Of things deemed "not silly", we have frequent experience. One example is gravity. We don't know how it really works but our experience tells us that it is consistent and will not fail, although there can be no method of making sure. Daily experiences are positively reinforced in their reality and consistency because of their frequency. The experiences of fulfilled promises from God, those that create a testimony, that reinforce the reality of God with it's frequency and personal relevancy, cannot be shared by words just as colors cannot be described by words, they must be experienced. One day of experience may cause faded memory and doubt of experience; with more experiences the mind interprets the experiences as increasingly real and reliable. Priesthood blessings and other such miracles cannot help one to gain a testimony unless experienced by the person, and frequently enough to reinforce their reality. Even so, the interpretation of some events, particularly those of a spiritual nature, are to be done on an individual level, which subjectivity makes it subject to any interpretation. So, a miracle may be seen as pure coincidence. It would seem, and is in accordance with scripture, that greater miracles are experienced by those who display greater faith in God as the creator of those miracles. These miracles would seem much more unusual to one who is not familiar with the workings of God and relies on his own or the world's understanding. Miraculous health recoveries, revelations of clairvoyance, protection from harm or malicious intent that stand up to no scientific or psychological interrogation we can currently present. Stories of great miracles appear in the scriptures, and for many it is easy to identify the incongruence between "reality" and the events of these stories and thus label them "silly". But to experience some of the miracles that do happen in these days that are similar in nature to those of ancient days, one realizes that what was "silly" was just what he had not experienced enough to calculate as practical. A blind man has no experience of color, and has no reason to believe they exist; indeed, his experience would merit labeling the idea of color as "silly". The same goes for the deaf and sound. Those who see and hear are so familiar with such things that the idea of them being silly may sound silly itself; we know them well enough to calculate the wavelength of light they reflect and how to reproduce many of them. The Book of Mormon is something that, were it something in ancient scripture, might seem silly. Yet it exists today as a tangible object. It makes no more sense to suggest that it was written or created by Joseph Smith or those who worked with him. There would be absolutely no incentive to do it, and even then, the idea of someone writing such a book in the relatively difficult conditions and short period of time in which it was written could be deemed a very "silly" idea indeed, except in this case there would be no exterior evidence nor previous experience with which to suppose it otherwise. Yet we have the book, as solid an evidence of God as those who fight against it will likely experience, unless they choose to entertain the idea that the things of God are not "silly" simply because they have not experienced them, while many others give testimony that they have. And it's not hard, you just have to trust in the idea that believing in God is not silly, and take it little by little. Then those things which were silly will begin to happen, and your paradigm will shift. And will continue shifting and increasing. If it were stagnant there would be no progress. Man has constantly shifted his paradigms as he increases in knowledge. "To deny the actuality of miracles on the ground that, because we cannot comprehend the means, the reported results are fictitious, is to arrogate to the human mind the attribute of omniscience, by implying that what man cannot comprehend cannot be, and that therefore he is able to comprehend all that is. The miracles of record in the Gospels are as fully supported by evidence as are many of the historical events which call forth neither protest nor demand for further proof. To the believer in the divinity of Christ, the miracles are sufficiently attested; to the unbeliever they appear but as myths and fables." (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, page 149) The scriptures give clear the invitation to have spiritual experiences: "Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge. But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words." (Alma 32:26,27) Experience dictates to our minds reality. The scriptures tell of experiences, and those who follow the method prescribed in the scriptures testify of similar experiences. Thus it is within our power to experience and know the reality of this deity we call God as described by many different people both ancient and current.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Mystery
I went to the dentist recently to get some fillings. Anticipating that I would continue the recent pattern of exhibiting extreme anxiety over hypodermic needles, I called the office and asked what they had in the way of alleviation of such an issue. They mentioned a topical anesthetic and nitrous oxide, aka laughing gas. I had never tried it before, so I read up on the matter and was placated with the information I learned. When I went to my appointment, which ended up starting an hour after the scheduled time, I came and laid myself on the seat, feeling decently calm (I had gone over the process many times in my head while reminding myself that there was nothing about any part of the process that should produce a fearful response). They administered the topical anesthetic and then gave me a gas mask which I placed over my nose. Interjection: I had a slight fear of this gas, which was similar and different to my fear of needles. I believe the similarity was that a sort of generalization may have taken place between the two conditioned stimuli, needles and sedation, resulting in a shared intrinsic fear. The difference is that I was pretty certain that the syringe contained only novocaine, and only enough to suit the current purposes, whereas the gas was a mysterious unknown, except for the understanding that there was a chance of being over-sedated or suffocating. So, ironically, I was vastly more fearful of the less threatening action than I was of the more threatening one. To continue: I began to breathe through the mask. After about 5 minutes I began to recognize some of the effects I had read about: "tingly", "floaty" feeling, loss of pain sensitivity, and a general feeling of slipping awareness, similar to the effects I had experienced with an anti-anxiety medication for previous injections. Soon I felt that my state of mind was so that I would be unfocused enough on outside events that I would not fear an injection. I was happy about this, and surprised that I could still think clearly but somehow be disconnected with conscious awareness of my physical surroundings. Then, after a few more minutes, I began to feel as if I was suffocating, or that I was not getting enough oxygen. I told the dental assistant this and she mentioned it to the dentist. A few minutes later I noticed very acutely a regression of my mental state back towards normality. I still had a feathery sensation in my legs and arms and a slight feeling of light-headed-ness, but I was just as alert and focused as I had been before the sedation. During this time of regression I became slightly more nervous (due both to my loss of desired mental state and the fear of suffocation) and began to breath deeply and quickly, and the dentist had me perform slow-breathing exercises so that I would not hyperventilate, which apparently I was in danger of doing at the time. When my breathing became stable the dentist and his assistant began discussing the procedure. Then they asked me to open my mouth widely. I thought, certainly this isn't for the injection, thinking that they would first bring the level of nitrous oxide again (i would suppose not to the same level, although I am not sure if any lower level would produce the desired effect). So, to make sure, I asked them if they were presently going to perform the injection, to which they answered in the affirmative. At this point something happened in my mind that I call a mystery, hence the name of the post. There was no argument between two sets of logic. There was nothing except to open or not to open, which meant to receive the hypodermic needle or not to. The mystery is that I had less motivation to receive the needle than I did to reject it. The source of that motivation to reject is a complete mystery to me. But it is far more powerful motivation than anything I've experienced. Kind of like the motivation to reject jumping off a cliff into a pit of fire... you just won't do it willingly. Except with my problem there's not apparent reasoning for it. So I told them I couldn't do it. A return appointment has been made with a different strategy, which will hopefully work, or else it may appear as my next blog post. Anyway that is all about my current post.
Friday, October 29, 2010
More thoughts on empathy
Is it reasonable to empathize for every ailment in the world? To attempt to put yourself in the position of every suffering, psychologically, physically, mentally, spiritually, emotionally, socially, etc.? I came to this question when pondering upon what perfection would require. For surely a person who knows very little about cooking will find it very difficult to prepare an elegant banquet. Likewise will a person unfamiliar with the pressures and norms of a culture be likely frustrated in providing adequate government. As it goes in today's world, there is an immensely great variety of cultures and subcultures scattered throughout every nation. Is it possible or reasonable to attempt to empathize with all of them?
Psychologists might suggest limiting one's exposure to such an extensive array of suffering, reasoning that such imagery or cognitive input has a sort of "flashbulb" effect on an individual, where powerful negative sensations are encoded deeply into memory and may sporadically and irresistibly resurface into conscious thought, resulting in a range of undesirable psychological effects. Yet anthropologists might argue that encoding such imagery or input is precisely what makes the phenomenon of empathy possible. But to what degree is it effective to try to empathize with one other person, let alone multiple people? Consider to what degree it would be possible for another person - take your pick - to know exactly what you're thinking and why. Think about how effective it may be to explain all of your thoughts, conscious and unconscious, to another person so that they would be able to completely understand every mental process that occurs in your mind. Much of our mental activity happens unawares anyway, making this a near impossible task. Our cognitive experience includes the agglomeration of information received during our entire lifetime, a thing which simply cannot be verbally transposed. So empathy can only reach a certain degree. But as we expand the scope to include groups of individuals, there appear commonalities in forms of suffering, meaning that certain types of suffering are felt on more public levels, making it easier to extract and isolate the causal issue and thus facilitate the process of empathy. But even among these types of suffering, some are still deeply rooted within the individual psyche that is simply caused by a widely-shared causal issue or set thereof. For example, most of us can understand why color-segregated facilities are highly discriminating and somewhat dehumanizing, or why unemployment is a lamentable detriment in society, but it can be very difficult to trace the actual roots of gang violence or the enmity exhibited by differing political parties.
When I was in California serving as a missionary, I encountered many people, on the streets, in homes, and some just over the telephone, who would explain to us some of their major problems. Some of the problems were similar, unemployment and education (or regretted lack thereof) being among the most common. But many others were highly personal and uncommon. Several people I met were homeless, or illegal immigrants, but each of them explained complex personal ills, and would usually ask us missionaries to help them. Many would ask us for money. How many of them were lying? I have no idea, since money can be spent to help relieve a number of life's issues. I don't doubt that, lying or not, these people that I met may have had personal concerns that were causing their life to be less than what they were hoping it might otherwise be.
Here I restate my question: Is it reasonable to empathize for every ailment in the world? I was presented with several different undesirable life situations, and with each one I did my best to put myself in the position described by the person and give what help I could. However, when we were no longer in active contact with the person, I usually let the thoughts fade into the back of my mind. When recalled, I would think about the person and their situation, but not reproduce the same level of empathy as much as the actual encounters. The reason is because I had already done so, and there was nothing more to be achieved. I could not help them any more. However I have not forgotten many of the situations presented.
I never saw a gunfight, or anyone get murdered. I did not see someone dying in the streets. The scope of what I experienced was not great compared to a world-wide range. Mostly it was tragic family situations, unfortunate illnesses, unfair treatment, psychological ills, relationship troubles, and other personal issues, which persist in innumerable forms throughout the world - things that involved a deeper understanding of the life of the individual describing his or her issues. How terrible would it be to have nothing to do but wander around, having little education, having no home or money but what you might get from a few hours of labor if it's a luckier day, having no way to get back to your parents or wife and children in Mexico because your plans of coming here for a job have failed, and you have nothing now, except your one pair of clothes. Can I think about that heavily, along with every other case that I've become familiar with, and be able to move forward with my life, to study and think clearly about school, to socialize, to write music, to sleep well, to think about other topics that deserve attention; and above all, to be psychologically stable? Is it just or right that I should put off empathizing with those people to forward my own, relatively extremely fortunate circumstances? Do I have an obligation to empathize as strongly as possible with those people, and by association, everyone else? Must I be acquainted with every problem known to humanity?
Christianity teaches that Someone has already done that. Or rather I should say, ancient semitic texts from two separate continents talk about a Someone who did that. That is perhaps one of the things that is hardest for us to grasp - this ability to have understood everything that everyone has ever gone through or will go through. Critics may say it is just a pleasing thought that draws people to the idea, but it isn't the thought that I go for, it's the evidence. Well, I should say, the thought is a very nice benefit of believing the evidence.
But anyway, I don't have a definitive answer for the questions. I don't think it's possible or reasonable to impress our beings with every sadness or mal occurrence currently felt, but I don't think one should go ignorant about every controversy. I think there is a degree to which it is reasonable and important to empathize with worldly ills, and that our cause should be an honest and productive hope towards solving such issues in what ways we can, including educating those who may have a wrong, hurtful opinion of certain cultures or subcultures.
And now I must study Spanish.
Psychologists might suggest limiting one's exposure to such an extensive array of suffering, reasoning that such imagery or cognitive input has a sort of "flashbulb" effect on an individual, where powerful negative sensations are encoded deeply into memory and may sporadically and irresistibly resurface into conscious thought, resulting in a range of undesirable psychological effects. Yet anthropologists might argue that encoding such imagery or input is precisely what makes the phenomenon of empathy possible. But to what degree is it effective to try to empathize with one other person, let alone multiple people? Consider to what degree it would be possible for another person - take your pick - to know exactly what you're thinking and why. Think about how effective it may be to explain all of your thoughts, conscious and unconscious, to another person so that they would be able to completely understand every mental process that occurs in your mind. Much of our mental activity happens unawares anyway, making this a near impossible task. Our cognitive experience includes the agglomeration of information received during our entire lifetime, a thing which simply cannot be verbally transposed. So empathy can only reach a certain degree. But as we expand the scope to include groups of individuals, there appear commonalities in forms of suffering, meaning that certain types of suffering are felt on more public levels, making it easier to extract and isolate the causal issue and thus facilitate the process of empathy. But even among these types of suffering, some are still deeply rooted within the individual psyche that is simply caused by a widely-shared causal issue or set thereof. For example, most of us can understand why color-segregated facilities are highly discriminating and somewhat dehumanizing, or why unemployment is a lamentable detriment in society, but it can be very difficult to trace the actual roots of gang violence or the enmity exhibited by differing political parties.
When I was in California serving as a missionary, I encountered many people, on the streets, in homes, and some just over the telephone, who would explain to us some of their major problems. Some of the problems were similar, unemployment and education (or regretted lack thereof) being among the most common. But many others were highly personal and uncommon. Several people I met were homeless, or illegal immigrants, but each of them explained complex personal ills, and would usually ask us missionaries to help them. Many would ask us for money. How many of them were lying? I have no idea, since money can be spent to help relieve a number of life's issues. I don't doubt that, lying or not, these people that I met may have had personal concerns that were causing their life to be less than what they were hoping it might otherwise be.
Here I restate my question: Is it reasonable to empathize for every ailment in the world? I was presented with several different undesirable life situations, and with each one I did my best to put myself in the position described by the person and give what help I could. However, when we were no longer in active contact with the person, I usually let the thoughts fade into the back of my mind. When recalled, I would think about the person and their situation, but not reproduce the same level of empathy as much as the actual encounters. The reason is because I had already done so, and there was nothing more to be achieved. I could not help them any more. However I have not forgotten many of the situations presented.
I never saw a gunfight, or anyone get murdered. I did not see someone dying in the streets. The scope of what I experienced was not great compared to a world-wide range. Mostly it was tragic family situations, unfortunate illnesses, unfair treatment, psychological ills, relationship troubles, and other personal issues, which persist in innumerable forms throughout the world - things that involved a deeper understanding of the life of the individual describing his or her issues. How terrible would it be to have nothing to do but wander around, having little education, having no home or money but what you might get from a few hours of labor if it's a luckier day, having no way to get back to your parents or wife and children in Mexico because your plans of coming here for a job have failed, and you have nothing now, except your one pair of clothes. Can I think about that heavily, along with every other case that I've become familiar with, and be able to move forward with my life, to study and think clearly about school, to socialize, to write music, to sleep well, to think about other topics that deserve attention; and above all, to be psychologically stable? Is it just or right that I should put off empathizing with those people to forward my own, relatively extremely fortunate circumstances? Do I have an obligation to empathize as strongly as possible with those people, and by association, everyone else? Must I be acquainted with every problem known to humanity?
Christianity teaches that Someone has already done that. Or rather I should say, ancient semitic texts from two separate continents talk about a Someone who did that. That is perhaps one of the things that is hardest for us to grasp - this ability to have understood everything that everyone has ever gone through or will go through. Critics may say it is just a pleasing thought that draws people to the idea, but it isn't the thought that I go for, it's the evidence. Well, I should say, the thought is a very nice benefit of believing the evidence.
But anyway, I don't have a definitive answer for the questions. I don't think it's possible or reasonable to impress our beings with every sadness or mal occurrence currently felt, but I don't think one should go ignorant about every controversy. I think there is a degree to which it is reasonable and important to empathize with worldly ills, and that our cause should be an honest and productive hope towards solving such issues in what ways we can, including educating those who may have a wrong, hurtful opinion of certain cultures or subcultures.
And now I must study Spanish.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Another string of thought
Attending a session of general conference at the conference center I noticed people around the building, non-patrons holding signs and/or yodeling rants. Because I have the unfortunate tendency to be extremely critical of people who I consider of little intelligence, I have been pondering the extend of the blatant hypocrisy and confusion that is exhibited in these "protesters". To clarify, by "intelligence" I mean use of knowledge, or supposed knowledge. Now of course this is an unfortunate tendency that I do this because in itself it is a form of hypocrisy, in that firstly I myself am obviously not perfect and have faults of intelligence, second I am assuming things that I do not know (since I am not the people who i criticize) and third I am making judgments on those assumptions, which is something I am in no place to do. There is, however, nothing wrong in holding opinions, so long as they are open to consideration of every aspect available and do not become a permanent receptacle of hatred. Anyway I shall continue.
My first exposure to these picketers were the pickets - people silently holding signs. Every one of these people that I saw were of a different Christian religion, or, I should say more accurately, outwardly professed so. These signs had slightly differing messages: scriptures about Christ being the Savior, others about false teachers, ignorant followers... Their intended audience was most likely people going into the conference center. Do they have trouble reading the lettering on the building? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. So we're on the same page with Christ being the Savior. False teachers? Considering our teachers get their teachings come from the scriptures, this accusation labels the Bible as false. Ignorant followers? Everyone is different. Some members may have a simple testimony or may still be learning about the church. However, I personally know many very learned, talented, and thoughtful (may I add "intelligent") members of the church, scholarly in thought and with a realistic and thorough testimony of the living Christ. Overgeneralizing picket signs? Oui.
Moving closer to the part of the building where our entrance was, I overheard some people (talking about overgeneralizing, every single person I saw in the objecting party was a man who was either old or old and fat. coincidence? probably) on a megaphone gritando rants, of which I caught "you reject the Bible, you reject the God of the Bible, and in the end God will reject you". These people would do well to study the religious group they're being payed to protest against. The defining clause: We believe the Bible to be the word of God. There aren't too many jumps of logic to be made between that and the fact that we believe in the "God of the Bible", namely, Jesus Christ. It's also in the name of the Church, but as that seems to escape the logic of these people, we'll make do with an equally obvious clue: our basic beliefs, stated in the Articles of Faith.
After the session I came outside and experienced a most alarming dialogue. While passing one of the larger activists holding down a chair, someone passed and said "we love you" in the midst of whatever he was saying. This poor man replied "no you don't, you don't even love yourself." How sad this man does not read and/or understand much of the Bible. 1 John chapter 4 may do this fellow some good, and remind him of the hypocrisy of spewing hateful judgments against people he doesn't know.
"And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also."
Now of course we all make mistakes, and where we try to follow the commandments we slip. This man, however, seemed to have acquired this adamant attitude towards the church previously, and I would venture that dislodging this attitude would be something of a miracle. NOT to say impossible, for miracles do happen, and it's just my opinion anyway.
Here ends my string of thought.
My first exposure to these picketers were the pickets - people silently holding signs. Every one of these people that I saw were of a different Christian religion, or, I should say more accurately, outwardly professed so. These signs had slightly differing messages: scriptures about Christ being the Savior, others about false teachers, ignorant followers... Their intended audience was most likely people going into the conference center. Do they have trouble reading the lettering on the building? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. So we're on the same page with Christ being the Savior. False teachers? Considering our teachers get their teachings come from the scriptures, this accusation labels the Bible as false. Ignorant followers? Everyone is different. Some members may have a simple testimony or may still be learning about the church. However, I personally know many very learned, talented, and thoughtful (may I add "intelligent") members of the church, scholarly in thought and with a realistic and thorough testimony of the living Christ. Overgeneralizing picket signs? Oui.
Moving closer to the part of the building where our entrance was, I overheard some people (talking about overgeneralizing, every single person I saw in the objecting party was a man who was either old or old and fat. coincidence? probably) on a megaphone gritando rants, of which I caught "you reject the Bible, you reject the God of the Bible, and in the end God will reject you". These people would do well to study the religious group they're being payed to protest against. The defining clause: We believe the Bible to be the word of God. There aren't too many jumps of logic to be made between that and the fact that we believe in the "God of the Bible", namely, Jesus Christ. It's also in the name of the Church, but as that seems to escape the logic of these people, we'll make do with an equally obvious clue: our basic beliefs, stated in the Articles of Faith.
After the session I came outside and experienced a most alarming dialogue. While passing one of the larger activists holding down a chair, someone passed and said "we love you" in the midst of whatever he was saying. This poor man replied "no you don't, you don't even love yourself." How sad this man does not read and/or understand much of the Bible. 1 John chapter 4 may do this fellow some good, and remind him of the hypocrisy of spewing hateful judgments against people he doesn't know.
"And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also."
Now of course we all make mistakes, and where we try to follow the commandments we slip. This man, however, seemed to have acquired this adamant attitude towards the church previously, and I would venture that dislodging this attitude would be something of a miracle. NOT to say impossible, for miracles do happen, and it's just my opinion anyway.
Here ends my string of thought.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Thought String
I suppose I'll write this in english since I probably don't know the terminology in spanish to complete the thought. There was a recent dialog on facebook that occurred when I posted a link to a news story concerning the well-known conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. the story itself was not political in nature; I posted it because it was a somewhat comical story with some silly comments about bears:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100916/cm_yblog_upshot/rush-limbaugh-falls-for-wikipedia-hoax
After posting this link, there was a comment made:
"the judge's wife doesn't "think you should be able to broadcast something nationally if you can't verify it" so I guess she really had something to say about Dan Rather's 60 Minutes hoax - and that was far more significant than Limbaugh getting his factoids wrong about some judge in Florida"
This was posted by someone I know to be fairly adamantly conservative in political thought. One of the first questions that came to mind was, why did he post that? what was the underlying incentive to give this commentary? the comment is clearly defensive, which means this person was offended in reading the news story, or otherwise spurred to add a "wrong" to the other side of the the justice scale to create balance (or as suggested in the comment, make the injustice of the offending party "far more significant"). Yet there seems another part of the train of thought behind the post. Sure, if you're a fan of Rush's talk show, or a patron of his political ideas, the story might sting a sensitive neuron or two in the "Rush can't possibly be that incompetent" region of the frontal lobe. Placing aside the main reason for which I posted the story, being to share a mildly amusing story involving the idea of bears instilling the fear of God, the most I extracted from it was that the guy was too hasty and, probably fueled by the excitement at posting another hateful jab at the opposing party for his listeners to enjoy, jumped the gun without checking the facts. But of course no one's perfect.
But why would he make a public post diverting whatever perceived offence he gave to himself to a story of someone else in hopes of over-justifying his own unsettledness on the matter? What gain is accomplished? He may have a valid point about this Dan fellow's case, how both sides may not get it right all the time. Frankly I don't know the guy, thus holding him in no disposition. So perhaps I'm asking the wrong question. Let's look at his post from a bit further back. Let's propose a few things. 1. He probably thought I had posted that as a political argument 2. He responded with a similar political argument (a two-wrongs argument, which are unresolvable, inconclusive, and unproductive). It seems a part of human nature that people don't like to be told they're wrong or to acknowledge evil in people in whom they place high regards. Perhaps that's what this person took offence at in the first place. His response shows a gap of association - he responded with the exact same thing that he hated. If he responded negatively to the idea of putting someone down that he might have regards for, why would he offer the same idea in his counter argument? Mostly people do this to "teach someone a lesson", either consciously or subconsciously: If I respond with an example of someone he probably holds in high regards, he'll know how I felt and then he'll think about that the next time he does that. To revert this thinking back upon one's own self is where the secret lies: Since I didn't like it when I read about a person I respect getting something wrong, maybe he won't like it either, and he might respond unfavorably as I did. A productive argument that is leading to a resolution with favorable dispositions on all sides involves many aspects associated with good teaching. The teacher must inspire the students to think about her teaching, and get them thinking of it on her level, regardless of whether they normally think on such level. Thus, though the parties may initially hold differing ideas, they will be able to clearly glimpse through the opposing eyes, and when all parties have done so with each-other, the resolution may be already running through the minds of everyone present, and the end is usually so much closer to view. Hence a productive argument must inspire a favorable disposition in the opposing parties. That's why blaming others is a frowned-upon policy - it tends to cause others to defend against the accusation and be offended at the accusing party. We can connect the following: offence leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate (being a very powerful emotion) tends to affect the reasoning and empathizing abilities (and also leads to suffering - thanks yoda), which destroys progress.
It would seem that this ability to introvert the reactionary "teach a lesson" mindset takes a certain characteristic, or set of them. I propose that a main factor is empathy. Empathy, part of the "what if I had to face the same problems" mindset, might inspire the "If someone did that bad thing to me, I wouldn't like it" type of thinking. It also allows one to identify certain things that are good and bad about one's behavior by examining different reactions and circumstances separately and asking why they did what they did.
Let me give an example. Why do people who hate communism hate communism? I imagine it's from all the evil that's resulted in corrupted leadership in previous attempts to run a communist state, like China. Why do people (besides corrupt leadership) who like communism like it? it has a very strong appeal - even out the classes. To the majority of people, especially in countries with a very large low-class or mid-low class, this is a very appealing idea because it most likely means (according to the ideology) that your quality of living will increase. Yet it seems that the very idea inspires hatred in many people, making an illusory correlation between the evils they've heard about or experienced and the ideology of having all things equal. There are good and bad things about most forms of government. Hatred inspired by this illusory correlation tends to separate entire political systems into a "good" and "bad" category, leaving some of the good aspects unacknowledged and the bad uncensored. Empathy may inspire one to consider the case of the lower classes and acknowledge their reasoning for preferring such a system of government over their current circumstances. It also encourages, by empathizing with the opposing side, one to consider how people might take advantage of the system. Thus, one may conclude that applying certain principles of an idea and doing away with others is a favorable resolution to a problem, with the intent for the greater good.
Moral? This, in my opinion, is what we should seek for in political discussion. Hatred seems to be the antithesis and the anti-matter of progress towards resolution. The comment made on facebook probably wasn't hateful towards me, but involved a hateful accusation based on a preconceived notion that I was trying to offend him (or rather, the group of people to which he associates with), which preconception usually occurs when one assumes others to be of the same general mindset (in this case of posting such things hoping to offend someone or declare an idea absolute), which is not exactly an empathetic mode of thought.
And now I conclude my thought string.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100916/cm_yblog_upshot/rush-limbaugh-falls-for-wikipedia-hoax
After posting this link, there was a comment made:
"the judge's wife doesn't "think you should be able to broadcast something nationally if you can't verify it" so I guess she really had something to say about Dan Rather's 60 Minutes hoax - and that was far more significant than Limbaugh getting his factoids wrong about some judge in Florida"
This was posted by someone I know to be fairly adamantly conservative in political thought. One of the first questions that came to mind was, why did he post that? what was the underlying incentive to give this commentary? the comment is clearly defensive, which means this person was offended in reading the news story, or otherwise spurred to add a "wrong" to the other side of the the justice scale to create balance (or as suggested in the comment, make the injustice of the offending party "far more significant"). Yet there seems another part of the train of thought behind the post. Sure, if you're a fan of Rush's talk show, or a patron of his political ideas, the story might sting a sensitive neuron or two in the "Rush can't possibly be that incompetent" region of the frontal lobe. Placing aside the main reason for which I posted the story, being to share a mildly amusing story involving the idea of bears instilling the fear of God, the most I extracted from it was that the guy was too hasty and, probably fueled by the excitement at posting another hateful jab at the opposing party for his listeners to enjoy, jumped the gun without checking the facts. But of course no one's perfect.
But why would he make a public post diverting whatever perceived offence he gave to himself to a story of someone else in hopes of over-justifying his own unsettledness on the matter? What gain is accomplished? He may have a valid point about this Dan fellow's case, how both sides may not get it right all the time. Frankly I don't know the guy, thus holding him in no disposition. So perhaps I'm asking the wrong question. Let's look at his post from a bit further back. Let's propose a few things. 1. He probably thought I had posted that as a political argument 2. He responded with a similar political argument (a two-wrongs argument, which are unresolvable, inconclusive, and unproductive). It seems a part of human nature that people don't like to be told they're wrong or to acknowledge evil in people in whom they place high regards. Perhaps that's what this person took offence at in the first place. His response shows a gap of association - he responded with the exact same thing that he hated. If he responded negatively to the idea of putting someone down that he might have regards for, why would he offer the same idea in his counter argument? Mostly people do this to "teach someone a lesson", either consciously or subconsciously: If I respond with an example of someone he probably holds in high regards, he'll know how I felt and then he'll think about that the next time he does that. To revert this thinking back upon one's own self is where the secret lies: Since I didn't like it when I read about a person I respect getting something wrong, maybe he won't like it either, and he might respond unfavorably as I did. A productive argument that is leading to a resolution with favorable dispositions on all sides involves many aspects associated with good teaching. The teacher must inspire the students to think about her teaching, and get them thinking of it on her level, regardless of whether they normally think on such level. Thus, though the parties may initially hold differing ideas, they will be able to clearly glimpse through the opposing eyes, and when all parties have done so with each-other, the resolution may be already running through the minds of everyone present, and the end is usually so much closer to view. Hence a productive argument must inspire a favorable disposition in the opposing parties. That's why blaming others is a frowned-upon policy - it tends to cause others to defend against the accusation and be offended at the accusing party. We can connect the following: offence leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate (being a very powerful emotion) tends to affect the reasoning and empathizing abilities (and also leads to suffering - thanks yoda), which destroys progress.
It would seem that this ability to introvert the reactionary "teach a lesson" mindset takes a certain characteristic, or set of them. I propose that a main factor is empathy. Empathy, part of the "what if I had to face the same problems" mindset, might inspire the "If someone did that bad thing to me, I wouldn't like it" type of thinking. It also allows one to identify certain things that are good and bad about one's behavior by examining different reactions and circumstances separately and asking why they did what they did.
Let me give an example. Why do people who hate communism hate communism? I imagine it's from all the evil that's resulted in corrupted leadership in previous attempts to run a communist state, like China. Why do people (besides corrupt leadership) who like communism like it? it has a very strong appeal - even out the classes. To the majority of people, especially in countries with a very large low-class or mid-low class, this is a very appealing idea because it most likely means (according to the ideology) that your quality of living will increase. Yet it seems that the very idea inspires hatred in many people, making an illusory correlation between the evils they've heard about or experienced and the ideology of having all things equal. There are good and bad things about most forms of government. Hatred inspired by this illusory correlation tends to separate entire political systems into a "good" and "bad" category, leaving some of the good aspects unacknowledged and the bad uncensored. Empathy may inspire one to consider the case of the lower classes and acknowledge their reasoning for preferring such a system of government over their current circumstances. It also encourages, by empathizing with the opposing side, one to consider how people might take advantage of the system. Thus, one may conclude that applying certain principles of an idea and doing away with others is a favorable resolution to a problem, with the intent for the greater good.
Moral? This, in my opinion, is what we should seek for in political discussion. Hatred seems to be the antithesis and the anti-matter of progress towards resolution. The comment made on facebook probably wasn't hateful towards me, but involved a hateful accusation based on a preconceived notion that I was trying to offend him (or rather, the group of people to which he associates with), which preconception usually occurs when one assumes others to be of the same general mindset (in this case of posting such things hoping to offend someone or declare an idea absolute), which is not exactly an empathetic mode of thought.
And now I conclude my thought string.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
New Computer
Hurray! I have a new computer and I’ve successfully linked it with my blog, so now I don’t necessarily have to log on to post. I think…
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Pues esta semana paso muy rápido, o pareció así a mi. el lunes llegué yo a la casa de mi madre como a la una, fuimos a la tienda para comprar unas cosas, y miramos la película "Avatar" por Dvd, que estaba bien, mas o menos. Aquí no voy a criticarlo, porque no tengo bastante tiempo por ahora. También, el pomo por el baño quebrantó cuando traté a cerrarlo, y si no fuera por las tarjetas en mi cartera, hubiera estado un poco escrewido. El Martes fuimos a recoger una harpa de la maestra de mi madre para la semana. Por la noche tuvimos la cena con unos amigos homosexuales de mi madre. Uno de ellos puede tocar el piano y cantar muy bien, se llama Scott. No voy a explicar su situación aquí, porque no debo chismear. Buenas personas todas. Scott tiene un Steinway de 1908 que suena muy bien. El Miércoles fuimos a esta maestra de la harpa de mi madre, Shawna creo, y tocamos las harpas y tuvimos almuerzo. Su esposo edifica la harpa por su trabajo. Muy impresionante. Shawna nos dio un salterio, que me gusta mucho. Después de eso compramos dos películas, Food, Inc. y Blind Side. Miramos Food, Inc. en la noche. El Jueves miramos Iron Man 2, hicimos mucho trabajo para la césped, y juguemos golf miniatura. El Viernes nos dimos una caminata por la mañana y recogimos unas moras, y después tocamos las harpas. Por la noche miramos Blind Side. El Sábado compramos unas cosas por la mañana, y en la noche fuimos a un café y miramos Shawna tocar y cantar en su ukelele. El Domingo fuimos a la iglesia en la mañana (por su puesto) y después había una fiesta a la casa en que yo conocí unas amigos de mi madre. Tocamos las harpas mas, y miramos una película en la noche, pero no estoy seguro exactamente el titulo de la película. También, hicimos una pizza con hongos, olivas, y chile verde (que no picó por nada) que estaba muy rico. También yo fijé la bicicleta de mi madre durante la semana. Fue una semana muy feliz!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)