This Is the Way I Think....

 E.M. Forster said, “How can I know what I think till I see what I say?” I read this on another's blog and I like the comment because it is true for me, too.

Many times there are so many "ribbons of thought" that I cannot tie them together, until I start to write. I know that my writing is dense and my thinking unrefined, but I love tying ideas together, to create new forms, or new understandings or thinking through problems, or analyzing some puzzle or something I've read. The problem remains that I don't know so much. I am ill informed in many areas, but I love to learn...

So, I enjoy my blog. It is for myself that I write and if it meets another's need, then all the better. But, I think it is important to do what is valuable to oneself, as in finding what is of value, one can benefit others, too.. I used to be attuned to what another's "need" was, or how I would offend, or bring conflict to another. But, that kind of thinking is gone now with blogging. Why?

Blogging is taking advantage of one of the liberties in our society; the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Without these liberties, we would not be free to think and thinking is the first step to rationality in framing one's life. People should not live without a rationale. And in free societies there can be different rationales in serving one's ulitmate values and commitments.

Some don't think that thinking or ideas are important, but our Founders ideals of "life, liberty" and the pursuit of happiness depend on individuals coming to terms with what these terms mean to them, personally. And personal conviction is where commitment begins, not in irrationality.

I am so grateful to live in a society that values liberty, without which I would not have the right to pursue personal interests. Without personal interests, one can only live their life under the demands of another's values, power or purpose. And whether living one's life under such conditions would be of benefit to society or not, it is not a "moral good" that such determinations happen.

The Fear of God is the Beginning of Wisdom...

The book of Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. It is located in the books of wisdom. In the book of Job, there is a verse, "The Fear of God is the BEGINNING of WISDOM".

I used to read this verse as, " The Fear of God is the Beginning of wisdom"..

The emphasis on the former is that one has to fear God to even begin to understand. Such are the supernaturalists in their understanding of text and tradition and life, itself!

But, now, I understand that it means fearing "God" is Just the Beginning of Wisdom. Wisdom is practical knowledge about life throught experience, not knowledge about "God" and the supernatural.

This latter understanding is more in line with the original Jewish understanding. Wasn't it Job who suffered under the hands of those who thought they know what "God" wanted, and knew what God was doing in Job's life?

What did Job learn? Didn't Job learn that the whole creation was a mystery and that life was a gift to be lived in the present and be grasped by an awe inspiring worship?

Job's "answer" was not about a "how to", or answers the text has to offer, but life itself.

Life is hard, at times. It behooves all of us to understand that we shouldn't lay undue burdens upon others backs by being like Job's comforters.

(But, for the sake of balance, one cannot live without understanding what they will value, as this is the "stuff" where one's commitments will be. The Supernaturalists just believe that "God" should be their life commitment.)

On Self Love, and Self Understanding on This Valentine's Day

On this Valentine's Day, I thought I'd share this quote about love by Ayn Rand, "Ayn Rand


‎"To love is to value. Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love—because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed values. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone."
“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 32

 
One must value themselves and their own values, before they can choose freely and be responsible for those commitments of value. Understanding oneself is of necessity to evaluate and proritize, so that one can act responsible and principled. Otherwise, one will be prone to act to "please" without negotiation. One's life will be an enslavement and co-dependency. And it will not be healthy!
 
So, on this Valentine's Day, "Know Thyself", so that you will be able to stand against those that would want something that you do not want for yourself!

Self Interest, Altruism, and American Freedom

American freedom is provided for many "convictions" of consciences, as we believe in the "rule of law". The religious term conscience according to "Tradition", while the Scientists are seeking a way to maintain "peace" in a diverse and global world. Can altruism be "taught" or "should it be taught"?

I believe that tradition can be formative, but does not have to be. Conscience dwells in man as an innate nature. It is only when there has been a conditioning that has diminished or humiliated another where conscience can be deadened. A deadened conscience can be a reactive response to a lack of acknowledgement. Humans want to be affirmed, as they are social beings, and not just physical beings.

Nazism arose as a reaction to the humiliation of the German nation, after WWI. according to some historians. Hitler's rise to power was the "need" of the German population to have a sense of identity and pride in thier nation. Nationalism was borne on the heels of revenge.

I believe because we are self=identifying individuals, that we must become aware of what our identifiers are and seek negotiation with those that have different identifiying factors. This is in the interest of both parties. I do not believe that self interest is wrong or bad, it just is, and it should be, because without a "self" there is no way of protecting against another taking advantage of the other.

So, recognizing our self=interest, being honest about our values and commitments, and then proceeding to make negotiations when it regards one's public life, is the epitome of freedom.

Altruism, on the other hand, is a scientific undertaking, these days. Scientists want to provide peace and are seeking to understand and/or train people into altruistic goals or purposes. To do this, many think that religion is useful. People that identify with religion usually have poor self development or self esteem or they have been taught that it is selfish to seek self interest. These are pawns in the hands of the unscrupulous. This is when America's laws should provide protection from such"preying hands".

If anyone tells you that they are seeking to "turn your eyes outward", instead of "inward" (as Luther termed "sin"), then run and take an interest in yourself. Otherwise, you will become someone else's training ground.....

Law MUST Protect Rights (Freedom)

We are a nation of law (and order). And because we value law, we are an ordered or civilized society. What happens to society when laws are disregarded, or abused?

Man is a rational animal and rationality is developed by understanding rights before the law and coming to terms with one's ultimate values. Every human deserves the right to have a sense of freedom about their life, so that they can take responsibility for themselves. This is a basic human right.

Governments and people who do not value laws that protect rights are disrepectful of another's life. Motivation and human flourishing does not occur as freely and frequently in oppressive regimes, which affects society itself. Humans must be free to choose where their responsibilities will be and where their ultimate values and commitments lie.

Religious dictators would subvert another's choice through "God's will", or "God's Purpose", while political dictators subvert another's choices through subversion of rights under law.

We should value our freedom and undestand our rights as granted by laws and protected by our "Representative Republic".

Choices?

Some believe that life and the world "works" according to Newton's laws of physics. If you do this, then this is what will happen. It is a mentality that righteousness deserves blessing and unrighteousness deserves judgment......this was what was theologically incorrect in Job. Job had done no wrong, as he was blameless. What was wrong?

What was wrong was man's arrogance, either in judging another (Job), by theologizing about his "sin", or whether it was Job's lack of understanding that "life happens" and we don't understand how or why it "happens'. But, God is above what happens. The book of Job says nothing about how or why things happen, but that God IS and He is the Creator. And we don't understand all about everything...

Some have made a false "world" for sanctifying believers. They presupposed a certain response, with a resulting "judgement" or punishment, if that response is not forthcoming. This is behavior that is modelled on the first stage of morality. It is responding becasue of fear of punishment, which a child does. An adult is to come to a principled life, where the values that are most important determine responses.

But, if there is an outcome-based mentality, where the goal, result or determining purpose is "set-up", without discussing it fully with all parties, then there might be reprecussions on the "goal" or purpose. That is, if all players are needed to fulfill a certain role or function.

Out-come based mentality is a closed system that does not leave room for any differnce of choice or respect for "life"s diverse contingencies. This is what I have against the Christian "worldview" in evangelicalism. It assumes that their view is absolutely correct and determine or plan accordingly. These beliefs are not "set in stone" although they think they are written in God's "word". These beliefs are interpretations and living one's life based on a interpretive text, which has diverse understandings throughout Church history, is short-sighted and small-minded. It perverts justice, while claiming innocence and pointing to God, as the origninator, without taking proper responsibility.

Choice is about personal values, personal commitments, and personal goals. These cannot be placed within a system, unless the system has allowed free exchange and negotiation about all of these aspects of an individual's life. Choice is not about right and wrong, necessarily, but about value.

What are your ultimate values and where do you find meaning in walking these values out in your life?

The Church, The State, Progressives and Conservatives

The Church has been understood as a universal community, at least by the apostle Paul. Perhaps a better terminology is the household of God, as Ken Schenck uses in Quadralateral Thoughts.

But, how is this universality understood today? Conservatives of course point to Scriptures, while the Progressives point to science. Conservatives believe that God made one humanity in Christ, while progressives believe that we are one humanity.

Conservatives do things for the glory of God, while progressive do things for the "common good", the betterment of mankind. Conservatives tend to understand their identity in specified and special terms. Progressives understand this tendency as group identification. Group identification distinctifies one group from another, as this was what has transpired throughout the course of history with any kind of group; religious, political, cultural, etc. Humans love to create an identity by maintaining their distinct boundary markers. But, progressives question whether some boundary markers are healthy to maintain.

The question of mental health and "the common good" is the question of one's reason for boundary markers. What is a healthy boundary marker? Both conservative and progressives would agree that a good boundary marker would be the personal convictions, or commitments of a person, or the laws that define a nation's culture. Laws define what is deviant. While deviancy is an important value to uphold in a civilized society, what defines unhealthy reasons for boundary maintainence?

When one describes an individual commitment or conviction, or a nation's laws, both conservative and progressives agree that these should be respected. But, religious identifiers or boundary markers are harder to rally full agreement. Religion defines itself upon the "rules of faith", but progressives question the "rules" as being "right" in describing faith, as faith is a personal commitment to value. Religion, on the other hand, has many ways of maintaining its group identity.

Religion bases its claims of identification of beliefs, a divine figure, a culture, group "rules". Religion delights in coformity and thinks of itself in conservative circles, as exclusivist. Relgion colors one's perception and perspective and breeds prejuidice, and the prejuidice is reinforced by sacred texts, or sacred persons. Progressives are more open to define religion in objectified terms.

With many distinctions between the conservative and progressive, there has been an attempt to unify both through "purpose" or "teleos". In Chrisiian circles, this attempt has been based on "the Kingdom of God" and the "common good". The public square meets the Church on the Church's "terminology' , while using the Church's gifts for "the common good" of humanity. There is nothing wrong with this unity of purpose, as long as all individuals that are affected are informed of the specific requirements upon their life. If a "purpose" is useful for the "common good" (pragmatism), especially if it is underwritten in the conservative's mind, by "God", then the State can bring about its plans in a peaceful and unified way.

True progressives, though, would question the wisdom of combining Church and State in this way, as it brings about an intrusion of government into private lives. Privacy is a value in American culture for it repects the individual. But, both conservative and progressive moralists bring "the rule of law" upon others in the "name of God" (reconstruction, restoration, or social gospel), to teach others about God's rule. I question how this is anything other than Shai ria Law, or Constiantine's Empire...

Although I am not clear as to how I view Church and State, I question the ways in which moralists understand themselves as a "superior" breed of humanity. Whether one rules as the Taliban, or "legislating the Pentateuch", both do not breed tolerance for difference, or an openness to intepretation of that law. Laws define a nation's values, and America was founded on freedom of religion and a separation of Church and State. This separation was not to be a "wall", as a Founding Father claimed, but was to maintain the boundary of public/private, so that individuals could come to their own convictions, values, and faith, which is found within the culture's social structures of family, church and comminity. Objectifying morals transgresses the universal ethic of "doing unto others", "the categorical imperative", even when the moralists is convinced of their "rightness" of conviction. The battle of morality should be for the conservative in love from a pure heart, while the progressive should use reason to explore morality's reasonableness in scienctific discovery and philosophical discussion.

Personal Identity, Group Attachment and Abuse

In our local paper, one of the leaders at our university, states that "respect is yours, have it"! This is important news, because the context is a local domestic violence organization called "Hands of Hope". The abused need to know that they can have hope beyond the definitions that their abusor have given them. Hope is inspired when the heart is strenghtened with encouragement and empowerment.

Why is respect necessary to break free of abusive systems? Self respect is negated in environments that teach dependence or group mentality. Psychologists say this is an unhealthy attachment, because personal identity ceases to exist in such environments. The group defines what is right for the individual. The individual is negated because the individual has no choice about the matter. They are to obey and submit to what the system designs and desires.

A system is organizational structuring and is not wrong, in and of itself. But, if the system is not focused on giving freedom to individuals, but defining them, then the system ceases to be a healthy one. Cultures define individuals, but are not necessarily unhealthy, unless they take away the right of the individual to freely choose and determine their own life. Children, of course, are defined by their families, but young adults should come to a place where they understand their own person. This is personal identity.

Personal identity is important to develop, as it helps the individual to define their values and commitments. Reason is engaged in this formative stage and can bring about transformation of the person's understanding of themselves, their true values, and their reasons for choosing those values. This is an important stage in coming to terms with life calling. A life calling is not defined by others, only developed. And developing others in thier gifts is a life calling itself!