I'm skipping over several things I have in my file that are sort of interesting but only tangentially applicable, maybe. So now I'm down to 2 books that I'm not sure about - whether to proceed with them or not here. But I'll touch a little on the first one now (and decide on the other one later).
This one is actually a special issue of the Journal of Social Issues (v. 43, no. 3, 1987) on "Covert Facilitation of Crime" with the issue editor being George Levinger.
The topic at hand here is really about issues around the use of "covert facilitation" of law enforcement agencies in the apprehension of crime in the USA. In the editor's introduction he gives this definition:
"As defined by Braithwaite, Fisse, and Geis in this issue, covert facilitation, is 'the practice of law enforcement officials who seek through the conscious use of deception to encourage criminal acts under circumstances where they can be observed by undercover operatives.' (p.6); the goal is to catch potential offenders." (p. 2)
The only way that I can think of for that to apply to my situation exactly, would be if a U.S. law enforcement agency / officer(s) tried to see if I had any intentions getting involved in espionage (via my dad, for example). I can't say that I experienced anything like that. But sometimes I did feel like I was being intimidated indirectly by (to me what seemed to be) unusual events, so that I would forsake my interest in Eastern Europe/USSR. This is really something different and it's probable that completely different laws, at least, would be involved, if not also different possible agencies.
So the one thing this book does give me, though, is some indication of what law enforcers do/can do by way of covert facilitation that may at least let me know if any of the things I experienced had been used in this covert facilitation context, and if so, maybe such means could be used to protect my dad and his work by means of trying to hinder me.
I know this is rather circuitous thinking, but, believe me, if you'd been through some of the things I had been through, you'd understand that any sort of glimmer that such things might happen even if in a somewhat different context, then it possibly could have happened to you to. That's a lot of hedging, but it's hard living with a lot of questions unanswered about some really awful things.
So that's why I even have this journal issue in this file, and I'll proceed with it from that standpoint.
***
From the lead article:
Covert facilitatation and crime: restoring balance to the entrapment debate, by John Brathwaite, Brent Fisse & Gilbert Geis, p. 5-41.
***
The referenced articles (which I omit as noted by the ...) are dated from 1977 to 1986.
"Criminal justice practices have become increasingly subversive of privacy... There has been expanded use of undercover agents and informers, and increased emphasis on campaigns to have citizens report drug users to the police (including instances of children turning in their parents), phone tapping, electronic eavesdropping, hidden cameras, periscopic prisms, electronic bracelets for tracking persons under house arrest, lie detector tests, 'spy dust,' computerized data banks, satellite surveillance, and similar procedures... Gary T. Marx... has been the leading figure in documenting what Michel Foucault ... called the modern state's 'subtle calculated technology of subjection.'" (p. 7)
Some of these things, like "computerized data banks", seem pretty routine today, but others, such as the eavesdropping and hidden cameras might raise a few hackles. If law enforcers are doing these kind of things in an effort to apprehend (potential) criminals, it seems likely that it would be easy for them to use these things in a case like mine, depending on the laws and other possible restrictions different from the covert facilitation context discussed here. And this was roughly the time frame too, that it might have applied in my case.
***
"Covert facilitation guidelines cannot be written to provide much practical protection against abuse. Nor can the prior approval of a judge bring in substantial practical control over any unfairness by the police in carrying out the undercover operation as it unfolds." (p. 12)
If protection in covert facilitation is difficult, I think it would be even more so in a case involving protecting a high-profile military project such as SDI.
***
"Covert facilitation is an appealing law enforcement tactic to nab drug addicts, dissidents, or prostitutes, but a less attractive strategy when it comes to white-collar criminals." (p. 25-26)
This is only interesting because of my social movement research in which agents did infiltrate cell groups preparing for major protests.
***
"Milgram's... renowned work indicated that experimental subjects are prone to obey authority figures when commanded to perform hurtful and, by general standards, immoral acts." (p. 34)
If you are unfamiliar with this experiment check out what Wikipedia has to say about it, or BBC's re-enactment of it.
Using this kind of psychology, what would it have taken for people to turn against me if told to do so? (But who would tell them to do so if they did?) I don't know, but I also do not know how some of the things happened to me that did during my Vienna tenure.
***
Restoring realism and logic to the covert facilitation debate, by Gary T. Marx, p. 43-55.
"Looking at the history of U.S. law enforcement, the key question is: How over the last century (and particularly the last decade), has the United States gone from being among the Western nations most opposed to domestic secret police practices to being their leading practitioner (and even exporter) for criminal cases...?" (p. 46)
It seems to me that even though the immediate topic is covert facilitation in this whole journal issue, that this question is broader than that, and refers to all sorts of "domestic secret police practices." Without any other details to go on, it doesn't tell us much, but is sort of enlightening if researchers of the field note this broad trend. It could provide a context wherein some of my experiences might have been more plausibly explained. I hope I'm not too far out in left field or grasping at straws in my hopes for some clarity regarding my life experiences.
***
"The recent expansion of undercover tactics does not stand alone; it must be seen as part of gradual changes that are making social control more intrusive, manipulative, hidden, intensive, and extensive. Covert facilitation must be considered alongside enhanced dossier, electronic, biological, and chemical means of surveillance and control." (p. 54)
Well, now we at least have a blatant extension of the trend to other areas. But what are biological and chemical means of surveillance?
***
The risks of covert facilitation, by Jerome H. Skolnick, p. 79-85.
"The requirements for issuing a warrant to wiretap are stringent. Title III of 18 U.S.C. #2510-20 prescribes a careful procedure for obtaining a warrant, and federal law preempts state law." (p. 82)
I never felt like the U.S. was eavesdropping on me. But in the USSR/Russia yes, and maybe also in Austria, but I'd need to check my notes about that time period, since so much has happened since.
***
"That covert facilitation will not be used indiscriminately - against politically dangerous persons - seems naive. Once we institutionalize a practice to control one set of dangerous criminals, we are scarcely in a position to protest its use against another 'dangerous' category." (p. 83)
I think the author means by "politically dangerous" someone who could be harmful to one's (a politician's) political aims - maybe Watergate-like targets.
But still, the point here is that the use of something like covert facilitation wouldn't just end where it was supposed, with the legal uses of it.
That's the whole trouble with covert things, if I may take a moment to go into a tirade (that's one of the benefits of this being my blog), once you enter a world of secrecy than everything is possible... well, almost. But you know what I mean.
Here's my understanding of the Scriptural stance on these kinds of things:
John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.
12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
And instead of trusting in our own wisdom and strength, here's another way that doesn't involve secrecy and hiding and doing things in the dark, behind closed doors:
For we would not, brethren, have you ignorant of our trouble which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of measure, above strength, so that we despaired even of life: But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead (II Cor. 1:8-9)
Of course, missions and Christians in general should particularly consider these things, but it also shows in general what I think of this whole secrecy thing.
***
Here's another excellent quote that reaches far beyond the specific subject matter it addresses:
"But it seems just as reasonable to focus on the psychology of the investigator. Can psychologists help answer the question of whether we should be skeptical of the testimony of an investigator who has spent much of his career covert facilitating? Put more abstractly, to what extent do deceptive practices - especially those encouraging wrongdoing - generalize to become absorbed throughout one's personality, thus impairing the moral character of the wrongdoer? Put more colloquially, can an accomplished conman - with or without badge - ever be trusted?" (p. 85)
Let me rephrase this a bit:
Can an accomplished missionary to 'closed' countries, considering s/he's spent much of his/her career being deceptive in his/her ministry ever be trusted? If such a missionary is deceptive with border patrol, others asking about the work ("we do publishing"), other missionaries, where does the deception end?
I really hope someone, and NOT a mission itself, write an honest history of what really went/goes on in 'closed' country missions, and specifically those who worked in the former East Bloc countries.
But I also feel that my dad may have been guilty here to a certain extent. Overall I think he had a lot of integrity, but I think regarding things of his work, and even sometimes as related to me, he may have had to live a bit in this underworld. I do know that after he retired he was able to focus more on his spiritual life and I think he really grew in that realm, so I wonder if not just having more time as a retired person, but the constraints of his work freed him inside to have a deeper spiritual life. I'm not sure, but maybe.
***
That's all for that book. There wasn't a lot of substance to help me unravel my experiences, but it might help with some of the broader framework issues.
~ Meg
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
24. Truth: The Search Goes On
Truth is very illusive, it seems, especially when you consider all the various opinions about what it is. It would seem on the surface that if we collectively can't even agree on a definition of truth that we're destined to eternal darkness and separation from it.
Fortunately, however, despite the fact that collectively we can't agree on what it is, individually we are often quite certain we do know what it is, so it is quite possible that individuals might find it, even if we collectively can't. Does this mean we are to live out our short lives here on earth in individual microcosms of truth? Well, that last question is beyond the scope of this particular blog post.
But I do want to discuss 3 particular conceptions of truth. [WARNING: this is likely to be a long post, so feel free to take it in chunks.]
To begin with, however, I should say that there are self-declared understandings of truth and then there are actual representations of truth. Where there is a discrepancy, that is often called hypocrisy. For example, I say that X is true, but I act as if Y (which at least appears to contradict X) is true.
So let's say I'm talking about Charlie Brown (the comic strip character)here. I can know his version of reality by his words, by his actions and/or by his thoughts. Since I'm not God and also can not psychically read minds, I can only know my thoughts, not someone else's, although psychologists will probably scream out that there are all these blind spots and different mind-bending tactics we humans use that can even warp or hinder my understanding of my own thoughts.
With that caveat in mind, and because this is my blog, I will present my version of truth based on my thoughts and the other versions of truth based mostly mostly on deeds. That may sound unfair, but like I said, it's my blog. So this posting is going to be my (albeit limited) perception of my version of truth and 2 other versions of truth by other collective entities.
Now that we got that out of the way, let the party begin!
Although I did have an introductory philosophy class in my undergraduate studies, it was in my master's class on Philosophy of Education that I consciously remember identifying with idealism. Here is part of the definition from Britannica.com:
"in philosophy, any view that stresses the central role of the ideal or the spiritual in the interpretation of experience. It may hold that the world or reality exists essentially as spirit or consciousness, that abstractions and laws are more fundamental in reality than sensory things, or, at least, that whatever exists is known in dimensions that are chiefly mental—through and as ideas."
In my class we studied various major philosophical positions, especially as related to education and teaching, and we also were asked to analyze our own views.
During that process I learned that I was a minority in that class and, according to the professor, in teaching as a whole. Realism was much better represented in our class, which apparently also is more the norm (I'm speaking of early 1990s in the USA).
In my view the person ("man") is primarily soul and our body is just a temporary house for the soul and spirit. Other than that I believe that ultimate reality and understanding of reality comes from God, and while I believe He does not contradict the physical realm, we often don't understand the physical correctly and so it is best to trust Him rather than potentially erroneous understandings of the physical world. There are plenty of examples of how science retracts itself when it is discovered that they were wrong about something that is now "proven" incorrect.
My idealism has held me in good stead, (my Achilles heel?, my fatal flaw?) when faced with apparent conflicting pressures and views. I mean, I've been in situations that the only way I could stand firm at all was by holding to my beliefs and not letting myself just be pressured into changing. I can't tell you how strengthening it feels that despite everything I managed to keep my conscious relatively clear and holding to my beliefs. However, you should already understand that I am open to change, but not by pressure: only if I come to really believe that I was wrong and need to change, usually after significant experiences and even research.
Another example of this that some people might be able to relate to regards professional ethics (any profession). Usually professional organizations put together ethics statements, which are revised from time to time as issues come up and need addressing. A lot of companies that hire professionals want their allegiance to be with the company, but professionals can be slippery folk because they often have ethical standards apart from the company they work with. This is a very limited example, but maybe you can understand idealism a bit by it.
So my truth is ultimately based mostly on idealism.
Here's where you can take a break before I go on to the next view of truth.
*** And now we will pause for station identification. ***
Now that you're refreshed and ready to plow on with me, I'll present to you the second view of truth. In this view, the proof is in the pudding... or the ends justifies the means. Who cares how you throw the pudding together, as long as it tastes good, right? I just hope Fido wasn't helping and that you washed your hands somewhere in the process. But in this view, those things don't matter - only the end result.
I'm speaking here of the mission organizations working in Eastern Europe (I held out hope that not all were so bad, but any that might not have actively been involved in such politicizing of their work just turned a blind eye regarding the others.)
It's hard for me to imagine an alternative than these missions holding to an ends justifies the means view of truth - where the end is the truth and it is displayed as truth.
The Apostle Paul sort of addresses this in Philippians chapter 1, but there he is only talking about bad motives in preaching the Gospel, not about the tactics used when he says "...whether in pretext or in truth, Christ is announced; and in this I rejoice" (1:18, Darby translation).
My understanding of how missions in Communist countries (and I believe other "closed" countries too) is that anything is allowed as long as it gives them the opportunity to reach people in these countries. That's why they can lie to border guards, take money from the CIA, maintain military connections, etc.
In Vienna we were told to explain our work to local people we might interact with by saying we work for an international publishing company. That's a partial truth, but the publishing part was only a support for the teaching, which was the primary activity of the organization. They published textbooks for the courses being taught in Eastern Europe. But, hey! it's no big deal, and ultimately by telling little white lies we can continue our work.
And when you take little steps towards relativism and John Dewey's pragmatism (which is very American) it's easy to take another step and another until before you know it you've just slid completely down the slippery slope and there you are where the ends justifies the means.
But if they are able to show significant results ("ends") to their supporters back home, and claim that the process ("means") is secret because of the delicate nature of the context they're working in, then no one is worse for the not knowing. And everyone lives happily ever after.
My contention is, however, that this whole work there was permeated with this "ends justifies the means" pragmatism so that it really did become a modus operandi. Needless to say, my idealism was not well excepted there and we had a major clash of cultures: Americans against American (me).
Phew! Two down and just one to go. Go take another break.
****
The third view on truth that I'm going to address today is that of my family. Actually, it is only fairly recently that I have come to see this as a value in the family. I learned a lot by living up north by my brother for a few months.
This view says that might makes right. That's the Capalini view of life and truth, what I call a "Capalini-ism".
Now might can be many things, such as the obvious, physical strength, but also monetary strength, prestige strength, even credibility strength or being the most incredibly needy person in the family ("woe is me! I have it so bad that if you don't feel sorry for me and help me everyone will know you're a jerk!"). Right now I'm at the bottom of the various types of strength, but since I don't hold to this view of truth and I'm in a position where I don't have much to lose anyway, I'm perhaps not as phased by it as I "should" be (according to our family social norms). I definitely don't fit in too well at present, except as a fall guy or scapegoat.
It might seem sort of strange that all these years I didn't know that those were the rules of play in my own family, but remember, I was the oldest child and only daughter and I just went about doing what I thought I was supposed to do. I didn't make choices to place myself in the family strength-wise. So now I've had to rethink some things from the past and wonder if while I was out doing my thing I may have in some way set some family standards for strength that some others thought they had to compete against. Also, I don't know this for sure now, and Dad died a few years ago, but I almost wonder if he sort of set this wheel going that way by, for example, being proud of me doing this or that resulting in a chain reaction where the others thought they had to compete for his approval against me as the standard. I'm not sure about that, but I have a suspicion that there may be at least some of that. I really am not the competitive sort, except to perhaps compete against myself for personal development.
Anyway, taking us back to the present, my brother up north has physical strength. The thinking goes like this: I'm stronger than you so knock it off (accompanied by a display of physical strength). He also holds the purse strings of the family, except me, although I don't have any money anyway, because he manages everyone's finances. But it's mom that really has the most money, but besides that her claim to right-ness is her incredible needyness and she sets a standard against which others must compete for similar attention and sympathy. My brother in Seattle, I think , has a lot of strengths, but I'm not sure they're the kind that work well in this kind of "might makes right" system. As far as this ethic goes, his proximity to and care of Mom, gives him some extra power. After my back surgery a year and a half ago I think I had some of the "needyness" strength, that even for a brief time pre-empted mom's claim to fame on that front.
In this system, if you don't wield power along the lines mentioned here, then you don't have the right to determine "truth". However, if tables turn, then understandings of truth (the details of truth) will change with the position of the players, which is determined by their strength. Hence: might makes right. Or: The person with might determines what's right.
The end.
****
So to summarize, here are these players and their views of truth:
1. Me: Idealism: What is spiritual (esp. from a Christian viewpoint) is the ultimate truth.
2. Missions to closed countries: Pragmatism/The Proof is in the Pudding: Show me results and I'll believe. (How you got there doesn't matter).
3. My family: Might makes right: Whoever is the most powerful gets the right to determine what's right and true.
I hope you get a sense of clash of cultures here. Like the children's ball game I'm the "monkey in the middle". Aaaaaghhh! Get me out of here... I don't want to play this game. Stop the world... I want off!
Wouldn't it be nice if it were so simple in real life? *Sigh*
Pardon me if I take leave with that thought and have an extended reverie about the possibility of a different reality.
~ Meg
Fortunately, however, despite the fact that collectively we can't agree on what it is, individually we are often quite certain we do know what it is, so it is quite possible that individuals might find it, even if we collectively can't. Does this mean we are to live out our short lives here on earth in individual microcosms of truth? Well, that last question is beyond the scope of this particular blog post.
But I do want to discuss 3 particular conceptions of truth. [WARNING: this is likely to be a long post, so feel free to take it in chunks.]
To begin with, however, I should say that there are self-declared understandings of truth and then there are actual representations of truth. Where there is a discrepancy, that is often called hypocrisy. For example, I say that X is true, but I act as if Y (which at least appears to contradict X) is true.
So let's say I'm talking about Charlie Brown (the comic strip character)here. I can know his version of reality by his words, by his actions and/or by his thoughts. Since I'm not God and also can not psychically read minds, I can only know my thoughts, not someone else's, although psychologists will probably scream out that there are all these blind spots and different mind-bending tactics we humans use that can even warp or hinder my understanding of my own thoughts.
With that caveat in mind, and because this is my blog, I will present my version of truth based on my thoughts and the other versions of truth based mostly mostly on deeds. That may sound unfair, but like I said, it's my blog. So this posting is going to be my (albeit limited) perception of my version of truth and 2 other versions of truth by other collective entities.
Now that we got that out of the way, let the party begin!
Although I did have an introductory philosophy class in my undergraduate studies, it was in my master's class on Philosophy of Education that I consciously remember identifying with idealism. Here is part of the definition from Britannica.com:
"in philosophy, any view that stresses the central role of the ideal or the spiritual in the interpretation of experience. It may hold that the world or reality exists essentially as spirit or consciousness, that abstractions and laws are more fundamental in reality than sensory things, or, at least, that whatever exists is known in dimensions that are chiefly mental—through and as ideas."
In my class we studied various major philosophical positions, especially as related to education and teaching, and we also were asked to analyze our own views.
During that process I learned that I was a minority in that class and, according to the professor, in teaching as a whole. Realism was much better represented in our class, which apparently also is more the norm (I'm speaking of early 1990s in the USA).
In my view the person ("man") is primarily soul and our body is just a temporary house for the soul and spirit. Other than that I believe that ultimate reality and understanding of reality comes from God, and while I believe He does not contradict the physical realm, we often don't understand the physical correctly and so it is best to trust Him rather than potentially erroneous understandings of the physical world. There are plenty of examples of how science retracts itself when it is discovered that they were wrong about something that is now "proven" incorrect.
My idealism has held me in good stead, (my Achilles heel?, my fatal flaw?) when faced with apparent conflicting pressures and views. I mean, I've been in situations that the only way I could stand firm at all was by holding to my beliefs and not letting myself just be pressured into changing. I can't tell you how strengthening it feels that despite everything I managed to keep my conscious relatively clear and holding to my beliefs. However, you should already understand that I am open to change, but not by pressure: only if I come to really believe that I was wrong and need to change, usually after significant experiences and even research.
Another example of this that some people might be able to relate to regards professional ethics (any profession). Usually professional organizations put together ethics statements, which are revised from time to time as issues come up and need addressing. A lot of companies that hire professionals want their allegiance to be with the company, but professionals can be slippery folk because they often have ethical standards apart from the company they work with. This is a very limited example, but maybe you can understand idealism a bit by it.
So my truth is ultimately based mostly on idealism.
Here's where you can take a break before I go on to the next view of truth.
*** And now we will pause for station identification. ***
Now that you're refreshed and ready to plow on with me, I'll present to you the second view of truth. In this view, the proof is in the pudding... or the ends justifies the means. Who cares how you throw the pudding together, as long as it tastes good, right? I just hope Fido wasn't helping and that you washed your hands somewhere in the process. But in this view, those things don't matter - only the end result.
I'm speaking here of the mission organizations working in Eastern Europe (I held out hope that not all were so bad, but any that might not have actively been involved in such politicizing of their work just turned a blind eye regarding the others.)
It's hard for me to imagine an alternative than these missions holding to an ends justifies the means view of truth - where the end is the truth and it is displayed as truth.
The Apostle Paul sort of addresses this in Philippians chapter 1, but there he is only talking about bad motives in preaching the Gospel, not about the tactics used when he says "...whether in pretext or in truth, Christ is announced; and in this I rejoice" (1:18, Darby translation).
My understanding of how missions in Communist countries (and I believe other "closed" countries too) is that anything is allowed as long as it gives them the opportunity to reach people in these countries. That's why they can lie to border guards, take money from the CIA, maintain military connections, etc.
In Vienna we were told to explain our work to local people we might interact with by saying we work for an international publishing company. That's a partial truth, but the publishing part was only a support for the teaching, which was the primary activity of the organization. They published textbooks for the courses being taught in Eastern Europe. But, hey! it's no big deal, and ultimately by telling little white lies we can continue our work.
And when you take little steps towards relativism and John Dewey's pragmatism (which is very American) it's easy to take another step and another until before you know it you've just slid completely down the slippery slope and there you are where the ends justifies the means.
But if they are able to show significant results ("ends") to their supporters back home, and claim that the process ("means") is secret because of the delicate nature of the context they're working in, then no one is worse for the not knowing. And everyone lives happily ever after.
My contention is, however, that this whole work there was permeated with this "ends justifies the means" pragmatism so that it really did become a modus operandi. Needless to say, my idealism was not well excepted there and we had a major clash of cultures: Americans against American (me).
Phew! Two down and just one to go. Go take another break.
****
The third view on truth that I'm going to address today is that of my family. Actually, it is only fairly recently that I have come to see this as a value in the family. I learned a lot by living up north by my brother for a few months.
This view says that might makes right. That's the Capalini view of life and truth, what I call a "Capalini-ism".
Now might can be many things, such as the obvious, physical strength, but also monetary strength, prestige strength, even credibility strength or being the most incredibly needy person in the family ("woe is me! I have it so bad that if you don't feel sorry for me and help me everyone will know you're a jerk!"). Right now I'm at the bottom of the various types of strength, but since I don't hold to this view of truth and I'm in a position where I don't have much to lose anyway, I'm perhaps not as phased by it as I "should" be (according to our family social norms). I definitely don't fit in too well at present, except as a fall guy or scapegoat.
It might seem sort of strange that all these years I didn't know that those were the rules of play in my own family, but remember, I was the oldest child and only daughter and I just went about doing what I thought I was supposed to do. I didn't make choices to place myself in the family strength-wise. So now I've had to rethink some things from the past and wonder if while I was out doing my thing I may have in some way set some family standards for strength that some others thought they had to compete against. Also, I don't know this for sure now, and Dad died a few years ago, but I almost wonder if he sort of set this wheel going that way by, for example, being proud of me doing this or that resulting in a chain reaction where the others thought they had to compete for his approval against me as the standard. I'm not sure about that, but I have a suspicion that there may be at least some of that. I really am not the competitive sort, except to perhaps compete against myself for personal development.
Anyway, taking us back to the present, my brother up north has physical strength. The thinking goes like this: I'm stronger than you so knock it off (accompanied by a display of physical strength). He also holds the purse strings of the family, except me, although I don't have any money anyway, because he manages everyone's finances. But it's mom that really has the most money, but besides that her claim to right-ness is her incredible needyness and she sets a standard against which others must compete for similar attention and sympathy. My brother in Seattle, I think , has a lot of strengths, but I'm not sure they're the kind that work well in this kind of "might makes right" system. As far as this ethic goes, his proximity to and care of Mom, gives him some extra power. After my back surgery a year and a half ago I think I had some of the "needyness" strength, that even for a brief time pre-empted mom's claim to fame on that front.
In this system, if you don't wield power along the lines mentioned here, then you don't have the right to determine "truth". However, if tables turn, then understandings of truth (the details of truth) will change with the position of the players, which is determined by their strength. Hence: might makes right. Or: The person with might determines what's right.
The end.
****
So to summarize, here are these players and their views of truth:
1. Me: Idealism: What is spiritual (esp. from a Christian viewpoint) is the ultimate truth.
2. Missions to closed countries: Pragmatism/The Proof is in the Pudding: Show me results and I'll believe. (How you got there doesn't matter).
3. My family: Might makes right: Whoever is the most powerful gets the right to determine what's right and true.
I hope you get a sense of clash of cultures here. Like the children's ball game I'm the "monkey in the middle". Aaaaaghhh! Get me out of here... I don't want to play this game. Stop the world... I want off!
Wouldn't it be nice if it were so simple in real life? *Sigh*
Pardon me if I take leave with that thought and have an extended reverie about the possibility of a different reality.
~ Meg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)