Exploring the Social Imagination

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Agreement Reality Dictates



Most people know the difference between experiential reality, which is the reality that we experience directly in everyday life, such as pain, hunger, thirst, fear, poverty, and others, and agreement reality which is a reality that we recognize as real because everyone else says that it is real (Szymanski 1975:1). These are competing paradigms.  In 1975, Albert Szymanski wrote about them in a sociological thesis in which he stated that sociology is not a theoretically unified discipline. Why? Because for Szymanski, sociology including other sciences produces differing paradigms of reality due to different sets of rules and perceptions even of the same phenomenon. How?  Scientists are subject to different rules and perceptions by those who perceive them, by those subjected to different rules. In reality, Szymanski says that there will always be disagreement and only agreement if individuals (including scientists) are of the same paradigm and or social reality (Szymanski 1975).
What does that mean? It means that agreement reality happens when there is agreement among people who share in the same world view- a term used by Max Weber years before Szymanski.  Most people as it is with scientists will agree on reality (normal social objects/behavior) when they share in a common denominator whether it is cultural or socio-intellectual. Quite often, in the world of science, there is a social hierarchy that must also be obeyed. Within structures of higher education and its instructions, this is necessary to ensure continuity of institutionally supported ideas and institutional stability which equals a well functioning social system.
Talcott Parsons argued that well functioning social systems require a fit between the needs and motivations of the individual and the role requirements of the institution or social unit (S. Seidman 1994/1998: 107) Parsons deemed that there must be a minimal level of shared understandings and values for social integration to take place because individuals occupy sharply different worlds of meaning and value; thus social interaction and institutional functioning would be embroiled in continuous conflicts… in that case, how does cultural integration translate into social integration? Parsons a level of understanding could be achieved through what he called the experience of internalization by which he meant a socialization process where cultural meanings become part of the self; the individual as it were, who takes into him/herself the beliefs norms and values of another society… to the extent that there is a shared culture and to the extent that socialization is roughly successful… individuals grow up with similar understandings and motives. Such a process is na├»ve (Seidman: ibid), Parsons was well aware that individuals are embedded in their worlds of meaning. The meaning of those actions is thick. If internalization were a possible solution there would have to be an intensive programming from the very beginning … either from birth or from the earliest education.  A well functioning system requires the transmission of meaning. In 1957, Radcliffe-Brown gave us the definition of social structure as the network of connecting human beings, hence a society. We might think today that it is enough to be linked in or on facebook as our modern society. However, meaning is not so lucid. Meaning is something that can be attained only over time because it is embedded by the daily processing that happens in the social imagination in a place over time. In this mode of daily processing, we could imagine that people are a simple program and could end up in a strange loop of recursion.
Recursion in another name was hinted at by Cornelius Castoriadis in his work, The Imaginary Institution of Society (1987) Castoriadis viewed societies, together with their laws and legalizations, as being founded upon a basic conception of the world and man's place in it (1987). In light of Radcliffe-Brown’s social structure (1957), for him a network of connecting social relations (between human beings) made real as being directly observable, is a theoretical construction posited by the scientist on the basis of his or her observation of social relations. Interestingly, that does not contradict Castoriadis ‘imaginary’ or Szymanski’s view on sociology’s competing paradigms.
Manuel Castells (1997) observed how legitimization of society in context of social thought performed as science as well as social identity came down through dominant institutions.  This activity causes differing and competing paradigms which in turn cause differing and competing social realities with objectified outcomes in structure and system function (1997).  
Speaking as a Christian sociologist, the way forward in this fallen world is in God's word. We have free will and we can choose what to say, what to think/do creating our social reality. We fail to acknowledge that God has the best reality for us if we choose His way, His word.

Thursday, September 25, 2014

No Black Holes



Physics Prof. Mersini-Houghton looked at two leading theories of the universe, Einstein's theory of gravity and a fundamental law of quantum theory. The theories appear to contradict each other — the quantum theory law says that "no information from the universe can ever disappear," while Einstein's theory "predicts the formation of black holes." But Mersini-Houghton has merged what was known as the "information law paradox," and her findings will make scientists "reimagine the fabric of space-time" and "rethink the origins of the universe," according to the university.

As you know, I write about Social Imagination. I wrote my doctoral dissertation on the Social Imagination.
So, I find it very interesting that this physics professors uses words that I as a Doctor of Sociology us. Which words??? Re-imagine and Rethink. In my work, re-imagining was concluded as only a reshuffling of what was socially accepted as normal social behavior. I have argued like Cornelius Castoriadus that human beings are social and only able to imagine what they have already come to know and or experience... after all 'There is nothing new under the sun.' Solomon.
My respondents were only able to put together an ideal society based on what they knew and accepted through social interaction in the place where they were born. For the respondents (world travelers) what they considered the best practices were acquired in the place in which they were born and raised. Though some had lived in exotic places among primitive peoples and some among people who could have been considered superior to them, they structured their ideal society on what the information embedded in them through social interaction in the place they were born. Any re-imagining was a blending of what they held as best practices integrated only those things which appeared to be similar to their own. We can only imagine what we socially agree on. That is the point. From a Christian perspective, the word rethink = repent. It means that when things look a certain way, or you are interpreting information a certain way, internalizing it to fit your needs or a small groups needs only, then you must repent, rethink ... take a broader perspective - think of others. By doing so, you will change negative outcomes or unsuitable/uncomfortable outcomes and best possible outcomes for a wider application will be made possible.  Rethinking the origins of the universe as in 'no black holes' does give us broader perspective, and likely positive outcomes.

Monday, September 15, 2014

Forgiving in the Social Imagination ~ Fundamentally Essential!

In the Social Imagination, we need to be forgiving. We need to forgive those that have hurt us or caused us/others injustice. We need to forgive! Because no one is without the need of forgiveness, no one is without sin. "Let he is without sin cast the first stone." John 8:7

When we forgive, we open ourselves to God's grace to work in our life. This is the purpose of forgiveness. It is that we forgive those who trespass against us that we are delivered from evil. When it comes to religions the difference in social imagination is fundamental. What is that fundamental difference? Forgiveness. If we were a quantum computer program designed to operate/function/run as quickly as possible and without second guessing, without hesitation, without thinking about who should get or not get information and or who would be best to get information/who deserves such information... we as that quantum computer would not function at all.

Imagine that a quantum computer functions as though all functions are true, are without corruption. How? The key is in the program and it is forgiveness, total ultimate forgiveness which means that there is no harm done because it is not recognized. How is it not recognized? The program would be commanded to automatically forgive. This comes through / is made possible in the 'word' command given by the creator of the program. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Why, because of the fallen condition of the program, no man is without sin and sin separates us from God Isa 59:2. 

We can imagine then in order that the a computer program run effectively without end forgiveness is necessary to be fully restored in relationship with the Creator and can be saved!  As it is with man created in the image of God, salvation is a free gift to those who believe that Jesus (God) the Creator is the only way to the Father and eternal salvation... there is no work in that as it is through trusting in the command that forgiveness is ours through Jesus Christ as all people are equal in their sin and all need equal forgiveness. Love thy neighbor as thyself!

This is another example of a command that shows 'metaphorically' how a creator given command  overcomes corruption (viruses using computer jargon), in a program. Operating on the information as it is true and correct requires obeying the command as it is true. (what command? love thy neighbor as thyself- see no difference) How can that work? God the creator has the correct information. He is in control. Imagining a quantum program, if the program acts in another way other than what the creator commands, then it only adds to the corruption.

One could say that isn't it enough that God knows about the corruption and will reboot when he wants to and cut out the corruption and update based on his mercy, right? Why forgiveness as a command on our part? Jesus Christ, the Lord God and the Creator wants a relationship with His creation, not just to create/delete and or reboot time and time again. Those who believe with live with Jesus forever.

The Christian God commands us to forgive in order to draw us into Himself. But, because the Christian God is a Perfect God, he requires that sin be forgiven. An imperfect God (anti-Christ) would not require this, it would be enough for an imperfect God to choose as an imperfect God, the task is to eternally create/destroy and create again without the purpose of adding to himself; with sole purpose of remaining as such 'imperfect' and becoming perfect in the sense of not desiring to add to himself.  The imagined perfect quantum computer wants to add to itself and not have to stop, delete/destroy and create again in order to get it right. The perfect quantum computer is programmed to forgive so that it can grow and eternally have its program systems saved to be used as true and to grow in that truth.

Such a computer would not have to think about itself ... it knows itself n a way that is indescribable to us as operations in such a quantum system. We can imagine that as programs in a quantum computer in order to function at the speed of light or even faster is to rest in the command of forgiveness that all 'sin' has been overcome through forgiveness (which is unconditional love) and thus all can be saved simultaneously. Hence, the 'forgiveness' key command, it is the saving command. And all data in the program too must have and run the same command given to it. In this metaphor, I realized that forgiveness and trusting in that command 'to forgive' is the fundamental difference between super computers and quantum computers - Christianity and other religions. Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.  The prayer commanded by the Father, the Lord God, Creator of heaven and earth.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

What is Really Real Anyway, isn't it all Our Imagination?

In 2009 Seth Lloyd, a theorist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, proposed an alternative, less radical model of CTCs that resolves the grandfather paradox using quantum teleportation and a technique called post-selection, rather than Deutsch's quantum self-consistency. With Canadian collaborators, Lloyd went on to perform successful laboratory simulations of his model in 2011. "Deutsch's theory has a weird effect of destroying correlations," Lloyd says. "That is, a time traveler who emerges from a Deutschian CTC enters a universe that has nothing to do with the one she exited in the future. By contrast, post-selected CTCs preserve correlations, so that the time traveler returns to the same universe that she remembers in the past." This follows the idea of multiverse. In many 'strings' of the multiverse, I am and am not nor is anyone that  made me her and now nor am I a combination of them eternally in the form that I know myself now in this 'string'. Sounds confusing. Think of it like this, we do not really exist in our bodies, they are an illusion. We actually exist in a 'data cloud' and that information comes into form through draft and choice to accept being drafted. How we behave in every moment of occupation depends on the information we have at the time of the draft. Is there a reason to that? My imagination has yet to go beyond that or is unable to answer such a question at this time, in fact,answering it is irrelevant to the drafter and I consider that or recognize the drafter = God. As a Christian, on top of being a sociologist, does the multiverse cause a problem for the social imagination let alone my existence and believer in a ultimate creator? I might think not. I as a program within something greater could never know the reasoning for my being created. Only the Creator or the program would know. Why? Because,  God what I can do is acknowledge that any such creator is ultimately a multidimensional being. Quantum physics shows us that the multiverse likely exists and that it is representative of the multidimensionality of our own being. Which means that our conscious reality is a choice of many. Does quantum physics show us the reality of God or that he is real? Good question. When we are talking about the quantum level of reality, it is and is not simultaneously. Things appear only when there is an observer; when we look, when we seek. "Seek and ye shall find". Would it matter answering such a question or even possible to conclusively answer it and if we did, what then?  I would say that would never be enough, the imagination is always seeking new ways of imaging, find out why and we just might stop imagining. Since we cannot know what that would be like, nor would we want to imagine it, then the answering such a question makes no sense in the imagination= social imagination.
It is actually more interesting to imagine that God exists and we were created in his image. Since he is multidimensional and an omnipotent multidimensional being which means that he can see all dimensions of us and himself. This we can imagine. Why? Because it has  no end.  Why would we want to imagine an end? There is a question. Which we can imagine that God knows we might get to that question as we have imagined him as omnipotent. So he knows every possibility for us because he is multidimensional and sees us in our multidimensional aspect.  Why do we think we have free will?  The whole argument of free will has gone on a long time... if God predestines individuals to come to God how is free will irrelevant. God as an omnipotent multidimensional being knows who will say yes and no - make the choice for him or not. Again, what is free will? Our job in terms of free will is the choice to imagine God and to tell people about Him and His job is to draw them in closer to Him. Theirs is the choice to accept eternity, to keep imagining.
 What is the point of knowing we are multidimensional if God knows all our possible futures and all we have to do is tell people the good news.  Is knowing that we can imagine a range of realities important or not? Good question. I suppose it is in terms of salvation which is the accepting of eternal imagining to exist. In knowing we have a range of possibles allows us to make choices we think are right in the given moment and if they turn out to be bad choices, we know that is not the end. Which we never, having chose to recognize the Creator, never want to imagine anyway. So what is the real or best reality, it is always the one we are most conscious of is the one that we are choosing. It may not be the best one, the one that God has already chosen for us but that does not mean we are lost to His choice for us. As long as we are conscious of His being and that He has a choice for us, we can discover and or learn through reading His word and asking for His direction- being in relationship with Him will guide us into the reality of His choice.
Sin was and had to be from the beginning.  Being the Creator, God knew that eventually someone down the road was going to make the wrong choice was going to sin and the whole thing would come unraveled the program would get corrupt and so he reasoning was to get the whole ball of redemption rolling from the beginning. Why sin at all/whatsoever? In the program, sin is simply making an imperfect choice, which includes disobeying God, doing what is not right, making the wrong choice.  Human beings don’t know the right choices as God does; so, we make choices based on things that we think we know or want to be like or to have... we make choices based on selfishness and anger or lack of forgiveness, which stems from and continues corrupted behavior.Christ’s coming had to be because of the program designs in which sin ‘corruption’ was figured in from the beginning. God sent his Son as a patch or upgrade so that we can be saved not lost to our own choices which may lead to total deletion or permanent vaulting, using computer jargon as a metaphor. Does it matter that I know myself in the form that I am in some other reality of dimensionality? No and Yes.Didn’t you ever watch Quantum Leap? ;-) Now, that guy had a social imagination.

So Wake Me Up When its All Over

Wake me up when its all over. This is a refrain from a popular song I heard on the radio. At first, I thought I was hearing it on a Christian station and said to my friend, which Christian band is that. However, I was disappointed to learn that it was not recorded by a Christian band and the music video for it is suggestive of a cult. Too bad, since the lyrics make sense; especially for our times. 
The point of this wake up is in view of last nights state of the union address or speech to the American public by Pres. Obama. I found it no different from speeches made by Pres. Bush.

I paste here excerpts from Bush's 2001 and 2003 speeches.
"On September the 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars — but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war — but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks — but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day — and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack.
Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking: Who attacked our country? The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are the same murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and responsible for bombing the USS Cole.
Al Qaeda is to terror what the mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money; its goal is remaking the world — and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.
The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics — a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists’ directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children.
This group and its leader — a person named Osama bin Laden — are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction.
The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda’s vision for the world.
Afghanistan’s people have been brutalized — many are starving and many have fled. Women are not allowed to attend school. You can be jailed for owning a television. Religion can be practiced only as their leaders dictate. A man can be jailed in Afghanistan if his beard is not long enough.
The United States respects the people of Afghanistan — after all, we are currently its largest source of humanitarian aid — but we condemn the Taliban regime. (Applause.) It is not only repressing its own people, it is threatening people everywhere by sponsoring and sheltering and supplying terrorists. By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder.
And tonight, the United States of America makes the following demands on the Taliban: Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of al Qaeda who hide in your land. (Applause.) Release all foreign nationals, including American citizens, you have unjustly imprisoned. Protect foreign journalists, diplomats and aid workers in your country. Close immediately and permanently every terrorist training camp in Afghanistan, and hand over every terrorist, and every person in their support structure, to appropriate authorities. (Applause.) Give the United States full access to terrorist training camps, so we can make sure they are no longer operating.
These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. (Applause.) The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate.
I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It’s practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.)
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. (Applause.)
Read more: http://stateoftheunionaddress.org/2001-george-w-bush-2#ixzz3D1ISuxvE



"Our second goal is high quality, affordable health care for all Americans. The American system of medicine is a model of skill and innovation -- with a pace of discovery that is adding good years to our lives. Yet for many people, medical care costs too much -- and many have no coverage at all. These problems will not be solved with a nationalized health care system that dictates coverage and rations care. Instead, we must work toward a system in which all Americans have a good insurance policy, choose their own doctors, and seniors and low-income Americans receive the help they need. Instead of bureaucrats, and trial lawyers, and HMOs, we must put doctors, and nurses, and patients back in charge of American medicine.

Health care reform must begin with Medicare, because Medicare is the binding commitment of a caring society. We must renew that commitment by giving seniors access to the preventive medicine and new drugs that are transforming health care in America. Seniors happy with the current Medicare system should be able to keep their coverage just the way it is. And just like you, the members of Congress, members of your staffs, and other federal employees, all seniors should have the choice of a health care plan that provides prescription drugs. My budget will commit an additional 400 billion dollars over the next decade to reform and strengthen Medicare. Leaders of both political parties have talked for years about strengthening Medicare -- I urge the members of this new Congress to act this year. To improve our health care system, we must address one of the prime causes of higher costs -- the constant threat that physicians and hospitals will be unfairly sued. Because of excessive litigation, everybody pays more for health care -- and many parts of America are losing fine doctors. No one has ever been healed by a frivolous lawsuit -- and I urge the Congress to pass medical liability reform. " George W. Bush 2003

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

For Secular Humanists Government has or Should have all the Answers

Many people I talk with, especially secular humanists, think that government has or should have all the answers to social ills and that it is the natural moderator of utopia. Hardly... government is only what people they themselves are and expect ideologically ...and there is always avoided the real costs. We live in a culture that expects a high standard of living should be guaranteed to all and that the government will take of it if we just elect the right people. Oh really??? Where does the government get its money? Who does the real foot and or ground work to make things happen, make things available and what about reward or recognition at least for those who do the foot work, make things happen... what do they get? Should they get something more than the other guy who was just waiting for things to happen? Of course, the typical response to that is that everybody is working. How or who designates jobs? Who decides who is best qualified to get things done? Not everyone has similar strengths, or abilities?  In fact, looking at the population very few people are able to be brain surgeons, industrial engineers, geophysicists, chemists, dentists,or computer technicians; in fact more people qualify to be ditch diggers or broom sweepers or Walmart greeters. Of course, the response to that is education. Yet, many students here in the US fall far behind internationally when it comes to high achievement in academics. Why? It could be that life is too easy here and there is no motivation or that we as parents offer too much praise for doing very little or nothing. It could be that genetically, our pool of intelligence is evaporating due to either natural evolution of mixing genes or a combination of gene mixing and easy environment.
Regardless, we cannot expect government (which is composed of people) to have all the answers especially for 300+ million people. If secular humanists really took their philosophy seriously, they would have to defend the idea that if government has all the answers then it would have to take advantage of extraordinary people and make sue of others where it can. So people who are useful remain and others who are not should be gently removed. Sounds horrific! Yes. That is the future without faith in God, the Creator of heaven and earth and the knowledge that we live in a fallen world.  My further argument goes like this... One does not have to be a Christian to appreciate that humanism powered by pure reason alone cannot succeed. Even Emmanuel Kant, writing his Critique of Pure Reason during the height of the German enlightenment, understood this. Neither should followers of Christ fall prey to the deceitfulness of philosophy and human tradition, or be taken captive by forms humanism based on romantic faith in the possibility of human self-realization (Colossians 2:8). Hegel based human progress on the ideal of reason as spirit “instantiating” itself through progressive dialectical stages in history; but had Hegel lived to see the world wars of the 20th century, it is doubtful that he would have persisted in detecting human progress in this debacle of history. Christians understand that any form of humanism set apart from divinely authored redemption is doomed to failure and false to the faith. We ground a high view of man in a high view of God, since mankind is made in the image of God, and we agree with Scripture concerning man’s desperate situation and God’s plan of salvation.
As Alexander Solzhenitsyn observed, humanism offers no solution at all to mankind’s desperate condition. He puts it this way: "If humanism were right in declaring that man is born to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to die, his task on earth evidently must be of a more spiritual nature.” Indeed. Mankind’s task is to seek and find God (Acts 17:26-27; cf. 15:17), our true redeemer who offers us a better than earthly inheritance (Hebrews 6:9; 7:17). Anyone who opens the door to Christ (Revelation 3:20) will inherit that better country, which God has prepared for those who love Him and are called according to His purposes (Ephesians 1:11; Romans 8:28; Hebrew 11:16; cf. Matthew 25:34; John 14:2). How much more excellent is this is than all the proud and lofty goals contained in secular humanist manifestos?

Monday, September 8, 2014

Why Do We Engage Science, to reveal the Creator?

Why do we engage in or 'do' science? We imagine science that has all the answers.
We imagine science as a tool to discover what we think is out there and as a group can agree on as being out there. Therefore, science is only what we make it to be. We socially generate reality. That is all there is to it. There is only agreement reality as to what exists and how we relate to it. Science was/is a means to orderly study a phenomenon that appears not follow what we already know or as a way to improve what we already know.
There is no way to know reality or the universe let alone life and the meaning of life as if it exists in an absolute shape or form outside of social reality.

We use science socially and that is what we must keep in perspective. We cannot let 'science' rise above social reality 'human beings'.  Science does not exist outside of that. If we put it above 'human beings' as if it exists as if science has all the answers is the end all. We are mistaken and, speaking as a sociologist, we are risking social detraction and serious dysfunction as a socially cohesive entity. We put ourselves at risk because of the distance we place between those who are laymen and those who are making science their "God".
Do we need scientific study? Yes we do to have order among us which allows human kind to move forward in their socially created science. Scientific study is an agreed upon order or procedure that allows forward thinking and being in the very linear world in which we live or perceive to live in. For now, it is linear.
Sociologists, look at what we do and how we do it to and why we do it. We like to understand why we engage in science. As I stated, we need to have some kind of sense of reality and social order and limit to the amount of chaos that we also perceive to exist. We are social and hence our reality of the world is social and socially created.
Unless, we acknowledge that there is a creator over and above us which created us and programmed us to discover the program. Science is the tool planted in the program so that the program will run and if it finds glitches that it can't explain, it will take the tool of 'science' to explain what is going on in the program.
Perhaps, science will reveal that creator to us?

Friday, September 5, 2014

God is No Stretch of the Social Imagination

Many atheists I run into today like to argue that God does not exist as if believing in God is too far a stretch for their social imagination. Yet, some of those same people, want me to believe in aliens living on other planets who are just waiting to visit us. Oh really! And I ask how would you know one if you met one?
You see, in our social imagination, it is more logical to believe in God than in aliens. Because in our social imagination, what is real is only that which we 'socially' agree on. Of course, we could socially agree that aliens exist and that likely they exist based on ??? mmm... based on socially imagined hypothetical theories that likely they exist. And the same applies to then the existence of God. To further my point about the social imagination, consider then what imagine aliens to look like, or God. We would agree (looking like us and in combination with things we know/have seen) that aliens /God looks like us. As for aliens looking like us, that is really illogical because then they would not be aliens, right and we would have to consider if they did not look like us then who/what would they look like and that is completely out of our social imagination. However, God is not out of our social imagination, He is in our social imagination simply by imagining that He created us and that we were created in His image. So, when we imagine that God looks like us it is logical; because He created us. It is illogical to think that we could recognize an alien outside of our social imagination but not illogical to imagine that we would look like God because He created us in His image. We could not recognize a 'true' alien because such a thing does not exist in our social imagination; we simply could not see/recognize nor imagine a 'true' alien. Ironically, in saying that we should actually be able to imagine that aliens are all around us, we just can't see them because they are alien, not in our social imagination. We can see God though because we were created in His image and thus every human looks like God.  I am supposing that God exists... Why wouldn't He. Though we can't see him, we can't touch him, we can't visit him, but neither can we do those things with aliens. However, we can image that we can talk to God and He answers. Rather we don't imagine talking to aliens. We can experience God's presence in our life as we can experience miracles, and we can read about God (His word is given to us in the Bible, a book that has been in the social imagination for thousands of years) and have a relationship with Him by talking to Him. You may argue that what I am saying is no different in believing in/creating aliens in our social imagination that could look like us; but then wouldn't that idea stem from the very idea that God created us in His image so why not create aliens in ours- it makes sense. For many atheists, this kind of explanation is illogical or even on the verge of ridiculous. They see the world in very hard program, not soft and not imaginative. Because, if they agree/argue that it simply takes imagination 'social imagination' to imagine/think aliens exist, then why not think/imagine God exists in the same way. What social good comes of imagining aliens??? Now, comes the science argument which is the atheists fallback. I tell people that science exists because we exist and 'socially' imagine science.  There is no 'science' outside of the social imagination. Logically, there can be no argument let alone proof that math/equations or cosmic gas exists outside the human collective -social imagination. What stirs the social imagination is not science; it is God who put/breathed  the idea of existence into us. Now, comes the argument that I say God created us then why can't the atheist say that aliens created us...Why not. If they did create us then we would look like them as we would be created in their image, otherwise we could not recognize what created us. Could God be an alien? Yes/No, because, in our social imagination we can and cannot imagine an alien. We can imagine God as an alien but only if the 'God' alien looks like us and we cannot God as an alien because a 'true' alien in the social imagination could not exist. We could socially agree that it is just a matter of choice.  And, it is a choice we make as social creatures to imagine God or aliens. Yet, again we can only imagine aliens when they look like us. Essentially, we have no other choice but to imagine that they would. In saying that, there is no stretch in the imagination to imagine aliens if they look like us and thus there is no stretch in the social imagination to imagine God either.
Essentially, we are like a conscious computer that  asks, "who am I and what is it 'social' reality all about". This kind of question would likely have an answer programmed into the system so as not to cause an overload of contemplation, so that the program would simply acknowledge its creator without question and move onto tasks at hand.... the same as we do with God as the program creator! For me, aliens are more a stretch of the imagination that God because I realize that I could not recognize an alien if it were truly alien. Yet, I could recognize God because He is not an alien; thus, God is no stretch of the social imagination.

Tuesday, September 2, 2014

Its a Fallen Imagination of the World ~ What is an American?

We live in a fallen imagination. What in the World?

We live in a fallen world.  2 Cor 10:2-3 "I beg you that when I come I may not have to be as bold as I expect to be toward some people who think that we live b the standards of this world. For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does." John 15:18-19 "If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world".

What in the world is going on?  Well these days, there is plenty. We have threats of war, economic collapse, plagues, social unrest... etc. The shear existence of the United States causes disparity in the world.  New immigrants cause a brain drain in their country through our economy gains from newbies here and abroad as outsourced labor. We deplete other natural resources as we consume but ironically as we consume the level of poverty in developing countries goes down.

People may not be living in little pink houses for the most part but they may get a new thatching on their roof or get a roof over  their heads. For myself, I wouldn't mind living in the wide open spaces, cooking outdoors, breathing fresh air, eating what is readily available. What is prosperity anyway? Today, many people call for jobs. How can we get jobs  back with so many going overseas? Will they ever come back? Not. So, how to overcome lack of jobs which is the main cause of social problems- social unrest, and what can we do to control people's behavior, to organize good society...right?

Many scenarios come to mind. However, what needs to be made aware is that the US is not about 'people' but about economy which means that economics is more important than people in the sense that money makes the world go around and there is nothing like new blood or new money to keep things going. The US like all economies everywhere benefit from new blood and or any extraordinary person with extraordinary skills/talents and better yet have family backing as in have money. The ruling elite have an agenda and extraordinary people will likely be first on their lists even if they themselves lack in this extraordinary but then again maybe not. America is an idea of prosperity after all... right?

In our fallen imagination, though loving diversity, America fails to protect those within its borders by properly integrating newbies. We fail to see that though the US is some kind of shining star among nations, we can only be that to others in this fallen world by having a clean position, a clear understanding of what makes a person an American. What is an American? It is an immigrant come looking... for a future, for liberty, for justice, for opportunity. What does that require? It requires an open mind and that is what must be integrated into the closed mind of both the new immigrants and the old.