I don't know what made me think about these subjects today, other than some postings on 9/11 on Facebook, and thinking about liberty! What makes one's physical life, a matter of value or commitment? And what makes for a life that is worth living? I come to my conclusions after considering those that have committed suicide. What were their reasons? And what makes a life not worth living?
The first case was the Attack on America. The question was asked on FB, "Where were you and what were you doing on 9/11?". My thoughts turned to that day, that was just like any other, and the answer left me suffering the effects of the attack itself. That particular day, I was just an average person that was going about my morning routine of putting on my make-up, when I heard on the radio that there was a plane that had flown into one of the towers. Upon hearing of the accident, I started to cry, as this was how I had experienced my life, psychologically, at that point.
At the time, the announcer didn't know if it was a commercial flight and assumed it was only a private plane! But as the events started unfolding it was obvious that those that had flown the planes, as well as those that were n the burning towers, weren't valuing their lives.
What were some of the similarities and differences in these two categories of people. One was the agressor, against the "symbol of Western culture", "capitalism", while the other was just going about their daily tasks of furthering their own lives, as well as benefitting their society. One was motivated by a religious zeal that would make them fear "God's anger" and want "God's reward" for a "spirtualized kingdom". These terrorizors had separated reality from the "real world". Theirs was a spiritualized hope disconnnected from real people apart from their own religious tribe. These people were motivated by similar reasons as all people, as all humans are motivated by incentives and disincentives, as we are self-seeking creatures.
One would not intially see the simliarities in these two groups, as their cultures are so different. But, those in the burning inferno were seeking a way out of their fear of being burned alive or suffocating to death. This is a rational fear, that brought about an irrational action because of the possible pain that might have been suffered either physically or psychologically. These were suffering a real and present danger in the real physical world. Were those that jumped to their death less courageous than those that flew the plane into the Trade Towers, because they sought relief from a painful death? On the surface, the terrorists were the courageous ones.
Another group that suffers a real and present danger that impacts them long afterwards are our Armed Forces, who are experiencing suicide rates higher than at any other time. Many think that this is due to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome. Their "realities" in the present have been affected by their experiences. They are reactive, anxious and fearful of what they had experienced while on the battlefield! Some do not want to get help, while others continue to struggle against such "imagined realities' and overcome them. But at what point does one loose hope to overcome them?
Life is about choices. And fears breed choices that might not look rational, but are to those who suffer under such beliefs/thinking, whether religious spiritualized thinking, or past experiential thinking. Both impact what and how one views the present and interprets the future.
Was it right for those in the burning towers to jump to their death, or did they take their life in their own hands. Who is to make that judgment when they themselves are the only ones that know what they really faced? Were they to have courage in the midst of being burned alive, rather than a quick and timely death by jumping? This thinking based on real world experience.
But, real world experience is also the case for the ex-soldier, while his "reality" is not. Who is to advise him that his "stress" is only in his mind, when his mind might have been changed chemically, for all we know? Is he to be labelled fearful, because he has had these experiences that have affected him?
The religious agressor based their reality on a spiritualized "hope" that didn't care what might happen n the real world as this was not their value. They would be recompensed. This thinking cannot be challenged, as theirs is special knowledge that breeds confirmaton bias.
What makes for a rational decision? It depends on one's experience, beliefs, and fears. And each one of these categories of people had "rational reasons" for their behavior, at least according to their "Tradition", Experience, and/or Reason.
Showing posts with label values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label values. Show all posts
Monday, August 22, 2011
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Religon and Philosophy......
Many want to understand how and why religion "works", as then, they can predict religous behavior and this is all important to protect against behaviors that might endanger all of us. So, some have tried various means to understand.
One way of understanding is "belonging", where group behavior is predictable, as we are all social animals. But, group behavior can be dangerous as much as beneficial. This becomes problematic, too, when there are "free radcals" in the group that might lead the group "astray" from the "social order" to be maintained! And then, when groups become tightly identified, what happens to the "rest of society"?
Another way of understand religion is "belief". These are philosophical ways of understanding life and all that is. "God" is the beginning and end of such thinking, as it is "theological". When theology is ahistorical, people become prone to disconnect from the "real world", either through their "denial" of reality; their belief that they will change reality into some spiritualized vision; or their withdrawal from reality and the real world!
"Behavior" is really the "end" of what scientists want to understand, as behavior is "social control". Social control is needed when radical believers want to implement their vision upon society, or act in ways harmful to themselves because of such a belief. Some psychologists have believed that social conditioning is the best form of "training the human animal". But, one must understand how that must be done without co-ercive measures. That becomes problematic to a free society!
Belonging is first formed within the family of origin. A child's sense of "who he is" and where he fits in the family is an important step to furthering the child's advancement or inhibiting it.
Beliefs are also first grounded within the family of origin. These might not be formally taught as in religious communities, but are modelled by the families "way of life". These become internalized values, until the child becomes "of age" and gains his own sense or what and why he wants to own or dis-own a certain familial value.
Behaviors are the result of a person's belief system. And one's belief about themselves and the world make for how one engages the world and presents themselves.
In a free society, it becomes almost impossible to predict and control behavior at large, because individuals are free to believe differently and contingencies are numerous!
One way of understanding is "belonging", where group behavior is predictable, as we are all social animals. But, group behavior can be dangerous as much as beneficial. This becomes problematic, too, when there are "free radcals" in the group that might lead the group "astray" from the "social order" to be maintained! And then, when groups become tightly identified, what happens to the "rest of society"?
Another way of understand religion is "belief". These are philosophical ways of understanding life and all that is. "God" is the beginning and end of such thinking, as it is "theological". When theology is ahistorical, people become prone to disconnect from the "real world", either through their "denial" of reality; their belief that they will change reality into some spiritualized vision; or their withdrawal from reality and the real world!
"Behavior" is really the "end" of what scientists want to understand, as behavior is "social control". Social control is needed when radical believers want to implement their vision upon society, or act in ways harmful to themselves because of such a belief. Some psychologists have believed that social conditioning is the best form of "training the human animal". But, one must understand how that must be done without co-ercive measures. That becomes problematic to a free society!
Belonging is first formed within the family of origin. A child's sense of "who he is" and where he fits in the family is an important step to furthering the child's advancement or inhibiting it.
Beliefs are also first grounded within the family of origin. These might not be formally taught as in religious communities, but are modelled by the families "way of life". These become internalized values, until the child becomes "of age" and gains his own sense or what and why he wants to own or dis-own a certain familial value.
Behaviors are the result of a person's belief system. And one's belief about themselves and the world make for how one engages the world and presents themselves.
In a free society, it becomes almost impossible to predict and control behavior at large, because individuals are free to believe differently and contingencies are numerous!
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Richard Feynman's Genius!
Last night I had the priviledge of attending a talk by Lawrence Krauss on Richard Feynman! I was impressed with Richard Feynman's personality and his curiosity! He was a true genius and a scientist at heart! Some of these quotes give a glimpse into a mind that was "open" and curious, not set and determined !!! He was "all over the place" in his lectures and his thinking, unlike other methodical scientists that lecture from a beginning and come to a conclusive end!
Here are some of his quotes!
"You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect me to be. It's their mistake, not my failing."
"Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible."
— Richard P. Feynman
"Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn't matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best. Don't think about what you want to be, but what you want to do. Keep up some kind of a minimum with other things so that society doesn't stop you from doing anything at all."
— Richard P. Feynman
"What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does."
— Richard P. Feynman (QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter)
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress."
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman
I wonder how many people really think like this? I think it is refreshing! It is certainly engaging. And wouldn't one feel that one could "be" in that kind of "Presence"? YES!
Here are some of his quotes!
"You have no responsibility to live up to what other people think you ought to accomplish. I have no responsibility to be like they expect me to be. It's their mistake, not my failing."
"Study hard what interests you the most in the most undisciplined, irreverent and original manner possible."
— Richard P. Feynman
"Fall in love with some activity, and do it! Nobody ever figures out what life is all about, and it doesn't matter. Explore the world. Nearly everything is really interesting if you go into it deeply enough. Work as hard and as much as you want to on the things you like to do the best. Don't think about what you want to be, but what you want to do. Keep up some kind of a minimum with other things so that society doesn't stop you from doing anything at all."
— Richard P. Feynman
"What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school... It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it... That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does."
— Richard P. Feynman (QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter)
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress."
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman
I wonder how many people really think like this? I think it is refreshing! It is certainly engaging. And wouldn't one feel that one could "be" in that kind of "Presence"? YES!
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
What Is Moral?
There are many needs that are pressing upon our globe today, which ones will make the "cut" as the ultimate need? Moral sentiment usually drives what people claim are the moral imperatives. Such sentiment is one's personal desired outcomes. And these are driven by prioritizing personal values, even the "objective ones".
Humanists value human rights as a universal standard. These people have chosen to universalize Western cultural values. But, the United Nations has made exception to Islam, giving them the right to Islamic law. How can two conflicting values be held by an organization? Don't we have to make discriminations about what is of ultimate value and how do we do that?
Neuroscientists have argued that our brains determine much of what we desire and value. Is the brain determined by one's cultural experiences or is the brain innatedly endowed with certain desires?
Obviously, all humans have the need for sustenance. Physical needs are not choices of value, but are objective needs. Humanists would be driven to meet these needs as of foremost importance. But, what of emotional needs and attachments? Are these just as important?
In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, such needs are secondary to physical needs. And this is where we find America today, debating what is needed in our nation's budget. One politician claimed that we could not cut entitlement spending, as it was "immoral". And that there are some things that are moral imperatives. These moral imperatives are driven by moral sentiment. Emotion drives such "entitlement" speak. Whereas, our budget deficit cannot be ignored. This is a moral imperative driven by reason, not sentiment! Isn't this more important than particular situations that might call for intervention? Our nation's viability is at stake! But, what is to come of a budget, when elected officials can "walk out" of negotiating and perservering in a job they were elected to do?
Those that want to play on moral sentiment, play upon religious values and emotionally driven goals by appealing to the "Golden Rule". Those that get their desired outcomes are those that have planned on using such emotional appeal to sway the "common man" to to their bidding. And usually their bidding is not chosen "up front" in the full light of day, but driven by the need to control or manipulate the "mob" so social order can be maintained. Such "Systems" are totaltaliarian. They are driven by elites for the "common good", but not the personal good of those under them. "Personal" ceases to have meaning or value, because it is independent of "theWhole", which is more valued than the "Parts".
Scientists value the physical universe. Its resources are of ultimate concern. But, physcial resources must be prioritized as to ultimate value, don't they? And what of the conflicting ways in which to approach limited resources and how to use them and create alternatives that might benefit "the Whole"? Who determines what policy will be made? And what outcomes will be of ultimate value or concern? Are Americans allowed to drill for oil, as other countries? Are we going to be allowed to drill for oil irregardless of environmental concerns for wildlife? Is the individual human of more value than other life forms? Or are all life forms or equal value?
If one values the nation-state, then there are priorities that must come first, irregadless of sentiment. Our nation's security is at stake, if we cannot maintain viability! Who will be at the helm of power then? Will we dissolve the nation-state for good, for a "common government"? Hasn't experience taught us that Bigger Government leads to more corruption because of an inability to make accountable such a "system"? Wasn't our Constitution even debated in our early years, because of such a belief? How then, can we think that liberalizing the world will bring about a "better way of life" for all? How do we know? What has history taught us?
My husband was expressing his desire for a certain endeavor that he felt would not be appreciated, acknowledged or valued by others. I encouraged him to attain his goal, irrespective of anything else, as such a desire was a matter of integrity and his own "honor and sense of being true to himself". Such "self-affirming" choice could not be made in a totalitarian system, because such "self affirming" ways of thinking and being in the world would be considered "selfish" , by those that want him to do "their bidding". But, I think such "selfishness" is a point of character. "Character" must be defined within the context of the "self", for there to be a "grounded self". Character that is evaluated by others might be applauded or dissapproved based on some other value, outside of "principled character". One might not value what he chooses, but they must applaud his commitment to it, IF they value a liberal democracy and human rights.
It seems that what is "moral" has been a useful term for many reasons. An ultimate and important value is the individual's right to exist and choose his own way of life, which is what a Democracy allows, and our Republic demands its Representatives uphold those values in it legislative powers!
Humanists value human rights as a universal standard. These people have chosen to universalize Western cultural values. But, the United Nations has made exception to Islam, giving them the right to Islamic law. How can two conflicting values be held by an organization? Don't we have to make discriminations about what is of ultimate value and how do we do that?
Neuroscientists have argued that our brains determine much of what we desire and value. Is the brain determined by one's cultural experiences or is the brain innatedly endowed with certain desires?
Obviously, all humans have the need for sustenance. Physical needs are not choices of value, but are objective needs. Humanists would be driven to meet these needs as of foremost importance. But, what of emotional needs and attachments? Are these just as important?
In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, such needs are secondary to physical needs. And this is where we find America today, debating what is needed in our nation's budget. One politician claimed that we could not cut entitlement spending, as it was "immoral". And that there are some things that are moral imperatives. These moral imperatives are driven by moral sentiment. Emotion drives such "entitlement" speak. Whereas, our budget deficit cannot be ignored. This is a moral imperative driven by reason, not sentiment! Isn't this more important than particular situations that might call for intervention? Our nation's viability is at stake! But, what is to come of a budget, when elected officials can "walk out" of negotiating and perservering in a job they were elected to do?
Those that want to play on moral sentiment, play upon religious values and emotionally driven goals by appealing to the "Golden Rule". Those that get their desired outcomes are those that have planned on using such emotional appeal to sway the "common man" to to their bidding. And usually their bidding is not chosen "up front" in the full light of day, but driven by the need to control or manipulate the "mob" so social order can be maintained. Such "Systems" are totaltaliarian. They are driven by elites for the "common good", but not the personal good of those under them. "Personal" ceases to have meaning or value, because it is independent of "theWhole", which is more valued than the "Parts".
Scientists value the physical universe. Its resources are of ultimate concern. But, physcial resources must be prioritized as to ultimate value, don't they? And what of the conflicting ways in which to approach limited resources and how to use them and create alternatives that might benefit "the Whole"? Who determines what policy will be made? And what outcomes will be of ultimate value or concern? Are Americans allowed to drill for oil, as other countries? Are we going to be allowed to drill for oil irregardless of environmental concerns for wildlife? Is the individual human of more value than other life forms? Or are all life forms or equal value?
If one values the nation-state, then there are priorities that must come first, irregadless of sentiment. Our nation's security is at stake, if we cannot maintain viability! Who will be at the helm of power then? Will we dissolve the nation-state for good, for a "common government"? Hasn't experience taught us that Bigger Government leads to more corruption because of an inability to make accountable such a "system"? Wasn't our Constitution even debated in our early years, because of such a belief? How then, can we think that liberalizing the world will bring about a "better way of life" for all? How do we know? What has history taught us?
My husband was expressing his desire for a certain endeavor that he felt would not be appreciated, acknowledged or valued by others. I encouraged him to attain his goal, irrespective of anything else, as such a desire was a matter of integrity and his own "honor and sense of being true to himself". Such "self-affirming" choice could not be made in a totalitarian system, because such "self affirming" ways of thinking and being in the world would be considered "selfish" , by those that want him to do "their bidding". But, I think such "selfishness" is a point of character. "Character" must be defined within the context of the "self", for there to be a "grounded self". Character that is evaluated by others might be applauded or dissapproved based on some other value, outside of "principled character". One might not value what he chooses, but they must applaud his commitment to it, IF they value a liberal democracy and human rights.
It seems that what is "moral" has been a useful term for many reasons. An ultimate and important value is the individual's right to exist and choose his own way of life, which is what a Democracy allows, and our Republic demands its Representatives uphold those values in it legislative powers!
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Choice, Responsibility, and Negotiation
Choice is an ultimate value for any human, as choice values differences as to value and interests. Responsibility is about owning the consequences for one's choices and negotiating with others about differences of value or commitments. All of society's relationships should be based upon the individual right of choice.
Negotiation is about compromise, and determining whether such compormise is possible in relationship. Negotiation is part of the process of evaluating priorites as to commitments and values. In political terms, it is knowing that one might not have an "ideal" value upheld, but knowing that living in a free society doesn't affim "ideals" as defined, otherwise, the society will not be free as to diversity of definitions".
The Founders were "Wise", not "ideologues"! Wisdom means that they knew that government had to limit itself, so the individual can have the liberty to define their own "ideals". The Founders "ideals" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was based on the understanding of "Providence", or in today's terms, leadership. Leaders do determine and define what these ideals mean in, to and for society.
Liberals value "civil rights" or the "real world", while the conservative values "traditional values" and the "ideal world". Both have a place in our society, as to America's values, because we do affirm the family, as well as indivdiual equality before the law. America does value pragmatism and science, but we also value religious liberty. The disagreement comes from re-defining certain aspects of society. Such social change is viewed byt the liberal as a necessary right to continue to maintain the value of "equality before the law". But, the conservative views such social change as a violation of traditional principles, which might undermine society's foundations. Such differences were the basis of our Civil War.
Each side has valid points. Social change has occurred and will continue to occur, but we must not loose the values of tradition that have underwritten our society. It is just a matter, hopefully, of listening, weighing, negotiating, and coming to terms. This is responsible leadership. And it is what America needs most right now! Fair and balanced!
Negotiation is about compromise, and determining whether such compormise is possible in relationship. Negotiation is part of the process of evaluating priorites as to commitments and values. In political terms, it is knowing that one might not have an "ideal" value upheld, but knowing that living in a free society doesn't affim "ideals" as defined, otherwise, the society will not be free as to diversity of definitions".
The Founders were "Wise", not "ideologues"! Wisdom means that they knew that government had to limit itself, so the individual can have the liberty to define their own "ideals". The Founders "ideals" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was based on the understanding of "Providence", or in today's terms, leadership. Leaders do determine and define what these ideals mean in, to and for society.
Liberals value "civil rights" or the "real world", while the conservative values "traditional values" and the "ideal world". Both have a place in our society, as to America's values, because we do affirm the family, as well as indivdiual equality before the law. America does value pragmatism and science, but we also value religious liberty. The disagreement comes from re-defining certain aspects of society. Such social change is viewed byt the liberal as a necessary right to continue to maintain the value of "equality before the law". But, the conservative views such social change as a violation of traditional principles, which might undermine society's foundations. Such differences were the basis of our Civil War.
Each side has valid points. Social change has occurred and will continue to occur, but we must not loose the values of tradition that have underwritten our society. It is just a matter, hopefully, of listening, weighing, negotiating, and coming to terms. This is responsible leadership. And it is what America needs most right now! Fair and balanced!
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
What Unites and Makes America Distinct? (or exceptional)
America was founded on liberty. This is what unifies us, not God. The problem today, is there is a global move to disintegrate American exceptionalism through unifying under God. And such moves are re-defining our Constitution, as well as our understanding of our nation-state.
America did not prescribe to a "one size fits all" religion.America was founded on Protestant "faith", not prescribed religion per se. This was our distinctiveness, religious liberty. But, today, it seems there is a move to define God, in montheism. This is going backwards, not forwards in our understanding of " the human" and "the humane". If God exists, He cannot be proved. But, this is the point to those of piestic faith. Lifestyle is the focus of such. But, whenever piestic faith is prescribed by law, we have a regimented faith, where people are no longer free, but in bondage to the prescription.
It becomes more and more evident that Islam is not going to be tolerant of others, but want tolerance toward their religious convictions/claims. This is dangerous territory, as humans have "been down this road" before. What are we to do? We should not respond or live in fear of terrorism, or the terrorists have "won".
Life is not of value, so how do we battle such, when our society values life and its diversity? We are a humane society and believe that human life is valuable above all other forms of life, at least this was the traditional understanding. Today, religion and science have undermined our basic value of life and liberty because of their various understanding of priorities. God is at the end of religion, while utility is at the other end, of scientific commitment.
What transpires to and in our society, when the basic values that have held us together, liberty, have become challenged? Liberty is the foundation and is ordered under law. Authoritarian regimes and ways of understanding the world (mathmatical) undermine this basic value.
Patrick Henry said it well, "Give me liberty, or give me death"!
America did not prescribe to a "one size fits all" religion.America was founded on Protestant "faith", not prescribed religion per se. This was our distinctiveness, religious liberty. But, today, it seems there is a move to define God, in montheism. This is going backwards, not forwards in our understanding of " the human" and "the humane". If God exists, He cannot be proved. But, this is the point to those of piestic faith. Lifestyle is the focus of such. But, whenever piestic faith is prescribed by law, we have a regimented faith, where people are no longer free, but in bondage to the prescription.
It becomes more and more evident that Islam is not going to be tolerant of others, but want tolerance toward their religious convictions/claims. This is dangerous territory, as humans have "been down this road" before. What are we to do? We should not respond or live in fear of terrorism, or the terrorists have "won".
Life is not of value, so how do we battle such, when our society values life and its diversity? We are a humane society and believe that human life is valuable above all other forms of life, at least this was the traditional understanding. Today, religion and science have undermined our basic value of life and liberty because of their various understanding of priorities. God is at the end of religion, while utility is at the other end, of scientific commitment.
What transpires to and in our society, when the basic values that have held us together, liberty, have become challenged? Liberty is the foundation and is ordered under law. Authoritarian regimes and ways of understanding the world (mathmatical) undermine this basic value.
Patrick Henry said it well, "Give me liberty, or give me death"!
Monday, July 19, 2010
Personal Reflections Lead to Self-Understanding on 'God".
I believe it is horrendously dangerous for people to go about their daily life without self-reflection. Why? Because without self-reflection one cannot ascertain the reasons why they do or believe as they do. And without a rationale, there really is no reason to choose one way above another in deciding a course of action, except for human social convention.
My personal reflections have come about over my responses, or should I say reactions to certain situations, I find myself in. If one cannot respond reasonably, then one's reaction is a give-away to "stakes" in the fight. And those stakes are stakes of identity, or wounds that must be healed.
One of the biggest challenges to me, is the issue of choice. Choice is necessary for indviduality, personal value and affirmation of one's ideals.
Children have need of safety and security because they are developing their identities. Without safe and secure environments, then, the child is left with anxiety about the dire neccessities in life and without hope to fulfill his personal identity.
Children grow, explore and develop their interests when adults support them, and even further their "discoveries". And interests that develop in childhood are interests that become passions in young adulthood. Passions lead to pursuits of life goals and education that end in a life given to that passion.
For the child, divorced families are challenged to meet the needs of safe and security, so he can explore and develop interests. These safety and security issues can be strongholds that deter the young adult from developing passions and pursuing goals later in life. And inevitably, an overly cautious, or overly reactive child can be the result of such an environment.
I have found that my own reactions and fear of being controlled has its roots grounded in my early childhood. When divorced children do not have any choice about the events that "control their lives", they feel helpless, insecure and unsafe. Thus, "God" enters in to "help" the child to defend themselves in an unsafe and insecure world. "God will work all things together", etc. etc. God's Providence is viewed as safety, security and assurance of "goodwill". But, these coping skills are not healthy past the point of childhood. "Self" is not developed when one has an unhealthy need for dependence.
"God" is used in place of seeking, pursuing, developing, and taking responsibility for oneself. And this taking responsibility is also a challenge for me, as I fear responsibility, because of the "perfectionism' of the adults in my life, as a child. Great anxiety transpires when I fear failure, so why tramp over that territory if there are so many pits one can "fall into"? Besides, no one 'needs" what I have to offer anyway? Who am I?
These messages are messages of self-hatred, and self-rejection. These messages were tempered by a religious coping skill. I believed that God loved me, personally. This brought me a sense of being valued, individually and specifically. But, my realization that no one is particularly special was not a new one, it was just put into a new frame. The new frame was one of a 'vast void' of human insignificance.
If humans have no innate significance, then the only way to significance is what one does. And what one does, breeds an atmosphere of competitive drive for success to be valued. It is the 'survival of the fittest" that define who gets on top. And the rest of humanity dries up under the sun of pointless absurdities that intrude upon their life with regular 'humiliations'.
The "survival of the fittest" leaves me with anxiety, because I have been "taught" that I was not "the fittest". This "view" has nothing to do with evolution, but it has a lot to do with my own self-concept.
So, what is the point? The point is that religion can de-value, as well as value "the human". And when religion intrudes upon the individual, determining and confining choice, then religion has ceased its value, because of its devaluation of the individual, as significance.
At the same time, when religion limits 'self-development' because of its zeal for absolute certainty about "God" who cannot be confined to our safe and rational 'solutions', then religion has stepped over and ignored the very purpose of its existence; Man.
My personal reflections have come about over my responses, or should I say reactions to certain situations, I find myself in. If one cannot respond reasonably, then one's reaction is a give-away to "stakes" in the fight. And those stakes are stakes of identity, or wounds that must be healed.
One of the biggest challenges to me, is the issue of choice. Choice is necessary for indviduality, personal value and affirmation of one's ideals.
Children have need of safety and security because they are developing their identities. Without safe and secure environments, then, the child is left with anxiety about the dire neccessities in life and without hope to fulfill his personal identity.
Children grow, explore and develop their interests when adults support them, and even further their "discoveries". And interests that develop in childhood are interests that become passions in young adulthood. Passions lead to pursuits of life goals and education that end in a life given to that passion.
For the child, divorced families are challenged to meet the needs of safe and security, so he can explore and develop interests. These safety and security issues can be strongholds that deter the young adult from developing passions and pursuing goals later in life. And inevitably, an overly cautious, or overly reactive child can be the result of such an environment.
I have found that my own reactions and fear of being controlled has its roots grounded in my early childhood. When divorced children do not have any choice about the events that "control their lives", they feel helpless, insecure and unsafe. Thus, "God" enters in to "help" the child to defend themselves in an unsafe and insecure world. "God will work all things together", etc. etc. God's Providence is viewed as safety, security and assurance of "goodwill". But, these coping skills are not healthy past the point of childhood. "Self" is not developed when one has an unhealthy need for dependence.
"God" is used in place of seeking, pursuing, developing, and taking responsibility for oneself. And this taking responsibility is also a challenge for me, as I fear responsibility, because of the "perfectionism' of the adults in my life, as a child. Great anxiety transpires when I fear failure, so why tramp over that territory if there are so many pits one can "fall into"? Besides, no one 'needs" what I have to offer anyway? Who am I?
These messages are messages of self-hatred, and self-rejection. These messages were tempered by a religious coping skill. I believed that God loved me, personally. This brought me a sense of being valued, individually and specifically. But, my realization that no one is particularly special was not a new one, it was just put into a new frame. The new frame was one of a 'vast void' of human insignificance.
If humans have no innate significance, then the only way to significance is what one does. And what one does, breeds an atmosphere of competitive drive for success to be valued. It is the 'survival of the fittest" that define who gets on top. And the rest of humanity dries up under the sun of pointless absurdities that intrude upon their life with regular 'humiliations'.
The "survival of the fittest" leaves me with anxiety, because I have been "taught" that I was not "the fittest". This "view" has nothing to do with evolution, but it has a lot to do with my own self-concept.
So, what is the point? The point is that religion can de-value, as well as value "the human". And when religion intrudes upon the individual, determining and confining choice, then religion has ceased its value, because of its devaluation of the individual, as significance.
At the same time, when religion limits 'self-development' because of its zeal for absolute certainty about "God" who cannot be confined to our safe and rational 'solutions', then religion has stepped over and ignored the very purpose of its existence; Man.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Social Construction and Social Identity
All cultures in the human and animal "kingdoms" seem to intuitively "know" that social structures form their young. These social influencing elements in the human realm are family, friends, and ethnic tribe.
Social construction is the process of internalizing the social norms, and values in a certain culture. These norms, and values help the young to frame their understanding of the world. Identity is not fully formed in such environments, because of the young's dependent stage of development. The young need the environment to further the internalization process.
In free societies, the family is not stingently defined by outside sources, other than the values of those entering into that commitment. But, religious cultures deem it necessary to define such structures in a uniform way.
The dissolution of such stringent structures has led to much debate about whether it has brought value to society in general. Have such "flexible norms" produced young that have no conscience or regard for society as a value? Has it led to the demise of "civil society" because the young tend to act out of their resistance to what they deem to be oppressive? Or has society "grown" in its understanding of the human need for flexible norms?
The young need nurture. This fact is not debated, but there does come a time when the young must outgrow and think for themselves what is important and of value. Does strict upbringing leave room for promoting intellectural growth? Or does it produce guilt, anxiety, and fear whenever such boundaries are ignored, dissolved, or re-defined? Where is the responsibility of the parent, and teacher/professor?
The child must develop beyond helpless dependence, not only in the physical areas of his life, but also his personal areas. This is the formation of forming the child in his own image and not to a source outside of himself. And when the young adult finds that he has formed and thought out his own values, then he will then be able to commit to a social group, not because of "felt need", but because of his own chosen values.
Social construction is the process of internalizing the social norms, and values in a certain culture. These norms, and values help the young to frame their understanding of the world. Identity is not fully formed in such environments, because of the young's dependent stage of development. The young need the environment to further the internalization process.
In free societies, the family is not stingently defined by outside sources, other than the values of those entering into that commitment. But, religious cultures deem it necessary to define such structures in a uniform way.
The dissolution of such stringent structures has led to much debate about whether it has brought value to society in general. Have such "flexible norms" produced young that have no conscience or regard for society as a value? Has it led to the demise of "civil society" because the young tend to act out of their resistance to what they deem to be oppressive? Or has society "grown" in its understanding of the human need for flexible norms?
The young need nurture. This fact is not debated, but there does come a time when the young must outgrow and think for themselves what is important and of value. Does strict upbringing leave room for promoting intellectural growth? Or does it produce guilt, anxiety, and fear whenever such boundaries are ignored, dissolved, or re-defined? Where is the responsibility of the parent, and teacher/professor?
The child must develop beyond helpless dependence, not only in the physical areas of his life, but also his personal areas. This is the formation of forming the child in his own image and not to a source outside of himself. And when the young adult finds that he has formed and thought out his own values, then he will then be able to commit to a social group, not because of "felt need", but because of his own chosen values.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Brain, Mind, Emotions, and Memory Response and Living in the Real World
Last night my husband and I watched a movie with Morgan Freeman. His moives usually have some meaning or message, and they are usually good. We thought we might be "headed to see" some B rated movie, as we'd gotten several movies from Sam's Club for under $5. But, we were delightfully surprised!
The movie was about two serial killers. Morgan Freeman was a forensic psychologist from D.C. who travelled to the Triangle Park, N. C. area to help the police there find the suspected killer. He had a "dog in the fight", as his neice had been missing for several weeks.
To make a long story short and to get to my point, the movie was intensely suspenseful and just when you thought that the movie was solved, there was another "crook in the road"..This led to an emotional connection with the movie unlike most. And the post traumatic stress that the main escapee suffered was experienced alongside her.
In my sleep, I kept having dreams as if the situations had happened to me; whispering in my ear from the murderer, running away from the killer, etc. This led to a fitful night and waking up several times to realize "it was only a dream".
I had not eaten anything out of the ordinary last night and had gone to bed as usual. So, there should've been nothing that would have made my sleep different, except for the movie.
My unprofessional and "scientific" suspicion is that my emotional connectedness to the movie led me to an emphathetic response. I had experienced the situation personally.
Is this not what we experience with those we feel connected to when they suffer? Our emotional connection leads us to justify their misfortunes, reach out to help, and understand their weaknesses.
I think that our reason is useful to help us function in the world without collapsing into a "pool of emotion". What good would that do? So, our reason help us rationalize our lives so that we live reasonably, not emphathetically. We cannot "love humanity", as that is an 'ideal" and ideals have to be defined and practically understood for there to be real meaning and purpose.
This is where we play out our lives committed to certain values which are prioritized accordingly. We live rationally, according to our values.
And I believe that values are a culmalative conglomoration of different experiences, individual personality and interests. Therefore, universals do not exist in the real world, only "ideals" that are manifested differently.
The movie was about two serial killers. Morgan Freeman was a forensic psychologist from D.C. who travelled to the Triangle Park, N. C. area to help the police there find the suspected killer. He had a "dog in the fight", as his neice had been missing for several weeks.
To make a long story short and to get to my point, the movie was intensely suspenseful and just when you thought that the movie was solved, there was another "crook in the road"..This led to an emotional connection with the movie unlike most. And the post traumatic stress that the main escapee suffered was experienced alongside her.
In my sleep, I kept having dreams as if the situations had happened to me; whispering in my ear from the murderer, running away from the killer, etc. This led to a fitful night and waking up several times to realize "it was only a dream".
I had not eaten anything out of the ordinary last night and had gone to bed as usual. So, there should've been nothing that would have made my sleep different, except for the movie.
My unprofessional and "scientific" suspicion is that my emotional connectedness to the movie led me to an emphathetic response. I had experienced the situation personally.
Is this not what we experience with those we feel connected to when they suffer? Our emotional connection leads us to justify their misfortunes, reach out to help, and understand their weaknesses.
I think that our reason is useful to help us function in the world without collapsing into a "pool of emotion". What good would that do? So, our reason help us rationalize our lives so that we live reasonably, not emphathetically. We cannot "love humanity", as that is an 'ideal" and ideals have to be defined and practically understood for there to be real meaning and purpose.
This is where we play out our lives committed to certain values which are prioritized accordingly. We live rationally, according to our values.
And I believe that values are a culmalative conglomoration of different experiences, individual personality and interests. Therefore, universals do not exist in the real world, only "ideals" that are manifested differently.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Healthcare, Health Costs, and Health Choices
On another blog, I interacted with someone about universal healthcare. Our university had presented a "conversation" about the issue that was broadcasted over the Internet. I watched and responded to the blog's summarization. This interaction got me thinking about the complex issues facing our country and healthcare.
The question of healthcare is one of universalization, where all people in need will have availability. The difficulty is how to go about giving healthcare to those who do not have the capacity to get it for themselves.
Some believe that if one doesn't work, he shouldn't eat. This is conservative America, where humans are to be responsible and self-governing. But, what happens to those who do not have a choice about the matter. They are at the mercy of someone to provide for them. This is what many call a "moral obligation".
I think America has had the "free market"'s benefits, because we have had the ability to compete with no intrusive invasion of privacy by government. Government regulation is held to be a "negative" concerning the free market. Because government doesn't allow the competition to get agreesive enough. Humans are the "damaged goods" of markets driven by profit alone.
On the other hand, competition is healthy to drive up the "outcome" of excellence, and to inhibit the complacency of many who would love to take advantage of opportunity at another's expense. So, there is the heart of the individual and the blindness of beaucratic governing that causes egregious "mistakes" in driving down healthcare costs and maintaining those costs at a palatable level.
The profit and protectionism of drug and insurance companies is also the culprit of America's expensive healthcare. Lobbyist are bought and paid for by private interests, which distort the "public good", at times. Drug companies do not make money when chronic diseases are cured. Nor do researchers maintain their royalities when drugs are copied by generic brands.
Insurance companies have to make a profit over and above the number of litgation "profits". And many are culpable to "padding their pockets" by underwriting markets that have not been proven to be "safe". All of the insured pay when profits are driven over and above such excesses.
The university supported a panel that talked about preventive measures to drive down healthcare costs. Many insurance companies are giving incentives to those that maintain healthy lifestyles. And this was affirmed by this particular panel. Private companies can promote public health by these incentives. But, the question of how to drive costs down overall was the major question discussed. No definitive answers were given. And I believe because America's whole system is driven by the market, that everything is hinges on market values.
Companies cannot survive long if profts are not the 'end' of policy.
Then, there is the costs to and from doctors and those in the medical fields. Medical school leaves the young physician with an atrocious bill to pay back. And this burden is motivation for these young professionals to abuse the system, so they can start earning their salaries free of debt.
But, while these young professionals are trying to get on the feet, the insurance that covers malpractice suits is horrendously burdensome. Young professionals cannot practice without these protections because our society supports holding people accountable for their actions. Thus, when doctors "make a mistake', the patient has the option of holding the doctor accountable, so the patient doesn't have to continue to pay physically or emotionally from damages that another has imposed upon them.
Unfortunately, everyone thinks about their right to such retribution, and not how they can alleviate the need for such retribution in the first place.
Healthcare, health costs and health choices are driven by human need. And human needs are not all equal. Our society needs to think about what our values are and what drives the choices we make, so that our society will not prosper its corporate element at the costs of the human element.
Free societies are free to support human flourishing, not human comsumption at any costs.
The question of healthcare is one of universalization, where all people in need will have availability. The difficulty is how to go about giving healthcare to those who do not have the capacity to get it for themselves.
Some believe that if one doesn't work, he shouldn't eat. This is conservative America, where humans are to be responsible and self-governing. But, what happens to those who do not have a choice about the matter. They are at the mercy of someone to provide for them. This is what many call a "moral obligation".
I think America has had the "free market"'s benefits, because we have had the ability to compete with no intrusive invasion of privacy by government. Government regulation is held to be a "negative" concerning the free market. Because government doesn't allow the competition to get agreesive enough. Humans are the "damaged goods" of markets driven by profit alone.
On the other hand, competition is healthy to drive up the "outcome" of excellence, and to inhibit the complacency of many who would love to take advantage of opportunity at another's expense. So, there is the heart of the individual and the blindness of beaucratic governing that causes egregious "mistakes" in driving down healthcare costs and maintaining those costs at a palatable level.
The profit and protectionism of drug and insurance companies is also the culprit of America's expensive healthcare. Lobbyist are bought and paid for by private interests, which distort the "public good", at times. Drug companies do not make money when chronic diseases are cured. Nor do researchers maintain their royalities when drugs are copied by generic brands.
Insurance companies have to make a profit over and above the number of litgation "profits". And many are culpable to "padding their pockets" by underwriting markets that have not been proven to be "safe". All of the insured pay when profits are driven over and above such excesses.
The university supported a panel that talked about preventive measures to drive down healthcare costs. Many insurance companies are giving incentives to those that maintain healthy lifestyles. And this was affirmed by this particular panel. Private companies can promote public health by these incentives. But, the question of how to drive costs down overall was the major question discussed. No definitive answers were given. And I believe because America's whole system is driven by the market, that everything is hinges on market values.
Companies cannot survive long if profts are not the 'end' of policy.
Then, there is the costs to and from doctors and those in the medical fields. Medical school leaves the young physician with an atrocious bill to pay back. And this burden is motivation for these young professionals to abuse the system, so they can start earning their salaries free of debt.
But, while these young professionals are trying to get on the feet, the insurance that covers malpractice suits is horrendously burdensome. Young professionals cannot practice without these protections because our society supports holding people accountable for their actions. Thus, when doctors "make a mistake', the patient has the option of holding the doctor accountable, so the patient doesn't have to continue to pay physically or emotionally from damages that another has imposed upon them.
Unfortunately, everyone thinks about their right to such retribution, and not how they can alleviate the need for such retribution in the first place.
Healthcare, health costs and health choices are driven by human need. And human needs are not all equal. Our society needs to think about what our values are and what drives the choices we make, so that our society will not prosper its corporate element at the costs of the human element.
Free societies are free to support human flourishing, not human comsumption at any costs.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Character is More Than Behavior
Character is more than behavior. Although much can be assessed by a person's behavior, one cannot dismiss the innate nature that dwells within the individual. This innate nature is also character. And different characters have different strengths and weaknesses.
Character is personality. Is someone extrinsically motivated. That is, are these "social beings"? Or is the nature of a particular individual more internally motivated? "He is a enthusiastic person"; "She loves to discuss ideas"; " He loves to work with his hands"; "She likes to have people over for dinner". These aspects of personality cannot be disregarded when considering what type of character one has.
Innate nature does not change, (unless there has been an overcompensation from a "past"), but how that nature expresses itself may. People grow, discover new interests, and change their desires throughout their lives. Someone must know someone well, to understand a person deeply. And this sometimes takes years, Some people are never known deeply, as one must be open to be known.
Character is personality. Is someone extrinsically motivated. That is, are these "social beings"? Or is the nature of a particular individual more internally motivated? "He is a enthusiastic person"; "She loves to discuss ideas"; " He loves to work with his hands"; "She likes to have people over for dinner". These aspects of personality cannot be disregarded when considering what type of character one has.
Innate nature does not change, (unless there has been an overcompensation from a "past"), but how that nature expresses itself may. People grow, discover new interests, and change their desires throughout their lives. Someone must know someone well, to understand a person deeply. And this sometimes takes years, Some people are never known deeply, as one must be open to be known.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
What I Have Learned About the Compassionate.
Much has been said these days about social identity, community, social responsibility, and the "common good". These are ways of helping us to understand that we are not islands, but that our lives are interconnected. But, those that think that they are the "leader" or are more compssionate, or spiritual are prone to think that they must lead others toward whatever their passion is. They must implement thier passion upon the world.
I have learned that those that feel so self-righteous in their "care", do not care for those who don't, unless it is to "train" them to "care". These have a mistaken idea of "care". Their need is to 'parent" another, to make them into their own image and likeness. Those that don't care must care, and be made to care...about the same things. If there is a starving child dying of AIDS, then that is what must be the focus of everyone, interior designers, beware. You might be labeled as 'uncaring and materialistic'!
The height of arrogance, at least for me, is to assume that one's passion, ultimate concern, or conviction should be everyone's. The whole world should stop and take notice of the concern that some think are of ultimate importance. There are many important concerns in and about the world. One must not think that there should or will be only one.
I get rebellious over this way of thinking, because it is disrespectful of another's difference of value. For, those that judge another because they do not have the same concerns, are doing an injustice to so many.
I have learned that the compassionate can be the most attentive to specified needs, but completely dead when it concerns other kinds of needs. The driven need to be concerned is a type of addiction to "feeling needed" or "feeling important", as if one is a "savior".
The compassionate are never labelled compassionate, in my book, if they have not shown compassion toward those they deem uncompassionate.
I have learned that those that feel so self-righteous in their "care", do not care for those who don't, unless it is to "train" them to "care". These have a mistaken idea of "care". Their need is to 'parent" another, to make them into their own image and likeness. Those that don't care must care, and be made to care...about the same things. If there is a starving child dying of AIDS, then that is what must be the focus of everyone, interior designers, beware. You might be labeled as 'uncaring and materialistic'!
The height of arrogance, at least for me, is to assume that one's passion, ultimate concern, or conviction should be everyone's. The whole world should stop and take notice of the concern that some think are of ultimate importance. There are many important concerns in and about the world. One must not think that there should or will be only one.
I get rebellious over this way of thinking, because it is disrespectful of another's difference of value. For, those that judge another because they do not have the same concerns, are doing an injustice to so many.
I have learned that the compassionate can be the most attentive to specified needs, but completely dead when it concerns other kinds of needs. The driven need to be concerned is a type of addiction to "feeling needed" or "feeling important", as if one is a "savior".
The compassionate are never labelled compassionate, in my book, if they have not shown compassion toward those they deem uncompassionate.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Liberty, Not License
I have heard many talk about liberty, as if it meant license.
What is license? License is what breaks the law. And, liberty is freedom to do as one chooses or wants, but not a license to do what one shouldn't. What one shouldn't do is defined by the law of our country, and by social communities.
Social communities are volutary organizations. One must understand and commit to these with discretion, knowing what these value and why and if these communities represent what you value most.
People change their values and commitments, and this is when it is necessary to change social communities, if they conflict with the values one holds.
I have found that I have changed a lot in the last number of years. Many things change people, as life has a way to change perspective. And education also informs what one values, or how one sees things.
Not everyone that I consider a friend will change along with me, as it concerns certain social communities, and this is why there must be negotiation as it concerns these changes.
So, the ones that are concerned with liberty need to learn where they are able to limit their boundaries, and if it is prohibitive, for whatever reason, then, move on.
And the ones concerned with license, need to be more "humane" in their boundary matienance.
What is license? License is what breaks the law. And, liberty is freedom to do as one chooses or wants, but not a license to do what one shouldn't. What one shouldn't do is defined by the law of our country, and by social communities.
Social communities are volutary organizations. One must understand and commit to these with discretion, knowing what these value and why and if these communities represent what you value most.
People change their values and commitments, and this is when it is necessary to change social communities, if they conflict with the values one holds.
I have found that I have changed a lot in the last number of years. Many things change people, as life has a way to change perspective. And education also informs what one values, or how one sees things.
Not everyone that I consider a friend will change along with me, as it concerns certain social communities, and this is why there must be negotiation as it concerns these changes.
So, the ones that are concerned with liberty need to learn where they are able to limit their boundaries, and if it is prohibitive, for whatever reason, then, move on.
And the ones concerned with license, need to be more "humane" in their boundary matienance.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
"That's What Friends Are For"....
There was a song long ago that I used to like, "That's What Friends Are For". I couldn't help but think of that song tonight as I was thankful for the friends I have.
They have blessed my life today, and everyday they have been a part of my life, these past 55 years. This is to commemorate these friends, as well as to honor friendship in general.
Friends don't have to ask questions, they know you, therefore, they just "know".
Friends don't demand, demean, or dishonor because they really care about you.
Friends like to spend time together, as friends enjoy each other's company. There is acceptance.
Friends seek to encourage, when their friends are down and out. They seek to find ways to "say" "I love and care about you".
Friends are there when you need them. And there are many times that you need them.
Friends always have space, and time for you because you are important.
I think being a friend is an important job. I hope that my friends always find this true of me, as I seek to grow in these areas.
They have blessed my life today, and everyday they have been a part of my life, these past 55 years. This is to commemorate these friends, as well as to honor friendship in general.
Friends don't have to ask questions, they know you, therefore, they just "know".
Friends don't demand, demean, or dishonor because they really care about you.
Friends like to spend time together, as friends enjoy each other's company. There is acceptance.
Friends seek to encourage, when their friends are down and out. They seek to find ways to "say" "I love and care about you".
Friends are there when you need them. And there are many times that you need them.
Friends always have space, and time for you because you are important.
I think being a friend is an important job. I hope that my friends always find this true of me, as I seek to grow in these areas.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
"The Curious Savage" and the Message It Made
I love theatre, because of its proximity to real life and it being in the form of "real life". The playwrights all know this method of relaying a message about "life" is effective. Last night, my husband and I attended a local production of the play, "The Curious Savage". It's message was no less poignant.
The notes on the play suggested that the main character, Mrs. Savage was an illustration of selfishness, but I thought that some of the other members of the play illustrated selfishness more starkly.
The play begins with Mrs. Savage being brought to a 'home" by her three step-children. She portrays her resentment of their control and their greed for thier inheritance, through a mockery of thier values. And is left by them to face "herself" in the many characters that inhabit the "home".
These characters; a grieved childless mother, an idealistic, sensitive "dancer", a stubborn defiant "hater", an accomplished neurotic pianist, and a "blind" unaccomplished violinist "mirror" Mrs. Savage's psychological "reflections" of "loss".
Mrs. Savage's hope for a family had ended quickly after marrying her step-children's dad. She was never accepted for "who she was", but for what she could give monetarily. These step-children were"well-connected" and had positions of promenience. It was obvious that their actions were only "protected" by their fear of loosing "status", but their greed over-rode their sensibilities in the end, when Mrs. Savage told each one where she had hidden thier inheritance. She did not tell them the truth, nor did she tell them the same thing. She was protecting the inheritance to provide a 'name" for her dead husband.
Justice finally rules at the end. Each character is "redeemed" from their situational/psychological "doom", the step-children have been exposed for who they are and what they really want, and Mrs. Savage ultimately gets her inheritance, and her freedom.
I found this play to really speak of "reality". People are prone to hide their fears behind religious walls of identification. These fears are "real experiences' that have impacted lives. And religion or tradition just covers over their denial of "real life".
On the other hand, character is truly revealed when desire runs over another human being, such as the step-children did in Mrs. Savage's case.
I didn't agree with the director's analysis of the play, as Mrs. Savage was the only courageous one in the play. She was resolute to defend her honor, face her problems, and protect her husband's memory.
I highly recommend this play.
The notes on the play suggested that the main character, Mrs. Savage was an illustration of selfishness, but I thought that some of the other members of the play illustrated selfishness more starkly.
The play begins with Mrs. Savage being brought to a 'home" by her three step-children. She portrays her resentment of their control and their greed for thier inheritance, through a mockery of thier values. And is left by them to face "herself" in the many characters that inhabit the "home".
These characters; a grieved childless mother, an idealistic, sensitive "dancer", a stubborn defiant "hater", an accomplished neurotic pianist, and a "blind" unaccomplished violinist "mirror" Mrs. Savage's psychological "reflections" of "loss".
Mrs. Savage's hope for a family had ended quickly after marrying her step-children's dad. She was never accepted for "who she was", but for what she could give monetarily. These step-children were"well-connected" and had positions of promenience. It was obvious that their actions were only "protected" by their fear of loosing "status", but their greed over-rode their sensibilities in the end, when Mrs. Savage told each one where she had hidden thier inheritance. She did not tell them the truth, nor did she tell them the same thing. She was protecting the inheritance to provide a 'name" for her dead husband.
Justice finally rules at the end. Each character is "redeemed" from their situational/psychological "doom", the step-children have been exposed for who they are and what they really want, and Mrs. Savage ultimately gets her inheritance, and her freedom.
I found this play to really speak of "reality". People are prone to hide their fears behind religious walls of identification. These fears are "real experiences' that have impacted lives. And religion or tradition just covers over their denial of "real life".
On the other hand, character is truly revealed when desire runs over another human being, such as the step-children did in Mrs. Savage's case.
I didn't agree with the director's analysis of the play, as Mrs. Savage was the only courageous one in the play. She was resolute to defend her honor, face her problems, and protect her husband's memory.
I highly recommend this play.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Law MUST Protect Rights (Freedom)
We are a nation of law (and order). And because we value law, we are an ordered or civilized society. What happens to society when laws are disregarded, or abused?
Man is a rational animal and rationality is developed by understanding rights before the law and coming to terms with one's ultimate values. Every human deserves the right to have a sense of freedom about their life, so that they can take responsibility for themselves. This is a basic human right.
Governments and people who do not value laws that protect rights are disrepectful of another's life. Motivation and human flourishing does not occur as freely and frequently in oppressive regimes, which affects society itself. Humans must be free to choose where their responsibilities will be and where their ultimate values and commitments lie.
Religious dictators would subvert another's choice through "God's will", or "God's Purpose", while political dictators subvert another's choices through subversion of rights under law.
We should value our freedom and undestand our rights as granted by laws and protected by our "Representative Republic".
Man is a rational animal and rationality is developed by understanding rights before the law and coming to terms with one's ultimate values. Every human deserves the right to have a sense of freedom about their life, so that they can take responsibility for themselves. This is a basic human right.
Governments and people who do not value laws that protect rights are disrepectful of another's life. Motivation and human flourishing does not occur as freely and frequently in oppressive regimes, which affects society itself. Humans must be free to choose where their responsibilities will be and where their ultimate values and commitments lie.
Religious dictators would subvert another's choice through "God's will", or "God's Purpose", while political dictators subvert another's choices through subversion of rights under law.
We should value our freedom and undestand our rights as granted by laws and protected by our "Representative Republic".
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Betwixst and Between
My husband and I just got back from a Science/Religion conference this evening. It was geared toward "religious responses" to Darwinian evolution. I found several things interesting, but one especially so, the "is" and the "ought".
The emphasis on the "religious response" was due to "fear". A "fear of the power of the religious" in America to form policy around "religion" and not the "facts of science". This is what was called the "is". The religious were to remain inside their domain of what is called the "ought".
While facts are based in real reality of the everyday experience and scientific endeavor, the religious are given a "place" of handing out platitudes and metaphors, which do nothing to change reality, except in someone's head. Is this enough?
I find it hard to defend an "ought" or a "should". An "ought" or "should" means that the reality that exists should be changed, but the question is not about change, but "how" and "what"! How does one view the change that would make life different or better? These are questions about values, and not ideals of "shoulds" and "oughts". Values are based on personal conviction and are given priority according to their importance. Values form one's personal ethics in prioritizing one's moral choice.
"Shoulds" and "oughts"may or may not bring about a "right", whether of needed change or ethical decision. The "right" is limited by cultural definitions, at times. And these cultural definitions may or may not be "enlightened". There are only personal choices, not universal ones.
Revelation has been touted by the religious as a means to the 'ideal" or the "shoulds", "oughts", and "right". But, revelation should be "grounded" by "enlightening" one's mind to what "is". Without understanding that what we know is limited about the mystery that is in this universe, we will act presumptutously, arrogantly, pompously, irrationally, or radically. This is not to say that science, nor religions do not give us some understanding of the mystery. But, we do not have but a part of the whole. We must deal in the "is", as this is the only way to really communicate about and make a difference in the "real world". The real world consists of the political and the public, as well as the personal and the private.
Therefore, I think reason is the best way to approach reality and others, so that change may come through shaping policy, making decisions, and committing one's life.
The emphasis on the "religious response" was due to "fear". A "fear of the power of the religious" in America to form policy around "religion" and not the "facts of science". This is what was called the "is". The religious were to remain inside their domain of what is called the "ought".
While facts are based in real reality of the everyday experience and scientific endeavor, the religious are given a "place" of handing out platitudes and metaphors, which do nothing to change reality, except in someone's head. Is this enough?
I find it hard to defend an "ought" or a "should". An "ought" or "should" means that the reality that exists should be changed, but the question is not about change, but "how" and "what"! How does one view the change that would make life different or better? These are questions about values, and not ideals of "shoulds" and "oughts". Values are based on personal conviction and are given priority according to their importance. Values form one's personal ethics in prioritizing one's moral choice.
"Shoulds" and "oughts"may or may not bring about a "right", whether of needed change or ethical decision. The "right" is limited by cultural definitions, at times. And these cultural definitions may or may not be "enlightened". There are only personal choices, not universal ones.
Revelation has been touted by the religious as a means to the 'ideal" or the "shoulds", "oughts", and "right". But, revelation should be "grounded" by "enlightening" one's mind to what "is". Without understanding that what we know is limited about the mystery that is in this universe, we will act presumptutously, arrogantly, pompously, irrationally, or radically. This is not to say that science, nor religions do not give us some understanding of the mystery. But, we do not have but a part of the whole. We must deal in the "is", as this is the only way to really communicate about and make a difference in the "real world". The real world consists of the political and the public, as well as the personal and the private.
Therefore, I think reason is the best way to approach reality and others, so that change may come through shaping policy, making decisions, and committing one's life.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Scientific Understanding and Morality
On "Exploring Our Matrix", there was a blog entry which correlated Scripture's "strong and week" to those who believe in evolutionary thinking. It was argued that using Galatians or Romans depended on which one was using the argument. But, a response in the comment section argued that arguing for or against circumcision, a religious rite, was not to be compared to the science/religion debate. The science/religion debate is based on "fact", whereas, circumcision is based on "faith".
In the context of a religious community, the science/religion argument as to the strong would stand, whereas, generally, it would not. Scripture is not to be used as a proof-text against "knowledge" in general, as the fundamentalist argue, as this would take the individual books of scripture out of original context.
Scientific understanding are based on the facts of reason and not on faith, although one can adhere to faith in reason's understanding, without upholding an allegience to reason's understanding in an absolute sense. Reason's understanding is always historically bound, because science is always enlarging our understanding and our views. We have to revise and re-formulate what and how we believe and understand. This re-formulation and revision is part of growth, intellectually and morally.
Behavior, which is based on understandings of morality, is understood within a certain context. Different denominations understand faith differently (beliefs), and therefore, behavior is understood within that context. Each denomination uses "reason" to understand and defend a specified way of "seeing". And membership in a particular denomination means that one "belongs".
In our open and free society, we understand that one's view of behavior is limited by the laws that define what is "right or wrong". These laws are "hammered out" in Congress or decided by our "Supreme Court". We are a people because we are defined by the "rule of law" and not the Divine Right of Kings.
It is first and foremost important to uphold freedom of conscience, because without it, we will limit another's freedom, which may just as well limit the basis of our society. The difficulty facing the West today is how does one uphold our liberal democratic ideals, when certain religious fundamentalists want to subvert liberty for another. Where do civil liberties end without undermining the basis of society itself?
The discussion is a two-edged sword. How do you define liberty and law?
In the context of a religious community, the science/religion argument as to the strong would stand, whereas, generally, it would not. Scripture is not to be used as a proof-text against "knowledge" in general, as the fundamentalist argue, as this would take the individual books of scripture out of original context.
Scientific understanding are based on the facts of reason and not on faith, although one can adhere to faith in reason's understanding, without upholding an allegience to reason's understanding in an absolute sense. Reason's understanding is always historically bound, because science is always enlarging our understanding and our views. We have to revise and re-formulate what and how we believe and understand. This re-formulation and revision is part of growth, intellectually and morally.
Behavior, which is based on understandings of morality, is understood within a certain context. Different denominations understand faith differently (beliefs), and therefore, behavior is understood within that context. Each denomination uses "reason" to understand and defend a specified way of "seeing". And membership in a particular denomination means that one "belongs".
In our open and free society, we understand that one's view of behavior is limited by the laws that define what is "right or wrong". These laws are "hammered out" in Congress or decided by our "Supreme Court". We are a people because we are defined by the "rule of law" and not the Divine Right of Kings.
It is first and foremost important to uphold freedom of conscience, because without it, we will limit another's freedom, which may just as well limit the basis of our society. The difficulty facing the West today is how does one uphold our liberal democratic ideals, when certain religious fundamentalists want to subvert liberty for another. Where do civil liberties end without undermining the basis of society itself?
The discussion is a two-edged sword. How do you define liberty and law?
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Mulling Over Many Things....And "Coming to Terms" With None....
My husband and I just got back from visiting friends and family in Europe. I love Europe's beauty, diversity, and history, but will maintain my loyalty to the values of "unity and diversity" within my own country, the U. S. A. More specifically, my sis and bro in law accompanied us on this trip, to see some sights in Italy, which was an educational experience, as well, as familial fellowship.
I will have to say that there were so many things that impressed me (from art in the Sistine Chapel ; to an inteview on CNN of the famous fashion designer, Prada; to a movie I saw on the way home, "New In Town"). I will have to take the time to process them all. And as I do, as always, I will write.
I think humans are made to "think on these things", and in doing so, grow in understanding of
"what matters" and how to evaluate concepts that affect one's life. This brings wisdom in knowing what to do and how to respond in different situations, as history is a "teacher" of wisdom.
I am sorry to say that many do not think that "thinking" is valuable, as they understand faith to be a variance with "reason". That is fine, as long as they maintain their irrationality within their specific "sect" and do not disturb the rest of us.
Science cannot be devoid of beauty, but how is beauty to be "a science"? Beauty, as well as science, points beyond itself to another realm that has always mystified. Man has sought to understand this realm in many ways, and man's understanding of faith has evolved over the eons of time.
The individual, also "evolves", or grows, in "coming to terms" with what is true, good and beautiful. These are the concepts that define the individual's values and goals. These "concepts" cannot be confined to any one realm of understanding, but are representative of the "whole" concept in understanding.
I will continue to ponder as I live and move and have my being. I think we need more ponderers, how about you?
I will have to say that there were so many things that impressed me (from art in the Sistine Chapel ; to an inteview on CNN of the famous fashion designer, Prada; to a movie I saw on the way home, "New In Town"). I will have to take the time to process them all. And as I do, as always, I will write.
I think humans are made to "think on these things", and in doing so, grow in understanding of
"what matters" and how to evaluate concepts that affect one's life. This brings wisdom in knowing what to do and how to respond in different situations, as history is a "teacher" of wisdom.
I am sorry to say that many do not think that "thinking" is valuable, as they understand faith to be a variance with "reason". That is fine, as long as they maintain their irrationality within their specific "sect" and do not disturb the rest of us.
Science cannot be devoid of beauty, but how is beauty to be "a science"? Beauty, as well as science, points beyond itself to another realm that has always mystified. Man has sought to understand this realm in many ways, and man's understanding of faith has evolved over the eons of time.
The individual, also "evolves", or grows, in "coming to terms" with what is true, good and beautiful. These are the concepts that define the individual's values and goals. These "concepts" cannot be confined to any one realm of understanding, but are representative of the "whole" concept in understanding.
I will continue to ponder as I live and move and have my being. I think we need more ponderers, how about you?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
OOPS...Tradition and How It Came To BE
In my last post, I said that tradition grew up around the text, which is true if one is upholding the Protestant evangelical frame, as meaning was created primarily by the text's message, whereas, tradition was the early Church Fathers way of creating meaning from ancient texts and myths that became "tradition" of the Church....which is orthodoxy. And the Church Fathers had reasons for developing the Tradition in the way in which they did.
But, Scripture is about the OT, as well as the NT and this is where the rub comes in, in theological reflection and evangelicalism's faith! Calvinism developed a "complete system" of understanding Scripture 's meaning and has become the "Christian evangelical meaning", without critiquing the historical process or context of developing that system. As theological systems answer questions about meaning and value.
But, Scripture is about the OT, as well as the NT and this is where the rub comes in, in theological reflection and evangelicalism's faith! Calvinism developed a "complete system" of understanding Scripture 's meaning and has become the "Christian evangelical meaning", without critiquing the historical process or context of developing that system. As theological systems answer questions about meaning and value.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
