Tuesday, March 20, 2018
No title
I just haven't posted anything in a while and want to make sure I don't lose this blog because of inactivity, or worse.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Oratiophobia: Overcoming my stuggle with prayer
I know that some people might feel abandonment of the Lord, when prayers are not answered, but, my issue was not a feeling of abandonment, rather, I felt that my prayers would specifically result in very severe rebukes or even in diametrically opposite results of what I had prayed.
Consequently, I began to withdraw from offering all heartfelt and deep spiritual prayers. Psychologically, my prayer aversion was compounded when shortly after my halt to offering prayers, the desired results that I had hoped for, were achieved.
I know, logically my prayers were technically answered in a "miracle".
Nevertheless, the fact that the negative association, in my mind, was previously made to my prayer, i.e. "prayer = bad result", and my decision to stop praying allowed for an association of "non-prayer = good result".
Now, I am trying to erase the faulty logic that I gave an opportunity to develop.
I trust that God is good and that He wants the best for me.
I just need to start praying again, and let God rewrite my failed logic.
But whenever you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father who is hidden. And your Father who sees from the hidden place will reward you.
Monday, November 14, 2016
Lord, can you make it easy for me?
Why doesn't my brain work right? I don't calculate well. Order is not my thing, and unfortunately, chaos is my native language.
21 So He said to them, “How is it you do not understand?”
21 So He said to them, “How is it you do not understand?”
Friday, November 11, 2016
Grown up, Mature, or Perfect
The Message paraphrase version NT
Mt 5:48 “In a word, what I’m saying is, Grow up. You’re kingdom subjects. Now live like it. Live out your God-created identity. Live generously and graciously toward others, the way God lives toward you.”
This passage is in context of loving our enemies, shown in the NKJV below.
Love Your Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor[g] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,[h] 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren[i] only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors[j] do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.In most translations, including the NKJV, you can see that the word translated in verse 48 is "perfect", as in "...you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."
The Message version paraphrases the Koine Greek word "τέλειοι" as 'Grow up'. Its an interesting thing about the word. Because, depending on the context, it can be translated as "perfect", "complete", and/or "mature".
Obviously, the translators of The Message took the meaning to be "mature", when they considered the context.
However, they are not alone in translating the word differently. The Bible In Basic English as well as Weymouth New Testament versions, translate τέλειοι as "complete".
If you think about how the Greek language applied the term, it really makes more sense to think that Jesus is saying that His disciples will be mature or complete, in the way we are to love one another. We are to be just like God the Father. He is mature and complete in His expression of love to mankind, who have rebelled and made ourselves enemies of the Him.
Monday, September 19, 2016
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Jeff Beck - Loose Cannon
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Stay
Monday, January 4, 2016
Traffic - The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys
Friday, January 1, 2016
Monday, December 28, 2015
Egotism, Humility, and Guilt
Egotism demands that I deny my guilt or that I carry the burden of my guilt.
Humility requires that I both acknowledge my guilt and discharge its burden to Christ.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
Who's Tracking Me?
My paranoia tends to drive me in different directions than my global adversaries want or expect me to go.
I know that this sounds a little tautological, however, with all of monetization of everything we view online, I think its reasonable to try to avoid what is expected.
Anyone who is familiar with the use of complex algorithms which are designed to strategically place ads on web pages, will understand that the Amazons and Googles might try to capitalize on a person who just did an index search for synonyms to "tautology".
Although I will admit that I'm not sure what a tautological explorer might crave to spend his/her money on, the very fact that "they" have algorithms for such things makes me shudder.
All of this cookie tracking of the corporations is "child's play" compared to the nation states who have the ability to sniff our packets without a person really knowing that it's happening. It sounds obscene, but, all data packets are subject to getting sniffed.
I understand that it makes us safe, that Uncle Barak or Papa Putin is keeping an eye on who's posting movie reviews on IMDB, but, I don't like it. I will turn left when "they" expect me to go right. I may be the only one turning left, which by its very nature could make me more distinct. Nevertheless, I will try to be random, the embodiment of the chaos principle for the zuckerberg algorithms
Monday, September 8, 2014
Lies that Western Christians Believe (Not a complete list)
2. (re: Item 1) God's blessings are always pleasurable, fun, exciting & "good"
3. (re: Items 1-2) Events and circumstances that are boring,"bad" are curses from God
4. (re: Items 1-3) We should only thank God for things we enjoy
5. Jesus was theologically and politically conservative
6. God helps people who help themselves
7. God expects me to defend my stuff
8. God expects me to defend myself
9. The bible is the Word of God
10. Knowledge is power (knowledge of scripture)
11. Bible debates and arguments are good.
12. Thinking about useless things is okay.
13. Life is short.
14. People should insure ourselves and our property against acts of God.
15. We should take care of things, ourselves, and pray if we find ourselves "in too deep"
16. We shouldn't bother God with small details that we can handle on our own.
17. God needs us.
18. God can use me only when I'm strong.
19. Death is "bad"
20. Worry and fear is okay.
21. It's ok to be greedy.
22. Self-interest is a pure motivation.
23. Complaining is good if the problem is "real".
24. Scary movies/stories are innocent fun.
25. God wants us to be moral.
26. God wants Christians to make the world moral.
27. Religion makes men godly.
28. People in the world are happy
29. Persecution is bad
30. The Church should be run like a business
31. The Church should legally incorporate, so that members can get tax benefits.
32. It's okay to critique
33. God expects Christians "to use common sense"
34. God expects Christians "to be logical or reasonable"
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Tuesday, May 8, 2012
Eric Arthur Blair & his "Orwellian stuff"
.jpg) |
| Orwellian Stuff of 2012 |
- RODRIGUEZ: No. He gets a good night's sleep. He gets his Ensure. By the way, he was very heavy when he came to us and he lost 50 pounds.
- STAHL: What, his Ensure? You mean like people in the hospital who will drink that stuff?
- RODRIGUEZ: Yes. Dietary manipulation was part of these dire techniques.
- STAHL: So sleep deprivation, dietary manipulation, I mean, this is Orwellian stuff. The United States doesn't do that.
Stahl is not the only person who is using Orwellian stuff to manipulate perceptions of reality.
It seems like every Tom, Dick, and George are dumping their "Orwellian stuff" in the public square; trying to get noticed.
President Obama launched his "Forward" campaign, which it so happens has been labeled "Orwellian" stuff for socialism, communism, marxism, or nazism.
Which particular "ism" will manipulate the audience's perception most, is not clear, however, people who oppose another Obama term could not allow the Forward campaign to progress without some Orwellian stuff being dropped in its path.
Twitter also, is full of large stinking piles of Orwellian stuff.
If one has a bit of commonplace news that he wants to be seen in the most cliched terms, and to be utterly ignored by the people who generally ignore him anyway , then, he should categorize the news as "Orwellian stuff".
In this way, no one who hears or reads the characterization need use an iota of critical thought processes to come to an informed opinion.
To be sure, many people do not "think" in any true sense, so, removing a potential need for sporadic thought, by people who either agree or disagree, is a shrewd move on the part of the Orwellian commentator.
And mind you, the term "Orwellian" is only one potential trigger, which may shut down all logic of the religiously left, religiously right, or religiously religious. Some other terms, which will suffice to inoculate catatonic partisans against free thought, are terms like Marxist, Stalinist or Reaganomics.
These Orwellian adjectives may effectively paralyze the mental faculties of what could otherwise be wise & reasoning humans, aka. Homo sapiens sapiens.
These Orwellian adjectives may effectively paralyze the mental faculties of what could otherwise be wise & reasoning humans, aka. Homo sapiens sapiens.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Knowledge as a smart bomb
This post is intended to convey my belief that knowledge is futile for all purposes, with the following exception; making personal choices with wise discernment.
It has been my experience that knowledge, and often its complement; intellect, are most often used to inappropriate purposes, specifically, they become weapons. As a weapon, knowledge is ill equipped to the task.
When attempting to defeat the ignorant with missiles of knowledge, one should reflect on who the enemy is. Is the enemy "the ignorant" or is the enemy "conceptual ignorance"?
Nevertheless, I am no longer in a battle against ignorance or ignorants. Instead, I come in peace and make gift offerings of empirical understanding that have been seasoned with personal opinion; laying them at the feet of the ramparts of ignorance.
It has been my experience that knowledge, and often its complement; intellect, are most often used to inappropriate purposes, specifically, they become weapons. As a weapon, knowledge is ill equipped to the task.
When attempting to defeat the ignorant with missiles of knowledge, one should reflect on who the enemy is. Is the enemy "the ignorant" or is the enemy "conceptual ignorance"?
Nevertheless, I am no longer in a battle against ignorance or ignorants. Instead, I come in peace and make gift offerings of empirical understanding that have been seasoned with personal opinion; laying them at the feet of the ramparts of ignorance.
- Knowledge is not a smart bomb.
- When attacking with erroneous facts, knowledge becomes a defective grenade, and gouges ravines that will impede further advance.
- Knowledge is made clumsy and fruitless, when being assailed from high ramparts of willful ignorance.
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
The fact of godlike Human power (A letter from Screwtape to his nephew, Wormwood)
(The Screwtape Letters: A 21st century addendum)
Dearest Wormwood,
What has motivated your patient's doubt in the fact of human global warming.
The scientific-media has gone to great lengths to persuade the carnal populace with the knowledge that they may all, individually, have a godlike power over the fact of this imposed warmth.
I am concerned that you are allowing him to dismiss global warming, so easily.
Dearest nephew, you must be aware of the vast amounts of blood and treasure, not to mention the warm CO2 (a.k.a. “hot air”), which has been spilled by our sacred & faithful scientific-media followers, all of which has been done with sanctimonious piety, (as provided by the Proud Spirit of our father down below), and this hard labor has been done so that these mortals may take a prideful comfort, in the fact that there exists a human power to provide global HVAC to the masses.
Wormwood, I recognize that you, probably, remain hopeful that Earth may be moving into a warming era of human history, not unlike our blessed home, and therefore, you do not want to encourage your patient to cool the globe, however nephew, If you should be so FOOLISH as to allow him to deny the fact of man's culpability in the warmth issue, then you are, by necessary inference, denying the almost divine power of the fact of secular Humanism.
Nephew, your actions with your patient, also appear to be denying the fact that mankind's secular activities hold the power to alternately, provide either perdition or salvation by the shear force of human will.
Are you daft? Do you not have enough sense to know that mankind must, at all costs, have and maintain a proud comfort in their ability to “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps”? Do you not understand that any silly little concession by you, (a very junior Tempter), is an unforgivable sacrilege, and the penalty for such heresy is no small matter.
Lest you think that our adversary’s quaint little book should hold any sway over our father down below, please remember that he is only bemused by the words “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.”
Therefore, you should, with all haste, confirm in your patient’s heart & mind, that human activity is the only physical matter, that holds power to “save”. Whatever “save” means is irrelevant, because humans rarely take time to consider such words in anything other than a temporal sense.
Your Affectionate Uncle,
Dearest Wormwood,
What has motivated your patient's doubt in the fact of human global warming.
I am concerned that you are allowing him to dismiss global warming, so easily.
Dearest nephew, you must be aware of the vast amounts of blood and treasure, not to mention the warm CO2 (a.k.a. “hot air”), which has been spilled by our sacred & faithful scientific-media followers, all of which has been done with sanctimonious piety, (as provided by the Proud Spirit of our father down below), and this hard labor has been done so that these mortals may take a prideful comfort, in the fact that there exists a human power to provide global HVAC to the masses.
Wormwood, I recognize that you, probably, remain hopeful that Earth may be moving into a warming era of human history, not unlike our blessed home, and therefore, you do not want to encourage your patient to cool the globe, however nephew, If you should be so FOOLISH as to allow him to deny the fact of man's culpability in the warmth issue, then you are, by necessary inference, denying the almost divine power of the fact of secular Humanism.
Nephew, your actions with your patient, also appear to be denying the fact that mankind's secular activities hold the power to alternately, provide either perdition or salvation by the shear force of human will.
Are you daft? Do you not have enough sense to know that mankind must, at all costs, have and maintain a proud comfort in their ability to “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps”? Do you not understand that any silly little concession by you, (a very junior Tempter), is an unforgivable sacrilege, and the penalty for such heresy is no small matter.
Lest you think that our adversary’s quaint little book should hold any sway over our father down below, please remember that he is only bemused by the words “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.”
Therefore, you should, with all haste, confirm in your patient’s heart & mind, that human activity is the only physical matter, that holds power to “save”. Whatever “save” means is irrelevant, because humans rarely take time to consider such words in anything other than a temporal sense.
Your Affectionate Uncle,
Screwtape
The Implied Postulate of Theology
Nwahs: The Implied Postulate of Theology
Theology becomes relevant when mankind assumes that he is capable of knowing what God expects from his creation.
Man is arrogant enough to believe that this knowledge is within his grasp, and so, he ciphers with his finite mind; presuming that the infinite mind of God may be seized and placed in our collection of empirical facts.
Friend: The thought is intriguing and does have some appeal. I wonder though where this leaves resources like the Bible and our "God given inner compass, the conscience", which helps with discernment and being "Spirit led". I think I believe that it is possible to know God's will with certain and assured limitations, but his is a question I have not really analyzed in depth. I believe that we have touched upon this topic before in discussions of ethics and morality... Any other thoughts?
Nwahs: This philosophical observation has evolved since its first incarnation.
Something about it seems too simple to be an error.
But, the things, of which you make note, are abrasive to a reasonable mind. So, we are compelled to harmonize a paradox that is inexplicable.
The paradox....
Friend: I am generally very wary, to say the least, of people that make statements like "God wants___________ (fill in the blank)... Like I mentioned before upon hearing James Dobson say, "God wants to use the US to help destroy Islam", which immediately made me ask several very penetrating questions like where he supposedly got that information, why God would need our fighter planes and tanks if he wanted Islam destroyed, who does this guy think he is and what scripture did he get that idea from?" But, I don't think I have ever understood theology as necessarily discovering God's will but rather exploring his nature. As far as will goes, we have discussed whether or not there is a master plan or a script for every person- I don't believe there is. All this comes out in an exploration of the question of freewill. I think my studies of Native theology helped free up my mind on these topics. As you mention, sort of, generally speaking Native Americans thought of God as the "Great Mystery"
Friend: "The Great Mystery" being distinct from "The Great Spirit". They acknowledged that certain aspects of God's nature were simply beyond the grasp of the human mind. All that they knew was that this Creator God was benevolent, having created life in an ordered, cyclical, nurturing, symbiotic , morally conscious section of a vast cosmos, most of which they could know nothing about except by expanding the spiritual nature- which they were actually quite good at. This was a lot easier for them than us because of the distractions in the world we have built for ourselves. They never pretended to know what God's will was- but simply sought to find their own purpose and hopefully fulfillment within creation. I could go on for hours... your turn.
Friend: What I was working up to before cutting myself off was that not ALL, humanity assumes that arrogance of which you speak... the Western mind and the indigenous mind (or some indigenous minds) are actually quite different on that point.... That arrogance and assumption and collection of facts is what we mostly know because that is what this culture that we are living in the middle of has made of itself... but not all humanity and all cultures try to operate that way.
Nwahs: You may be correct about theology. However, my understanding of theology is as a rational approach to understanding the being & essence of deity. The terms of exploring God's "nature", implies that God has a "natural" or physicality that lends itself to being observed naturally. This to me is paradoxical. The statement that started our discussion does not point a finger of blame, shame or prideful guilt at one man, e.g. James Dobson. Instead, it says that mankind has a task that defies reason, in attempting to study a non-creature, i.e. study an un-created life. The statement can't be seen to single out Dobson, Moses, or Muhammad. The issue is that man attempts to know God. As any man comes to believe he has knowledge of God, he is compelled to distribute this knowledge to others. Therefore, by so doing..., arrogance is manifest in the teacher, rabbi, priest, and shaman.
Nwahs: I had been thinking and writing when you posted your comment prior to my last. However, your point about other cultures being less encumbered by western (industrial) thought is not necessarily true. Siddhartha attained enlightenment and then sought to help others follow his path. This implies that he had a deeper grasp of spiritual essence. Lao Tzu recorded the great wisdom of the Tao Te Ching, which implies he had discerned a unique knowledge of the Tao that others did not have. It may be said that Lao Tzu and Siddhartha were most humble of men, but, the fact that they knew they had achieved such humility that should be recorded for the enlightenment of others, is hubris.
Nwahs: I apologize for my cynicism. The purpose was not to be a "kill joy."
Friend: by nature I mean essence- I think of that as the same thing... but semantics can always trip one up... This reminds me of the old saying about how those that speak don't know and those that don't speak do know... but, that statement too is an assertion of knowing and wisdom... and assumption that wise, knowing men hold their tongues and actually know something of the unknowable... lol. In the end, who knows? About all I profess to know about God himself is that there is one and his Spirit can interface with that of a person in a pretty unmistakable way... and even then, the Mystery is not revealed but only confirmed(?)(not sure what word to use there- language has its limitations)
Nwahs: Yes, I thought that I understood you on that. Just so you don't misunderstand my underlying point; the nuance issue comes into play in my understanding. It should not be understood that I am denying the value of seeking knowledge of God, neither should it be understood that I am denying the value of sharing knowledge of God. Rather, what I am saying is that the knowledge men obtain about God, is not so much the result of the men wrestling knowledge from God by great effort and intelligence. The knowledge, therefore, is obtained by a humble acceptance of the revelation from God. It is a spiritual epiphany within the heart, mind and soul.
Friend: I had gotten all that- good summation.
Theology becomes relevant when mankind assumes that he is capable of knowing what God expects from his creation.
Man is arrogant enough to believe that this knowledge is within his grasp, and so, he ciphers with his finite mind; presuming that the infinite mind of God may be seized and placed in our collection of empirical facts.Friend: The thought is intriguing and does have some appeal. I wonder though where this leaves resources like the Bible and our "God given inner compass, the conscience", which helps with discernment and being "Spirit led". I think I believe that it is possible to know God's will with certain and assured limitations, but his is a question I have not really analyzed in depth. I believe that we have touched upon this topic before in discussions of ethics and morality... Any other thoughts?
- God is mystery. God is Spirit. God exists in the cosmos, but cannot be contained by the cosmos.
- Man is a tiny speck within the cosmos. Man must understand the will of God. Man must obtain the knowledge of God.
Friend: I am generally very wary, to say the least, of people that make statements like "God wants___________ (fill in the blank)... Like I mentioned before upon hearing James Dobson say, "God wants to use the US to help destroy Islam", which immediately made me ask several very penetrating questions like where he supposedly got that information, why God would need our fighter planes and tanks if he wanted Islam destroyed, who does this guy think he is and what scripture did he get that idea from?" But, I don't think I have ever understood theology as necessarily discovering God's will but rather exploring his nature. As far as will goes, we have discussed whether or not there is a master plan or a script for every person- I don't believe there is. All this comes out in an exploration of the question of freewill. I think my studies of Native theology helped free up my mind on these topics. As you mention, sort of, generally speaking Native Americans thought of God as the "Great Mystery"
Friend: "The Great Mystery" being distinct from "The Great Spirit". They acknowledged that certain aspects of God's nature were simply beyond the grasp of the human mind. All that they knew was that this Creator God was benevolent, having created life in an ordered, cyclical, nurturing, symbiotic , morally conscious section of a vast cosmos, most of which they could know nothing about except by expanding the spiritual nature- which they were actually quite good at. This was a lot easier for them than us because of the distractions in the world we have built for ourselves. They never pretended to know what God's will was- but simply sought to find their own purpose and hopefully fulfillment within creation. I could go on for hours... your turn.
Friend: What I was working up to before cutting myself off was that not ALL, humanity assumes that arrogance of which you speak... the Western mind and the indigenous mind (or some indigenous minds) are actually quite different on that point.... That arrogance and assumption and collection of facts is what we mostly know because that is what this culture that we are living in the middle of has made of itself... but not all humanity and all cultures try to operate that way.
Nwahs: You may be correct about theology. However, my understanding of theology is as a rational approach to understanding the being & essence of deity. The terms of exploring God's "nature", implies that God has a "natural" or physicality that lends itself to being observed naturally. This to me is paradoxical. The statement that started our discussion does not point a finger of blame, shame or prideful guilt at one man, e.g. James Dobson. Instead, it says that mankind has a task that defies reason, in attempting to study a non-creature, i.e. study an un-created life. The statement can't be seen to single out Dobson, Moses, or Muhammad. The issue is that man attempts to know God. As any man comes to believe he has knowledge of God, he is compelled to distribute this knowledge to others. Therefore, by so doing..., arrogance is manifest in the teacher, rabbi, priest, and shaman.
Nwahs: I had been thinking and writing when you posted your comment prior to my last. However, your point about other cultures being less encumbered by western (industrial) thought is not necessarily true. Siddhartha attained enlightenment and then sought to help others follow his path. This implies that he had a deeper grasp of spiritual essence. Lao Tzu recorded the great wisdom of the Tao Te Ching, which implies he had discerned a unique knowledge of the Tao that others did not have. It may be said that Lao Tzu and Siddhartha were most humble of men, but, the fact that they knew they had achieved such humility that should be recorded for the enlightenment of others, is hubris.
Nwahs: I apologize for my cynicism. The purpose was not to be a "kill joy."
Friend: by nature I mean essence- I think of that as the same thing... but semantics can always trip one up... This reminds me of the old saying about how those that speak don't know and those that don't speak do know... but, that statement too is an assertion of knowing and wisdom... and assumption that wise, knowing men hold their tongues and actually know something of the unknowable... lol. In the end, who knows? About all I profess to know about God himself is that there is one and his Spirit can interface with that of a person in a pretty unmistakable way... and even then, the Mystery is not revealed but only confirmed(?)(not sure what word to use there- language has its limitations)
Nwahs: Yes, I thought that I understood you on that. Just so you don't misunderstand my underlying point; the nuance issue comes into play in my understanding. It should not be understood that I am denying the value of seeking knowledge of God, neither should it be understood that I am denying the value of sharing knowledge of God. Rather, what I am saying is that the knowledge men obtain about God, is not so much the result of the men wrestling knowledge from God by great effort and intelligence. The knowledge, therefore, is obtained by a humble acceptance of the revelation from God. It is a spiritual epiphany within the heart, mind and soul.
Friend: I had gotten all that- good summation.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Ethos is reality
Speciously idle questions.
Individuals must take interest in the philosophy that is being considered by the men and women who shape the course of our world. The philosophies in these elite circles may not be changed by our considerations, but, the goal should not be to change the world. The goal, for each individual, is the recognition of Truth. This is the power of each person.
We, individually, have & hold the power to evaluate thoughts and accept them or reject them. It is just that simple. If after evaluating the philosophy du jour, we find the conclusion of the thought to be untenable, we may remain in command by holding Truth in our minds, and never abdicating to others who desire to think for us. It is our authority as much as it is our right. As an example of the importance of philosophy to average people
I have been contemplating some underlying thoughts about the spirit of the "Age of Reason" & “Age of Enlightenment”. I recently wrote something about the “ethos of humanity” and my wife asked what I intended to say. So, I found myself explaining what ethos is and why I hadn’t just used the common term, “morality”, to express myself.
However, my answer involves the “Age of Reason”, the “Age of Enlightenment”, and almost all of the thinking that occurred as this era matured into our now “Post-modern” world. I will resist the temptation to make a doctoral thesis out of “Ethos.” If you haven’t already googled, I will save you a step by linking the Wiki on Ethos. You should notice that in the first paragraph, the Wiki references the Latin equivalent, which is Mores. This is the key to my wife’s question. I maintain that there is not a true equivalency between the Greek concept of Ethos and the Latin concept of Mores.
The Western world-view changed fundamentally with the "enlightenment" and the results of the change could have been expected, because of the philosophy that took root in the minds of the movers & shakers of the western world. Thoughts have costs and philosophies have consequences.
When one evaluates the ultimate conclusions of a thought and he sees that its end is bleak and hopeless, is he “closed minded” to reject the philosophy from his mind?
Metaphysical Naturalism (aka Ontological Naturalism) has been the dominant philosophy of the modern & post-modern era. Informally, Wikipedia, until recently, classified Metaphysical Naturalism as a “quasi-religion”. Efforts are made to divorce naturalism from religion, however, note carefully what Wikipedia has to say about Metaphysical Naturalism;
Therefore, Nietzsche reaches into his natural “bag of tricks” for a purpose for mankind and he pulls out Übermensch (Super-Man), while Sigmund Freud found the Ego, Super-ego, and Id.
These carnal/material answers from the naturalist philosophers are essential in order to move mankind beyond deity. Because of this evolution of reason & naturalism, ethos was no longer dominant for providing guidance to the actions of the individual, and it was during this time that mores, conceptually, replaced ethos.
Mankind’s Moral imperatives were to be driven by culture; that is to say that our guiding principles could no longer look to unverifiable deities such as Jesus. Also, with this evolution, it was a reasonable extension to consign determination of mores into the hands of the most logical (reasonable) minds, such as Freud, Nietzsche, Marx, & Engels, et al.
While I do not necessarily credit these men for their great philosophical advancements, neither do I fault them, because the logical progression from the mid 18th Century “Enlightenment” was foreseeable.
And yet, I see the evolution to mores as a degradation of civilization. People assume that "Mores" & "Ethos" are equivalent concepts, but they are not.
Consider how the writer of the book of Romans describes, what I am here recognizing as Ethos. ROMANS 7:19-23 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do— this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. Note that the writer continually references “I” in this passage.
However, one can see that in verse twenty, the writer divides himself into two individuals. Even more importantly, he transforms our understanding by his identification of a true self and a false self. In verse twenty-two the writer further enlightens us about who the true self is. True self is the “inner being”. As a disciple of Jesus, this makes sense. I see the inner being in myself as the man who exists prior to the modifications from without, i.e. the fall.
Mores seek to convert humans into utilitarian tools for society.
Ethos maintains the value in the individual’s original essence, by acknowledging the value of all other individuals. The manifestation of Ethos is seen first by our attitude and then by our actions towards others.
Therefore, I would say that Ethos is who we are in our being, while Mores represent who others demand that we become. Mores should be subservient to Ethos, or did you think I forgot about Nuremberg?
What do you think? Let me know.
- Does philosophy have any value to the average person in the real world?
- Should real people care what the professors are professing about evolving knowledge & devolving belief?
- Should you care what the politicians are proposing from the chambers of evolving mercy & devolving justice?
Individuals must take interest in the philosophy that is being considered by the men and women who shape the course of our world. The philosophies in these elite circles may not be changed by our considerations, but, the goal should not be to change the world. The goal, for each individual, is the recognition of Truth. This is the power of each person.
We, individually, have & hold the power to evaluate thoughts and accept them or reject them. It is just that simple. If after evaluating the philosophy du jour, we find the conclusion of the thought to be untenable, we may remain in command by holding Truth in our minds, and never abdicating to others who desire to think for us. It is our authority as much as it is our right. As an example of the importance of philosophy to average people
I have been contemplating some underlying thoughts about the spirit of the "Age of Reason" & “Age of Enlightenment”. I recently wrote something about the “ethos of humanity” and my wife asked what I intended to say. So, I found myself explaining what ethos is and why I hadn’t just used the common term, “morality”, to express myself.
However, my answer involves the “Age of Reason”, the “Age of Enlightenment”, and almost all of the thinking that occurred as this era matured into our now “Post-modern” world. I will resist the temptation to make a doctoral thesis out of “Ethos.” If you haven’t already googled, I will save you a step by linking the Wiki on Ethos. You should notice that in the first paragraph, the Wiki references the Latin equivalent, which is Mores. This is the key to my wife’s question. I maintain that there is not a true equivalency between the Greek concept of Ethos and the Latin concept of Mores.
The Western world-view changed fundamentally with the "enlightenment" and the results of the change could have been expected, because of the philosophy that took root in the minds of the movers & shakers of the western world. Thoughts have costs and philosophies have consequences.
When one evaluates the ultimate conclusions of a thought and he sees that its end is bleak and hopeless, is he “closed minded” to reject the philosophy from his mind?
Metaphysical Naturalism (aka Ontological Naturalism) has been the dominant philosophy of the modern & post-modern era. Informally, Wikipedia, until recently, classified Metaphysical Naturalism as a “quasi-religion”. Efforts are made to divorce naturalism from religion, however, note carefully what Wikipedia has to say about Metaphysical Naturalism;
"It is presumably not a religion. In one very important respect, however, it resembles religion: it can be said to perform the cognitive function of a religion. There is that range of deep human questions to which a religion typically provides an answer: ... Like a typical religion, naturalism gives a set of answers to these and similar questions."The value judgments of Ontological Naturalism are based on matter only. In the modern/post-modern religion of Ontological Naturalism, there is no rational means of appealing to a dimension beyond the observable cosmos to give a framework for values.
Therefore, Nietzsche reaches into his natural “bag of tricks” for a purpose for mankind and he pulls out Übermensch (Super-Man), while Sigmund Freud found the Ego, Super-ego, and Id.
These carnal/material answers from the naturalist philosophers are essential in order to move mankind beyond deity. Because of this evolution of reason & naturalism, ethos was no longer dominant for providing guidance to the actions of the individual, and it was during this time that mores, conceptually, replaced ethos.
Mankind’s Moral imperatives were to be driven by culture; that is to say that our guiding principles could no longer look to unverifiable deities such as Jesus. Also, with this evolution, it was a reasonable extension to consign determination of mores into the hands of the most logical (reasonable) minds, such as Freud, Nietzsche, Marx, & Engels, et al.
While I do not necessarily credit these men for their great philosophical advancements, neither do I fault them, because the logical progression from the mid 18th Century “Enlightenment” was foreseeable.
And yet, I see the evolution to mores as a degradation of civilization. People assume that "Mores" & "Ethos" are equivalent concepts, but they are not.
- Mores are driven by 'mob' forces from without, e.g. culture, government, community, neighborhood, & even gangs.
- Ethos however, is a spiritual element that arises from within; it is an application of an internal standard of reality. The standard is irrational, yet, it is spiritually superior.
Consider how the writer of the book of Romans describes, what I am here recognizing as Ethos. ROMANS 7:19-23 19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do— this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. 21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23 but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. Note that the writer continually references “I” in this passage.
However, one can see that in verse twenty, the writer divides himself into two individuals. Even more importantly, he transforms our understanding by his identification of a true self and a false self. In verse twenty-two the writer further enlightens us about who the true self is. True self is the “inner being”. As a disciple of Jesus, this makes sense. I see the inner being in myself as the man who exists prior to the modifications from without, i.e. the fall.
Mores seek to convert humans into utilitarian tools for society.
We are so obsessed with doing that we have no time and no imagination left for being. As a result, men are valued not for what they are but for what they do or what they have - for their usefulness. ~Thomas Merton
What can we gain by sailing to the moon if we are not able to cross the abyss that separates us from ourselves? This is the most important of all voyages of discovery, and without it, all the rest are not only useless, but disastrous. ~Thomas Merton
Conventional foolishness of the wise men
A dialogue between two great Greek philosophers; Plato & Diogenes the cynic
The ideas of 21st Century America are very Platonic, so, I appreciate Diogenes' ridicule of conventional "wisdom", yet, convention is not maleficent per se.
So, what is it exactly, in our postmodern conventions, which rouses my sense of "holy contempt", that is similar to Diogenes' contempt for the Classical Greek culture?
Are there empirical traits that one might perceive and quantify, which might allow a judgment of culture and convention?
- Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one "idea" of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.
- "I can see the cup on the table," interrupted Diogenes, "but I can't see the 'cupness'."
- "That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend 'cupness'."
- Diogenes walked up to the table, examined the cup and, looking inside, he asked, "Is it empty?"
- Plato nodded.
- "So, where is the 'emptiness' which precedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes.
- Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts,
- but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the 'emptiness'." (emphasis added)
The ideas of 21st Century America are very Platonic, so, I appreciate Diogenes' ridicule of conventional "wisdom", yet, convention is not maleficent per se.
So, what is it exactly, in our postmodern conventions, which rouses my sense of "holy contempt", that is similar to Diogenes' contempt for the Classical Greek culture?
Are there empirical traits that one might perceive and quantify, which might allow a judgment of culture and convention?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)