minsocal

Since Monty mentioned Integral I returned to the Beams and Struts site blog to find this. Maybe there is a discussion here.

 

http://www.beamsands...e-non-religious

 

Dutch

This is close to, IMO, the "heart and soul" of what is meant by the term "progressive". It would be a good discussion, I think.

Abraham Joshua Heschel, a Jewish Rabbi, theologian and philosopher, who was a very close friend of MLK’s, taught that one of the tasks of religion was to “inspire awe".

 

To quote: “Our goals should be to live life in radical amazement - to get up in the morning and look at the world in a way that takes nothing for granted. Everything is phenomenal, everything is incredible - never treat life casually. To be spiritual is to be amazed.”

 

Just something that struck a chord with me.

Paul,

This is an honored view in some camps. C. G. Jung, and others took this route. Our path need not be only through a mine field, it could also be a garden.

Myron

Here is the question that I have been 'dealing' with for quite some time: If we are to accept homosexuality because they are also Gods children and sexuality is not a choice we are born homosexual or straight, then couldn't pedophiles use this same argument?

If you were to ask me, a gay progressive male, about this subject then this is what I would say. I have been in an intimate relationship with another self responsible male for many years. We are of mixed backgrounds, progressive Christian and progressive Buddhist. Over the years we have come to understand each other because we share a common perspective. Our use of language is different, but the concepts are identical. Research has shown that pedophilia is not about love and care, it is about control and domination. As mature adults, my partner and I make a clear distinction between mutuality in a relationhip that is positive, and other attributes that are destructive. In that sense, we are no different than so-called heterosexuals with whom we share the same set of values.

The God I know and understand values love, caring, and compassion.

Norm,

Your response comes at a good time, for me at least. My own feelings and intuitions continue to direct me along a path that seems very similar. I cannot explain why. But, there it is. It took me some time to accept "there it is" as "real".

Myron

Irony and wit have long been respected as effective teaching tools. It is refreshing to see this subject on this board. In recent years I've been attending a Buddhist temple where humor is part of the routine. It (the humor) is good natured and it often makes a point that might otherwise be missed. I have always regarded Jesus as a teacher with some very good points to make, so this view grabbed my interest. It helps make some passages in the Bible more accessible, and I can't see anything wrong with that.

Pure Land Buddhism represents a segment of humanity. There is no reason that I know of to not honor that heritage.

I have been asked to take a stronger hand in moderating my thread here. I see little to object to. It is off topic to propose a ban on assault weapons - that belongs in the "the Weapon" thread. And it only takes one sentence unless there are qualifications.

 

My biggest objection is that we are talking about what someone else should do. Especially our favorite "Most evangelical Christians" who are not monolithic as we make them out to be. If you do not agree name the person you don't agree with. Other wise find references for "most" "evangelical" "Christian". I doubt "evangelical lutheran" is included but that is the problem when we think out of prejudice. We fail to recognize the dignity of others.

 

This thread is for positive proposals. I do think conversations about this topic even if there is disagreement can in fact be part of the solution. But that is liberal slant. I have a strongly held opinion. In democracy we work from consensus.

 

Dutch

Labels do get to be a problem. My mother was an "evangelical lutheran". Both sides of my family are from Germany, where "evangelical" means "protestant", and no more.

Myron

Is there any evidence that violent entertainment causes violent actions?

The argument is not that A causes B, but that A causes B in the presence of C. Basic causal reasoning.

If the only way to have an objective moral compass is if you believe in an objective moral law giver, why is it that Christians can't agree with each other on what is moral and what is immoral? There are some Christians who believe homosexuality is immoral and there are some Christians who don't believe it is immoral. They're both reading the exact same bible but they both have widely different interpretations of the exact same verses. If belief in God is the only way to have an objective moral value system, then surely all Christians should be able to come away with the exact same book with the exact same moral value system, so why are they so different?

A long time ago, some people saw fit to drive a wedge between 'objective' and 'subjective'. It was a mistake. We have paid too high a price for that mistake and need to move on.

What value do we have, in a contemporary society, in denying the potential of women in their contribution to progress? What society, in the world we now know, can afford to relegate women to a second class status? Evolution tells us of a world we once knew, and that is not the world we seek?

Just who are we if we cannot stand up to an organization that represents a small (7%) of the population?

Sadly, other places I have been, some websites I respect and call themselves "progressive" have now begun to bow out of the dialogue. This is not what I expected. Where do we turn?

Given the events of today in Connecticut, I thought I would offer this from the hosts of this message board.

"When I was a boy and I would see scary things in the news, my mother would say to me, “Look for the helpers. You will always find people who are helping.” To this day, especially in times of “disaster,” I remember my mother’s words and I am always comforted by realizing that there are still so many helpers – so many caring people in this world.” - Mr. Rogers (Rev. Fred Rogers) (via Kissing Fish: christianity for people who don't like christianity)"

My mother told me this when I was about eight or nine years old. It has stayed with me all these years.

Today, we lost 20 innocent lives in an elementary school in Connecticut. If researchers like Jonathan Haidt are correct, and I think they are, this should not rest easy with us as humans. I would add that Bishop Spong also has it in good perspective. We are losing our very humanity. It is time, IMO, to say "no" ... and, this IS a time to say WE.

Maybe I should’ve just posted the video without commenting- !

 

As you suggest, it’s inappropriate to judge his social-science, evolutionary analysis from a spiritual perspective. I got hung up on his statements about war. But after listening again and reading the transcript, I feel that his values are humanitarian and creative.

 

“Human cooperation is the most powerful force on the planet…We evolved to see sacredness all around us, and to join with others…to pursue moral ideas.

We broke down the old institutions and brought liberty to the oppressed...

One great challenge of modern life is to find the staircase amid all the clutter, and then do something good and noble …and that gives me hope, because people are not purely selfish. Most people long to overcome pettiness and become part of something larger.”

rivanna,

I do not think you need to apologize for anything. I am very familiar with Haidt's work. I introduced it to this website well before the current discussion. Your first impressions are not far from the mark.

Myron

Haidt doesn't claim that we are 100% intuitional and zero% rational. He uses the elephant (intuition) and rider (reason) metaphor which suggests that reason does play a role, but not as much as we like to think.

 

George

George,

Haidt is applying an Eastern antidote to the Western over valuing of reason. Not that this is anything new and Haidt is well aware of the history of this process. He has, at times, answered this question directly.

BTW ... to add to my previous post, fMRI studies show that the prefronal lobes (the seat of reason) often activate before the centers of emotion and intuition. Signals are sent from the prefrontal lobes along one path to the emotion-intuition center, and a response returns along a different pathway.

Myron

 

This is the last chapter in Part One, and is a summing up of Haidt's 'first principle of moral psychology' - Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second

 

Jonny

Are you saying that intuition comes first during individual development over time and that reasoning enters the picture at a later stage? Which of the two is more likely to be influenced by societal pressures?

Myron

Haidt doesn't claim that we are 100% intuitional and zero% rational. He uses the elephant (intuition) and rider (reason) metaphor which suggests that reason does play a role, but not as much as we like to think.

 

George

Yes, this is true. Otherwise the prefrontal lobes of our brain would never activate. On the others hand, evidence from fMRI studies show that during problem solving both the reasoning and the emotional processing centers of the brain are active. This is expected as both centers have rich neural pathways connecting the regions in both directions. This would be much closer to Kant, not Haidt as presented here.

Put another way, reason tells use what is or what could be and emotion tells us what it is worth. The two can agree or disagree and, according to Whitehead, the task of religion is to bring them into agrreement compatible with location and time.

Myron

For those interested in G. G. Jung, there is a strong parallel between Haid'ts "elephant" and Jung's Theory of Archetypes, both of which accord emotion a central element.

Wundt ardently denied that there were any unconscious mental process.

 

(edit to add)

 

If you look up Damasio and Somatic Marker Hypothesis you will see the connection to Haidt.

Haidt and Damasio are closer to the first fullly developed theory of emotion by William James, the James-Lang theory of emotion. This theory is also a foundation for A. N. Whitehead's Process and Reality or C. G. Jung's works. James was a stong influence on both thinkers.

Annie, quoting Haidt on affect

 

 

Affect: “small flashes of positive or negative feeling that prepare us to approach or avoid something.” [Affect equates to Haidt’s ‘elephant’; thinking is the ‘rider.’]

 

 

 

 

Haidt's primary source in this area appears to be psychologist Wilhem Wundt (1907/1896)

Wundt ardently denied that there were any unconscious mental process.

(edit to add)

If you look up Damasio and Somatic Marker Hypothesis you will see the connection to Haidt.

George,

I know very little about evolution. Is the idea that variation makes a wider and therefore more healthy gene pool?

A wide gene pool is more likely to survive. A narrow gene pool could, for example, be wiped out by a disease attacking a specific vulnerabilty. The word "healthy" is replaced by "more likely to survive." Properly understood, evolution has no value distinction, it is simply "that which survives".

Myron

This chapter presents six claims based on research findings, in support of the proposition intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.

 

1. Brains evaluate instantly and constantly

 

 

Affect: “small flashes of positive or negative feeling that prepare us to approach or avoid something.” Affect equates to Haidt’s ‘elephant’; thinking is the ‘rider.’

 

This is borrowed directly from Antonio Damasio. Properly described per Damasio, the high speed processor at the level of the midbrain sorts out multiple options based on past experiences before passing a select few to higher levels fo final selection. Damasio does not claim that one and only one option makes into conscious awareness. That brings up another point. As defined by Damasio and Haidt, these processes take place at a purely unconscious level. The output of these processes is routed to the rational processing centers of the brain and not ditectly to behavioral output..

 

………………………

*Can you share any examples that seem to support or contradict any of the six points?

*Can you think of a time when your rider successfully guided your elephant away from an intuitive judgment?

*Any questions or comments?

 

First, I'm not quite sure what you mean by an "intuitive judgment". Ususally, the two words refer to different mental processes. In the sense that Haidt uses the word "intuition", judgment is not implied. The classic motto is "once judgment is applied to an intuition, it is no longer an intuition." In other words, "judgment" is the rider and "intuition" is the elephant.

Myron

Some care should be taken when using the term "selfish" or "empathetic". It is not necessarily the case that the underlying intuition is the same as the connotations attached to these words.. For example, the cognitive appraisal "must obtain scarce resources" need not be "selfish", as it it an intuitive reaction to potential threats to survival. In other words, Haidt is unclear as to the relationshiip between emotion and intuition. Are they linked at the level of origination? Or are they linked at a higher level of processing, with the increased possibilty of error?