Knowledge: how do we know anything.
Logic and math are things that are objective and things not challenged. This premise was used to understand that there are things that we can know and are objective and cannot or elicit much challenge.
Is this an appropriate and comparable method when dealing with ideas?
Math’s method of proof is much more concrete. Adding 2+2 is always going to be 4 independent of the individual or perceiver and does not rely much on extraneous influences that can change this reality. Numbers also stay static and are consistent and predictable in how they would behave when dealt with. It does not require and is not influenced or takes into account the context of how is it being processed. Ideas on the other hand are more dynamic in their nature and its interpretation is heavily influenced by the availability of the information that we humans can relate with. We can have a basic understanding and universal agreement on what an idea is, but then its reality can change and the information that we can glean from it can expand as we discover and realize the diversity of its meaning as we interact and receive more information about it. Maybe the use of this proof method is inappropriate when thinking about ideas since math and ideas do not behave in a similar way and would come up with different conclusions.
Math expects a solution that is objective and puts a clear and definite and clear restraint on the solution that we come up with, but ideas are more difficult to place restraints and declare definite conclusions since it is more complex and takes into account the individuality of the perceiver processing it. Using math's logic (if-then statements) places a definite and particular expectation and imposes what “should be” the conclusion as predicted, thus limiting what ideas can be and maybe inappropriately forcing an expectation that is bound to be convoluted because of the more often inproper ways of measuring the outcomes.
Logic to be is also reliant on how culture and the diversity of people can make use of it. What is the standard of determining what is logical. The definition of what is logical might be different in how a culture interacts with an idea and how it is going to be manipulated for its own necessities. yes, i do agree that a chair places limitations on how we can make use of it and relate with again, but then again, this is a chair that is not necessarily changing as culture and how reality can change its nature of use based on what is availability at that time, and could be claimed as merely logical.
im not advocating that logic and math are both useless, but maybe we have inappropriately used its application and distorted reality as a consequence...
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Gnosticism
how much of this thinking continues to influence our rationalities and way of conceptualizing ideas? When we think of issues that we readily dichotomize and argue using polarities without acknowledging the gradual progression between the two and to separate the two issues in such clear cut categories might readily situate them to be misunderstood.
Gnosticism in the way that we separate the “religious” and “secular” realm can displace the responsibility and prevent us from acknowledging our commonality with the rest of the world. Creating a false chasm between realities can also hinder us from participating in a world that is commonly deemed as sinful and belonging to the “heathen” (although this does not mean that everything is permissive, but maybe we have set wrongful categories where there should not be). This dichotomy can create problems and label behaviors as sinful when it does not necessarily nor appropriately warranted. Maybe the actual sin is by creating false criteria and categories that separate us from creation and the reality in our midst that we are to help to redeem (this might be reminiscent of when God addressed Paul to not call things that he has created dirty). Missionaries and people in “religious” work are often placed in a valuable and holier category…but shouldn’t those who are living and helping to renew this world be also held in the same esteem? Why should living the daily realities of life and practicality of daily grind be held down as less worthy? We continue to perpetuate this Gnostic thinking that those “who live for the spirit” matter more than those who are living their daily realities in their midst. This false categorization has led us to a distorted understanding of what it means to be human and our relation to the world around us. It has a created a divide in how we view our life and what we are aspiring to have. Maybe, “heaven is a place on earth” (could be more true that we thought of) and we have been allowed to participate in making this happen by helping it be renewed through having the right relationship with each other and surrounding…Shalom.
Gnosticism in the way that we separate the “religious” and “secular” realm can displace the responsibility and prevent us from acknowledging our commonality with the rest of the world. Creating a false chasm between realities can also hinder us from participating in a world that is commonly deemed as sinful and belonging to the “heathen” (although this does not mean that everything is permissive, but maybe we have set wrongful categories where there should not be). This dichotomy can create problems and label behaviors as sinful when it does not necessarily nor appropriately warranted. Maybe the actual sin is by creating false criteria and categories that separate us from creation and the reality in our midst that we are to help to redeem (this might be reminiscent of when God addressed Paul to not call things that he has created dirty). Missionaries and people in “religious” work are often placed in a valuable and holier category…but shouldn’t those who are living and helping to renew this world be also held in the same esteem? Why should living the daily realities of life and practicality of daily grind be held down as less worthy? We continue to perpetuate this Gnostic thinking that those “who live for the spirit” matter more than those who are living their daily realities in their midst. This false categorization has led us to a distorted understanding of what it means to be human and our relation to the world around us. It has a created a divide in how we view our life and what we are aspiring to have. Maybe, “heaven is a place on earth” (could be more true that we thought of) and we have been allowed to participate in making this happen by helping it be renewed through having the right relationship with each other and surrounding…Shalom.
fun days and nights out
some happenings around here...
we do try to make things lively with our "limited" places to hang out and we, i would say accomodate well to our environment...some people go to the mall or to fancy restaurants for get together...we on the other hand, appreciate the "little things" we have available in our surrounding...but mean a great deal:)
water falls at sololex:) nice water and green things growing...
another waterfall pics...deng it, this place is b-e-a-utiful!
we do try to make things lively with our "limited" places to hang out and we, i would say accomodate well to our environment...some people go to the mall or to fancy restaurants for get together...we on the other hand, appreciate the "little things" we have available in our surrounding...but mean a great deal:)
jasie's bday bash:) well, it was a nice out with the girls...eating mexican yummy food. Come on! It's a taste of Mexico on the alps:)
water falls at sololex:) nice water and green things growing...
these are attempts to get us into one pic...with some personality...
well, this one is so that you can see the faces behind the personalities!
another waterfall pics...deng it, this place is b-e-a-utiful!
Sunday, June 3, 2007
missing people...
is it possible that one can miss someone while still being with them??? I'm definintely experiencing this on a daily basis...
some of those who i will miss terribly....
some of those who i will miss terribly....
People who keep me sane: Jasie and Karryn
Kay-bop, my surrogate mom who makes everything better
my best bud in the Alps, Jays, how could sanity be sanity without you? who am i supposed to have shopping days and
shaups with??!
why do we have to move away from people we adore....
Gender roles
Do we read Ephesians 4:22 and readily assume that it’s a prescription of gender hierarchical roles because we come from a society where there is such a disparity in how men and women are viewed and therefore we impose these same lenses when we read scripture, and assume that this is how is should be understood and therefore dictates what men and women’s roles are. It might be wise to consider the context in which Paul had to critique husband and wife relationship and why they are being spoken to about these issues. If it were taken literal, men were told to love their wives at least 4x, while the woman was not told a similar command. Does this mean that women should not love their husband? Or is there are reason why men were told these things, maybe that they were not loving their wives properly. The same goes for women, when they were told to submit to their husbands…what was going on during that time between their interaction that both were even being told how to appropriately interact with each other.
The same is true when reading the Genesis during which God gives a list of things that men and women would do and suffer as a consequence of their disobedience…However, this was not necessarily meant to be a prescription on how men and women are to live, but that these behaviors would likely happen as a result/consequence of sin, therefore to continue to live in this way is to perpetuate and to continue in our sinful state. Yes, there are things that we would continue to experience as a result of sins’ continued presence (such as the pain of childbirth and continued need to till the ground for food), but this does not mean that we should aspire to live these consequences out, such as women’s “desire will be for her husband and that he would rule over her” Gen 3:16. But why is this the consequence…why the “desire” and that man would rule over woman be the consequence? Does this relate to how the woman took initiative by listening to the serpent without talking to the man, thus usurping authority? And the man not taking his responsibility of speaking up about the command God has given and thus when something went wrong he failed to take ownership of his lack of initiative and blames the woman instead…how did this birth to the hierarchical relationship that has resulted as sin’s consequence between men and women?
The same is true when reading the Genesis during which God gives a list of things that men and women would do and suffer as a consequence of their disobedience…However, this was not necessarily meant to be a prescription on how men and women are to live, but that these behaviors would likely happen as a result/consequence of sin, therefore to continue to live in this way is to perpetuate and to continue in our sinful state. Yes, there are things that we would continue to experience as a result of sins’ continued presence (such as the pain of childbirth and continued need to till the ground for food), but this does not mean that we should aspire to live these consequences out, such as women’s “desire will be for her husband and that he would rule over her” Gen 3:16. But why is this the consequence…why the “desire” and that man would rule over woman be the consequence? Does this relate to how the woman took initiative by listening to the serpent without talking to the man, thus usurping authority? And the man not taking his responsibility of speaking up about the command God has given and thus when something went wrong he failed to take ownership of his lack of initiative and blames the woman instead…how did this birth to the hierarchical relationship that has resulted as sin’s consequence between men and women?
Forgiveness
During today’s discussion, we talked about people’s different conception on forgiveness; what it means and whether once a person forgives that this is done and things are forgiven.
Which implies that this is a one time and leaves the consequences vague and ambivalent about feelings and the reality of human interaction when offences happen to one another. This negates the awareness that feelings and emotions do not follow a specific time and one could not determine when certain things can crop up as different situations might elicit them…I disagree that forgiveness is a one time event (this does not diminish the act that forgiveness took place) and I do think that sometimes it is a process that one goes through since there are certain things that come up even when the initial forgiveness has taken place, which then requires a continual forgiveness for consequences that we become conscious and aware of after the act.
I think that there are certain areas in our lives that require constant forgiving and that there are times that behaviors are remembered, not necessarily in the context of necessitating forgiveness, but as a boundary and essential thing to rebuild a new relationship that would prevent recurrence of the same past offences. Recalling of the past might at times be necessary and required as part of the healing process to adjust and renegotiate the relationship and help rebuild a more wholesome interaction, but this does not necessarly mean that forgiveness did not or is not taking place. It might encourage a more wholesome interaction as the past is recognized and despite that fact, a new relationship could be rebuild out of the love for one another’s well being and willingness to encourage one another.
Maybe we dichotomize too much. It might be that forgiveness and healing are happening at the same time as we live it out with each other. Do we at times demand too much of what forgiveness ought to look like or feel like at a certain moment in time when it might not be appropriate to expect those things due to the nature of the relationship. Or maybe, we might not even fully realize the fullness of this forgivenss at this present time on earth.
“for though I may be able to make a retrospective judgment that “I have forgiven” the others, forgiveness cannot be confined to a moment-even a moment at the conclusion of a long, timeful process. For we must continue to embody that forgiveness into the future. “to forgive for the moment is not difficult” Lewis rite to Malcolm, “but to go on forgiving, to forgive the same offence again every time it recurs to the memory- there’s the real tussle”…the craft of forgiveness requires an ongoing process of renarrating the past so that we can remember it truthfully and well; and as such, we need not to “forget” but to cultivate a timeful embodiment that enables us to remember the past in the context of a liberating new life oriented to God’s eschatological future”. Gregory Jones, 237 (Embofying Forgiveness)
Its common among Christian theology to believe to "forgive and forget", and that Jesus "ignores" our sins as a way of understanding forgiveness...but maybe it might not be good to forget because it can be a cause to repeat the same sin and facilitate a cycle of sinfulness (i think that this can also minimize the gravity of sin by just making it seem inconsequential), and that Jesus remembers and fully knows the extent of our sinfulness, and despite all those, that He came and sacrificed himself in order to allow us to re-engage in a right relationship with Him.
Which implies that this is a one time and leaves the consequences vague and ambivalent about feelings and the reality of human interaction when offences happen to one another. This negates the awareness that feelings and emotions do not follow a specific time and one could not determine when certain things can crop up as different situations might elicit them…I disagree that forgiveness is a one time event (this does not diminish the act that forgiveness took place) and I do think that sometimes it is a process that one goes through since there are certain things that come up even when the initial forgiveness has taken place, which then requires a continual forgiveness for consequences that we become conscious and aware of after the act.
I think that there are certain areas in our lives that require constant forgiving and that there are times that behaviors are remembered, not necessarily in the context of necessitating forgiveness, but as a boundary and essential thing to rebuild a new relationship that would prevent recurrence of the same past offences. Recalling of the past might at times be necessary and required as part of the healing process to adjust and renegotiate the relationship and help rebuild a more wholesome interaction, but this does not necessarly mean that forgiveness did not or is not taking place. It might encourage a more wholesome interaction as the past is recognized and despite that fact, a new relationship could be rebuild out of the love for one another’s well being and willingness to encourage one another.
Maybe we dichotomize too much. It might be that forgiveness and healing are happening at the same time as we live it out with each other. Do we at times demand too much of what forgiveness ought to look like or feel like at a certain moment in time when it might not be appropriate to expect those things due to the nature of the relationship. Or maybe, we might not even fully realize the fullness of this forgivenss at this present time on earth.
“for though I may be able to make a retrospective judgment that “I have forgiven” the others, forgiveness cannot be confined to a moment-even a moment at the conclusion of a long, timeful process. For we must continue to embody that forgiveness into the future. “to forgive for the moment is not difficult” Lewis rite to Malcolm, “but to go on forgiving, to forgive the same offence again every time it recurs to the memory- there’s the real tussle”…the craft of forgiveness requires an ongoing process of renarrating the past so that we can remember it truthfully and well; and as such, we need not to “forget” but to cultivate a timeful embodiment that enables us to remember the past in the context of a liberating new life oriented to God’s eschatological future”. Gregory Jones, 237 (Embofying Forgiveness)
Its common among Christian theology to believe to "forgive and forget", and that Jesus "ignores" our sins as a way of understanding forgiveness...but maybe it might not be good to forget because it can be a cause to repeat the same sin and facilitate a cycle of sinfulness (i think that this can also minimize the gravity of sin by just making it seem inconsequential), and that Jesus remembers and fully knows the extent of our sinfulness, and despite all those, that He came and sacrificed himself in order to allow us to re-engage in a right relationship with Him.
Stresa, Italy
so some friends and i went to italy the other day...the great thing about living in southern switz is that you are close enough to go to other countries and enjoy their varieties...so here are some of those experiences:)
this is me in fear of getting attacked by all the pigeons behind me
lazy thursday...i actually fell asleep...maybe it was with the aid of some red sweetness that was really nice with my canneloni
view of the pier area...it was such a gorgeous day...specially since the weather here has been really cold and rainy...
that's it for now...maybe i'll post more later if i get this comp recharged!
this is me in fear of getting attacked by all the pigeons behind me
lazy thursday...i actually fell asleep...maybe it was with the aid of some red sweetness that was really nice with my canneloni
view of the pier area...it was such a gorgeous day...specially since the weather here has been really cold and rainy...
that's it for now...maybe i'll post more later if i get this comp recharged!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)