The Theory of Holism in Education

Where is it?

Education professors and the like have set a stride to create more degree programs that harbor a larger view of disciplines(interdisciplinary degrees, double majors.. the "Liberal Arts" ) in the ideal that this type of holism would harbor unification of curriculum that greater reinforces our understanding of the places we individually partake in society, citizenship as a "global citizen" in a globalizing world; holism that would bring political science and global studies together, for example, and attempt to marry the two disciplines into joint relationship. What is "joint relationship" and its purpose to each field respectively? Why should a criminal justice major study cultural geography?

These arguments are well founded and we've discovered that holism in these curricula would indeed bring a greater universality to studying and becoming an independent human capable of thinking globally and dependently within our new global culture. However, holism in education seems but a dream at this point. It's been the topic of research in various disciplines for several decades-- how do we unite curricula and create a steady stable liberal arts program, beneficial to all absolute majors? My dear friend and colleague in teaching Tito Gomez postulates,

Care to guess what the experts will be calling this 5 years from now when they decide once again to put different terminology to what is fundamentally the same concept? LOL To quote the Kia Soul Hamster car rap, "You can get with this or you can get with that... Doo-da-dippity!"

 ....Anyway, this is clearly not the first discussion on holism involving the various post-high school education systems. I'll offer it as a catalyst for now, and perhaps ideas on why this will work or why it won't will come with time.

Cheers.

An Alternative Viewpoint Regarding A-theism, Objectivity, and the Cosmos

Salutations my friends and comrades!

I would like to offer not so much a rebuttal as an alternative viewpoint to the subject of a-theism.

I will start at the beginning, with some basic definitions. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, theism has four possible meanings:

1) gen. belief in a deity or deities, as opposed to atheism,

2) belief in one god, as opposed to polytheism or pantheism,

3) Belief in the existence of God, with denial of revelation,

4) esp. Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.

A-theism, on the other hand, is defined as, “Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).”

First off (without going too far off topic in a related but not particularly relevant rant), I am opposed in principle to any-thing that can only be defined in opposition to another thing. Without going into the simplistic misunderstanding of duality as irreconcilable opposites, defining a position (a-theism) in opposition to another position (theism) inextricably incorporates the original concept (theism) into the second position (a-theism), and thus becomes inherently reliant upon it. A-theism cannot exist without theism. Theism must exist for a-theism to have its definition. It is my sincere hope that the problem there is apparent.

I agree with Mark (pardon me, fafnir) on some counts. Much evil has been done in the name of certain Gods as well as in the interest of conversion. I argue, as many before me have, that it is our right as human beings to choose to believe or disbelieve as it suits us. Even attempting to justify disallowing this right to others (forcible conversion, or the like) automatically undermines our own access to that very right. However, the opposite side of this coin is that each person must allow every other person the freedom to act in accordance with his or her persuasion. If this means that Jehovah’s Witnesses come to your door to distribute pamphlets to spread their good news because they believe that God calls them to do so, so long as they respect the rights of those to whom they are prosthelytizing, it is their right to do so. We may present arguments in attempts to persuade (which is what I am doing right now, by the by), but at the end of the day, we must respect the rights of others to believe or disbelieve if for no other reason than to ensure that right to ourselves.

Another point with which I am in agreement is part of the point about revelation. It is indeed absurd to believe that a deity has bestowed a unique insight of itself upon humanity through any one person or group of people. There is no logical way to conclude that any revelation of the sacred or divine is restricted to a certain subset of the population and that that particular incarnation of revelation is the absolute literal truth.

However, he brought up many points to which I would like to humbly offer an alternative viewpoint.

First, it is my belief, after a cross-cultural, anthropological examination, that some measure of spirituality is an innate human trait and that it is not by necessity a negative thing.

Across cultures and history, humans have maintained a sense of the spiritual, a recognition and respect for the sacred and the divine. Some would argue that our ancestors were simply stupid and superstitious and that their traditions, stories, and reverence came from ignorance and fear. It is not controversial to say that it is entirely likely that, much like today, some of the people of our ancestral societies were ignorant, fearful, and superstitious. However, others recognized their reliance on things like the sun and the earth, the natural cycles of life, death, and rebirth, rain, animals, bodies of water, edible and medicinal plants, and so on. These are the original “deities,” and it is my opinion that they were not so much “worshipped” as deeply respected and honored by those who understood that their lives depended on them.

This leads naturally into another point, the meaning (or lack thereof) of life. It is true that science cannot provide an objective meaning for life. However, in my opinion, it does not follow logically that because objective science does not provide a meaning for life that meaning does not exist or that it has no value. Meaning simply is not the purview of science. Meaning is beyond the scope of what science can offer, because the very definition of science is “A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain,” (Oxford English Dictionary, emphasis added). Or, more simply, science is “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation” (dictionary.com). Meaning falls outside of the realm of science. A brewer of wine, as a brewer of wine, has nothing to say about Coca Cola, for it falls outside her realm of expertise. In the same way, a scientist has nothing to say about meaning.

However, there are fields that deal with meaning. These include, but to my knowledge are not limited to, philosophy, spirituality, religion, literature, and art. Despite what western culture might try to persuade you (and really stop to think about your cultural biases here, because they run deep), these studies are as legitimate in their endeavors as science is in its own pursuits. There are other legitimate ways to come to an understanding of “truth” besides science. Western ideology would have you replace God with science; indeed, some scientists treat science with the same absolutist fervor as the most ignorant of Christian fundamentalists. Do not make their mistake. Any scientist who is being honest with you will admit that science is both limited in the scope of what it can study and understand and is as prone to human error as any other method of study. Thus, just because science will not provide you with the meaning of life, it would be a logical fallacy, a non sequitur, to say that life is not rich with valuable meaning.

Yes, to the scientific standpoint, this meaning is what is known as “subjective.” But subjective is not a dirty word; objectivity is not the only way by which to understand the world. To go back to the beginnings of a rant I avoided a few pages ago, it is simplistic to view objectivity and subjectivity as mutually exclusive and inherently opposed opposites. A richer understanding shows that they are, instead, complementary. (A richer still understanding is that they are nondual, but we won’t go there.) Subjectivity and objectivity, each in its respective purview, are valuable tools by which to come to an understanding of the world. Just as your two eyes complement each other, each providing a unique point of view and both coming together to give a depth neither can achieve alone, a Gestalt, a whole that is greater than the sum of it’s parts – such are subjective and objective points of view.

Now that I have (in my opinion) legitimized the subjective, it is objectively true to say that one’s own subjective sentiments are as important as and often are more relevant than objective truth. (If, that is, objective truth even really exists, which many philosophers dispute. This is a long and complicated debate and not something that can be resolved here. I just wanted to point out that the very existence of objective truth is debatable.) Back to the original point, it is an almost universally acknowledged fact in clinical psychology that a person’s subjective interpretation has as much or more impact than anyone else’s interpretation/the general consensus/objective truth. The most easily demonstrable evidence for this fact is the placebo effect. If someone believes that their disease will be cured, the physical body will often respond to the mental state.

Tying this (seemingly off-topic thread of thought) back to spirituality and the meaning of life, a person’s subjective choice (and it is a choice) to attribute meaning to life is more important than whether or not it exists objectively. Just like believing that you have been cured cures you, believing that life has meaning grants meaning to life. The flip side – believing that you are incurable greatly lessens your chance of survival. The body is seamlessly integrated with the mind. The body-mind duality is another simplistic misunderstanding. (Ironically, whereas many spiritual traditions have understood the foundational essence of this integration for centuries, Western science has just begun in the past few decades, even the past few years, to recognize and understand this fact.) Thus, though human judgment is what grants meaning to life, that does not delegitimize this meaning.

A related but semi-separate point: our “insignificance” in the grand scheme of the universe. Indeed, Carl Sagan did describe our planet as a “pale blue dot” in the universe. He also said, “Every cell is a triumph of natural selection, and we’re made of trillions of cells. Within us is a little universe… We are, each of us, a multitude.” When we look at ourselves from the viewpoint of the entire universe, we are indeed small, even insignificant. But when we look at ourselves from the viewpoint of cells, molecule and atoms, even subatomic particles, quarks, etc., each person is a universe. Every single human being is a complexity beyond all comprehension. These two viewpoints, in my opinion, act to balance each other. In the words of Hakim Bey, we are “neither a god nor a maggot.” We should be neither excessively arrogant nor excessively humble. We should honor our place in the cosmos. (This, I believe, was Sagan’s point.)

There is yet another scope by which to view ourselves, which I feel the need to point out: the community levels, from hometown to global. While I agree that an overestimation of our worth as human beings is plain arrogance, it is equally as arrogant to say that human beings, individually or as a whole, “mean nothing.” Human beings require valuable resources to survive. Human beings who live in the United States consume the world’s resources so disproportionally that if every one of the six billions plus human beings on this planet lived like Americans, it would take between six and eight times the earth’s resources to sustain that consumption. Thus, if a human being (especially in “developed countries”) is simply alive – not making any advancements, contributing any good to the world, perhaps even wallowing in their own self-pity for their imagined worthlessness – that person is consuming (wasting) valuable resources that might better be expended on another creature, human or animal. They do have a value; it is just a negative value, a drain on society. Harsh? Perhaps, but only as much as truly believing that one “means nothing.” On the other hand, because (as I’ve just demonstrated) each person has a value, makes an impact, etc., we can choose to be a positive impact. We can choose to make positive contributions to the world, even on the humble scale of our day-to-day interactions. (That is, just be nice to people. It does actually make a difference.)

Another related but semi-separate point: the universe as an unforgiving place. While I would agree with the rest of the modifiers used to describe the universe in that concluding passage, it is not my belief that the universe is “unforgiving.” To be able to choose not to forgive (or to be ruthless, unkind, uncaring, or any of the other things implied by “unforgiving”), the universe would have to be sentient, which fafnir rejected and which may be objectively reject-able. (I honestly don’t know for sure one way or the other.) From the objective standpoint, the universe is simply disinterested. (In fairness, this is probably what fafnir meant, but I want to take this opportunity to make two other points.) One, the universe is not hostile to life or to humanity. This is a patent untruth. If the universe were truly hostile (unforgiving, whatever), life would not have arisen from the primordial slime (or what-have-you), it would not have evolved to the degree that it has, and it damn well would not continue to survive despite the destruction that humanity wreaks upon the planet that is depends on for its continued survival (in the name of a currency that it made up and the pseudo-need for an autonomous economy perpetuated by the society of the spectacle… but that is an ENTIRELY different article. End of (this) rant.) Again, objectively, the universe is perfectly neutral.

Subjectively, I believe that the universe is a friendly place. I believe that I will be provided with what I need when I need it. I believe that the cosmos is conspiring to shower me with blessings. I see beauty all around me, and I am blessed with abundance in so many different ways. Can I prove this objectively? No, I cannot. What I can say with some measure of objectivity is this: my viewpoint is healthier than its opposite. It goes back to that principle, the one on which the placebo effect is based. As philosopher Michel Foucault pointed out, “truth” is not as important as “what functions as true.” (Note: To explain, the basic premise of this thesis is that many things can be agreed upon as “true” by scholars of the relevant subject, but these truths do not function as true because they are not accepted as true in the society. Thus, Foucault draws a distinction between “truth” and “what is accepted as/what functions as true”.) Applying that thesis to this circumstance, I can choose to take the standpoint that I am cosmically important and loved and provided for, and guess what? a) No one can prove me wrong, because it is my opinion and “proof” is outside that realm, and b) I am psychologically healthier for it (and therefore physically healthier and healthier in all other ways, because remember the mind and body are integrated systems). Ponder that for a moment.

Back to theism and a-theism. A disbelief in a specific god or gods does not necessarily negate a spiritual approach to the world. Even Carl Sagan, a hyper-rational astrophysicist, made remarks that betrayed his intense respect and wonder for the cosmos that he studied so objectively. In samples used in the Symphony of Science’s “We Are All Connected,” Sagan says (sings, XD), “The cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” Even Carl Sagan anthropomorphizes the universe!

Also, rejecting religion does not necessarily reject spirituality. I will very freely admit that many atrocities have been committed in the name of the gods of particular religions. I am personally opposed to rigid dogma that does not leave any room for interpretation or for changing circumstances. I am personally opposed to principles and standards of “morality” that do not serve the good of the people that they govern. I am personally opposed to holding laws above love. I am personally opposed to judging and damning. On the other hand, some people are better people because of their religion, and they should be free to believe as they see fit. If you gave up drinking and now have a happier, more stable life because of Jesus, I have a great deal of respect for that. If you came from a torn up, fucked up childhood and Allah made you whole again, I have a great deal of respect for that. I am free to be the post-literal pagan that I am, a persuasion that enriches my life, and I would lovingly extend that same freedom to each and every person on this planet.

I think that is all of my grievances. Mull that over for a while and let me know what you think.

More Intellectual Musings

I've been doing some thinking as of late. A lot of times, I've heard that the concept of the existence of different dimensions allows for the existence of "heaven." When I was Catholic, I would have agreed. However, I have to change my opinion after certain pieces of evidence have come to light. Being I used to be Catholic, one of the things we were always taught is that our souls and our bodies would be reunited at the "Last Day," when Jesus would come to Earth again to reclaim humanity to himself and to God. Knowing what I now know, that just seems highly unlikely. That simple concept by itself doesn't work. According to several religions (in general), when we die, our souls are separated from our bodies, and transcend dimensions to some form of an afterlife. Christianity is the only religion that I am aware of that takes this one step further by making the claim that at the "Final Resurrection" our bodies are once again reunited with our souls in this new dimension. This is not even possible. The "Final Resurrection" would technically mean that we would become alive again, which makes no sense. When you die, that's it. At least, that's what I believe. I've had people tell me that science has actually strengthened their faith in whatever religion they belong to. I, on the other hand, have had the opposite happen to me. Science negated my faith, because so much in the universe went against it. Not only that, but the fact that there are so many interpretations of the same concept led me to believe that none of them could be right. I just don't understand it.

A Word of Welcome from fafnir242 (PLEASE READ!!!!)

I don't know how many of you were directed here because of the video I posted on YouTube, but I feel like I need to elaborate on a couple of things that I forgot to do in the video. The opinions that are expressed on this blog are just that: our opinions. You don't have to agree with them. You don't have to disagree with them either. You, legitimately, do not have to give two-thirds of a fuck about what we say and just pass it off as ramblings (which wouldn't be too far off for some of my posts.lol) All I'm saying is we are not purposely out to offend anyone with anything we say that could come across as such. We created this blog with objectivity in mind, and we hope you read this blog with objectivity as well. That is essentially what we are trying to promote. If you like what we're doing with this and want to leave us some feedback, shoot either of us a message. We will be more than happy to reply, converse, or clear anything up that may need doing so. Once again, thank you for checking out our page, and I hope to hear from some of you.

A new rant on religion

Never has my resolve in my atheistic ideals been stronger. It seems like more and more people I know have some kind of religious affiliation. I have been so hard pressed to find people who share my religious preference (or, rather, lack thereof). I have two friends, that I know of, that are also atheist. One is the founder of this blog, my good friend Joseph. The other is my girlfriend. A lot of people have also been trying to get me to come back to Catholicism, or at least some kind of religion. Mainly, it's been my parents and (now deceased) grandmother. To be honest, I feel they've been trying a little too hard. I operate under a condition of if you have to try to convince my to do something, I will generally assume it's a bad idea. If I really liked what someone was serving up to me, they wouldn't have to put any effort into convincing me. If I put up resistance, it's usually because something is throwing up a red flag.

I can't stand it when people try to convert someone to a certain religion. It's just an act of desperation. If your organization has such a strong foundation, it should be able to support itself. I don't care what a book says. If it's so accurate, people should be flocking to its "truth" by themselves. If God were so "omnipotent," he would be able to "call all peoples to himself" by himself, would he not? He wouldn't need his followers to do it for him. If God were able to do this, that would mean people who have never heard of Christianity before (or any other religion, for that matter) would suddenly start believing in it without any provocation, or without knowing exactly what Christianity is. They wouldn't know that God was trying to speak to them in some way, bu they wouldn't have to realize it was the "voice of God" because God could technically just be able to convince whoever it is that he or she was hearing the "voice of God." He would therefore have no problem converting them himself.

God is supposed to have created the whole of time and space, but needs a species of animal to spread his word? I think a lot of times, humans forget what they really are. We are animals. To think that an entire universe is governed by a deity that favors one species of creatures as "his own," his master creation, is just plain arrogant. Other than the fact that we have advanced cognitive reasoning, we function just the same as any other species. We are born, we grow, we reproduce, and we die.

There is no purpose to life (outside of human judgment). We have such a selfish interpretation of life. Our thinking this way probably stems from the Bible itself. (Ecclesiastes 3:1) "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven." The delusion of being under the control and will of an all-powerful deity has given the illusion of purpose. I don't believe in giving a preference. God gives preference to humanity, while nature has no such bias. This is the way the universe ought to be understood by humanity, but unfortunately, we don't get this. It doesn't care what happens to humanity (or itself, or anything else) because the universe is not sentient in nature. It couldn't care even if it wanted to because it does not exist in the same form as we do. It just exists. It's as Carl Sagan describes our planet. We are just a "pale blue dot" in the universe. That's all it is, really. We mean nothing.

Everything that we hold as valuable is only valuable because we have made it so. There is no such thing as a universal value. As stated earlier, the universe doesn't care about us. Yes, ideals like "love," "happiness," "hope," etc... seem like "nice" concepts, and the feel "good," but that is only from a human standpoint. Do animals feel these things? Because they don't speak English (or any other human language), can they "receive God's word"? No. They can't. Why? Because humans invented it. We don't communicate with animals the same way we do with other humans, so they could never have the "word of God" spread to them, which would automatically damn them to hell. Or, at least, it would mean that if we actually treated all creatures as equal, but unfortunately we don't.

This universe is too vast for us to matter in the way that religion makes us out to. People didn't have the kind of knowledge that we do now back when religions started. We have learned so much about the universe that I honestly don't see anymore where any sort of deity, Christian or not, would fit into the picture at all. I was fully prepared to take God out of my life because I saw a better world without a God. Sure, the prospect of a world without God scared me at first, having been raised a Catholic for my entire life. I was so into my faith, too. I got as involved at church as I possibly could, I went on retreats, I did everything. Never once when I was at church or on a retreat did I ever think that I'd end up as an atheist. I was fully prepared to keep being involved, especially with TEC (Teens Encounter Christ) for the rest of my life. Look at me now. I'm boasting to the world in a loud voice that I am proudly an atheist, and will be for the rest of my life.

My conversion has opened up so much to me that I find fascinating. I've been able to see the world in a new light, see new possibilities from old schools of thought, learn and discover ideals and concepts about the human race that I never thought could possibly have existed. I've been told that there is no light without God, but for once I've seen the true light of reality. It's a very dim light, though. Reality is very cold, dark, and unforgiving, but I've grown to accept it. Once I got past the culture shock (and believe me, it was quite a nasty jolt), I saw a beautiful world around me. Not just the world, but the unforgiving, unbiased, uncreated, self-sustaining, ever-changing, and undeniably real universe.

Resilient Ideals

There are a number of ongoing idealistic wars occurring in the human mind, collectively. Today, we will take a closer, yet etic look at the topic of religion and science and how they are debating. I will only occasionally use emic experience to clarify information if at all in this brief session. Let us now find out what is on our slate for debate.

Throughout the world of education, a raging argument has begun between many different sects of religions, and scientists of varied disciplines. That of course does not limit people of faith to 'fighting' science, but also allows them to fight themselves, and scientists to fight themselves. While the situations are innumerable, one clarification generically stands the strongest: A belief in god versus a disbelief in god. I will take this moment to clarify the discussion point-- perhaps it is more appropriate to call this a analysis of what people are commonly arguing about, specifically who is right. Does/do a god(s) exist, or is/are there simply no god(s)? Argument after argument, day after day, intellectuals(and non-intellectuals) combat each other graciously and/or defiantly to prove one another wrong. I'm here to analyse their behaviour.

On one hand, we have most commonly an atheist who attempts to use science, logic, and other mechanisms of reason(some also use things that shouldn't be used, like "you're just wrong", and those people should be ignored) to disprove a religious belief. On the other, we have a religious person who defines faith and can use pretty much the same tools that the atheist would use(less often than the atheist does, I find, but that's changing for some reason. Perhaps someone would like to try to explain that change legitimately?) so the playing ground is set up. Using science and other tools, both parties launch fierce attacks upon one another. I however do not believe that most in the argument realise something fairly simple, fairly obvious, and very evident to this argument:

They're arguing with ideals. Ideals are strong,, resilient, and pressing viruses that invade the minds of otherwise unsuspecting humans, and plant themselves to grow. Those ideas are highly subject to change, but change is not always predictable, nor is it always large or small. Having established that neat little definition, you'll know that while ideals change, they do not fundamentally break until several core elements of their design are completely eradicated. That means, for example terrorism-- to effectively eradicate terrorism(which is an idea) one would have to destroy all of those with whom that ideal rests within. There are other more severely distorted methods of change in ideals, though they would take an incredibly long amount of time, and are not effective on such high levels.

If an ideal is wrong, what happens to it? Truly. By "wrong", I mean not functional, not productive, nonsensical and worthless to any prospect of life or continuation. What happens to an ideal of that kind? It's quite simple. It decays. It rots. It dies. While it takes time, it happens inevitably, and has happened inevitably for tens of thousands of years of human existence. You could almost classify mutations in biology "ideas", they are nature's "ideas" . . possible solutions to evident problems in need of attention via adaptation to one's environment. No one said (popular misconception) that the solutions proposed would work indefinitely. It was simply a proposed solution. What happens to those solutions when they utterly fail? Over time, they decay . . usually quickly in the scheme of evolution considering the hostile nature of a negative mutation. If speciation occurred, and that new species is incapable of reproduction to sustain those genes because of mutation, game over. Extinction. An ideal is no less susceptible to this constraint. If an idea does not work, if it fails utterly, it will only persevere so long as the last failures are not weeded out systematically by the nature of its failure. An ideal that is no longer valid, no longer productive, and is in fact counterproductive will destroy itself and can not persevere as every other element moves on-- new ideas are formed(we shall call this process ideal genesis, or ideciation for jokes) and branch off to create ore complex dendrite connection networks, more intense neurotic reaction, et cetera. Ideals are immensely strong, just like the microscopic networks of cellulose that are impossible to digest except by special enzymes.

Consider this for a moment. Whether religion is "wrong" or "right", whether science is "wrong" or "right", will truly be determined by the resilience of the ideals they represent. How resilient is religion? How resilient is science? One idea must be better than the other, if there is so much conflict. One idea may actually help another, however, the conflict arose as if both were always opposed to one another. The longer these ideals are expanded and collaborated, cross-examined, redefined, processed and handled, the more they will be tested in their resilience to the new and brilliant level of human thought. 

Our minds are evolving. Our technologies and understanding are becoming further and further intricate. this process will destroy ideals that are unable to compete and stand to the new found discoveries of the human mind. If religion is proven by science or other means yet to be discovered, it will have survived the test of resilience that an ideal must survive to continue to thrive. If science continues as a thriving, resilient ideal and process, then it too shall remain it's own testimony to its resilience as an idea. These two functional pieces of human society will be tested rigorously in the coming decades, as human minds progress further and further into the unknown of this universe. Most of us, in our lifetimes, may witness the birth and death of many ideals, strong and weak. As we continue to argue these things, perhaps we should realise just how futile the argument will be if one or the other will generate the beauty of resilience that an ideal will generate-- not sheerly from argument. You will not destroy an idea simply by arguing about it. Ideals destroy themselves, with progression and innovation. Ideas are meant to be adaptive, and if they cannot be, they fail.

This is somewhat a note to all of you who argue without consistency and with the aim to "win" or "lose"; you stand as nothing against the resilience of an ideal. So carefully consider these things before you begin an 'attack' on another human being.

Principles vs Values

I'm getting a little trigger happy with these posts.lol Anyway, time for another sociology paper.

The word “principle” has many definitions. A couple of the definitions given by dictionary.reference.com are:

- an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct

- a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived

Values, on the other hand, as defined on page 31 in the Henslin textbook, are “beliefs about what is good or desirable in life and the way the world ought to be.” One could then argue that principles are the basis upon which we get our values. Principles are actions that are acceptable among the general populous, while values are on a more personal level. A person gains their values from how they interpret the certain principles of their society.

This one’s kind of a tough one for me. It’s a good examining exercise for me, though. I’ve never really considered my principles or values. I just do what I do. I don’t really know how to put them into words, but I can try.

Being a principle can sometimes be an action, I guess one principle I hold is that I always lightly bow to people after I have finished a conversation with them, just as a sign of respect. I think that may have more something to do with my sudden interest in Japanese society. Japanese bow to each other often, also as a sign of respect, like I do.

Other than that, I don’t think I really follow any societal principles. I’ve become too objective in my thinking to just follow generally accepted practices without questioning them. For instance, a generally accepted rule of thumb in this country would be to speak English, would it not? I, on the other hand, tend to speak Japanese if I know the word or phrase I’m trying to use instead of an English one. I also tend to be loud and obnoxious in public if I’m with my friends, and I tend to not care how I’m dressed (although my girlfriend is helping me with that).

As stated, I’ve just become too free-spirited and objective, because I realize, in the grand scheme of things, that nothing that we do really matters. Things only matter to humanity because we have placed certain colloquial meanings on them. That’s really the only value I have. I remain as objective as possible about everything. I realise the significance of how humans relate to the environment around them, and how this varies among cultures. What one thing means to someone can mean a different thing to another.

As long as I keep an open mind about everything, I can get a better sense of things. It has opened my mind up to so many realisations I’d never come to before, and it’s really a fantastic thing.

I imagine that sociologists want to stay away from principles because they rely too much on the accepted practices of a society. Principles will vary greatly from society to society, and it’s hard to know what these principles are without actually being part of said society. In this case, studying someone who has perhaps deviated from the principles of his or her society becomes difficult, because since they have deviated, they may have become so lost in their own principles that they either forget what those principles were, or they will have the tendency to spin those principles into a negative light to try to prove that their choices are better than what the society wants for them.

Sociological principles behind discrimination

This is a paper I recently wrote for my sociology class at Lincoln Land.

Henslin defines discrimination as “an action.” This action is “unfair treatment directed against someone.” Henslin goes on to further describe different reasons for this action. These can range anywhere from age to skin color, to gender, to personal preferences in style, even to religious and political views. There are even actual terms for the certain categories of discrimination: racism, sexism, ageism, etc. Prejudice is charged as the driving force behind discrimination. Defined on page 231 (along with discrimination), prejudice is “the prejudging” (go figure) of a person, “usually in a negative way.” I say go figure because if you break down the word prejudice, “pre” is the prefix that denotes “beforehand,” and the root of the verb “to judge” is clearly in the word.

Prejudice has been noticeable in American society for at least the last couple of centuries. The Civil War was fought over slavery, essentially. Who were these slaves at the time? African men, women, and children, who had been brought over to the United States for the simple reason of serving the white man, having already been “prejudged” as inferior. This had already been going on since around the time of the official founding of America in 1776. Some of our founding fathers were well-known slave owners, such as Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. (Ambrose, para. 1)

After the Emancipation Proclamation ended the Civil War, African-Americans (the now cultural term for the descendants of that original group) began making their way towards political and social equality. Any white person who grew up in that generation, however, had already been indoctrinated with the idea that any person who wasn’t a white American meant nothing. This is known as ethnocentricity. Ethnocentricity is a concept that states that a group of people will usually rate themselves over all other groups of people. This can go to such trivial lengths as sports teams or high schools.

White people did everything in their power (which they had all of) to suppress African-Americans. Several groups sprang up in response to this social uprising, the most well-known of which is the KKK. I remember watching a documentary about them at my friend Joe’s house a couple of months ago. Surprisingly, they originally based themselves as a Christian organisation. I used to be Catholic, so I can safely say the KKK isn’t exactly something I’d call a “Christ-like” organisation, but I digress. They believed the white man was the perfect being in the eyes of God. Anything else could be tossed by the wayside. This goes right back to ethnocentricity.

I guess the point I’m trying to make is that ethnocentricity is pretty much one of the leading causes of prejudice. As stated earlier, ethnocentricity is the belief that your group (or the one you follow, in the case of a sports team/athlete) is the best out of all similar groups. This can manifest itself in many ways, either in being blatantly forceful about it, as American society is, or being rather reserved (slightly xenophobic), like Japan. America wants to force the idea that it is greater than everyone on every other country, while Japan wants to keep itself a great country by not allowing itself to be infected with other, possibly harmful, cultures. I agree with the latter. I’d rather protect myself against anything potentially harmful instead of forcing myself on others to make them like me.

I don’t really have any problems with being discriminative in society, other than the fact that I’m just flat-out disgusted with American society. I realize how little sense that makes, that I’m discriminative against my own society, but I’m coming to realisations about this country that I do not like. To be honest, there’s really not much I can do to change that. My morals and ideals do not mesh with the general consensus I am getting off of our society. For example, we live in a very consumer-driven and materialistic society. I live a much more meager lifestyle than most of the higher-end people in America. Material possessions don’t interest me much. I’m content with what I have, while most humans still always want more.

On a side note, however, I have recently been on the receiving end of much religious discrimination. The funniest part of it is that I don’t belong to any religion. I am an atheist. Atheism gets its name from the Greek atheos, which translates to “without god.” I grew up in a Roman Catholic family, but over the last couple of years, I’ve grown out of the Church. I officially left in the Spring of 2010. I bounced around between several different ideal systems before finally deciding on atheism.

I think one of the funniest examples of discrimination happened at the store I work at. It was during this past Christmas season, and I was talking with a couple of customers about Christmas. Somehow (I don’t remember how), the fact that I was an atheist came up. I’m going to guess this couple was very devoutly Christian, because the woman told me that since I was atheist, I shouldn’t be able to celebrate Christmas. I was floored. I argued that I don’t celebrate the religious aspect of Christmas, but I do recognise the fact that Christmas is also a time to be with my family, which I intended to whether people liked it or not.

Oddly enough, however, the most severe discrimination was actually by my own family. Like I said earlier, I grew up in a Roman Catholic family, and both of my parents are still hardcore Catholic. When I told them I didn’t want to go to church anymore, it hit them pretty hard. When I told them I didn’t believe in God anymore, my mom about lost it. It hurt them very much, and I was hurt that they were hurt. I’m a grown man now. I turn 21 two weeks after the due date of this paper. My dad is starting to recognise this, and is becoming more accepting of it. My mom still isn’t happy about it. My grandmother wasn’t happy about it either. I never got her to fully accept that I had turned atheist, and unfortunately, I’ll now never have the chance, as she passed away on January 7^th. If anything, that almost makes it more painful. Being I’m an atheist, I obviously don’t believe in a heaven or hell, so she can’t hear me if I tried praying to her, and I won’t see her in an afterlife when I die, so all of that trying to communicate has become lost, and I hate it. I mean, I know she loved me regardless, but I miss her.

Discrimination has become a severe problem in all cultures, there’s no denying that. Humans are inherently discriminatory against someone who isn’t like them, so there’s really no chance of eradicating it unless we somehow work out every single possible difference amongst societies, which is not likely to happen. As much as I’d like to do something about discrimination, my words and ideas alone would make scarce more than a scratch (if that) on the wall that is segregation. If the world thought as one, we’d have a wrecking ball of sufficient size, but until then, all we can do is throw notes over the wall and try to communicate.

Works Cited

Ø Henslin, James M. Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach (8^th Edition).

Ø Ambrose, Stephen E. "Flawed Founders." Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost, Nov. 2002. Web. 25 Jan. 2011.

Stratification and Means For Work in Education

A small note for consideration occurred to me when pouring over education-based sociological journals. Research shows that there are roughly 3 levels of distinguishable employment in the education system as a teacher. That may sound strange at first, but there's a rhyme to this sort of thing in sociology.

  We'll start by mentioning that education is a few things(many, but only a few currently worth mentioning for this discussion): it has become a human essential, it is a career, and it is a way to make money. Knowing this, we can already assume 3 standard ascription values to the study of education and becoming a teacher.

• To educate(and this goes many many ways, but here's the main point)
• To have a career(status, and again this splits many ways)
• To make money(fairly linear, but also has variants)

  Starting to grasp the point of my discussion? If not, keep following. Many lead what would be considered a formidable charge in the field of education to do just that-- educate! I would personally agree with this branch of the construct, though I still objectively review it. They study, long and hard nights, to understand how communication and methods of education blend to create this environment for any human of any age, depending on their field. How nice. Moving on, to education perceived as nothing but a career, we have a slightly morphed story. Careers can be just about anything long-term, to be honest, and you don't have to be fanatically interested in your career to have it. Sometimes, people look for careers simply for sustenance. Evidentially, this is a high percentage of people. A significant proportion of students fresh out of high school are considering education careers, and purportedly to make a great effort to educate the future students and their peers. Long-term research is difficult to come by in this category, but what is available shows that an equally significant proportion of those students later report that the 'weeding system' that education courses use in university to get rid of non-teacher material had removed their interest in education; yet still a good number of those students who survived university are not necessarily passionately teaching, but are using their newly established career as just that. While that is admirable, the school systems do not need individuals who are not at least semi-passionately involved in education and it's processes teaching. For university level courses, it proves to be nothing more or less than annoying, and for lower education(e.g. high school) it should be unacceptable.


  Given those points, I move into the final of the three hierarchies of education; money. While the education system (go figure) 'weeds' the greater portion of these morons out of the system before they can even utter a word in a classroom(most are looking for easy money and low stress . . ) there are still a few that inevitably slip in; people who, as terrible influences and not worthy of any sort of status like "teacher" end up with decent pay and contributing a whole heaping helping of bullshit to the community. While not every person who treats education as a simple career with little reprimand is a scumbag, it is notable that there are many. Some teachers are fairly burnt out, or just so droned to the regular routine that they lose any possible passion. Some majored in a science or some field that they can teach in college, and got a community college job that is hardly fulfilling. Those teachers tend to be the ones who don't carefully analyze their social status or role, and really don't grasp the concepts of education, but simply use their education as a career; a way to get by. Who are we to judge?
   Right, well, who precisely are we? We're humans, of course, and our judgment of this situation is based purely on the fact that we are progressive creatures of our own developed sciences. We desire to learn, we're innately curious, and we must see to these biologically beneficial intelligences to quest for greater understanding. Our place in this situation is to dictate who can teach us, why they're teaching, and if they care. Let's all consider this for a while, and see what kind of communication we can establish about these situations in education.

  While my argument isn't a true argument, I fear that the virus inherent in this kind of culture's education system is also inherent in every other culture, and will spread. It is evidenced in most systems, and so a revolutionary aid is sought to fix this educational dilemma. What can we do to improve our search for knowledge and understanding?


 I'll leave you kindly with these thoughts, and perhaps the positive nature of the resilient human mind. We have versatility, and while that is our greatest enemy, we have control enough to decide what it can do for us. Remember that! :)

On Issues of Pride

I've begun to notice something about myself over the past couple of hours. For those of you who know me, this should not surprise you, because I am constantly discovering new attributes about myself. I've come to ascertain the real reason why I am so reluctant to take any of the medicines I have been prescribed for various mental conditions. If you don't know me, I have been diagnosed with both depression and ADD, and have been given various medicines for it. I've also been put into the emergency room (done by myself) for suicidal thoughts. Anyway, I think the real reason behind it is that it's more of an issue of pride. I'm not saying I don't want to cure my problems, don't get me wrong. It's just that if it's because of the medicine that I end up fixing my mental conditions, it just doesn't feel genuine. I'd like to be able to say I conquered my depression by myself, or I learned to focus by myself. I know that sounds childish of me, but I honestly think these are conditions I can work on without medicine because they're both attitude-based. Depression is a negative attitude, and ADD is just lack of focus. If I can train myself to focus better, as well as gain a more positive attitude towards life, I think I should be fine. I don't know, what do you guys think?

皆さん、始めまして。(Nice to meet you, everyone)

皆さん、始めまして。マークスコフィルドでございます。よろしくお願いします。私は二十歳です。私の大学はリンコンランド短大学です。専門はマスコミです。三年生です。ソシオロジが大好きです。ありがとうございます。

For those of you playing the home game:
Everyone, it's nice to meet you. I am Mark Schofield. Please be nice to me. I am 20 years old. My school is Lincoln Land Community College. My major is Mass Communication. I'm in my 3rd year at school. I love sociology. Thank you very much.

Genesis!

Well, here I am, creating a blog. I wanted a nice, efficient online media center for storing my research roughly and without professional touch, so this is what I chose to do. I don't intend on gaining a following or readers with this, which is good. I'm just going to post as I see fit, and enjoy the fact that I can have an organized online media center for my otherwise unpublished thoughts!
A few of my cooperative friends will probably be authoring some posts on this blog as well. Let's get started with the first topic!






A Glance At Japan:


For today's topic, I will start off with one of my specialties. Japan! It's always a nice topic, for the fact that this country provides interesting variants from your run-of-the-mill Western society. Granted Japan may become more and more Western, this adaptive culture melds what is seen to action with the Japanese flare; a personal touch of Japan in every suite.

   I'll start with the running theme I caught while dancing around somewhere in Shibuya. Is it just me, or is nearly every Japanese woman completely obsessed with travel? Well, more research into this will be conducted and then reported here, but I think some explanation is due. So many women(and men, but . . mostly women to my observations) in Japan(and of course other countries, but this is about Japan, so be quiet) desire to travel abroad. I wonder where this fascination comes from? Americans tend not to care so much/desire travel internationally to this extent. I find it may be most common in younger girls, aged in their high school years. Could there be an influence within the age group, or even school itself which causes this common desire?
If you take a look at the way Japanese girls are raised, there could be a factor in what they're taught to know about foreign countries. I am more inclined to say the schooling and exposure to very little actual foreign culture might have the most influence. Of course we know it's not just one thing.
   Imagine you're taught abut foreign cultures in school, and your only interpretation of what they're like is the basis of some people, friends maybe, or parents, or even teachers, who have told you what those cultures or countries are like. At that point, you might be intensely interested, because in reality these people tell the girls that America, Australia, etc, are exotic and foreign. It happens in America too, when you're told how Asia is and Japan being crazy. The emphasis on foreign lands in centralized countries is exponential. However, women in Japan are not only still much less liberated, but also so much more in tune with outside thoughts in a newly international Japanese culture. Women in America seem not to pay so much attention to the details that women in Japan do. We'll have to do much more field study and read a lot of books on Japanese women (conveniently all of these books are written in Japanese still, and only a few good books exist of English writing, so I'll have to read them in Japanese . . It isn't impossible but, it's surely going to take a bit longer than if I was reading English. :( ) to gain a greater understanding of where these ideals originate and why they're important.

  I promise at a later time these posts will get more interesting if you as the reader intend on enjoying and reading them, but if you don't, no worries! I must maintain at least a decent level of professionalism in the writing. Truthfully, I won't be 100% serious with anything I say here because of the fact that hardly any of it is proven, and most of it is derived from etic/emic perspectives that I cannot truly scientifically publish at the moment. Shame, shame.

 If you have criticisms, lay them unto me, however know that I am telling you right now I am not a professional as per the word "amateur" in my description of my social science. If you have elaboration or even extra data to submit, do that! I need to obtain many many different artifacts of research. For now, even opinions on the situation are considered as they help build a hypothesis which we may later test. Thank you.


Have a pleasant day everyone.




Note: This blog considers a wide topic area, so most of these posts could be sorted into sub-groups. For example, a specific post of some sort of social science like Anthropology may be noted in the post's Labels, as well as in the post itself for reference.