Kate Berardo writes, “Curiosity creates an interest in learning and helps break down barriers between cultures and their differences.”
I think curiosity breaks down differences between individuals, as well as cultures. The class taught me about life without curiosity. Curiosity broke down the barriers of my limited paradigm, facilitated my understanding of the differences between individuals.
I disagree with Van Gogh, I personally find Nature to be more interesting than people. Maybe the class will restructure my paradigm once again? I can’t imagine how when it comes to this one.
My favorite quotes from this article:
"Curiosity, in this sense, is an essential stepping stone toward building awareness, appreciation, and understanding of other cultures. Through curiosity, people can gain new perspectives, unparalleled learning and growth, and a chance for interesting conversation and reflection at every interaction." - Kate Berardo
“We have a hunger of the mind which asks for knowledge of all around us, and the more we gain, the more is our desire; the more we see, the more we are capable of seeing.”- Maria Mitchell
“The possession of knowledge does not kill the sense of wonder and mystery. There is always more mystery." - Anais Nin
Friday, November 16, 2007
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Constructing Realities
I think individuals, like societies, construct their own realities. Society’s construct is the foundation from which the individual creates a unique worldview. The paradigm we build for ourselves then becomes the looking glass with which we view everything we perceive as “other” than, or separate from, ourselves. Our worldview, shaped by nurture (social relationships), and nature (genetic inheritance) is the tool we use to evaluate all individuals, groups, concepts, and the concrete; as well as ourselves. It can be our prison or our release.
I believe humankind’s greatest undeveloped and active potential lives within the possible communication between unique paradigms existing in a symphony of interdependent relatedness. This exchange of information flows via physical and nonphysical senses, verbally and intuitively, at least between human animals. Personally, I believe communication is possible between all sentient beings. I recognize this is not a widely shared construct for “modern” societies. My paradigm has some flexibility. Presentations of other worldviews could be opportunities for learning, growth, restructuring a limited construct, or reevaluating my present paradigm.
My mind meandered to these thoughts after classmates and DKJ very effectively communicated their constructs on the nature of curiosity. Because I found being curious as natural and essential as breathing, I was completely unable to understand how it could be that some people are not particularly curious, or might even dislike being curious. It was impossible for me to frame incuriousness in a manner that would allow me to relate to that concept, and then reframe it so I could integrate it into my paradigm. I could not understand how a life without curiousness would be worth living. I found it literally unimaginable, my life devoid of curiosity created a visual picture of my mind permanently imprisoned.
Sharing life experiences, classmates supplied concrete examples of incurious, but happy, passionate, people, who were capable of co-creative expression. Born from this free exchange of wisdom-based worldviews, I was able to reframe my beliefs, alter my worldview, and reconstruct reality.
Having said that, I still do not understand why DKJ said curiosity is dangerous. The claim that “curiosity killed the cat,” is completed by, “but satisfaction brought him back.”
Within each construct, potential limitlessness and imprisonment coexist in various states of latency.
I believe humankind’s greatest undeveloped and active potential lives within the possible communication between unique paradigms existing in a symphony of interdependent relatedness. This exchange of information flows via physical and nonphysical senses, verbally and intuitively, at least between human animals. Personally, I believe communication is possible between all sentient beings. I recognize this is not a widely shared construct for “modern” societies. My paradigm has some flexibility. Presentations of other worldviews could be opportunities for learning, growth, restructuring a limited construct, or reevaluating my present paradigm.
My mind meandered to these thoughts after classmates and DKJ very effectively communicated their constructs on the nature of curiosity. Because I found being curious as natural and essential as breathing, I was completely unable to understand how it could be that some people are not particularly curious, or might even dislike being curious. It was impossible for me to frame incuriousness in a manner that would allow me to relate to that concept, and then reframe it so I could integrate it into my paradigm. I could not understand how a life without curiousness would be worth living. I found it literally unimaginable, my life devoid of curiosity created a visual picture of my mind permanently imprisoned.
Sharing life experiences, classmates supplied concrete examples of incurious, but happy, passionate, people, who were capable of co-creative expression. Born from this free exchange of wisdom-based worldviews, I was able to reframe my beliefs, alter my worldview, and reconstruct reality.
Having said that, I still do not understand why DKJ said curiosity is dangerous. The claim that “curiosity killed the cat,” is completed by, “but satisfaction brought him back.”
Within each construct, potential limitlessness and imprisonment coexist in various states of latency.
Imprisoned Bodies, Imprisoned Minds
Nature versus Nurture
I found the level of the class’ energetic discussions of Nature versus Nurture, similar to the level of passionate participation elicited in our debates on Free Will versus Determinism. I find the relatedness between these schools of thought intriguing.
I believe there is no single primary determinant of human nature. Human nature is the result of multiple factors that manifest in individuals in differing ratios of predominance. Of the determinants in the reading, I consider genetics and social determinism to be the principal influences on human nature. Blending facets of nature and nurture provide the foundation for unique variations in individuals.
Nature, as expressed through our genetic patterns, uniquely configures both the potential limits, and strengths of a physical body. Manifestations of external factors affecting the range of potency include gender, height, body type, hair, skin, and eye pigmentation and muscle tone. In my opinion, the brain, the systems facilitating the five physical senses, and the endocrine system, are equally potent as determinate factors. Imbalances within these systems can limit or expand an individual’s capacity for psychological, biological, and mental activity. They affect memory, learning, communication, emotional regulation, receptivity of societal norms, development of “desirable” personality traits, and the competency necessary to relate societal constructs.
Genetics imprison the physical body, and then facilitate degrees of its freedom. Genetics might restrict the mind and the personality, or cast them off untethered, lacking the capacity to engage and relate.
I found the level of the class’ energetic discussions of Nature versus Nurture, similar to the level of passionate participation elicited in our debates on Free Will versus Determinism. I find the relatedness between these schools of thought intriguing.
I believe there is no single primary determinant of human nature. Human nature is the result of multiple factors that manifest in individuals in differing ratios of predominance. Of the determinants in the reading, I consider genetics and social determinism to be the principal influences on human nature. Blending facets of nature and nurture provide the foundation for unique variations in individuals.
Nature, as expressed through our genetic patterns, uniquely configures both the potential limits, and strengths of a physical body. Manifestations of external factors affecting the range of potency include gender, height, body type, hair, skin, and eye pigmentation and muscle tone. In my opinion, the brain, the systems facilitating the five physical senses, and the endocrine system, are equally potent as determinate factors. Imbalances within these systems can limit or expand an individual’s capacity for psychological, biological, and mental activity. They affect memory, learning, communication, emotional regulation, receptivity of societal norms, development of “desirable” personality traits, and the competency necessary to relate societal constructs.
Genetics imprison the physical body, and then facilitate degrees of its freedom. Genetics might restrict the mind and the personality, or cast them off untethered, lacking the capacity to engage and relate.
Family Traits – Nature versus Nurture
Stimulated by class discussions of Nature versus Nurture, I entertained myself on the drive home by attempting to ascertain the root cause of curiousness. Was it predominantly genetic, or societal in nature? Class input regarding the trait, informed me that my pre-class beliefs regarding the nature of curiosity were insufficient, and inaccurate for application to the class of humankind. My recently revealed, glaring ignorance regarding the absolute and profound necessity of this trait for one's very existence, demanded that my exploration of this topic be restricted to only my curiosity matrix.
GENETICS
ADHD - requires unusually high levels of stimulation to create and maintain focus.
Both parents also ADHD.
Two siblings ADD, only
One other sibling - also ADHD and dyslexic.
Dyslexia – necessitates constant review of data received and transmitted, especially in
social learning environments.
Lack of input causes malaise clinically known as Extreme Boredom.
Malaise causes physical and mental discomfort, with resultant manifestation of fidgety-ness.
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS
Both parents ADHD.
Two siblings ADD,
One other sibling also ADHD and dyslexic.
Both parents, and two siblings - highly inquisitive people.
Grew up in rural environment.
Exposure to others limited to school, church, family activities - first 13 years of life.
Both parents avid readers.
New books - educational and pleasure always entering home.
Limited TV, and phone time.
Reading, participation in family games, playing musical instrument - family requirements.
Father required high levels of stimulation. Started debates at supper table every evening, at conclusion of debate, he reversed his position for purpose of maintaining high level of stimulation.
Mom was always busy, sewing, reading, knitting, crocheting, embroidering, or doing needlepoint while “resting” and watching TV.
84-year-old mother still loves learning new vocabulary, and exposure to new learning experiences.
It appears to me that there is a high family overlap in genetic determinants and social determinants; many of the listings in the “social determinants” category could be how genetic determinants manifested within the family structure. After reviewing the family history, personality traits, and life choices, I concluded that nature and nurture are the root cause of my curiosity level. However, I continue to wonder if the “nurture” factor is truly based in societal influences, or the resultant creation of my famiy’s genetics.
GENETICS
ADHD - requires unusually high levels of stimulation to create and maintain focus.
Both parents also ADHD.
Two siblings ADD, only
One other sibling - also ADHD and dyslexic.
Dyslexia – necessitates constant review of data received and transmitted, especially in
social learning environments.
Lack of input causes malaise clinically known as Extreme Boredom.
Malaise causes physical and mental discomfort, with resultant manifestation of fidgety-ness.
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS
Both parents ADHD.
Two siblings ADD,
One other sibling also ADHD and dyslexic.
Both parents, and two siblings - highly inquisitive people.
Grew up in rural environment.
Exposure to others limited to school, church, family activities - first 13 years of life.
Both parents avid readers.
New books - educational and pleasure always entering home.
Limited TV, and phone time.
Reading, participation in family games, playing musical instrument - family requirements.
Father required high levels of stimulation. Started debates at supper table every evening, at conclusion of debate, he reversed his position for purpose of maintaining high level of stimulation.
Mom was always busy, sewing, reading, knitting, crocheting, embroidering, or doing needlepoint while “resting” and watching TV.
84-year-old mother still loves learning new vocabulary, and exposure to new learning experiences.
It appears to me that there is a high family overlap in genetic determinants and social determinants; many of the listings in the “social determinants” category could be how genetic determinants manifested within the family structure. After reviewing the family history, personality traits, and life choices, I concluded that nature and nurture are the root cause of my curiosity level. However, I continue to wonder if the “nurture” factor is truly based in societal influences, or the resultant creation of my famiy’s genetics.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Stuck on Torture and Terrorism
Impassioned by latest Daily Phlog posting - I am postponing my "Nature versus Nurture" postings to reflect my concerns created by current events.
I am troubled by more than a few aspects reported in Scott Shane’s November 1, 2007, New York Times article “Nominee’s Stand May Avoid Tangle of Torture Cases”
1. Who are the “legal experts” explaining the Central Intelligence Agency officers’ use of the waterboarding torture practice as “harsh interrogation practice?”
2. Since it is accepted and declared by government officials, that in 2002 and 2003, C.I.A. officers used waterboarding in “questioning” “at least three” high-level terrorism suspects:
a.) Why is it that in 2007, the torture victims are still referred to as “suspects?”
If torture in general, and waterboarding specifically, are effective intelligence gathering tools, why aren’t these torture victims currently acknowledged as “terrorists?” Or al-Queda? Or bombers? Or murderers?
How can they possibly still be described as “suspects?” Should not the waterboard torture of “at least three” human beings have yielded the C.I.A. officers with a less, nonspecific category, in which to place them, than “suspects?”
Even should you choose to set aside morality - innate or socially driven, ethics, and humanity - how could such an inefficacious technique become socially and nationally acceptable?
3. How do we quantify “at least three” human beings? Thirty? Three hundred? Three thousand? Thirty thousand? Three hundred thousand? Logically, don’t all these quantitative values qualify as possible equivalents of “at least three?”
4. Is there a global or national definition of “high-level” terrorism? What is it? What is the standard by which we measure low-level, mid-level, and high-level terrorism?
I surfed the web looking for a lucid definition of this term. I could not find one. I did find that Norm Chomsky used a definition of terrorism from a U.S. Army manual describing it as, "the calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, to inculcate fear; intended to coerce, or to intimidate governments, or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." Chomsky used this definition to support his argument that the major sources of inter-national terrorism are the world's major powers – championed and led by the United States.
If we apply the U.S. Army manual definition of terrorism to life today in the United States, couldn't what the Bush-led government has done, and is still doing, qualify as terrorizing American society?
In his book "Inside Terrorism" Bruce Hoffman wrote in Chapter One: Defining Terrorism, that, “On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. A word with intrinsically negative connotations it is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' quoting Brian Jenkins, "thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; ...if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.’ ...the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned.”
How can this country contemplate the nomination of any Attorney General prospect, who refuses to declare waterboarding illegal or prosecute any and all involved in these illegal actions, regardless of their rank, title, office or wealth?
How can the citizenry of this society express anything but outrage and revulsion at the perpetration of torture by government decree; compounded by the sanctioning and championing of these crimes by those sworn to represent us, and our constitution – Presidents, Attorney Generals, Senators, and Representatives all?
What I find most disturbing about the current debate concerning the issues of defining, legitimizing, criminalizing, sanctioning, or prosecuting acts of torture, is how can we, the society of citizens opposed to torture, affect change within our government, so that it reflects the true moral conscience of humanity.
I am troubled by more than a few aspects reported in Scott Shane’s November 1, 2007, New York Times article “Nominee’s Stand May Avoid Tangle of Torture Cases”
1. Who are the “legal experts” explaining the Central Intelligence Agency officers’ use of the waterboarding torture practice as “harsh interrogation practice?”
2. Since it is accepted and declared by government officials, that in 2002 and 2003, C.I.A. officers used waterboarding in “questioning” “at least three” high-level terrorism suspects:
a.) Why is it that in 2007, the torture victims are still referred to as “suspects?”
If torture in general, and waterboarding specifically, are effective intelligence gathering tools, why aren’t these torture victims currently acknowledged as “terrorists?” Or al-Queda? Or bombers? Or murderers?
How can they possibly still be described as “suspects?” Should not the waterboard torture of “at least three” human beings have yielded the C.I.A. officers with a less, nonspecific category, in which to place them, than “suspects?”
Even should you choose to set aside morality - innate or socially driven, ethics, and humanity - how could such an inefficacious technique become socially and nationally acceptable?
3. How do we quantify “at least three” human beings? Thirty? Three hundred? Three thousand? Thirty thousand? Three hundred thousand? Logically, don’t all these quantitative values qualify as possible equivalents of “at least three?”
4. Is there a global or national definition of “high-level” terrorism? What is it? What is the standard by which we measure low-level, mid-level, and high-level terrorism?
I surfed the web looking for a lucid definition of this term. I could not find one. I did find that Norm Chomsky used a definition of terrorism from a U.S. Army manual describing it as, "the calculated use of violence, or the threat of violence, to inculcate fear; intended to coerce, or to intimidate governments, or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." Chomsky used this definition to support his argument that the major sources of inter-national terrorism are the world's major powers – championed and led by the United States.
If we apply the U.S. Army manual definition of terrorism to life today in the United States, couldn't what the Bush-led government has done, and is still doing, qualify as terrorizing American society?
In his book "Inside Terrorism" Bruce Hoffman wrote in Chapter One: Defining Terrorism, that, “On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. A word with intrinsically negative connotations it is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' quoting Brian Jenkins, "thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; ...if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.’ ...the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned.”
How can this country contemplate the nomination of any Attorney General prospect, who refuses to declare waterboarding illegal or prosecute any and all involved in these illegal actions, regardless of their rank, title, office or wealth?
How can the citizenry of this society express anything but outrage and revulsion at the perpetration of torture by government decree; compounded by the sanctioning and championing of these crimes by those sworn to represent us, and our constitution – Presidents, Attorney Generals, Senators, and Representatives all?
What I find most disturbing about the current debate concerning the issues of defining, legitimizing, criminalizing, sanctioning, or prosecuting acts of torture, is how can we, the society of citizens opposed to torture, affect change within our government, so that it reflects the true moral conscience of humanity.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Mohr report & Government Intimidation - personal reflections
Lively class again today - thanks! Looking forward to fun of Nature vs. Nurture, et al.
I decided to look at Lt. Colonel Jack Mohr. The last writing attributed to him was in 2001, he was born in Chicago, IL., January 1st, 1916, I didn't find the date of his passing. The link listed above leads to his site. I was stunned by the volume of writings that I would consider bigoted and intolerant in the extreme. Thought you guys might want to peek for yourselves. Here's a few tidbits about the man himself that I pulled from that site.
In November 1948 prewar Korea, Mohr was captured during an abortive coup attempt against president Sigmun Rhee. - (Isn't attempting to assainate another country's president and overthrow their government a "terrorist act?"
He was tried by a Communist People's Court and sentenced to be shot by a Red firing squad. (Color bigot!)
He holds the record for the most number of consecutive days on the front line combat duty, (276) from July 12, 1950 to May 5, 1951. North Korean was offering a reward of $250,000 in gold, for his capture "dead or alive."
In 1951, Mohr worked with American POWs returning from North Korea.
He wrote and taught the first lessons in the Military Code of Conduct at Fort Devens, Mass. (a bit incongruous with his terrorist/assain/coup activities?)
He was a well-known fundamental Baptist evangelist; for twelve years, he was in the American opinion speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society. He was known for his outspoken stand against liberalism and compromise in politics and religion.
Did an in-depth study into Judaism and the Anglo-Israel-Identity Movement.
He has suffered much harassment from government agencies such as the I.R.S. for warning against the dangers posed by Zionism in our government and the Christian church.
Published a Quarterly Intelligence Report - gives insight into things not revealed by the media. He is the author of 23 books and has an honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree from Saxon University, and earned degrees in Doctor of Letters, and Master of Theology.
Col. Mohr has been a tireless patriot and Christian, faithful in preaching the truth, regardless of the cost. He has suffered financially as a result of his faithful witness; yet he continues on undaunted. Please pray for Col. Mohr, that God would continue to uphold him and bless him. Should God lead you to send a cash offering to Col. Mohr, his address is listed below.
(Since he and his wife have passed away, I'm not sure what benefit God sees in sending your cash to the deceased - I thought money had no value in heaven or hell. - If it is an oversight of the website, it has been an oversight of many years duration.)
Another note of interest - whoever is maintaining the site has an interesting take on how to best employ the english language.
DKJ mentioned reasons for government intimidation tactics, like wire-tapping. I too think it makes the public reluctant to speak out in opposition to those in postions of power. After I became aware of the computer programs the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security types had in play, to "red-flag" key words, phrases, etc., I did experience enough reluctance to pause and reflect on the possible negative consequences, and wisdom of continuing my cyberspace environmental activist activities.
After a period of uncomfortable reflection I realized there was a certain freedom that comes with assuming I had already been "red-flagged." I had previously sent off a number of email petitions addressed directly to G.W., asking him not to open the Tsongas to resource exploitation, same with Artic drilling, also on national lands, global warming, etc.; and then there were those 2 petitions that went off to Jeb Bush in Florida, asking him to undo the raise in boat speeds he had allowed, that led to an increase in deaths, maiming, and orphaning even more endangered manatees. I had done all this, and academic internet research - and I hadn't been hauled off - so I figured they had used some formulaic method to determine that I was not a "threat" to government security. Now I am less concerned, but still aware of the potential for uninvited eyes watching over the pathways of my exploration.
I decided to look at Lt. Colonel Jack Mohr. The last writing attributed to him was in 2001, he was born in Chicago, IL., January 1st, 1916, I didn't find the date of his passing. The link listed above leads to his site. I was stunned by the volume of writings that I would consider bigoted and intolerant in the extreme. Thought you guys might want to peek for yourselves. Here's a few tidbits about the man himself that I pulled from that site.
In November 1948 prewar Korea, Mohr was captured during an abortive coup attempt against president Sigmun Rhee. - (Isn't attempting to assainate another country's president and overthrow their government a "terrorist act?"
He was tried by a Communist People's Court and sentenced to be shot by a Red firing squad. (Color bigot!)
He holds the record for the most number of consecutive days on the front line combat duty, (276) from July 12, 1950 to May 5, 1951. North Korean was offering a reward of $250,000 in gold, for his capture "dead or alive."
In 1951, Mohr worked with American POWs returning from North Korea.
He wrote and taught the first lessons in the Military Code of Conduct at Fort Devens, Mass. (a bit incongruous with his terrorist/assain/coup activities?)
He was a well-known fundamental Baptist evangelist; for twelve years, he was in the American opinion speaker's Bureau of the John Birch Society. He was known for his outspoken stand against liberalism and compromise in politics and religion.
Did an in-depth study into Judaism and the Anglo-Israel-Identity Movement.
He has suffered much harassment from government agencies such as the I.R.S. for warning against the dangers posed by Zionism in our government and the Christian church.
Published a Quarterly Intelligence Report - gives insight into things not revealed by the media. He is the author of 23 books and has an honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree from Saxon University, and earned degrees in Doctor of Letters, and Master of Theology.
Col. Mohr has been a tireless patriot and Christian, faithful in preaching the truth, regardless of the cost. He has suffered financially as a result of his faithful witness; yet he continues on undaunted. Please pray for Col. Mohr, that God would continue to uphold him and bless him. Should God lead you to send a cash offering to Col. Mohr, his address is listed below.
(Since he and his wife have passed away, I'm not sure what benefit God sees in sending your cash to the deceased - I thought money had no value in heaven or hell. - If it is an oversight of the website, it has been an oversight of many years duration.)
Another note of interest - whoever is maintaining the site has an interesting take on how to best employ the english language.
DKJ mentioned reasons for government intimidation tactics, like wire-tapping. I too think it makes the public reluctant to speak out in opposition to those in postions of power. After I became aware of the computer programs the FBI, CIA, and Homeland Security types had in play, to "red-flag" key words, phrases, etc., I did experience enough reluctance to pause and reflect on the possible negative consequences, and wisdom of continuing my cyberspace environmental activist activities.
After a period of uncomfortable reflection I realized there was a certain freedom that comes with assuming I had already been "red-flagged." I had previously sent off a number of email petitions addressed directly to G.W., asking him not to open the Tsongas to resource exploitation, same with Artic drilling, also on national lands, global warming, etc.; and then there were those 2 petitions that went off to Jeb Bush in Florida, asking him to undo the raise in boat speeds he had allowed, that led to an increase in deaths, maiming, and orphaning even more endangered manatees. I had done all this, and academic internet research - and I hadn't been hauled off - so I figured they had used some formulaic method to determine that I was not a "threat" to government security. Now I am less concerned, but still aware of the potential for uninvited eyes watching over the pathways of my exploration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)