Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Conservative / Liberal
Conservatism is the fear of the unknown. Liberalism is the fear of the known. Freedom from fear liberates the intellect to do its work and navigate through the perils.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
MAN AND GOD - a logical approach
In my prior entry, I noted that, from the historical record, we know that virtually every culture, throughout the entirety of recorded history, has had a belief in God or gods yet there is no supporting empirical evidence that those ideas of God or gods are valid. The implication of this global behavior is that the need for a connectedness to the Universal is driving us so hard that we are both willing and desperate enough to live with fabrications of our own making.
When we examine religion, in every place and time, we find that the God or gods worshiped have taken on the values of each particular society. For example, it is well known that God was depicted in the Old Testament as a vengeful God but in the New Testament he became a loving God. This had led the cynics to say that “God was created in man’s image”. So this puts us in the position of either just accepting the beliefs of our times or taking a time out to examine the human concept of God or gods.
In Western thought, dating back to its origins, it is believed that God is personal or anthropomorphic. Therefore our relationship with him is of a personal nature. We pray, he listens, he acts.
However to be personal, God would have to have attributes such as loving or vengeful and having attributes would give him definition. What can be defined, that is what is distinct in character or in dimension, time and place, is within the creation. Therefore a personal God would have to be a part of the creation. This is clearly an illogical premise; the creator can not create himself. This must also mean that he can not be outside of creation as the creator of the universe and within the universe as an individual at the same time. Therefore the concept of incarnation can not be correct either. In addition, God can not act as action is a part of the dynamic creation. To act is to be within the creation.
All this is an egocentric view – a view that the world revolves around us and therefore so does God. It is the view that God comes to us. Even when we think that we are going to God by worshiping him, in reality, we are engaging in a relational activity between us and our own self generated idea of a personal deity -- an idea, like all other ideas, that is within relativity. Therefore we can not be going to God because he is not within relativity.
This all occurs because we function at the level of intellect and every thought that is generated is based solely on experience within the creation. Consequently, when the intellect attempts to understand the source of creation it can only think in terms of the creation.
The opposite of the ego centered view, is the God centered view. God is the source of creation so therefore concepts of reality need to start there. This is the view that we should align ourselves with God.
Keep in mind that the ultimate source of relativity can only be God or the Godhead. Therefore temporality cannot be independent from God and to believe so is delusional and, ultimately, self destructive. If the creation can not be independent from the creator then it must be connected to him. Therefore the creation would be God’s manifestation.
Most important to us humans, as best as we can tell, in this creation, we can do more than merely go about living and reproducing. As best as we know, we are the highest life form. Through the process of evolution, humans have developed minds of unimaginable complexity. It is estimated that the human brain has within it 100 billion neurons and a quadrillion synapses. This has given us the ability to transcend individuality and transcend intellect. For those who have pursued this path, when in the transcendental state of consciousness, the focus on individuality and the mundane has faded, leaving nothing but the Godhead – the ultimate experience of reality.
From the individual perspective, absolute reality is beyond intellect and therefore is even beyond imagination. Never-the-less, the transcendental experience of the absolute, being the experience of Reality itself, immeasurably exceeds the value of any accomplishment within the temporal field itself.
This does not mean, however, that the goal and the worth of unification should be exclusive to accomplishment within temporality, within God’s manifestation. It does not point to a cave in the Himalayas! Instead, its value is in arming the individual with a sense of connectedness to both the transcendent reality and to the whole of creation. With such a state of awareness, delusion is dispelled, inner happiness is maximized and the effectiveness of action becomes unparalleled.
When we examine religion, in every place and time, we find that the God or gods worshiped have taken on the values of each particular society. For example, it is well known that God was depicted in the Old Testament as a vengeful God but in the New Testament he became a loving God. This had led the cynics to say that “God was created in man’s image”. So this puts us in the position of either just accepting the beliefs of our times or taking a time out to examine the human concept of God or gods.
In Western thought, dating back to its origins, it is believed that God is personal or anthropomorphic. Therefore our relationship with him is of a personal nature. We pray, he listens, he acts.
However to be personal, God would have to have attributes such as loving or vengeful and having attributes would give him definition. What can be defined, that is what is distinct in character or in dimension, time and place, is within the creation. Therefore a personal God would have to be a part of the creation. This is clearly an illogical premise; the creator can not create himself. This must also mean that he can not be outside of creation as the creator of the universe and within the universe as an individual at the same time. Therefore the concept of incarnation can not be correct either. In addition, God can not act as action is a part of the dynamic creation. To act is to be within the creation.
All this is an egocentric view – a view that the world revolves around us and therefore so does God. It is the view that God comes to us. Even when we think that we are going to God by worshiping him, in reality, we are engaging in a relational activity between us and our own self generated idea of a personal deity -- an idea, like all other ideas, that is within relativity. Therefore we can not be going to God because he is not within relativity.
This all occurs because we function at the level of intellect and every thought that is generated is based solely on experience within the creation. Consequently, when the intellect attempts to understand the source of creation it can only think in terms of the creation.
The opposite of the ego centered view, is the God centered view. God is the source of creation so therefore concepts of reality need to start there. This is the view that we should align ourselves with God.
Keep in mind that the ultimate source of relativity can only be God or the Godhead. Therefore temporality cannot be independent from God and to believe so is delusional and, ultimately, self destructive. If the creation can not be independent from the creator then it must be connected to him. Therefore the creation would be God’s manifestation.
Most important to us humans, as best as we can tell, in this creation, we can do more than merely go about living and reproducing. As best as we know, we are the highest life form. Through the process of evolution, humans have developed minds of unimaginable complexity. It is estimated that the human brain has within it 100 billion neurons and a quadrillion synapses. This has given us the ability to transcend individuality and transcend intellect. For those who have pursued this path, when in the transcendental state of consciousness, the focus on individuality and the mundane has faded, leaving nothing but the Godhead – the ultimate experience of reality.
From the individual perspective, absolute reality is beyond intellect and therefore is even beyond imagination. Never-the-less, the transcendental experience of the absolute, being the experience of Reality itself, immeasurably exceeds the value of any accomplishment within the temporal field itself.
This does not mean, however, that the goal and the worth of unification should be exclusive to accomplishment within temporality, within God’s manifestation. It does not point to a cave in the Himalayas! Instead, its value is in arming the individual with a sense of connectedness to both the transcendent reality and to the whole of creation. With such a state of awareness, delusion is dispelled, inner happiness is maximized and the effectiveness of action becomes unparalleled.
Friday, March 19, 2010
RELIGION
The most important subject that anyone can undertake to understand is what we loosely call ‘religion’. Academics have approached it historically, theologically, culturally, mythologically, psychologically and even logically. Yet the general public resists the knowledge developed and, instead, offers often heard sentiments such as the following: “You have to believe because science can’t disprove…” “Everybody has his own reality.” “There must be a heaven because everybody believes that there is one.” “ I know that God is real because I can feel his presence.”
We know from the historical record that virtually every culture, throughout the entirety of recorded history, has had a belief in God or gods and a belief in some kind of an afterlife. And, from what evidence that archeologists have pieced together, some rudimentary forms of thee beliefs likely go back even further.
We also know that there is no empirical evidence to support these notions and entire belief systems have been based on what a court of law would call ‘hearsay’.
I would suggest that of all of the approaches to understanding religion, the most insight can be developed from the psychological and logical approaches and I will present my observations through these vectors in upcoming blogs.
Until then, the followers of this blog may give some thought to why every society throughout time has believed in gods and a hereafter. What drives everyone to accept these beliefs? What is the comment element?
We know from the historical record that virtually every culture, throughout the entirety of recorded history, has had a belief in God or gods and a belief in some kind of an afterlife. And, from what evidence that archeologists have pieced together, some rudimentary forms of thee beliefs likely go back even further.
We also know that there is no empirical evidence to support these notions and entire belief systems have been based on what a court of law would call ‘hearsay’.
I would suggest that of all of the approaches to understanding religion, the most insight can be developed from the psychological and logical approaches and I will present my observations through these vectors in upcoming blogs.
Until then, the followers of this blog may give some thought to why every society throughout time has believed in gods and a hereafter. What drives everyone to accept these beliefs? What is the comment element?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Who Needs Government?
Voltaire said “The art of government is to make two-thirds of a nation pay all it possibly can pay for the benefit of the other third.” Looking at this quote by itself, it is hard to know whether it was intended to be instructive or was just cynical as the smiley had not yet been invented. In any case, there were clearly people that believed this. They were, of course, among the benefiting one-third. Had Voltaire lived just a few more years he would have been lucky to have escaped La Guillotine.
Today, we accept that government must serve both the elite and the hoi polloi. We also know that governments tends to grow beyond reason and then present us with the bills. It has also been observed that, at times, government bureaucrats can be very intrusive.
When all of this becomes too much for the electorate, calls for government reduction and even elimination go from beyond being merely loud to being irrational. What is forgotten is the most important function that government has which can be done by no other.
In our unenlightened world, it is often said to “look out for number one.” In the short run, this may work out well enough for number one but number two and number three often suffers in the process. This is what laws and regulations are intended to moderate. There are simply too many people who could care less about their fellow neighbors and citizens.
This is well illustrated by the recent Wall Street’s debacle. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” was supposed to be in control. As we all found out, what happened was that a few got all of the gold and the rest of us lost out big time. So much for self regulation.
The same occurs at the local level when large chain businesses focus on their own bottom line at the expense of the local physical and economic environment. It occurs when a homeowner blares his music throughout the neighborhood or turns his property into a virtual junkyard.
Whether it be Wall Street or Main Street, without recourse to government, there simply is no means of moderating competing interests. At this stage, in utter frustration, many will take matter into their own hands. What looms ominously is a very uncivil and even violent society.
Today, we accept that government must serve both the elite and the hoi polloi. We also know that governments tends to grow beyond reason and then present us with the bills. It has also been observed that, at times, government bureaucrats can be very intrusive.
When all of this becomes too much for the electorate, calls for government reduction and even elimination go from beyond being merely loud to being irrational. What is forgotten is the most important function that government has which can be done by no other.
In our unenlightened world, it is often said to “look out for number one.” In the short run, this may work out well enough for number one but number two and number three often suffers in the process. This is what laws and regulations are intended to moderate. There are simply too many people who could care less about their fellow neighbors and citizens.
This is well illustrated by the recent Wall Street’s debacle. Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” was supposed to be in control. As we all found out, what happened was that a few got all of the gold and the rest of us lost out big time. So much for self regulation.
The same occurs at the local level when large chain businesses focus on their own bottom line at the expense of the local physical and economic environment. It occurs when a homeowner blares his music throughout the neighborhood or turns his property into a virtual junkyard.
Whether it be Wall Street or Main Street, without recourse to government, there simply is no means of moderating competing interests. At this stage, in utter frustration, many will take matter into their own hands. What looms ominously is a very uncivil and even violent society.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Veterans’ Benefits Nightmare Not Irresolvable
60 Minutes reported this evening that the Veterans Administration had a requirement that veterans’ ailments had to be caused by events that occurred during their service. The administration of this appears to have brought the granting of benefits to a near standstill.
This is certainly easy to understand as the correlation of current problems to events that may have occurred decades ago, especially in the ‘fog of war’ is not a matter of simple administration.
From this we have to ask how much health benefits should the government be providing for veterans and what burden is reasonable for the taxpayers to carry.
From the period of roughly 1940 to 1975, nearly all males served in the military. Or, to put it another way, nearly half of the population of the country served in the military. But since then, in particularly since the Gulf War in 1990, fighting the country’s wars has been left to a relatively small number of volunteers. It has been somewhat of a scandal that the few carry all of the burdens of war while the rest of the population goes about business as usual.
While veterans of all wars should have their wounds, whether physical or mental, attended to at the expense of a grateful nation, it may be possible to do even more for the post Gulf War veterans as they are a very small percentage of the male population rather than the entire male population as was the case earlier.
Instead of continuing the practice of correlating ailment with service related incident, it is now reasonable to consider the granting of medical benefit to honorably discharged veterans that is much the same as medical benefits that are provided to civilian employees at their retirement.
This would eliminate the miscarriage of justice for these folks that has resulted from the Veterans Administration’s attempt at correlating ailment to service injury and the cost of that administration as well. In addition, the provision of this benefit would go a small way towards indicating some gratitude from the many to the few.
This is certainly easy to understand as the correlation of current problems to events that may have occurred decades ago, especially in the ‘fog of war’ is not a matter of simple administration.
From this we have to ask how much health benefits should the government be providing for veterans and what burden is reasonable for the taxpayers to carry.
From the period of roughly 1940 to 1975, nearly all males served in the military. Or, to put it another way, nearly half of the population of the country served in the military. But since then, in particularly since the Gulf War in 1990, fighting the country’s wars has been left to a relatively small number of volunteers. It has been somewhat of a scandal that the few carry all of the burdens of war while the rest of the population goes about business as usual.
While veterans of all wars should have their wounds, whether physical or mental, attended to at the expense of a grateful nation, it may be possible to do even more for the post Gulf War veterans as they are a very small percentage of the male population rather than the entire male population as was the case earlier.
Instead of continuing the practice of correlating ailment with service related incident, it is now reasonable to consider the granting of medical benefit to honorably discharged veterans that is much the same as medical benefits that are provided to civilian employees at their retirement.
This would eliminate the miscarriage of justice for these folks that has resulted from the Veterans Administration’s attempt at correlating ailment to service injury and the cost of that administration as well. In addition, the provision of this benefit would go a small way towards indicating some gratitude from the many to the few.
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Stereotyping
According to the dictionary (Dictionary.com) stereotyping is “a generalization, usually exaggerated or oversimplified and often offensive, that is used to describe or distinguish a group.”
I won’t argue with that but there are nuances that need to be explored.
Exaggerations and offensive words are useful in helping to gain an understanding. On the other hand, today’s “politically correct” language commonly paints everything in monotones to the point that the truth is covered up entirely.
Exploring the dictionary definition observe that the first word in the definition is generalization. While generalizing gets about as bad press as stereotyping does now-a-days, it is really an essential part of living -- the reason being that generalizing is simply a matter of expectations and that, in turn is based on experience. Therefore, if one were not to generalize at all, then he would be treating all situations without regard to experience. No one can function in this way.
The problem comes, simply put, when the generalizing individual refuses to accept that new experiences will often deviate from prior ones. So for example, to expect that all Germans are rigid and all Frenchmen are carefree would be a mistake. On the other hand to expect that rigidity is higher in Germans than in Frenchmen may not be too far off the mark. On the other hand, this may be a generalization whose time has come and gone.
Another view on stereotyping would be the following observation on doctors’ wives. These are attractive women who marry for money and status. They don’t see enough of their workaholic husbands, have little to do, and few friends due to their isolated economic status. Over the years they get less and less happy.
Is this a stereotype? Certainly. Is it true? Of course it is not absolutely true. But let’s suppose that somehow a scientific study was done and it was found to be true 30% of the time. So would that make it a poor generalization being 70 percent wrong? Maybe not. If that description was only true for other housewives only one percent of the time, then it would be extremely significant.
My conclusion? Stereotyping is essential but has its limits.
I won’t argue with that but there are nuances that need to be explored.
Exaggerations and offensive words are useful in helping to gain an understanding. On the other hand, today’s “politically correct” language commonly paints everything in monotones to the point that the truth is covered up entirely.
Exploring the dictionary definition observe that the first word in the definition is generalization. While generalizing gets about as bad press as stereotyping does now-a-days, it is really an essential part of living -- the reason being that generalizing is simply a matter of expectations and that, in turn is based on experience. Therefore, if one were not to generalize at all, then he would be treating all situations without regard to experience. No one can function in this way.
The problem comes, simply put, when the generalizing individual refuses to accept that new experiences will often deviate from prior ones. So for example, to expect that all Germans are rigid and all Frenchmen are carefree would be a mistake. On the other hand to expect that rigidity is higher in Germans than in Frenchmen may not be too far off the mark. On the other hand, this may be a generalization whose time has come and gone.
Another view on stereotyping would be the following observation on doctors’ wives. These are attractive women who marry for money and status. They don’t see enough of their workaholic husbands, have little to do, and few friends due to their isolated economic status. Over the years they get less and less happy.
Is this a stereotype? Certainly. Is it true? Of course it is not absolutely true. But let’s suppose that somehow a scientific study was done and it was found to be true 30% of the time. So would that make it a poor generalization being 70 percent wrong? Maybe not. If that description was only true for other housewives only one percent of the time, then it would be extremely significant.
My conclusion? Stereotyping is essential but has its limits.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
'Whistle Stop ' in Hyde Park
Some would like to open the Hyde Park train station for weekend tourists. The catch word is 'Whistle Stop'.
I'm a big Charlie Rose fan; I learn more watching interviews there than from any other news source.
A couple of nights ago he was interviewing the chairman of Sprint who told him that the cell phone industry was about to join the small circle of trillion dollar industries. There are now four of them. They are: food, auto, military and tourism. Who'd have thunk that the world wide budget for tourism was right up there with those big players.
Retail and manufacturing, the industries that everybody wants here, aren't even on that list and, for many, tourism is written off. I suspect that is because tourism may be perceived as ethereal and low paying. It may also be that historical tourism has little meaning to those whose focus is more earthy. Whatever. What it has to mean to us is that there is a bigger opportunity for Hyde Park than we may have realized.
I'm a big Charlie Rose fan; I learn more watching interviews there than from any other news source.
A couple of nights ago he was interviewing the chairman of Sprint who told him that the cell phone industry was about to join the small circle of trillion dollar industries. There are now four of them. They are: food, auto, military and tourism. Who'd have thunk that the world wide budget for tourism was right up there with those big players.
Retail and manufacturing, the industries that everybody wants here, aren't even on that list and, for many, tourism is written off. I suspect that is because tourism may be perceived as ethereal and low paying. It may also be that historical tourism has little meaning to those whose focus is more earthy. Whatever. What it has to mean to us is that there is a bigger opportunity for Hyde Park than we may have realized.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)