spinoza's, but it was nevertherless, a painful realization that she was to be an outcast to a life of being loved and valued, in her own right.
Spinoza's freethought threatened the status quo. And the choice for Spinoza was inevitably a painful realization that he would not be the "choir boy" within his "Jewish tradition". But, being the "choir boy" was never Spinoza's goal in the first place. Spinoza's friend, who betrayed him to the "authorities", was seeking to be a "choir boy", at least at first. Spinoza's intellectual honesty and commitment to be "true to himself" was the threat to society's traditional view.
One has to ask whether the values that society affirms are values that are truly "righteous"? Or are these conventional values "self affirming rights" to discriminate against another? And if one discriminates, then is there a conscious choice about the reasons why one discriminates?
People, for the most part, are not self-reflective enough to consider whether the value of a human being is to be put above social convention. Social convention is "an easy way out" of an uncomfortable challenge to one's social values.
I haven't come to my conclusions about all the why's or why not's, but I will be thinking about it this week.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Why Individual Conscience Is Important to Democratic Ideals
Whether one is a Republican or Democrat, leadership is necessary for maintaining order, forming policy solutions to the problems a nation faces. Why is American individualism important for the democratic ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?And what is the importance of society and the value of societal conscience?
Life is the most important aspect to any policy decision-making. What does life mean and what quality of life is necessary for "good governing"? Some believe that quality is necessary for life to really exist and this quality is met in a free and democratic society.
Life has to have its physical needs met. And these physical needs are what many liberals deem important for good governing, as it is compassionate leadership and demands social justice. But, can we gurantee such rights, without limiting liberty? And is liberty of secondary importance to social security? Is life as defined with limited liberty by government officials really what life is about? And how do the government officials decide where to draw their lines for the individuals within their society? Can the government garuntee anything, really? Isn't our government about self-governance and limite governemnt?
Liberty is another important democratic value, in fact, it defines democracy. Democracy allows the individual his right to "own his own life", and requires responsible behavior toward that end. But, those that deem that liberty makes life unfair because of advantages beyond an individual's control, think that liberty must be defined by social justice. Otherwise, society, itself, falters and is frustrated in flourishing. Leadership thinks it should determine what is just and equitable. Government grows and expands in furthering "social security".
The pursuit of happiness is identified by the indvidual's right to pursue his own ends. And the pursuit of happiness is variable in a democracy because of the variability of individual and his chosen values. Laws are created to define boundaries to protect against injustice to another. But, if govenment officials define "happiness" too stringently and choose the values too definitively for their society, the society ceases to be "free". Some believe that it is the right, in fact, the duty of leaders to limit another's right to choice, because society must be protected from those that would undermine society's "collective" benefit.
Collectivism is the bane and demise of the individual because it limits choice, defines values, and takes away the motivation to "better oneself". While collectivism is necessary for the child in forming his/her development, the "collective" ceases to be necessary for self-motivated individuals, who puruse their own purpsose and purpose their own plans. Self determination is an important value in free societies.
Today's news brings concern to many about how "collective groups" propose to bring about "social justice". The Black Panthers were being investigated in court for intimidating voters at the voting booth in the last Presidental election. One Black Panther went so far as to voice his hatred for "crackers", and call for the killing of "crackers" . This attitude is "social justice" gone wild. The Justice Department has withdrawn its investigation, because of so called discrimination. Stipulation of "just desserts" because of past sins, will never result in furthering democratic ideals.
This morning a caller called in to ask whether she was justified is asking for recompense for her lost income due to the BP oil accident. She is a realtor and has made $16,000 in the past for the months of May and June, but she has suffered loss because people are waiting to see if they want to buy in this real estate market, when property values probably will decrease.
Will BP honor every single litigant, and what will be their judgment on whether someone is "justified for retribution"? How will they determine monetary value? And will monetary value settle all of the "losses" those in the Gulf have suffered?
So, why is collectivism being "pushed" in today's political climate? Won't the ones who have the most power be the ones to "call the shots" for all of us? And what will be the foundation of their power? Their money? Their position? or What? And what will life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness look like when "collective" policies "take over" and we are all paying for it?
Life is the most important aspect to any policy decision-making. What does life mean and what quality of life is necessary for "good governing"? Some believe that quality is necessary for life to really exist and this quality is met in a free and democratic society.
Life has to have its physical needs met. And these physical needs are what many liberals deem important for good governing, as it is compassionate leadership and demands social justice. But, can we gurantee such rights, without limiting liberty? And is liberty of secondary importance to social security? Is life as defined with limited liberty by government officials really what life is about? And how do the government officials decide where to draw their lines for the individuals within their society? Can the government garuntee anything, really? Isn't our government about self-governance and limite governemnt?
Liberty is another important democratic value, in fact, it defines democracy. Democracy allows the individual his right to "own his own life", and requires responsible behavior toward that end. But, those that deem that liberty makes life unfair because of advantages beyond an individual's control, think that liberty must be defined by social justice. Otherwise, society, itself, falters and is frustrated in flourishing. Leadership thinks it should determine what is just and equitable. Government grows and expands in furthering "social security".
The pursuit of happiness is identified by the indvidual's right to pursue his own ends. And the pursuit of happiness is variable in a democracy because of the variability of individual and his chosen values. Laws are created to define boundaries to protect against injustice to another. But, if govenment officials define "happiness" too stringently and choose the values too definitively for their society, the society ceases to be "free". Some believe that it is the right, in fact, the duty of leaders to limit another's right to choice, because society must be protected from those that would undermine society's "collective" benefit.
Collectivism is the bane and demise of the individual because it limits choice, defines values, and takes away the motivation to "better oneself". While collectivism is necessary for the child in forming his/her development, the "collective" ceases to be necessary for self-motivated individuals, who puruse their own purpsose and purpose their own plans. Self determination is an important value in free societies.
Today's news brings concern to many about how "collective groups" propose to bring about "social justice". The Black Panthers were being investigated in court for intimidating voters at the voting booth in the last Presidental election. One Black Panther went so far as to voice his hatred for "crackers", and call for the killing of "crackers" . This attitude is "social justice" gone wild. The Justice Department has withdrawn its investigation, because of so called discrimination. Stipulation of "just desserts" because of past sins, will never result in furthering democratic ideals.
This morning a caller called in to ask whether she was justified is asking for recompense for her lost income due to the BP oil accident. She is a realtor and has made $16,000 in the past for the months of May and June, but she has suffered loss because people are waiting to see if they want to buy in this real estate market, when property values probably will decrease.
Will BP honor every single litigant, and what will be their judgment on whether someone is "justified for retribution"? How will they determine monetary value? And will monetary value settle all of the "losses" those in the Gulf have suffered?
So, why is collectivism being "pushed" in today's political climate? Won't the ones who have the most power be the ones to "call the shots" for all of us? And what will be the foundation of their power? Their money? Their position? or What? And what will life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness look like when "collective" policies "take over" and we are all paying for it?
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Idealism or Realism?
All humans understand their "realities" within frames of reference(s). Individuals are understand thier "world" with philosophical or historical lenses, after they "come of age", as self-reflective individuals. Our psychology as humans is intent on creating ourselves within our "worlds" that provide for a "flourishing environment". An identity is where we "place our hat" in these philosophical and historical references.
Philosophy has been a way to understand the "ideals" in the human heart. Ideals are universals, while their historical contexts may make differences in how these universals are interpreted and these historical contexts are individually understood and embraced.
Religion is both historical and philosophical, as religion seeks to understand man's quest for significance in their understanding of "god". Religion has been useful to create an "ideal" in a "not so ideal world". And religions have formed from those that have represented certain "ideals" that are valued in a given society or by those that have represented a certain people, or cause.
The real world of history is born out in politics, power and economics. These are areas in which the political world "speaks" in society's institutions.
America's government doesn't acknowledge the institution of the Church, so much as allow for religious freedom in individual conscience. America was a Protestant Nation, after all. We were "nominalists" in our ideology.
Today, the "culture wars" are about the real issues of policy, which impact society's institutions and society at large. Religion becomes dangerous in such an environment, because instead of individual citizens making thier own determinations about what the "ideal" "should" be, we have "God" useful to justify a "one party system". And a "one party system" is not conducive for a free society, because the minority opinion becomes marginalized and demonized.
Without realizing what is happening, what is hoped for in fighting for God, becomes oppressive and tyrannical in the "name of God".
Philosophy has been a way to understand the "ideals" in the human heart. Ideals are universals, while their historical contexts may make differences in how these universals are interpreted and these historical contexts are individually understood and embraced.
Religion is both historical and philosophical, as religion seeks to understand man's quest for significance in their understanding of "god". Religion has been useful to create an "ideal" in a "not so ideal world". And religions have formed from those that have represented certain "ideals" that are valued in a given society or by those that have represented a certain people, or cause.
The real world of history is born out in politics, power and economics. These are areas in which the political world "speaks" in society's institutions.
America's government doesn't acknowledge the institution of the Church, so much as allow for religious freedom in individual conscience. America was a Protestant Nation, after all. We were "nominalists" in our ideology.
Today, the "culture wars" are about the real issues of policy, which impact society's institutions and society at large. Religion becomes dangerous in such an environment, because instead of individual citizens making thier own determinations about what the "ideal" "should" be, we have "God" useful to justify a "one party system". And a "one party system" is not conducive for a free society, because the minority opinion becomes marginalized and demonized.
Without realizing what is happening, what is hoped for in fighting for God, becomes oppressive and tyrannical in the "name of God".
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
"Human" and the Citizen
Much has been "thrown out" on the radio and T.V. concerning the recent immigration problem. The discussion, I think, can be boiled down to two views on what it means to be a "person", or "human" versus a citizen.
Humans are by nature social animals. A Dateline special illustrated how individuals have "herd mentalities". In an elevator where Dateline employees were told to turn with their backs to the elevator door, everyone in the "studies" mimiced the "group". People do not question, for the most part.
But, today's crisis forefronts the problem of what it means to be human! Americans are identified with certain liberties that are defined and protected by our Constitution. And lately, it seems that our government has not been forthcoming in protecting our literal boundaries, which has caused a crisis in our identified boundaries. Civil liberties have been for the most part understood to be for those that live within certain geographical borders.
Boundaries are identifiers of persons. These are various complexions of an individual's social world. And some believe that all individuals deserve rights under "natural law", these are the "humanists" and globalists. The "human" is what defines the individual. Others believe that societies construct individuals with their particular laws, which maintain distinctions and underlie a person's "real identity". These believe that the various social groups define the individual, as to identity.
The problem, as I understand it, is can a "human" be a person, as persons need social contexts to define themselves. Or do they? Does an individual understand himself apart from social groups? I think that they can. Humans are reasonable animals. We seek to rationalize our existance. This is the way we cope and understand the world.
America has understood itself to be a nation ruled by law. The Constitution defined our 'union", and protected its citizens rights. But, a Constitutional government is representative of its people. The people (identified as Americans) are warring over their right to exist apart from invasion from outsiders. These outsiders threaten society through their crime and a dissolution of boundaries which breeds fear and anxiety over their "identified way of life".
Therefore, the 'human' is the lowest denominator for identification purposes. Citizens understand themselves in more definitive ways. And those that live in civilized Western societies understand themselves as a person in his own right. Americans come to understand themselves apart from the former contexts of identification, but may choose to become identified to these social groups for other reasons.
All humans are social animals, but the social animal is not civilized without society's impact. And society's impact is not an ultimate value, as the individual himself needs to develop beyond the dependent stage on society. The individuals allowed such liberty come to understand themselves and their own values apart from the greater whole, and can come to find their own place for themselves.
Humans are by nature social animals. A Dateline special illustrated how individuals have "herd mentalities". In an elevator where Dateline employees were told to turn with their backs to the elevator door, everyone in the "studies" mimiced the "group". People do not question, for the most part.
But, today's crisis forefronts the problem of what it means to be human! Americans are identified with certain liberties that are defined and protected by our Constitution. And lately, it seems that our government has not been forthcoming in protecting our literal boundaries, which has caused a crisis in our identified boundaries. Civil liberties have been for the most part understood to be for those that live within certain geographical borders.
Boundaries are identifiers of persons. These are various complexions of an individual's social world. And some believe that all individuals deserve rights under "natural law", these are the "humanists" and globalists. The "human" is what defines the individual. Others believe that societies construct individuals with their particular laws, which maintain distinctions and underlie a person's "real identity". These believe that the various social groups define the individual, as to identity.
The problem, as I understand it, is can a "human" be a person, as persons need social contexts to define themselves. Or do they? Does an individual understand himself apart from social groups? I think that they can. Humans are reasonable animals. We seek to rationalize our existance. This is the way we cope and understand the world.
America has understood itself to be a nation ruled by law. The Constitution defined our 'union", and protected its citizens rights. But, a Constitutional government is representative of its people. The people (identified as Americans) are warring over their right to exist apart from invasion from outsiders. These outsiders threaten society through their crime and a dissolution of boundaries which breeds fear and anxiety over their "identified way of life".
Therefore, the 'human' is the lowest denominator for identification purposes. Citizens understand themselves in more definitive ways. And those that live in civilized Western societies understand themselves as a person in his own right. Americans come to understand themselves apart from the former contexts of identification, but may choose to become identified to these social groups for other reasons.
All humans are social animals, but the social animal is not civilized without society's impact. And society's impact is not an ultimate value, as the individual himself needs to develop beyond the dependent stage on society. The individuals allowed such liberty come to understand themselves and their own values apart from the greater whole, and can come to find their own place for themselves.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
"Do Unto Others"
"Do unto Others as you would have them do unto you", is a universally acclaimed rule. But, do all people want the same things in life? That depends on one's needs desires, and values.
Much has been debated as to what is important to "sanction" as a universal, because of such diverse needs and values. And most have agreed that the "Golden Rule" is useless because of its lack of definition.
What we value in America; Life, Liberty and the "pursuit of happiness" are universals and have underwritten human rights. But, conflict of opinion arises whenever cultures collide in thier values of choice, unless we want to go back to a theocratic form of government, where there is no choice and values are determined for you by "other authorities".
Liberty should define life, because without liberty there is ultimately no value of a separate form of life. Life is determined for the peasant by the circumstances that confine their experience. And liberty is not even understood by those who have no choice about their resources. This is why many have come to seek refuge on America's shores. We value individual liberty to pursue one's own ends.
Today's "mandate" is based on naturalism's limited resources, which determines "moral concerns" and values. We have no choice when it comes to the environment, and the poor, because it is presumed these concerns are foundational.
The environment is of global concern because of the belief in our dependence on limited physical resources and there is no hope of discovering another way if producing these resources. Belief that the whole world is interdependent and will not survive physically, if we do not address these concerns are what drive global policies, but are undertaken mostly, by the West. It is as if the West is being punished for consuming vast amounts of resources without rectifying global injustices. The West must bear the consequences; The West must pay. The rectifying will be taxation and we will not be represented, because there are so many that have not had representative forms of government.
India and China have much more population to consume and pollute the world, but these have not taken up the cause of "moral concern", as the West has. Why is this so?
The poor are also useful for global policy and unifying nations around "moral issues". But, the poor have never had their needs met although humanitarian aid has been forthcoming from the West. The poor are still destitute because they can not be responsible for themselves. Some of the global outreaches are seeking to provide educational resources to the poor to give them advantages. But, what advantage does one have in a society that does not value individual liberty , the rule of law, and is filled with corruption?
If we applied the Golden Rule, then wouldn't it be a universally undertaken task to support the global environment and the poor? And wouldn't the support be undertaken by all countries alike? But, countries are not all similar in their values. They do not want to be defined by "the rule of law", which protects individual interests.
Therefore, when we talk of global issues, until we can all agree on the "rules of the game" and not just the policies that are to be pursued; The rulers will determine what will be "our concern", and our "moral values". We will be the peasant class and we will be determined by those that manipulate the system to serve what they see as the most important "moral" purposes. And such were the early Christians, the manipulated peasant class, because there was no "equality under law". And the "Golden Rule" will die a thousand deaths.
Much has been debated as to what is important to "sanction" as a universal, because of such diverse needs and values. And most have agreed that the "Golden Rule" is useless because of its lack of definition.
What we value in America; Life, Liberty and the "pursuit of happiness" are universals and have underwritten human rights. But, conflict of opinion arises whenever cultures collide in thier values of choice, unless we want to go back to a theocratic form of government, where there is no choice and values are determined for you by "other authorities".
Liberty should define life, because without liberty there is ultimately no value of a separate form of life. Life is determined for the peasant by the circumstances that confine their experience. And liberty is not even understood by those who have no choice about their resources. This is why many have come to seek refuge on America's shores. We value individual liberty to pursue one's own ends.
Today's "mandate" is based on naturalism's limited resources, which determines "moral concerns" and values. We have no choice when it comes to the environment, and the poor, because it is presumed these concerns are foundational.
The environment is of global concern because of the belief in our dependence on limited physical resources and there is no hope of discovering another way if producing these resources. Belief that the whole world is interdependent and will not survive physically, if we do not address these concerns are what drive global policies, but are undertaken mostly, by the West. It is as if the West is being punished for consuming vast amounts of resources without rectifying global injustices. The West must bear the consequences; The West must pay. The rectifying will be taxation and we will not be represented, because there are so many that have not had representative forms of government.
India and China have much more population to consume and pollute the world, but these have not taken up the cause of "moral concern", as the West has. Why is this so?
The poor are also useful for global policy and unifying nations around "moral issues". But, the poor have never had their needs met although humanitarian aid has been forthcoming from the West. The poor are still destitute because they can not be responsible for themselves. Some of the global outreaches are seeking to provide educational resources to the poor to give them advantages. But, what advantage does one have in a society that does not value individual liberty , the rule of law, and is filled with corruption?
If we applied the Golden Rule, then wouldn't it be a universally undertaken task to support the global environment and the poor? And wouldn't the support be undertaken by all countries alike? But, countries are not all similar in their values. They do not want to be defined by "the rule of law", which protects individual interests.
Therefore, when we talk of global issues, until we can all agree on the "rules of the game" and not just the policies that are to be pursued; The rulers will determine what will be "our concern", and our "moral values". We will be the peasant class and we will be determined by those that manipulate the system to serve what they see as the most important "moral" purposes. And such were the early Christians, the manipulated peasant class, because there was no "equality under law". And the "Golden Rule" will die a thousand deaths.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
