Note: The following posts on this blog will be one of complete speculation, personal reasoning, and feelings. The information presented may not be completely accurate or reliable. Please do be
understanding if my views differ from your personal convictions.
PS: I assure you guys that the topic would no longer be as cheem as those posts about the Truth Theory, so please sit back, relax, and enjoy the words as they come. LOL
Project Re-affirmation is a project aimed to refine the understanding of Truth, not only as a concept of it's own, but more about it's significance and application to our personal lives. When I had set up this project on the 21st December 2008- it's fundamental objective was to seek out my true identity and the 'true' way of life to live so that I may not commit again to the mistakes I had once made. Hence, it is in this respect that Project RN (T) is similar to project C2.
-
We should be very familiar to the following phrases / questions:
-
-
-Why is the world so Materialistic?
-People are just so superficial, why so?
-Why do teenagers today suffer from peer pressure and addictions?
-Why study? And for what am I studying?
-True friends are very hard to get.
-True love is even harder to find.
-Then again, what is true love?
-A or B, what should I choose? How should I even start considering?
-Where is the relevance of God in Today's world?
-Why do some people think so cheem-ly? They must be crazy.
-Why does no one seem to understand me?
-
and especially...
-
-How much can you say its true that there are atoms in the desk? Just because some textbook or teacher tells you so? Do you actually go to the Science Laboratory and put it under the microscope the experience it for yourself? ( Fahy again...LOL)
-
I am sure that in some point of time, at least one of the above mentioned phrases had once occurred in your mind. I do not wish to dwell deeper into the reasons that may cause to think as such, but I am positive that at that point of time everyone had wished then they had a full explanation on these topics. Perhaps we may formulated a sort of reason to some of the 'issues' already, and perhaps there are still questions we may never find an answer to, the reason being that the Truth to these questions are either obscured or difficult to reason out.
-
Then and again, do these questions even have a true answer to it? Yes I do believe so. The answer may be an objective statement or a subjective stand; but recalling Part 1 on "Does Truth Exist?", we know that be it objective or subjective, it is also True.
-
Part 1 has also concluded that there are two methods in refining Truth. Advocated by the philosophies of Science and Religion, the two fundamental methods are Logic and Feelings (Beliefs), and it is by the integration of both (via compatibilism or like a GP argumentative essay) that we may contrast and compliment out a clearer picture at the end of the day.
It should be made known at this point that these two methods can be used to at least address the 'Truth' of the above topics.
-
The Moderation Doctrine is not a clear cut method in obtaining a true answer for such questions about our lives. I believe that if it were that simple many of us would not have been 'victims' to the world today (yet of course there are other reasons, of which I'll explain in the following posts). The Moderation Doctrine is actually an approach to life, based on the Theories formulated on the optimal way for seeking out the 'Truth'. As stated, the two fundamental methods are Logic and Feeling; naturally, the Moderation Doctrine FIRST moderates itself between these two methods.
-
Let us assume there is a Truth to life . Putting this concept on a religious aspect, do allow me to quote the Bible- Jesus himself has said: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life". In this respect, he has already stated that there is indeed a Truth to everything, and since He is all three at the same time it's imperative that all three are one. In light of this, you may equate the "Way" as the Moderation Doctrine, the "Truth" as the Truth we had discussed in part 1, and the 'Life" not only as life in general, but also an an orientation of the Truth towards goodness (life) as opposing to evil (death).
-
Putting the concept on a scientific analysis on the other hand- if Science assumes Truth Universally; then Life, being a subset of this 'universe', is therefore subjected to the same assumption of Truth before any form of logical reason may apply. Hence to assume the existence of Truth would have already assumed a Truth to life. I personally hope we do not have issues on this at this point of time, but in case we really do, we may discuss this out in the near future.
-
Now, how are we going to find that True way to live life to the 'best?' How has the world been living their lives? Based on the above mentioned topics, we can see that much of the world we see today is materialistic and superficial. People study to pass examinations, and pass examinations to secure high paying jobs in the future. There may be a lot of conversations between friends, but on closer analysis we find that there is no depth beneath the superficiality of 'Hies' and 'Byes'- leading to politics, backstabbing, and ultimately regret. The 'Love propagated by the mass media focuses greatly on romance and the human needs (especially when Love and sex seem to come hand-in-hand), but other aspects of a loving relationship, such as commitment and trust seem to be lacking severely.
-
Note that these attitudes of the world are very superficial or 'here and now'. There is both logic (as to education) and Feeling (as to love) to the actions of the world today, but we hardly take that and call it the 'True Way' of living. This now brings forth a new concept- that there is another element, opposing to the 'Now' attitude much of the world today, that is supposed to be ingrained to 'balance' out life, what is that concept? I'll term that concept as 'Eternal'
-
Do note that most of us consider Religion and God to be Eternal. Feelings (devoted to one's religion and God) tend to more 'eternal based' and can be easily termed as 'Values'. Such of these eternal feelings include values such as 'Cherish', 'Share', 'Love' (aha- we know this love is diff. fr the love you'll give your girlfriend), and especially 'trust' (Belief).
-
On the other hand, logic too has an 'eternal' perspective to it. Known today as 'cheem stuff' or 'thinking about unsolvable issues' by many, philosophy has been seeked over generations by many and it's fundamental concepts had never seemed to change whether it is studied today or a hundred years ago. (Truth is one of the concepts anyway, and that's the actual reason why some people say that the last topic is cheem).
-
In the end of the day, we get four basic grounds:
'Logic Now' - a.k.a. Practicality, Materialism (negative).
'Logic Eternal' - a.k.a. Philosophy, 'Cheem stuff' (by some, alt. the definition of cheem differs).
'Feeling Now' - a.k.a. The feelings we feel when we are happy or sad or in love.
'Feeling Eternal' - a.k.a. Belief, Trust, and most of the religious/moral values we know today.
-
Truth Theory had reasoned that there ought to be a balance between Logic and Feelings. It is intuition to balance ourselves between the 'Now' and 'Eternal' to ensure that we may not be too Materialistic or 'out of phase' with the world. The Moderation Doctrine aims to find a balance between the Four.
-
Of course there are other concepts not addressed in this method of seeking the Truth in life. The most noteworthy being the concept of Good and Evil, which I'll attempt to address in the future. I really do not intend to push this Moderation Doctrine under your noses and make you accept my theories, and I am more than willing to hear you out should you have another model of explaining the world today. But please do consider this more as an alternative method in attempt to explain and straighten life as it is; and by applying it directly to our selves, seek out the Truth of Truth in a much more comprehensible and practical light.
4 comments:
Hi ,its me again. With my opinions
>>>Well the first question i would ask(in response to those questions you seem to be familiar with) would be this. What is "living" and what is considered "best".
Why people are superficial, materialistic etc etc? Well its probably cos of neccesity and a "whats wrong with it?" mind set. They look at the famous people of today. The millionaires, high earning actors, performers etc etc and see that "hey, they seem superficial and materialistic and yet they are so rich and powerful."
Hence, if their definition of "living best" would be just to get rich and powerful, then of course they would follow in the methods of their role models.
So who does it start with? The mindset of the kid? Or the role models he gets exposed to?(including parents).
I'm sorry to say that it is a vicious cycle. The materialistic and superficial, as long as they are in power, would only drive others to try to attain that same power and wealth by being just as materialistic and superficial. And since they are already trapped in that "cycle", unless you get someone who lives this "Moderation" and still end up rich and powerful as a role model, or no one alrady trapped within that cycle would even bother with such a way of life, prefering their aforementioned way.
That is the way most of the world has been living life. Its been tried, tested and proven. So in their minds, why change? Until they see something better. Until they see someone living a moderated life do better in "life" than their usual role models.
I'm sorry. I have experienced this mindset from many people around me and frankly, it irks me. It pisses me off. Yes yes, different people, different likes and dislikes, now mind your own buisness. Thats what they always tell me.
In the world's mind, they are balanced. They have their here and now logic and feeling. PLUS their logic eternal which is like "judging by the recent rise in dvd sales, the media market looks to be a good investment to make me more money in the future". Then they also have their feeling eternal, you can call it trust if you want, in the things they invest in and "Will it mature and make me money?". . Just an example, dont quote me on this.
Yes very materialistic, but subjectively very balanced. and they believe so strongly in this subjective balance than to them, it becomes objective.
Though, it is not really true. I've always equated the inner human desire to seek out the objective truth with the feeling that "something's stilll missing in life".
as long as a person still has that feeling, no matter how deeply buried, he still yearns for the objective truth. And yes, rich people and the high ranking still harbour that feeling in them so im thinking that their "truth" that they "found" is not the objective.
Please dont get me wrong, i dont hate the world. I just get weary of their mindset sometimes.
I must say, it is a new outlook you provided on studying though.
In conclusion, I have talked about this concept with a few others and i have this thought for you to consider. Why they dont want to be "moderated"? They fear that To be moderated, live in moderation, etc etc, would make you "moderate". And im sad to say, everyone wants to be special.
What do you think of that?
hey, thanks for the response, really appreciated it.
I was seeking for a satsifactory reason for the 'materialism', 'superficiality' and 'indifference' of the world over sunday. I found this cool article from the news, and I believe it provides a satsifactory reasoning for the world today. I thought it would be interesting to share with you this excerpt, and although the ideas are not mine, I believe that ownership of ideas do not really matter as long as the essence behind the ideas are true.
What is the essence of moderation? A life of moderation creates a life where we may totally integrate our identities to a point that we are truly being ourselves at no expense of our relationship with others (I'll dwell into identity soon). Where there are no longer masks of facade and superficiality, and when we can truly 'live' to be our 'best'.
From the article, Rolheiser states that 'All of us struggle to project a certain image of ourselves'. As part of an effort to survive, we have to 'project an image of calm, poise and easy accomplishment; and especially, we never want to show signs of weakness, of being needy or lonely, of being ruffled and not perfectly in control.'
Call it facade, call it cool- it actually boils down to the natural rule of- 'survival of the fittest', where we are constantly forced to portray the stronger side of us to stay relavant, in power, and to prevent us from a certain persecution that may entail from society.
As he stated: 'From the clothes we wear, from our choice of sunglasses, to a carefully practised public countenance, we walk out into the public trying to say- "Look at me. I'm successful, I'm healthy, I'm attractive, I'm at ease, I'm not lonely, I don't have great anxieties in my life, I'm happy... etc... and I manage this with ease!"'
And this attitude is not without it's virtue. For its opposites are exhibitionism and hysteria. 'we are meant to be in control of our own lives, not to impose our neediness unfairly on others, and to carry ourselves in a way so as to radiate health'.
From here, Rolheiser makes an acknowledge of the balance- according to him, 'much as we admire this kind of strength', we have to understand that it's only half the picture; for such 'habitual calm and poise' can too lead to immaturity, insensitivity (indifference), materialism and superficiality (lack of depth). Now, if such attitude is one-sided and incomplete, what is the balance?
Sensitivity and empathy. Maturity and compassion- so as he states. The world lacks this, this is the feeling eternal. Maturity entails wise judgement and reason, and there is where logic eternal comes into play. Hence it's not wrong to consider the world too engrossed into the 'nows' it's imbalanced as it is today.
Indeed, it's much harder to walk about with sensitivity and empathy, or maturity and compassion. Such virtues usually entail weakness and vulnerability- where we are unable to protect ourselves from pain, where we are susceptible to loneliness and to a certain helplessness and weakness; which is by default going against the principle rule of natural selection.
'The more sensitive that we are, the less cool we will be' as he states: 'It is not a mark of maturity or depth to walk blithely inside of brokeness and feel it so little that our lives are never bothered by it. Insensitive people, it would seem, sleep more easily at night because they have no great anxieties, particularly about how their actions may have affected anyone else.'
And it is because of this reason for survival that makes the general population so unwilling to change. For who would dare to venture beyond common sense to step out of his current doctrine of being 'happy' and 'strong' to accept a doctrine that too entails weakness, sensitivity and a certain persecution from society?
You are indeed right that people look to role models for inspiration and orientation of their lives, but it's the underlying message of survival that compels them to follow their role models rather than a blind fideistic faith (which makes them sound stupid and promote elitism among us). Nevertheless, it is true that a moderated role model would definitely be a boon to the objective truth of maturity and life. I would like to explain this in greater detail myself, but Rolheiser, as again, beats me by explaining it first.
He quoted us a Buckley, a scholar, and got us two religious role models: One of which is Socrates, and the other Jesus. Both of them were put to trial and a certain death. According to Buckley, 'He compares Socrates in terms of simple human excellence, and surprising to the naive observer, jesus dosen't seem to measure up to Socrates in many ways'
Why?
For 'Socrates went to his death with calmness and poise. He accepted the judgement of the court, discoursed on the alternatives suggested by death and on the dialectical indications of immortality, found no cause for fear, drank the poison and died; and on the other hand, Jesus was almost hysterical with terror and fear (agony in the garden). He... looked repeatedly to his friends for comfort and prayed for escape from death and found neither.'
Yet, at the end of the day, which of the two epitomizes maturity and moderation? On a religious side note, thats a fundamental reason why its almost so difficult to embrace the full teachings of Jesus. Beyond the cool evangelization and the miracles, the signs and his authority, the wisdom and 'maturity', many find it hard to accept the mystery of pain, agony, sensitivity, heartbreak, and ultimately- his full maturity via moderation.
That be the underlying reason why many people know how to turn to their religion at the end of the day yet find it hard to fully appreciate their religion- not that they are stupid or unable to change, they may have already noted about this, but simply of common sense and the fear that they would be, like Jesus, screaming in the face of persecution and death.
I understand that this excerpt may not fully address the questions that you had posed in your comment, I'll explain the other questions in the future posts on this blog, particularly on the topic of identity and love. But definitely, I hope this post would provide a more wholistic understanding of the world today, and from here attempt to refine the full truth behind life.
actually it does, in a way, answer the question.
Wanting to be "special" could be a part of that "survival" instinct the Rolheiser guy talk about.
I myself can fully connect with what you quoted.
That being said, i will be eagerly awaiting the future posts that will explain further these questions. In the mean time, i shall give whatever input i can. What better way can we go along a journey of self re-discovery than with the help of fellow seekers?
Great. welcome aboard!
Post a Comment