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.
Showing posts with label human nature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human nature. Show all posts
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Neither Nature or Nurture, or Universals
The individual should not be determined by Church or State, nor should the individual be determined by nature or nuruture....
Although we live in contexts which do limit us, and all individuals have distinct natural giftings, these cannot be determined in any specific outcome in free societies. There are various "outcomes" in which the individual may use their certain giftings.
Those that want to prescribe a universal value are determinists and will use power to undermine liberty. And these do so with impunity of conscience because their value is absolute, or ultimate. Aren't there various ways of understanding universals?
Children are impacted by their family or origin, but the "impact" does not have to be permanant. All humans have the capactity to enlarge their understandings, or to re-orient themselves to healthier ways of viewing the world or themselves.
Just as we are impacted by our familial envirounments, we are impacted by our physical environment. But, to say that humans are only submissive, compliant "outcomes" of such, is short of true. Humans are resposive to their environments, but aren't prescribed as to how or what they will respond to.
The human mind is a mystery in some sense. Though we respond to stimuli, do we always take the same actions? If the human brain were only a computor then it could be assumed that humans are little more than robots to various stimuli. Don't humans all have various ways of processing information and putting that information together? Isn't finishing a dissertation adding a "new dimension" of understanding and knowledge to the human race? How, then does new information come about, if humans all process their information in the same way?
Although we live in contexts which do limit us, and all individuals have distinct natural giftings, these cannot be determined in any specific outcome in free societies. There are various "outcomes" in which the individual may use their certain giftings.
Those that want to prescribe a universal value are determinists and will use power to undermine liberty. And these do so with impunity of conscience because their value is absolute, or ultimate. Aren't there various ways of understanding universals?
Children are impacted by their family or origin, but the "impact" does not have to be permanant. All humans have the capactity to enlarge their understandings, or to re-orient themselves to healthier ways of viewing the world or themselves.
Just as we are impacted by our familial envirounments, we are impacted by our physical environment. But, to say that humans are only submissive, compliant "outcomes" of such, is short of true. Humans are resposive to their environments, but aren't prescribed as to how or what they will respond to.
The human mind is a mystery in some sense. Though we respond to stimuli, do we always take the same actions? If the human brain were only a computor then it could be assumed that humans are little more than robots to various stimuli. Don't humans all have various ways of processing information and putting that information together? Isn't finishing a dissertation adding a "new dimension" of understanding and knowledge to the human race? How, then does new information come about, if humans all process their information in the same way?
Sunday, January 31, 2010
What is Wrong With "Covenant"
On another blog, I read this morning where arranged marriages could be a way to "form" intimacy. The one response was affirming of this type of "legal commitment". But, I find there are some problems with this sort of "covenant".
"Covenant" is a term that was useful in biblical times to transmit a way of understanding relationships. Blood covenants were an exchange or co-mingling of blood to symbolize and exchange of life. One would take on the other's enemies, as the "other"'s life became one's own. This was the traditional understanding of marriage. It was a mutual exhange and co-mingling of "life for life". The two became one.
Scholars have disagreed as to whether the covenant (suzerain) was unilateral or mutual. Covenant theologians understood the covenant to be undertaken by God, as God was the only one who could fulfull his own demands (basing their understanding of the perfections of God). This was where predestination came into the understanding of "bibilical theology". Reformed believers believed that God predestined some to respond to his "understaking in the covenant", while others believed in various forms of "foreknowledge".
In the Old Testament one was allowed to take the life of the other, if the other had taken life. This was the basis of justice, an eye for an eye. "An eye for an eye" limited justice to equal measure, because of human's propensity to revenge. Revenge annihilates the other, instead of training the other to limit themself.
Covenant in the New Testament meant that what was considered to be an outside demand, became an inside desire. Evangelicals, or fundamentalists would believe that one would need a "new heart" to do what was demanded "under law". Ususally, these understood the "new heart" to come about by a "re-birth" or "born again" experience. Others believed that one was "born into" the family of God by baptism, or communion of life. Holiness people understood this to be "entire sanctification". One obeyed not from duty, but desire.
But, the Enlightenment undermined the view of covenant. Humans were no longer understood to be pawns under God, King or government, but "self". Holiness people understood this "discipline" to be the "fruit of the Spirit". Rationalists understood it to be discipline of habit. All understood it to be the result of a free choice.
The scientific disciplines were developing during the "modern age" where sociology and psychology were in their beginning stages of understanding human behavior, just as the natural sciences were the result of understanding "order in the universe".
Man was no longer a puppet under God, but understood to be "created in God's image". What does that mean, except that man is created to create, decide and choose for himself?
Liberty became the watchword of the Enlightenment, not covenant. Man was a free moral agent.
Today, the human sciences are grappling again with what it means to be human. Contingency has to be considered along with individual choice. Neuroscience has to be considered alongside psychological and sociological science. No longer is man understood in one demensional ways, as a wholistic view is sought.
The modern era brought us the disciplines we use to continue to understand and form what we will know tomorrow about man, society, and his environment.
"Covenant" is a term that was useful in biblical times to transmit a way of understanding relationships. Blood covenants were an exchange or co-mingling of blood to symbolize and exchange of life. One would take on the other's enemies, as the "other"'s life became one's own. This was the traditional understanding of marriage. It was a mutual exhange and co-mingling of "life for life". The two became one.
Scholars have disagreed as to whether the covenant (suzerain) was unilateral or mutual. Covenant theologians understood the covenant to be undertaken by God, as God was the only one who could fulfull his own demands (basing their understanding of the perfections of God). This was where predestination came into the understanding of "bibilical theology". Reformed believers believed that God predestined some to respond to his "understaking in the covenant", while others believed in various forms of "foreknowledge".
In the Old Testament one was allowed to take the life of the other, if the other had taken life. This was the basis of justice, an eye for an eye. "An eye for an eye" limited justice to equal measure, because of human's propensity to revenge. Revenge annihilates the other, instead of training the other to limit themself.
Covenant in the New Testament meant that what was considered to be an outside demand, became an inside desire. Evangelicals, or fundamentalists would believe that one would need a "new heart" to do what was demanded "under law". Ususally, these understood the "new heart" to come about by a "re-birth" or "born again" experience. Others believed that one was "born into" the family of God by baptism, or communion of life. Holiness people understood this to be "entire sanctification". One obeyed not from duty, but desire.
But, the Enlightenment undermined the view of covenant. Humans were no longer understood to be pawns under God, King or government, but "self". Holiness people understood this "discipline" to be the "fruit of the Spirit". Rationalists understood it to be discipline of habit. All understood it to be the result of a free choice.
The scientific disciplines were developing during the "modern age" where sociology and psychology were in their beginning stages of understanding human behavior, just as the natural sciences were the result of understanding "order in the universe".
Man was no longer a puppet under God, but understood to be "created in God's image". What does that mean, except that man is created to create, decide and choose for himself?
Liberty became the watchword of the Enlightenment, not covenant. Man was a free moral agent.
Today, the human sciences are grappling again with what it means to be human. Contingency has to be considered along with individual choice. Neuroscience has to be considered alongside psychological and sociological science. No longer is man understood in one demensional ways, as a wholistic view is sought.
The modern era brought us the disciplines we use to continue to understand and form what we will know tomorrow about man, society, and his environment.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Art, As Expression and Free Speech
Artists are known to be a "little different". Perhaps, this is a stereotype, but it seems that artists do "see" things differently, "feel" things deeply, and express things vividly.
All art is a mixture of culture, history, and artist. This is why art is so "fun". Art reveals values, and the philosophy that forms the culture, as well as expresses something about the artist himself. Art is of value for itself because it reveals what is experienced in the present and the past throught the artist's eyes.
So, in thinking this morning about color and how to arrange the apartment and its furniture, I also thought about free speech, I realized that art is speech and art is expression. So, art is a form of "free speech" in societies. The question is: where are the lines in regards to art? Should there be lines about what is appropriate art? Does art form culture or is art a reflection of culture?
These questions are like asking the nurture/nature questions. Questions like these can never really be answered fully, as they are so intertwined. Whenever we ask such questions, then we ask about beginnings. What forms society and its values and meaning? I think many great artists are never really accepted by the social norm of their day, because they see "ahead" or understand principles of universialtiy that may not be reflected in a certain cultural time frame.
In the social frame these are social reformers, and in the humanities frame, these are the artists of literature, and art in its various forms. Art speaks to the heart before the head can get in the way. Because art reflects the "human" in a way that other things can't.
Just for example, my husband told me that he felt the apartment was "cold". When I told a couple of other people what he said, they responded that "he needed to turn up the heat". Their answer was an answer of science. But, what Wim really meant was that the apartment did not have "my decorator's stamp" on it. He felt an emotional coldness, because I don't like white walls. And he missed some of my personal taste in the apartment. The "flavor" of art, cannot be expressed by the chemicals that make up the paint.
All art is a mixture of culture, history, and artist. This is why art is so "fun". Art reveals values, and the philosophy that forms the culture, as well as expresses something about the artist himself. Art is of value for itself because it reveals what is experienced in the present and the past throught the artist's eyes.
So, in thinking this morning about color and how to arrange the apartment and its furniture, I also thought about free speech, I realized that art is speech and art is expression. So, art is a form of "free speech" in societies. The question is: where are the lines in regards to art? Should there be lines about what is appropriate art? Does art form culture or is art a reflection of culture?
These questions are like asking the nurture/nature questions. Questions like these can never really be answered fully, as they are so intertwined. Whenever we ask such questions, then we ask about beginnings. What forms society and its values and meaning? I think many great artists are never really accepted by the social norm of their day, because they see "ahead" or understand principles of universialtiy that may not be reflected in a certain cultural time frame.
In the social frame these are social reformers, and in the humanities frame, these are the artists of literature, and art in its various forms. Art speaks to the heart before the head can get in the way. Because art reflects the "human" in a way that other things can't.
Just for example, my husband told me that he felt the apartment was "cold". When I told a couple of other people what he said, they responded that "he needed to turn up the heat". Their answer was an answer of science. But, what Wim really meant was that the apartment did not have "my decorator's stamp" on it. He felt an emotional coldness, because I don't like white walls. And he missed some of my personal taste in the apartment. The "flavor" of art, cannot be expressed by the chemicals that make up the paint.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Question of Why.and Which.....
I was talking to a couple of friends last night and something came up in the course of conversation that made me start thinking of why it was that an individual prefers one choice above another. Some have believed that the preference is due to cultural upbringing, which conditions the child to a certain "bent of mind". I adhere to the value and necessity of an affirming culture, but are all our choices due to cultural conditioning?
As I am the only one that knows and has experience my family, culture, and innate nature, I will "consult" my memory and share my questions.
I was brought up in the South; strong, and proud of its heritage. I have come to appreciate some of the pride I before distained. But, it makes me wonder why? Was my resistance, or "rebellion" of my Southern heritage because of my own innate preferences (biological determinism) or because of my nurture and its failures (self-concept)?
My family was conservative Baptist, but not fundamental in the true sense. I was "raised in the Church" and found friendships there. But, always longed to move to a large city (New York) and experience a larger frame of reference. Was this because I innately preferred large cities and a more liberal environment? Or was it because I didn't feel I "fit" or belonged in a provincial setting, due to family divorce and bad parenting?
In choosing friends in school, I didn't always choose those in the sororities or the popular bunch because I fear rejection and felt like tha "little guy" who couldn't "make the grade" was of value just as I had wanted to be. So, while grandparents chose the doctors, lawyers and "Indian chiefs", I chose the "little guy". And while cousins became debutantes and sorority sisters, I chose to distain such distinctions. Was it due to my self image and fear of rejection or was there something about me as a "person" that innately did not desire such position?
In school, I never excelled or valued education, except for two years that I attended an experimental school that "tracked" individual students based on their ability. Since this was a new type of school there was no way for adminstration to know where to "trac me", when I moved from another school. So they put me in the bottom level of each subject. I worked my way up to the top level of every subject, even though it meant a lot of "catch up work". I was proud, but no one else was. So, I moved on to junior high school interested in finding friends and boys to "give me value".
So, which is it; nature, or nurture? I can't seem to tease out which is of more importance. I only know that it matters that environments be conducive for the individual to excel as far as possible and that includes many social/political dimensions of life.
As I am the only one that knows and has experience my family, culture, and innate nature, I will "consult" my memory and share my questions.
I was brought up in the South; strong, and proud of its heritage. I have come to appreciate some of the pride I before distained. But, it makes me wonder why? Was my resistance, or "rebellion" of my Southern heritage because of my own innate preferences (biological determinism) or because of my nurture and its failures (self-concept)?
My family was conservative Baptist, but not fundamental in the true sense. I was "raised in the Church" and found friendships there. But, always longed to move to a large city (New York) and experience a larger frame of reference. Was this because I innately preferred large cities and a more liberal environment? Or was it because I didn't feel I "fit" or belonged in a provincial setting, due to family divorce and bad parenting?
In choosing friends in school, I didn't always choose those in the sororities or the popular bunch because I fear rejection and felt like tha "little guy" who couldn't "make the grade" was of value just as I had wanted to be. So, while grandparents chose the doctors, lawyers and "Indian chiefs", I chose the "little guy". And while cousins became debutantes and sorority sisters, I chose to distain such distinctions. Was it due to my self image and fear of rejection or was there something about me as a "person" that innately did not desire such position?
In school, I never excelled or valued education, except for two years that I attended an experimental school that "tracked" individual students based on their ability. Since this was a new type of school there was no way for adminstration to know where to "trac me", when I moved from another school. So they put me in the bottom level of each subject. I worked my way up to the top level of every subject, even though it meant a lot of "catch up work". I was proud, but no one else was. So, I moved on to junior high school interested in finding friends and boys to "give me value".
So, which is it; nature, or nurture? I can't seem to tease out which is of more importance. I only know that it matters that environments be conducive for the individual to excel as far as possible and that includes many social/political dimensions of life.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
"Animal Nature" and Human Values
The naturalists believe that humans must be trained, just like any other animal, to "do what is right". Their understanding of "right" is whatever they think will fulfill "ultimate value". And sometimes they seek to undermine another "right" (or another's "right") to justify what they consider "ultimate".
What is "ultimate value"? Today the politically correct value the environment, redistribution of wealth for the sake of the poor, the elimination of power for the sake of equality, and the "whole" at the expense of the "part". Globalism takes the place of the "Nation-State" in this way of thinking.
Each politically correct value is upheld as a universal value, for the "common good" of humanity. The problem of veiwing one's personal "ultimate value" as a universal, is the devaluing of the other side of the paradox of "truth", which hinders democratic discourse in freedom of speech and thought. Tyranny is the result of suppressing dissent.
When one values the environment as the "ultimate", then other values, such as human life, is devalued. Humans are considered the "pollutants", who should be limited or eliminated.
The "ultimate value" of alleviating poverty does not take into consideration the way the market works in appealing to "human nature" and inevitably leads to furthering poverty, rather than alleviating it. This is not to say that capitalism does not have its downfalls, in regards to human nature, but it is the best way to further personal responsibility that flourishes corporate "need".
The "ultimate value" of eliminating power dissolves leadership of the means of determining policy decisions. America's Founders did not eliminate power, but balanced power through division of functions. And the "checks and balances" to power from this division is what has "protected" our nation from overt corruption.
I do not believe that "wholism" is a "better" way of viewing life, as it presumes too much. No human, group, or society can make absolute claims of "wholistic" understanding, as we are bound within our limitaions of context, personal history, private ability, personal interests and potentiality.
The only "ultimate" is the individual, because the individual is the universal particularized. And the "universal" particularized is "Wisdom" personified. And the best way for individual particularization (individuation) is our "way of life" in a democratic Republic.
What is "ultimate value"? Today the politically correct value the environment, redistribution of wealth for the sake of the poor, the elimination of power for the sake of equality, and the "whole" at the expense of the "part". Globalism takes the place of the "Nation-State" in this way of thinking.
Each politically correct value is upheld as a universal value, for the "common good" of humanity. The problem of veiwing one's personal "ultimate value" as a universal, is the devaluing of the other side of the paradox of "truth", which hinders democratic discourse in freedom of speech and thought. Tyranny is the result of suppressing dissent.
When one values the environment as the "ultimate", then other values, such as human life, is devalued. Humans are considered the "pollutants", who should be limited or eliminated.
The "ultimate value" of alleviating poverty does not take into consideration the way the market works in appealing to "human nature" and inevitably leads to furthering poverty, rather than alleviating it. This is not to say that capitalism does not have its downfalls, in regards to human nature, but it is the best way to further personal responsibility that flourishes corporate "need".
The "ultimate value" of eliminating power dissolves leadership of the means of determining policy decisions. America's Founders did not eliminate power, but balanced power through division of functions. And the "checks and balances" to power from this division is what has "protected" our nation from overt corruption.
I do not believe that "wholism" is a "better" way of viewing life, as it presumes too much. No human, group, or society can make absolute claims of "wholistic" understanding, as we are bound within our limitaions of context, personal history, private ability, personal interests and potentiality.
The only "ultimate" is the individual, because the individual is the universal particularized. And the "universal" particularized is "Wisdom" personified. And the best way for individual particularization (individuation) is our "way of life" in a democratic Republic.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Moral Order or Individualism, Which Determines Social Ontology
The old question of nature versus nurture is being resurrected, of sorts, in coming to understand what makes for social ontology. Social ontology is the study of reality. This interests me and my husband immensely.
The division lies in how one understands how people come to develop, as well as how they come to think, and how they put it all together. The Quadralateral is sometimes useful for understanding different ways of approaching reality, but there are certainly other ways, as well.
The Quadralateral has four components; reason, experience, tradition, and text (texts are usually understood within a tradition's framework). All aspects of the Quadralateral can be viewed from an individual developmental view, or a social/contextual/cultural/traditional view.
The individual view is based on Enlightenment principles of reason and moral order, while the social view emphasizes social/cultural/tradition and political history view, which emphasizes the individual within context. Whether one believes in an innate nature or the importance and impact of nurture within the different social units of society, both are important aspects of "being" in the world and a development of understanding (hermenuetic) of "reality" in the world.
We cannot understand, or judge from our own perspectives, which apart from the difference of understanding the social contexts themselves, are also, individually understood, depending on one's personality, gifting, and "idiosyncresies".
I want to read and study further along this line of understanding, as it is interdisciplinary in nature and it would complement my husband's "coming to terms" with faith.
The division lies in how one understands how people come to develop, as well as how they come to think, and how they put it all together. The Quadralateral is sometimes useful for understanding different ways of approaching reality, but there are certainly other ways, as well.
The Quadralateral has four components; reason, experience, tradition, and text (texts are usually understood within a tradition's framework). All aspects of the Quadralateral can be viewed from an individual developmental view, or a social/contextual/cultural/traditional view.
The individual view is based on Enlightenment principles of reason and moral order, while the social view emphasizes social/cultural/tradition and political history view, which emphasizes the individual within context. Whether one believes in an innate nature or the importance and impact of nurture within the different social units of society, both are important aspects of "being" in the world and a development of understanding (hermenuetic) of "reality" in the world.
We cannot understand, or judge from our own perspectives, which apart from the difference of understanding the social contexts themselves, are also, individually understood, depending on one's personality, gifting, and "idiosyncresies".
I want to read and study further along this line of understanding, as it is interdisciplinary in nature and it would complement my husband's "coming to terms" with faith.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
I Have Decided
Christians have a song, 'I Have Decided to Follow Jesus".
I have decided that no one else will determine "me". I used to be submissive, and looking to emulate Christ in his humility, but not anymore. This is my revolution to passive resistance. No one can be loved truely unless they are truely themselves. So, I am not going to conform to a specified "ideal", or "pattern" of another's life. This is my life to be lived fully and freely. I will be, who I will be, and those who care to have a relationship with me will value whatever idiosyncrises they find. That does not mean that I don't value their input in my life, nor will I disregard their counse, nor that I will not, nor cannot change. But, it does mean that I am not going to seek to "be a Christian". I will be human, that is for sure. I will fail, cry, rant and rave. I will succeed, laugh and enjoy my life. I will laugh at myself as I don't have anything to protect. Image is not necessary. Hopefully, this will bless my family with a real person, who tries to love, attempts to mentor, and above all, chooses to accept them as human. This is walking in forgiveness, humility, delight in life's fullness, and a desire to learn and become, and be....who I am....for that is what God created in the first place! How about you?
As Paul said, I am who I am, by the grace of God....
I have decided that no one else will determine "me". I used to be submissive, and looking to emulate Christ in his humility, but not anymore. This is my revolution to passive resistance. No one can be loved truely unless they are truely themselves. So, I am not going to conform to a specified "ideal", or "pattern" of another's life. This is my life to be lived fully and freely. I will be, who I will be, and those who care to have a relationship with me will value whatever idiosyncrises they find. That does not mean that I don't value their input in my life, nor will I disregard their counse, nor that I will not, nor cannot change. But, it does mean that I am not going to seek to "be a Christian". I will be human, that is for sure. I will fail, cry, rant and rave. I will succeed, laugh and enjoy my life. I will laugh at myself as I don't have anything to protect. Image is not necessary. Hopefully, this will bless my family with a real person, who tries to love, attempts to mentor, and above all, chooses to accept them as human. This is walking in forgiveness, humility, delight in life's fullness, and a desire to learn and become, and be....who I am....for that is what God created in the first place! How about you?
As Paul said, I am who I am, by the grace of God....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
