Questions On the "Human"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural Diversity Has Some Limits

As has been reported in certain science/religion journals, humans are prone to process things wholisically. (I really don't know how social scientists observe or measure such things) And, it seems that such is the case with the past 24-36 hours for me.

Sunday I read and blogged on my reading about 'the Dutch" and experiencing their culture through the eyes of an artistic Washington woman. She photographed and wrote and I resonated.

My pastor preached a sermon on the relationship of marriage and Monday I started to think again about civil unions, and Church and State issues.

Last night, being bored and alone, I watched a movie based on a factual case of teen pregnancy and its effect on a local high school. Even though the drama was a "little over the top", the message was how teen pregnancy is devastating to the whole community, as well as the teens involved. Abstenance is not realistic in an idealized and impulsive teen world that is bombarded by sexual messages wherever they turn.

And this morning it was reported that many European cultures are banning the "burka", a Muslim woman's head covering. This ban is only in public places and the reason was to protect Western culture.

What do all these experiences have in common? Culture, values, and impact on others.

Although I do resonate with Dutch culture because of their historicity and openness, I also resonate with the individualism in American culture. One must evaluate what makes for a culture and why. What is important to a culture and is that of primary importance for the whole to survive. That should be the question of what is of value to further and what is not.

This brings me to matters of dress, when it concerns certain religious garb. If there is a necessary covering because of a certain climate, which was most probably the case with the "burka", then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But, when a religious tradition defines certain standards as mandantory because of the tradition's need to control the behavior of another human being, then I think it does not qualify to be upheld in a different culture. no matter the argument of "tolerance".

Religions have developed over the ages and those in power in these traditions had a vested interest in protecting their power. So, secularism would protect from a dominating religious tradition, which is necessary to remain a free society.

But, while religious traditions can protect their values for their own purposes, there are certain values that are necessary to protect for society's sake. Such is the issue of the family. Marriage is the foundation of society and it's future citizens. So, the family is certainly to be an important focus and interest for society at large. Since the family is so important many issues facing Western culture and it's families are necessary to challenge, study, and change.

The issue of teen pregnancy is of major concern and importance to society because it limits the teen's ability to further their future and it brings stress and pain on the teen's immediate family, as well as the reprecussions of the newborn's needs that might not be met by a teen mother's immature emotional responses/reactions.

Society finds itself "bringing up baby", but not in the sense of the past, when communities were close, life was slow and the child could find its place in the larger world without feeling "lost". Today social service agencies are stressed beyond measure and the Church shuns those whose behavior has not met their standard.

Conservatism wants to hold to past tradition for good reason. The family is the center of the child's identity and security. But, society has always brought challenges to past traditions and must address how to answer those challenges today. Abstinence is the "ideal", when it comes to teen sex, but the statistics do not bear out that Christian teens are any "better" at keeping their pledge of chasity than the larger teen population. This fact alone has bred many sectarian groups that try to protect their teens from such behavior. Though this is one response in our society, is this the only response the Church should sanction? Should society at large be of concern for the Church? And how is that challenge to be met?

Today's challenges reach beyond teen pregnancy, which has always challenged the mores of our society. Today the challenge to marriage and the family is homosexuality. Should homosexuals be alowed to express their innate desires within the boundaries of marriage? Or is marriage the tradition of the Church alone, and should never be condoned by the sanction of the insititution of marriage?

My pastor's sermon was about marriage and what makes a good marriage. Sex is not the recipe for a good marriage, but a relationship that is trustworthy and valued for its own sake. Children are a result of the physical intimacy of marriage, but should never be the purpose for marriage. Otherwise, many couples, whether older or barren, have no "right" to be married. We should think deeply about what our values are and why we have those values before we write off a challenge to tradition's "tradition".

Liberty of conscience was the value of our Founding Fathers. We must continue that tradition to continue the value they had of a "free society". A society that is free from domination of any kind, as tradition should not dominate a culture's values, at the expense of cultural needs for change.

At the same time, the Founder's knew that the value of tradition was the foundation of society's values, without them, society suffers superficiality and incongrence.

When Someong Thinks They "Know Your Name"

Names are important, as they give us a way to hear and understand when another is addressing you. Marketing and leadership "ideals" always emphasize knowing someone's name to "make the sell". So, names are important. But, I am not talking about a name of adressing someone casually, but knowing someone. That is the issue of "knowing someone's name".

The height of arrogance and disregard for another individual is when one assumes or presumes upon another, without the relationship. The relationship is an ongoing understanding of what another is facing and what another's life values and purposes are. These are always changing, as we grow and encounter different "contingencies" in our lives. This happens a lot with parents as they learn to "grow with their children". Children are not "written in stone", but are growing individuals.

I have found that I didn't really know my children deeply, as they were only persons to be "controlled" so that their "outcome" would be something that I had in mind. I hurt for me and them, because this is not the way of making a relationship "work".

But, since they have grown, I have come to understand them better, but it doesn't help the ache I have inside because I had an "agenda' of making them "obedient". Otherwise, they could not get along in life. What I really did was hinder their self-confidence and undermine their efforts at "finding themselves". I have repented and they are now growing and flourishing adults.

There is something about 'agendas" or goals that gets in the way of relationships. These agendas or goals are defined by everyone co-operating and "being in their rightful place". This is proper understanding of organizational structuring. But, an understanding of leadership also affirms the value of the individual on the team. No one should feel they are part of an agenda, or "purpose", even if it is formulated in "God's will".

In fact, using "God" in this way, I think is 'taking God's name in vain", because if man is created in God's image, then we will respect the right of another to have differences of opinion, values, and convictions. There is no "one size fits all" in this 'image".

Social contruction or social engineering defines the outcome all too strictly. This is an undemocratic way of functioning in society. And it breeds all kinds of discord, from economic to familial relationships, as I have shared.

"Knowing someone's name" is personal, because humans are personal beings. Though we have many things in common with the animal kingdom, we are more than the animal and treating another as an animal only heightens their resistance. Unfortunately, those who view humans as animals, will define resistance as "animal behavior" that must be controlled. This is when revolutions occur, as there is no other option for freedom of individual conscience and personhood.

Humans need to be respected and valued in thier own right, and this is the value of our form of government, where individual voices can be heard. Leaders in our government are "Representative", because liberty is of ultimate value and concern in "moral structuring". And whenever the "moral structuring" hinders the ethical ideal, our government allows grievances to be heard in our courts.