Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics, defined, is the art of understanding. This summer I am taking a class on Hermeneutics and studying the work of Hans-Georg Gadamer.

Gadamer penned one of the more famous works on hermeneutics, Truth and Method (1975). It is a classic by all the familiar standards, but because of its claims, it is challenged often. Gadamer is challenged because he challenges the standard thoughts throughout his classic. He begins by challenging the overall notion of hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is, to Gadamer, not a method of understanding as it is to most others, but instead, an attempt to clarify the conditions and environment in which understanding takes place.

The art of understanding is one of those things swept aside by the speed of current culture, but it is the one thing that results in more issues and miscommunications than we care to admit. To Gadamer, understanding is not reproductive as most of the world believes; instead, it is a productive process. Gadamer understands that understanding always involves both our own interpretation and our own perception of the meaning of an object.Gadamer acknowledges that these two elements lead to personal prejudices which Gadamer does not deny, but deems as important. His issue is this: how do we understand the true prejudices by which we truly understand from the false prejudices by which we misunderstand. Notice that Gadamer does not label prejudices negatively or as something to overcome, but accepts them as a natural part of the process of understanding. 

Another important condition to Gadamer in which understanding takes place is temporal distance. Gadamer writes,

"Time is no longer primarily a gulf to be bridged, because it separates, but it is actually the supportive ground of process in which the present is rooted. Hence temporal distance is not something that must be overcome. This was, rather, the naive assumption of historicism, namely that we must set ourselves within the spirit of the age, and think with its ideas and its thoughts, not with our own, and thus advance towards historical objectivity. In fact the important thing is to recognise the distance in time as a positive and productive possibility of understanding. It is not a yawning abyss, but is filled with the continuity of custom and tradition, in the light of which all that is handed down presents itself to us." (Gadamer 1975: 264f.)

For Gadamer, past and present are firmly connected; one does not dominate the other. We tend to dwell in our past. It is the way we are educated and taught... to reach back in our past for information learned in order to make sense and understanding of our present. We like our past because we are comfortable with it, and because we understand it in the same way we first understood it.  We tend to believe that once we understand something that something is something we will understand forever. This is understanding understanding as an event and not as a process. A process is active and moving while an event is static and objective. Reducing understanding to merely an objective event is to miss the art of understanding altogether.

This is just the beginning of this great book, a mere scratch on the surface but for me, the important aspect of his thoughts are his ideas of process. Understanding, to Gadamer, exists inside this ongoing action of process which translated from his native German defaults to the word "play." Understanding is not a static subjective event but an active process; Gadamer writes, "Understanding is not to be thought of so much as an action of one's subjectivity, but as the placing of oneself within a process of tradition, in which past and present are constantly fused." (Gadamer 1975: 258)

There is so much more for me to understand here. How do we understand? Do we really understand anything anymore? I am sure my understanding of true understanding will change as I understand more of Gadamer's work. As people, existing in a world occupied by other people, sometime I get the sense that we just as soon not understand each other. I hope that is not the case. Blessings!

Defining Moments

Life is full of defining moments. Those moments that define us, if you keep count, tend to come in groups. They come in groups for one simple reason - defining moments of life are such monumental parts of our life that they themselves trigger other moments by their shear magnitude.

A dear friend dies, a tragic car accident occurs, a promotion is received, marriage, children... these are all defining moments of life that most likely prompted some other defining moment of life for one reason... defining moments are triggers that lead to other defining moments.They are changes that occur in our lives, shifting us from one path onto another.

Defining moments in life are rarely our actions alone. They usually require actions outside of self. These actions can be decisions by others, acts of God, circumstances, recognition, and the list could go on, but the important point is this: they are all decisions involving you about you usually made outside of you. Ultimately, it is my belief that they are all acts of God for I believe He is in complete control. There are those who would disagree and present the issue of evil in the world as an example of why God can not be in control, but then I present the issue of defining moments as a counter example of why God is in control.

A good person trying to do good will not always make every decision that results in good. Does that mean he or she does not have "good" motives in their attempt to do good? How about situations where to do good requires a painful decision? To save the whole body, a limb must be amputated. The amputations will result in much pain, years of discomfort and a change in lifestyle, but in order to save a life - the ultimate good goal - a limb must die. God is very much the same way. He sees the ultimate good and has to allow actions that we deem bad to happen, and sometimes, they must happen to us. How haughty of us to judge God by what is taking place in our life when there is a whole world out there hanging in the balance. Do we really think we are that important that the events of our life merit attention over the billions of other people or the starts in the sky or the energy in the universe? These are our perceptions, and they are rooted in who we are. This issue of perceptions is one that I would like to address in more detail.

We humans perceive everything through our own selfish senses, and today, we perceive more through our eyes than any other sense. This has occurred as a direct result of the shift of culture towards social media. Everything is directed at the eyes today, and the eyes are the most selfish sense of all the senses. What? Think about which sense requires no other contribution. We can hear and feel, and we can smell and taste, but we see in isolation as there is no other sense that can enhance our sight. You can see and hear, but sound does not travel as fast as light. Even thought it is a fraction of a second faster, light is still faster. We have become overly dependent on our eyes, but our eyes our not to be totally trusted. The picture above is an optical illusion. I can ask a question about that picture and you can answer correctly if your perception of that picture is the same as mine. But, if I see a face and your see a person walking we will have two totally different answers and both be right.What will matter most regarding right and wrong is who is asking the question.

Too many of us rush to judgment because of one perception, and never give our other senses time to confirm our one perception. As defining moments happen to us, we will immediately label them and file them.  The older we get the more of these moments we will experience; we must allow time and our other senses an opportunity to make sense of the issue in front of us. Failure to do that will result in an altered perception of your life and a lack of understanding regarding what God is doing in your life. Defining moments do happen in groups. They are life changing triggers leading to a change in life. They are also opportunities afforded us to change. We need not miss any of those opportunities. They will be painful and challenging, but since when is anything worth anything not? Blessings!

One of my favorites cartoons... The Far Side

Watching...

I am learning that observing is better than talking in most instances. I was kind of forced into this new mindset by my circumstances, but I am gaining new insight every day from just observing. Here are some of my observations and the insights gained from them.

On a clear night, the sky, with all of its stars, is one of the most beautiful sights the human eye can see, and it is totally free to anyone interested.

When the wind blows yellow construction tape, its movements are symmetrical. Amazing what you can notice when you take the time.

Trees are one of the most beautiful parts of creation. And, their beauty stands in all situations; whether rain, wind or snow, trees are always beautiful.

The cell phone is the main reason most people do not talk or look at other people. I was writing one morning while enjoying a cup of coffee at a certain establishment and decided to conduct an informal social experiment. I paid close attention to the next five people that walked in the door. All five had cell phones on their person, with three actively engaged in a conversation walking in the door. Two of those three did not stop their conversation when ordering at the counter.

Loyalty is becoming extinct, and so is true friendship. In my conversations with some of my friends and in my observations, friendships these days serve some sort of purpose, and when that purpose is gone so is the friendship. Most common excuse given to not staying in touch... I am really busy. Second most common excuse... I have a lot going on at work and at home right now.

People who are walking a dog will say hi to you before someone who is just walking alone. I do not know if the dog gives the person walking it added security, but they will say hi sooner than someone who is walking alone.

A fire will attract every boy within a mile of the fire. I was trying to burn a stump out this weekend in my yard, and before I knew it, every boy on our street was bringing me wood for that fire.

A bad mood is contagious. If someone in the family is in a bad mood, chances are at least one other person in that family will get that bad mood at some point during the day.

If you want it to rain, plan a labor-intensive project that demands that it not rain. If there is no rain in the forecast, there will be as soon as you start the project.

Grass will grow everywhere except on your lawn. I see grass growing in the cracks of the sidewalk, on the street and in our garden but in certain spots on my lawn... no grass.

Men are less likely to admit being wrong than women. Men will go to the grave first before admitting they are wrong about anything.

People will do things in a group that they would never do alone. It is called the mob mentality, and it has no boundaries.

Well, that is all for now. Watching the world that I live in has been most enjoyable. Stay tuned for more observations! 












 

Old But Still Great: The Sound of Silence

The Ark and the Flood

We heard a great sermon this morning on Noah and his ark. We all have heard this story, but do we really know this story was the question of the morning.

The story we know is a children's story; we all have vivid pictures of the cute little ark rolling with the waves as the animals and an older man with a white beard wave from a window... that is not the story of Genesis.

According to Genesis 7, the story is no children's fairy tale. It is the picture of promise, judgment and salvation. The Lord made a promise, to blot out all that He created except those confined to an ark made by one who was faithful, not perfect but faithful.

The Lord fulfilled His promise by sending water, not just rain but all the water from everywhere, upon the earth. The Lord, through the fulfilling of His promise, brought judgment to those who rebelled from Him, held no reverence of Him and worship others and themselves over Him.

The ark represented salvation for eight who He claimed as His own. It represented the salvation God gave those eight on His own accord. The eight, along with many animals, endured 150 days as Genesis states while the waters prevailed. The waters prevailed over all the mountains and at such heights that the ark never touched even the highest of mountains. And, while the ark endured, Genesis states very clearly that all the flesh died that moved on the earth along with all animals and other living things... everything and everyone died except those He chose to put on the ark. This is the God we worship!

We like to reduce Him down to one of us. We tend to focus on those attributes that allow us to live our comfortable lives the way we want to live them. We forget that those who are truly in Christ rest in the ark, and the ark is not a pleasure palace, by any means. Those days on that ark were not comfortable. Noah and his family did not spend time on the upper deck getting a sweet tan while the Lord protected them and delivered them to a paradise built just for them. No, those days were filled with hard labor as the animals had to be feed and watched. The ark had to be cleaned and swept and washed almost all the time, and during all of this, they still were to take time to worship the God of all as Genesis is clear, clean animals were to be taken on to the ark for sacrifice.

We have taken this story and done to it what we do to God... reduce it to the story that we want to hear; the one that relieves us of our guilt and responsibility. This story is God the way He wants Himself presented. He is not safe for those outside the ark. One last point about the ark... in relation to all things, it is not large enough to house everyone.Its size should point to Jesus and his statement concerning the sheep and the goats. There are many who will claim Him as the Lord, but in the end, He will say to them, I hardly knew you.

Have you ever thought of those who did not end up in the ark? The earth was populated at this time with people just like Noah. People who treated others with respect, who had friends, who worked hard and who tried to do what is right.We tend to think that Noah and his sons were the only moral people on the earth at that time. The scripture does not say that.When the rains came families, nice people, villages... all of these were swept away by the water and perished. Again, what does this say about the God we worship?

What it says to me is that there are a lot of important things in this Christian walk, but there is nothing more important than God's Son, Jesus Christ, and there is no other book that teaches more about His Son than the Bible. I feel strongly that I was meant to hear this sermon today. All that has come down on top of me recently was still for a purpose, and that purpose is for me to hear that God is who He is in His story found only in scripture. He is not found in theology, tradition, or any one denomination. God is found in the place He has chosen to be found - in His Son, Jesus Christ!

The Ark and the Flood is the story of God, His character and His love for His people. Noah, while finding favor with God, was the beneficiary of a loving God choosing to exercise His grace on him. The Ark, floating on the waters, was God's grace to His people all wrapped up in His character, His promises, His judgment and His salvation!  

Good Advice

Existentialism and Christianity

Can one be a Christian and believe in existentialism? We must first define this philosophical theory, but that will be like nailing jello to the wall.

Existentialism is a search for one's existence, and along the way on that search, existentialists have asserted ideas that have become attached to existentialism. Existentialism is usually referred to as a distinct philosophy, but it is impossible to give an exact definition or to even refer to it as unified and identifiable school of thought. There is not a single doctrine on which one "Existentialist" thinker would actually agree with another, and several of those included in the movement have rejected the "Existentialist" label all together.

If we were to define it beyond the search for one's own existence, we might get a majority of those involved in the moment to agree on some of the following:

• Existentialism is a 20th century movement that asserts that God nor absolute truth exist.
  
  
• Existentialism believes in the total autonomy of a person from a world and life view.
  
  
• Existentialism states that the world is absurd, and there is no hope.
  
  
• Existentialism asserts that man is free from imposed moral values.
  
  
• Existentialism asserts that each person is their own authority concerning truth. .
  
  
• Existentialism believes that existence precedes essence.

Existentialists denounce any objectivity as illusory. According to Existentialism, there is no independently existing order or structure on which one could rely for ultimate purposes or guidance. Any honest reflection will reveal, according to most Existentialists, that the universe is unknown, and the experience of nothingness is an inescapable characteristic of all human existence. As Christians, we must reject these notions.

Ralph Harper, in his book, The Existential Experience, reveals that there is indeed a relationship between existentialism and theology. Soren Kierkegaard, a Christian who was labeled as an Existentialist, highlights this fact: to him, existence begins and ends with choices. Existence, to Kierkegaard, involved both the isolation of self and the choice of self, and he maintained that existence is only understood according to the choices we make.

This is an area where I believe we can gain some wisdom from existential thought. Choices do define us but in today's world we do not consider the ramifications of the choices we make beyond our own being. Existentialists would reject this notion because of the extreme importance they place in choice. They believe you are defined by the choices you make even though those choice do not interrelate. Choices do define us and reveal who we are. Scripture teaches us that we will be held accountable for our choices one day. We tend forget this passage, but Revelation chapter 20 has much to say to us:

"Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
(Revelation 20:11-15 ESV)

No, we can not accept that which existentialism presents, but we can applaud their efforts in the honest assessment of life without Christ they offer. There is no hope without Christ and every choice made without Christ is hopeless and without direction. Sadly, we make choices every day that communicate to those around us that there is no hope. Every choice we make that does not consider others beyond our own self is a choice rooted more in the characteristics of existentialism than Christianity. Praise be to God for your salvation that is found only in Jesus Christ and be thankful that He made a choice for you!

Liespotting: Another TED Video

Democracy

Benjamin Levin, in his article, The Educational Requirement of Democracy, defined democracy as that which involves participative processes at the action level. His thought is that democracy is about this idea that people should be involved in making decisions that directly affect them. John Dewey, who I am studying on a regularly basis these days, had much to say about democracy and education.

Dewey attempted to link education with democracy because he believed we prefer democracy because it promotes a better quality of human experience for the maximum number of people. Dewey felt strongly that the traditional school had grown out of a nontraditional social order, and not an order where true democracy reigned supreme; the new school needed to reflect this true democracy. Dewey called his new schools, democratic schools; they were to be schools for all with a broad social environment, broader than anything the child could experience anywhere else. The major ingredient in Dewey's school was the most interesting. Dewey believed that each student must understand objects, events and acts in ways that provide the student the means to participate in society. Dewey calls this "social intelligence."

What does it mean to have social intelligence? I think Levin would say that it has a lot to do with how much authority one has to exercise. Before one can exercise authority one must learn to wade through situations via study, inquiry, debate, discussion and decision. This is democracy at its purest; it is a process that involves conflict and disagreement that leads to agreement and decision. Trustworthy authority is that authority that withstands challenges. Levin writes, "We cannot abolish authority, or give it away, but we can and should create in our institutions the conditions that allow authority to be challenged, and to be taken over by others who are ready to use it well, because it is what is required for a democratic society to operate." This is what builds social intelligence and provides the means to act in ways that are participatory in society. If we do not allow this action to exist in our schools how, then, can we hope to have it prevalent in our society.

If we remove social intelligence from our schools then we produce a culture void of debate, disagreement and conflict. At first glance, some would say this is Utopia; but upon closer examination, this is anything but Utopia. A culture where everyone gets along and no one argues is a culture dominated by one idea, and one where all other ideas are banished. The education we offer our children carries with it our statement on issues like authority. The discipline we use in our schools with our students communicates to them our views on authority and who gets to be involved in the decision making process. Does this mean that we turn over control of our schools to our students? No, and Levin would not advocate such an action either. But, he would say that a good idea is still a good idea whether it comes from a faculty member, a principal, a student or a parent. Levin writes that, "We can start to treat students as community members with a stake in what happens, and as people who can and will learn as they deliberate and act."

In sum, Levin advocates and Dewey would agree that the practice of democracy is tied closely to a school and its program. The decisions we make are made in the deepest parts of our souls. Often, when we are apathetic in regard to a decision we need only look within for the reason why. Levin believes that for a democracy to develop a realistic stance toward the world that democracy must require and produce high ideals, and high ideals are only found deep in your soul. Their formation begins in the early stages of development inside the process of learning... inside education.

Ideals are not formed by math, science or English, but by the teaching of those subjects to a student by an adult who is trusted to instill this information. It is the process, but it is much more. It is also the relationship between a teacher and a student that builds ideals in conjunction with the family. This teacher/student relationship is one of the first relationships built outside of the family structure. The student will learn about trust, respect and empathy in this relationship as the student experiences things first hand. It is this process that actually teaches ideals more than the products of the disciplines taught. This is where we create the ideals that provide us the foundation to make the hard decisions that ultimately build individual character and trustworthiness. Dewey linked education with democracy because education produces democracy, and a democracy will only work correctly if those living by it live according to deep rooted ideals like character and truth.

Can democracy survive without education? Dewey and Levin have their answers. What is yours?

Reality

We use the term "reality" in many different contexts without even thinking about the semantics of the term itself. Reality, in philosophy, "is the state of things as they actually exist rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." In a broader definition, reality is everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.
My issue with reality is this: how do we discover reality in light of what we know regarding worldviews?

The above definition accurately states that reality is a state, but how do we know if that state is real or if it is a state imagined either by us or those presenting that state to us? A worldview defined is"the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point-of-view including natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics." If this is true then how do we get to real reality?

Reality can be defined in ways that link it to worldview or parts of a worldview (conceptual frameworks): The idea of reality is this idea "of a totality of all things, structures (actual and conceptual), events (past and present) and phenomena, whether observable or not." It is what a world view (based on individual or shared human experiences) ultimately attempts to describe or map. This is where it gets complex as ideas from other fields shape and mold various views of reality. Many of these ideas are contrary to each other and lead to views of reality that directly challenge other views of reality until one is left not knowing what is real and what is not. Philosophy studies reality through various fields and approaches, from ontology to realism, all deal with reality in some way, shape of form.

We have all heard the cliques "perception is reality" or "Life is how you perceive reality" or "reality is what you can get away with." These all represent the view that there is no objective reality, whether acknowledged explicitly or not. And, I would tend to agree with this mindset up to a certain point. This mindset is rooted in the idea that we, human beings, are all that there is in life. We are the highest order and the only specie that can think, and therefore, we dominate all others. I would agree if this were all true, but it is not.

There is ample evidence that the world in which we live is not all that there is, but just a grain of sand on a beach covered in sand. If this is the case, then is it safe to define reality according to who we are? Do we merely exist (implying that we have evolved), or are we a created being? This is a heavy question worthy of deep critical analysis because its answer will set in motion a different mindset on reality. The answer will force us to re-consider a reality that has its origin in who we are. A reality rooted in who we are is easily manipulated and used for one's own purpose, but a reality rooted in something or someone outside of who we are, well, there are strong and severe implications to consider.

As a Christian, my reality is not defined by who I am or who someone else is in my life. My reality is defined by the Bible and my continued growing knowledge of who Jesus Christ is. What is your reality? Who defines it? Do you live as if you define reality? Do you live allowing another other than Christ to define it for you? Good questions for all of us to consider. Blessings!

Something is wrong...

Normal

What is normal? Have you ever considered that question? If we are talking behavior then normal, or normality is that state of being normal. But, what is normal behavior? Behavior can be normal for an individual when it is consistent with the most common behavior of that culture or for persons in that culture. "Normal" is also used to describe behavior when it conforms to the most common behavior in society. That still gets us no closer to defining what normal is?

If we are talking social norms, then we are talking about those norms that are the explicit or implicit rules specifying what behaviors are acceptable within society. They can also be defined as shared ways of thinking, feeling, desiring, deciding, and acting; these are observable as regularly repeated behaviours and are adopted by others because of their dominance and acceptance, but does that make them normal? We can also talk about normal in reference to psychometrics, mathematics and chemistry, but we still get no closer to defining what normal is.

Let's begin with what abnormal is. Abnormal is deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable and unaccepted. But, what makes one behavior normal and the other abnormal? The answer is not found so much in the semantics of the word but in the culture outside of the word. We know acceptable behavior or normal behavior differs from culture to culture. Does culture then define what is normal acceptable behavior? I do think culture plays a role in defining what is acceptable, and what is acceptable usually plays a major role in what is considered normal.

The French sociologist Émile Durkheim indicated in his Rules of the Sociological Method that it was necessary to offer parameters to distinguish normality from abnormality. He suggested that behaviors or as he called them, "social facts" are present in the normal, and exceptions to that behavior, when social facts are not present, indicate abnormal behavior. Durkheim's model of normality explained that the most frequent or "normal" behaviors, will persist through transition periods in society. According to Durkheim, there is a two-fold version of normality; behaviors considered normal on a societal level may still be considered abnormal on an individual level. On the individual level, people who violate social norms will invite punishment from others in the society in the harshest sense and scorn and ridicule in the mildest sense. Durkheim seems to imply that there are two sets of norms: those that survive or "persist" through transition periods and those that do not.

What would separate those norms that persist from those that do not? I believe cultural acceptance would be first on that list. Those that persist and survive and continue to be considered normal are those that a majority of culture still considers acceptable. Those that do not will be those that have been rejected by a vast majority of culture. Normal, then, is defined by the dominant culture. Now, it is certainly not that simple, but for today, it is one point to take away from the discussion on what is normal. Normal is not this state of being that just exists and is. Normal is a construct defined by the dominant of current culture. There are certainly many other factors that go into this idea; ideas like who is dominant and how did they become dominant? And, certainly, where does God fit into all of this because He does fit into this. But, those questions are for another day. Blessings!

"Why" vs. "What"

Simon Sinek gives a wonderful talk on "why" we do what we do. He explains his concept of the golden circle, and his idea that people believe the "why" of what you do over the "what" and "how." As you listen to his talk, think about how it applies to education, and how it applies to Christian education. Often, we start with the "why" but then over time we forget about that "why" and dwell only on the "what" because it is cheaper and easier. Sinek makes the case that we best not ever forget about the "why" of what we do. Enjoy this talk. It is another wonderful talk from TED!

A Discourse on Change

Most of us like things to stay the same. Sure, we can tolerate a little change here and there, but any major change is considered a threat, especially change that challenges our thoughts and deep seated beliefs.

Over the next several paragraphs, I will have an open discourse on the subject of change. My thoughts are my own; I am not presenting them as right thoughts or correct thoughts, only as my own thoughts free to be challenged. My only goal is for these thoughts to prompt your thoughts on these thoughts. These are random thoughts of mine and should not be read as a formal thesis. So, here I go, talking out loud about change.

I will start our conversation with one reference, Hegel's definition of social change. He defines social change as a dialectic model of change that is based on the interaction of opposing forces. Hegel believes change starts from the point of momentary stasis, Thesis, then countered by Antithesis yields conflict, then it subsequently results in a new Synthesis which is change. Change tends to come primarily from two sources, the random and the systematic. This is change according to Hegel and will serve as the foundation for my discussion.

Change is about the future, and a moving away from things of the past, if you will. The past will lose its power and cease to be what it was in time. The problem with the past, especially those elements of the past that do not embrace change, is this: they are in the past and were created as part of the past to address issues of the past. They have not moved forward and will not adapt unless they change. Therefore, each day that goes by they become less relevant, less efficient and more mediocre. Yet, we cling to them like they are life itself because they are familiar and comfortable; yet, we do change. Have you switched cell phones recently? It was not easy, but you did it. Why? Everyone else did. Can you imagine if you still had one of the first cell phones made? You changed because everyone (group mentality) else did; remember this point. Culture and life have changed; failure to keep up with that change will have severe consequences, yet we fight this change all the time while embracing other change, like our cell phone. Why?

We must begin with our own response to change. For the most part, our initial response to all change is negative. Why? Well, change is not easy because it often comes in response to... change. To embrace change, there must be something in it for us or else we will resist it. This feeds into the very reason we fight change (another important point to remember). For Americans, it is even harder. We, Americans, live our lives with a privilege that most do not enjoy. Most of us get up and go about our busy day never considering the privilege afforded to us by virtue of our birth in this country or by our race, gender and ethnicity. There are many reasons for this, but one to consider is the way we now live. We, in America, have moved past merely living to survive and have now risen to living for our own enjoyment. Many of us will never think about the idea of privilege unless confronted by it because it has melted into the ideas of contentment, comfort and enjoyment. This is the American life - happiness, is it not?

What does this do to us? In my opinion, living with a focus on our own enjoyment actually harms us because it makes us more self-centered and egocentric, which are two of the demons we battle daily. We become more entrenched in our own ways and our own ideas and less tolerant of others and their ways and ideas. We become less likely to help those in need, see things from a different perspective or tolerate those not like us. Our energy is spent trying to convince others to turn to our way of thinking because we know, the more who agree with our thoughts the more powerful our thoughts become. This produces groups and group behavior. The rejection of change manifests itself most noticeably in groups mainly because there is strength and comfort in numbers and all groups are greater than one. There are many studies on group behavior that will confirm this simple truth: people will do things in groups that they would not do as individuals. Groups tend to resist change more than individuals.

Resistance to change is more prevalent today than it has ever been; one of the main reasons for this recent development is that we, now, have the power to determine our own course of life. We no longer worry about if we will eat; we now worry about where we will eat. America is full of personal choices, and each one reinforces this resistance to change because each choice that we make reinforces the big lie - the choices that we make are ours to make. The facts are these: most choices that we make are already made for us. Most of our choices are not our original choices but the choice of the those before us. And, if we are in a room full of people who all make the same choice, the chances are that we, too, will make that same choice even if it is not our own choice, and we will make it because everyone else did. This resistance to change is found in everything we do. Here are just a few of the subtle ways we resist change without even realizing it.

We are a people who have worked to survive, and we now work to enjoy. This breeds more comfort and contentment. Once comfort and contentment have become part of us, we will do almost anything to avoid giving them up. We will sacrifice truth, service, friendship and even family just to continue this life of comfort and contentment. We will especially sacrifice change. We live in homes that are too big, drive cars that we do not need and carry debt that is not necessary, and we do it all to enjoy our lives because we think we deserve it. Comfort and contentment are old idols wrapped in new clothes, and most Americans worship them without even thinking about them anymore. We don't have to think negatively about them because every way that we turn culture is there to tell us that we deserve it. Change brings doubt and uncertainty and a risk of losing what we have worked so hard to achieve, and no one wants that.

Because we live to be comfortable and content, confrontation has disappeared. We, Americans, do not confront each other anymore. We would rather gossip, spread rumors, send emails or text, but a face-to-face confrontation has almost become extinct. And, if it should happen, it will be done, not in love, but in emotion. It will be done quickly in order to end it, and it will be done incorrectly. We do not confront because we do not really know each other. We talk in positives with little or no disagreement. This produces, what I call, paper mache relationships: we know each other on the surface, but down deep, where we all live, we know little about each other. And, we like it that way because we do not want to be bothered by other people and their problems which would cause us to change our plans, change our feelings or change who we are.

Thought, at least logical higher categorical thought, is disappearing too because thinking is... hard. We would rather be told what to do than to think logically about anything. We are content to let our politicians speak in lies and fallacies because, for the most part, that is the way we speak. Reporters do not check facts and tend to write their own opinions into their news stories; we know this but do not seem to care and allow it to happen with little consequences. We have bought into this idea that to think is to agree, and that one thought is better than another thought. Disagreement is rooted in the fallacies of today; each day we are confronted with fallacies: ad hominem, red herring, straw man, argumentum ad baculum, and of course, the most popular, argumentum ad populum. Doing what is right has all but disappeared because it will "get us involved" and disrupt our comfortable lives. And, it will bring about change, which is something we do not want.

This idea of change is daunting and difficult, but it is necessary in our growth and survival. There is a famous quote about history that states, "those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it." While the quote is about history, it is also about change. Failure to change means we are doomed to repeat the cycles of the past over and over. Even good trends run their course. Change is inevitable and healthy.

Well, there you have it, some of my thoughts on change. They are today's thoughts, ever changing because I have learned that the more I learn the less I know. Thanks for reading! Blessings to all!