You understand and live your life as the God (and servant, hero, and villain) of your own personal morality tale

[We live in the world(s) we create]

The human experience of reality is an inter-subjective moral universe.

To really explain it beyond that, I would need to get around to finishing the revisions of a book I started writing in the fall of 2012 and finished an initial draft of in the spring of 2013. But letting go for spans of time does help me to see the bigger picture I was initially grasping at and its implications.

Just to give a little more thought on what I mean, I am stating that our human experience is necessarily limited and subjective, even if we believe and strive for in the ideal of objectivity. Trying to pool our subjective experiences and refine something more objective out of them by mutual confirmation of our experiences is called being inter-subjective. So there's that term layed out.

I've become convinced that the human body, especially the brain, is a part of a larger cycle of information processing that is characteristic of all of life, a process which is cyclical, which has a natural tendency for deviation/error, and a process with mechanisms for either correcting such deviations or incorporating them into the larger pattern of information flow and storage. This information helps regulate organisms and ecosystems, and is involves in all life functions.

In the human mind this information processing gives rise to a narrative defining an individual and their identity, as well as other objects such as other people. These are all set in a framework or landscape with a history and with rules predicting how they will react and interact. This narrative is informed by our personal experiences, both those involving other humans and those which do not. This sense of "how things are" is complimented by the development of a sense of "how things ought to be". The distance between these two is a tension that creates moral unease. Morality is like a magnetic force trying to draw these two sense together.

It may not be apparent at first how fundamentally this influences how you see and experience the world, but try to really pay attention to why you act and feel the way you do in specific circumstances. These things are hard to notice because they are so familiar to us that they become invisible. But try to look for that sense of "But that's just (not) how things are..." and "This is (or isn't) how things ought to be..." The best time to look is when you are particularly pleased or really upset with something. Ask yourself why and search for the is/ought involved.

When you get some experience with this, you will start to see the moral undertones behind more and more actions, initiating and framing what people say and do. But that isn't all!

We are like unto Gods

I've also observed that we are the Gods our universes, our minds the authors of our narratives. We subconsciously try to make everything fit our own mish-mashed, patched together, not quite entirely coherent worldview. Our narrative written and edited and extended by our experiences and the influences of other people. Thus other objects outside of what we consider to be our self, especially other people, must fit into the categories and roles the narrative permits and predicts. If it doesn't some form of conflict or dissonance arises.

Not sure what I mean? I mean that every conversation you have is with yourself. The other person is more or less a prop onto which you project your sense of reality. If the other person has the proper part of their narrative very similar to the same part in yours, you won't notice since you both permit and expect the same kinds of potential responses. But what about when that isn't the case?

Haven't you been so surprised or confused by what you've heard that you could actually feel your brain searching for a way to figure out what the other person just said? Have you had that sense that there must be similar sounding words which would actually fit the conversation, so you must have misheard the other person?

Or perhaps you are familiar with the conversation in which someone takes one little thing you write or say and reads so much into it that isn't there and that you didn't intend that you are shocked by how far off they are and their reaction to your attempt at communication? Don't worry, you've done it too. Quite often.

And then there's the person that literally just carries on the entire conversation in a virtual monologue, in which case your role as a prop to allow them to talk to themselves is obvious. Nor can we leave out your own internal dialogue with yourself, which may or may not be vocalized.

This is all part of the constantly recycled individually mental narratives that are part of larger socially shared cultural narratives. And these in turn are the human elaboration of information processing loops of simpler organisms which also collect and react to information painting a picture of their internal status and the external world.

Conflict and suffering and social media narcissism

I doubt that if you've followed what I'm saying so far that you need me to do much to indicate how this relates to human personal and collective suffering, to internal and external conflict. When narrative elements inside our heads or between what's in my head and your head are incompatible, conflict arises.

Let's take the case of when this happens inside your own mind. In some cases this might lead to rejecting one element or the other (rejecting one belief in favor of another), to finding a way to keep the elements separate and ignore their incompatibility (cognitive dissonance), or creatively combining the two into a new perspective or seeing a third possibility lying beyond them.

The same thing can happen when the conflict is between two or more minds, only then things are more complicated when it comes to resolving or living with the differences. A new seed may form for a collective understanding between one crowd giving them the basis for a new shared narrative, further isolating them from others in their community. They see the world a differently, interpret events differently, and so on. If this trend continues, agreement between the two sides becomes more difficult.

Take the example of some conservatives in the United States who reject climate change, believe that their interpretation of Christianity should be the civil religion of their country, won't accept any gun regulation despite ever more frequent mass shootings, and deny things like evolution and (the human contribution) to worldwide climate change. That ideology is part of a narrative that has been emerging for decades and drawing from different social, religious, and political sources. But it doesn't have iron boundaries. Some people are drawn to it to varying degrees, and hence they cluster around it. Some embrace 75% of the ideology, some 85%, some 100%. And that's if we assume that the exact composition of the ideology is constant and stable.

My own sense is that this particular ideology was much more variable in what it stood for and more diffuse in the internal agreement of its members, and that perceived social pressure from those outside of the ideology is causing a contraction. More and more people near the center are drawing closer together in just what it is they believe, and are less tolerant of those who are on the margins.

This is only one example, and this phenomenon isn't limited to a certain kind of politics, or to politics. Or to really larger groups and widespread social movements. But if you strongly agree or disagree with the ideology I've described, which is associated with the political movement known as The Tea Party, you may have wondered whether people who feel differently that you are living in a different world. Well, they are!

And suffering, yes, well, think about it. All human narratives have that moral element at their core. Whether it is you judging yourself or someone else doing the honors, the narrative tells you "This is who you can be if you want to be a good, well-thought of, decent person." It also gives reasons why people fail. If the narrative emphasizes individual qualities and choice, which happens more often and more strongly in egocentric societies (look it up if you haven't seen that one before and its converse -- sociocentric), then basically you are a bad person because you suck. Either you were born to suck, you chose to suck, or a little of both.

This saves so much time when judging yourself and others. If you are gay, just stop being gay or control you nasty unnatural impulses. If you are unemployed or underemployed, you must lack ambition, education, or intelligence. So take that all of you lazy, ignorant, dumb slackers with college degrees who are working at or just above minimum wage after completing a rigorous course of study lasting four or more years!

As for how my way of seeing human behavior sheds light on social media narcissism, I am guessing you can grasp that.  And how it plugs back into what has been covered so far. The internet is another platform for this larger evolutionary pattern of information processing of which humans are a part. Similar perhaps to the first groups of individual cells that began more integrated and efficient modes of communication leading to the earliest multi-cellular organisms.

OK, well, if you want more then you'll have to hope I actually finish rewriting my manuscript and send it in to a publisher.

US Christians still failing the LGBQT* community

[Much important work remains unfinished.]

Polls and surveys reveal that Christianity is increasingly associated with intolerance, mean-spiritedness, hypocrisy, and judgmental attitudes, particularly toward the LGBQT* community in the United States. Wasn't there supposed to be something in the heart of the Christian tradition about loving others, refraining from judgment, and caring for those who are excluded and heavily burdened?

To cut to the chase, yes there are Christian fundamentalists on the religious right who have contributed to such negative views of Christianity in North America, particularly in the United States. They have been supported many clerical leaders and lay people in the Roman Catholic Church as well as some mainline Protestant denominations such as the United Methodist Church, and in both of these examples there are members who are actively opposed to discriminatory policies and teachings. Yet even in many of the more progressive leaning Christians denominations the attitudes expressed toward the LGBQT* community are often luke-warm at best, and those Christians who feel that they are being misrepresented by their more conservative peers are responsible for their own efforts in presenting and living out their values.

Being "not as bad" as other Christian groups on such issues isn't good enough. Having an openly gay Bishop doesn't absolve a denomination of its other shortcomings in being welcoming to and actively affirming the dignity and worth of LGBQT* people any more than having an African American President signals that there is no more structural or personal racism in the nation. Slogans, committees, and press releases supporting equal rights and anti-bullying campaigns can't take the place of active education and proactive local measures to help congregations understand, display, and act upon those generically promoted values of acceptance.

Now for the excuses:

In the past few years many major denominations have moved at the national level have moved toward accepting the blessing of same-sex commitment ceremonies and civil unions.

Some have, some haven't. And for those that have, there is a clear distinction between blessing such unions and the sacrament of marriage. The blessing also tends to be optional, at the discretion of a particular congregation or bishop.

The procedures in place for making major changes to church law and policy are laborious and ponderous, and are designed that way to promote deliberation and allow for thoughtful changes gradually over time.

That is somewhat true, but here is a test case. Let's say one of the bigger mainline denominations found, to their embarrassment, something in an official bit of church rule or law that barred African Americans from being ministers, or which didn't allow interracial marriage. The scenario isn't meant to be likely, just an example. Slow and ponderous as the processes behind official policy changes may be, how long would it take to correct this oversight and strike it down?

There would be an immediate press release apologizing for the oversight, and at the very least a unanimous vote at the next national meeting of the denomination to rewrite the offending section. That is, assuming there wasn't some loophole found for calling an emergency meeting of senior officials to address such a problem. The denomination in question would be tripping over itself in a rush to make things right.

Anyone see that happening at the moment on the issue of LGBQT* equality?

Many members of the denomination, especially some of the older members, grew up in a different time and culture and it takes time for changes to filter into and become familiar within the congregations. Things are moving as fast as human nature and the denomination's demographics will allow.

Maybe, but a 2013 survey indicates that 62% of mainline Protestants who identified as "white" were in favor of gay people being allowed to marry, while 58% of white Roman Catholics agreed. Given that this and other polls have shown a major age divide on this issue, it isn't hard to see how these numbers play out within a particular denomination or congregation. This supports the idea that changes in attitude in the pews has an age-related factor and that this in turn can effect policy at the national level. The current strategy followed by the somewhat more progressive denominations allows some face-saving on the matter of being gay and transgender friendly while not upsetting and potentially losing more of the older or more socially conservative members who already feel things are changing too fast or that enough has already been done.

A harsh assessment?

The claim that US Christians are still failing the LGBQT* community may seem like a harsh assessment, but stand back for a moment and look at the situation.  The bullying of gay and transgender teens and related teen suicide is still prevalent. Those who oppose equality and basic dignity for the LGBQT* are railing louder than ever because of challenges to their privilege, claiming persecution because they can't always get away with lying about and slandering gay and transgender people anymore. They are increasingly called out for it now, and this is a source of panic and outrage and, sadly, even acts of violence. Yet somehow discrimination against LGBQT* individuals hasn't magically vanished, and despite the protests of the religious right, such individuals are not untouchable nor are they running society.

In midst of this chaos and the resulting din of social discord and political hyperbole, what is the audible message of those Christian denominations, congregations, and individuals who claim to support the LGBQT* community? Where are their voices? What is the bold declaration that they offer in such challenging circumstances, and how are the taking a visible and powerful stand for those who are heavily burdened?

Yes, there are reasonable sounding explanations for why bold change and decisive leadership seem so slow in coming. Yes, there are practical limitations to what the national leadership of some denominations can do to effect change in the congregations, or what congregations can do to effect change in the national leadership of their denomination. Yes, there are arguments for positive signs on the horizon and so on for many denominations.

But the fact is, whoever or whatever is responsible, the actual current effectiveness of Christianity in the face of attitudes and politics affecting gay and transgender people weighs heavily on the anti-LGBQT* side of the scale, with what can generally be considered slow and tepid efforts to reverse this dynamic.

So even if you can claim that you, your congregation, or your denomination is doing all it can at the moment for gay and transgender equality (can you make that claim?), the bottom line is that Christianity in the United States is overall still failing the anti-LGBQT* community. This isn't a put down or a dismissal of the efforts of those trying to change this fact, rather it is a reminder of the truth of the situation. There is no time for complacency. Too much work remains to be done.