Introductory Remarks
Men and women are not opposites, we are complements. We each have different strengths and weaknesses. Yet, when we cooperatively combine, the outcome is beneficial to each of us individually, as a couple, and the human community is well served.
Epistemologically, I posit, there is a progressive elaboration of intellect from Information to Knowledge to Truth to Wisdom. Information is neutral, neither good nor bad, it is just a “data point” (although the data point may or may not reflect reality). Knowledge is information passed through a high-pass truth filter; that is, Information processed against our best understanding of reality. Knowledge then corresponds to Correct Information. Truth implies a more through and robust comportment with reality; specifically, objective, and subjective realities. But one may protest, the very nature of subjectiveness means that reality is not independent of the observer; correct, except our definition of subjectiveness may require new boundaries. We classify moral attributes and actions as subjective, yet as C. S. Lewis pointed out, if there are indeed Moral Truths, then there must be a moral standard outside the operative framework (e.g., an external standard)1; i.e., as professor Grim posits, “there seems to be a universal moral truth that children should not be subjected to needless suffering for entertainment or sport” (paraphrased)2. In other word, careful anthropological studies seem to suggest that no extant (nor known) human societies prized or promoted the unnecessary suffering of children for sport or entertainment. If this proposition holds, then it would qualify as a universal truth, and since it’s in the realm of axiology and morality, a subjective truth. Yet, since it’s universal, then either we need to classify, at least this universal moral truth as objective or we need to admit it as a universal subjective. The implications of either choice are noteworthy.
Author Bio
E. Vince in the fiction realm, and Eric Kline in the non-fiction domain. The author is a 42-year veteran of the high-tech industry, practicing as a microelectronics engineer (https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Q77iV9wAAAAJ&hl=en ), and holding a Master of Theological Studies. So, the reader may observe that the RightMind-LeftBrain dynamic is operative and quite at home in this author, as I hope it is in you too. Professionally, the author has received about 170 US patents and multiple industry awards. Avocationally, the author has served in multiple ministries over the decades.
Problem Statement
In the first half of the 21st Century, Americans, in particular, find themselves confused and incoherent, both objectively and subjectively. Gender based, and other types of, identity issues are the poster child of this endemic dysfunction; people do even know who they are, so how can they know what they aren’t? As important as this single but complex issue is, there are many others that threaten society and even the very definition of what it means to be “human.” Yet, there is still one other issue that supersedes, Theodicy. The greatest question facing humankind and each individual is, “Whether God is, and if He is, is He good in view of suffering?”
Purpose
Organization of Website
Organization of Thoughts
1C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, “If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others … The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are … measuring them both by a standard … But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people thing, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that real Right than others.”
Prof. Patrick Grim, Questions of Value, The Great Courses