What Do You Do, When No One Listens?

What happens when people don't listen to YOU? Do you feel frustrated, alone, insignificant, devalued, ignored, minimized, dismissed or what? Perhaps, all these terms apply and this is what is so disturbing when people don't listen!

Has life taught you to expect others to listen because your parent valued your opinion, or at least, you, as a child and a separate being? Or has life taught you that no one listens, because they are too busy for YOU? "You" are those previous terms we used in our first paragraph? What happens when we don't take others seriously? Can we have expectations of them, when we have been dismissive and arrogant?

On a recent program I was listening to, a psychologist say that many conflicts occur because of hidden expectations. These unidentified expectatons are "key" to what we really want or need in a relationship. Expectation is about how we 'see" relationships, in general, and if they are not addressed, there is not much hope of relationship.

Relationships are about two people or groups of people that have certain desires and these groups/people are "formed" by expectations. These expectations frame/interpret our judgments of another's "love" :"value" or "care" of us, as persons. Many times unconscious demands on another's life is what really bothers those that can't seem to bend or express themselves in ways that are productive. These kinds of people are hard-core moralists that hold to a high road of superior vision, purpose, or design about/on life. Those not "in the game" are "not in the game". There is not much compromise in their view, as to compromise is to de-value their ultimates which are absolutes. Absolutes cannot be negotiated, as that would be 'kin" to treason. One must by loyal to principle before people.

When no one listens because they haven't understood or minimized your concern, what can you do? You can take responsibility for youself, and choose the road that seems most pertinant to your values and remember that even those that listen, might not listen well. So, take care of yourself and your own family.

An Ayn Rand Quote on Productivity

Ayn Rand


‎"Morally, the promise of an impossible 'right' to economic security is an infamous attempt to abrogate the concept of rights. It can and does mean only one thing: a promise to enslave the men who produce, for the benefit of those who don’t."
“A Preview,” The Ayn Rand Letter, I, 22, 2

Moral Busybodies, Again!

C.S. Lewis on Moral Busybodies


"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

C.S. Lewis on Moral Busybodies

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - Copy to Clipboard


-- C.S. Lewis

I LOVE This Quote!

The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. -- Robert A. Heinlein

Equality

One of the philosophical dilemmas that I have been reading on, is between equality or elitism. It is not a matter of whether there will be elitism, but what type or kind...as leadership is about elitism.

Should equality be based on standardization of the eononmy? These leaders believe that the "masses" should be equal in outcomes, not opportunity. Equality in outcomes means that costs will be similar. Govenment is to maintain the costs of healthcare so that all people can have the same or similar healthcare plan. But, the leaders that are voting this way are not going to submit to the same "equality of outcome". Their "place of priviledge" gives them the right to better choices about their healthcare plan. What this really means is that they don't have to pay for others to have healthcare, not in reality.

Other leaders base their equality on opportunity. These believe that outcome or maintaining costs should not be the focus, but rectifying the injustice through equal opportunity. No discrimination for the individual to have the right of choice. The government does not demand that the individual "take the opportunity" or the right of a certain outcome.. The government is only there to rectify injustice in concerns to discrimination about opportunity. These are civil liberties.

Risks about the choices one makes, whether that means not getting the education needed for a better job, or taking a risk by investments and enteuperneurship. These are individual choices or liberties that Americans value and should value, as it maintains the free society that we have been used to.

Poverty is a social problem, but approaching the problem through equalizing the outcomes, demoralizes those that might choose to do otherwise than what government demands. Is it not the right of the individual who produces to get profit from his effort and labot? Or is government going to determine 'what is right" or "moral" in regards to salary? Is government to be the moral police officier in how the individual chooses to live their life? This will be the case whenever the government gets more and more involved with the decisions of individuals and families in America. We will then have little need for the vision that inspired our Founders to protect our inalienable rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because government will TELL us what we are to value and how we are to live.

This I Believe....a Personal Confession

I believe that man is made to become independently self sustaining and independent. This is not to say that man lives alone, or doesn't need companionship. Nor does it mean that man cannot learn from another, as we all learn in many ways from others. But, man is made to become a rational being that can ascertain the values that he holds most dear, that decide the course of his life and commitments. There should never be group imposition upon another human life, without full acknowledgment and consent of those so governed.

I believe that many times these commitments might conflict and cause one to choose the greater value.

I believe that self responsible behavior is one of the most important gifts parents can give their children and that authority is respected when they give the respect to individuals under their responsibility. Right attitudes is mandatory in all relationships, whether they are personal and intimate, as in the family, or contractual, as in business dealings.

The church is one of many social structures in society that give men a place to become, but should never be ultimate in their authority, as authority is not the purpose of any government.

Government is to respect the rights of the individual. Government was made for man, not man for the government. Therefore, government must not intrude into private life, not demand public service. Public service is to be given freely by grateful citizens that benefit from the protection their government provides. But, government should always limit itself, just as men must learn to limit themselves.

Marriage is a social contract that should be respected by the parties entering into it. These parties must determine for themselves how they want their contract to work. Society, in return, should expect the parties to respect the contract as a social structuring in securing an environment for society's flourishing.

Social institutions are to provide environments that help further the cause of human flourishing and society's structuring.

I believe no one should impose their view of virtue on another. Virtue cannot be forced, as virtue could be just as much resistance to oppression, as submission to a social structure. Virtue must come from a conviction within, not without.

Morality is determined by one's social group and society at large,. as morality are the rules that define the specified society's values and ultimate concerns.. Morality are the social norms in society, which are legislated in our laws to protect our liberty. Liberty of conscience must be maintained in matters of personal interests, such as religious worship. Otherwise, the society demands what cannot be demanded without coercive government interference into another's life.

I believe that what one chooses to do with one's life is a personal matter and not the matter of the church or society. Society and its social institutions can help further the goals of an individual, but government should never determine another's life choices or values.

I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These will be defined differently by individuals within our free society and that is the greatness of America.

What I Find Interesting in Language

As I have been intereacting on different blog sites, it occurs to me that each subject or discipline has its own language, which different "communities" or "peoples" use, understand and value.

I think that for one to be a good social constructionist, all languages must be used. For without the different languages, and ability to translate into other languages amongst the disciplines, then the disciplines cannot colaborate about the "whole" truth of a certain subject.

Since the human being or person is the unifying factor amongst all subjects, then one must ascertain what defines the human person.

Social scientists inform us that we are products of our environment. These are determining factors, while the more recent intersection of the neurosciences suggest that the human is determined by his DNA. Which is true? Both.

Religion and anthropoligists say that the human is bound by his particular context and understanding in his cultural framework. While this is true it undermines what moral philosophers and moral development has found to be true.

Moral philosophers and moral developmental has shown that the human person is a free agent. A free agent is determined by his free choice in a free society. But, what defines morality in a free society? This is where moral philosophy that was wrought in America's founding is useful.

I find that all of these subjects are profoundly interesting. And this is why I am wanting to learn the languages.

You Have No Choice as a traditional Christian

You have no choice as a Christian, because you must subscribe to "His plan", as defined by the prescribed authority. You have no choice because your life is already determined! You just need to find out what is determined for you and "Submit". Submission is a virtue that is of highest value to those "over you", as it shows how much you "trust God". And faith is most of all how one "trusts God". Faith in not about reason. No, faith is about going into the fire or into the den of lions, or into the presence of 'the king" without qualms, because "God is with you". Faith is brainless, because a child can believe and that is what the "kingdom is about". One who has grown in faith is one who is childlike and uses the proper terms so that others know that they have been intitiated into the special group of the "born again".

If one has become "intitiated" into this "special group", then one is immune to certain things that the "common person" is not. Some people of faith believe that they are immune to physcial illness, others believe that faith gives you immunity to poverty, while others believe that faith subverts the social structures themselves so that one is protected from death. And even in death, one is immune because the faithful will inherit eternal life.

I find that faith is for those who do not want to take political action, but submit to their "lot in life". Life is about politics, as that is where one lives their life and make their choices. Choice is about determining what is of most imporatance and value. And Christians believe that "god" and "others" should be the greatest importance.

But, those in Scripture had no choice for the most part, as their "lot in life" was not our democracy. Our democracy allows the individual to choose and determine their values. And any individual can "worship god" in doing whatever they desire with diligence and delight....

Views From Below

I have been thinking about how people come to understand their faith along the lines of belief, belonging, and behavior. This is of major importance, I believe, if there is going to be an understanding across faith dimensions...

Belief is a set or way of understanding meaning. These meanings are made within our heads as we experience life. These meanings come from many factors in our life and this makes up our personal history. Beliefs contain everything from how we understand God, to how we understand life and how it should function because of these beliefs.

Behavior is how we understand what is appropriate and by what means. These are the social norms we live by and are given within our cultural and familial settings.

Belonging is our specific cultural, and familial membership. These can be formal or informal memberships, but do prescribe how behavior is to be understood, as they uphold the values that make for the social norms.

In this mix, we also must allow for individual development beyond these "identifications", or determinants. Although most people do not understand their beliefs as culturally specific, or their behavior as determined by these cultural limitations, there is development beyond these understandings, which are conventional social norms.

Whenever an individual reaches beyond their parental, and cultural "thinking patterns", then the mix will always be individually determined, as a unique "call" of individuality, which is the giftedness that is to be given back to "life".

Conventional morality is specified by "order" and the status quo. It behaves because "that is just the way it is", without question. most Americans in the South and many elsewhere just accepted the subjugation the the African American race, because this was the "accepted form". This is where the moral limits the ethical.

The conservative Church, for the most part, has held to the moral, and has limited the ethical change that needs to be made. Conservatism is the epitome of status quo and conservatism hinders the development of human flourishing due to "fear" of subversion of cultural norms.

While conservatism limits, it also gives historical bearings, so that there is some way to view life with a "frame". Without a frame there is a free for all in social change.

Perhaps, in thinking about social change, we should enlighten our understanding about how social change has taken place before and what it meant for those it impacted. Without a sense of history, we will not have the impetus to move forward or to slow down. Globalization calls for a re-working of our understanding of faith. And, I personally believe that we cannot dismiss pluralism in some form, otherwise, we are idolizing our particular reference point, or experience.

So, this morning while thinking about my faith, I question and I prod, but that is just "who I am".

Justice Is Not Just Social

Justice is defined by our courts as adhering to lawful standards of behavior. Justice is blind because justice is not partial. The law doesn't care about the specific details, it only defines boundaries and borders around the individual's property or person. It is only when the social has respected the individual boundaries that the social is of any moral or ethical value. Otherwise, it is an unjust community, organization or nation.

Justice is to be sought by all of us, as it limits evil, and protects society from further abuses of power. Individuals have to hold the social to account, and these are the ones who bring about social change.

Wouldn't it be the height of hyposcrisy and arrogance, if one teaches and believes in social justice and, yet, perverts justice by scapegoating an individual? This is why the evangelical message has no meaning, insofar as real justice. Real justice is about the individual and human rights, and good government, and lawful behavior.

Social conformity should only be done if there is an adherence to honesty, and integrity, and lawful behavior, which is demonstrated by a commitment to the value and worth of the individual. We must seek justice, especially in the face of evil.