I’d want to affirm that ‘doing’ (as well as . . . → Read More: sex & identity]]> The ‘proper’ basis for the personal identity of any given human is a hard thing to derive… if you’re limited to the tools of, say, science.  Science wonderfully (and tragically in the case of murder, hate, discrimination, etc.) describes what humans ‘do’ (human doings), but not what/who humans ‘are’ (human beings).

I’d want to affirm that ‘doing’ (as well as ‘knowing’ and ‘feeling’) is a necessary component of what a human ‘being’ is, but not the whole composition.  Any identity based on only feelings, actions and intelligence alone is incomplete and leaves out something.

The most unchallenged (and to me, baffling) kind of identity I know of, is ‘sexual’ identity (hetero, homo, pan, omni, etc.).  I once moderated an inter-faith discussion about ‘tolerance’ in which a person (who acknowledged their sexual identity) stated their wish not to merely be ‘tolerated’, but to be accepted for who he was.  A few thoughts:

• Sexual desire seems to be quite malleable/impermanent or otherwise inappropriate for identity.  Whilst some attempts at therapeutic (including – yes – electric shock ‘therapy’!) ‘adjustment’ of sexual desire are contrived at best (and abusive at worst), it remains true that (as the old adage says) “the greatest sex organ is the mind”, which (neuro-plasticity confirming what we already knew from experience) can undergo remarkable change.
• Most (all?) have more than one sexual desire.  Both nature and nurture (genes/’memes’ if you like) combine to give us not a single sexual desire for ‘this’ sexual experience, but a range/variety of sexual desires, so identifying as ‘x’ (i.e. homo/hetero) fails to account for the other desires present (i.e. – Kinsey’s hyper-controversial research would seem to indicate that few if any people occupy only one precise ‘point’ on the ‘orientation scale’).  Perhaps this relates to some opting for the less-defined ‘bi’-sexual, or ‘pan’/'omni’-sexual identities.
• Sexual desire (particularly desire for sexual encounter with another human) is not always met.  For a variety of reasons (including physical disability, repulsion by other, unwillingness to force the other person, cultural/traditional/ideological pressures), many people go through life and manage not to have sex with another person.  Of particular concern here is the confused/contradictory influences present in many/most cultures presenting sex as something ‘everyone’ does.  Leaving those who are not (or not yet) sexually active being/feeling less than normal.  Is a fire-fighter who never fights fires really a fire-fighter?  Who wants to be normal in principle? [updated thought at bottom of post]

Where, then, is a ‘safe’ or ‘responsible’ place in which to find our identity?  Especially in a world where everything (desires, opportunities, bodily function, etc.) seems impermanent?

The Judaeo-Christian tradition answers: in relationships.  Even a non-theistic psychotherapist or counsellor could reasonably say the same: in our relationship to ‘others’ (albeit without including the supreme ‘Other’).

It seems to me, as a Christian, there are two broad categories of relationships (Creator/creation), which break down into three (Creator, human creation, non-human creation), which admit of a fourth distinction as well: Creator, other humans, self, non-human creation (or God, others, self, world).  Some thoughts:

• Creator.  Even the most tentative of theistic understandings realise the fundamental identity-forming dependence upon the Source of all being/existence.
• Others.  Other humans are like mirrors.  The opinions and influence of others shape our self-understanding.  We don’t truly know who we are apart from the ‘other’.  Our identity is formed in relationship to our brothers, sons, daughters, partners, granddaughters, aunts and husbands.
• Self.  Indeed, personal identity wouldn’t be ‘personal’ (and thus not ‘identity’) if we didn’t distinguish between ‘other’ and ‘self’.  We are unique and particular, not an identity-less component of some all-encompassing mass-consciousness.
• World.  We have an identity-forming awareness of our affect on our environment.  We can utterly wreck the place, or we can beautify and enhance it.  We are care-takers, janitors, renovators, zookeepers and stewards of the world we inhabit.

[updated thought: Not only is it true that our sexual (erotic, that is) desires are not unfailingly met, but it's also true and relevant that our deepest and truest desire is for intimacy, and this is a desire that must be met.  Whatever the gender or physiology of any given two persons, they are created for inter-personal - and thus genuinely/truly 'sexual' - intimacy.  It seems to me that, last I checked, same-sexed persons lack the physiology to engage in coitus/intercourse/'sex', and thus (physiologically speaking) cannot have a 'sexual' relationship - but they can still be genuinely intimate, as any two good friends would be.  And this is not only 'acceptable', but what all humans want and need.]

I feel truly loved.

We can imagine a spectrum of least sentient to most sentient.  The nearest animals to humans, in this case, would (obviously!) have the closest kind of sentience to humans.  But (however this ‘emerged’ or came to be) humans are ultra-sentient.  We have more than sensation (sentience); we also have a perceiving, yearning . . . → Read More: sentience and consciousness]]> Consciousness is at least sentience, but not less.

We can imagine a spectrum of least sentient to most sentient.  The nearest animals to humans, in this case, would (obviously!) have the closest kind of sentience to humans.  But (however this ‘emerged’ or came to be) humans are ultra-sentient.  We have more than sensation (sentience); we also have a perceiving, yearning kind of consciousness.  We are self aware of our own self awareness.

Just as consciousness is at least sentience, but not less; I think we can say that humans are at least animals, but not less.

Aristotle called humans the ‘rational animal’.  This makes me think about times where we allow ourselves to be less-than rational.  Have you ever just zoned out for a while and then ‘came back to yourself’, so to speak?  Philosophers sometimes use the idea of a zombie when talking about this stuff.  The point is often made that we could be zombie-like in our perception of reality (including our perception of things like pain, which we not only feel, but lament…).  Doing what we need to survive and pass on our genes, but not reflecting on our lives/actions (transcending, as it were, our living/acting).  Not having what is often called ‘rational insight’ (or ‘critical intelligence’).  Not caring about meditation, music, meaning or mathematics.

Again, the question of how humans became so rationally insightful or critically intelligent or non-zombie-like is a side question.  The simple fact that we are is significant.  We should not let our fear of anthropocentricism (human centredness) scare us away from appreciating the wonder of being human.

As the ending of this very sentence will show, it is circular to assume ( that is, before investigation or a priori ) that you know what it means to know something (i.e. that you know what knowledge is!).

Epistemology – thinking about knowledge – can be helpfully characterised by fundamental . . . → Read More: knowing about knowing]]> Epistemology is (loosely defined) as the study of knowledge.

As the ending of this very sentence will show, it is circular to assume ( that is, before investigation or a priori ) that you know what it means to know something (i.e. that you know what knowledge is!).

Epistemology – thinking about knowledge – can be helpfully characterised by fundamental questions such as:

• What is ‘knowledge’? (What do we mean when we say we ‘know’ something?)
• How do we truly ‘know’ anything? (What sources are used, and how are they used?)
• How do we know that our knowledge is accurate/true? (How do we evaluate knowledge?)
• etc.

Another (I think) helpful thing is to at least note the way that different ‘ways of knowing’ are seen (for example) in the English language (the question-words):

• ‘knowing’ what (to do with ‘objects’, ‘things’ or ‘stuff’)
• ‘knowing’ where (to do with ‘location’, ‘place’ or ‘space’)
• ‘knowing’ when (to do with ‘time’, ‘duration’ or ‘moments’)
• ‘knowing’ why (to do with ’cause’, ‘purpose’ or ‘intent’)
• ‘knowing’ who (to do with ‘personality’, ‘identity’ or ‘character’)
• ‘knowing’ how (to do with ‘process’, ‘sequence’ or ‘progression’)

Anyone who thinks this is useless, ‘abstract’ philosophizing should take note of their own everyday, continual, ‘down-to-earth’ use of these words.

My last two posts have had to do with morals and worldviews, and seeking a foundational place from which to dialogue.  One finds (eventually) that different ideas of morality and yes, even different labels of worldview(s) are defined differently.  I’m not sure it gets any more foundational than the topic of how we know anything at all, and how we use and/or value knowledge.  I’m interested in discussing how we ‘know’ and how this relates to (both directly and indirectly) worldview(s) and morality.

Have a read.

It’s not just those fundamentalist, conservative, annoying Christians who are concerned about our western over-sexed culture…

I’ve observed a distinction between 3 things that I feel are necessary to distinguish between in order to most helpfully discuss the topic of sexuality. Actually, these three things can, I suggest, be distinguished helpfully . . . → Read More: sexual identity – again…]]> I’ve posted before on this topic, and thought I’d share a bit more about it. Hopefully, these thoughts will be helpful in aiding fruitful discussion…

I’ve observed a distinction between 3 things that I feel are necessary to distinguish between in order to most helpfully discuss the topic of sexuality. Actually, these three things can, I suggest, be distinguished helpfully when discussing other topics as well… See what you think…

(***NOTE: I do think ‘sexuality’ can be –even should be?– conceived of in a much broader way, but for the purposes of this article, I’ll use the term in its popular sense, which has to do with all things relating to physical sexual activity.***)

The first thing concerning sexuality is…

-sexual desire.

Regardless of how much of our desires is nature and how much is nurture, we can all agree that sexual desire is distinguishable from the second thing concerning sexuality, which is…

-acting on that sexual desire.

So far, of course, we’ve said nothing at all about desires or acting on those desires being either good or bad, right or wrong. We’ve simply observed desires and the reality of sometimes acting on them. Now, the next thing concerning sexuality, I will give a value-judgment on. This third thing is…

-to let our entire identity be defined by our sexual desire.

I find this a very unhelpful thing to do. Why would we let some label or word define our entire person?

Take the case of homosexuality, for example. Whatever you might think about it, I suggest it is unhelpful to use that as a defining label (i.e. ‘I am a homosexual.’), as if your sexual desires were the only (or main) thing about the person.

I think these distinctions can help facilitate fruitful discussion of sexuality, but of equal (or more) importance, I think they can help facilitate respect and relationship between those of differing opinions; particularly when one of the persons has (for example) same-sex desires. Here’s why.

If the label ‘homosexual’ completely sums up a persons identity, then it makes it difficult to affirm and respect the person while exploring different perspectives concerning the desires and actions related to homosexuality. Far better, I suggest, to base your identity on relationships or abilities (i.e., brother, sister, mother, father, builder, counsellor, doctor, artist, etc.). This enables you to be a person who has sexual desires, rather than a person who is their sexual desires.

Some better questions would be ‘what kind of problem is it?’, ‘where does it come from?’ and ‘how do people deal with it?’

Jason . . . → Read More: what’s the problem with porn?]]> There are a few, perhaps, who would answer this question with a casual (or insistent) “None. Get over it”, but most, I suspect, would agree: porn (obviously only for societies that have it) is a problem.

Some better questions would be ‘what kind of problem is it?’, ‘where does it come from?’ and ‘how do people deal with it?’

Jason Byassee has written an interesting article over at ‘First Things’ website. He refers to a book by Pamela Paul, ‘Pornified: How Pornography Is Transforming Our Lives, Our Relationships, and Our Families’, whose Times article titled ‘The Porn Factor’ begins with this synopsis of a ‘Friends’ episode:

In a Friends episode titled “The One with Free Porn,” Chandler and Joey discover to their delight a free pornography TV channel, which they leave on and watch endlessly for fear it will go away. Later, a startled Chandler reports to Joey, “I was just at the bank, and there was this really hot teller, and she didn’t ask me to go do it in the vault.” Joey describes a similar cold shoulder from the pizza-delivery woman. “You know what?” Chandler concludes. “We have to turn off the porn.”

There are all kinds of quotes, book chapters, websites and conversations I could refer to in reflecting on these questions. I’m not going to bother amassing a collection of links to display. The information is out there if you want to find it.

In reflecting on the above questions, one conviction I have is that any porn-related problems are also by nature problems related to sexuality itself.

How do we think about sexuality?

How should we think about it?

What sources are informing us?

The message from (you’ve heard the list before) advertising, billboards, TV-shows, magazines, gossip-newspapers and general western culture? Sexuality is that area of life in which glorious experiences are had by those who are really living. If you’re not sexually fulfilled, you need to be, and there are dozens of informative articles each month giving us hundreds of those infamous ‘sex-tips’ to help us on our way.

Just when the human race seemed doomed to boredom by the apparently unfortunate reality that 99.999% of our lives aren’t that sexually ‘exciting’, pornography has found new “accessible, affordable, and anonymous” (adapted from Byassee’s “three-’A's”) ways to provide ‘stimulation’ to those otherwise poor un-sexual folk in danger of dying of unsexy-ness.

In this world of hyper-real sexuality, Sex is Lord, get on board…

It’s a very real problem, affecting millions and bringing in billions. Ignoring it won’t make it go away…

I mean…

really…

Don’t get me wrong…

the internet is great…

but the by-line for this online ‘friend’ site…

‘be who you wanna be’…

scares me.

Online Identity…

yikes.

I hope humanity doesn’t forget…

how to have a simple meal together…

sharing food…

sharing time…

sharing conversation…

sharing LIFE with each other.

That would be very sad…