It looks like the SNL version has been taken down - Maybe someone complained.
Try here: http://www.noob.us/humor/the-office-japanese-version/
It seems many or all of the SNL clips are no longer viewable in Japan
I wonder why .............
Monday, May 19, 2008
Japanese Office Life
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Quality of Character of the Noble One:
Honorable, Trustworthy, A Rock upon which Society Can Stand and have confidence.
The Noble One must be honorable in all things; in word and deed. One's word is a bond. In relationships one must never bring ill-repute or disrespect on oneself. Never bring ill-repute or disrespect on others. An example of this is divorce. The Noble One can never divorce. This brings ill-repute and disrespect on the spouse AND dishonors the children.
The Noble One must be true in word. One's word is a contract with all those to whom it is given. If a Noble One says one thing one minute and another thing the next we say one “waffles.” This is dishonorable behavior. The word of a Noble One carries great weight and has the potential of life or death. It must be weighed and used mercifully. People must be able to trust one's word; to be able to “take it to the bank.”
The Noble One must be a rock upon which all around can depend. One must not vacillate or waver in presence or action. If the Noble One takes a position people must trust the stand taken to be true and honest; not a deceit used to gain a momentary advantage or pleasure.
The Noble One must be true in all dealings. With Man, woman, animals, nature; it is only in this way, can those who are even an enemy, trust and respect one as a True Person.
A True Story:
Where can we see these ideals displayed in daily life?
Scout Oath (or Promise)
The Scout Law: "The training of a future Noble One"
TRUSTWORTHY
CLEAN
REVERENT
Scout Motto
Scout Slogan
The Noble One must be honorable in all things; in word and deed. One's word is a bond. In relationships one must never bring ill-repute or disrespect on oneself. Never bring ill-repute or disrespect on others. An example of this is divorce. The Noble One can never divorce. This brings ill-repute and disrespect on the spouse AND dishonors the children.
The Noble One must be true in word. One's word is a contract with all those to whom it is given. If a Noble One says one thing one minute and another thing the next we say one “waffles.” This is dishonorable behavior. The word of a Noble One carries great weight and has the potential of life or death. It must be weighed and used mercifully. People must be able to trust one's word; to be able to “take it to the bank.”
The Noble One must be a rock upon which all around can depend. One must not vacillate or waver in presence or action. If the Noble One takes a position people must trust the stand taken to be true and honest; not a deceit used to gain a momentary advantage or pleasure.
The Noble One must be true in all dealings. With Man, woman, animals, nature; it is only in this way, can those who are even an enemy, trust and respect one as a True Person.
A True Story:
During World War II, a man assassinated an enemy military leader. The assassin was caught, tried and sentenced to be executed. During the period of time that he was in prison, his lifestyle and sense of honor so impressed the jailer-executioner that after the execution, the enemy soldier/jailer took the ashes of the prisoner back to his home. His family, for a span of three generations, prayed for his spirit.
Where can we see these ideals displayed in daily life?
Scout Oath (or Promise)
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
The Scout Law: "The training of a future Noble One"
TRUSTWORTHY
A Scout tells the truth. He keeps his promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct. People can depend on him.LOYAL
A Scout is true to his family, Scout leaders, friends, school, and nation.HELPFUL
A Scout is concerned about other people. He does things willingly for others without pay or reward.FRIENDLY
A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to other Scouts. He seeks to understand others. He respects those with ideas and customs other than his own.COURTEOUS
A Scout is polite to everyone regardless of age or position. He knows good manners make it easier for people to get along together.KIND
A Scout understands there is strength in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated. He does not hurt or kill harmless things without reason.OBEDIENT
A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.CHEERFUL
A Scout looks for the bright side of things. He cheerfully does tasks that come his way. He tries to make others happy.THRIFTY
A Scout works to pay his way and to help others. He saves for unforeseen needs. He protects and conserves natural resources. He carefully uses time and property.BRAVE
A Scout can face danger even if he is afraid. He has the courage to stand for what he thinks is right even if others laugh at or threaten him.
CLEAN
A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He goes around with those who believe in living by these same ideals. He helps keep his home and community clean.
REVERENT
A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.
Scout Motto
Be Prepared
Scout Slogan
Do a Good Turn Daily
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Why Japan Should NOT Be a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council
“Japan is a unique flower among the barbaric rest of the world.” A TOP Japanese government official.
Choose your 10 favorite reasons why Japan should NOT be a UN Permanent Security Council Member. Statements by politicians in Japan clearly show any of the following situations WILL NOT CHANGE any time soon in the unique flower of Asia:
1. Japan has no respect for the human rights of foreigners anywhere in and out of Japan
2. Foreigners have no rights in Japan. As a police officer said, “foreigners have no right to privacy."
3. Japanese don’t consider non-Japanese to be fully human and certainly not of the same value as the descendants of the goddess Amaterasu.
4. As a corollary to #3, no foreigner or foreign country has the intellectual capacity to understand the beauty and depth of spirit of the Japanese – so they shouldn’t tell us what we can or can’t do. This includes whaling.
5. The Japanese language is very difficult; too much for the simple minds of foreigners.
6. We don’t want foreigners peeing in our beautiful pond. So send your refugees to the world cesspool: America.
7. Special Note: The Japanese constitution specifically applies ONLY to the Japanese. This means, among other things, that IT IS NOT a crime to do anything – including murder to a foreigner. THINK ABOUT IT!!!
8. It also means that there are NO protections for foreigners inscribed in the constitution of Japan. FOREIGNERS ARE OUTSIDE THE LAW!!!
9. Japan feels the whole world is against them and puts them down. The Japanese are so xenophobic it makes the Myanmar generals look open minded.
10. No business in the world has the ability to produce products to the minimum quality standard for the Japanese consumer. American beef and American cars, stay away please.
11. No foreign manager need apply as they will not be taken seriously as a candidate for upper management in a Japanese corporation with international operations. Exception: one or two businesses, like Toyota brought in a “token” white guy to show the world how open minded they are BUT
12. Toyota keeps thousands of Brazilian slave-like laborers in bondage with little pay, no benefits and little health and education services available for their children who are spat upon and will never be any more than second class foreign labor to feed the production mill (a permanent slave labor class in nearly the same style as the Mitsubishi Korean slaves of WWII) – tried and true never dies in Japan.
13. The Japanese love peace. They don’t want foreigners to sail their ships into Tokyo Bay again especially those Chinese barbarians.
14. Japan is a criminal state that supports legalized crime. Organized crime syndicates are legal in Japan. They have official headquarters and corporate officers. They run businesses in Japan that would be illegal anywhere else – except maybe in Al Capone’s Chicago. If involved in or caught in any illegal activity in a foreign country, which is not illegal in Japan, the police here will not assist foreign law enforcement.
15. The Japanese police are a criminal organization. The UN has complained.
The law allows the police to detain suspects for up to 23 days without an indictment. Suspects have almost no contact with the outside world and are subject to constant interrogation, a practice that has long drawn criticism from organizations like the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Amnesty International. The ‘‘substitute prison,’’ known as ‘‘Daiyo Kangoku’’ in Japanese is used to keep pretrial suspects in police custody. In light of such claims, the U.N. Committee against Torture expressed grave concerns in May last year about major human rights issues in Japan, including the use of ‘‘Daiyo Kangoku.’’
The Geneva-based committee said that ‘‘Daiyo Kangoku’’ is abuse of the detainees’ rights and ‘‘may lead to a de facto disrespect of the principles of the presumption of innocence, the right to silence and the right to defense.’’ (Thank you Daniel)
16. Japanese business engages in illegal, immoral and unethical business practices with near impunity. If called on it they merely bow, give a simple “I’m sorry,” lay low a little while and then continue on as if nothing happened. For this reason (among many) they are lothe to have foreign investors who will ask “difficult” questions.
17. People of Korean ancestry are not citizens of Japan. They never can be. It does not matter how many generations they have lived in Japan. They can never be second class citizens because they can’t be citizens. They are second class foreigners. (check out in Utoro) Of course this means they also have no protection under the law because the Japanese constitution ONLY applies to Japanese.
18. Doudou Diene, The UN’s Special Rapporteur on Racism for the Human Rights Council visited Japan in 2006 to investigate allegations of human rights abuse in Japan. What he discovered was shocking to him and he said that Japan’s Human Rights record was “appalling.”
19. A 1997 law concerning the Ainu culture does not touch upon the promotion of their human rights. In this regard, the Ministry of Land and Infrastructure indicated that the Japanese Constitution guarantees equality before the law of each Japanese. Therefore, the demands of the Ainu people to get recognition of the rights as indigenous peoples cannot be satisfied, as this would be in breach of the Constitution.
20. The Justice Minister of Japan, in a land where criminals are legal entities, admits to associating with terrorists and having conversations with them; The Justice Minister of Japan supports the death penalty as a matter of cultural preservation.
21. Comfort women. Japan continues to say it had expressed apologies and remorse over "comfort women" and was "in good faith" on the issue. Japan is so deep in denial over this issue it is unbelievable. If one looks for a change of heart towards women in Japan you would be hard pressed considering the feudalistic view men have towards women. Equal rights for women in Japan? Talk about a pipe dream!
22. The Japanese parliament is preparing legislation to reword Artcle 24 of the Japanese Constitution, the article on gender equality. Under the proposed rewording women would lose equality by being basically forced to stay home. Also stripped away under the rewording would be work place safeguards such as sexual harassment. (thank you Daniel)
For these reasons (and probably many more unknown to this writer) Japan absolutely must not be selected to be a permanent member of the Security Council. If a human rights issue comes before the council it would be in Japan’s interest to veto it.
Choose your 10 favorite reasons why Japan should NOT be a UN Permanent Security Council Member. Statements by politicians in Japan clearly show any of the following situations WILL NOT CHANGE any time soon in the unique flower of Asia:
1. Japan has no respect for the human rights of foreigners anywhere in and out of Japan
2. Foreigners have no rights in Japan. As a police officer said, “foreigners have no right to privacy."
3. Japanese don’t consider non-Japanese to be fully human and certainly not of the same value as the descendants of the goddess Amaterasu.
4. As a corollary to #3, no foreigner or foreign country has the intellectual capacity to understand the beauty and depth of spirit of the Japanese – so they shouldn’t tell us what we can or can’t do. This includes whaling.
5. The Japanese language is very difficult; too much for the simple minds of foreigners.
6. We don’t want foreigners peeing in our beautiful pond. So send your refugees to the world cesspool: America.
7. Special Note: The Japanese constitution specifically applies ONLY to the Japanese. This means, among other things, that IT IS NOT a crime to do anything – including murder to a foreigner. THINK ABOUT IT!!!
8. It also means that there are NO protections for foreigners inscribed in the constitution of Japan. FOREIGNERS ARE OUTSIDE THE LAW!!!
9. Japan feels the whole world is against them and puts them down. The Japanese are so xenophobic it makes the Myanmar generals look open minded.
10. No business in the world has the ability to produce products to the minimum quality standard for the Japanese consumer. American beef and American cars, stay away please.
11. No foreign manager need apply as they will not be taken seriously as a candidate for upper management in a Japanese corporation with international operations. Exception: one or two businesses, like Toyota brought in a “token” white guy to show the world how open minded they are BUT
12. Toyota keeps thousands of Brazilian slave-like laborers in bondage with little pay, no benefits and little health and education services available for their children who are spat upon and will never be any more than second class foreign labor to feed the production mill (a permanent slave labor class in nearly the same style as the Mitsubishi Korean slaves of WWII) – tried and true never dies in Japan.
13. The Japanese love peace. They don’t want foreigners to sail their ships into Tokyo Bay again especially those Chinese barbarians.
14. Japan is a criminal state that supports legalized crime. Organized crime syndicates are legal in Japan. They have official headquarters and corporate officers. They run businesses in Japan that would be illegal anywhere else – except maybe in Al Capone’s Chicago. If involved in or caught in any illegal activity in a foreign country, which is not illegal in Japan, the police here will not assist foreign law enforcement.
15. The Japanese police are a criminal organization. The UN has complained.
“Traditionally in Japan, confessions have been known as the king of evidence,” said Kenzo Akiyama, a lawyer who is a former judge. “Especially if it’s a big case, even if the accused hasn’t done anything, the authorities will seek a confession through psychological torture.”
The law allows the police to detain suspects for up to 23 days without an indictment. Suspects have almost no contact with the outside world and are subject to constant interrogation, a practice that has long drawn criticism from organizations like the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Amnesty International. The ‘‘substitute prison,’’ known as ‘‘Daiyo Kangoku’’ in Japanese is used to keep pretrial suspects in police custody. In light of such claims, the U.N. Committee against Torture expressed grave concerns in May last year about major human rights issues in Japan, including the use of ‘‘Daiyo Kangoku.’’
The Geneva-based committee said that ‘‘Daiyo Kangoku’’ is abuse of the detainees’ rights and ‘‘may lead to a de facto disrespect of the principles of the presumption of innocence, the right to silence and the right to defense.’’ (Thank you Daniel)
16. Japanese business engages in illegal, immoral and unethical business practices with near impunity. If called on it they merely bow, give a simple “I’m sorry,” lay low a little while and then continue on as if nothing happened. For this reason (among many) they are lothe to have foreign investors who will ask “difficult” questions.
17. People of Korean ancestry are not citizens of Japan. They never can be. It does not matter how many generations they have lived in Japan. They can never be second class citizens because they can’t be citizens. They are second class foreigners. (check out in Utoro) Of course this means they also have no protection under the law because the Japanese constitution ONLY applies to Japanese.
18. Doudou Diene, The UN’s Special Rapporteur on Racism for the Human Rights Council visited Japan in 2006 to investigate allegations of human rights abuse in Japan. What he discovered was shocking to him and he said that Japan’s Human Rights record was “appalling.”
19. A 1997 law concerning the Ainu culture does not touch upon the promotion of their human rights. In this regard, the Ministry of Land and Infrastructure indicated that the Japanese Constitution guarantees equality before the law of each Japanese. Therefore, the demands of the Ainu people to get recognition of the rights as indigenous peoples cannot be satisfied, as this would be in breach of the Constitution.
20. The Justice Minister of Japan, in a land where criminals are legal entities, admits to associating with terrorists and having conversations with them; The Justice Minister of Japan supports the death penalty as a matter of cultural preservation.
21. Comfort women. Japan continues to say it had expressed apologies and remorse over "comfort women" and was "in good faith" on the issue. Japan is so deep in denial over this issue it is unbelievable. If one looks for a change of heart towards women in Japan you would be hard pressed considering the feudalistic view men have towards women. Equal rights for women in Japan? Talk about a pipe dream!
22. The Japanese parliament is preparing legislation to reword Artcle 24 of the Japanese Constitution, the article on gender equality. Under the proposed rewording women would lose equality by being basically forced to stay home. Also stripped away under the rewording would be work place safeguards such as sexual harassment. (thank you Daniel)
For these reasons (and probably many more unknown to this writer) Japan absolutely must not be selected to be a permanent member of the Security Council. If a human rights issue comes before the council it would be in Japan’s interest to veto it.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Being Fair to Japan
After having read the diatribes on the current post of how difficult and unfair life is in Japan to the “poor” foreigners who come here “to make money,” I have to say, most need a reality check.
Japan is a feudalistic country with the appropriate attending social mores and lifestyle. It may seem to some to be a ”modern” western nation and powerful economic model to emulate. So, young people come here in droves to learn how to be a success (and perhaps not so young hoping for an easy life).
When they arrive they find life to be quite different than they expected. They become resentful and feel betrayed and drown their perceived misfortune in beer and the debasement of the local “awestruck” girls who have seldom if ever seen a foreigner.
Where is the disconnect?
1. The Japanese are no different than small town “anywhere.” They are proud of who they are; self-conscious around “strangers;” and none too happy to have their apple cart peaceful life upset by “bull in the china shop,” ignorant of social graces, foreign hooligans. You may say, “I’m not a hooligan!” Hmm, maybe. Do you package your trash properly? Do you walk on the correct side of the road? Do you observe the proper etiquette in all social encounters? Do you speak proper Japanese? “When in Rome …”
2. The foreigner comes to Japan to (choose any that fit): find a story book experience, make a lot of money, have a great time in the Disneyland of cultural playgrounds; impress the local indigenous people with their godhood.
I have traveled and lived in many parts of the world. My wife and I have been fortunate in that through our opportunities we have been able to live in many parts of the world over the past 20 years. We have found people to be wonderful everywhere. And success possible anywhere. At the same time, it is a universal constant that: people are nervous around strangers, especially those very different (whites are “intriguingly" different – thus and object of curiosity and envy, but if your black, you are in for scorn and ridicule; racism heavy in the air); people are uneasy about living next door to THEM! People don’t like to lose their jobs to anyone – especially strangers; people are hesitant to let their daughters date – strangers; and EVERYONE is out to make money and thus are quite competitive about doing so.
The Japanese are far from perfect, and have their foibles as do we all, no question, as has been pointed out. But let's be fair. What country with any length of history that has made any mark on the world worth remembering, could long live in a glass house?
So, you came to Japan, have a job in an “eikaiwa” English language school that doesn’t pay much and the students think you are an amusement toy? Now really, think about it. Do you speak business Japanese well enough to be hired into a decent paying job? Do you have the requisite skills and experience to be hired into anything but an entry level position in your own country? If the answer to either is yes, and you do work in an eikaiwa, then my next question would be, “Do you have the motivational drive to succeed in any country?”
Japanese workers work from dawn to late at night. They give their life to their company and are fully invested in the success of said company, so much so that, yes, as was said, if they are unable to fulfill those expectations, many commit suicide or drown themselves in liquor. You may not like that lifestyle. If not, enjoy your working holiday in the English schools, stay in Japan for two years, study hard to learn some real Japanese skills. Then go back home and market those skills and get a high paying job doing what will bring you success in life.
I fully recommend to any American college graduate (others as well) who wish either to pursue a career in business or continue with your education at the master's and doctoral level: come to Japan or China for two years. Teach in a language school, study the language and arts - especially social relations, and return to America and consider those skills as:
1. Background field experience for future advancement in your field
2. An excellent resource for understanding the dynamic of international social and business relations
3. Cultural enrichment very useful, perhaps even for class credit, in the pursuit of your higher level degree.
In addition, I suggest to anyone wishing to study for an MBA do so in China NOT the ivory towers of America or Europe. Why would I say that? If you cannot think of at least a half dozen reasons why, then perhaps you should just get a job and proceed to claw your way up to middle management. You don’t seem to have the skills – nor far sightedness required for a future in upper management. While studying you could make "entertainment and travel" money teaching at an “eikaiwa” in Shanghai.
Japan is a feudalistic country with the appropriate attending social mores and lifestyle. It may seem to some to be a ”modern” western nation and powerful economic model to emulate. So, young people come here in droves to learn how to be a success (and perhaps not so young hoping for an easy life).
When they arrive they find life to be quite different than they expected. They become resentful and feel betrayed and drown their perceived misfortune in beer and the debasement of the local “awestruck” girls who have seldom if ever seen a foreigner.
Where is the disconnect?
1. The Japanese are no different than small town “anywhere.” They are proud of who they are; self-conscious around “strangers;” and none too happy to have their apple cart peaceful life upset by “bull in the china shop,” ignorant of social graces, foreign hooligans. You may say, “I’m not a hooligan!” Hmm, maybe. Do you package your trash properly? Do you walk on the correct side of the road? Do you observe the proper etiquette in all social encounters? Do you speak proper Japanese? “When in Rome …”
2. The foreigner comes to Japan to (choose any that fit): find a story book experience, make a lot of money, have a great time in the Disneyland of cultural playgrounds; impress the local indigenous people with their godhood.
I have traveled and lived in many parts of the world. My wife and I have been fortunate in that through our opportunities we have been able to live in many parts of the world over the past 20 years. We have found people to be wonderful everywhere. And success possible anywhere. At the same time, it is a universal constant that: people are nervous around strangers, especially those very different (whites are “intriguingly" different – thus and object of curiosity and envy, but if your black, you are in for scorn and ridicule; racism heavy in the air); people are uneasy about living next door to THEM! People don’t like to lose their jobs to anyone – especially strangers; people are hesitant to let their daughters date – strangers; and EVERYONE is out to make money and thus are quite competitive about doing so.
The Japanese are far from perfect, and have their foibles as do we all, no question, as has been pointed out. But let's be fair. What country with any length of history that has made any mark on the world worth remembering, could long live in a glass house?
So, you came to Japan, have a job in an “eikaiwa” English language school that doesn’t pay much and the students think you are an amusement toy? Now really, think about it. Do you speak business Japanese well enough to be hired into a decent paying job? Do you have the requisite skills and experience to be hired into anything but an entry level position in your own country? If the answer to either is yes, and you do work in an eikaiwa, then my next question would be, “Do you have the motivational drive to succeed in any country?”
Japanese workers work from dawn to late at night. They give their life to their company and are fully invested in the success of said company, so much so that, yes, as was said, if they are unable to fulfill those expectations, many commit suicide or drown themselves in liquor. You may not like that lifestyle. If not, enjoy your working holiday in the English schools, stay in Japan for two years, study hard to learn some real Japanese skills. Then go back home and market those skills and get a high paying job doing what will bring you success in life.
I fully recommend to any American college graduate (others as well) who wish either to pursue a career in business or continue with your education at the master's and doctoral level: come to Japan or China for two years. Teach in a language school, study the language and arts - especially social relations, and return to America and consider those skills as:
1. Background field experience for future advancement in your field
2. An excellent resource for understanding the dynamic of international social and business relations
3. Cultural enrichment very useful, perhaps even for class credit, in the pursuit of your higher level degree.
In addition, I suggest to anyone wishing to study for an MBA do so in China NOT the ivory towers of America or Europe. Why would I say that? If you cannot think of at least a half dozen reasons why, then perhaps you should just get a job and proceed to claw your way up to middle management. You don’t seem to have the skills – nor far sightedness required for a future in upper management. While studying you could make "entertainment and travel" money teaching at an “eikaiwa” in Shanghai.
Four Very Important Japanese Idio.. (Doh) I Mean Idioms:
Dad, you've done a lot of great things, but you're an old man, and old people are useless.
Reiko, if you don't like your job you don't strike. You just go in every day, sit at your desk and do it really half-assed. That's the Japanese way.
Well, its 1 a.m. Better go home and spend some quality time with the kids.
If something goes wrong at the plant, blame the guy who can't speak Japanese.
And for foreigners working in Japan:
I want to share something with you:
The four little sentences that will get you through life:
Number 1: Cover for me.
Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss!
Number 3: It was like that when I got here.
Number 4: Huh?
(Don't bother learning them in Japanese - no one will listen anyway!)
Thank you Homer Simpson!
I Want It NOW!
When was the last time you saw something you wanted? Do you need it? Yes, I need it! Can you afford it? (dah!). But, what about…? I want it! Why? Because… You just …? I want it! Does it ever end? I want it, I want it, I want it! Endless wants…
Well, excuse me, isn't that human nature?
Human beings have endless wants naturally - It's within all of us. Someone asked Sir Edmund, “Why do you want to climb Mt. Everest?” He said, “Because it’s there.
Without this burning desire in the pit of each of our stomachs, driving us on - to grab the golden ring, to buy the new I-Pod, to “move on up,” enabling the human race to want to: improve ourselves, make things better, faster, bigger, fancier; build a better mouse trap, get the newest model… blah blah blah. Without this trait, I think we would all still be stuck in a stone-age cave somewhere.
"I've always wondered if there was a god. And now I know there is – and it's me." Homer Simpson
Well, excuse me, isn't that human nature?
Human beings have endless wants naturally - It's within all of us. Someone asked Sir Edmund, “Why do you want to climb Mt. Everest?” He said, “Because it’s there.
Without this burning desire in the pit of each of our stomachs, driving us on - to grab the golden ring, to buy the new I-Pod, to “move on up,” enabling the human race to want to: improve ourselves, make things better, faster, bigger, fancier; build a better mouse trap, get the newest model… blah blah blah. Without this trait, I think we would all still be stuck in a stone-age cave somewhere.
"I've always wondered if there was a god. And now I know there is – and it's me." Homer Simpson
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Gender: The Same or Different?
Gender and gender equality are nearly always tied up with morality and rights issues.
Is man superior? Is woman superior? Are they the same “inside?”
A commenter responded in anger at God for allowing Lot to offer his daughters to be gang raped in place of his male guests. I think this is a much better example of the in-equality between men and women in the Bible and world society than other examples often used. At the same time, it adds a ringer: is homosexuality wrong?
The story of Lot and his family is in the Bible to teach a morality lesson. Actually several at once. The offering of the daughters should certainly be abhorrent to all decent human beings, but the people of Sodom were anything but decent.
Many think that this is a story about the evil of homosexuality; I will not dispute that argument, but it isn’t just the sexuality either way. This is gang rape, power and degenerate pleasure whether hetero or homo. NOT about a consenting relationship.
The point: as terrible as it is to give your daughter to be gang raped, it would be worse to give your son (or any male under your protection). The points of entry are far different.
The story of Lot is a morality play. We go a little further down the road and we have these same daughters “laying” with their father due to a possible lack of opportunity elsewhere. So we see that they are not shy when it comes to sex. We have two tracks going along side by side.
1. The use of sex as a tool of pleasure and/or domination
2. The social interactions between men and women
In the case of number one, it really doesn’t matter the sex of either participant(s). It is solely a power play or method of self-gratification using a human tool.
In the case of number two, it seems to be an historical universal constant in human society that the male (strong) dominates the female (weak). There are many methods by which this is done – only a few of which are:
1. Female circumcision. Remember, circumcision is not limited to the female. This is to show and exert ownership over the party by the owner: man over woman; God over man.
2. Prescribed dress. A burka in Islam, a dress in the west, a kimono in Japan, tight shoes in China to give a few examples. Even in the “liberal” establishment, for a woman to wear a suit and tie would be to show an amazing degree of assertiveness.
3. I woman’s place is ________ . Fill in the blank: in the home; in the kitchen; 2 steps behind the husband; behind shuttered doors; serving the coffee or greeting the clients in the office; to be a beautiful flower/trophy on the arm of the husband.
In Japan a woman is expected to quit work upon marriage to raise a family.
In America we are much more open minded – She can work AND raise a family. A balancing act that Superwoman would find challenging.
In traditional society – whether confined to the home or allowed to have her own business, it is for the sole purpose of the husband and family.
4. Equal pay for equal work? Still a pipe dream for most if not all.
Gender equality, here is the issue: Is it gender sameness(“I’m the same as you”); or parity (“I’m as good as you.”)?
On the one side, the first is the "natural man" mantra; the socialist ethic and the prevailing “politically correct” view.
Stand two people side by side and exchange parts, no difference. The difference is only superficial and of no real importance. To look at or treat each other differently is discrimination. So school boys and girls can shower together, room together, play sports together, etc. “It’s just a tool of reproduction, nothing more.” No problem. The problem is that this negates the value and unique quality of each. This is the ultimate degradation of the woman!
The other side – parity. A man is a man and a woman is a woman. They are different and should be respected as such. We are each unique as a whole self-contained entity. We each have qualities that are not interchangeable, nor the same. The woman should be equally respected, not looked down on, nor condescended to.
Medical science is proving the second option to be true. Not only are we biologically different but our psychological structure and processes are different as well.
So, is gender equality possible, impossible; desirable, undesirable? Which equality do you want?
1. I’m the same as you. No different.
2. I’m as good as you and different.
Questions unanswered:
What is gender? Does gender occur at birth? Does gender carry a morality? Is homosexuality wrong? Are homosexuals deviants? Are transgender humans violating morality?
What is gender?
Humans aside, we see in nature a division in each life form: one aspect we call male and another aspect we call female. All earth bound life forms have these two characteristics and it is through this that they reproduce.
We can look at humans and see the same dynamic at work. Thus we can say that Gender is the identification label given to each of the two reproductive living entities making up the human race.
Does gender carry morality? What is “morality”? In other words, "what is normal"?
What is a definition of norm. To understand norm we must identify being and purpose. We have looked at "being" above. We must now look at purpose.
What is nature’s purpose for gender?
An Empirical Realist must answer this question honestly as we would observe it in nature. When we answer this question, we can then answer all other questions.
Whether or not we consider “not normal” dangerous or disruptive to society or any situation; or that it simply makes life more interesting for us, must be decided elsewhere.
Question: What if a man loses his penis or a woman contracts vaginal cancer and loses her vagina? Do they lose their sexuality?
If we look at the definition of gender and the medical research that has been and is being done, we can see that gender is a systemic situation. The external condition of the body is not a determining factor it is resultant.
Is man superior? Is woman superior? Are they the same “inside?”
A commenter responded in anger at God for allowing Lot to offer his daughters to be gang raped in place of his male guests. I think this is a much better example of the in-equality between men and women in the Bible and world society than other examples often used. At the same time, it adds a ringer: is homosexuality wrong?
The story of Lot and his family is in the Bible to teach a morality lesson. Actually several at once. The offering of the daughters should certainly be abhorrent to all decent human beings, but the people of Sodom were anything but decent.
Many think that this is a story about the evil of homosexuality; I will not dispute that argument, but it isn’t just the sexuality either way. This is gang rape, power and degenerate pleasure whether hetero or homo. NOT about a consenting relationship.
The point: as terrible as it is to give your daughter to be gang raped, it would be worse to give your son (or any male under your protection). The points of entry are far different.
The story of Lot is a morality play. We go a little further down the road and we have these same daughters “laying” with their father due to a possible lack of opportunity elsewhere. So we see that they are not shy when it comes to sex. We have two tracks going along side by side.
1. The use of sex as a tool of pleasure and/or domination
2. The social interactions between men and women
In the case of number one, it really doesn’t matter the sex of either participant(s). It is solely a power play or method of self-gratification using a human tool.
In the case of number two, it seems to be an historical universal constant in human society that the male (strong) dominates the female (weak). There are many methods by which this is done – only a few of which are:
1. Female circumcision. Remember, circumcision is not limited to the female. This is to show and exert ownership over the party by the owner: man over woman; God over man.
2. Prescribed dress. A burka in Islam, a dress in the west, a kimono in Japan, tight shoes in China to give a few examples. Even in the “liberal” establishment, for a woman to wear a suit and tie would be to show an amazing degree of assertiveness.
3. I woman’s place is ________ . Fill in the blank: in the home; in the kitchen; 2 steps behind the husband; behind shuttered doors; serving the coffee or greeting the clients in the office; to be a beautiful flower/trophy on the arm of the husband.
In Japan a woman is expected to quit work upon marriage to raise a family.
In America we are much more open minded – She can work AND raise a family. A balancing act that Superwoman would find challenging.
In traditional society – whether confined to the home or allowed to have her own business, it is for the sole purpose of the husband and family.
4. Equal pay for equal work? Still a pipe dream for most if not all.
Gender equality, here is the issue: Is it gender sameness(“I’m the same as you”); or parity (“I’m as good as you.”)?
On the one side, the first is the "natural man" mantra; the socialist ethic and the prevailing “politically correct” view.
Stand two people side by side and exchange parts, no difference. The difference is only superficial and of no real importance. To look at or treat each other differently is discrimination. So school boys and girls can shower together, room together, play sports together, etc. “It’s just a tool of reproduction, nothing more.” No problem. The problem is that this negates the value and unique quality of each. This is the ultimate degradation of the woman!
The other side – parity. A man is a man and a woman is a woman. They are different and should be respected as such. We are each unique as a whole self-contained entity. We each have qualities that are not interchangeable, nor the same. The woman should be equally respected, not looked down on, nor condescended to.
Medical science is proving the second option to be true. Not only are we biologically different but our psychological structure and processes are different as well.
So, is gender equality possible, impossible; desirable, undesirable? Which equality do you want?
1. I’m the same as you. No different.
2. I’m as good as you and different.
Questions unanswered:
What is gender? Does gender occur at birth? Does gender carry a morality? Is homosexuality wrong? Are homosexuals deviants? Are transgender humans violating morality?
What is gender?
Humans aside, we see in nature a division in each life form: one aspect we call male and another aspect we call female. All earth bound life forms have these two characteristics and it is through this that they reproduce.
We can look at humans and see the same dynamic at work. Thus we can say that Gender is the identification label given to each of the two reproductive living entities making up the human race.
Does gender carry morality? What is “morality”? In other words, "what is normal"?
What is a definition of norm. To understand norm we must identify being and purpose. We have looked at "being" above. We must now look at purpose.
What is nature’s purpose for gender?
An Empirical Realist must answer this question honestly as we would observe it in nature. When we answer this question, we can then answer all other questions.
Whether or not we consider “not normal” dangerous or disruptive to society or any situation; or that it simply makes life more interesting for us, must be decided elsewhere.
Question: What if a man loses his penis or a woman contracts vaginal cancer and loses her vagina? Do they lose their sexuality?
If we look at the definition of gender and the medical research that has been and is being done, we can see that gender is a systemic situation. The external condition of the body is not a determining factor it is resultant.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
World Governance
1. Possible or impossible?
"True World Peace can only come,
when we erase borders and, sharing everything,
live for the sake of others."
It is not a big jump from a nation like the United States or Europe to a world government. The only difference is scale. Throughout history, From Alexander to Napoleon great personalities have gone to great pain to realize an ideal of unified government. It has never worked, not so much for lack of effort, or even opposition; but for a unifying system of communication and “Saporal1” adhesive.
In this day and age we not only have instant communication on every level from the individual through to trans-governmental bodies; but we also have a unifying system of “Sapor1”: Hollywood: movies, TV, video, "the pop culture", etc. and the Dollar (substitute EU if you like) a universal currency/financial system.
It, then, is only a matter of time before the present governmental bodies become superfluous.
This article on "Governance" has become so long that I have moved it to its own blog at habenae.blogspot.com:
"Governance"
___________________________________
1 “Sapor” See Merriam-Webster definition for “culture”
(not to be confused with the Bismarckian “Kultur”)
___________________________________________
when we erase borders and, sharing everything,
live for the sake of others."
It is not a big jump from a nation like the United States or Europe to a world government. The only difference is scale. Throughout history, From Alexander to Napoleon great personalities have gone to great pain to realize an ideal of unified government. It has never worked, not so much for lack of effort, or even opposition; but for a unifying system of communication and “Saporal1” adhesive.
In this day and age we not only have instant communication on every level from the individual through to trans-governmental bodies; but we also have a unifying system of “Sapor1”: Hollywood: movies, TV, video, "the pop culture", etc. and the Dollar (substitute EU if you like) a universal currency/financial system.
It, then, is only a matter of time before the present governmental bodies become superfluous.
This article on "Governance" has become so long that I have moved it to its own blog at habenae.blogspot.com:
___________________________________
1 “Sapor” See Merriam-Webster definition for “culture”
(not to be confused with the Bismarckian “Kultur”)
___________________________________________
Friday, May 9, 2008
A Rose …表示(expression:“table; show”)..."Sapor"
We are having a running disagreement about the definition of “culture". The problem comes basically because the “common” definition and the “academic” definition seem to be hopelessly at odds with each other.
Common definition:
“…a: enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training b: acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as distinguished from vocational and technical skills5 a: the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time (popular culture) c: the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization (a corporate culture focused on the bottom line) d: the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic …” Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Academic definition:
“… "culture" was created as a racist tool used by imperialistic, white Europeans to enslave all those you mentioned, and all, and force them to the submission of their "culture". What the Greeks, et al had was tradition …” THERE WAS NO CULTURE BEFORE ITS INVENTION IN THE 19th CENTURY BY BISMARCK'S REGIME OF ARISTOCRATS AND ACASEMICS. “…an imaginary construct of racism …” Daniel Rea
I am told that we cannot just throw out the academic definition and replace it with the current popular one, because academics have an addiction to research. In 50 years they would just research their way back to the original meaning and the new one we set today would be discarded. So we need a new word. Daniel likes using the word “tradition.” My problem with that is that it also has too much baggage attached. The common meaning being things and ways of doing things in the past:
“…a: an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) b: a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable …” Merriam-Webster Dictionary
The definition of tradition lends itself to “treason” if you try to change, modify or dispute it. Therefore as a living, changing and vibrant expression of life, “tradition” is lacking.
In identifying acts of expression in society done now and in the future the word “tradition” doesn’t work so well.
We need a word to match to the following suggested definition:
The character, methods and tools that are used to identify myself in relation to you (my group and/or another group or member within that group). The character, methods and tools that a group uses to identify itself (and the members within its group) in relation to another group (and members within that group).
The form of expression (self through all levels of social) we use to relate to others; a tribe uses to relate within itself and to others; a guild uses to relate within itself and to others and a nation uses to relate within itself and to others. Even a group of nations: The EU, OAU etc) uses to relate within itself and to others.
These include all the arts, language, and forms of expressions
Anyone?
Common definition:
“…a: enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training b: acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as distinguished from vocational and technical skills5 a: the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b: the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time (popular culture)
Academic definition:
“… "culture" was created as a racist tool used by imperialistic, white Europeans to enslave all those you mentioned, and all, and force them to the submission of their "culture". What the Greeks, et al had was tradition …” THERE WAS NO CULTURE BEFORE ITS INVENTION IN THE 19th CENTURY BY BISMARCK'S REGIME OF ARISTOCRATS AND ACASEMICS. “…an imaginary construct of racism …” Daniel Rea
I am told that we cannot just throw out the academic definition and replace it with the current popular one, because academics have an addiction to research. In 50 years they would just research their way back to the original meaning and the new one we set today would be discarded. So we need a new word. Daniel likes using the word “tradition.” My problem with that is that it also has too much baggage attached. The common meaning being things and ways of doing things in the past:
“…a: an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (as a religious practice or a social custom) b: a belief or story or a body of beliefs or stories relating to the past that are commonly accepted as historical though not verifiable …” Merriam-Webster Dictionary
The definition of tradition lends itself to “treason” if you try to change, modify or dispute it. Therefore as a living, changing and vibrant expression of life, “tradition” is lacking.
In identifying acts of expression in society done now and in the future the word “tradition” doesn’t work so well.
We need a word to match to the following suggested definition:
The character, methods and tools that are used to identify myself in relation to you (my group and/or another group or member within that group). The character, methods and tools that a group uses to identify itself (and the members within its group) in relation to another group (and members within that group).
The form of expression (self through all levels of social) we use to relate to others; a tribe uses to relate within itself and to others; a guild uses to relate within itself and to others and a nation uses to relate within itself and to others. Even a group of nations: The EU, OAU etc) uses to relate within itself and to others.
These include all the arts, language, and forms of expressions
Anyone?
Thursday, May 8, 2008
The Culture of Bad Habit
“The Noble One sees through this and rejects culture as a weapon of destruction toward human unity. The Noble One sees the validity of civilization and tradition, and rejects the relative for the certainty of knowledge. Critical reason is applied to destroy the cultural myth.” Daniel Rea
Daniel your arguments regarding Japan and China are very interesting and all of the responses show that once again you are dealing with relevant issues. I too have views on Japan, China and Tibet – none of which I will discuss here. But, I do want to look at your conclusion.
J C again shows us a challenge that perhaps cannot be met. The American hedonistic “Me” culture is so hooked on the opiate of Chinese cheap goods and middle-east oil that it cannot control its own functions any longer. Like the addict it says to China “you shouldn’t do that; but give me more I need it".
Of course China could say to America, "we are disgusted with your rants about our human rights, and we are going to take care of the needs of our own people, so go away". They could do this and cut America off from the flow of cheap consumer goods (drugs); but they won’t because a big dumb ox in a drug stupor complaining is much better than that same ox in withdrawals and then fully recovered. And as for sarcasm’s comment that the Chinese army is a paper tiger. Such naivety can be self-destructive. Japan thought that of America in 1941 and perhaps Chiang Kai-shek thought that of Mao’s rag tag group. And a paper tiger with nuclear missiles …. ? Again, I digress.
Daniel I’m sorry but I am confused by your statement: “… sees the validity of civilization and tradition, and rejects the relative for the certainty of knowledge. Critical reason is applied to destroy the cultural myth … ”. On the one hand you see the validity of Civilization and tradition – you can have neither without culture; and on the other, “the myth of culture” gives us our foundation for science and critical reasoning. That is why these sciences developed to their highest form in Europe and not elsewhere.
Culture is like “habit”. You can have good habits, a culture that lifts the truth, integrity of the human, and the value of all creation; or bad habits like “us against them” and the “idle pleasure” that epitomizes the “me” generation and makes my insult of your belief “art.” You cannot dispose of culture. It is our self expression, but you CAN lift that culture out of the gutter where it seems to have fallen.
Civilizations have many sub-cultures: farmer, business, university, power. These are all "self-expressions" of the respective group; but you have "universal" culture tying it all together: mutual respect, culture of law, free expression, etc. These are the "universal ideals" of culture that need to be developed and liberated from confining nationalistic jargon. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
“Culture is not tied in any way to civilization and tradition. These were in human realtions millenia before the word culture was created. The reason why "culture" is so important is because again, we are programmed to think that way.
Human rights is important, and the reason there is abuse and responsibility is because the UN is powerless to do anything. When one of the Security Council permanent memebers is the largest abuser, then what can be done. Again, "culture" comes to play, remeber not too long ago the lecture the Chinese PM gave, "Do not tell us about human rights abuses, we have quite a different definition in Asia." You and all know this was not the case in the 20s - 40s when the Japanese were abusing the Chinese human rights, so what changed now? Well now its China abusing the human rights. So now China doesn't want to hear it.
Since culture cannot even be defined culture is not universal, what is the importance of developing it? Why not instead just return to the civilizational approach, and dump the cultural construct. As I think one can tell by just Googling "culture" and reading the backlash against culutre on the web it shouldn't be that difficult.
What is important about culture? The definition that governments and academics give? The control of education systems? At the bottom that IS what culture IS REALLY all about.” Daniel Rea
Here is where I respectfully disagree. I think it is the “rose by any other name” argument.
We read yesterday about the snake cult of 70,000 years ago. That was a culture that extended over hundreds of miles as the story goes.
To me, the “civilization” approach is the in-culturalization” approach. The bad part. As in “civilizing” the barbarian American Indians or the pre-European African nations or indeed the Chinese empire. Civilization = a large group of interdependent cultures in my understanding (again, a cohesion of many little cultures bound together by a “common” culture). We did not value their “culture/civilization” so we tried to trash it. But it comes back in different forms – usually the negative part, rather than the good, since it is imbued full of resentment at having been crushed. The Chinese are now experiencing this in Tibet. They have a culture (“primitive, but viable civilization”) many may not like, but it is who they are.
The "European/Americans" may define culture as in the dictionary; but I think that definition is causing division between us and the rest of the world because we don’t value their culture(s) and we don’t recognize that our view of civilization is intrinsically tied in with our concept of culture.
Again, I define culture as the form of self-expression we take to relate to myself and others; a tribe takes to relate to myself and others; a guild takes to relate to itself and others and a nation take to relate to itself and others. Even a group of nations: The EU, OAU etc) take to relate to itself and others.
Thus I say the Civilization model takes these ethnic cultures and blends then to form a cohesive unit with common elements becoming a common culture. Like becoming an “American” is to accept and become a part of the American “culture.” (ie: McDonald’s fast food “culture”)
The larger the unit, the larger number of smaller cultures within it united for a common purpose.
I would suggest that the problem comes when a civilization or group (or individual movie star/politician) starts to believe its own press (propaganda). Like the English, French, Japanese, and Americans etc. come to believe that each of their cultures was self-generated and came from “God;” forgetting the origins of their culture.
All culture is a conglomeration of parts and pieces gathered together. As the civilization grows, a new culture is created, combining common elements of the other older cultures and the rest just withers away naturally, remaining in small pockets. Like the Quakers or the Ainu. Just as if a person from one business culture (IBM) joined a different business culture (Apple).
You might notice that I did not include China in the list of civilizations above.
China is an interesting case. They could have been and may yet be a totally unique culture, wholly self developed. I could be argued that Buddhism is a Chinese variant of Hinduism as Buddha was born on China’s periphery in Nepal. And the Mongols, though outside to the north, were still basically a Chinese sub-culture.
The big problem comes in the modern age with the importation of Marxism (a western thought system) and Democracy (also a western philosophy of government). If these thought systems were purged and the Confucius’ model of government and social structure resurrected then the Chinese civilization could be a wholly self-initiated cultural system.
Whether or not this is a good thing, esp. for the nations that border China is yet to be seen.
Daniel your arguments regarding Japan and China are very interesting and all of the responses show that once again you are dealing with relevant issues. I too have views on Japan, China and Tibet – none of which I will discuss here. But, I do want to look at your conclusion.
J C again shows us a challenge that perhaps cannot be met. The American hedonistic “Me” culture is so hooked on the opiate of Chinese cheap goods and middle-east oil that it cannot control its own functions any longer. Like the addict it says to China “you shouldn’t do that; but give me more I need it".
Of course China could say to America, "we are disgusted with your rants about our human rights, and we are going to take care of the needs of our own people, so go away". They could do this and cut America off from the flow of cheap consumer goods (drugs); but they won’t because a big dumb ox in a drug stupor complaining is much better than that same ox in withdrawals and then fully recovered. And as for sarcasm’s comment that the Chinese army is a paper tiger. Such naivety can be self-destructive. Japan thought that of America in 1941 and perhaps Chiang Kai-shek thought that of Mao’s rag tag group. And a paper tiger with nuclear missiles …. ? Again, I digress.
Daniel I’m sorry but I am confused by your statement: “… sees the validity of civilization and tradition, and rejects the relative for the certainty of knowledge. Critical reason is applied to destroy the cultural myth … ”. On the one hand you see the validity of Civilization and tradition – you can have neither without culture; and on the other, “the myth of culture” gives us our foundation for science and critical reasoning. That is why these sciences developed to their highest form in Europe and not elsewhere.
Culture is like “habit”. You can have good habits, a culture that lifts the truth, integrity of the human, and the value of all creation; or bad habits like “us against them” and the “idle pleasure” that epitomizes the “me” generation and makes my insult of your belief “art.” You cannot dispose of culture. It is our self expression, but you CAN lift that culture out of the gutter where it seems to have fallen.
Civilizations have many sub-cultures: farmer, business, university, power. These are all "self-expressions" of the respective group; but you have "universal" culture tying it all together: mutual respect, culture of law, free expression, etc. These are the "universal ideals" of culture that need to be developed and liberated from confining nationalistic jargon. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
“Culture is not tied in any way to civilization and tradition. These were in human realtions millenia before the word culture was created. The reason why "culture" is so important is because again, we are programmed to think that way.
Human rights is important, and the reason there is abuse and responsibility is because the UN is powerless to do anything. When one of the Security Council permanent memebers is the largest abuser, then what can be done. Again, "culture" comes to play, remeber not too long ago the lecture the Chinese PM gave, "Do not tell us about human rights abuses, we have quite a different definition in Asia." You and all know this was not the case in the 20s - 40s when the Japanese were abusing the Chinese human rights, so what changed now? Well now its China abusing the human rights. So now China doesn't want to hear it.
Since culture cannot even be defined culture is not universal, what is the importance of developing it? Why not instead just return to the civilizational approach, and dump the cultural construct. As I think one can tell by just Googling "culture" and reading the backlash against culutre on the web it shouldn't be that difficult.
What is important about culture? The definition that governments and academics give? The control of education systems? At the bottom that IS what culture IS REALLY all about.” Daniel Rea
Here is where I respectfully disagree. I think it is the “rose by any other name” argument.
We read yesterday about the snake cult of 70,000 years ago. That was a culture that extended over hundreds of miles as the story goes.
To me, the “civilization” approach is the in-culturalization” approach. The bad part. As in “civilizing” the barbarian American Indians or the pre-European African nations or indeed the Chinese empire. Civilization = a large group of interdependent cultures in my understanding (again, a cohesion of many little cultures bound together by a “common” culture). We did not value their “culture/civilization” so we tried to trash it. But it comes back in different forms – usually the negative part, rather than the good, since it is imbued full of resentment at having been crushed. The Chinese are now experiencing this in Tibet. They have a culture (“primitive, but viable civilization”) many may not like, but it is who they are.
The "European/Americans" may define culture as in the dictionary; but I think that definition is causing division between us and the rest of the world because we don’t value their culture(s) and we don’t recognize that our view of civilization is intrinsically tied in with our concept of culture.
Again, I define culture as the form of self-expression we take to relate to myself and others; a tribe takes to relate to myself and others; a guild takes to relate to itself and others and a nation take to relate to itself and others. Even a group of nations: The EU, OAU etc) take to relate to itself and others.
Thus I say the Civilization model takes these ethnic cultures and blends then to form a cohesive unit with common elements becoming a common culture. Like becoming an “American” is to accept and become a part of the American “culture.” (ie: McDonald’s fast food “culture”)
The larger the unit, the larger number of smaller cultures within it united for a common purpose.
I would suggest that the problem comes when a civilization or group (or individual movie star/politician) starts to believe its own press (propaganda). Like the English, French, Japanese, and Americans etc. come to believe that each of their cultures was self-generated and came from “God;” forgetting the origins of their culture.
All culture is a conglomeration of parts and pieces gathered together. As the civilization grows, a new culture is created, combining common elements of the other older cultures and the rest just withers away naturally, remaining in small pockets. Like the Quakers or the Ainu. Just as if a person from one business culture (IBM) joined a different business culture (Apple).
You might notice that I did not include China in the list of civilizations above.
China is an interesting case. They could have been and may yet be a totally unique culture, wholly self developed. I could be argued that Buddhism is a Chinese variant of Hinduism as Buddha was born on China’s periphery in Nepal. And the Mongols, though outside to the north, were still basically a Chinese sub-culture.
The big problem comes in the modern age with the importation of Marxism (a western thought system) and Democracy (also a western philosophy of government). If these thought systems were purged and the Confucius’ model of government and social structure resurrected then the Chinese civilization could be a wholly self-initiated cultural system.
Whether or not this is a good thing, esp. for the nations that border China is yet to be seen.
The Seat of Power
Every chair must have at least 3 legs and a seat:
3 legs:
1 – Nationalism
2 – Culture
3 – Religion/Philosophy
The seat: Pride
The legs must be of equal length for balance; but the seat can be as thin as an autonomous region or as thick as a superpower straddling the globe.
For true stability the chair needs four legs. The fourth leg is science. The science of the state. #3 is Plato’s great contribution to the modern state.
3 legs:
1 – Nationalism
2 – Culture
3 – Religion/Philosophy
The seat: Pride
The legs must be of equal length for balance; but the seat can be as thin as an autonomous region or as thick as a superpower straddling the globe.
For true stability the chair needs four legs. The fourth leg is science. The science of the state. #3 is Plato’s great contribution to the modern state.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Culture: Brand “X” Generic
What is the minimalist most open ended definition of culture:
The character, methods and tools that I use to identify myself in relation to you (my group and/or another group or member of that group). The character, methods and tools that a group uses to identify itself (and the members of its group) in relation to another group (and members of that group).
This definition might lead one to ask: "Is culture unique to humans?"
Example: the “me” culture identified by generally selfish characteristics as shown by selfishness and self-centeredness. The methods used are often, aggressive behavior towards others, unreasonable demands for self satisfaction and self gratification. Demands that others acquiesce to “me” needs and demands.
The tools used are characterized by agressive and challenging spoken and body language; flashy or “over-the-top” fashion and inappropriate dress and individually unique (even for the greater tribe) body decoration. Music and art styles that call attention to “me” and general artistic sense centered on “me” often to the detriment of the larger group. The “me” culture is a natural extension of the “individualist” ethic.
A few examples of this culture group:
Because this culture is a recent evolution, most of its members can be seen in small groups of younger humans. In clubs, often of an "anti-social" nature and events especially designed for the culture to accentuate its "me" -ness. Due to the evolution we can often see older members of the grouping roaming the planet in small groups similar to rogue elephants pushing their weight around intimidating members of their own tribe or neighboring cultures.
The older ones can usually be easily identified by loud screaming voices (sometimes at suffering airline counter personnel or hapless members of foreign cultures that get caught in their “me” space). Another sign to look out for is extremely distasteful apparel (as in very overweight men and women wearing incredibly small beachwear), strange plant like smells emanating from disheveled and un-kept clothing they call “chic” or “av-ant Garde.” These are just a few signs to look out for. Be very careful at approaching one of these. It may seem exciting but it is much like trying to pet a lion while on safari!
The character, methods and tools that I use to identify myself in relation to you (my group and/or another group or member of that group). The character, methods and tools that a group uses to identify itself (and the members of its group) in relation to another group (and members of that group).
This definition might lead one to ask: "Is culture unique to humans?"
Example: the “me” culture identified by generally selfish characteristics as shown by selfishness and self-centeredness. The methods used are often, aggressive behavior towards others, unreasonable demands for self satisfaction and self gratification. Demands that others acquiesce to “me” needs and demands.
The tools used are characterized by agressive and challenging spoken and body language; flashy or “over-the-top” fashion and inappropriate dress and individually unique (even for the greater tribe) body decoration. Music and art styles that call attention to “me” and general artistic sense centered on “me” often to the detriment of the larger group. The “me” culture is a natural extension of the “individualist” ethic.
A few examples of this culture group:
Because this culture is a recent evolution, most of its members can be seen in small groups of younger humans. In clubs, often of an "anti-social" nature and events especially designed for the culture to accentuate its "me" -ness. Due to the evolution we can often see older members of the grouping roaming the planet in small groups similar to rogue elephants pushing their weight around intimidating members of their own tribe or neighboring cultures.
The older ones can usually be easily identified by loud screaming voices (sometimes at suffering airline counter personnel or hapless members of foreign cultures that get caught in their “me” space). Another sign to look out for is extremely distasteful apparel (as in very overweight men and women wearing incredibly small beachwear), strange plant like smells emanating from disheveled and un-kept clothing they call “chic” or “av-ant Garde.” These are just a few signs to look out for. Be very careful at approaching one of these. It may seem exciting but it is much like trying to pet a lion while on safari!
Right and Wrong? Universal Absolute or Cultural Relative?
Is it a universal absolute standard or a cultural relative?
Can the Noble One be good in one culture and bad in another? What is his standard of good vs. bad? Can culture be true or is it relative to the local group? Is a right action in one group a right action in another group (absolute) or not (relative)
Is it possible for an Empirical Realist to propose an absolute universal standard of good? If so, this could/would lead to Utopia. Is there a foundation for this in an Empirical Realist worldview?
I would argue yes. There is a foundation for an absolute standard, as well as Utopia.
The traditional view of right vs. wrong is tied up in “sin,” “karma” and other cultural backgrounds. For this reason I, in a previous post, defined sin as the act of inflicting pain on the heart of another (and thus damaging human relationships).
This, I put forth as the absolute standard of right and wrong. Daniel asked, if someone driving down the road hits and kills a child who runs into the road would there be a sin/crime. The definition of crime and sin would be synonymous in this utopia. We have had a tendency to divert accusation from ourselves ever since Adam blamed Eve for the Apple episode – she, of course naturally blamed the snake who was left holding the proverbial bag. I digress.
The answer is, yes a sin/crime was committed. The driver was not at fault. (“Intent is 9/10ths of the law” I think, is a cop out for avoiding due diligence, but it doesn’t actually apply here.) As painful as it may be, the child committed the sin/crime (ignorance is no excuse – heard that before right?). Because the child was responsible, but cannot be held responsible, the parent/guardian who allowed the child the freedom to run into the street would bear the burden of guilt – twice, as they lost their child and caused harm to the driver. Remember, in an Empirical Realist world nature is sometimes harsh, but ultimately fair.
I believe it is only by using this standard of sin/crime that we can hold universal actions such as murder, theft, slavery, child abuse, etc as wrong regardless of the time, place or culture.
You may ask, doesn’t this set up a situation where punishment would be harsher in one location vs. another? Yes it may, but the purpose of punishment is not revenge (that would be a sin/crime) but equitable release from the pain inflicted to the heart (human relationships).
On this basis we could extrapolate all law, from running a red light to killing whales and polluting the environment. The judgment level higher or lower based on the level of harm done.
So, is there a "victimless" crime - maybe like drug abuse? No there is never a victimless crime. This is because, by the definition of crime being any pain you inflict on another must be compensated for, did you hurt someone? Father, mother,husbund, wife, children, etc? Others are always involved in "my" actions.
How would this change the face of culture? What is culture but how I (by extension - my society) view myself and the method by which I relate to you, up to how we relate to each other as a group and other groups to each other?
Based on this theory of sin/crime, culture would become an expression (method and tools used) for how I exalt and be mindful of your heart (feelings); the method of how we uplift and are mindful of one another’s heart and the method and tools our group uses to uplift and be mindful of other groups.
This could not possibly ever result in boredom. We would be raised to always be mindful of the needs of others when pursuing our own. For example, imagine if concepts like those put forth in the movie "Pay It Forward" took root in normal society?
Could this work?
Can the Noble One be good in one culture and bad in another? What is his standard of good vs. bad? Can culture be true or is it relative to the local group? Is a right action in one group a right action in another group (absolute) or not (relative)
Is it possible for an Empirical Realist to propose an absolute universal standard of good? If so, this could/would lead to Utopia. Is there a foundation for this in an Empirical Realist worldview?
I would argue yes. There is a foundation for an absolute standard, as well as Utopia.
The traditional view of right vs. wrong is tied up in “sin,” “karma” and other cultural backgrounds. For this reason I, in a previous post, defined sin as the act of inflicting pain on the heart of another (and thus damaging human relationships).
This, I put forth as the absolute standard of right and wrong. Daniel asked, if someone driving down the road hits and kills a child who runs into the road would there be a sin/crime. The definition of crime and sin would be synonymous in this utopia. We have had a tendency to divert accusation from ourselves ever since Adam blamed Eve for the Apple episode – she, of course naturally blamed the snake who was left holding the proverbial bag. I digress.
The answer is, yes a sin/crime was committed. The driver was not at fault. (“Intent is 9/10ths of the law” I think, is a cop out for avoiding due diligence, but it doesn’t actually apply here.) As painful as it may be, the child committed the sin/crime (ignorance is no excuse – heard that before right?). Because the child was responsible, but cannot be held responsible, the parent/guardian who allowed the child the freedom to run into the street would bear the burden of guilt – twice, as they lost their child and caused harm to the driver. Remember, in an Empirical Realist world nature is sometimes harsh, but ultimately fair.
I believe it is only by using this standard of sin/crime that we can hold universal actions such as murder, theft, slavery, child abuse, etc as wrong regardless of the time, place or culture.
You may ask, doesn’t this set up a situation where punishment would be harsher in one location vs. another? Yes it may, but the purpose of punishment is not revenge (that would be a sin/crime) but equitable release from the pain inflicted to the heart (human relationships).
On this basis we could extrapolate all law, from running a red light to killing whales and polluting the environment. The judgment level higher or lower based on the level of harm done.
So, is there a "victimless" crime - maybe like drug abuse? No there is never a victimless crime. This is because, by the definition of crime being any pain you inflict on another must be compensated for, did you hurt someone? Father, mother,husbund, wife, children, etc? Others are always involved in "my" actions.
How would this change the face of culture? What is culture but how I (by extension - my society) view myself and the method by which I relate to you, up to how we relate to each other as a group and other groups to each other?
Based on this theory of sin/crime, culture would become an expression (method and tools used) for how I exalt and be mindful of your heart (feelings); the method of how we uplift and are mindful of one another’s heart and the method and tools our group uses to uplift and be mindful of other groups.
This could not possibly ever result in boredom. We would be raised to always be mindful of the needs of others when pursuing our own. For example, imagine if concepts like those put forth in the movie "Pay It Forward" took root in normal society?
Could this work?
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Black and White or Shades of Gray?
Where are the budding “Noble Ones” of the future?
Is there a clear standard of right and wrong, of correct and incorrect, of proper or improper for them to follow and learn from? My mother used to say, “it’s either right or its wrong.” Your room is either clean or it isn’t. I loved my mother, but she could be so frustrating at times! Well, it’s mostly clean; well it’s right enough, correct enough, proper enough, close enough. Imagine if the bank teller told you that about your balance!
What do they say? “Close only works in horse shoes and hand grenades.” Now a days “close” seems to work in everything we do. “Close enough.” A favorite is: “It isn’t as simple as black and white.” Really? Is this true or is this just an excuse for mediocrity? The “dumbing down” process to find the lowest common denominator everyone can live down too, after having given up on living “up” to a higher standard in life.
Your a little wrong.
She's a little pregnant
The earth is a little off its axis today.
The first could result in a "B+" the second, a life style change and the third, the end of all life as we know it. How much is a "little"? I know - it's all relative.
It is interesting though how many "relativisms" have absolutes embedded in them:
She's a little wrong (translation: I'm right)
He's a little black (translation: he's black)
He's physically challenged (translation: I'm normal ie: better than him)
Are we avoiding the truth, afraid of facing the truth, hesitant of offending someone's self-esteem with the truth? Many teachers in schools have lost the respect of their students because the teachers no longer represent an absolute but rather a relativism: The typical city public school student view of the teacher has become - You don't "know" anything. You are not an authority nor in authority over me. I am not afraid of you. My parents don't discipline me and you can't either. You are just another face in the classroom no better than I. I don't have to listen to you nor obey your instruction. In fact I can basically ignore you because you aren't allowed to fail me and if you try I will beat the sh*t out of you.
In the 1960’s Dr. Benjamin Spock was THE authority on raising children. The traditional methods of “spare the rod and spoil the child” and “don’t spoil them with too much attention when they cry” became quite unpopular as Dr. Spock warned us that such acts damage their self-esteem. He spoke against corporal punishment. He advised cuddling and nurturing methods. He urged parents to be flexible and see their children as individuals. I will not argue the pros and cons of his approach. But
Forty years later, what have we learned? What have we discovered?
Ultimately nothing in nature - including human nature, respects relativism because it can't be trusted. Either you are true: true to yourself, true to your relationships and true to your word or not. There really is no middle ground. We generally start out in trust from the first moment we meet another. This seems to be ingrained in us, perhaps as a conditioning in accepting our parent at birth; but if disappointed, as the old but still true adage goes: It is very easy to lose the trust of others, but very hard to gain it back.
The first time a child figures out that you don't actually mean what you say and the meaning of "do as I say, not as I do" you my friend had better have a life preserver because you are on a doomed ship where both you and eventually your fellow passengers (the children) will drown in a sea of mistrust and hurt feeling.
What kind of person will that child grow up to be? The society of Japan is just starting to discover that in their junior high school students. But it hasn't quite yet sunk in to the heads of the parents and leaders of society. There is a feeling that something is wrong but for the people who are starting to "get it" they are trapped in political correctness and the snow ball ride of western educational styles and have no way out. The standard operating procedure here is the lemming system. No one, individually, has the courage of conviction to stand up and say, "Houston, we have a problem."
Again, what kind of person will that child grow up to be? The businesses are starting to see a change in the quality of the graduates coming to them. It is not a positive change.
For example:
He finds it difficult to relate to others – esp their boss; they were the boss in their life while growing up as "latch key kids".
He can’t deal with loss – their virtual world can be “reset.”
He can’t take criticism - they feel offended or cry (no - not the women!).
He can’t take rejection – they commit suicide or go into binge drinking depression and they are discovering drugs.
What are the teachers and leaders of education doing about it? Aren’t they concerned or worried about the future? There is a very interesting mindset in the education system in Japan. You have two forces at work:
1. The educational leaders who were raised in the Marxist principles. Their original goal was to create good communist socialists ready to take over the new Soviet State in support of the Soviet Union. The Union is gone but not the idea. This leads to –
2. The basic Natural Socialist model: Children are adults in small bodies. They should be able to choose, be self directed and free of the repressive authority of the original and flawed culture and tradition. The boys and girls are no different in any way of consequence so they should not be separated or in any way prevented from having completely free and open relationships. They are little adults so don’t scold or discipline them as it will impinge on their self-esteem.
This obviously leads to breakdown and re-arrangement of society. Good or Bad?
What can we do? What is the counter balance to the system as now put in place? There is none. The only counter balance is the ever eroding tradition and culture which comes from a belief in God or gods and the authority and values that stem from that belief.
Children now have little or no connection with the past as they grow up in small "mansions" with no connection with grandparents who are society's storybooks and tradition teachers. Also, their fathers "authority figures" are never at home so they have no authority figure to learn to respect or be guided by.
With “Empirical Realism,” the only logical thought system, so pervasive today, the old way is dying and has nothing but relativism to take its place – this just feeds the two forces above.
Thinking about it
Is there a clear standard of right and wrong, of correct and incorrect, of proper or improper for them to follow and learn from? My mother used to say, “it’s either right or its wrong.” Your room is either clean or it isn’t. I loved my mother, but she could be so frustrating at times! Well, it’s mostly clean; well it’s right enough, correct enough, proper enough, close enough. Imagine if the bank teller told you that about your balance!
What do they say? “Close only works in horse shoes and hand grenades.” Now a days “close” seems to work in everything we do. “Close enough.” A favorite is: “It isn’t as simple as black and white.” Really? Is this true or is this just an excuse for mediocrity? The “dumbing down” process to find the lowest common denominator everyone can live down too, after having given up on living “up” to a higher standard in life.
Your a little wrong.
She's a little pregnant
The earth is a little off its axis today.
The first could result in a "B+" the second, a life style change and the third, the end of all life as we know it. How much is a "little"? I know - it's all relative.
It is interesting though how many "relativisms" have absolutes embedded in them:
She's a little wrong (translation: I'm right)
He's a little black (translation: he's black)
He's physically challenged (translation: I'm normal ie: better than him)
Are we avoiding the truth, afraid of facing the truth, hesitant of offending someone's self-esteem with the truth? Many teachers in schools have lost the respect of their students because the teachers no longer represent an absolute but rather a relativism: The typical city public school student view of the teacher has become - You don't "know" anything. You are not an authority nor in authority over me. I am not afraid of you. My parents don't discipline me and you can't either. You are just another face in the classroom no better than I. I don't have to listen to you nor obey your instruction. In fact I can basically ignore you because you aren't allowed to fail me and if you try I will beat the sh*t out of you.
In the 1960’s Dr. Benjamin Spock was THE authority on raising children. The traditional methods of “spare the rod and spoil the child” and “don’t spoil them with too much attention when they cry” became quite unpopular as Dr. Spock warned us that such acts damage their self-esteem. He spoke against corporal punishment. He advised cuddling and nurturing methods. He urged parents to be flexible and see their children as individuals. I will not argue the pros and cons of his approach. But
Forty years later, what have we learned? What have we discovered?
Ultimately nothing in nature - including human nature, respects relativism because it can't be trusted. Either you are true: true to yourself, true to your relationships and true to your word or not. There really is no middle ground. We generally start out in trust from the first moment we meet another. This seems to be ingrained in us, perhaps as a conditioning in accepting our parent at birth; but if disappointed, as the old but still true adage goes: It is very easy to lose the trust of others, but very hard to gain it back.
The first time a child figures out that you don't actually mean what you say and the meaning of "do as I say, not as I do" you my friend had better have a life preserver because you are on a doomed ship where both you and eventually your fellow passengers (the children) will drown in a sea of mistrust and hurt feeling.
What kind of person will that child grow up to be? The society of Japan is just starting to discover that in their junior high school students. But it hasn't quite yet sunk in to the heads of the parents and leaders of society. There is a feeling that something is wrong but for the people who are starting to "get it" they are trapped in political correctness and the snow ball ride of western educational styles and have no way out. The standard operating procedure here is the lemming system. No one, individually, has the courage of conviction to stand up and say, "Houston, we have a problem."
Again, what kind of person will that child grow up to be? The businesses are starting to see a change in the quality of the graduates coming to them. It is not a positive change.
For example:
He finds it difficult to relate to others – esp their boss; they were the boss in their life while growing up as "latch key kids".
He can’t deal with loss – their virtual world can be “reset.”
He can’t take criticism - they feel offended or cry (no - not the women!).
He can’t take rejection – they commit suicide or go into binge drinking depression and they are discovering drugs.
What are the teachers and leaders of education doing about it? Aren’t they concerned or worried about the future? There is a very interesting mindset in the education system in Japan. You have two forces at work:
1. The educational leaders who were raised in the Marxist principles. Their original goal was to create good communist socialists ready to take over the new Soviet State in support of the Soviet Union. The Union is gone but not the idea. This leads to –
2. The basic Natural Socialist model: Children are adults in small bodies. They should be able to choose, be self directed and free of the repressive authority of the original and flawed culture and tradition. The boys and girls are no different in any way of consequence so they should not be separated or in any way prevented from having completely free and open relationships. They are little adults so don’t scold or discipline them as it will impinge on their self-esteem.
This obviously leads to breakdown and re-arrangement of society. Good or Bad?
What can we do? What is the counter balance to the system as now put in place? There is none. The only counter balance is the ever eroding tradition and culture which comes from a belief in God or gods and the authority and values that stem from that belief.
Children now have little or no connection with the past as they grow up in small "mansions" with no connection with grandparents who are society's storybooks and tradition teachers. Also, their fathers "authority figures" are never at home so they have no authority figure to learn to respect or be guided by.
With “Empirical Realism,” the only logical thought system, so pervasive today, the old way is dying and has nothing but relativism to take its place – this just feeds the two forces above.
Thinking about it
Monday, May 5, 2008
The “Race Card”
Does anyone remember Lokai and Bele? They were played by the late Frank Gorshin in the original Star Trek episode: "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield." They were mirror images of each other. One character was half white and the other one was half black. Can you remember what their other halves were. Yes Black and white respectively. What was the plot? I leave that to you to discover.
What is race? Is it a quantitative or qualitative identification? Only skin color? Is there a mental ability difference or a difference in the capacity to love? What is the difference? There are so many historical underpinnings for the justification of racism from Hamm to “the white man’s burden;” separate but equal to affirmative action. One wonders if Iraq and Iran are the new white man’s burden.
We have now before us a man of mixed heritage who was raised by a white mother and white grandmother in the middle of the cornbelt. Is he white? Is he black? Or is he a unique expression of humanity and testament to the wonderful creative power in this universe?
Whether or not he should be president of the United States should in no way be judged by the color of his skin but by the content of his character. Is he qualified by this measure? Does it matter? Will people vote against him because he is black; people voted against Kennedy because he was Catholic. The Supreme Court decision making Bush president was child's play compared to the Chicago machine that gave Kennedy the election. How will it play out today?
There are people of different hue, texture, size, shape, and physical characteristic throughout this world. What makes "THEM!" different? Is the difference an important factor in my decision to relate to "THEM!"
Oh, he’s white. Oh, he’s black. Oh, she’s Korean. Oh, their Mexicans. My father said, Oh, its Japanese. THEM! What would you say to the young woman and her new born baby who both died at childbirth because the doctors standing around watching would not touch them. They were THEM! Dalit (untouchable). You want to save the people of Darfur, yes? Do you have a spare bedroom and can your daughter date one of the guys?
Did your blood pressure just go up?
What makes us different and what makes sense as a standard of judgment? Dr. Martin Luther King pointed out, the content of our character; not the content of our body must be the standard of judgement. Is his point valid? And in this judgment, again we are not so different. We all have the capacity for love and hate, joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain, compassion and resentment.
I’m not a fool. I’m not going to walk down many streets in Harlem at night. I have been mugged before. My wife and I were within blocks of the Towers on 9/11 and we lived in Israel, feeling the reality of unreasoned hate. These are the result of the hate generated by racism that we have to deal with.
Racism is real. I am white in Japan and know very well the advantage that gives me – and the disadvantage my friend from The Congo experiences (not to mention his half Japanese children). Racism is real and comes in many forms having nothing to do with color. If you stand a Korean next to a Japanese I am hard pressed to see a difference in most cases, but my wife can in a heartbeat.
We live in the real world and deal with real people. I fully expect the Immigration service in New York to do “racial profiling” when looking over the arriving passengers and I would be thought several kinds of fool to sit next to an Arab student with a backpack on a bus in London without first being very observant. But most “terrorist” acts are not carried out by “THEM” but by “US,” like Timothy McVeigh.
All that aside, it doesn’t mean that we have to accept it. As Cleveland K. said, “The idealism though needs to be looked at.” I very much appreciated Senator Obama’s efforts to express this in his speech on racism: 'A More Perfect Union' in Philadelphia, PA at the Constitution Center (Please note: I do not support the Senator for president). If we don’t look at it and talk about it and resolve to put forth an ideal to live for that will change it, then we are certainly doomed because people who hate create people who hate which create ever increasing levels of resentment. No happy ending can result.
To any person who would like to try to understand the feelings of their fellow man (and woman) I recommend that you see two movies: The Great Debaters and Amazing Grace. I recommend these particular movies, not because they are enjoyable videos to take pleasure in but because I think that they would resonate with the scholastics and thinkers in this audience and hopefully move them to deeper discourse with the person you sit next to. Yes, speak to one of “THEM!” with total and uncompromising mutual respect.
1 'A More Perfect Union'
What is race? Is it a quantitative or qualitative identification? Only skin color? Is there a mental ability difference or a difference in the capacity to love? What is the difference? There are so many historical underpinnings for the justification of racism from Hamm to “the white man’s burden;” separate but equal to affirmative action. One wonders if Iraq and Iran are the new white man’s burden.
We have now before us a man of mixed heritage who was raised by a white mother and white grandmother in the middle of the cornbelt. Is he white? Is he black? Or is he a unique expression of humanity and testament to the wonderful creative power in this universe?
Whether or not he should be president of the United States should in no way be judged by the color of his skin but by the content of his character. Is he qualified by this measure? Does it matter? Will people vote against him because he is black; people voted against Kennedy because he was Catholic. The Supreme Court decision making Bush president was child's play compared to the Chicago machine that gave Kennedy the election. How will it play out today?
There are people of different hue, texture, size, shape, and physical characteristic throughout this world. What makes "THEM!" different? Is the difference an important factor in my decision to relate to "THEM!"
Oh, he’s white. Oh, he’s black. Oh, she’s Korean. Oh, their Mexicans. My father said, Oh, its Japanese. THEM! What would you say to the young woman and her new born baby who both died at childbirth because the doctors standing around watching would not touch them. They were THEM! Dalit (untouchable). You want to save the people of Darfur, yes? Do you have a spare bedroom and can your daughter date one of the guys?
Did your blood pressure just go up?
What makes us different and what makes sense as a standard of judgment? Dr. Martin Luther King pointed out, the content of our character; not the content of our body must be the standard of judgement. Is his point valid? And in this judgment, again we are not so different. We all have the capacity for love and hate, joy and sorrow, pleasure and pain, compassion and resentment.
I’m not a fool. I’m not going to walk down many streets in Harlem at night. I have been mugged before. My wife and I were within blocks of the Towers on 9/11 and we lived in Israel, feeling the reality of unreasoned hate. These are the result of the hate generated by racism that we have to deal with.
Racism is real. I am white in Japan and know very well the advantage that gives me – and the disadvantage my friend from The Congo experiences (not to mention his half Japanese children). Racism is real and comes in many forms having nothing to do with color. If you stand a Korean next to a Japanese I am hard pressed to see a difference in most cases, but my wife can in a heartbeat.
We live in the real world and deal with real people. I fully expect the Immigration service in New York to do “racial profiling” when looking over the arriving passengers and I would be thought several kinds of fool to sit next to an Arab student with a backpack on a bus in London without first being very observant. But most “terrorist” acts are not carried out by “THEM” but by “US,” like Timothy McVeigh.
All that aside, it doesn’t mean that we have to accept it. As Cleveland K. said, “The idealism though needs to be looked at.” I very much appreciated Senator Obama’s efforts to express this in his speech on racism: 'A More Perfect Union' in Philadelphia, PA at the Constitution Center (Please note: I do not support the Senator for president). If we don’t look at it and talk about it and resolve to put forth an ideal to live for that will change it, then we are certainly doomed because people who hate create people who hate which create ever increasing levels of resentment. No happy ending can result.
To any person who would like to try to understand the feelings of their fellow man (and woman) I recommend that you see two movies: The Great Debaters and Amazing Grace. I recommend these particular movies, not because they are enjoyable videos to take pleasure in but because I think that they would resonate with the scholastics and thinkers in this audience and hopefully move them to deeper discourse with the person you sit next to. Yes, speak to one of “THEM!” with total and uncompromising mutual respect.
1 'A More Perfect Union'
Us vs. THEM!
“Them!” a great sci-fi movie of the 50’s with incredible political overtones.
Our capital and leadership are in Washington DC. What if it were in London? Or Lagos? Or Peking? What difference would it make? What if the leadership were white, or black or yellow or green? What difference would it make? The concept of a “world government” strikes fear in the heart of “us vs. them.” I have lived throughout the world and have found joy in each location. To me if DC were in Dakar or Moscow what difference would it make?
Is it the differences in color, language, eye configuration or even religion or lack of it that is important? Each group has unique qualities that give them value and humanity. The leaders in China care about the people as do America, Nigeria etc. What is the difference? Why wouldn’t a man from the UK or America be just as content to live in any other place on this earth?
Why would a modern American, who one would think able to find value and happiness anywhere due to his own internal peace within himself, long to return to America? Rescued from an alien land. What makes it alien? What makes me uncomfortable with "THEM!"?
What would it matter a government in Washington or elsewhere? How deeply is the power of “us vs. them” ingrained within us?
The "us vs. them" is a very powerful tool to unite forces before attacking - whether in war or politics. This is quite clearly shown in the responses that have erupted amongst the disciples. We go so lucidly from the spirit of philosophical discourse to the bickering of us vs. them in this very classroom.
Your words carry great weight. The question is, can they be received, processed and help us to see the fallacies in our own arguments that cause the "us vs. them" to perpetuate?
I stand in Douglas Arizona and look across the border at THEM! I stand at the border of Serbia and look into Kosovo at THEM! I stand at the line in Belfast and look into the neighborhood at THEM!
"The US is an honorable nation, one reason I became a US citizen after coming over the pond from the relic of history that is the UK. As bad as things are in the USA I don't see Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, or Tom Daschle hopping on a plane to somewhere else." CH
What makes the US an honorable nation CH? Perhaps we can view a glimpse of the reason when we look at the inscription on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your huddled masses..." America has a history of turning "Them" into "Us" and when America stops this and turns her eye, points and says "Them! stay away ..." It is at that time that America will cease to be honorable.
Senator Obama, when asked by the people, "who took our jobs?" pointed to Mexico and said "THEM!" Cindy Sheehan says, when asked who killed her baby boy, "THEM!" never thinking that "THEM!" were pointing at her son carrying a gun in our village and shouting "THEM!" And Michael Moore, worried about the state of our medical institution, points his finger when asked, "Why are we suffering?" and accuses "THEM!" of causing it. He is forgetting the addage, if you point a finger at another three more are pointing back at you. "THEM!" did not create our system, "WE!" did.
A true story:
A small child was standing in the middle of the road in the center of a small town in Iraq. She stood there alone as an American patrol was speeding towards her. She did not move. If you were the commander of that platoon what would you have done? It would be incredibly dangerous to stop.
He stopped. Behind that child perhaps five feet was a road bomb. The child knew it. She risked her life to save THEM! What would you do?
True world peace can only come, when we erase all borders and, sharing everything, live for the sake of others.
Our capital and leadership are in Washington DC. What if it were in London? Or Lagos? Or Peking? What difference would it make? What if the leadership were white, or black or yellow or green? What difference would it make? The concept of a “world government” strikes fear in the heart of “us vs. them.” I have lived throughout the world and have found joy in each location. To me if DC were in Dakar or Moscow what difference would it make?
Is it the differences in color, language, eye configuration or even religion or lack of it that is important? Each group has unique qualities that give them value and humanity. The leaders in China care about the people as do America, Nigeria etc. What is the difference? Why wouldn’t a man from the UK or America be just as content to live in any other place on this earth?
Why would a modern American, who one would think able to find value and happiness anywhere due to his own internal peace within himself, long to return to America? Rescued from an alien land. What makes it alien? What makes me uncomfortable with "THEM!"?
What would it matter a government in Washington or elsewhere? How deeply is the power of “us vs. them” ingrained within us?
The "us vs. them" is a very powerful tool to unite forces before attacking - whether in war or politics. This is quite clearly shown in the responses that have erupted amongst the disciples. We go so lucidly from the spirit of philosophical discourse to the bickering of us vs. them in this very classroom.
Your words carry great weight. The question is, can they be received, processed and help us to see the fallacies in our own arguments that cause the "us vs. them" to perpetuate?
I stand in Douglas Arizona and look across the border at THEM! I stand at the border of Serbia and look into Kosovo at THEM! I stand at the line in Belfast and look into the neighborhood at THEM!
"The US is an honorable nation, one reason I became a US citizen after coming over the pond from the relic of history that is the UK. As bad as things are in the USA I don't see Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, or Tom Daschle hopping on a plane to somewhere else." CH
What makes the US an honorable nation CH? Perhaps we can view a glimpse of the reason when we look at the inscription on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your huddled masses..." America has a history of turning "Them" into "Us" and when America stops this and turns her eye, points and says "Them! stay away ..." It is at that time that America will cease to be honorable.
Senator Obama, when asked by the people, "who took our jobs?" pointed to Mexico and said "THEM!" Cindy Sheehan says, when asked who killed her baby boy, "THEM!" never thinking that "THEM!" were pointing at her son carrying a gun in our village and shouting "THEM!" And Michael Moore, worried about the state of our medical institution, points his finger when asked, "Why are we suffering?" and accuses "THEM!" of causing it. He is forgetting the addage, if you point a finger at another three more are pointing back at you. "THEM!" did not create our system, "WE!" did.
A true story:
A small child was standing in the middle of the road in the center of a small town in Iraq. She stood there alone as an American patrol was speeding towards her. She did not move. If you were the commander of that platoon what would you have done? It would be incredibly dangerous to stop.
He stopped. Behind that child perhaps five feet was a road bomb. The child knew it. She risked her life to save THEM! What would you do?
True world peace can only come, when we erase all borders and, sharing everything, live for the sake of others.
Please Define “God”
The following (below in italics) are two pieces of an ongoing discourse on the philosophy of Man and the Universe. Due to the nature of the discourse it is hardly possible to separate the existence or non-existence of “God” from the discussion:
“Humans are all that you say, and indeed more and as I wrote, I think the psychic is much more than tarot card reading but just the twinkling of a power within. Humans are the apex of the universe, which as we know little of the universe, seems a very conceited thing to say but I take my position in that this way:
We are the apex, the cherry of the eye of God, and we are the ultimate in the universe, only just beginning to see our value as a newly un-cocooned butterfly, not because God was created in our image, to express our inner desire TO BE, but because we indeed were created in God's image, and as His beautiful children we could be no less!” Me
Response:
“And if cats were to be the self conscious, intellectual superior, and self aware creatures of the universe there is no doubt that God would be a cat.
I suppose the facts of evolution in the geological record have no bearing? How do we square those with God creating us as "His beautiful children"?
"We are the apex, the cherry of the eye of God,..." God then is a material being, to have an eye? Then if that be the case where is God? What is his/her name? What does he/she look like? This seems to create more problems and a good case for the razor of Ockham.
Lest I be accused of being a pompous ass and insulting someone again, I mean no disrespect personally, Me, but just pointing some flaws in the philosophical aspects of your comment.” CH
To be fair, it would seem that the discussion hangs on the individual or philosophical definition of “God.” One side seems to suggest a physical God – perhaps a “Zeus” figure plopping down children clearly outside natural order; the other disputes this purported or imagined claim.
Would anyone care to offer a clear definition of God so that we can put to rest whether or not such an entity exists? Is it rational to state that I don’t believe in “unknown quantity” with any degree of intellectual integrity? I don't believe in unicorns and dragons. I have never actually seen one so they are imaginary creatures. Is this a rational agrument Daniel?
References:
"God: A Definition"
"God: Wikipedia"
" God: Merriam-Webster"
“Humans are all that you say, and indeed more and as I wrote, I think the psychic is much more than tarot card reading but just the twinkling of a power within. Humans are the apex of the universe, which as we know little of the universe, seems a very conceited thing to say but I take my position in that this way:
We are the apex, the cherry of the eye of God, and we are the ultimate in the universe, only just beginning to see our value as a newly un-cocooned butterfly, not because God was created in our image, to express our inner desire TO BE, but because we indeed were created in God's image, and as His beautiful children we could be no less!” Me
Response:
“And if cats were to be the self conscious, intellectual superior, and self aware creatures of the universe there is no doubt that God would be a cat.
I suppose the facts of evolution in the geological record have no bearing? How do we square those with God creating us as "His beautiful children"?
"We are the apex, the cherry of the eye of God,..." God then is a material being, to have an eye? Then if that be the case where is God? What is his/her name? What does he/she look like? This seems to create more problems and a good case for the razor of Ockham.
Lest I be accused of being a pompous ass and insulting someone again, I mean no disrespect personally, Me, but just pointing some flaws in the philosophical aspects of your comment.” CH
To be fair, it would seem that the discussion hangs on the individual or philosophical definition of “God.” One side seems to suggest a physical God – perhaps a “Zeus” figure plopping down children clearly outside natural order; the other disputes this purported or imagined claim.
Would anyone care to offer a clear definition of God so that we can put to rest whether or not such an entity exists? Is it rational to state that I don’t believe in “unknown quantity” with any degree of intellectual integrity? I don't believe in unicorns and dragons. I have never actually seen one so they are imaginary creatures. Is this a rational agrument Daniel?
References:
"God: A Definition"
"God: Wikipedia"
" God: Merriam-Webster"
Sunday, May 4, 2008
What is the Main-line Christian View of the Natural Man and Immortality?
Self-evolution of the Natural Man As taken from a sermon preached in Princeton Chapel on Easter, April 23, 1905
A Sermon on I Corinthians 15:14
GEERHARDUS VOS
Princeton, New Jersey
Taken from a section titled: Resurrection and Regeneration
From various points of view therefore, we are taught by the apostle that the resurrection of Christ, besides being the divine acknowledgement of his perfect righteousness, is also the fountain head of all the renewing and quickening influences that descend from him to us. To preach a risen Christ means to preach a gospel which claims to come with the demonstration of the Spirit and with power. It means to assume that this world is dead in trespasses and sins, that no word of persuasion, no force of example, no release from the body, in fact that nothing short of a new creation can give it life.
Precisely here lies the point where the old apostolic gospel of Paul and the modern moralizing interpretations of Christianity part ways.
Because the modern world has ceased to take sin seriously, it has lost its sense for the necessity of the supernatural in the work of salvation; and to such a state of mind the message of the resurrection of Christ no longer appeals. At present it is believed by many who call themselves Christians that all that is necessary to reach a state of perfection is the self-evolution of the natural man. Now so far as purely inward processes are concerned this modern naturalistic spirit finds it easy to clothe itself in the old Christian forms and to retain the old Christian ways of speaking. But it will immediately rise up in protest when confronted with an intrusion of the supernatural in the external, physical sphere, such as the resurrection of the body.
Need we wonder then that where Christians have begun to give ear to this seductive spirit, the doctrine of the resurrection should gradually have come to be regarded as a source of weakness rather than of strength. The conviction seems to be gaining ground that all practical ends of religion will be equally well served and a possible cause of offense removed by exchanging this doctrine for a simple belief in the immortality of the soul with reference both to Christ and believers. We may learn from Paul, brethren, that skepticism on this concrete point is symptomatic of infection with the poison of naturalism in the very heart of the Christian faith.
The most striking feature of Paul's treatment of the resurrection here and elsewhere is that, far from representing it as an isolated fact, he makes it part of an organic work of renewal involving both the soul and the body of man. The resurrection is supernatural for no other reason than that from beginning to end–in regeneration and sanctification, and in everything–the work of grace is supernatural in the most absolute sense of the word.
According to Paul the same exceeding greatness of divine power is displayed in the production of spiritual life in the sinner's soul as when God raised Christ from the dead and made him to sit at his right hand in heavenly places. The one is no more difficult to believe and no more essential to hold than the other. The great question for you and for me is not whether we shall believe or disbelieve the resurrection as a single historic event, but whether we shall maintain or surrender the character of Christianity as a resurrection-religion–a religion able to bring life out of death, both here and hereafter.
Can the choice be difficult to any of us?
(Please be aware that I do not personally subscribe to this viewpoint. It is, however, the traditional view of Christian "full participation" immortality vs. the rational-empirical view of immortality through our DNA, a seemingly far less "tasty" option of which I venture, few heart moving songs would be written: Hallelujah! My DNA is movin’ on. Praise my D-N-A!)
A Sermon on I Corinthians 15:14
GEERHARDUS VOS
Princeton, New Jersey
Taken from a section titled: Resurrection and Regeneration
From various points of view therefore, we are taught by the apostle that the resurrection of Christ, besides being the divine acknowledgement of his perfect righteousness, is also the fountain head of all the renewing and quickening influences that descend from him to us. To preach a risen Christ means to preach a gospel which claims to come with the demonstration of the Spirit and with power. It means to assume that this world is dead in trespasses and sins, that no word of persuasion, no force of example, no release from the body, in fact that nothing short of a new creation can give it life.
Precisely here lies the point where the old apostolic gospel of Paul and the modern moralizing interpretations of Christianity part ways.
Because the modern world has ceased to take sin seriously, it has lost its sense for the necessity of the supernatural in the work of salvation; and to such a state of mind the message of the resurrection of Christ no longer appeals. At present it is believed by many who call themselves Christians that all that is necessary to reach a state of perfection is the self-evolution of the natural man. Now so far as purely inward processes are concerned this modern naturalistic spirit finds it easy to clothe itself in the old Christian forms and to retain the old Christian ways of speaking. But it will immediately rise up in protest when confronted with an intrusion of the supernatural in the external, physical sphere, such as the resurrection of the body.
Need we wonder then that where Christians have begun to give ear to this seductive spirit, the doctrine of the resurrection should gradually have come to be regarded as a source of weakness rather than of strength. The conviction seems to be gaining ground that all practical ends of religion will be equally well served and a possible cause of offense removed by exchanging this doctrine for a simple belief in the immortality of the soul with reference both to Christ and believers. We may learn from Paul, brethren, that skepticism on this concrete point is symptomatic of infection with the poison of naturalism in the very heart of the Christian faith.
The most striking feature of Paul's treatment of the resurrection here and elsewhere is that, far from representing it as an isolated fact, he makes it part of an organic work of renewal involving both the soul and the body of man. The resurrection is supernatural for no other reason than that from beginning to end–in regeneration and sanctification, and in everything–the work of grace is supernatural in the most absolute sense of the word.
According to Paul the same exceeding greatness of divine power is displayed in the production of spiritual life in the sinner's soul as when God raised Christ from the dead and made him to sit at his right hand in heavenly places. The one is no more difficult to believe and no more essential to hold than the other. The great question for you and for me is not whether we shall believe or disbelieve the resurrection as a single historic event, but whether we shall maintain or surrender the character of Christianity as a resurrection-religion–a religion able to bring life out of death, both here and hereafter.
Can the choice be difficult to any of us?
(Please be aware that I do not personally subscribe to this viewpoint. It is, however, the traditional view of Christian "full participation" immortality vs. the rational-empirical view of immortality through our DNA, a seemingly far less "tasty" option of which I venture, few heart moving songs would be written: Hallelujah! My DNA is movin’ on. Praise my D-N-A!)
The Noble One and His Place In the Universe
The ideal of the “Noble One” as expounded by Daniel Rea, PhD-proabtionem, is very well thought out and draws on a long history of secular philosophy and scientific advance. Daniel pulls together the great thought of philosophers through-out history and at the same time disposes of most of their failings. I congratulate him fully for his hard work and dedication to improving the human condition.
Humankind has searched for its place in the universe for as long as we have contemplated our own sentience. We have marveled at all the wonders around us, both rapturous and dangerous. We have named them and categorized them. Initially we associated much of what we saw to a power or powers beyond ourselves. Powers both wondrous and capricious. Even today most of the world’s human population attributes the unknown to such one or more “supernatural” powers.
Mr. Rea proposes that, in fact, we have outgrown the need to associate the unknown with “god” and place it squarely in the field of natural phenomena yet to be properly labeled and categorized. With a proper understanding of nature in hand, he goes on to address our relationship with nature and our place in it and how we should more rightly view ourselves.
His philosophy assigns all or most of the characteristics that we, especially in the Judeo-Christian cultural sphere, associate with God. He proposes that we are in fact each “god” and that we have fashioned God from the ideal image into which we aspire to evolve. It makes for a very inspiring read and an admirable quest to achieve for anyone seeking enlightenment.
The only shortcoming that I feel this philosophy has (discounting the absence of the real God - if any) is the lack of, other than through DNA and your future descendants, immortality.
One of the most important attributes that we have always assigned to our gods, in every culture is their immortality. I think that this short coming needs to be addressed in a more comprehensive way. It is possible, in my view, that we have not reached the intellectual capacity to understand some natural phenomena that could be associated with immortality. Perhaps parallel realities which may surround us and even encompass us give us an immortality quite natural, yet “supra-natural.” This is speculation on my part but without some argument put forth as an avenue of future contemplation, I feel that Mr. Rea’s philosophy is as a beautiful full course feast without the spice.
Culling the Herd
Nature shows us that it is the strongest, quickest and smartest that survive. Time and again we can watch the discovery channel and see nature in its awesome beauty and grisly reality. Whenever a species over populates its range nature culls the herd whether by increasing its natural predators or with disease.
Humans are a natural creature. Can we view the same process in nature with us? Approximately 70,000 years ago, give or take a few months, it seems something happened and humans were nearly eliminated from the planet. How many there were before that time, their distribution or lifestyles we cannot say. We can see that out of however many there were, we all descend from one female.
Mitochondrial Eve. What characteristics were necessary for the species to survive and prosper? Was it a good respect for civil liberties and each other’s space? Was it their fine sense of ethics and the rights of the minority? Would these have been valuable assets to acquiring a mate and prospering or impediments?
We speak of ethics, ideals and freedom. Protection of the weak from being the prey of the strong in society. Your self-expression ends at the point of my nose. Are these the attributes of a strong vibrant natural specie group or, perhaps the sign of a weakened indulgent natural group on the edge of a culling. Spoiling its home with its own dung, too weak, feeble minded or ineffectual to be a vibrant asset to the evolution of nature. Is a culling due?
If we are strictly products of natural evolution, with no divine protection or guidance, then I put it to you: Is a culling logical? And if there is a culling, a mass lemming race, what will be the qualities that nature will look for worth passing into the new herd?
Oh, and just in case you think that the qualities that nature has provided you are valuable - how many off-spring have you passed those qualities onto? That's how evolution works; the polygamist in Texas is the evolutionary winner. And anyone with a nickname "Dangling Fury" would seem to have a great headstart.
Think about it.
Humans are a natural creature. Can we view the same process in nature with us? Approximately 70,000 years ago, give or take a few months, it seems something happened and humans were nearly eliminated from the planet. How many there were before that time, their distribution or lifestyles we cannot say. We can see that out of however many there were, we all descend from one female.
Mitochondrial Eve. What characteristics were necessary for the species to survive and prosper? Was it a good respect for civil liberties and each other’s space? Was it their fine sense of ethics and the rights of the minority? Would these have been valuable assets to acquiring a mate and prospering or impediments?
We speak of ethics, ideals and freedom. Protection of the weak from being the prey of the strong in society. Your self-expression ends at the point of my nose. Are these the attributes of a strong vibrant natural specie group or, perhaps the sign of a weakened indulgent natural group on the edge of a culling. Spoiling its home with its own dung, too weak, feeble minded or ineffectual to be a vibrant asset to the evolution of nature. Is a culling due?
If we are strictly products of natural evolution, with no divine protection or guidance, then I put it to you: Is a culling logical? And if there is a culling, a mass lemming race, what will be the qualities that nature will look for worth passing into the new herd?
Oh, and just in case you think that the qualities that nature has provided you are valuable - how many off-spring have you passed those qualities onto? That's how evolution works; the polygamist in Texas is the evolutionary winner. And anyone with a nickname "Dangling Fury" would seem to have a great headstart.
Think about it.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Who Are the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost?
(A Christian based, but non-Christian viewpoint)
They are biblical allegories:
The Father is God: The progenitor; the creator of all things; the unmoved mover, the Absolute constant; seen yet unseen, known yet unknown.
The Son is – Me! (each man) I am the son, the one through whom God lives and loves. The one whose life gives meaning and purpose to the universe.
The Holy Ghost – The ministering spirit, the comforter, the one through whom life newly emerges. My wife (each woman).
Then what is hell? Hell is separation from the one you love! No fire or torture is greater than to be lonely seeking after a lost loved one. And, thusly, we create our own hell each time we speak a word of separation from another. And for this reason, if no other, it is not possible for hell to be forever. Because no matter who you are or how evil a life you lived, there is someone who loves you and shares your pain of separation and even if it takes an eternity, He will rescue you.
As distasteful as that may sound to some that a person like Hitler can eventually get to heaven, a mother still loves her son, though he be a mass murderer. Do you like the Christian heaven better? EVERYONE, good or bad, who does not believe in Jesus goes straight to hell, where all those in heaven look down from their clouds watching the sinners suffer. Sounds like a bunch of sadists.
I am not suggesting that there would not be a heavy price that he'd have to pay, but again, according to the Christian idea, if he confessed and professed a belief in Jesus before he died, regardless of his sin, he would be in heaven right now.
What is Sin? Sin is the act of inflicting pain on the heart of another. In the Bible, Adam and Eve “sinned.” What did they do? They inflicted pain on the heart of God by rejecting His guidance and followed the usurper. Though grievously wounded, God as our father-creator, is determined to rescue us even as we continue to reject His guidance and love. Though you do not believe in God, He more than any, believes in You. (Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum.) - St. Augustine
And there in lies the meaning behind the tales of the lost lamb and the prodigal son.
I seek with Reason; I live with Joy; I create with Hope; I die with Fulfillment. Say Amen!
They are biblical allegories:
The Father is God: The progenitor; the creator of all things; the unmoved mover, the Absolute constant; seen yet unseen, known yet unknown.
The Son is – Me! (each man) I am the son, the one through whom God lives and loves. The one whose life gives meaning and purpose to the universe.
The Holy Ghost – The ministering spirit, the comforter, the one through whom life newly emerges. My wife (each woman).
Then what is hell? Hell is separation from the one you love! No fire or torture is greater than to be lonely seeking after a lost loved one. And, thusly, we create our own hell each time we speak a word of separation from another. And for this reason, if no other, it is not possible for hell to be forever. Because no matter who you are or how evil a life you lived, there is someone who loves you and shares your pain of separation and even if it takes an eternity, He will rescue you.
As distasteful as that may sound to some that a person like Hitler can eventually get to heaven, a mother still loves her son, though he be a mass murderer. Do you like the Christian heaven better? EVERYONE, good or bad, who does not believe in Jesus goes straight to hell, where all those in heaven look down from their clouds watching the sinners suffer. Sounds like a bunch of sadists.
I am not suggesting that there would not be a heavy price that he'd have to pay, but again, according to the Christian idea, if he confessed and professed a belief in Jesus before he died, regardless of his sin, he would be in heaven right now.
What is Sin? Sin is the act of inflicting pain on the heart of another. In the Bible, Adam and Eve “sinned.” What did they do? They inflicted pain on the heart of God by rejecting His guidance and followed the usurper. Though grievously wounded, God as our father-creator, is determined to rescue us even as we continue to reject His guidance and love. Though you do not believe in God, He more than any, believes in You. (Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum.) - St. Augustine
And there in lies the meaning behind the tales of the lost lamb and the prodigal son.
I seek with Reason; I live with Joy; I create with Hope; I die with Fulfillment. Say Amen!
The Un-cocooned Butterfly
I put it to you:
Humans are indeed all that you say, I fully agree with your description of the known universal human ideal and yet more as I wrote, I think that part of the psyche is much more than tarot reading but just the still little understood twinkling of a power within. Humans are the apex of the universe, which as we know little of the universe, seems a very conceited thing to say but I take my position in that this way:
We are the apex, the representatives of God, and we are the ultimate in the universe, only just beginning to see our true value as a newly un-cocooned butterfly, not because God was created in our image, to express our inner desire TO BE, but because we indeed were created in God's image, and as creations of a perfect God, we could be no less ourselves!
CH, Of course if cats were self conscious God would look like a cat - that's what my cat said too. Do you know something your not sharing?
I am a rationalist in that I do not suggest that God interferes in the operation of the universe as do Christians. More that He set it in motion initially. If there were no God at any level, we would not have any foundation to argue an "ideal" human, a goal or purpose in any phenomena in this universe other than to continue to evolve. We then have to define the meaning of "evolve" from nature's point of view (not our own). All things are just random chance encounters that if they turn out well, that's nice if not, well that's ok too.
In any case, for the point of this argument, the value and character of Human as described by Daniel probably wouldn't change whether my God exists or not. Or would it?
Humans are indeed all that you say, I fully agree with your description of the known universal human ideal and yet more as I wrote, I think that part of the psyche is much more than tarot reading but just the still little understood twinkling of a power within. Humans are the apex of the universe, which as we know little of the universe, seems a very conceited thing to say but I take my position in that this way:
We are the apex, the representatives of God, and we are the ultimate in the universe, only just beginning to see our true value as a newly un-cocooned butterfly, not because God was created in our image, to express our inner desire TO BE, but because we indeed were created in God's image, and as creations of a perfect God, we could be no less ourselves!
CH, Of course if cats were self conscious God would look like a cat - that's what my cat said too. Do you know something your not sharing?
I am a rationalist in that I do not suggest that God interferes in the operation of the universe as do Christians. More that He set it in motion initially. If there were no God at any level, we would not have any foundation to argue an "ideal" human, a goal or purpose in any phenomena in this universe other than to continue to evolve. We then have to define the meaning of "evolve" from nature's point of view (not our own). All things are just random chance encounters that if they turn out well, that's nice if not, well that's ok too.
In any case, for the point of this argument, the value and character of Human as described by Daniel probably wouldn't change whether my God exists or not. Or would it?
I Will It So
Passion is the gateway to volition, intellect merely the tool that determines degree and direction. Intellect does not provide the power of will only the direction and sometimes the brake. It is my heart, my desire and my passion that drives my will. I want it therefore I will it so.
Just a thought
Just a thought
Logos - The beginning
KJV "John Chapter 1”
:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
Magister I have some questions:
What is the word?
Who are the "Father", "Son" and the "Holy Ghost" that the cave dwellers speak of?
Are they real or an allegory?
If they are real how can we know? Can I meet them? If we can not know are we doomed to the hell they speak of? What is hell?
If these are allegory what do they represent? Again, can we know?
It seems important if the whole of western civilization hangs on these three characters. And especially if we want to know and understand the whole truth.
Magister?
:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
Magister I have some questions:
What is the word?
Who are the "Father", "Son" and the "Holy Ghost" that the cave dwellers speak of?
Are they real or an allegory?
If they are real how can we know? Can I meet them? If we can not know are we doomed to the hell they speak of? What is hell?
If these are allegory what do they represent? Again, can we know?
It seems important if the whole of western civilization hangs on these three characters. And especially if we want to know and understand the whole truth.
Magister?
To Dream and As Such, To Live!
Oh Noble One, your wisdom shines through. The human mind and heart seeks to soar. God or no god, when I see a bird I want to fly; when I see a dolphin I want to dive into the depths and play. Why is that magister? Do all creatures in the universe seek to be greater? Dream impossible dreams? Does a chimpanzee look at the night moon and dream of walking on it?
What is it within us that, regardless of our condition, looks for the Noble One? And desires to emulate him? It seems that no one would reject the path, but they are afraid. Fearful of climbing down out of the tree or venturing out of the cave. Envious yet fearful of things and ideas that are different.
You paint a beautiful picture magister; an idyllic scene. I think we often mistake human perfection for flawlessness, error free choices. We should consider the Noble One to be the ultimate in the expression of free will and as such will not necessarily always make the best choices. But as the examples of the greatest amongst us (Socrates and Jesus come to mind) consistently show, they will take personal responsibility for their choice.
Unfortunately the angst and resentment is still too apparent. The tomb dwellers and their leaders are in their own way searching in the dark cave and the little light they see in fairy tales is wisdom so don’t begrudge them their sand, for it is through sifting that sand that we find the pearls of wisdom. And their leaders are not bad, though a few self-preening cocks may be, by far most are good and caring.
As for the list of great “geniuses” of history, well other than Galileo and maybe Einstein I think the list is markedly uninspired. If we want to look for lists of greats to inspire us to greatness I would prefer: Socrates, Jesus, Confucius, Buddha and more recently Augustine and oddly enough Marx. An eclectic list perhaps but regardless of what screw ups and fantasies their followers created, the essential message was to seek and live the truth. As for Marx, perhaps it’s more a case of reverse psychology. He inspired much of the world to live the social gospel sans God.
If you want to rescue our Dangling Fury cousins in the trailer parks of the world you’re going to have to expound a philosophy to catch the hearts of the Sisters of the world who, half suicidal, reach out and touch the hearts – a much more powerful tool of change than the mind. The heart? Then why did I include Socrates in my list? He was the father of western secular thought, but more than that, he believed in the rightness of his ideal so strongly that he was willing to take his own life to protect the honor of that ideal. Plato kowtowed to the state and Aristotle ran away. Would Dawkins do that, or Mr. Singer?
Noble One, we do look to you for something new, not to repeat old ideas or replicate and repackage idle thought, but to glean from the past that which is good, find in the fables of old that which is true and inspire our hearts more than our minds, for to soar we first need our heart. Only then do we need our mind to find the way to fulfill the dream.
What is it within us that, regardless of our condition, looks for the Noble One? And desires to emulate him? It seems that no one would reject the path, but they are afraid. Fearful of climbing down out of the tree or venturing out of the cave. Envious yet fearful of things and ideas that are different.
You paint a beautiful picture magister; an idyllic scene. I think we often mistake human perfection for flawlessness, error free choices. We should consider the Noble One to be the ultimate in the expression of free will and as such will not necessarily always make the best choices. But as the examples of the greatest amongst us (Socrates and Jesus come to mind) consistently show, they will take personal responsibility for their choice.
Unfortunately the angst and resentment is still too apparent. The tomb dwellers and their leaders are in their own way searching in the dark cave and the little light they see in fairy tales is wisdom so don’t begrudge them their sand, for it is through sifting that sand that we find the pearls of wisdom. And their leaders are not bad, though a few self-preening cocks may be, by far most are good and caring.
As for the list of great “geniuses” of history, well other than Galileo and maybe Einstein I think the list is markedly uninspired. If we want to look for lists of greats to inspire us to greatness I would prefer: Socrates, Jesus, Confucius, Buddha and more recently Augustine and oddly enough Marx. An eclectic list perhaps but regardless of what screw ups and fantasies their followers created, the essential message was to seek and live the truth. As for Marx, perhaps it’s more a case of reverse psychology. He inspired much of the world to live the social gospel sans God.
If you want to rescue our Dangling Fury cousins in the trailer parks of the world you’re going to have to expound a philosophy to catch the hearts of the Sisters of the world who, half suicidal, reach out and touch the hearts – a much more powerful tool of change than the mind. The heart? Then why did I include Socrates in my list? He was the father of western secular thought, but more than that, he believed in the rightness of his ideal so strongly that he was willing to take his own life to protect the honor of that ideal. Plato kowtowed to the state and Aristotle ran away. Would Dawkins do that, or Mr. Singer?
Noble One, we do look to you for something new, not to repeat old ideas or replicate and repackage idle thought, but to glean from the past that which is good, find in the fables of old that which is true and inspire our hearts more than our minds, for to soar we first need our heart. Only then do we need our mind to find the way to fulfill the dream.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Can I Get Some Help Here?
Can I Get Some Help Here? What is wrong with this plea? We hear it or say it ourselves everyday. Is it actually possible to get an answer that will solve our problem?
Perhaps if our computer crashed or our watch is broken it might. If our internal computer has a glitch; if our mind or soul is troubled, will asking this question lead to a solution?
An observation was made that people are reading and role-playing their way through self-help books the world over. Everyone is looking for the answer to that call for help.
Where is the answer? Does my philosophy professor have the answer? Does my psychiatrist? Does my coach or even my minister? The chances are very good that they too are all reading the same self-help book that you are.
Can I get some help here? Young people the world over are asking this question. Seeking an answer and finding none. So what are they doing? They are drowning their troubled minds in computer virtual reality, high powered music through headphones that block out the world, and my generation’s favorite: pot.
Do we have hope or is a new illusionary drug just replacing a poorer one. Are we lost and heading down a road of depression, suicide and the ultimate lemming jump: nuclear war?
I suggest two possibilities:
1. The rational-logical way. To understand our world and my place in it in a logical manner, tested and proven through science and logic, study the science and thought of the great minds of history. “The truth shall set you free.” Can I get some help here? Sure, take a philosophy course. You will understand yourself.
2. The meta-physical way. Read your holy book. Follow the guidance of your spiritual leader. Surely they are wise in all the ways of the soul and will enlighten you. Can I get some help here? Pray about it. You will receive an answer.
Problem solved. Next!
What? You still have a problem? You found out your mentor, professor and minister are all reading the same self-help book you are and your crushed, disillusioned and more depressed? You now spend twice as much time playing Grand Theft Auto? You see no hope for the future? Oh dear.
Well maybe there is a solution. I know of a group of people who are generally a much happier lot than average. They seem to have a more positive view of life than most. There is only one problem. The question they ask is different than your question. Their question is ---
Can I help Someone here?
Perhaps if our computer crashed or our watch is broken it might. If our internal computer has a glitch; if our mind or soul is troubled, will asking this question lead to a solution?
An observation was made that people are reading and role-playing their way through self-help books the world over. Everyone is looking for the answer to that call for help.
Where is the answer? Does my philosophy professor have the answer? Does my psychiatrist? Does my coach or even my minister? The chances are very good that they too are all reading the same self-help book that you are.
Can I get some help here? Young people the world over are asking this question. Seeking an answer and finding none. So what are they doing? They are drowning their troubled minds in computer virtual reality, high powered music through headphones that block out the world, and my generation’s favorite: pot.
Do we have hope or is a new illusionary drug just replacing a poorer one. Are we lost and heading down a road of depression, suicide and the ultimate lemming jump: nuclear war?
I suggest two possibilities:
1. The rational-logical way. To understand our world and my place in it in a logical manner, tested and proven through science and logic, study the science and thought of the great minds of history. “The truth shall set you free.” Can I get some help here? Sure, take a philosophy course. You will understand yourself.
2. The meta-physical way. Read your holy book. Follow the guidance of your spiritual leader. Surely they are wise in all the ways of the soul and will enlighten you. Can I get some help here? Pray about it. You will receive an answer.
Problem solved. Next!
What? You still have a problem? You found out your mentor, professor and minister are all reading the same self-help book you are and your crushed, disillusioned and more depressed? You now spend twice as much time playing Grand Theft Auto? You see no hope for the future? Oh dear.
Well maybe there is a solution. I know of a group of people who are generally a much happier lot than average. They seem to have a more positive view of life than most. There is only one problem. The question they ask is different than your question. Their question is ---
Unplug. Become a volunteer.
It's good for your mind, your soul, and your world.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Dreamland or Nightmare, Can You Wake Up?
Do we live in a world of delusion or illusion?
Are we free to choose or only have an illusion of freedom not noticing the tight leash that becomes ever tighter. Do we immerse ourselves in the virtual computer worlds of New Life and Dungeons, creating dreamland empowered self-identities even as we fall into a real world of anonymous, faceless and unrecognized masks in ever growing crowds of mindless, soulless biological entities not far removed from the unrecognized mini-power units in the Matrix.
Can I, as did Neo, pull myself away, disconnect, unplug from the machine of modern society that teaches me just enough while enticing me with so much more – but only under the tight supervision of the machine.
Was Orwell right? Perhaps. And, perhaps he was only half right. The real thought police are not human. They are THE machine. The machine that draws its power from our soul, both giving us the delusion of freedom, but at the same time that small tinge of fear. The political correctness noose that grows tighter and tighter. It sounds so reasonable and polite, but becomes more and more confining and restrictive. Soon, my thoughts will no longer be my own, not because someone is listening to them, but because I won’t know how to think without the machine. And IT IS watching!
The government is corrupt, it is restricting my freedom, it is preventing me from living my life. These are common feelings these days. I need to protect my identity or someone might steal it. These are delusions. The computer knows your identity. You can’t hide from the net and the government is just as much a victim as I. No governments can rationally, effectively govern 7 billion free thinking intelligent individuals, never knowing from one moment to the next what they will do.
We have indeed created God. The question is, can we find liberation from it?
Are we free to choose or only have an illusion of freedom not noticing the tight leash that becomes ever tighter. Do we immerse ourselves in the virtual computer worlds of New Life and Dungeons, creating dreamland empowered self-identities even as we fall into a real world of anonymous, faceless and unrecognized masks in ever growing crowds of mindless, soulless biological entities not far removed from the unrecognized mini-power units in the Matrix.
Can I, as did Neo, pull myself away, disconnect, unplug from the machine of modern society that teaches me just enough while enticing me with so much more – but only under the tight supervision of the machine.
Was Orwell right? Perhaps. And, perhaps he was only half right. The real thought police are not human. They are THE machine. The machine that draws its power from our soul, both giving us the delusion of freedom, but at the same time that small tinge of fear. The political correctness noose that grows tighter and tighter. It sounds so reasonable and polite, but becomes more and more confining and restrictive. Soon, my thoughts will no longer be my own, not because someone is listening to them, but because I won’t know how to think without the machine. And IT IS watching!
The government is corrupt, it is restricting my freedom, it is preventing me from living my life. These are common feelings these days. I need to protect my identity or someone might steal it. These are delusions. The computer knows your identity. You can’t hide from the net and the government is just as much a victim as I. No governments can rationally, effectively govern 7 billion free thinking intelligent individuals, never knowing from one moment to the next what they will do.
We have indeed created God. The question is, can we find liberation from it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)