Jazz Shaw, assistant editor at The Moderate Voice poses some thought provoking "what if" questions about what an economic recession could mean to Americans.
What if the stock market fell from 11,000 to 5,000?
What if loose credit evaporated overnight?
What if people who took outrageous mortgages and debt were sent back to a reset point?
What if people had to rent a place to live and save up until they had a reasonable down payment and mortgage payments they could afford?
What if some people lost their highest paying jobs and had to take lower paying, local jobs (or even two) to make ends meet?
What if credit became tight to the point where average households couldn’t have nine credit cards each, couldn’t spend 133% of their annual income every year and actually had to save up money to buy things?
What if they had to save their money for retirement in fixed rate savings accounts and lower interest bonds or treasury bills?
What if CEOs couldn’t make hundreds of millions per year because the market collapsed on them?
What if companies who ship American jobs overseas and offshore their manufacturing operations no longer had a market to sell their goods at “home” because nobody could afford to buy them?
What if this exhausted, heavily-whipped engine of commerce collapsed on its knees on the track?
What if those companies had to begin hiring people back home to make their products so there would be a market for them again?
What if speculation became impractical because people would only pay what things were actually worth?
What if people couldn’t afford the next biggest flat screen TV and the next thinnest Jesus Phone every season and had to make do with what they had for a few years?
What if manufactured items had to focus on quality instead of disposability because consumers could not afford new versions every year?
What if we had to repair some of our own clothes and household items so they would last longer?
What if some of us had to either grow some of our own food or provide services for people who provided food for us?
What if we all had to sweat out some hard work and hard times and eliminate all of our empty debt and actually live within our means?
What if our government was actually forced to do the same?
What if?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Lufa update
I took a lot of heat for holding on to my last lufa for four years. I finally succumbed to the peer pressure of my friends, ultimately tipped over the edge by the donation of a new lufa, and tossed my old one, although it undoubtedly still had a good year or two of life remaining. I appreciated the compactness of my new lufa, and it made showering more efficient. Unfortunately, only six weeks into my new lufa experience, as I went to soap it up one morning this week it began to unravel before my eyes. What remains is a 15 foot strand of blue net-like material. It just goes to show all you haters of my previous lufa, that appearances aren't everything. I am once again accepting donations. 
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Stages of Faith
Based on a recommendation from a friend I started reading developmental psychologist James Fowler’s book “Stages of Faith.” The book is based off six hundred interviews with men, women and children, ranging in age from four to eighty-eight concerning issues of faith. Their religious beliefs span the gamut, ranging from atheist and agnostic, to Catholic; Protestant, Jewish, and based off some of the interview excerpts I would guess some Mormons as well. His research leads him to a framework of faith development that includes six different stages. The following summaries of each of Fowler's stages were copied and pasted from this website, and given that stages zero and one concern infants and young children I figured I would list only the more relevant stages, two through five.
Stage 2 – "Mythic-Literal" faith (mostly in school children), stage three persons have a strong belief in the justice and reciprocity of the universe, and their deities are almost always anthropomorphic.
Stage 3 – "Synthetic-Conventional" faith (arising in adolescence). The majority of the population finds its permanent home in this stage. It is a stage characterized by conformity, where one finds one's identity by aligning oneself with a certain perspective, and lives directly through this perception with little opportunity to reflect on it critically. Authority derives from the top down, and is invested with power by majority opinion. Furthermore, while one can at this stage enter into an intimate relationship with the divine, one's life situations may drive one into despair (the threshold to the next stage). Such situations may include contradictions between authorities, the revelation of authoritarian hypocrisy, and lived experiences which contradict one's convictions.
Stage 4 – "Individuative-Reflective" faith (usually mid-twenties to late thirties) a stage of angst and struggle. At this time, the personality gradually detaches from the defining group from which it formerly drew its identity. The person is aware of him or herself as an individual and must--perhaps for the first time--take personal responsibility for his/her beliefs and feelings. This is a stage of de-mythologizing, where what was once unquestioned is now subjected to critical scrutiny. Stage four is heavily existential, where nothing is certain but one's own existence, and disillusionment reigns. This stage is not a comfortable place to be and, although it can last for a long time, those who stay in it do so in danger of becoming bitter and suspicious people.
Stage 5 – "Conjunctive" faith (mid-life crisis) moves one from stage four's rationalism to the acknowledgement of paradox and transcendence. It is in this stage that, in Washburnian terminology, one chooses regression in the service of transcendence. In this stage a person grasps the reality behind the symbols of his or her inherited systems, and is also drawn to and acknowledging of the symbols of other's systems. In stage five, the world, demythologized in stage four, is re-sacrilized, literally brimming with vision. It is also imbued with a new sense of justice that goes beyond justice defined by one's own culture and people. Because one has begun to see "the bigger picture" the walls culture and tradition have built between ourselves and others begins to erode. It is an overwhelming, ecstatic stage in which one is radically opened to possibility and wonder.
Anybody who has been close to me over the past several years would probably not hesitate to place me neatly within the description of one particular stage (Hint – the most foreboding sounding one). As I have subjected my world view to critical personal scrutiny over this span of time I have at times felt marginalized and perpetually misunderstood by many people close to me. I have managed in some way or another to alienate a lot of people that I love and care about. I suppose this is a natural by product of making the purpose of ones life a full scale ideological battle, both political and religious. I remember in a previous life being largely characterized as a “nice guy” by my peers and felt like a lot of my better attributes were easily recognized. In more recent times it feels like I have had to make an effort to remind people that I really am still a nice guy, that I am still understanding, that I will do whatever I can to help my friends, that I live my life by the golden rule.
As I was reading the book I felt like Fowler’s description of stage 4 was a carbon copy of my mindset over the past two years. His chapter on stage four made me feel like I wasn’t the only one who has gone through what I have. It was that rare experience for which I am always searching: to be understood. The problem is that I’m no longer sure that is the way I want others to understand me. Do I really want to be understood by those at church as a devoted skeptic or cautious believer? More recently, I have wondered why I always feel a need to rationally justify my beliefs and faith to others as if they were complete skeptics. Why do I always feel the need to emphasize my skepticism? Yes, skepticism is a recurring theme and on reflection has been the attribute in which I have often defined myself to others.
The book offers hope in a more objective world view and transcendent approach to faith beyond a stage four. As of recently I feel I have been heading in a more positive direction. Part of this has been the recognition that I don’t always have an answer to why I believe beyond it feels right or good. The recognition that everybody is at different stages of faith in their lives and they don’t need to take the same path as me (although it helps me feel understood =-). It would seem awfully strange if my Mom, the most unquestioning and believing person I know, became a skeptic. Its part of what makes her great. The recognition that in many ways I define myself to others, and therefore have some control over how I am perceived. I envision a time in the near future in which rather than defining myself by struggles I let my more admirable attributes define and speak for me.
Stage 2 – "Mythic-Literal" faith (mostly in school children), stage three persons have a strong belief in the justice and reciprocity of the universe, and their deities are almost always anthropomorphic.
Stage 3 – "Synthetic-Conventional" faith (arising in adolescence). The majority of the population finds its permanent home in this stage. It is a stage characterized by conformity, where one finds one's identity by aligning oneself with a certain perspective, and lives directly through this perception with little opportunity to reflect on it critically. Authority derives from the top down, and is invested with power by majority opinion. Furthermore, while one can at this stage enter into an intimate relationship with the divine, one's life situations may drive one into despair (the threshold to the next stage). Such situations may include contradictions between authorities, the revelation of authoritarian hypocrisy, and lived experiences which contradict one's convictions.
Stage 4 – "Individuative-Reflective" faith (usually mid-twenties to late thirties) a stage of angst and struggle. At this time, the personality gradually detaches from the defining group from which it formerly drew its identity. The person is aware of him or herself as an individual and must--perhaps for the first time--take personal responsibility for his/her beliefs and feelings. This is a stage of de-mythologizing, where what was once unquestioned is now subjected to critical scrutiny. Stage four is heavily existential, where nothing is certain but one's own existence, and disillusionment reigns. This stage is not a comfortable place to be and, although it can last for a long time, those who stay in it do so in danger of becoming bitter and suspicious people.
Stage 5 – "Conjunctive" faith (mid-life crisis) moves one from stage four's rationalism to the acknowledgement of paradox and transcendence. It is in this stage that, in Washburnian terminology, one chooses regression in the service of transcendence. In this stage a person grasps the reality behind the symbols of his or her inherited systems, and is also drawn to and acknowledging of the symbols of other's systems. In stage five, the world, demythologized in stage four, is re-sacrilized, literally brimming with vision. It is also imbued with a new sense of justice that goes beyond justice defined by one's own culture and people. Because one has begun to see "the bigger picture" the walls culture and tradition have built between ourselves and others begins to erode. It is an overwhelming, ecstatic stage in which one is radically opened to possibility and wonder.
Anybody who has been close to me over the past several years would probably not hesitate to place me neatly within the description of one particular stage (Hint – the most foreboding sounding one). As I have subjected my world view to critical personal scrutiny over this span of time I have at times felt marginalized and perpetually misunderstood by many people close to me. I have managed in some way or another to alienate a lot of people that I love and care about. I suppose this is a natural by product of making the purpose of ones life a full scale ideological battle, both political and religious. I remember in a previous life being largely characterized as a “nice guy” by my peers and felt like a lot of my better attributes were easily recognized. In more recent times it feels like I have had to make an effort to remind people that I really am still a nice guy, that I am still understanding, that I will do whatever I can to help my friends, that I live my life by the golden rule.
As I was reading the book I felt like Fowler’s description of stage 4 was a carbon copy of my mindset over the past two years. His chapter on stage four made me feel like I wasn’t the only one who has gone through what I have. It was that rare experience for which I am always searching: to be understood. The problem is that I’m no longer sure that is the way I want others to understand me. Do I really want to be understood by those at church as a devoted skeptic or cautious believer? More recently, I have wondered why I always feel a need to rationally justify my beliefs and faith to others as if they were complete skeptics. Why do I always feel the need to emphasize my skepticism? Yes, skepticism is a recurring theme and on reflection has been the attribute in which I have often defined myself to others.
The book offers hope in a more objective world view and transcendent approach to faith beyond a stage four. As of recently I feel I have been heading in a more positive direction. Part of this has been the recognition that I don’t always have an answer to why I believe beyond it feels right or good. The recognition that everybody is at different stages of faith in their lives and they don’t need to take the same path as me (although it helps me feel understood =-). It would seem awfully strange if my Mom, the most unquestioning and believing person I know, became a skeptic. Its part of what makes her great. The recognition that in many ways I define myself to others, and therefore have some control over how I am perceived. I envision a time in the near future in which rather than defining myself by struggles I let my more admirable attributes define and speak for me.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The Audacity of Hope
Several months ago I picked up “The Audacity of Hope” with every intention to read it within the same week. The book became a victim of neglect, cast aside because of my busy work schedule, placed behind an ever growing cue of books to be read. Thanks to a jump start during a 6 hour plane flight I was able to knock out a sizeable portion and have slowly chipped away at it since then. Last night I was finally able to conquer this thorn in my side, the book that I could never get around to reading.
Part of my reason for reading this book was frustration at not being able to get a good grasp on him from the media. It seemed that too often, depending on the host or station covering him was either a flaming liberal with little experience or a rock star. The book was an informative look into the mind of a rising young politician as he formulates his policy and world view. I was impressed with Obama’s very nuanced approach to politics and life in general. He has an ability to consistently take a non-partisan approach that recognizes that much of the time the answer doesn’t lie on the left or right, but somewhere in the middle. The idea that we don’t have to approach politics in absolute terms. Explaining the predicament caused by approaching complex political issues in terms of simply packaged absolutes he says:
Time and time again within the book he shows a nuanced understanding of both sides of the story. Democrats and Republicans are both taken to task.
His critics have often asserted that he is over-idealistic. As the reader, I was sometimes left feeling that way: wondering whether such large scale change was naïve. Whether or not this is the case, he exudes a palpable energy and vigor to conduct a new kind of politics throughout the book. His eternal optimism becomes contagious. I appreciate his desire to shake things up, wanting to ditch the polarizing politics of his elders for something more substantive and effective.
Whether one agrees with the his politics or not this book is a worthwhile read. It is not a campaign book, but an appeal to Americans that we can find solutions to the many problems that we face. It is an invitation for Americans to enter into the conversation together.
Part of my reason for reading this book was frustration at not being able to get a good grasp on him from the media. It seemed that too often, depending on the host or station covering him was either a flaming liberal with little experience or a rock star. The book was an informative look into the mind of a rising young politician as he formulates his policy and world view. I was impressed with Obama’s very nuanced approach to politics and life in general. He has an ability to consistently take a non-partisan approach that recognizes that much of the time the answer doesn’t lie on the left or right, but somewhere in the middle. The idea that we don’t have to approach politics in absolute terms. Explaining the predicament caused by approaching complex political issues in terms of simply packaged absolutes he says:
“Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. For it’s precisely the
pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodoxy and the sheer predictability
of our current political debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the
challenges we face as a country. It’s what keeps us locked in ‘either/or’
thinking: the notion that we can have only big government or no government; the
assumption that we must either tolerate 46 million without health insurance or
embrace ‘socialized medicine’.”
Time and time again within the book he shows a nuanced understanding of both sides of the story. Democrats and Republicans are both taken to task.
His critics have often asserted that he is over-idealistic. As the reader, I was sometimes left feeling that way: wondering whether such large scale change was naïve. Whether or not this is the case, he exudes a palpable energy and vigor to conduct a new kind of politics throughout the book. His eternal optimism becomes contagious. I appreciate his desire to shake things up, wanting to ditch the polarizing politics of his elders for something more substantive and effective.
“A government that truly represents these Americans that truly serves these
Americans will require a different kind of politics. That politics will need to
reflect our lives as they are actually lived. It won’t be pre-packaged, ready to
pull off the shelf. It will have to be constructed from the best of our
traditions and will have to account for the darker aspects of our past. We will
need to understand just how we got to this place, this land of warring factions
and tribal hatreds. And we’ll need to remind ourselves, despite all our
differences, just how much we share: common hopes, common dreams, a bond that
will not break.”
Whether one agrees with the his politics or not this book is a worthwhile read. It is not a campaign book, but an appeal to Americans that we can find solutions to the many problems that we face. It is an invitation for Americans to enter into the conversation together.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Last words on Prop 8. (I promise)
The stance that I have taken towards Proposition 8 has generated a lot of bewilderment, suspicion and well meaning inquiry among those within my close circle of friends and family. While most have tried to be understanding, some responses have left me with an unsettling feeling. Given that LDS church leaders have recently taken a definitive stance in favor of the proposition, my alignment on the opposite end of the spectrum has caused others to directly question my faith on more than one occasion. Part of that has been my inability to completely explain my position in a clear manner. I am going to try my best to explain here and then I promise to put the issue to rest in both my public and private conversations, unless my view is elicited.
As hard as it is for many to come to grips with, we are no longer a Christian nation. We are a Christian, Jewish, atheist, Muslim, Hindu and agnostic nation (Sorry to the hundreds of groups I left off). There is no getting around that we live in a pluralistic society. As an active Latter Day I simultaneously exist in two domains. One being the private realm comprised of my deeply personal faith and the other a public realm in which I am a small cog making up part of our larger pluralistic society. Both domains are not amenable to the same rules and involve differing paths to obtaining truth.
While I may believe strongly in it, my faith is deeply personal. It is based on experiences and beliefs that can neither be concretely proved nor disproved by my neighbor. Given that religious beliefs are highly subjective, I can’t expect what I have found to be true to be taken as binding on somebody who not had my same spiritual experiences. In the realm of public policy and law, my decisions and votes must be subject to argument and be grounded in common reason understood by society at large. It requires that I speak in terms that are accessible to those making up our pluralistic society. In other words, I can’t simply claim that I am against gay marriage or abortion based on the authority that God said so or that my church leaders told me to and expect that argument to hold any weight in the public realm. In this case, in my mind it is a perfectly acceptable position to disagree with something, yet feel that it should be legal.
I recognize that it is perfectly possible for one to reason that gay marriage will not be a positive for society and I can respect that. Most arguments I have heard revolve around heterosexual marriage being undermined and threatened by the would be institution of gay marriage. I personally find those claims unconvincing. I rather feel that traditional marriage is threatened and undermined by heterosexual couples who don’t take their marriage commitments seriously. What’s actually under attack is the traditional definition of marriage, not marriage itself. I have discussed my empathetic views on gay issues in previous posts and don’t want to expound on them here, just want to make the point that abiding by my rules of conduct in the public sphere I cannot justify support for Proposition 8.
I am put off when religion enters into politics and likewise when the chapel becomes an arena of political discourse. I have nothing but the utmost respect and appreciation for the leaders of my church and believe they are inspired, but I find it necessary to compartmentalize my religion from politics.
As hard as it is for many to come to grips with, we are no longer a Christian nation. We are a Christian, Jewish, atheist, Muslim, Hindu and agnostic nation (Sorry to the hundreds of groups I left off). There is no getting around that we live in a pluralistic society. As an active Latter Day I simultaneously exist in two domains. One being the private realm comprised of my deeply personal faith and the other a public realm in which I am a small cog making up part of our larger pluralistic society. Both domains are not amenable to the same rules and involve differing paths to obtaining truth.
While I may believe strongly in it, my faith is deeply personal. It is based on experiences and beliefs that can neither be concretely proved nor disproved by my neighbor. Given that religious beliefs are highly subjective, I can’t expect what I have found to be true to be taken as binding on somebody who not had my same spiritual experiences. In the realm of public policy and law, my decisions and votes must be subject to argument and be grounded in common reason understood by society at large. It requires that I speak in terms that are accessible to those making up our pluralistic society. In other words, I can’t simply claim that I am against gay marriage or abortion based on the authority that God said so or that my church leaders told me to and expect that argument to hold any weight in the public realm. In this case, in my mind it is a perfectly acceptable position to disagree with something, yet feel that it should be legal.
I recognize that it is perfectly possible for one to reason that gay marriage will not be a positive for society and I can respect that. Most arguments I have heard revolve around heterosexual marriage being undermined and threatened by the would be institution of gay marriage. I personally find those claims unconvincing. I rather feel that traditional marriage is threatened and undermined by heterosexual couples who don’t take their marriage commitments seriously. What’s actually under attack is the traditional definition of marriage, not marriage itself. I have discussed my empathetic views on gay issues in previous posts and don’t want to expound on them here, just want to make the point that abiding by my rules of conduct in the public sphere I cannot justify support for Proposition 8.
I am put off when religion enters into politics and likewise when the chapel becomes an arena of political discourse. I have nothing but the utmost respect and appreciation for the leaders of my church and believe they are inspired, but I find it necessary to compartmentalize my religion from politics.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Certainty vs Uncertainty
Certainty is a comfortable mindset. It puts us in control of our world and makes us feel that we have life figured out. On the other hand, uncertainty can be uncomfortable. It is fertile ground for anxiety and tension. Given the two antithetical mindsets, one allowing for an easier state of existence, then why is it that I have become increasingly skeptical of certainty in most facets of my life? Why do I feel more comfortable in uncertainty than the safe confines of certainty?
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Mormon Paradox
Earlier this year I read the book “People of Paradox” by Teryl Givens. Givens book explores four fundamental tensions, or paradoxes inherent in the Mormon experience that have been influential in creating a unique Mormon culture. He succinctly titles the first paradox “the iron rod and the Liahona.”
The Iron Rod comes from a story within the Book of Mormon in which it represents a difficult, but clearly and plainly defined path to eternal life for those who hold fast to its straight trajectory. The Liahona on the other hand, was a compass which pointed to the destination but did not fully mark a path. The clarity of its directions varied with the circumstances of the user and were not an infallible delineator of course. Both represent different ways of getting to the same destination. Similarly, a strong emphasis on personal freedom is emphasized within Mormonism, while at the same time the importance of obedience to authority is constantly stressed. Both represent different paths to a final destination of spiritual fulfillment, even though the paths may often conflict with each other. As an exercise in these conflicting tensions I present two quotes.
“When the prophet speaks, the debate is over.” N. Eldon Tanner, August 1979 Ensign.
“I do not wish for any Latter Day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the spirit of….revelation makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves.” Brigham Young
These competing emphases have been especially apparent to me personally with the leaders of the church recently taking a strong stance in support of Proposition 8. Staying agnostic to the moral issue of homosexuality, I feel like Prop. 8 is a political issue appropriate for an editorial section within the newspaper, but not something to be discussed ad nauseum within church. It is not a proposition that I feel comfortable aligning myself with. I would feel hesitant to join the cause with some of the more homophobic groups supporting the proposition. Most importantly, I think the culture of commitment that comes along with the institution of marriage could only be a positive thing for the homosexual community. Yet on the other hand, I respect church leaders and feel they are divinely inspired in much that they do. It’s an unsettling paradox, and although my vote could still be subject to change, I think I am going to go with my personal integrity on this one.
Givens summarizes the paradox nicely as follows:
“A segment of Mormon society will always be disposed to see unquestioning obedience to priesthood counsel as weakness and abdication of moral autonomy, while others will see independent mindedness as a euphemism for the fetishizing of difference and pride. And the tensions will doubtless be fiercest among those whose life work calls them to worship God through creative expressions and intellectual pursuits.”
The Iron Rod comes from a story within the Book of Mormon in which it represents a difficult, but clearly and plainly defined path to eternal life for those who hold fast to its straight trajectory. The Liahona on the other hand, was a compass which pointed to the destination but did not fully mark a path. The clarity of its directions varied with the circumstances of the user and were not an infallible delineator of course. Both represent different ways of getting to the same destination. Similarly, a strong emphasis on personal freedom is emphasized within Mormonism, while at the same time the importance of obedience to authority is constantly stressed. Both represent different paths to a final destination of spiritual fulfillment, even though the paths may often conflict with each other. As an exercise in these conflicting tensions I present two quotes.
“When the prophet speaks, the debate is over.” N. Eldon Tanner, August 1979 Ensign.
“I do not wish for any Latter Day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the spirit of….revelation makes them satisfied. I wish them to know for themselves and understand for themselves.” Brigham Young
These competing emphases have been especially apparent to me personally with the leaders of the church recently taking a strong stance in support of Proposition 8. Staying agnostic to the moral issue of homosexuality, I feel like Prop. 8 is a political issue appropriate for an editorial section within the newspaper, but not something to be discussed ad nauseum within church. It is not a proposition that I feel comfortable aligning myself with. I would feel hesitant to join the cause with some of the more homophobic groups supporting the proposition. Most importantly, I think the culture of commitment that comes along with the institution of marriage could only be a positive thing for the homosexual community. Yet on the other hand, I respect church leaders and feel they are divinely inspired in much that they do. It’s an unsettling paradox, and although my vote could still be subject to change, I think I am going to go with my personal integrity on this one.
Givens summarizes the paradox nicely as follows:
“A segment of Mormon society will always be disposed to see unquestioning obedience to priesthood counsel as weakness and abdication of moral autonomy, while others will see independent mindedness as a euphemism for the fetishizing of difference and pride. And the tensions will doubtless be fiercest among those whose life work calls them to worship God through creative expressions and intellectual pursuits.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
