The Cost of True Love in the Christian Social Imagination!

The Cost of Discipleship

Large crowds were now traveling with Jesus, and He turned and said to them, “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters — yes, even his own life — he cannot be My disciple. And whoever does not carry his cross and follow Me cannot be My disciple.… Luke 14:25-27.

The word 'hate' is pretty strong isn't it. And, we know that this word in today's politically correct social imagination is seen quite negatively. As you check and you should check, in every translation whether NIV, NAS, NLT or KJB, hate is the word we find.

Many like to interpret the word hate in Luke to mean abandon. Essentially, though not a synonym it can be used to better understand the kind of commitment we must make to be disciple. We can also use the definition found in Webster's as an intense dislike or detest. If we accept that all are sinners before God and all who are not born again are children of Satan, then yes we should dislike and detest those who are not born again in Jesus Christ even if they are members of our own family.

There is another use of the word hate which we can often find used when we want to express a kind of great regret. For example, when we cannot help someone out when they need us. I hate to tell you but I am stuck in the office that day. Or, I hate to say it but that is a difficult situation he/she is in. I hate to be the one to tell you, I hate to have to do this but in the end you will thank me.

And, here perhaps in the last version of 'hate' used as a phrasal verb or even idiomatically, we may find the best answer.  We hate it when we have to take a position that we don't want to take which usually means standing alone. It is when we get to a point of 'tough' love that we find true love. That is the cost of discipleship... getting to the point of truly being in love with God, Jesus Christ!

It does not require us to purge people from our lives, or to abandon them or to hate them but to show them who we love the most; first and foremost! Show them the true source of your social imagination. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength" ~ Mark 12:30.

Have a Blessed Easter!

Passing the Buck ~ Laying Blame in the Social Imagination!

Passing the buck could be a wise thing to do if it justifies the end... Right? 

Speaking as a sociologist, passing the buck or laying blame as in finding a scapegoat to take on the 'sin' or guilt/fault is not new to society. In order to save ourselves (you/me  - the individual) from blame we begin by taking sides based on who is who among us and who has been slacking off or not doing their part so that if any blame comes our way it appears to have been a result of some other person's action. But even before that, we as individuals members of society establish ourselves in a group. 

We as social creatures like to get into groups so that when the blame falls it does not directly fall on us but onto the group and in that group we can thus feel more secure about the future our future. At our very heart, our deep down inner being, which was formed through social interaction, we know that people say and do things which protect their position/status and security and can even guarantee our prosperity.  

And, in that we find our justification for being in a group and siding with others in the group. Now, there is a social dynamic to passing the buck within the group that can be worth it or not. Its easier to pass the buck to someone outside of our group who casually stepped in and out. Thus, passing the buck is largely justified by all in the group in that respect/situation. 

A recent study if you can call it that regarding passing the buck attempted to show that when the group of respondents who knew each other as they were all 'co-workers' in an office were shown as in demonstrated positive ways to not blame as in pass the buck. So, when they were given situations as exercises the did not pass the buck so to speak but applied what they learned in the demonstration. 

Yes, they were less likely to pass the buck Why? Because, they were in a familiar group and aware of the group dynamics. They within their own group applied the laws of governing dynamics and contemplated best ways to get advantages out of not passing the buck and also they were less likely to simply because they were within their own group and given the safety of the controlled 'pass the buck' scenario felt no threat of being blamed and had no real reason to feel at fault of  guilty at the time of the exercise of passing the buck.

What is observed more often in studies is that when any group is under threat they will pass the buck to another group. Now, if someone in the group is failing in one way or another, or not on board with the common dynamic of the group then the group will feel under threat by one of their own and in agreement will mob that one who is causing the threat. An issue will be made against that one and he or she will be blamed for something and ostracized from the group in order to protect the group.  

Justified that its not passing the buck for any reason but for purpose of pointing out that someone is not willing to get along or conform and thus is not really part of the group. Passing the buck is not taking the blame for one's action in order to maintain self image in the group; and therefore, even in the process of routing out the one undesirable in the group another maybe used to do it since the top must remain clean as in unmarred and again the passing of the buck is justified as the end result is what was desired, right?

Fake News ~ Real or Not in the Social Imagination?

          Stopping the proliferation of fake news isn't just the responsibility of the platforms used to spread it. Those who consume news also need to find ways of determining if what they're reading is true. The idea is that people should have a fundamental sense of media literacy. Sam Wineburg, a professor of education and history at Stanford and the lead author of the study, said that a solution is for readers to read like fact checkers. Really?

Knowing that social reality is only information shared among individuals who collectively make up a group of people sharing that information gaining from it an identity - who they are and are not... should already tell you that reality is what we (as an individual in a group) socially agree is and is not real depending on our sphere of shared information.

You know, Charles H. Cooley said that even an 'imaginary' person in our life in our mind in our 'group' as Me, myself and I is as real as any 'person' can be.  After all, according to Cooley all reality exists in the mind. So, in that case what is really real and including what we consider news as in news worthy as in being important to our 'social imagined reality'. Imagined does not mean 'fake'. We imagine collectively and that imagination is what creates our social reality.

So, if you think that there are fact checkers who will check the news for you be mindful that the fact checkers you choose are those whom you accept in our social imagination that will concur with your social imagination. It always comes down to who you are and are not.. and that includes the facts or so called facts out there that you chose from or chose to justify your social imagination - your social reality!

 ~ Source:  http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/12/05/503581220/fake-or-real-how-to-self-check-the-news-and-get-the-facts

Getting Ahead as in Climbing the Social Status 'Career' Ladder in the Social Imagination!

When I taught English as a second language, I told my students that in introductory conversations, they would often encounter, in English speaking countries, especially in the United States, the question, "what do you do"?

Yes, what do you do is key to understanding the western social imagination. Again, especially when in America.  It is a means to understand a person's ambition, a person's individual self-determination, their will, their ego and the status that person desires.  This is not necessarily absent in other societies and or cultures but far less likely to be encountered in introductory conversations. In the US, we like to liked, we like to be recognized, like to be known for who we are as an individual. We like to stand out for our achievements and or accomplishments including our sphere of social networks.

We like to think we made the right choice when choices presented themselves. We like to think that we chose the right town to live in, the right place to raise our children, the right house to buy, the right car to drive, the right education and career path. We associate ourselves in terms of getting ahead = winning the race in this life. Who makes and or made out makes all the difference in this world of getting ahead.

That is why when we don't see the kind of behavior we expect (driven) we are surprised, shocked and even think that those people are missing out, missing and or lacking something and we feel sorry for them and can even despise them for their inability to at least 'want it'. Though in our wearing the politically correct facade, we would never say it to those people's face. Interestingly, our reaction to their lack of is based on how we see them racially, ethnically, religiously and in terms of gender and values has been shaped by elites already ahead and want to stay there.

That is why our sympathy is politically directed and thus we have or are applauded for having more empathy for minorities and greater disdain for the white privileged, the religious fundamentalists and those who just either neglect to take an interest in their education, and the advantages of corporate life and its ever so necessary top down structure just like big government which allows them to do what they want to get ahead while keeping everyone down for their own good which they make them believe is for their own good because according to them no one is able to think for themselves....those outside that mindset.

They only people that will get ahead will be those who want to get ahead, are willing to do what it takes to get ahead, and are allowed to. They will eventually shun those that don't (aren't driven) as in defriend or apply other social separation tactics/strategies as their mantra insists - "Want to run with the big dogs, better get off the porch". Its as much as saying, if you aren't with us, you are against us. The tragedy is that not everyone wants to get ahead, or can get ahead and or will be allowed to... the dog parks are nice and getting full.

The Liberal Pluralism Project ~ Harming the Social Imagination!

Oh how sweet the sound....right? Wrong!

The plurality of religious traditions and cultures has come to characterize every part of the world today. But what is pluralism? Here are four points to begin our thinking:

First, pluralism is not diversity alone, but the energetic engagement with diversity. Diversity can and has meant the creation of religious ghettos with little traffic between or among them. Today, religious diversity is a given, but pluralism is not a given; it is an achievement. Mere diversity without real encounter and relationship will yield increasing tensions in our societies.

Second, pluralism is not just tolerance, but the active seeking of understanding across lines of difference. Tolerance is a necessary public virtue, but it does not require Christians and Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and ardent secularists to know anything about one another. Tolerance is too thin a foundation for a world of religious difference and proximity. It does nothing to remove our ignorance of one another, and leaves in place the stereotype, the half-truth, the fears that underlie old patterns of division and violence. In the world in which we live today, our ignorance of one another will be increasingly costly.

Third, pluralism is not relativism, but the encounter of commitments. The new paradigm of pluralism does not require us to leave our identities and our commitments behind, for pluralism is the encounter of commitments. It means holding our deepest differences, even our religious differences, not in isolation, but in relationship to one another.

Fourth, pluralism is based on dialogue. The language of pluralism is that of dialogue and encounter, give and take, criticism and self-criticism. Dialogue means both speaking and listening, and that process reveals both common understandings and real differences. Dialogue does not mean everyone at the “table” will agree with one another. Pluralism involves the commitment to being at the table with one’s commitments. ~ Diana L. Eck http://pluralism.org/what-is-pluralism/ Harvard University.

How sweet, how bitter sweet in fact. Pluralism is harmful to all that participate in it. How? It fails to embrace true diversity which is differences, incredible differences. They, the handler/promoters, say its enough to be energetic about engagement with diversity - real encounters and relationships and about understanding across lines of difference. Really? When speak of real diversity, one has to understand that means 'real' as in rationale to the other group/culture differences in thinking, behavior and world views. Look what America did and continues to do to native Americans. Where are they?

People as in groups of them in a place have their identity set in stone literally. That stone imagined tablet to illustrate is what causes their identity, it gives them a 'real' understanding of who they are and are not. A program written one way has its default mode. Only the creator of the program can upgrade it if he/she wants or needs to... not just anyone or someone who thinks they know the program well enough to create a successful upgrade or 'compatible patch/link'.

There are cultures that have deeply embedded meaning which cannot be destroyed without destroying that culture. If we respect diversity, then we have to tolerate all differences and accept not being able to understand them or even tolerate them.  So, if tolerance is a necessary public virtue, they toleration has to be incredible tolerable. To the point of accepting not being able to accept differences. Does that mean conflict? Yes, does it mean engagement in conflict? It may happen. But, blurring cultural differences 'diversity' means certain annihilation of 'real' diversity/meaning.

Oh, no they cry out. Not in that instance. Then, in what instance?  Our diversity project guarantees non-violence. Of course, it does because their means for diversity is their kind of diversity. They use the word 'pluralism' but what they actually mean to have is a global 'melting pot'. It is difficult to understand let alone accept that a 'Harvard' thinking person is in such darkness.

A real sociologist knows that true differences have embedded meaning. Deep meaning is acquired from being in a place with others in that place over time. In that experience, people/culture arises and in that group develops a sense of belonging, who one is and is not. They acquire a world view in that place, they learn how to deal with the geography in that place, how to live, eat and breathe in 'their place'. Meaning is given to those experiences. And such meaning is acquired in no other way. Even impossible to translate and never to be fully understood by anyone outside of that experience, outside of the meaning in that group's social imagination.

So, pluralism's true aim is to destroy that kind of meaning because it cannot understand it and by not being able to understand or even appreciate never being able to understand it, it comes to destroy, to take over and to make that which it does not and cannot understand its own. This is how they 'liberals' embrace diversity, share it and use up what they are comfortable with.

Pluralism is harmful to the social imagination of a group/culture as that group is being 'pluralized' and or undergoing pluralization. You see, in forced social interaction, softened by political correctness and money, people lose their true identity, their true social imagination and diversity as it loses its true color and blends in. There is no longer any diversity then, its just different styles for doing and thinking about the same thing.  Take an Eskimo out of his 50 kinds of snow with its 50 different meanings and put him/her in 'our' snow... the liberal pluralist thinks its still snow but its just their kind - pluralized.

Of course, the rebuttal is that the Eskimo doesn't lose his/her kind of snow, he/she shares it. No, they can't share it and you 'the outsider' can't understand 50 kinds as they do...that is the point. They have 50 different kinds and each means something different which an outsider will never understand. Never! And, because of that not being able to understand or accept never being able to understand (some things are untranslatable) the outsider is in conflict and if that outsider is stronger, they will impose their way and call it diversification. 

The Rejection of Social Reality by Some Women in the Occident Social Imagination!

‘Day Without a Woman’ strike seeks to continue legacy of massive D.C. march...

Is it because of a hormone imbalance that some women reject the social reality of being a woman in the everyday social interaction of the social imagination and thus want to be men socially or at least made equal with men? That is the question we should ask in the social imagination. Today, another march goes on. And, what do they want this time? Do they want to be socially equal? What???

Now the group behind (organized by elites in order to disrupt societies to create the society they want) the march is looking to showcase women’s workplace and purchasing power through their absence. Today's "A Day Without a Woman" action involves a retreat from engagement with the world as a way of highlighting women’s central roles within it. Which are? Exactly, that is the question they (whoever the organizers) circumvent. The central roles in a stable society are for women to be what they were designed to be which is the social workplace as: a mother, a wife/partner, a care giver, a nurse, a teacher.  This march does not spell out any 'central roles' other than wanting the social workplace of men while at the same time shopping as women do.

According to the article, the 'central roles' they advocate are really a rejection of the workplace they have. But its not entirely clear what they reject. As the march calls for women - Not going to work. Not spending money or shopping, except at small and women-owned businesses and no unpaid work. But, maybe they are calling for recognition of their designed 'central' roles but that is not as highly visible as the rejection of them. Even if it were the case, given that they do mention unpaid work, as as part of their nobility, one could be supportive but they don't and they also don't seem to realize that unpaid work is a sacrifice made for the good of society and that is noble. And, yet they reject that.

Its the spending of money that they highlight the most... how ironic. Spending their own money or their husband's? I suppose they would say and some do say that its their own money. Really, because the icon they still love Barack Obama said that "you did not do that". So, given that men are still in the world and doing some really amazing and positive things, whose money are they spending.

Whatever and whoever 'owns' the money, they still protest...“Protesting itself is not enough, which is why we stepped to the next level of asking people to sacrifice, you know, being a part of the strike,” Tamika Mallory, co-chair of the Women’s March organization, said in a video posted to Facebook. “All of these things work together. We can’t do one thing and expect that the walls are going to come tumbling down. It’s going to take multiple levels of action, activism and resistance in order to insure that democracy is preserved in this country.”

What is wrong with that, right? Well, protesting as in demonstrating a social pitfall is a good thing but they are part of that social pitfall by rejecting their central roles in society. Sacrifice as called for by the 'co-chair' is something that is a key aspect of their central role and yet they reject that. So, how could they call for sacrifice and know what it means?

The best thing about today's strike is that there are some people criticizing it as an action available only to privileged women who have enough workplace flexibility to take time off without risking their finances or their jobs.  Yes, the privileged women who have husbands footing the bill for their business or time off from their job. Where is the appreciation for that?

This person says, “The idea behind the strike is a noble one. Who doesn’t want economic equality for everyone? But in practice, most American women cannot afford to opt out of either paid or unpaid labor,” wrote Maureen Shaw.

What is wrong with that, right? Well a strike can be a noble action like the one Lech Walsea did in Poland in 1981. But to strike as in take time off to show 'whose the boss' as a form of rejection of social reality then its not noble. As for the question posed, "Who doesn't want economic equality for everyone"?... that is impossible simple because in a functioning economy there will be better products and services. That means some things won't be as good quality as others. This applies to people too; and believe me, women know the difference between a good shampoo/conditioner or lipstick or any other cosmetic bra, hairdresser, handbag...etc. They know that some are just not as good or as competent or as skilled or as savvy as the next person. So, why pay more for crap?

The truth that this woman and those marching protestors (and the organizers) reject the fact that there is economic equality and it is applied fairly with regard for for those that do the job their boss/corporate head office demands and do it they way their want it done... regardless of gender.

So, why do they march? There is a global agenda which the left has jumped on board with. That agenda is to create a one world order. So, they stage events to disrupt societies in order that they can recreate it. 

A day without these kinds of women might just be what the social imagination doctor prescribed; and they would go back to their central roles as was the 'real' agenda, right ??? (if organized by villainous men). But, then did the organizers (again the bad guys) fully consider is that the economy might just collapse without their purchasing power!

Education Radicalized in the Occident Social Imagination

Education in America has to be viewed on a timeline of social thought. Firstly, there was the Prussian education system which worked up until it was attacked by the Frankfurt school - literally, a neo-facist movement bent on restructuring education in America in order to build a more socialist progressive liberal society rather than the already in place - capitalist economy united as a Republican Democracy. You can argue all you like, but many people in The United States, like the idea of self determinism afforded by capitalism and the liberty enjoyed in a representative 'Republic'.

One might ask, "Isn't the Republican party a neo-facist organization as it is framed to be....a radical nationalistic authoritarianism?" Well, if we are talking about the original idea of Republicanism being conservative government operationalized by the will of the people and not by a top down run State, then No, the Republican party is not a neo-facist party. Rather today's liberal democrats are. But to be fair, its a combination of members of those two parties who have taken a liking to a certain ideology.

The ideological roots of fascism can be traced back to the 1880s in Europe based on a revolt against materialism, rationalism, positivism, and against democracy. It was born of the fin-de-siècle generation which supported emotionalism, irrationalism, subjectivism and  vitalism. The fin-de-siècle mindset saw civilization as being in a crisis that required a massive and total solution.
The fin-de-siècle intellectual school considered the individual only one part of the larger collectivity, which should not be viewed as an atomized numerical sum of individuals.They condemned the rationalistic individualism of traditional as in classic liberal society and the dissolution of social links in what they considered bourgeois society.

That intellectual school of thought was the foundation for the Frankfurt school 'movement' in Europe. Now, in the United States, that kind of thinking was not prevalent but perhaps discussed in dark coffee houses on a couple of elite university campuses. In the early days and up until the 20th century, America was let's say an old fashioned kind of pro-liberty believing in the Republic which was a representative democracy (with regards to its simple and solid Constitution); largely, grass roots organized in many respects. People were encouraged to take risks necessary to pave the way for future Americans. Perhaps, that is why the educational system that first took hold was the Prussian educational system and not one based on fin-de-siècle which begot the Frankfurt school of thought. 

America as a relatively young nation found the Prussian educational system to be attractive. This system of education was established in Prussia (a German state) as a result of educational reforms put forward directly after Prussia's defeat in 1806 the early stages of the Napolenonic Wars. Not long thereafter, compulsory education of the Prussian example was mirrored in Scandinavia, and the United States. Early American adopters included: Daniel Coit Gilman, who set up The General Education Board, later renamed The Rockefeller Foundation, and first president of Johns Hopkins, John Dewey at the University of Chicago, James McKeen Cattell at The University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University.

The Prussian system had by the 1830s attained the following characteristics:

• Free primary schooling, at least for poor citizens
• Professional teachers trained in specialized colleges
• A basic salary for teachers and recognition of teaching as a profession
• An extended school year to better involve children of farmers
• Funding to build schools
• Supervision at national and classroom level to ensure quality instruction
• Curriculum inculcating a strong national identity, involvement of science and technology
• Secular instruction (but with religion as a topic included in the curriculum)

The Frankfurt School was an ideology formed during the interwar period, and came against the Prussian system firstly in Europe and then in the United States. Why? Because, it was thought to be the answer to what appeared to be growing crony capitalism and fascism. How could that be? The Prussian system, encouraged solidarity but that was all. It got people thinking and building up their life in their local community a micro version of the nation. So, it could easily be used for any kind of indoctrination.

The Frankfurt School theorists also like solidarity, and they spoke with a common paradigm in mind; they shared the Marxist Hegelian premises which were radically anti-capitalist, seeking idealistic equality through controlled social justice. As mentioned above, it was birthed by fin-de-siècle. Such ideology did not take into consideration that the Prussian system simply a regime application as in daily discipline and structure that was meant to serve the majority creating a strong well-adjusted 'integrated' and educated society of like mindedness. Or, perhaps, that is exactly what they saw as attractive about and could easily use it toward their agenda. 

Yet, there was a real difference between the Prussian system and the Frankfurt school of thought. The Prussian system was not about control of the masses as much as it was about preparedness of the masses. It came out of the experience of defeat. In preparedness, it is best to have as many men able to think like each other and thus also for themselves than not. It was not about ensuring that all men had their fair share but that all men were prepared to take part in building up their right to share.

You see, as much as man tries to engineer a 'fair' society, the real experience of fairness is not that all are rich or living the good life, but all suffer living to serve the State, an abyss that can never be satisfied. One could say, 'but isn't that they Prussian system'? Yes, in a way. But the Prussian system was not to serve the State but to prepare the people in the state to protect what they have - liberty!