I run into this concept all the time and I find it very juvenile of people. Essentially, each person has a set of lenses through which they see the world - these lenses can come from divine sources, such as the Spirit of Christ, which I believe we are all born with and commonly call a conscious. Other influences are the religion we adhere to, our family, friends, societal expectations and so on.
The culmination of these lenses build our "paradigm". In other words, the way that we are predisposed to see the world. We have a set of axioms that are a part of who we are and are almost incapable of challenging them until we meet someone of a different paradigm.
Is this Bad?
This is not inherently bad, some of these lenses help facilitate our accomplishments - consider the difference in what an expert analyst and a college intern will see when they are handed the same set of information.
This can also be represented if I were to show my Father and a high schooler a math program. My Father would probably reach for a pencil and paper whereas the high schooler would probably grab his tablet. Neither approach is wrong, but it is the learned view in life, older generations relied on gained knowledge to solve problems whereas younger generations are more focused on the tools that will solve it.
They can also hinder our abilities, however. A Captain I trained under in the Marine Corps had a great way of expressing this when he was teaching us to learn how to think of indirect weapon usage as opposed to direct fire weapons. He taught us that people go to what they know in times of need. So, if you first learned to count on your toes - you would think in "toes" when you needed to work through a complicated math problem.
In the military, this was presented by people thinking of using their rifle to kill the enemy. The problem with this is that as a direct fire weapon, the rifle is limited in the ability to have impact on all enemies. It is, however, incredibly effective at suppressing them to a contained area so that you can then lob indirect fire - either by getting close enough to toss a grenade or leveraging something like mortars - which have a much higher lethality rating. Most people see movies and shows that teach the usage of rifles and pistols as the leading tool used in combat, this constricts their ability to imagine the usage of all tools available to them in life. It takes severe training to shift this paradigm and it is something that not all can grasp even then.
Some people are so far ingrained with their paradigms that the only way they can respond to a challenge to it is rage. We see this with people blindly attacking people who think differently than them in politics or religion. The emotional dependency on what the defined "reality" for the person is beyond their capacity to process and they turn to carnal reactions of fight or flight.
So, is it bad? Not always. I think the issue is when we lack the mental dexterity to accept the fact that there are other views than ours and the fact that our view could be wrong. We need to be sufficiently self aware so that we can at least accept the possibility of other view points.
Danger Points:
When I was 25, I sat in a room with several hundred, newly minted Marine second lieutenants so that wizened colonel could address us as we commenced some of the most rigorous training most of us would ever go through. This man was a giant among men, not in his stature, but in his control of himself. The type of man all men immediately notice as one to listen too.
His opening remarks shattered my world - I have never viewed the world the same. He told us that from since before we were born, there were men that had been studying and training to find ways to kill us and our way of life. We had crossed the threshold to stay that tide - we may only be in our 20's but there was no excuse to not have a 3,000 year old mind. In order to keep our Marines safe, we needed to devote our time in energy to study our enemy's as well as our capabilities.
I think about the people that believe that by being friendly to terrorists they will stop their onslaught - those that think we can reason with them. They refuse to acknowledge that for a terrorist to negotiate with us is for the terrorist to reject his core beliefs. This assumes that they have the same value of human life and abhorrence of war we do as well.
There are also dangers closer to home, such as girls that feel it is fine to jog at night, alone with headphones on preventing them from hearing their surroundings - this ignores the fact that there are predators seeking them out. What about parents not controlling a child's access to the internet?
I can already hear the shrill screams accusing me of "victim blaming" but the truth is, we must accept that there are dangers in life and act accordingly. For instance, if I were to walk into a BLM rally and yell "All Lives Matter!", I would end up in a hospital. Does this make it acceptable for the shrieking terrorist of the BLM to assault me? Of course not, but it also doesn't make me any less stupid for doing it.
Many times, because we live in a stable society, we fall for the idiotic idea that we as a people are civilized. This is ludicrous as it would require the genetic inheritance of moral principles. All one needs to do is watch what happens in times of chaos to see the truth of what we really are. Many (if not most) people are only decent because their environment allows it.
Beyond this, how many people have now refuted the existence of evil by denying the fact that there is a right and wrong choice in life. People are now accused of being bigoted for adhering to traditional religious views as society moves to moral relativity. Just as there have been mortal men studying to kill us and our way of life since before we were born - there is a force of evil that seeks to crush our happiness and has since before we measured time.
We must accept that not all people desire what is good for humanity. If we do not, we will lose all progression society has achieved by the lurid call of moral relativity.
So what?
Paradigms have always been around and they always will. I think the most important thing I can do as a husband and a father is simply seek awareness and support the differing of opinions within my home.
My wife and I discuss politics and moral points often, we do not always agree on them. I find myself respecting my wife all the more as she is able to refute my views and defend her own. We have started sharing our simpler opinions with our children so that they can begin making their own choices. We reinforce that it is okay to have different views, so long as we still treat each other nicely and with respect.
As young as our kids are, I think they are getting it. I hope they do as compromise will be a significant requirement in our society as the morals degrade further. We, the religious members of society, will have to cede certain freedoms in order to retain our core beliefs and freedoms. But this all begins with the acceptance of the fact that not all view the world as we do. Patient tolerance must be learned by both sides if we as a society is to support differing cultures.
If we can learn to do this, we can learn to accept difference in paradigms and rise above our carnal instinct to destroy and avoid that which is different. I don't know what all the future holds, but I hope my children will be able to function in society - freely as children of God and Christ without fear of repercussion. This cannot happen unless my generation preserves the decency of tolerance framed in our Constitution with the First Amendment and also teach them to be accepting of others.
The culmination of these lenses build our "paradigm". In other words, the way that we are predisposed to see the world. We have a set of axioms that are a part of who we are and are almost incapable of challenging them until we meet someone of a different paradigm.
Is this Bad?
This is not inherently bad, some of these lenses help facilitate our accomplishments - consider the difference in what an expert analyst and a college intern will see when they are handed the same set of information.
This can also be represented if I were to show my Father and a high schooler a math program. My Father would probably reach for a pencil and paper whereas the high schooler would probably grab his tablet. Neither approach is wrong, but it is the learned view in life, older generations relied on gained knowledge to solve problems whereas younger generations are more focused on the tools that will solve it.
They can also hinder our abilities, however. A Captain I trained under in the Marine Corps had a great way of expressing this when he was teaching us to learn how to think of indirect weapon usage as opposed to direct fire weapons. He taught us that people go to what they know in times of need. So, if you first learned to count on your toes - you would think in "toes" when you needed to work through a complicated math problem.
In the military, this was presented by people thinking of using their rifle to kill the enemy. The problem with this is that as a direct fire weapon, the rifle is limited in the ability to have impact on all enemies. It is, however, incredibly effective at suppressing them to a contained area so that you can then lob indirect fire - either by getting close enough to toss a grenade or leveraging something like mortars - which have a much higher lethality rating. Most people see movies and shows that teach the usage of rifles and pistols as the leading tool used in combat, this constricts their ability to imagine the usage of all tools available to them in life. It takes severe training to shift this paradigm and it is something that not all can grasp even then.
Some people are so far ingrained with their paradigms that the only way they can respond to a challenge to it is rage. We see this with people blindly attacking people who think differently than them in politics or religion. The emotional dependency on what the defined "reality" for the person is beyond their capacity to process and they turn to carnal reactions of fight or flight.
So, is it bad? Not always. I think the issue is when we lack the mental dexterity to accept the fact that there are other views than ours and the fact that our view could be wrong. We need to be sufficiently self aware so that we can at least accept the possibility of other view points.
Danger Points:
When I was 25, I sat in a room with several hundred, newly minted Marine second lieutenants so that wizened colonel could address us as we commenced some of the most rigorous training most of us would ever go through. This man was a giant among men, not in his stature, but in his control of himself. The type of man all men immediately notice as one to listen too.
His opening remarks shattered my world - I have never viewed the world the same. He told us that from since before we were born, there were men that had been studying and training to find ways to kill us and our way of life. We had crossed the threshold to stay that tide - we may only be in our 20's but there was no excuse to not have a 3,000 year old mind. In order to keep our Marines safe, we needed to devote our time in energy to study our enemy's as well as our capabilities.
I think about the people that believe that by being friendly to terrorists they will stop their onslaught - those that think we can reason with them. They refuse to acknowledge that for a terrorist to negotiate with us is for the terrorist to reject his core beliefs. This assumes that they have the same value of human life and abhorrence of war we do as well.
There are also dangers closer to home, such as girls that feel it is fine to jog at night, alone with headphones on preventing them from hearing their surroundings - this ignores the fact that there are predators seeking them out. What about parents not controlling a child's access to the internet?
I can already hear the shrill screams accusing me of "victim blaming" but the truth is, we must accept that there are dangers in life and act accordingly. For instance, if I were to walk into a BLM rally and yell "All Lives Matter!", I would end up in a hospital. Does this make it acceptable for the shrieking terrorist of the BLM to assault me? Of course not, but it also doesn't make me any less stupid for doing it.
Many times, because we live in a stable society, we fall for the idiotic idea that we as a people are civilized. This is ludicrous as it would require the genetic inheritance of moral principles. All one needs to do is watch what happens in times of chaos to see the truth of what we really are. Many (if not most) people are only decent because their environment allows it.
Beyond this, how many people have now refuted the existence of evil by denying the fact that there is a right and wrong choice in life. People are now accused of being bigoted for adhering to traditional religious views as society moves to moral relativity. Just as there have been mortal men studying to kill us and our way of life since before we were born - there is a force of evil that seeks to crush our happiness and has since before we measured time.
We must accept that not all people desire what is good for humanity. If we do not, we will lose all progression society has achieved by the lurid call of moral relativity.
So what?
Paradigms have always been around and they always will. I think the most important thing I can do as a husband and a father is simply seek awareness and support the differing of opinions within my home.
My wife and I discuss politics and moral points often, we do not always agree on them. I find myself respecting my wife all the more as she is able to refute my views and defend her own. We have started sharing our simpler opinions with our children so that they can begin making their own choices. We reinforce that it is okay to have different views, so long as we still treat each other nicely and with respect.
As young as our kids are, I think they are getting it. I hope they do as compromise will be a significant requirement in our society as the morals degrade further. We, the religious members of society, will have to cede certain freedoms in order to retain our core beliefs and freedoms. But this all begins with the acceptance of the fact that not all view the world as we do. Patient tolerance must be learned by both sides if we as a society is to support differing cultures.
If we can learn to do this, we can learn to accept difference in paradigms and rise above our carnal instinct to destroy and avoid that which is different. I don't know what all the future holds, but I hope my children will be able to function in society - freely as children of God and Christ without fear of repercussion. This cannot happen unless my generation preserves the decency of tolerance framed in our Constitution with the First Amendment and also teach them to be accepting of others.
No comments:
Post a Comment