To Be or Not To Be – Rays question on Linkedin
Linkedin is a place where it is ok and fitting to explore ideas for career development purposes that occasionally reflect on what I am Being when I join a social network. Ray’s question and the structure of how he invites the community to engage with his discussion of physics and particles is a phenomenological view of existence. Unlike other views that might emanate from an existentialist or structuralist view which would take an all together different directions. It required that I answer, nonetheless.
My reason for opening a online clinic that offers counseling services is that reality is perfectible for those that admit to addictions in one way or other. I refer you to my piece describing “Authentic Leadership”. In it I confess my belief in Jesus Christ. I see through his life, death and resurrection a world that is “becoming”. The divine NOW is where God continues to demonstrate is might deeds. The issue that Ray is posing is very import in context: “does life matter.” Therefore, I have to speak in the affirmative. It matters as a promise: Grace.
In Authentic Leadership I also engage the arguments against such a view as mine – for your inspection. So I’ll simply suggest that vagueness is a large part of existence so that Grace itself is framed as a paradox. The point of this exploration is only to play with or juggle these ideas because it helps inform our combined mental activity. Some say the brain needs stimulation like our arms.
So we are going consider Grace as no longer a theoretical fiction. As soon as it functions it offends or reconciles, attracts or repeals, breaks, dissociates, unites or reunites; it cannot help but liberate and enslave. Even before prescribing, suggesting a future, saying what must be done, even before exhorting or merely sounding an alarm, Grace, at the level of its existence, in its very dawning is in itself an action–a perilous act
This expectation reflects the social complexity of pluralistic societies that hold ends. Pluralistic societies are torn by deep disagreements over questions of science and morality; they are overburdened by conflicting definitions of the good or virtuous life (or society). The concept of pluralistic sensitivity requires existence to respect the cultural idiosyncrasies of the different communities and discourses comprising the society in which it operates.
These two visions of fairness are, I argue, incongruent. They are incongruent because we know of no way to communicate with existence to learn that it has at its disposal some meta-principle, which can be invoked to resolve any possible social dilemma while satisfying the requirements of both coherence and pluralistic sensitivity. So each of us must in the end confess some oath to some vagueness.
The philosophical debate regarding the notion of vagueness involves further questions, on which I do not intend to comment – this is a post not a book.
Scanning nonetheless – First, some writers argue that vagueness is an epistemic condition that reflects the ignorance of the observer of the true state of things, while others claim that vagueness is an intrinsic attribute of language, which has nothing to do with ignorance.
While I am inclined toward the second view, I do not think this debate has much influence on the argument of this post.
Another important question is whether vagueness is only a feature of claims or representations, or whether it may also be a feature of the world itself or not.
This condition of Grace means we ARE because we fret over it. We give reality a collective conspiratorial boost in that we make ambiguity a condition of history (what has happen), of intentions (unclear preferences-what do I want), of technology (unclear means-ends relations), and of organization (fluid participation.
It therefore gives reason to believe how important it is to know why individuals pay attention to some stimuli, at the expense of others. This is a matter of rules of the “promise” in the shaping. Individuals will not act according to a goal-based logic of consequence–they will not ask, what are my prefaces, what are my alternatives? They will apply a rule-bound logic of appropriateness instead. They will ask, what kind of situation is this? Who am I? (what is my identity?), who are we? (what is our identity?) and what is appropriate for me/us to do?