« 2006-03 | HomePage | 2006-07 »
04 April 2006
A Priori General Revelation
We rely greatly on specific revelation to determine aspects of God's character, and rightfully so. Even so, it is interesting to explore what we can determine about His character through only general revelation. We usually assume that we can determine that He exists and is good, but further proofs are possible, and can establish the logical necessity of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
Trinity
1) One cannot create that which is not already inside them.
- The creative act is fundamentally an act of self-expression on the external. In order for an artist to create, or even duplicate, they must synthesize data, make it a part of themselves before they can recreate it.
2) God created all things.
- A Creator Deity is logically inescapable, whether by causality or by any other proof. Taking this as given, such a Being would be the ultimate cause of all things, and their essences originate with Him. (From where else would they come?)
3) Relationships exist.
- Relationships exist, and there is no reason for them to have to. Biology, human society, math, all aspects of existence occur in relation. Humans could exist as a hive entity, a solitary entity, atomistic entities or not at all just as easily.
4a) Therefore, relationships exist as a self-expression of God.
4b) God, then, must exist in relationship.
- Relationship must spring from the Creator, and must have its roots in Him. It must be a part of Him for Him to express it in His creation.
5) God existed before all things.
- The first cause/unmoved mover is by definition first, before all other things if causality is temporal.
6) Therefore, God exists in relationship to Himself.
- God's relational existence must first be introspective, for there is no one else initially to have a relationship with. The Trinitarian model is the only one in contemporary religion that accommodates this while still recognizing the differentiation of Creator and creation, and explains the creative act.
Corollary: Creation is the building of new relationships, or a desire to extend relationships. Only a relational God has a real impetus toward creation.
Incarnation
1a) A Transcendent, Creator Entity [God] is not logistically constrained.
- If a Creator wants something, He will make reality to suit those wishes. If He is restrained by something other than sheer logical constraints, He would have made reality differently.
1b) God will then do whatever He wants to the highest degree logically possible.
- A Creator will not run out of money, or time, or effort. If He wants to do something, He will do it completely. He is only bound by His own nature, and hence truth.
2) God has a desire to know and be known by humanity.
- Whether through prophets or scriptures (not a priori), or through His act of creation, God has shown an interest in a relationship with humanity.
3a) The finite can only understand the infinite insofar as the infinite reveals itself to the finite.
- The 'flatland' example of transcendence, we cannot grasp things beyond our plane of existence, because we have no basis/definition for relation. It has to 'come down' to us, because we can't 'come up' to it.
3b) The most complete understanding possible for the finite of the infinite is for the infinite to become finite yet still remain infinite.
- If the infinite were to wrap itself in the finite, the finite would be able to grasp the infinite. At least to the extent necessary for relationship. There is no higher level of understanding necessary or possible for the finite.
4) Therefore, God will become man in order to be known by man.
- It takes God to wrap himself in flesh for a mind of flesh to wrap itself around God. If God wants to know and be known by man, then He will at some point become man. Therefore, the incarnation off Christ is logically inescapable, even without sin.
08:25 Posted in Boring Theories (Humanities) | Permalink | Comments (1) | Email this
02 April 2006
Reconstructive Analysis
- Problem: Deconstuctivism seeks to demythologize the world by taking the things presented as truth and looking to the filters, lenses and perspectives through which the truth is told. If history becomes myth, and myth becomes legend, can we really trust the concept of history, or any methodology that attempts an objective accounting of events? And so deconstructivism picks apart whatever cultural myths are presented as history. While injecting a needed dose of humility into our pursuit of truth, deconstructivism is still a belief without a core. The unspoken core tenet of deconstructivism is that, like an onion, once you peel back all the layers of a myth, you are left with nothing. This runs into direct conflict with Aquinas's ideas on essence. Aquinas wins, through the idea of self-evident truth... the fact that the discussion exists points to the existence of objective explorable reality. This does not mean that we should totally discard all of deconstructivism. Surely, we can salvage the idea of transformation of fallen myths and projections of reality into their true form. Turning this idea away from nihilism and toward truth, we change the basic assumptions. Rather than assuming everything is really about nothing, and hence to be discarded, we turn to the assumption of Aquinas, assuming that if anything has existence, then on some level it must incorporate some truth, and is hence redeemable. Instead of an onion, we have a softball, with a true core. Turning to Lewis and Tolkien, we are reminded that the reason that any deep story has power is because it draws from the Deep Magic. All myths are on some level a retelling of the One True Myth. Hence, if anything exists, it contains an element of Truth, and all truth is God's Truth. Applying the deconstrctivist concept of transformation, reversing our myths through their iterative process, we can find them all pointing back to God. We then find deconstructivism with a core, a philosophy which recognizes the self- deception of the world yet draws us toward redemption. Let's call this transformation into a true form, the recovery of the kernel of Truth from anything reconstructive analysis, or reconstructivism.
'To an unknown God'. Speaking to the Greeks, Paul used this place, where the ice was the most thin, to carve through the self-deception of the Greeks. He recognized the hunger for God all men have in their hearts, and found the point where their minds and hearts were least far from the truth to introduce Truth. He identified the kernel of Truth, recovered it, and proceeded to build upon it.
GK Chesterton tells us the problem with this world is a bunch of Christian morals run amok. Without a framework, all these things run rampant and self-destructive, like bleed air without ducting. Yet still, in order for something to exist, it still must be rooted in God.
- Theory: There is no such thing as a pure lie. A pure lie would simply cease to exist. In order to exist, a lie must have some truth in it. That truth can be reclaimed, and used to point toward the One Truth. (Note: Pure evil cannot exist, as evil is a corruption of the good. Pure evil would simply cease to exist, as we understand existence... Paul teaches of the progression between sin and death.) Any belief, no matter how incorrect, must have Truth at its heart. To take the most extreme example, consider 'God is evil.' Taking this apart, 'God is [true] the negation of [lie] good [truth.] Alternately, 'NOT God is good.' This most false statement has at its core an affirmation of the Truth of God, even in its attempted negation. One might argue that this logic can be just as easily reversed; proving that all is evil, and hence invalid. Notice that the affirmative formulation is possible without the negative, but the opposite is not true. As Aquinas teaches, it is possible to imagine a world without sin, but a world only of sin would not exist in any meaningful way, and hence cannot be discussed. You can have elves without orcs, but no orcs without elves. Most examples from real life are more complex and shaded than our example. One can salvage the good from a belief, and lead its adherents to Truth. Beliefs can be purified just as people can be redeemed.
- Corollary: Original True Myth spawns all other beliefs, good or bad. Can restore the corrupted myth: the original, lost truth can be recovered, the embers can spark again if found and breathed upon.
- Corollary: same is true for people: there is something that desires God and holiness, even if internally irredeemable and totally corrupt. The Spirit must breathe over these embers to bring us back. In doing so, the embers consume the whole and make it new again.
- Example: Yin-Yang.
Progression:
Corrupt belief
... (balance/dualism/conflict btw opposites makes reality)
<- [from] <-
Linkages
... (the existence of contradiction points to transcendence)
-> [back to] ->
Source/Truth
... (God creates with the synchronization of opposites)
... (God of Wrath: God of Love;
Fully Man: Fully God;
'and He walks with me’:’ Dark is His path on the wings of the storm')
Recovery:
To recover, use Yin-Yang to explain the duality of God, and further explain the resolution of duality. Perfection is found in the total synchronization of wrath and love. Sin and evil is falling short of this perfection, not an aspect of it. Hence, evil is a misunderstanding/misapprehension of purpose, willful as it may be. (Hence, Buddhism gets CFD (correct for data) on this point.)
Example:
Stephen, who loved those who hated him, was an example of perfect contradiction, perfect dualism. To make war with love, to fight with love as a weapon, this is the embodiment of contradiction. Not simply a mishmash juxtaposition of opposites, but a synchronicity, a reconciliation, a harmony in chaos. To use the foolish to shame the wise (1 Cor,) for God to serve as a slave, for Him to conquer death by death, this is perfect contradiction. To do less is sin, a willful misapprehension of purpose.
- Corollary: Greek Mythology
The Greek gods are undoubtedly very pagan. Yet no story, no matter how false, can be entirely original. Greek mythology must then be a flawed and twisted retelling of the One Story. It is as a revisionist retelling of the One Story from the viewpoint of the powers and principalities. What then, besides themes, can be salvaged?
The clash between the Olympians and the Titans is where we will focus our analysis. The Olympians were a lower order of creation than the Titans, yet left their place and instead overthrew the Titans. In overthrowing the Titans, the Olympians then faced humanity, which they generally looked upon with disdain. They ensured the fealty of humanity through fear, not through love. Yet even more so, they cemented their hold on power with humanity through the fear of the Titans. As petty, cruel and hateful as the Olympians were, they sold themselves as infinitely better than the Titans, and hence worthy of the worship of humanity. Yet even more so, the ashes of the Titans were spread throughout humanity, making humanity the bearers of the essence of the Titans, and the Olympians disdained humanity all the more so for that, although it was retold to humanity as a mockery of the Titans at the hands of the Olympians.
If I saw things through the eyes of the powers and principalities, I would find this a remarkably more comfortable retelling of the story of origins than the one that actually occurred. Yet, even twisted and corrupted, this story still follows the template of the One Story, for evil cannot create, but can only destroy.
First, the rebellion of the Olympians. Surely the fallen princes would look upon the Creator as oppressive to all wills other than His own. Claiming that they had overthrown the Creator, claiming that God was dead, surely that would be a comforting claim to the losers of the first war of heaven. Yet the rebellion was unmistakable. Presenting the oppression of the powers and principalities as light in comparison to God's oppression is another old trick. The idea of the intermarriage of the 'gods' and humanity is also not new, given the Watcher tradition. The idea of the image of the Creator being poured upon humanity is also inescapable. Yet to the powers, the idea of the forced relocation of God's essence to humanity as a mockery is surely a more pleasant retelling of God's creation of man in His Image, than creation of man higher than the angels. Although the retelling is warped and flawed, and told from a resentful and lying tongue, the essence of the One Story is still inescapable. Recapturing it would be a harder matter, though.
22:30 Posted in Boring Theories (Humanities) | Permalink | Comments (1) | Email this
01 April 2006
Counter-Marginalization Sequencing
- How Marginalization Happens
Marginalization is a specific type of polarization. While polarization splits everyone into two camps, marginalization is where one of the camps is able to overpower the other to such an extent that the minority voices are silenced. Therefore, it is often rational for those in the majority, especially those toward the extremes, to pursue polarization, which leads to marginalization. This is accomplished by demonizing the other side, which is usually reciprocated. The fundamental aspect of polarization is that the middle goes away, and joins one or the other side, depending on what side of the breakpoint they are on. If neither side is dominant, then it goes from normal distribution to split bimodal distrib, and average doesn’t change. During marg, goes from skewed normal (1) to skewed bimodal w middle (2) to split maj/min (3) and average does change (teal to green on 3). Especially true is minority is disempowered (teal to dark blue on 3). Since the middle is totally lost, no one can stay there (maj says 'you’re one of those' but min doesn’t accept you.) No social networks to be Built. (Refer to gray networks (although not mathematical.) Therefore breakpoint, therefore one has to choose a side if they want to have any friends. The breakpoint is a weighted average of the two means. Interesting effect: some people will actually gravitate toward the marginalized viewpoint.
(1)
Black: Population distribution, Green: Average, Grey: Social Networks
(2)
Same, Blue: Maj Mean, Red: Min Mean
(3)
Same, Silver: Old Mean, Blue arrow: movement to maj, Red arrow: movement to min, Purple: Breakpoint, Teal: New Avg., Dk. Blue:
- Normal Strategizing
Normal strategizing picks up the 'low hanging fruit,' that is they work to win over those with viewpoints closest to their own. By winning them over, you gain more power in your coalition and gain the ability to overpower other coalition. One does this by 'reaching out' just beyond one's own boundaries. In doing so, one wins over the moderates. Therefore, this strategy is highly dependent on the middle (which is why almost all elections focus on the moderates). Under marginalization, this simply doesn’t work. There is no middle to reach out to; it’s like grasping for air. In graph (4) we can see how this strategy works normally (maroon), but fails under marg (red.) Even more so, the intermediate shifts, (small moderations) that happen when one changes their viewpoint cant happen, and total instantaneous conversion, the only remaining path, is much rarer. The social capital loss is prohibitive, transitional forms are not possible. In graph (5), we can see how the first person that could be reached has moved very far because of the marg. Additionally, there viewpoint under marg if they did come over, would be much further along the spectrum than if there were no marg.
(4)
Same; Crimson: trad. reaching out gains w/o marg.; Red: same w/ marg. (rapidly diminishing returns. Modeling curves, not lines, no motion. Next graph opposite.
(5)
Same; Dk. Bl: First person that can be brought over; Crim: where they would need to be brought to; Yellow: their position w/o marg; Green: where they would have to be brought to w/o marg.; Lt. Bl: Delta req'd w/o marg; Red: Delta req'd w/ marg.
- Strategizing under marginalization
It is always more effective to make use of extant forces rather than to fight against them. Looking to marginalization, one sees a significant latent force pushing to the center (people's viewpoints w/o marg). If one can unleash that force, they will have a much greater effect than by grasping for the middle (fighting these forces). When there is no movement, it is easy to maintain marg (quash any questioning, e.g. Shouting down those who question party line). If there is significant movement, then more energy is required, spirals out of control quickly [implications for artificial controls, e.g. In dictatorship, in prescribed viewpoints, etc.] Is more effective to subvert controls than to fight them when fighting under marginalization. Doing so can cause a cascade failure in the marginalization. (Different from open oppression, most of the marginalizers don’t see or don’t want to see the marginalization, so openly confronting the marg (as in a open revolution which would imply a much different original pop distrib) is not possible.) The movement will have several effects. The first-order effects will be a movement of the maj distrib toward the center (blk to gray), which will then move the mean viewpoint closer to the center (grn to teal), which is beneficial. This will then have a second-order effect on the breakpoint (as it is a weighted average of the groups, and the mean for the first group moved, which will move the breakpoint closer to the maj viewpoint (pnk to purple). This will then cause a shift of some people to the min viewpoint (grey), as their non-marg viewpoints are now on the min side of the breakpoint (will take some time, due to soc cap/ntwks). This will also moderate the min groups viewpoints. The system is now at a new equilibrium, but repeating the process is now easier, as both groups have moderated, and there is less soc cap loss to bridge the gap than there was originally. Realistically, due to the time lag, there will be several cycles occurring at once, with first order and second order effects intermixed. This indirect course of action will then result in more people coming to one's side than the direct approach. This is not to say to abandon the direct approach, for without the direct approach, the min side will be overrun, and there is no ind. app possible. (Chi+Cheng from Sun Tzu, ind off=off, dir off=def, def=def).
Then the question is how to do this. One needs to make moderate viewpoints in the maj acceptable. This is accomplished by engaging in dialogue with the other side. Logically this would fit, as dialogue would logically counteract marg. One needs to target the viewpoint "I don’t agree with them, but I’m not sure I totally agree w/ my side on everything." Through dialogue, and through conversation/engaging the other side productively (and proactively [the marginalizers will not want to start dialogue, but can be shamed into it]), these moderate viewpoints can then be made tenable, and the cascade failure can begin.
(6)
Same; first order effects. Grey=movement (+latent forces), Arrows show shift, darker new lighter old. Crimson bar=new gap, Red bar=old gap.
(7)
Same; second order effects.
12:20 Posted in Boring Theories (Social Sciences) | Permalink | Comments (0) | Email this