Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Peace On Earth

Peace on Earth, goodwill to men. Of course there would be a lot of peace on earth if it weren’t for men. I am reminded of GK Chesterton, when asked what the matter with the world was wrote simply, “I am.”
In that vein let us consider what we, personally, can do to increase peace on Earth. There is little I can do to affect fighting in Darfur or Afghanistan. Even if I commanded armies and millions of dollars I am not sure if there is a clear road to peace I could follow. So let us think smaller and more relevant to our own lives and spheres of action.
What can we do increase peace amongst our friends and families? The fighting between friends or family is often of a peculiar kind. The combatants do not really have anything against each other and often times have a lot of compatible interests and goals. It seems to me that often times these fights escalate and get out of control because of pride. Neither party is willing to admit fault and make peace. In a nutshell they would rather be right than be reconciled.
Contrast this with the example that our savior Christ set for us. Christ in fact was always in the right. Nevertheless he set this aside and let himself be counted among the wrong doers, yea, he let judgment come upon him as the guilty one who had erred. The reason for this was so that reconciliation could be effected between the Father and his children – so that the prodigal son could be washed, leave behind his rebellion and return home. I am awed by the greatness of spirit that he has.
Unlike Christ we are not always in the right. But the path indicated for us is clear. Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors the scriptures say. Of you it is required to forgive all men. Now in no way should my words be construed to mean that we should allow evil to flourish unchecked in its cloak of darkness and secrecy. No evil must be resisted and revealed whenever we get the chance. In my experience most people are neither evil nor very good especially in the small circle of family or friends. Let us than pray to forgive and pray for the humility to recognize our wrongs and apologize. Our even let ourselves be thought of as wrong.
My I always seek peace more than to be justified in my own eyes. Or another words may I seek God’s approval first, last and always.
Amen.

Focused Learning.

I propose that education be changed from its current traditional structure of 4-5 classes at a time to 2-3 at a time. Each class would have a similar number of hours and each semester would have a similar number of credits. You would start with two classes go up to three and end on another two classes. (Ninth grade up). I think that this is advantageous because it more closely fits the way people work and think, focusing on a few things at a time aside from routine caretaking activities.
First this has the advantage that more learning is likely to take place. Neural connections form as pathways are repeatedly utilized i.e.
heavy use (CTRL+F Homosynaptic plasticity). A little there a little here isn’t as effective as sustained heavy use.
As part of this system I would propose that the beginning and end of classes be staggered somewhat eliminating finals weeks and midterm clusters. This is feasible with 2-3 but not 4-5 classes because you have less staggering (2 weeks v four). This would be a vast improvement under the current system as the stress of everything hitting the fan at once would be alleviated. Each class would have a gear up stage, homework and test stage and then project and final as its last stage.
Scheduling could be more flexible as you could not take the end of semester classes and end your semester early – allowing you to take a job or an internship. Alternatively if you need to squeeze in a few more credits in order to get back on track you could delay your summer.
The main downside I can think of for this system is for someone who is trying to figure out what they want to major in. In that case the current mile wide and an inch deep approach is probably the best.
Still, as presently constituted, school can be
very stressful. With less areas to focus on at one time this would be lessened somewhat.

Friday, December 19, 2008

The Modern Moral System

Let’s define morality thusly: It is a code of conduct making it possible for people to coexist in a mutually profitable and sustainable fashion.
First we should ask if there is in fact a generally accepted morality. I think the answer is yes, as evidenced by the fact
that people still generally get along and society is still functioning.

Moral Relativism is said by some to be on the ascendant. That seems ridiculous to me. I have never met and don’t believe any true moral relativist exists. For more discussion check this out (after 'chestnut' particularly). Moral relativism is used as a shield to deflect moral judgement not intended to be an actual moral system.
The first candidate we have is the diminishing structure of traditional morality. I say diminishing because no universally respected authority is still promoting it in our society.
The second candidate does have powerful forces promoting it but it only as a limited proscription. You might have encountered it as ethics training either at work or perhaps at school. This ethics training is attempting to promote a morality aimed specifically for institutions such as corporations or government agencies. Institutions are large groups of people coexisting together so it is hardly surprising that they recognize the need for morality. However they limit themselves to work related situations, not because good family morality doesn’t benefit them but because their ability to affect it is small, the risks are large (sue, sue, sue), and it doesn’t offer a competitive advantage as an increased moral climate benefits all companies.
Make no mistake, economics as we know it is impossible without a universal morality. Check out the popes
musings on the subject.
The funny thing to me about this though is that these codes of conducts almost universally frown on romantic relationships – and this even though they want to stay out of family morality. This is because they have learned by experience the danger that these pose. This strikes me as funny because people who often disdain traditional morality agree with it in one of its basic assertions: sexual relationships can be dangerous to society. It offers no real solution (avoid fallout!) to this problem though, unlike traditional morality which attempts to channel it into acceptable venues where everyone knows the rules.