Brain/Mind and Human Needs

It has been understood that the human always looks for causes to explain the world he lives in. Early in human history, humans understood the "cause" as "God" or Providence. Nowadays, science sneers at such beliefs, because science has understood itself as the tool to understand physical laws, not superstitious belief. But, what of human needs, as to the brain/mind?

The human not just needs to understand and explain the causes of the universe, which can be explained by the facts of science, understanding natural laws. But, humans need the ability to trust that certain results will come from their "world". That is, humans need consistance in some way to be predictable, so that humans can organize their life and "feel they are free" and not pawns of some natural force that is unpredictable.

Predictability begins to be understood by the child, as he grows to understand the world at his parent's knee. The parent is "god" in the sense that the parent trains the child to predict what will happen if certain behaviors are done or left undone. This breeds a sense of security in the child as the child understands himself and the world as a predictable place.

Humans do not fare well in natural disasters, human tragedy, or other types of "irregularity" in their "world". It traumatizes the human to experience such disruptions to the regularities fo life. It breeds anxiety and some experience the effects of Post Traumatic Stress.

When the child grows to be a teen, he begins to understand that the law, which guards the socety, which he is a part of, also is predictable. If you transgress, then there are costs. The law maintains social order, so the teen can understand what is expected from him in his society.

The adult comes to understand that though the law protects the social order, life isn't nice and neat, like reaping and sowing, but results , sometimes, in human tragedy that is unpredictable, and sometimes disorienting. Such tragedies should never be judged as getting what one deserves, but understanding that life isn't as predictable as one once thought.

Humans do need predictability, and this is when those that are prone to authoritarianism are prone to believe judgment is always the best way to treat such offenses. Otherwise, "the community" and soceity would go to "pot". These are anxious about protecting and defending what they deem as "absolute", and sometimes these people use 'God" to enforce their positions.
Others think that compassion is a better way to express solidarity in life. No longer is it necessary to protect oneself from unpredictability, by control, nor to defend "God's order", nor is it necessary to affirm oneself in comparison to another. One has come to a point of understanding that life, and living are much more than a certain choice, that causes certain consequences. But, that life has parallel universes that produce different realities, this is true, but that life can be embraced, no matter which "world" one has chosen.

Motivations Are ALL Oriented In the "Self"

Motivations Are ALL Oriented In the "Self" I have been thinking about motivations, or the basis of any action. I believe that all people do what they do for "self" reasons, even seemingly, "alturistic" ones.

Children, who have not developed a sense of "self", but gain their identity from their families will "fight" over whose father is bigger, or whose tricyle is faster. These childish arguments are humorous to adults, but adults have similar fights. Fights don't end up in name-calling and yelling, but can end up in "shunning", de-valuing another's difference and right to voice or outright political black-ball.

People are motivated by what kind of "image" they want to portray or what outcomes they desire. Even when these "outcomes" are ones that are "universal", or "global" in scope, they are motivated by the value of that particular person and how that particular individual understands their value system and on what basis their values are "valued". But, the "outcome" of their motivation is for "image" and "influence" to be enlarged, upheld or protected from imagined or real threat.

Some "universalists" are motivated out of concern for others, because they think this is what they "should" be or do. These are culturally influenced to benefit society by serving society's needs "unselfishly". These individuals have been "trained" by their family of origin to protect the "family name", or culturally influenced to "protect cultural values".

Other "universalists" are motivated because of concern for limited resources. These are fearful that the world's resources will limit future life. But, while these are driven by "containing" wastefulness, they end up determineing another's life choices, this is a "selfish alturism", because scientism has no way of gauging difference of value, between the human who chooses and has reason for that choice, and any other living entity. Everything is dependent on everything else. So, which is to be the most important "natural" value? The environment, or the free market?

Some are driven only by material gains, which disregard any other "end" or "outcome" and these are what drive beauracries, or corporations. The larger the "collective" then, the more "lost" are the individuals in the "collective". And the more limited their choices will be, because of 'regulation and/or control over distributions, or "profits".

The enviornmentalists must determine or decide which form of life is of highest value. The highest value in nature is what is of necessity for the earth to survive. Without this resource, the other dependent life forms are doomed. But, which form of life? Or which natural element is most important? Even though science knows enough to predict what we can or can't do without, what of future innovation? Should what we know now determine what the environmentalists limit today? If so, the environmentalists might limit the very resource necessary for the free market and a free people to discover another resource that would help alleviate such dependence.

Even the humanists value the "moral image" of being humane. Don't the humanists take pride in their fight for "right" of all mankind? This is "self's" value. And the fight is for image, one that underwrites the humanist's "cause". Even Mother Teresa was invested in "moral image" through her association with the Sisters of Mercy, setting an example for others. Some might call it "self sacrifice" for the service of Christ. But, in essence, it is seeking Christ's affirmation, example, or reward for the "self".

What "should" drive our greatest value? If there is an acknowledgment that we have different values, but all of them support our image of ourself, then we would be a better nation. Then, we could be honest with ourselves, and not demand that another have the same value as we do, calling it "right", unselfish, 'moral', etc....

If liberty is valued for oneself as well as for the other, then a liberal democracy is what will uphold the rule of law, maintains equality in the courts, and allows freedom of expression. Then, all of "us", the "collective" will be able to be individuals, who determine and better their lives as we see fit. Liberty within the bounds of civil society, is of most importance to uphold as an ultimate value.

The Problem With "Holiness"

"Holiness" has been useful for the religious, because of their need for identification "apart from the rest of the world". Therefore, the sects continue to separate from what is "unholy" to define and refine "who they are".

The problem with "holiness" is that it distinguishes one thing from another based on some "standardization". These standards are what religion is about. Standards of behavior in how to approach God, do one's duty, dress, perform, experience, and even think, etc. Religion is a false or pretentious "form" of judgement. These judgments are "justified" by texts, traditions, and "community norms".

What is really at stake is the individual's freedom to become apart from such religious "forms". Religion imposes itself on the natural world without allowing the individual freedom to question, and come to terms with their own "way of being in the world". Democracies allow such freedom. Apart from a free society there is no individuality.

Today's world is wrought with religious zeal that finds its identity in such "faith" apart from reason. And many find themselves under domination because of false convictions that are not really theirs. This imposition is really about co-dependence and "belonging", not healthy human flourishing and development. And co-dependence is about an under-developed ego.

At least that is my "unprofessional" assessment.

Politicizing the Public Square

I watched a program the others day about child prostitution and today I received an e-mail from a friend about a program to meet the needs of orphan children, who live in the garbage dumps. On the sidebar there was a quote from a public person affirming this program's value. I started to question my response/reaction...The wealthy can "throw money" at these issues without even a blink about the money they give, as they have so much. But, those of us who are average Americans attempt to live responsibly and take care of our own and give here and there, and yet, the public square is making many demands on private citizens these days. This is the "moral climate".

Why did I not respond as I usually have in the past with tears, or thinking that this was a valuable "mission"? As I went through and tried to discern what was "in my heart", I realized that the truth of belonging and significance was of great value in motivation. Sometimes the issues we are most emphathetic toward are those we ourselves have experienced.

The other day, I had an occasion to share about research findings that support a person's activity to their identity. This seems even more pertinent in today's culture wars. The conservative continue to battle their "prime" concern of "pro life", while the liberal has underwritten their agenda with political power. It seems "the poor" are the pawns in the liberalized agenda.

No one likes to think that they do not belong, so humans seek a place and a space where they identify. Names are of importance in one's familial identity, and society approves or disapproves of the "name" because of "the standing in the community" or the larger public square. So, parents compete for prominience through their child's accomplishments or their family's status.

Accomplishments are certainly of value and any parent, teacher or mentor wants to see their
young person develop to their fullest potential, but there is something sinister about competing when the child doesn't have the interest or there is a mode of competition that devalues others because of the "game". This type of politicizing the family is tragic for the child. It teaches the child to value winning at all costs, without considering the other. Or it teaches that using any means is fine, if one can have an advantage over another. Caring about another is much more than their material accomplishments, but it is also about caring about the"person", as an individual.

The public and private segments of our lives were meant to stay separate for a reason. Publicizing private pain or failings, is not humane, but cruel. Only those that are relationally involved with a person can understand all the reasons a person chooses to do what they do, or value what they value. America is a nation that values the right of individuality in choice and conviction, when it comes to private matters of worship, conscience and value.

That is not to say that others should not play an important part in their relationship toward parents, children, and or families, as friends do what they can to support, help and underwrite the parent's desires, as long as it benefits the child. Friends help, support and hold each other accountable. That's what friends are for.

Humans tend to love voyerism, especially if it concerns society's "elite". Somehow, making another look bad, makes one "feel good", but, what really needs to happen is for our lives to be full enough to not look at another's life, but our own and live for today, as fully as possible. Objectifying another's situation whether moral, material or otherwise, does not lead to a "healthy assessment".

We, Americans are free to choose our values, and our commitments. Let us allow each American the right of choice in the public square and not politicize the private. Do we allow another the freedom we want for ourselves?

Reasons Have to Be Enough

I have a mixture of thoughts "mixing around" in my head, that don't really "come together" coherently. So, this post may sound a little more rambling than the average. :)

Relationships are always difficult at some time and/or in some way. These are the "things life is made of", these fragile, fulfilling, exasperating, perplexing, confusing, exhilerating, fascinating, encouraging, faithful reliationships.

But, the most challenging are those in which you are between two people(s) whom you love (personal) or desire to see a resolution (justice). You understand both sides, and both people and can't take sides without denying something that is above rational. You can agree with one, but can't betray the other. So, you try to resolve the dilemma by defending the one to the other. Sometimes this works, sometimes you alienate both parties. What do you do?

Sometimes the differences are due to temperament and different values and focus in life. But, many times, it is also experience that determines how one views the things that are straining relationships. There is no way that you can help someone who has no experience to draw from to understand the other's perspective.

This is the world of diplomats where two cultures collide and there is no reason where one is "right and the other wrong". In one sense, this is true. But, in the absolute sense, what is "right" is what has been resolved long before the conflict in the laws that govern nations, and people. These laws seek to underwrite justice and protect lives from undue interference. And this is the nature of "human rights".

But, is there something more important than human rights? If one dissolves all difference to the 'common" does that dissolve something that is unspeakably significant? Does one loose A human being" in the midst of "mass humanity", or "The human being". I think this is so.

Each nation has interests that must be appropriately negotiated and represented in world politics. This is where our nation's interest, the military, and international law, foreign policy and the wider diplomatic community are invested.

Today, I heard that Obama had not agreed to what some human rights activists were advocating. These activists were wanting Gitmo's "discussion" on human rights abuses to apply to prisoners the military are holding in Afghanstan. Prisoners of war are those who are challenging our right as a nation to exist. Although these prisoners of war are human beings, there is somethig more important the unique "kind' of human being. One cannot make distinctions and judgment, evaluations of any kind, if there is no way to distinctify. And distinguishing is of major importance when it comes to national interests and the protection of the majority.

So, whatever the liberal, leftist propaganda may say; we are all prejuidiced, otherwise we can have no convictions /judgments to strategize and that applies to the human rights advocate.

Reasons Have to Be Enough.

Self-Perception, As "Reactional Conviction"

Sometimes I think religion is very unhealthy, and hinders development. I have understood some past pscyhologists have viewed our understandings of God, as projections or internal conflicts with our families of origin. I do agree that how we view God is dependent on these conditionings. This is what started my thinking this morning....

Does our self-perception "interpret" our understanding, not just of reality, but what we read, see and do? What if those in a minority position always "see" other's prejuidice, because of their own disposition toward prejuidice and continual feelings of victimization, which increases the probability that these will continue to act in ways that result in the "outcomes" they fear? This is "self-fulfilling prophecy".

Since I believe this is so, how does one change one's perception of oneself? How does one act differently so that they do not predispose themselves to behaviors that are self-defeating? I think this is why so many find themselves experiencing the cyclic view of life, instead of a progressive view of life. Is life getting better and better, or is life a continual tread-mill?

I think that we are made to accomplish, acquire, conquer, and become. And much of the "project" of self improvement must be done within oneself in one's own commitment to develop or become, and sometimes it is necessary for others to hold one accountable.

So often, I think, others are passionatley convicted because of something internal. This hinders rational discourse, and sometimes reactionary opinions that hinder viewing or seeing things clearly. We need other eyes sometimes to see what we must see.

I have been blessed with a husband that did not emphasize my background of self-criticism. But, sometimes self-criticism can be constructive if one responds to it. I did this last year while in D.C. I lost weight, and exercised daily, ate better and took vitamins. It was "okay" to take care of myself. And there was no self-recrimination that I was "self-seeking", "selfish", etc. So often, especially in conservative Christian circles, it is hard to maintain a balance of taking care of oneself and one's family. Family is to be the highest value, and others might judge your "self improvement" as "selfish amibition", or selfishness. This should never happen.

Although D.C. was freeing in my self-recriminations, it enhanced my feelings of insecurity! What does one do, to alleviate the anxiety, as I had little connection? I think "scape-goats" always internalize their environments and take responsibility for things they shouldn't and don't take responsibility for things they should. (I usually "dismiss" myself, rather than face possible rejection.) Responsibilties become a blame-shifting "game", so it will alleviate "false guilt" and anxiety.

I am a mess. How about you?

Orthodoxy, Orthopraxy and Faith

I find that defining religion on theology or practice still becomes a hinderance to understanding faith. Faith, as I have said before is undefined, by belief, or practice, as far as objectively. Faith is personal commitment to value. Faith can be aligned in one's life ot a certain religion, but does not have to be. I hope that those who place all their hopes on definitions OR behavior will undstand that both are limited when it comes to judging for the outside, what comes from faith.

Why do I say that faith is not to be or can not be judged? Because, besides faith being a personal conviction and commitment, it's very expression is unique. Faith doesn' t necessarily conform to a tradition or another person's definition of faith. Faith just is. It is being itself and what I do with that being. Sometimes people are not practicing their faith, because they are dealing with issues that have hindered healthy faith. Distance to communities of faith or to orhtopraxy can be healthy, if they hide unhealthy dependency. Healthy faith is a free expression of choice. It must be voluntary, otherwise, faith is being defined by someone or something other than the individual who must possess it.