To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. – Thomas Jefferson
The individual mandate is forcing individuals into commerce, or using money in ways that they might not choose. It certainly is forcing the Catholic Church to fund birth control, even though their beliefs do not sanction such behavior.
I'm not interested in this post primiarily about birth control, Obamacare, or beliefs per se. I am only interested in how our government has become one that doesn't support and value liberty, as it did in our Founder's Day. Why is this?
The rage today is "systems think", though our Founders were setting up a system of government, they did not want the system to over-ride individual liberty, thus the Bill of Rights. Government was to limit itself with proper checks and balances.
Today, government wants to intrude into our pocketbooks to create safety nets for those that haven't taken advantage of the opportunities that are before them in this nation. These are those that know how to use the system to their advantage and some of them do so without conscience. Criminal minds can easily use systems, because the system is so reliable. People in systems thinking are labelled to fulfill a role in the system that ends up determining and controlling human beings because of "outcomes". This is what the Founders understood as tyranny, because government or another had not right to interfere with the right to "own my own life". Owning one's own life or self-government was what liberty was about!.
The Constitution was what protected the citizen, but, without those in power honoring Constitutional protections and upholding "the rule of law", we have an undermining of our nation-state and citizen's rights for a "higher end" of "human rights". What is wrong with human rights? Human rights is a "collective identification". And collectivism labels to systemize and control, or determine, or experiment. These are not the values that our Founders had, as to government.
Collective identifications undermine individual intiative, incentive and outcomes, because people are labelled by race/ethnicity, gender, or religious affliation. When individuals are labelled, there is a depersonalization that makes for an undercutting of individual rights according to our Constitutional protections. "Humankind" has rights above and beyond specific individuals, society has a right over and above individuals and government has a right over and above individuals. This was known as tyranny by our Founding Fathers.
I am concerned about where we are headed because elites in the Academy have bought into "collective" or "group thinking", because humans are social beings, like any other animal. The question I have is do animals have the reasoning capacity that man does? Doesn't that make man different? If so, is man to be treated as "just another animal"?
Showing posts with label identification factors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label identification factors. Show all posts
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Monday, March 14, 2011
"Self" in Society
"Self" does not exist apart from society, as "self" functions within society in some form. But, a fully developed "Ego" is the only "human self". Society is formed by collective "selves", but society is not an entity itself, unless one is committed to something other than the "human".
Self-understanding is formed within societal structures. The first being the family and whether it is extended, and/or dysfunctional. "Self-understanding" is first understood within such an intimate "collective". The child learns how to love, be nurtured and what is of value within the family unit.
But, when the family unit is not functioning or functioning improperly, then the developing "Ego" has little to help form his self-understanding. The "getting over" the "Who Am I?" stage might never develop apart from intervention. And this is where society's structures might help the child to form a healthy self -understanding and image.
A child who hasn't learned appropriate behavior, or had good examples of care will develop behavioral problems or mental illness. Society suffers when its children are disadvantaged in this way.
"Self-understanding" in religious communities can be damning if the child sees himself as "evil". or has a personality that would tend to be exasperated, or hindered by such teaching. Such children might "act out" because they can never meet "perfection", or be reticient about thier interests for fear their very interests or passions are detours away from their first allegience. Such "self-understanding" is not healthy, but annihlates "self" altogether. Such messages are "self rejective" messages and are not the foundations to form a healthy and separate identity.
"Self" is where the distinctive person resides. "Self" is identity. The particularity of the "self" might never be known apart from "self"'s ability to free itself from the demands of a overly zealous religious consicence, where "self-denial" or the "culture of death" is applauded and promoted.
"Selves" that have not become "true selves" in their particularities are prone to over-react to threats to their identifying factors, whether it is a fundamentalist religious tradition, "Truth claims", familial identities, or political ideologies. All form a bulwark against "things that would challenge and bring self-reflection instead of promoting the prevailling "self opinion". Change and maturation does not happen when such defensiveness is embraced. Such defensiveness should be understood when "self" is fragile and based on its defensive identification factors. "Self"s very existence is "felt" annilhlated, when, these dependent factors are undermined.
The human person cannot accomplish, grow and expeience his own accomplishments apart from distancing himself from such emblemic self understanding. "Self" must distance and then choose to embrace the chosen goals, values and purposes, for "self's own reasons. It is only then, that "self" has come into its own and become a "human being" and not a human clone or a human doing. It is the understanding of "self's existance apart from society, and then, the embrace of society that forms the adult "self" fully and functionally.
Otherwise, "self" remains only a functon of society and not understood as a being apart from society. "Self's" function must be a chosen one, apart from anyone else's value or goals.
Self-understanding is formed within societal structures. The first being the family and whether it is extended, and/or dysfunctional. "Self-understanding" is first understood within such an intimate "collective". The child learns how to love, be nurtured and what is of value within the family unit.
But, when the family unit is not functioning or functioning improperly, then the developing "Ego" has little to help form his self-understanding. The "getting over" the "Who Am I?" stage might never develop apart from intervention. And this is where society's structures might help the child to form a healthy self -understanding and image.
A child who hasn't learned appropriate behavior, or had good examples of care will develop behavioral problems or mental illness. Society suffers when its children are disadvantaged in this way.
"Self-understanding" in religious communities can be damning if the child sees himself as "evil". or has a personality that would tend to be exasperated, or hindered by such teaching. Such children might "act out" because they can never meet "perfection", or be reticient about thier interests for fear their very interests or passions are detours away from their first allegience. Such "self-understanding" is not healthy, but annihlates "self" altogether. Such messages are "self rejective" messages and are not the foundations to form a healthy and separate identity.
"Self" is where the distinctive person resides. "Self" is identity. The particularity of the "self" might never be known apart from "self"'s ability to free itself from the demands of a overly zealous religious consicence, where "self-denial" or the "culture of death" is applauded and promoted.
"Selves" that have not become "true selves" in their particularities are prone to over-react to threats to their identifying factors, whether it is a fundamentalist religious tradition, "Truth claims", familial identities, or political ideologies. All form a bulwark against "things that would challenge and bring self-reflection instead of promoting the prevailling "self opinion". Change and maturation does not happen when such defensiveness is embraced. Such defensiveness should be understood when "self" is fragile and based on its defensive identification factors. "Self"s very existence is "felt" annilhlated, when, these dependent factors are undermined.
The human person cannot accomplish, grow and expeience his own accomplishments apart from distancing himself from such emblemic self understanding. "Self" must distance and then choose to embrace the chosen goals, values and purposes, for "self's own reasons. It is only then, that "self" has come into its own and become a "human being" and not a human clone or a human doing. It is the understanding of "self's existance apart from society, and then, the embrace of society that forms the adult "self" fully and functionally.
Otherwise, "self" remains only a functon of society and not understood as a being apart from society. "Self's" function must be a chosen one, apart from anyone else's value or goals.
Monday, December 28, 2009
In Light of the Comments
In light of the comments, I want to write about sectarianism.
Sectarianism is a focus on specific or special forms of identification factors. Universalism, on the other hand, is a focus on a generalized or common trait.
Sectarians separate themselves due to offense to specified behaviors or beliefs that they think are heretical. Sectarians separate to maintain their identity and define themselves as "special" or "set apart" or "holy". But, they limit their understanding of themselves in real ways and in real terms of a human being. Thus, labels are good for defining these behaviors or beliefs and creating a "false sense" of protection and distance from "evil" and "the world".
Sectarians define things in black and white terms. They do not like or think in bridging the gaps, thinking in shades of grey, because they fear stepping over a forbidden boundary. These are religious ways of understanding oneself and can be damning in developing a self identity.
What sectarians don't know is that all boundaries are made by men, even when they are in texts or define the boundaries of a culture. Cultrues are defined by social norms, and values. The "human" way of looking at things is to identify with another as a "person", a human being. Then, relationship is more about mutual commonality, than in differences.
Sectarianism is a focus on specific or special forms of identification factors. Universalism, on the other hand, is a focus on a generalized or common trait.
Sectarians separate themselves due to offense to specified behaviors or beliefs that they think are heretical. Sectarians separate to maintain their identity and define themselves as "special" or "set apart" or "holy". But, they limit their understanding of themselves in real ways and in real terms of a human being. Thus, labels are good for defining these behaviors or beliefs and creating a "false sense" of protection and distance from "evil" and "the world".
Sectarians define things in black and white terms. They do not like or think in bridging the gaps, thinking in shades of grey, because they fear stepping over a forbidden boundary. These are religious ways of understanding oneself and can be damning in developing a self identity.
What sectarians don't know is that all boundaries are made by men, even when they are in texts or define the boundaries of a culture. Cultrues are defined by social norms, and values. The "human" way of looking at things is to identify with another as a "person", a human being. Then, relationship is more about mutual commonality, than in differences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
