"SO, ONCE YOU ACCEPT REALITY...." Really, Lawrence?!

 I'm respond to this video, you can find on YouTube called Lawrence Krauss, The Voice of Reason:
Here's the video..

So my response is, science goes a ways in fulling our needs, but it doesn't satisfy the whole spectrum of most people's mental natures..

Most of us have a mind with two fundamental aspects to it:
-One aspect of our mind wants to discover what was once mysterious, unravel it, and explain it
and
-the other aspect of our mind wants to preserve a mystery and enchantment in areas like love, relationships, a natural spirituality, faith, etc.

So.. you have an area of our mind that wants to analyze and demystify mystery & an area of our mind that wants to experience things and keep certain things mystified..

To quote Lawrence Krauss, "Once you accept reality"..
Well, if one is going to truly face reality, then this is the reality of most of our minds and why people like Francis Collins house a very very good scientific mind, but also mind with a spiritual predisposition as well.
We still need to better understand, Psychologically, why some of us are content not needing anything spiritual and why many of us, like Francis Collins, ALSO need aspects of the spiritual in addition to their having a great scientific mind.

I think it has to do with how predominately left brain or right brain we are and other aspects as well, whatever those are..

Anyways, that's my two cents on that for now....

HAVE A PROBLEM WITH LYING? THERE ARE AREAS OF OUR LIVES WHERE WE DO IT MUCH OF THE TIME..

LYING

AN INVESTIGATION

HAVE A PROBLEM WITH LYING? 

THERE ARE AREAS OF OUR LIVES 

WHERE WE DO IT MUCH OF THE TIME…

We all tend to have a problem with most forms of lying, but when it comes to our friendships and or serious relationships, certain forms of lying play a surprisingly active role…

But isn’t it bad that we do it so much?

“Everything in Moderation” doesn’t seem to apply with lying in certain situations..

Indeed, it’s not a matter of if we lie, but a matter of when and why.

I think that the fact that we tend to lie the most when interacting with others in friendships and relationships is very revealing.. 

In my opinion, this communicates:
that we use dishonesty or stretching the truth, or waiting to tell the truth and so we say other things in the meantime.. to protect ourselves, to protect others, and or to preserve the interactions we have with someone from some kind of harm or discomfort..

Sam Harris, a famous outspoken non-believer wrote a little book on lying.  I found it interesting to compare and contrast my views with his on lying, since it was my honest reflections about certain things that moved me, over the years, away from the faith.

He starts off with some strong views about lying:

Lying is “the royal road to chaos”

“endless forms of suffering and embarrassment could be easily avoided by simply telling the truth”

We all have felt strongly again lying in this way:

Some of the few things that most people, for example, remember the most about a U.S. President’s term are who they lied about having an affair with or the weapons of mass destruction they claimed were there.   

And I don’t have to say who those presidents were, do I?   

It’s our human nature to remember those things.. 

..Harris then throws in some statistics..

“At least one study suggests that 10 percent of communication between spouses is deceptive.

 Another has found that 38 percent of encounters among college students contain lies.”

In fact a study conducted by University of Massachusetts researcher Robert Feldman, which demonstrates how reflexive the act of lying is for many people. In the study, which was published in the Journal of Basic and Applied Psychology, Feldman and his team of researchers asked two strangers to talk for 10 minutes. The conversations were recorded, and then each subject was asked to review the tape. Before looking at the footage, the subjects told researchers that they had been completely honest and accurate in their statements, but once the tape rolled, the subjects were amazed to discover all the little lies that came out in just 10 minutes. According to Feldman, 60 percent of the subjects lied at least once during the short conversation, and in that span of time, subjects told an average of 2.92 false things.

Harris’s standard view of lying is:

“To lie is to intentionally mislead others when they expect honest communication.”

Harris offers an interesting quote on lying:

“The intent to communicate honestly is the measure of truthfulness.”

The thing that is interesting about Harris is that he proposes that we try become completely honest most if not all the time:

“Once one commits to telling the truth, one begins to notice how unusual it is to meet someone who shares this commitment. Honest people are a refuge: You know they mean what they say; you know they will not say one thing to your face and another behind your back; you know they will tell you when they think you have failed—and for this reason their praise cannot be mistaken for mere flattery.

Honesty is a gift we can give to others. It is also a source of power and an engine of simplicity. Knowing that we will attempt to tell the truth, whatever the circumstances, leaves us with little to prepare for. We can simply be ourselves.

In committing to be honest with everyone, we commit to avoiding a wide range of long-term problems, but at the cost of occasional, short-term discomfort.”

Harris goes on to say:

“You might discover that some of your friendships are not really that, friendships—perhaps you habitually lie to avoid making plans, or fail to express your true opinions for fear of conflict. Whom, exactly, are you helping by living this way? You might find that certain relationships cannot be honestly maintained..”

And I can relate with where Harris is concerning his strong emphasis on honesty with my own story of moving away from the faith..

Looking at one of the great philosophers in history, Kant believed that lying was unethical in all cases—even in an attempt to stop the murder of an innocent person. Like many of Kant’s philosophical views, his position on lying was not so much argued for as presumed, like a religious pre- cept. Though it has the obvious virtue of clarity—Never tell a lie—in practice, this rule can produce behavior that only a psychopath might endorse.

A total prohibition against lying is also ethically incoherent in anyone but a true pacifist. If you think that it can ever be appropriate to injure or kill a person in self-defense, or in defense of another, it makes no sense to rule out lying in the same circumstances.

I cannot see any reason to take Kant seriously on this point. However, this does not mean that lying is easily justified. Even as a means to ward off violence, lying often closes the door to acts of honest communication that may be more effective.

A major point came to mind as I was reading Harris’s essay:

I think one of the biggest reasons we aren't as honest as we could be with others is that we don't know our own thoughts about something well enough and when what we say comes out raw and unrefined and creates an awkward situation, we are more careful next time to say what is on our minds. 

I think the thing is we don’t always know what we're trying to say well enough and therefore get caught up in trying to communicate our thoughts in a way that is effective MORE THAN communicating our thoughts honestly..
So we don’t do well translating what’s in our head to people.. or even worse, for me, onto paper..

On a personal note:  I do find it easier to communicate honestly and effectively face to face than over email, for example.

Through email, there’s time to expound upon and the temptation to excessively go over my thoughts than to just let them come out..

I try to be just as honest over email, but an honest friend of mine once insightfully said our emails tend to cause more complications and misunderstandings than if we had tried the same subjects and issues over the phone or in person..  There’s less opportunity for people to misunderstand you face to face than over email. 

That’s because in face to face conversation:

they can ask you questions exactly when there is  something that is unclear,

they can read your body language,

they can hear the tone of your voice,

they can immediately disagree with you,

or you can immediately clarify what you mean. 

You can still be dishonest, but this face to face communication lessens the possibility that someone will misunderstand you..

Why are lies a necessary ingredient in relationships?

Some questions by Harris are:

-How would your relationships change if you resolved never to lie again?

-What truths might suddenly come into view in your life?

-What kind of person would you become?

-And how might you change the people around you?

--SOURCES—

B.M. DePaulo and D.A. Kashy, “Everyday Lies in Close and Casual Relationships,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, no.1 (Jan. 1998): 63–79. 

B.M. DePaulo, et al.,“Lying in Everyday Life,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70, no. 5 (1996): 979–995. 

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/average-person-tell-lie

http://www.amazon.com/Lying-Kindle-Single-ebook/dp/B005N0KL5G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344247346&sr=8-1&keywords=Lying+Sam+Harris

MY ALL-DAY "MEDIA FAST" & JOURNAL, ASSIGNMENT...

Got up this morning and it’s a little after 11 am and immediately I became aware of and reminded myself of my “media fast” assignment: that I cannot use any form of electronic device or media for the whole day and to journal throughout this experience.  This already kind of feels awkward.  I had already planned to go to downtown Portland today with my roommate and stay at a coffee shop for several hours and this hopefully will allow me to start off the day well, because it will get me away from the house where our laptops, desktops, landline phone and other electronic equipment is.  My roommate and I will leave in like 30 minutes to catch the bus.  Already my mind wants to check online when the bus will come so that we don’t have to wait too long, lol!.  At least I don’t have a cell phone on me, which would give me the temptation to find out, via one of it’s apps, exactly when the bus would be stopping at our location.  Oh well, alrighty then, off we go!

So we’ve been at a downtown Portland Starbucks coffee shop, for about 4 hours now.  While my roommate played this online MMORPG game called The Secret World on his laptop, I read for about an hour, then took a 2 hour stroll throughout Portland, then when I got back ate, and then read for another hour.  And now I’m journaling here, roughly 6pm..  It’s been relatively easy to stay away from electronics, because I’ve been in downtown Portland with all the distractions that it has.  In fact, I kind of looked forward to the stroll, I guess because I didn’t have any electronic options to do instead of my activities today.  It's also kind of nice not have to concern myself with emails today and I can just unplug from that.  The fact that I don't have to check or wait for responses via emails today is kind of a bit of a stress reliever for me, lol.

This tells me that that email is crucial to the quality of my communication.  That I am no longer satisfied with waiting until I see someone face to face, but am fine with compromising my quality of communicating with them through email, because at least that person is connecting with me and it still does feel like a connection, even though it is through electronic means.  I guess it feels like a connection, because someone is reciprocating your thoughts with their thoughts, they are reacting to what you wrote and visa versa.  And this is a fundamental aspect of a relationship, to give and take and go back and forth, evidence you can have a “relationship” online, or at least one of the important elements of a relationship..

Being away from technology definitely reminds me of how society and myself are shifting more and more toward technology and farther and farther away from personal human, face-to-face, interactions.  If fact, I would be surprised if there are now some human beings who feel they are not quite in their human element IF they are unplugged from technology.  I hope to make a point to never “evolve” that far in that direction..

In fact, on a personal application note, I’ve already come to the conclusion that this “all-day media fast” is beneficial for me!  In fact, I’m seriously entertaining the thought of doing this once a week, like on Saturdays, because of what it frees me to do when there are not these normal options in my life..  More than this “media fast” hindering me, it has significantly freed me to really jump on chores, exercise, reading physical books that I can hold in my hand (a tradition and experience that we’re losing), and a better ability to stop and reflect on life and just breath; a time for solitude and not just always being this busy-body, which technology influences me to be: always needing to check for new emails or entertain myself with YouTube, information, etc.  So I think this will become a new element in my lifestyle.  Yes, I will still get my first cell phone (yes, my first cell phone) in, I think, August, but I will commit to one day a week to where there is an all-day media blackout in my life..

Well, it’s time to head home on the bus with my roommate……. 

Okay, I’m home now, it’s about 8:30pm and so I’ll now be doing something I have been procrastinating on for at least 2 months now:  cleaning out my suv and then washing it by hand.  Yes, I do feel more willing to do this chore since I don’t have all these technological options available to me.  Indeed, this seems to be a major theme in this all-day journal… 

Ha!  Just got done now cleaning out the vehicle.  Too dark to give it a good scrub.  I think I wash it tomorrow morning while I’m still on a non-procrastinating streak.  Bottom line: I didn’t have really any technology entertainment to procrastinate from these important things to..

            It’s about 9:45pm and I haven’t fallen temptation to using any type of media: laptop, cell phone, landline telephone, video games, music, etc.

Now onto some of questions my teacher wanted us to ask of ourselves:

-What motivates my media use?

A need to stay connected to what’s going on in the world, what other people are thinking about, and entertainment: TV shows, movies, YouTube, Wikipedia, etc.  Though I’m not as much into online news sites like I was so many years ago.  I do hope the website presentation assignment coming up resuscitates that interest..

-How do you get your news?

Well, I don’t really get it from online news sources any more.  I generally get news that I guess is “worthy news” information from some of my online intellectual friends who will mention it in a forum or on their Facebook page or blog or hear it by word of mouth from someone on the street.  There’s a McDonalds in downtown Portland that I might stop at from time to time that has a TV that is always on CNN, which I’ll take the time to watch a little.  I think if I had an actual TV in my apartment, which then makes the news so visually entertaining and therefore stimulating, then I think I would watch the news more.  As it is, I have a laptop, which is my source of information and the world and I choose to not look at the news, maybe because I NO LONGER LOOK AT IT AS TRUTH, BUT ENTERTAINMENT.

-How much of my life revolves around the media I use?

Probably up to 10 hours a day if it is not being filled with school and other activities.

-Did anything about my experience surprise me?

Yes, basically how much more easy it was to do things that I tend to put off.  I guess too many options in my life have caused me to rationalize and justify utilizing the media world more than I should.  What has also surprised me is how the age old wisdom of “Do everything in moderation” seems to go out the window when it comes to the media that is so accessible and pleasurable as entertainment.  I’m probably spoiled with the entertainment I receive, because I don’t get it as a reward like at the end of a hard day or the main event that evening that I go to with someone, which would have happen in the old days.  I probably don’t appreciate it like we did when the Internet, for example, was all new and fresh.  Reminds me of Nirvana’s song, Entertain Us.. “Here we are now, Entertain us!!……..”

-How easy was it to give up media for a day?

Well, it would have been more difficult had I not had a day full of stuff to do, which was how I set up my media fast day, lol!!  Yeah, I did feel a little out of my element even with things to do.

-What would a world without media be like?

People everywhere would probably be significantly more personal with those in their conversations with each other, a much stronger concept of community would return to world, people would have more overall happiness and contentment in their lives, but people would be significantly more ignorant, there would be a much great prevalence of dogmatic and closed-minded ways of thinking, believer & non-believer alike, and the world would be more divided in terms of our ignorance concerning how similar, as human beings, we all are, despite our being half way around the world in a completely different culture, from each other..  That would be a summarize of most of what would happen at least..

-Does the media we use define who we are?

I’m sure it definitely does.  Obviously my day felt different, with more motivation to do things in some respects and it also felt like I kind of unplugged from the Matrix, lol!  So that’s proof that the media influences my lifestyle, but does it define me… I don’t know.  I can kind of see it being put that way as kind of negative, that whether I like it or not, I’m shaped and molded by the media.  But I guess it has and I’m now defined, because of the media, as a less likely to go out of my way and have a cup of coffee with someone, person, which face-to-face would be more personal, a higher quality communication could take place, and a better friendship/or relationship could be cultivated because of that.  And I value what I just said, but I can tell that I am less likely to really desire that, because of the media and the numerous ways we can communicate with each other.  That would be an example of how it’s defined me…

Anyways, ending my journal here, it’s 10:40pm and I’ll wrap up of my “all-day media fast” with organizing my room and office, yet another activity that I haven’t made a priority like I could have.  I will probably put these journal entries as a post on my blog to always remember….

ON THE ISSUE OF MARTYRDOM...

"Can I honestly say that I believe Gandhi was acting selfishly when he 'sacrificed' himself for the freedom of the Indian people? No, I can't say that I believe it. It would be more proper to say that I know it for a fact... Whatever Gandhi did, out of rational or irrational choice, he did because he chose to do it... Martyrs are selfish people ? the same as you and me ? but with insatiable egos." 

The above quote was from a critic of the late Gandhi.  Interesting quote if I might say..

This issue here is whether or not Gandhi was acting selfish when he sacrificed himself for the freedom of the Indian people.  The author of this quote sincerely believes, to the point of calling it a fact, Gandhi was being selfish.  The author claims it was Gandhi’s deliberate choice, regardless of it being rational or irrational and compares Gandhi’s behavior to martyrs who are selfish people with “insatiable egos”. 

The controversy here can be found among pacifists who are opposed to war and violence of any kind and those who are pro-war or feel one must sometimes accomplish things through violence and riots.
Gandhi was a pacifist.. 
The controversy is also between those who feel Gandhi unnecessarly ‘sacrificed’ himself by the unrealistic political stance he took that had more to do with his ego and less about the people and those who feel his non-violence stance was the epitome of ethics in practice, “turning the other cheek”, and that nothing could be farther from ego and selfishness.  A final controversy here is over the fundamental concept of martyrdom as a good, compassionate “in the footsteps of Jesus” thing to do and the idea that self-preservation should be our highest instinct and that martyrdom is an ultimate escape from reality.

For me the big issue here is: Is someone acting selfish when they choose to be a martyr and sacrifice themselves for a cause or literally die for a cause right then and there?  I have a bit of history with this because I was raised as a sincere, Bible believing or as they say “Bible Literalist” Christian and throughout my upbringing I was introduced to not only martyrs in the New Testament, (the first being Stephen, for example, as found in the book of Acts) but also to actual 20^th century martyrs, mainly, those who were missionaries overseas in, say, China or the Amazon rain jungle of South America.  Many people considered Paul, who wrote many of the books in the New Testament, as the first missionary, who was also a martyr himself.  I was raised seeing those Christians as my hero’s of the faith and that they showed the greatest act of faith, love, and sacrifice for God.

Psalms 116:15 says, “How precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of his saints”, which has been referred to as the martyr’s scripture.  So I was raised and conditioned as a Christian to consider dying for my faith to be one of the greatest acts of agape love to the persecutor and my greatest act of devotion and faith in God.  You could say it was considered a demonstration of a “true” Christian’s morality.

But I moved away from the faith of Christianity over the years and am now an Atheist, with a secular ethical worldview of Secular Humanism.  When I look back on how ready I was willing to give up my life as a Christian, it does amaze me.  I debated a Christian pastor at an event last year on the topic of morality.  There was one place that the pastor argued Atheists would be far less likely to emulate Christians: martyrdom.  He was right.

Today, the last thing I would want to do is to give up my life, because I believe I only have one life to live.  I don’t exactly see it as an ultimate escape from reality like suicide, but something more the result of brain washing.  I also see it as a selfish and cruel thing to do, because you are hurting others who need you alive such as your loved one and children.  I’m talking about the willful choice to forfeit your life because you will not (lie) and renounce your faith in God in front of, say, a communist government.  It is not a mature way to face reality, in my opinion.  A Christian might argue to me, “No!  I am looking reality in the face and seeing this earthly life for what it is, as merely a blip in our eternal life with God in Heaven.”  I would respond that life and the moments of life are even more precious to me now and the last thing I would want to do is prematurely die.  I’m very disappointed in the idea of eventually not existing because life is so damn good!

HAVING WRITTER'S BLOCK OR I AM IN A TRANSITION IN MY READING & WRITING INTERESTS?

I haven't been writing much on my blog here..  I deleted two posts that I started on, because I didn't have the drive to finish them..  And I have been moving slowly away from my interest in popularized science books and more in the direction of sci-fi books, but even my interest in that has lacking.  I'm definitely a free inquirer and inquisitive about a lot of things, but something is changing.

I can have some very engaging conversations with people on science, philosophy, and ethical subjects. It still is very easy to come away from those conversations intellectually satisfied and I would generally get a book recommended to me.  But there was a time when a book would be recommended to me and I would then, the next day, go to Powell's books, for example, so I could evaluate the book to see if it was to be the next book that I would read on my path of inquiry.  But now I rarely follow through with going to check out a book, maybe.. because my path of books is coming to an end.  If so, it was indeed a life altering 8 year path of reading popularized science, ethics, and philosophy books.

I think I'm still very much into some of philosophy; the ethical and moral aspects of it.  But now I am also into belief, natural spirituality, and the intrinsically human aspects of religion; traditions that stay with us because they meet important needs in ourselves.  Many secular individuals pride themselves in being self-sufficient, but together is better.  Two people can accomplish certain things on a fulfilling level that one person can't..

For example, there are 5 topics that are best done with others and are not done justice by simply approaching them with our left brained, analytical mind:
faith,
natural spirituality,
emotion,
relationships, and
experience..
Yes, these things are inter-connected and have similar themes woven into them, but they are also distinct from each other.  They are also just as valid of realities in themselves as some of the more concrete topics that come out of the hard sciences!
And I'm not going to go the way of so many Atheists who think that there isn't anything you can learn from religion.  I'm trying to return to the things that made me happy.

Most likely I'll never return to a sincere belief in the God of Christianity because that takes real faith.
To quote Benjamin Franklin:  "To see by faith, one most close the eyes of reason."  I feel that my eyes have been forever pried open by reason and science.  But Christianity and a relationship with God is more of an experience and less of an intellectual stance, and I am returning to a spirituality in my life, though it is a natural one generated by my body and the environments I'm in.  That doesn't take away from the experience, though, if I really get into it, and in these expiences I do feel much of the same sensations as when I was a Christian.

---JOURNAL ENTRY- NOVEMBER 2ND, 2012:
It has been about 4 months and a week since I wrote the above post...
June 25th, the date of this post, was also, little did I know, one of thee most important days of my life:
It was the day I met (the nickname I will call her) Qivonne, the girl who has changed the course of my life..  I first became aware of her on this day as she sat right there in the desk next to me in a media class we both happened to be taking in college.
What has transpired since then would fill a book, so I will only, for the purpose of this post, reply to the above last paragraph with how things have changed for me over these last 4 months...  So my next Journal entry here will respond directly to the above last paragraph..  Ciao.

---JOURNAL ENTRY- NOVEMBER 20TH, 2012:

How has Confucian philosophy been successful in preserving Chinese society?

In his chapter on Confucianism, in the book The World's Religions, Huston Smith, among many other things, asked a simple question, "What is now to hold anarchy in check?"  And it's a question that I think Chinese society may have a real answer to..

There are no societies that have persisted as long and as cohesively as Chinese society.  And a hallmark of that society is it's Confucianism philosophy along with Buddhism.  But it is really Confucianism that should be thanked in terms of how this society still has a sense of community, of family values, of respect for elders, and honor.
In his lifetime, Confucius played many roles such as a Chinese politician, teacher, editor, and social philosopher, but what people are most indebted to him for and what he is remember most for is his philosophy.

First, what Confucianism is not. Though many temples were built in his honor,
-Confucianism is not a religion in the Western sense.
-There is no belief in the supernatural or a personal God,
-there is no belief in an afterlife,
-there are no priests, shrines or churches.
-You won’t find people running around calling themselves a "Confucianist."

But didn't Confucianism have a religious element to it?  Not exactly, and here's a way to look at it:
It was what sociologist Robert Bellah called a "civil religion,"¹ the sense of religious identity and common moral understanding at the foundation of a society's central institutions. It is also what a Chinese sociologist called a "diffused religion";³ its institutions were not a separate church, but those of society, family, school, and state; its "priests" were not separate liturgical specialists, but parents, teachers, and officials. Confucianism was part of the Chinese social fabric and way of life; to those who practice the philosophy, everyday life was the arena of religion and had special meaning.

And this approach, in my opinion, is rather ingenious.  In the same way that religious rituals take on special meanings for those who practice them, everyday routines took on a certain special meaning for the individual who was mindful of Confucian principles.


Another way to help you differentiate Confucianism from the concept of a traditional religion is that it is often characterized as a system of social and ethical philosophy and that at the core of Confucianism is humanism: the belief that human beings are teachable, improvable and perfectible through personal and communal endeavors especially including self-cultivation and self-creation.

 THERE ARE 3 THEMES IN CONFUCIAN THOUGHT, THAT I CONSIDER IMPORTANT TO HOW CONFUCIANISM HAS LEFT A DEEP IMPACT IN CHINESE SOCIETY:

REN:
Ren is one of the basic virtues promoted by Confucius, and is an obligation of altruism and humaneness for other individuals within a community. Confucius' concept of humaneness Ren is probably best expressed in the Confucian version of the ethic of reciprocity, or the Golden Rule:
"Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you."

Ren relies heavily on the relationships between two people, but at the same time encompasses much more than that. It represents an inner development towards an altruistic goal, while simultaneously realizing that one is never alone, and that everyone has these relationships to fall back on, being a member of a family, the state, and the world.

The Five Relationships that utilize Ren are: 
1)  Father to Son - There should be kindness in the father, and filial piety in the son.
2)  Elder Brother to Younger Brother - There should be gentility (politeness) in the elder brother, and humility in the younger.
3)  Husband to Wife - The husband should be benevolent, and the wife should understanding and listen.
4)  Elder to Junior - There should be consideration among the elders and deference among the juniors.
5)  Ruler to Subject - There should be benevolence among the rulers and loyalty among the subjects.

All of these practices are the physical, or outward, expression of Confucian ideals. These are the observable behaviors of the members of society. Confucius; however, believed that in order for society to truly follow Li (Li, which I will talk about later), one must also adhere to and internalize these practices. The mentality involved in performing these rituals in society must not exist only there, it must be a part of the private life of the person. This is known as Ren.

Rén is not a concept that is learned; it is innate, that is to say, everyone is born with the sense of Ren. Confucius believed that the key to long-lasting integrity was to constantly think, since the world is continually changing at a rapid pace.

Rén also has a political dimension. Confucianism says that if the ruler lacks Ren, it will be difficult if not impossible for his subjects to behave humanely. Ren is the basis of Confucian political theory; it presupposes an autocratic ruler, exhorted to refrain from acting inhumanely towards his subjects. An inhumane ruler runs the risk of losing the Mandate of Heaven or, in other words, the right to rule. A ruler lacking such a mandate need not be obeyed, but a ruler who reigns humanely and takes care of the people is to be obeyed strictly, for the benevolence of his dominion shows that he has been mandated by heaven.

THE NATURE OF LI: 

 In Confucianism, the term Li, is sometimes translated into English as rituals, customs, rites, etiquette, or morals, refers to any of the secular social functions of daily life, akin to the Western term for culture.
To emphasize again, the rites of li are not rites in the Western conception of religious custom. Rather, Li embodies the entire spectrum of interaction with humans, nature, and even material objects. Confucius includes in his discussions of li such diverse topics as learning, tea drinking, titles, mourning, and governance.
Li is a principle of Confucian ideas. Contrary to the inward expression of Ren, Li was considered an outward practice, wherein one acts with propriety in society. Acting with Li and Ren led to what Confucius called the "superior human" or "the sage". Such a human would use Li to act with propriety in every social matter.

Confucius advocated a respectful manner, where one is aware of their superiors and inferiors. Confucius felt that knowing ones rank in a feudalistic society would lead to the greatest social order. 'Li' as described in Confucian classics (The Book of Rites and The Analects) gave clear instruction on the proper behaviors expected of individuals based on their roles and placement in feudalistic society. Confucius regarded the disorder of his era as the society's neglect of Li and its principles. In the Analects Confucius states "Unless a man has the spirit of the rites, in being respectful he will wear himself out, in being careful he will become timid, in having courage he will become unruly, and in being forthright he will become unrelenting." (Book VIII Chapter 2)

FILIAL PIETY: 

"Filial piety" is considered among the greatest of virtues and must be shown towards both the living and the dead (including even remote ancestors). The term "filial" (meaning "of a child") characterizes the respect that a child, originally a son, should show to his parents. This relationship was extended by analogy to a series of five relationships utilize Ren, which I mentioned earlier.

Specific duties were prescribed to each of the participants in these sets of relationships. Such duties were also extended to the dead, where the living stood as sons to their deceased family. This led to the veneration of ancestors. 

The only relationship where respect for elders wasn't stressed was the Friend to Friend relationship. In all other relationships, high reverence was held for elders.

So as some gets older, they become more respected and appreciated and here in the U.S. they seem to become more invisible and less noticed.

In one sense, the Confucian ethic is egalitarian, though not in Western sense where everyone has equal standing and opportunity within society. Instead, there’s equality within a social rank.  And when you think of human nature, a side of our human nature says, we want the freedom to choose the path we want to take and the roles that we want to play in society, you know, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but there is the other side of our human nature where we want structure and to be told how we should live, to be given roles that make up our identity.  So, as far as this side of our human nature is concerned, the concept of equality within a social rank is ingenuous.
"Every person has their place so everything is in it's place", is something I could hear Confucius saying...

A POSSIBLE DISADVANTAGE OF CONFUCIANISM:
Though modern China has moved past these narrowly defined roles, the Chinese today are still used to thinking in terms of hierarchy. They tend to respect hierarchy and differences in status much more than Westerners, who tend to be more egalitarian and open towards strangers. Americans in particular, tend to value people who treat everyone with equal respect, regardless of their relative socioeconomic statuses. For instance, you often hear stories of the “down to earth” big shot CEO who chats with the janitor every morning on a first-name basis. You won’t see this in China.

Confucius was mainly interested in how to bring about societal order and harmony. He believed that mankind would be in harmony with the universe if everyone understood their rank in society and were taught the proper behaviors of their rank. Similarly, he believed that the social order was threatened whenever people failed to act according to their prescribed roles.

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THIS?
So are there any applications to U.S. society that Chinese society can impart to us?
Is there an advantage to having narrowly defined roles, to having this narrow social focus?  To put it another way: That if we were focused on respecting and communicating with a specific group of people that we are associated with, wouldn't this enhance our interpersonal relationships with that group of people because we're mainly focused on them?

In the U.S., we're expected to be open to communication and civil with everyone, but it's also socially acceptable to communicate with no one in this name of independence we have.  There's a standard expectation to be civil, but there is no expectation to communicate.  There are a lot of lonely individuals out there, because they're not plugged into any community or have a category of people that they can say, "This is the society of people I associate with and with whom I am accepted."

Nevertheless, I find it very interesting that outside of religious communities, you will also find unaffiliated people dressing to fit certain subcultures, such as the world of music, sports, art, and numerous traditions in every geographic location in the U.S.  And we do it not because we want to be religious and fit some particular mold, but because there is identity, community, and social cohesion in it.  And we need some type of profound, intricate, satisfying social structure in our society if we are to survive even a fraction of time, which Chinese society has.  It's the oldest and largest society on earth and look at her now!  Indeed, it is a serious question that must be answered, "What is now to hold anarchy in check?"

So now I'll take any questions that people have..



SOURCES:

http://www.china-mike.com/chinese-culture/understanding-chinese-mind/confucius/

http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/Fac/Adler/Reln270/Berling-Confucianism.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucianism

WHAT DO PEOPLE FUNDAMENTALLY WANT IN A COMMUNITY?

Aside from the activities that make up a community.. here are some questions we need to ask:

1)  What do people fundamentally want in a community?

2)  When does a group become a community?

3)  Are small groups now their own communities and content with that size?

4)  Has the definition of a community fundamentally changed?

5)  Is the type of community that I was raised enjoying in church now outdated today?

6)  What's the most popular type of community today?

These six questions are all valid, but I will focus on the first question, "What do people fundamentally want in a community?"

So here is what I think are universal traits that most people want in a community, whether or not they consciously know it:
-unconditional acceptance,
-identity,
-relating with one another,
-a sense of family relationship,
-shelter,
-stress relief,
-validation,
-support, and
-closer personal relationships.


...to be continued...

DON'T THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATH WATER...

Christians may have faulty positions and beliefs but the methods by which they emotionally, mentally, and socially convey those beliefs are effective in creating a healthy community.

So we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water and deny what we could investigate here.
You can disagree with and not subscribe to the beliefs and ideas of believers, but let's take a deep look at the processes by which they transmit those beliefs and ideas.
-Ask yourself if your secular community successfully transmits its popularly held secular beliefs and ideas as effectively as the countless dynamic church communities that exist in the U.S. and if not,
why is that the case?
-Is there something we can learn from effective religious communities?...
And I emphasized the word communities, because I am compelled to conclude, by what I've observed over the years, that there are really no secular communities to be found, secular communities that achieve all of the following:
-are welcoming to all age groups,
-meet once a week,
-have programs for most age groups,
-have atmospheres that cultivate relationships in addition to intellectual atmospheres,
-have a relationship with the surrounding community via numerous inroads that have been made,
-have large gatherings that most of the group experiences together that reflect on certain creeds, ideas, traditions, etc.,
-have community outreaches,
-are sensitive towards and have some programs devoted to certain local social problems,
and that
-do a certain amount of charity work.
AND THIS IS THE SHORT LIST THAT WOULD QUALITY AS A REAL COMMUNITY..

But many of you might say,
"You don't need all these things for a real community.  I have a small group that I belong to and feel apart of.  It feels like a little community, but we have very few of the 'community' aspects you're talking about.."
Fair enough.  Then I guess I need to ask myself, aside from what a community might do, what are the fundamental characteristics of a community...

I guess that can be my next post..

Atheists must make an effort in understanding emotion, experience, and relationships though these defy mathematical precision...

It's my opinion, that too many Atheists are wary of analyzing emotion, experience, and relationships, because these are messy, not straightforward, and seem to defy being put into an equation.
And this is true about emotion, experience, and relationships!
The dilemma is,
because the Atheist is wary of approaching these issues, because of the Atheist's concern of the reality of irrationally approaching them, the Atheist ends up not really reflecting on these topics at all...
The problem is,
the mind still wants to make conclusions and even if a conclusion isn't sound, the mind has this amazing ability to rationalize why this can remain the conclusion nevertheless.
All of us harbor unfounded conclusions and we preserve those unchallenged conclusions for years..

So...the Atheist will still naturally make subtle conclusions about these issues and when those conclusions are brought to the surface from a conversation with someone who brings up the topic of emotion, experience, or relationships.. it's very unlikely the Atheist will say,
"Sorry, I've suspended my judgements on these things, so I really don't have any thoughts on that topic."  Of course not!
The Atheist will comment, because we have an opinion, and the mind naturally makes judgements whether we want it to or not.
So it is better for the Atheist to face these topics that defy mathematical precision and therefore air out his/her own biases and limited knowledge on these topics than to avoid these issues and therefore miss opportunities to grow through the experience of learning.

Emotion, experience, and relationships are just as valid of realities as logic, reason, and the objective world and if we are free inquirers we will inquire wherever there is knowledge to be found.
I think a big reason why we limit our inquiry into emotion, experience, and relationships, is because we are limit our investigation into human nature by only investigating through
the hard sciences, such as biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, neurology, geology, etc.
and not also
the soft sciences, such as psychology, sociology, anthropology, cognitive science, etc.
And we also limit our investigation into human nature by only discussing and investigating safe topics that are popular to talk about and that won't stir up too much discomfort or complexity.
These unpopular and or controversial topics include:
our feelings and emotions, our subconscious mind, natural spirituality, natural spiritual experiences, sex, death, euthanasia, relationships, art, cussing, pornography, nudity, sexual fetishes, aggression, violence, transparency, radical honesty, community, accountability, family, music's deep impact on us, and the like...

I'm sure there are some of you who don't have a problem with talking about some of these topics, but, nevertheless, you don't because you know few people will talk about these topics or feel comfortable talking about these topics.  And that in itself is another problem..

....It's my opinion, that the majority of Atheists are not as rational as they would like to think they are, simply because of the lack of inquiry into topics 1) that they have a negative reaction to, topics 2) that they think have an irrational basis and so are unnecessary, and therefore topics 3) they think are not worthy of inquiry.  BUT THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS DILEMMA FOR THIS CATEGORY OF ATHEIST IS: TO REMAIN BIASED AND TO BE CLOSED-MINDED, AND SO TO CONTINUE TO BE IRRATIONAL IN THESE AREAS, yes irrationality: the very thing Atheists claim to want to move away from and to not promote...

Simply put:  
-There are atheists who tend to unfairly characterize Christians as this or that 
and 
there are Christians who tend to unfairly characterize Atheists as this or that.  
-Christians don't like it when we do this to them 
and 
we don't like it when they do this to us.  
-What remains in this situation is who will have the strongest values of free inquiry:
 to not just stop at what we think we understand of those of differing view points, but to fully inquire into the lives of those of opposing view points so we don't incorrectly presume things about them..

That is intellectual integrity, that is free inquiry.  (Addressing the Atheist here) And if you are not willing to do this, for whatever reason(s) that is, at least admit to yourself that you probably have some unfounded information that you have gathered about Christians over the years and that people should not see you as a reliable source on the context of Christians..

And I would say the same thing to the Christian who has not spent time with Atheists and who does not freely inquiry into why/how Atheists are the way they are, but comes and goes with this unchallenged, preconceived conception of Atheists...
It goes both ways.. 


So back to the original point for this essay:
-Are you, the Atheist, willing to continue to follow the evidence wherever it leads in the areas of emotion, experience, and relationships?
-Are you willing to continue the free inquiry that lead you to Atheism in the first place?

Reason #9 for why I'm now attending church..

This post is a response to my April 6th post, which I gave 10 reasons for why I am now motivated to attend church, after having been away for close to 10 years.

So here's reason #9:

9) Because I might be looking for a deeper level of or more opportunities for natural spiritual experiences.

OUTLINE:

-What is a natural spiritual experience?

-Does it really matter if we changed the word spiritual to something else?

-Why few Atheists that I know are open to and contemplative of a natural spiritual experience.

-What is the difference between a natural spiritual experience and what Christians call their spiritual experience.

-Why do I think attending church will enhance or make more often my natural spiritual experiences?

..to be continued..

Reason #7 for why I'm now attending church..

This post is a response to my April 6th post, which I gave 10 reasons for why I am now motivated to attend church, after having been away for close to 10 years.

This reason is as follows:
7) Because relationships based on intellectual and logical interests are much harder to cultivate into what is personal, trusting and meaningful than is the case with relationships based on personal and experiential interests.

I have this discussion group that I go to.  It is not your average secular, intellectual discussion group.
I will explain more in my next post(on reason #9) what one of the main purposes of this group is, but for now I will share some aspects of the group that are worthy of mention in this post.

The group has more to do with our experience of nature and thoughts that arrive from that and our developing relationships which each other, than just a group intellectually discussing a topic, not really connecting as a group, and then dispersing.  Nope, the group meets twice a month, once to have a potluck, where we eat, play games, and get more acquainted with each other and the other time(which I'll expound more in the next post) where we go through a chapter in a popularized science book and discuss what things we've deeply reflected on concerning the topics.  The group is reserved for those who have attended on several occasions, so that we are actually getting acquainted with each other and not with new people every time, because of the turn over rate.  So there is a sense of commitment to the group.  In fact, in August, those belonging to the group will be spending a couple of nights at a beach house to continue to cultivate our discussions and relationships with each other..

A conclusion I've arrived at is that the way we operate this group is crucial for what it accomplishes.  All of the people in this discussion group came from our secular community where people are only associated with each other on an intellectual and logical level and there really isn't an atmosphere for more personal, meaningful relationships. It's not that the people in our secular community don't have values for relationships and transparency, but we're not in a community that creates atmospheres for these things and so encourages these things.  In this regard, the CFI "community" of Portland fails as a community.

Better designed than the atmosphere that our discussion group tries to create are the atmospheres at Imago Dei Portland, though it seems they might have sort of the opposite type of challenge.  It makes sense that because many of the associations there are based on personal and experiential interests, that this would make it difficult to cultivate intellectual and logical interests.
So the thinking here is as follows:
it's harder for those with an intellectual basis to their relationship to cultivate personal, trusting, and meaningful aspects in that relationship
AND
it's harder for those with a personal, trusting, and meaningful basis to their relationship to cultivate intellectual, rational, and logical aspects to that relationship.

But Imago Dei has both types of atmospheres that seem to be successfully cultivating these two separate experiences.  And that's one of the reasons I'm enjoying going to Imago Dei, because they have class atmospheres that intellectually delve into subjects like C.S. Lewis books, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, etc. and they have other atmospheres like their church service that encourage a reflective, personal, emotional attitude towards the things that really matter.

Since these psychologically, emotionally, and socially fulfilling atmospheres seem to be unique once a week thing to church, I would argue that that is one of the top reasons people go to church.  Yes, I'm sure most Christians would say it is their relationship with God that moves them to, but take away all the things church provides and the gathering together of believers would dwindle.  But by how much I wonder?  I guessing, outside of the relationship with God, the gathering together of believers is 60% of the reason people go to church.  I know it's more complicated than that and so this is a reason for why I'm doing this posts.  To come up is substantial reasons for the phenomenon that is church..

Yes, it was my idealist point of view that we could create a community that had both intellectually and emotionally satisfying relationships.  This was one of the biggest reasons I volunteered the way I did for several years in CFI Portland.  I believed it could become this.  Sadly, years later, this was one of the biggest reasons why I had to finally face my dissatisfaction with my secular community, because it had fallen short of this, and why I basically stopped attending CFI Portland with some occasional exceptions.

I told my mom through email the other day that, progressively, over the last 3 or so months, I had started attending church again.  She was so happy when she replied, talking about how God was so faithful.  It was nice to see her that happy.  Of course, I'm going to church on my own terms.  I encouraged her to read my blog posts that have to do with why my now attending church.

The book that I am most interested in reading at this time in my life is Religion for Atheists.  In the chapter on community the author starts off by saying, "One of the losses modern society feels most keenly is that of a sense of community."

This is something I hope to recover for secular society, because without it, we will in certain areas continue to de-evolve...  And the best way for me to recover it is to learn from those who have refined it over the centuries, the church.

((WANTED TO INTERJECT THIS before I begin my 10 reasons inquiry))

You know, I think many Atheists are wanting something from Christians and many Christians are wanting something from Atheists: both are wanting the other to truly learn about, accept, and respect that the Atheist is happy with their worldview & that the Christian is happy with their worldview. There is this need for a deep acceptance if we are to come together and communicate.  The people I most want to communicate with are those that are not there to try to change my mind or show me how blind I am, but who are there to try to understand me and to respect who I am and my worldview. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not meaning that we should accept someone and not care to learn about them... What I mean is we must make an effort to accept who someone is and with that have a desire to learn about them so that we are not misinformed about who they really are.  When we don't try to learn about someone and instead only have this rejection or apathetic "acceptance" of them, we also carry these misconceptions and misinformation the person, which drives us even more apart...

And, as an Atheist, I am getting there very quickly with Christians. This is how I would say it. That there is no debate over certain facts with the Christian, that for many of them:
-A relationship with God(Christ) has changed the course of their life,
-attending church has changed the course of their life and their way of life,
-having the Bible as an ethical reference guide, being reminded of things from the pulpit on Sundays, and verbalizing these things through prayer here and there DOES reinforce their ethical choices and standards,
-being apart of church's charitable structure, which is huge and organized, reinforces their desire to give and reminds them outside of themselves about giving,

..to be continued..