Exploring the Social Imagination

Friday, December 18, 2015

Rejecting Evolution ~ Embracing a Creator in the Social Imagination

"What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived”— the things God has prepared for those who love him— these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words ~ 2 Corinthians 2:9-13.




Living things on earth are fundamentally similar in the way that their basic anatomical structures develop and in their chemical compositions.  No matter whether they are simple single-celled protozoa or highly complex organisms with billions of cells, they all begin as single cells that reproduce themselves by similar division processes.  After a limited life span, they also all grow old and die.

All living things on earth share the ability to create complex molecules out of carbon and a few other elements.  In fact, 99% of the proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and other molecules of living things are made from only 6 of the 92 most common elements.  This is not a mere coincidence. All plants and animals receive their specific characteristics from their parents by inheriting particular combinations of genes.  Molecular biologists have discovered that genes are, in fact, segments of DNA molecules in our cells. These segments of DNA contain chemically coded recipes for creating proteins by linking together particular amino acids in specific sequences.

All of the tens of thousands of types of proteins in living things are mostly made of only 20 kinds of amino acids.  Despite the great diversity of life on our planet, the simple language of the DNA code is the same for all living things.  This is evidence of the fundamental molecular unity of life.
In addition to molecular similarities, most living things are alike in that they either get the energy needed for growth, repair, and reproduction directly from sunlight, by photosynthesis or they get it indirectly by consuming green plants and other organisms that eat plants.

All of these major chemical similarities between living things can be most logically accounted for by assuming that they either share a common ancestry or they came into existence as a result of similar natural processes.  These facts make it difficult to accept a theory of special and independent creation of different species.


The argument above seems almost logical in the social imagination. However, there is no logic about it.

It is mere agreement reality.  In the social reality and that is all there is, all we have as confirmation of what is real is through agreement. We think we have what we call science to prove our suppositions but what is science based on? Math, then what is math based on? Only that which our social mind gives credit or credence to, math and science included. 

The problem with this argument for life is that it is flawed. How? The above supposes that all life came from non living substances – chemicals. There is no scientific data to back that up. There is no evidence that our universe has the power of self-organization. Mathematicians have calculated that the probability of life emerging from chance chemical interaction is impossible. 

Look around, if we could produce a life from non living chemicals, then we could turn a rock into a man. There would be no need of evolution to do that.  In a recent article by William Crone, an apologetic, we read that mathematicians have no actual equation for this. Sir Fred Holye a respected astrophysicist from Cambridge University calculated that the probability of one living cell developing by chance from non-living material would be 1 x 10 to the 40,000 power.  That is a hugely enormous probability; and, one which is not provable.  

A theory it may be but theory is not science.  If we want to hold onto something tangible, then science to be called science has to prove something to be real to us... even if it is only real to us through agreement. Supposing that life is possible through non living chemicals could never be agreed upon.  Statistically speaking, it isn’t even possible for life to appear by chance alone. With these odds it is difficult to see how anyone could possibly believe that the origin of life was merely a random chance event. In fact, given the odds it is totally irrational to think this is true. 

But, what about this rock layer and what about this feathered creature of old, and what about this discovery of early man? What about that? There is no direct correlation of these things with non living chemicals except for the rock layer.  The problem with rock layer carbon dating is that rock is non living, what we test in it is carbon remains from living things. And, what we know is that living things do not come from non living things.

We can agree that through carbon dating, it appears that one thing or something came from this or that over a period of time; yet, it still does not confirm the basic premise of evolution which is that living things came from non living chemicals. If you say that evolution actually states the opposite which is that life came from simple living forms, then what made those simple living forms and other simple living forms and on and on and on? Was there ever an original living form? But, then how could that be proved? There has to be agreement reality, but let us agree then that what we do know is from our past and present experiences of how things come into existence which is that a complex design such as life, calls for a complex designer who is alive! 

For those that insist on evolution which says that from non living chemicals comes life, then who or what is the cause for that possibility? "And (the) base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, ... things which are not to bring to nought things that are. 1 COR 1?26-28.


"... what was/is seen is not made from that which is seen." Hebrews 11:4

"... we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal ". 2 COR 4:18. 

Monday, December 14, 2015

Imagining a Creator!





OCTA ~ Apologetic Arguments

  • Ontological Argument for a Creator - Nothing greater can be Imagined 
  • Cosmological Argument for a Creator - The Law of Cause and Effect.
  • Teleological Argument for a Creator - Design requires a Designer
  • Anthropological Argument for a Creator - Morality serves a Higher Purpose 

Imagining our reality is what we do. There is no other reality than the one we imagine. There is no need to consider a multiverse either for it would serve no purpose here and now. In fact, simply by imagining it we would be the same individual in everyone. If 'spooky action a distance' or non locality works here...  it works in the multiverse.  If we were to stack up all the multiverses, we would find that they are one and the same. 

Our imagining a Creator would never stop in any universe. Because, as created beings we can imagine being creators and we have an innate desire to create. Thus, as such we understand that all created things ponder the same question - who is the creator and can I know him. 

Imagining a Creator in any universe follows the first three arguments: the Ontological, the Cosmological and Teleological arguments. As we are able to contemplate this or even to think at all about a universe we can assume that any created being is also able to contemplate the universe as it was created. And, in order to even contemplate a universe let alone a multiverse, we have to conclude that it was created. 

Simply by experiencing a reality, a social reality we are experiencing the very nature of creation. Because, we imagine anything at all, we realize that is only possible through social entanglement, an act of being caused or 'brought together' to be interacting particles ....instantly created along with time, space and matter'. 

How to give evidence for that other than the above arguments? Firstly, the laws of thermodynamics are enough. Yet, let's look at a philosophical argument using 'abstract' terms or are they? Ideas and concepts are caused, created. They just don't exist by chance. Concepts that man holds with great esteem like human life, or justice and freedom. In an random event scenario, we might argue that those ideas would not necessarily need to exist. If we argue that they do or can exist, then we have no random event... imagining a random event is not a random event as we would be actually creating it. Not imagining such abstract concepts such as these makes no sense to us as we could not imagine anything that would supplant them. 

Can we know the Creator of Heaven and Earth of all things and unseen? If we can imagine Him, we can know Him as much as it is possible to know an absolute omnipotent non created entity. How is that possible, God being a non-created entity. If we wish never to fall down a rabbit hole, then we must accept that there is only so much that we can imagine in this world and about its 'our' Creator.  

If you were an ant, and I stood over you. How much knowledge of me would you have and the power I had in my foot over your life? Why would I refrain from stomping down? Here we have the Anthropological argument. Yes, some people would stomp down and do. Does that mean a Creator does not exist? No, it means that in this created world 'universe' we have a choice we have free will given by the Creator. 

How is it possible that there is an ant and why do I see it? As creations we recognize other created beings and things. I am there and so is the ant. Perhaps, if I were in a higher dimension, I could understand more about myself and the ant and more about what was above or over and around me. If I were atop a tall building, I could understand much more about the building than approaching the corner of the same building. In that approach, I cannot know every ting about the building or even what is on the other side but I somehow assume that there is and or would be. 

It is the trust in what's around the corner, over and above that keeps everything in a state of imagination, as I imagine, and in that I imagining, I imagine the Creator and the Creator's imagination with it being the greatest of all. Could we ever know that kind of imagination? I suppose once we leave this hologram, and move to a higher one, we will surely know more than we know now in this imaged one. 

 












“What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived”— the things God has prepared for those who love him— these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words" ~ 2 Corinthians 2:9-13.

Friday, December 11, 2015

Imagining the Future!


In an ever growing and developing global world order, we can and should expect this. The middle class was a well paid indentured servant. Who is now being made redundant. If parents want a future for their children, they better make sure they are or can become extraordinary in/at something. Fortunately, the Arts and Sports will still be loved by the elite and they will pay for it; especially if their own children are not gifted or extraordinary in those areas. 

Also, human services for the elite will be worthwhile pursuits: restaurants, spas, salons for hair and nails as well as household/retail help for those that do/will dislike robots and help with their pet (s) and pet care. Employment for the average masses will be in those fields at places such as: retreat centers, malls, pet care centers, and as hotel/vacation operators. Housing as we know it today will disappear. So, the employed will live and work in the same place. What about doctors/dentists? They will be trained to work at spa or health care facilities that offer rehabilitation so hospitals as we know them will be made unnecessary. 

Medicine will change dramatically and all doctors and dentists will simply become health and well being supervisors since technology will take their place and the need of surgery and simple treatments. Particle physics is moving into medicine and this is why I see this as normal in the future. What about engineers? Yes, but so few are going to be necessary and the pool of global resources (hiring abroad) will be the favored so engineering will be very limited and fall only to the extraordinary.

What about lawyers? No need of them in the future as profiling and laws will take their place, providing immediate justice through drone interception, and no courts. What about agriculture and pharmaceuticals? Again, the extraordinary or those willing to do menial labor in their processing plants using 3-D printing will find work but again there will be limited positions. What about in chemistry and physics? Yes, but again only those of extraordinary intellect will take those positions and again given the pool of resources at the global level (seeing a world without borders) they too will be limited.

Oh, and what about education - Online! 

What about social justice? Why will there still be 'elites'? Because, elites do not go away in a man made society. There will always be those who think they should be at the top, get to the top or are give the top. 
There is not much room at the top for others/anyone else. And, once there, its not easy to stay nor easy to give up. No matter who falls or who gets favor, the structure remains. 

There is only one in whom you are free indeed ~ Jesus Christ!

Monday, December 7, 2015

The Enlightenment ~ What It Meant to Different Social Imaginations


Yes, there are different views and practices of "Enlightenment" for different social imaginations. First, can there be different social imaginations? Yes, I wrote my dissertation on that. The Occident "Western" Social Imagination is quite different from any other. Yet, even in that, there are different "western" social imaginations. Where do they come from? How did it happen? After all, the West is Christian, isn't it? Yes, but in that sphere of shared information or shared belief system, there are differences. 

Those differences are effectively between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics believe in having certain rituals called 'sacraments' that must be fulfilled in order to be saved. Whereas, Protestants due to the revelation of Martin Luther, understand that Christ died for our sins once and for all. We have a new covenant with Him. It is by grace that we are saved. That saving grace is acquired through having a personal relationship with God made possible through Jesus Christ. 

When we look at the Enlightenment that arose in the eighteenth century, which arose out of the Renaissance of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, we see two 'views/schools' of thought. Again, those schools of thought or views came out of the differences between Catholics and Protestants. For example, Catholic France birthed liberal progressive ideas which led to the Revolution and remained influential. Their ideas were birthed out of  rebellion to the organized church eventually causing not only opposition to clericalism but rejection of God. This rebellion was essentially an act against the dogma of the organized church which controlled people's lives and including the elite. Of course, their view of being enlightened was noble as they sought in nature the justification of position in the structure of things 'natural' and thus as a 'revolutionary' elite took over justifying this as a noble human experience. 

That is why the French pursued a different social goal which was contrived by the elite in order to prop up their coveted position so that they could be comfortable with it as elites yet appear sympathetic to others who were not elite. Though ignorant of the Bible and the teachings of the true Gospel, they could recognize or see in themselves that they too in their position were over and above others as was the church that they had rejected; hence, their position had to be defended. 

So, to soothe their mind and soul they became what we could call today limousine socialists.They did not understand the Word of God, which ironically was the fault of the Catholic church. Since, they did not know the Word of God, they rejected it as it for them was the doctrine of the controlling church. Yet, how to move forward as elites which required them to justify that let alone justify their rejection of being controlled by the church. Disseminate the idea of reason in nature. Look at nature, see there are those who are noble workers and those who are in control. In nature, this is 'natural' and effective for the good of all. If we the elite appear benevolent, we can justify our position and rejection of the church.

Had they then been aware of the Word of God, likely the age of reason in France would have been similar to that in England at that time. Not that England had it totally right, but at least, historically, Britain was more advanced in their Enlightenment as having become Protestant a lot earlier than the French. Therefore, their reasoning was not man-made as in founded by man and executed by him but embraced by man in his place and that all men in their place had one priority which was to seek self discipline in a necessary relationship with man's Creator, who did create man in His image and sent His Son to redeem them and bring them into relationship with Him. In this way, man's reason is founded on that absolute  ...not justified in the structure of nature but in the Creator of it ...of all things seen and unseen. Issac Newton stood on such foundation. 

The Scottish/English Protestant Enlightenment among elites was thus very different. The basis for Protestant Enlightenment was grounded in the revelation of Martin Luther. Lutheranism valued the individual relationship with the Creator and the Bible the Word of God which was every man's individual right to pursue. Hence, they did not reject religion but saw it differently as a structure that guided this divine relationship rather than dominating man as to have control over his life which was deemed necessary by the Catholic church. 

French Catholic 'new' elites in their "Enlightenment" sought a contrived social justice in order to reject the church which they felt was over and above them. Sadly, in rejecting the church they also rejected God as seen as part of that control system. Since, they could not nor did not read the Bible, they did not know that God was for them, not against them. 

Unlike, the French elites, the Protestant Scottish/English Enlightenment among elites was birthed by their ability to read the Word of God, it was encouraged. This thinking of or revelation was the thinking of Martin Luther a German Catholic priest who was nearly burned as a heretic for his thinking outside the box. Though like the French, Martin Luther's view of the Christian world curbed Protestants or calmed them and they did not seek to reject the church but to master themselves using church teachings ~ the Bible. Max Weber who wrote the about Protestant work ethic was the first to observe and use this in describing the social imagination of Protestant Judeo-Christians. 


The social imagination of the Scottish/English Enlightenment can be said to underlay the doctrines of the United States of America which was to become a place where every man could pursue his 'happiness', his relationship with the Creator which could not be nor ever be controlled by a government or 'the' church. 
We confirm this social imagination in the works of famous American socio-Christian thinkers like Jonathan Edwards who advocated as does the Bible that we are free indeed in Christ and because of this; all Christians as free men can abide together by their limited social constraints which free men put in place. 

Happiness is not to be pursued in our own imaginations or whims and in selfishness but in the discipline of the self in relationship to an all powerful and all knowing Creator. When this is embraced and understood, the social contract contains the least contrivances; it is as light as a feather. For those, who reject the Creator, the social contract becomes a burden, it is heavy with man's words who then falsely assumes that this is the way to pursue happiness. It is rejecting the Creator that causes enforced social justice. Sadly, the progressive liberal of the past has crept into America.

Monday, November 30, 2015

Social Equilibrium in the Social Imagination




According to feminism the so-called “oppression” of women comes from the Patriarchy, the female conspiracy theory that says that human culture has been and continues to be dominated by men who privilege themselves at the expense of women. Feminists claim “The Patriarchy” is systemic, universal, and crucial to feminism and evolved from ancient times.  
 
Of course, you can find that most feminist thinkers will often talk about the shifts in gender norms throughout history. Yes, they do talk, but it is not true. What can be said as more correct is that “norms” have not changed in any period of history but roles and expectations have varied as subjected to climate changes, and especially access to male populations in a given place and time.

Women have always been female as in having consistent identity (consistent visual attributes) and consistent function as in consistently able to use their attributes to bear children, breast feed them and nurture them; in this way and at the same time, be a supportive partner as well as contributing member of the community in all societies.  

There is no domination in that. There is equilibrium attained through differences; whereby opposing attributes  and opposing function sustain and have sustained mankind. Sociologists have long observed that in all societies and all social relationship/interactions there are enabled necessary social dynamics – subordination and domination. These social dynamics represent the necessary give and take between social actors or particles (metaphorically speaking) that come fundamentally exist in a designed universe which from time to time come together as in collide to create either positive or negative outcomes but that depends on what is positive and negative.  

Which get the value? At the particle level as well as with social actors in the social arena what is positive and what is negative depend on the identity of each and their function in the designed universe. Both have necessary function because of necessary identity which is necessary in order to function in their necessary orbits and or sphere of interaction. 

Is it positive when value is taken from one thing and given to another to create a false sense of equality? Is it negative when value is given to one in order to reduce the value of another so that equality is achieved? It is the state of equilibrium through entanglement that satisfies. Where equilibrium resides is where both positive and negative have enough of what they are as particles or social actors as identifiable as to what they are and are not; yet, both also have the potential to be more than they are in their orbit thereby avoiding entropy, collapse of the system. 

Has one been ignored in the designed universe in their social interaction? Has one been less interactive, less necessary? I think not. Both have over the course of what we call time have been interactive and necessary. There is no oppression in that. There is only equilibrium!

Tuesday, November 24, 2015

Want to understand Modern Education???












When at university, the students encountered in the classroom were hardly able to write legibly and certainly not what any true scholarly professor could call "well read". Of course, they could argue through learned "word speak" why ideas and theories from the past are wrong and labels for the future are necessary. One might wonder how this came to be. The university "word speak" in the United States has grown out of feminized ideas of social justice. The current diversity program requires essays in gender neutrality/equality, individual rights which declare every person is what/who they say they are whatever that is and that they are normal in their own right.

The going viral video clip titled - Modern Educayshun, is a graphic portrayal of the university "word speak". It is an insightful and creative illustration of this institutionalized phenomenon. As such, all credits due are given to N. Kolhatkar (writer/director)... this is a masterpiece of social observation as it delves into the potential dangers of our increasingly reactionary culture bred by social media and political correctness.  

It cannot be stressed enough that universities today do not provide higher education through logical objective reasoning and discussion applying classical theories but rather instruct on how to walk the straight and narrow institutionalized - feminized world view of "cultural competence" driven by insidious relativism. 


You can check out "Modern Educayshun" video clip by going to youtube and typing in "Modern Educayshun" ~ Written and Directed by Neel Kolhatkar

Monday, November 16, 2015

Vagabonds Vs. Tourists in the Social Imagination



Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman wrote about two types of people in the world: vagabonds and tourists. For him, vagabonds are those who are forced (not by choice) to move from the place of their origin- birth, identity, their place on earth from which they entered and were socialized. They are forced due to economics, political or religious persecution, or plague, or other catastrophe.

You might wonder why they could leave at all even though those circumstances demand it if it is where they call home and feel the most familiar in their being. That is an important point. Abraham left his place of origin. Though he did not know if it was the right thing to do, he followed the direction he was given. In that, there was a loss of connectedness to place. He did so only by faith and in hope of a future. Many still argue about that, saying... who has the real right to live in that land where Abraham was sent. 

Yes, people move and have moved around. It is not easy nor comfortable. For the place you are born is your and will be your point of reference. Thus, the main problem that can arise is for people in such circumstances, becoming a vagabond, is the certain difficulty concerning and facing integration. Vagabonds carry with them their socio-historical and cultural baggage. They are not determined to become a 'new being' in a place but to 'be in a new place' as they 'be' who they are. Therefore, vagabonds are less likely to become like those in the place they end up, for the choice is not theirs. Most often associated with this difficulty of integration is the knowledge they cannot ever go/get back home.

Tourists on the other hand don't have this problem. They move about by choice. They choose to leave their place of origin not because they have to but because they want to. They can do this and choose to do this because they are secure in their person and circumstances (identity and finances) and the very important aspect of being able to. They  do not have the desire to integrate but to live as they are in a new place as a tourist, a visitor. Interesting is that they do not choose to integrate but they don't have to. Because, they have a strong connection to back home and know that they can get back home whenever they want to.

Bauman's view tended to be more economically burdened and or supported when he compared these two types. Some think he failed to look at the range of reasons that people make the choice to leave. Money has a role but money is not the only reason behind one's decision or ability to move by either of the two types. Some can make the choice to stay because the place where they were born is what matters most. Jonathon Kozol wrote did a study about generations of poverty stricken people living in the Bronx.  Many did not accept the idea that they had a choice and in realizing that they did could not imagine living any other way.  Those who had money even illegally gotten, remained in that place where they originated. Money does not dictate that people will move. Many who have money choose to remain in the place they originated.

Point being, people tend rather to remain in the place of their origin. Those that do make the choice to move whether forced to or not will take with them their socio-historical and cultural baggage. Immigrants to the United States did so years ago and still do today. Such baggage 'data' cannot be detached or deleted. This was noted in the research of Florian Zaniecki in his work with William Thomas that resulted in the classical sociological text "The Polish Peasant in Europe and America".

This is and should be the concern of any nation when faced with newbies. Years ago, immigrants had to melt in as much as possible because the connection to back home was either cut off or difficult to maintain. In America's past, we can read of many problems associated with newbies in terms of their full integration. That has not changed. Problems exist and remain due to modern technology which inhibit full integration. Some consider limiting immigration or taking in people fleeing their home. Wouldn't it be better that they resolve issues where they are and in that way, at some point become a tourist? At least then everyone would be making their own choices. And, that would include vagabonds as they would less likely be forced to leave.

Are there people in the world who choose to live somewhere else and choose to fully integrate? Now, that is a very good question. Is that even possible? Could one become fully Japanese if not born Japanese? Could one become fully Italian or Irish or Ethiopian? Perhaps, would like to meet one. The truly more serious consideration is to ask if vagabonds could ever fully integrate and why would they? No and neither would tourists.

Generations later of those earlier vagabonds do integrate but they are not their parents or grandparents any longer, they are different, born in their 'now' place of origin.  And, if they become tourists, they certainly won't be vagabonds. Yet, they and anyone could end up as them. Its not that tourists don't do damage either. They bring with them their socio-historical cultural baggage and corrupt the original information they find in the place they lay their hat... sojourners leave a mark. They don't contribute either to the local economy in any long time situation nor do they truly enrich themselves by being tourists unless they remain tourists for so long they forget where they came from. Is there any 'best practice' when it comes to moving about? That's probably the best question yet.

"God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands as if he needed anything because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men; that they should inhabit the whole world and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him though he is not far from each one of us" ~ Acts 17:24-27.