For I cannot be without existing for all,
for all who are silent and oppressed,
I come from the people and I sing for them
. . .
I am the man of bread and fish
and you will not find me among books,
but with women and men:
they have taught me the infinite.
-Pablo Neruda
(So is my life)
Thursday, June 18, 2009
November 28th, 1980, as the story goes, one month after Ronald Reagan was elected as president of the United States and Jimmy Carter’s presidency ended, riots broke out in Haiti and the military turned against certain citizen groups that had questioned the leadership there. One explanation for this change was the overarching focus of the United States presidency from that of human rights (Carter), to more Republican interests matching those of Reagan. (The Agronomist) The leadership at the time percieved that they no longer had to "play at" numan rights to wim US aid money. This change in perception is noted as a possible contributor to violence in Haiti in the 1980’s.
The perception in question here is that democrats share perspectives that are congruent with human rights and tolerance and that Republicans share perspectives that are not always congruent with these. That is not to say that Republicans are not tolerant and do not want human to have rights, but only to say that their perspective does not consistently align with these principles. Take for example the Republican focus on the sacred nature of marriage- "between a man and a woman”- is this a perspective that describes tolerance and rights for all humans?
A Republican may argue that alot about the world has changes since the 80's and that this story from our past is little more than a sidebar to many of the events that took place in Haiti in its recent history. However, if that were the case, what can republicans say about the Bush years.
Of course there are problems that both parties, as well as the ruling minority in the United States, must answer. That discussion would take some time, to be sure. Thus the best question to ask is why have a perspective on human rights and tolerance that must be qualified at all? Why is our perspective not simply that we have an interest in “the human” within human rights? I believe the short answer is that self-interests are always the shortest rout to intolerance.
The perception in question here is that democrats share perspectives that are congruent with human rights and tolerance and that Republicans share perspectives that are not always congruent with these. That is not to say that Republicans are not tolerant and do not want human to have rights, but only to say that their perspective does not consistently align with these principles. Take for example the Republican focus on the sacred nature of marriage- "between a man and a woman”- is this a perspective that describes tolerance and rights for all humans?
A Republican may argue that alot about the world has changes since the 80's and that this story from our past is little more than a sidebar to many of the events that took place in Haiti in its recent history. However, if that were the case, what can republicans say about the Bush years.
Of course there are problems that both parties, as well as the ruling minority in the United States, must answer. That discussion would take some time, to be sure. Thus the best question to ask is why have a perspective on human rights and tolerance that must be qualified at all? Why is our perspective not simply that we have an interest in “the human” within human rights? I believe the short answer is that self-interests are always the shortest rout to intolerance.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
What becomes clear in the discussion below is that it is our passage through the world that defines the world itself as well as the passage itself: both are in the process of becoming even as they already exist. This means that existence must be marked (as my interlocutor points out) by the possibility for actions and freedoms, inactions and bondages, choices and prescriptions. To begin to explore these themes, I would ask that we consider the meaning(s) of organic and synthetic.
The modern dictionary defines organic as that which is derived naturally or from nature, while synthetic is that which is derived un-naturally or artificially- conceived. I would like to expand upon these definitions.
When I conceive of organic and synthetic I first think of the difference between pure, unadulterated laughter and that laughter which is forced or expected. For instance, when a joke makes me laugh out loud I feel one way. However, when a joke is followed by a laugh track, compelling me to view the situation as funny I feel quite different. I think that the different feelings here indicate a difference between two unique meanings. The first is free or “organic” while the second is directed or “synthetic”. The key difference between the two is that organic processes are not directed- they are free and follow my own intentions, while synthetic processes exhibit a loss of freedom or a decision having been made for me.
These examples are anthropomorphic, though, and fail to speak to an experience that exists beyond myself. To deal with my own experiences- Being- as well as those beyond myself, things-that-be, let us consider for a moment two other processes which relate: constructions and constrictions.
A construction, for example, may be the free manipulation or expression of a being’s intention- it may also be considered to be a thing’s existence free from external influence. Similarly, a constriction may be a process whereby a being is directed against their own free manipulation or expression of their intention- it may also be a being’s existence that is dependant upon an external influence.
To return to our original discussion, an organic process could include anything that is constructed- that which is freely manipulated or expressed by a being or a being’s existence that is free from external influence. A synthetic process could include anything that is constricted- that which is directed against one’s free manipulation or expression or a being’s dependency upon an external influence.
Sometimes there are objects, beings or experiences that are both organic and synthetic. Take, for instance, a pathway. On one hand the pathway remains synthetic because it constricts anyone using it to an intention- a walkway- which was not their choosing. On the other hand, though, a pathway can also be considered to be organic because it represents the free manipulation of the environment for those who constructed it.
To be sure, the important difference between organic and synthetic situations applies directly to our relative freedom or bondage in existence. Consider two specific situations: first those who are free to act toward their own ends, second, those whose actions are motivated by another being or force.
To be responsible for one’s own actions, to have initiated or have the possibility to intent action, this situation is unique because it always puts the Being in a place of freedom. When I am free to act I am free to bear the responsibility for my action, I am free to discern how I will express myself and to influence what type of role that expression will play.
On the other hand, to be defined by another’s actions, to be the affect of another’s intention, this situation puts the Being in a place of bondage. Too fine a point? I do not believe so. For even if I am not able to make up my own mind- when another has preordained the decision for me- not only am I not involved in the situation’s inception, I am, in my forced complicity, bonded to the outcome. I then become responsible for that which I did not decide to take responsibility for. And even if the outcome is benign, expected, or generally ignored, I am still held responsible for actions which were not generated by myself.
While both situations express ones freedoms differently, depending on whether the Being's actions can be considered organically or synthetically. However, in either situation the being retains some responsibility. It is with this responsibility thay we may put a moral judgment of "good" or "bad" on the Being's freedom or bondage. To speak about responsibility, though, moves our discussion in a different direction. The responsibility for ones passage will have to be explored in a later posting.
The modern dictionary defines organic as that which is derived naturally or from nature, while synthetic is that which is derived un-naturally or artificially- conceived. I would like to expand upon these definitions.
When I conceive of organic and synthetic I first think of the difference between pure, unadulterated laughter and that laughter which is forced or expected. For instance, when a joke makes me laugh out loud I feel one way. However, when a joke is followed by a laugh track, compelling me to view the situation as funny I feel quite different. I think that the different feelings here indicate a difference between two unique meanings. The first is free or “organic” while the second is directed or “synthetic”. The key difference between the two is that organic processes are not directed- they are free and follow my own intentions, while synthetic processes exhibit a loss of freedom or a decision having been made for me.
These examples are anthropomorphic, though, and fail to speak to an experience that exists beyond myself. To deal with my own experiences- Being- as well as those beyond myself, things-that-be, let us consider for a moment two other processes which relate: constructions and constrictions.
A construction, for example, may be the free manipulation or expression of a being’s intention- it may also be considered to be a thing’s existence free from external influence. Similarly, a constriction may be a process whereby a being is directed against their own free manipulation or expression of their intention- it may also be a being’s existence that is dependant upon an external influence.
To return to our original discussion, an organic process could include anything that is constructed- that which is freely manipulated or expressed by a being or a being’s existence that is free from external influence. A synthetic process could include anything that is constricted- that which is directed against one’s free manipulation or expression or a being’s dependency upon an external influence.
Sometimes there are objects, beings or experiences that are both organic and synthetic. Take, for instance, a pathway. On one hand the pathway remains synthetic because it constricts anyone using it to an intention- a walkway- which was not their choosing. On the other hand, though, a pathway can also be considered to be organic because it represents the free manipulation of the environment for those who constructed it.
To be sure, the important difference between organic and synthetic situations applies directly to our relative freedom or bondage in existence. Consider two specific situations: first those who are free to act toward their own ends, second, those whose actions are motivated by another being or force.
To be responsible for one’s own actions, to have initiated or have the possibility to intent action, this situation is unique because it always puts the Being in a place of freedom. When I am free to act I am free to bear the responsibility for my action, I am free to discern how I will express myself and to influence what type of role that expression will play.
On the other hand, to be defined by another’s actions, to be the affect of another’s intention, this situation puts the Being in a place of bondage. Too fine a point? I do not believe so. For even if I am not able to make up my own mind- when another has preordained the decision for me- not only am I not involved in the situation’s inception, I am, in my forced complicity, bonded to the outcome. I then become responsible for that which I did not decide to take responsibility for. And even if the outcome is benign, expected, or generally ignored, I am still held responsible for actions which were not generated by myself.
While both situations express ones freedoms differently, depending on whether the Being's actions can be considered organically or synthetically. However, in either situation the being retains some responsibility. It is with this responsibility thay we may put a moral judgment of "good" or "bad" on the Being's freedom or bondage. To speak about responsibility, though, moves our discussion in a different direction. The responsibility for ones passage will have to be explored in a later posting.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Each breath is a breath in time; an eyelash falls out forever; cells on all levels that reproduce all the time. There is existence, within which there stands existing. The human existing is unique and sublime- a natural aspect that has the potential to reflect on its own being, its own existing within existence.
Movement creates sound. Air softly thuds beneath a pigeon’s wing as it pumps across the sky. In our existence within the world we are like this- we are immeasurably close to our world; our motion is expression through a medium. Yet even as we move through the world- even as the wing beats- a mark is made. Existence marks the world just as the world marks that which exists. Tied together, captured in a relationship, one pushes and the other pulls; one proceeds and the other recedes. As I open my throat and move my lips air passes and sound is produced.
It is this play within the world, the inter-action of its constituents that marks our movement through the world. Even as we proceed the world recedes; even as we pass away the world continues to become. Thus Heraclites was correct when he wrote that the ever living fire is the same for all: “The Cosmos, made neither by god nor man, replenishes in measure as it burns away.” (20 Fragments) It is the measure of the world, its pulsing around and through us, that makes our experience unified throughout the cosmos.
Even as we take the first steps through a field the grass before our next foot-step has already begun to fall. Passing through the world we are always setting a specific set of steps in motion. This motion is a forward-pressing motion- like a line from a point a course followed retains a distinctive pathway. In a life filled with courses and pathways, intentions and different choices, it is easy to miss that which slides by on the fringes. However, just as our steps push stalks of grass aside beyond our footfall, our pathway is already marking a headway through the world. Our motion retains its bearing in the medium of its containment.
Movement creates sound. Air softly thuds beneath a pigeon’s wing as it pumps across the sky. In our existence within the world we are like this- we are immeasurably close to our world; our motion is expression through a medium. Yet even as we move through the world- even as the wing beats- a mark is made. Existence marks the world just as the world marks that which exists. Tied together, captured in a relationship, one pushes and the other pulls; one proceeds and the other recedes. As I open my throat and move my lips air passes and sound is produced.
It is this play within the world, the inter-action of its constituents that marks our movement through the world. Even as we proceed the world recedes; even as we pass away the world continues to become. Thus Heraclites was correct when he wrote that the ever living fire is the same for all: “The Cosmos, made neither by god nor man, replenishes in measure as it burns away.” (20 Fragments) It is the measure of the world, its pulsing around and through us, that makes our experience unified throughout the cosmos.
Even as we take the first steps through a field the grass before our next foot-step has already begun to fall. Passing through the world we are always setting a specific set of steps in motion. This motion is a forward-pressing motion- like a line from a point a course followed retains a distinctive pathway. In a life filled with courses and pathways, intentions and different choices, it is easy to miss that which slides by on the fringes. However, just as our steps push stalks of grass aside beyond our footfall, our pathway is already marking a headway through the world. Our motion retains its bearing in the medium of its containment.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
