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!

What is Time?

What is time? Seconds, minutes, hours, even days are all measures of time, but do they define time? I recently read an interested article about Sean Carroll, a physicist who is developing his own theory of time.

Carroll proposes that time is linked to entropy, the theory that the natural order of things moves from order to disorder. Carroll states, "Basically, our observable universe begins around 13.7 billion years ago in a state of exquisite order, exquisitely low entropy. It’s like the universe is a wind-up toy that has been sort of puttering along for the last 13.7 billion years and will eventually wind down to nothing. But why was it ever wound up in the first place? Why was it in such a weird low-entropy unusual state?" Hmm, the universe began in an almost perfectly low entropic state and then moved to disorder and has been moving down that path ever sense? Sound familiar?

Carroll refutes the idea that the universe began with the big band. He states that the big bang was not the beginning; there was something more and something before. He also says the universe is not all that there is; the universe is actually part of something larger. Carroll suggests, "And if that’s true, it changes the question you’re trying to ask. It’s not, “Why did the universe begin with low entropy?” It’s, “Why did part of the universe go through a phase with low entropy?” And that might be easier to answer."

Carroll proposes a multiverse theory, where you have a static universe in the middle. From that middle static universe, smaller universes pop out of the middle universe and travel in different directions, in what Carroll calls, arrows of time. Carroll believes the universe in the middle has no time at all. He states, "There’s different moments in the history of the universe and time tells you which moment you’re talking about. And then there’s the arrow of time, which give us the feeling of progress, the feeling of flowing or moving through time. So that static universe in the middle has time as a coordinate but there’s no arrow of time. There’s no future versus past, everything is equal to each other."

So, the question everyone wants to know is this: what is time in that middle universe? Carroll responds,

"Even in empty space, time and space still exist. Physicists have no problem answering the question of “If a tree falls in the woods and no one’s there to hear it, does it make a sound?” They say, “Yes! Of course it makes a sound!” Likewise, if time flows without entropy and there’s no one there to experience it, is there still time? Yes. There’s still time. It’s still part of the fundamental laws of nature even in that part of the universe. It’s just that events that happen in that empty universe don’t have causality, don’t have memory, don’t have progress and don’t have aging or metabolism or anything like that. It’s just random fluctuations."

In sum, Carroll states, "the whole point of this idea that I’m trying to develop is that the answer to the question, “Why do we see the universe around us changing?” is that there is no way for the universe to truly be static once and for all. There is no state the universe could be in that would just stay put for ever and ever and ever. If there were, we should settle into that state and sit there forever."

Carroll explains,

"It’s like a ball rolling down the hill, but there’s no bottom to the hill. The ball will always be rolling both in the future and in the past. So, that center part is locally static — that little region there where there seems to be nothing happening. But, according to quantum mechanics, things can happen occasionally. Things can fluctuate into existence. There’s a probability of change occurring. So, what I’m thinking of is the universe is kind of like an atomic nucleus. It’s not completely stable. It has a half-life. It will decay. If you look at it, it looks perfectly stable, there’s nothing happening … there’s nothing happening … and then, boom! Suddenly there’s an alpha particle coming out of it, except the alpha particle is another universe."

All of this is interesting and familiar, especially if you read your Bible regularly. I strongly encourage you to read the entire article, and if you have an interest in time, pick up his book,
From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time. Blessings!