blog traffic analysis
This is Previous-Essay <== This-Essay ==> Following-Essay Click HERE on this line to find essays via Your-Key-Words. {Most frequent wordstarts of each essay will be put here.} ========================================================== %NATURAL SCIENTISTS OBSERVATION RELATIONSHIPS SEE 031030 %PERSPECTIVE OBSERVATIONS EDUCATONS UNDERSTANDINGS 031030 %ARTICULATION WRITING TEXTS DESCRIPTIONS ACCURACY 031030 %HONESTY PUBLIC SHARING PRIVATE INTIMACY DIALOGUE 031030 %CONTENTIOUS CONTEXTS LEARN GROWING SITUATIONS EVIL 031030 %RELIGIOUS LEADERS DOMINATION CONTROLS LAWS CHILD 031030 It is interesting to note that natural scientists' successes which are obviously related to the formulation of careful, honest and accurate descriptions of how physical objects interact with each other --- have not led to religious leaders trying to formulate careful descriptions of how religious people interact with each other within gracious and/or contentious contexts. Instead, much attention has been focused by religious leaders on pre-scriptions, pro-scriptions and the interpretation of ancient scripts and scriptures. It is interesting to note that there were about 2,000 years before the scientific revolution during which people devoted much effort to "learned" discussions of the teachings of Aristotle as the one great authority in matters of scientific importance --- with rather less effort being devoted to making observations and formulating descriptions of what actually happens as object interacted with each other. There have been about 2,000 years of "learned" discussions of what the world's major original religious leaders are said to have taught --- with rather little effort being devoted to describing the details of the processes of alienation/disintegration in contrast to the processes of reconciliation/integration --- as inhumane and humane people and groups interact with each other. Why is there such little attention given to trying to observe and describe honestly and accurately the inter- related aspects of alienation/disintegration --- in contrast to the processes of reconciliation/integration? It is fairly obvious that alienation/disintegration usually entail: dishonesty, secrecy, arrogance, self- righteousness, coercion, violence, prejudice, ignorance, greed, narcissism, fears, anxiety, domination, power- concentrations, abuse-of-power, etc. It is also fairly obvious that reconciliation/healing usually entail: honesty, openness, humility, cooperation, gentleness, learning, scholarship, generosity, mutual-dialogue, relaxation, cooperation, power-sharing, and dedications to promoting both personal and communal integrities of many kinds. It is not usually obvious how best to promote integrations and mitigate alienation/disintegrations. Why? What kinds of human RELATIONSHIPS during children's early lives correlate positively with them growing up to be responsible citizens/leaders; and what kinds of human RELATIONSHIPS during children's early lives correlate positively with them growing up to be engagged in criminal and/or contentious activities? How well can we describe the natures of such RELATIONSHIPS and consequences; and how they are inter-related with each other? How well do various kinds of leaders (religious, political, academic, scientific, business, etc) understand those contrasts between various kinds of human RELATIONSHIPS? What do they do with such understandings? What kinds of RELATIONSHIPS facilitate and promote healthy learning, growth, cooperation, colaboration, research, education, innovations, creataivity, etc? What kinds of RELATIONSHIPS inhibit and undermine healthy learning, growth, cooperation, colaboration, research, education, innovations, creataivity, etc? Might it be wise to do unbiased research to clarify and substantiate prudent responses to questions such as these? Early "objective" scientists tended not to acknowledge professionally the nature of their RELATIONSHIP with the objects which they manipulated, controlled, and studied "objectively". Often their RELATIONSHIPS were those of un-acknowledged dominator, rather than as equal PARTICIPANT. It seemed to them that they achieved absolutely reliable knowledge about the behaviors of the objectively observed objects; by being unaware of how their behaviors played determinative roles in dominating their I-IT RELATIONSHIPS with their objects-of-interest. (See Martin Buber's book describing both I-It and I-Thou kinds of kind RELATIONSHIPS.) Insecure objective scientists have not often talked extensively about I-THOU RELATIONSHIPS with others; because they are not secure about the nature of reflexive knowledge within I-Thou kinds of kind RELATIONSHIPS. They often conceive security to be grounded in the elimination of vulnerability; rather than accept true security to be grounded in their exchange of free gifts of the freedom to be safely vulnerable within mutually fulfilling open and honest RELATIONSHIPS with others. Modern physicists have learned to at least acknowledge that the acts of observing objects in atomic and nuclear physics experiments play significant roles in how the objects behave; the UNobserved objects do not necessarilly behave in the same way that objectively observed objects behave --- just as un-studied humane subjects in I-Thou RELATIONSHIPSdo not necessarilly behave in the same way that objectively observed humans behave within I-It RELATIONSHIPS. As Heisenberg acknowledged, within the realm of I-It RELATIONSHIPS there is an acknowledged minimum level of uncertainty in the products of measurements of complementary objective "states" of measurable variables; e.g., linear-position-states and linear-momentum-states, angular-position-states and angular-momentum-states, and energy-states and times-of-meassurements-of-energy-states. It seems only honest to acknowledge that within the realms of I-Thou RELATIONSHIPS there will be an unreducable lower bound on the level of uncertainty on the PROBABLE products of the discernments of paired complementary reflexive "states" of acknowledged humane RELATIONSHIPS. In the absence of such reflexive honesty about reflexive RELATIONSHIPS and uncertainties --- it is impossible to truly know each other as gracious beings who are being open and honest with each(all) other PARTICIPANT(s) in their I-Thou RELATIONSHIPS wherein there are unavoidable limits on how in-vulnerable each-other can be --- within objective I-It relationships which presume to minimize vulnerability on the part of the person(s) who presume to be IN-CONTROL of the RELATIONSHIPS as dominators of the RELATIONSHIPS. People who presume to achieve total invulnerability within I-It RELATIONSHIPS are (to others) recognizably playing collusive games of mutual-self-deception! (c) 2005 by Paul A. Smith in (On Being Yourself, Whole and Healthy) ==========================================================