Culture

Part IV: Existence Precedes Essence

by C. P. Lawrence

Part IV: Existence Precedes Essence

In the first three posts, I attempted to define existentialism through the idea of individual choice, but definitions are next to impossible when referencing anything to do with existentialism. The idea of individual choice, however, is featured prominently and pushes existentialism into another idea much more complex than any before it; it is the idea of existence preceding essence. F.W.J. Schelling was credited with being the very first to use the phrase in a speech he delivered in 1841. Soren Kierkegaard, who was in attendance of Schelling’s speech, has used this idea in some of his works, but it was Jean-Paul Sartre who formulated the idea and expanded on it. The phrase is featured prominently in a lecture of his entitled, “Existentialism is a Humanism,” which was given in 1945. The phrase is foundational to many philosophers and foundational to much of their work, especially Martin Heidegger and his metaphysics featured in his masterpiece, “Being and Time.”  

This phrase, in my opinion, captures the spirit of existentialism better than all others. Its basis flows out of a defiance to the dominant idea of the time, that our essence was more fundamental than our existence. The existential inverted phrase promotes the opposite; it presents the idea that essence, something thought to be distinctly human, is not given, as has been thought, but, instead, it is developed, which is radically different than any thinking before it. Existentialism believes that we first exist (existence) and then create and develop our own essence through our existence, i.e., our choices and our actions. Sartre believed that existence preceded essence and saw it as defining and determining our thinking. This next part is quite brilliant, in my opinion.

Sartre, instead of arguing about the true nature of man, turned the argument on its head by insisting that there is no such thing as human nature … only human condition. Sartre posited that we live as “self-conscious first-person perspectives” imagining and reimagining who we are as we live. What he was saying was that being conscious of our own existence is ultimately what it means to be human. That is our condition, which implies that our nature is neither good nor bad but a condition that is creating and developing our own essence. For Sartre, there is no pre-ordained sinful nature; each person comes into existence and then through decisions and actions creates their own unique essence. 

This issue of human nature, a philosophical battle ground for many years, was seemingly answered with this one phrase; according to Sartre, there is no predefined subject, no fixed identity and no pre-ordained path or objective, at least that was his assertion. There is only existence and all things come after it, which leaves everything in our hands as human beings. Sartre writes, “Man, first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world—and defines himself afterwards.” While Sartre believed this, he also acknowledged that we face, as human beings, a number of constraints in our lives. He believed human beings had appetites and desires for power and fame, which deals directly with the nature of man whether he acknowledges it or not. He did acknowledge that pre-existing identities and meanings will be “thrust” upon us, but our role is to define ourselves and not allow them to define us. 

As I have referenced, existentialism establishes as one of its fundamental truths—if one can even use the word “truth” in reference to anything existential—that human beings are not born with a pre-defined purpose but instead forge their own path through their own human existence. I must ask this question; is that not a predefined purpose? The idea or phrase attempts to push aside any thoughts of an involved or interested deity in favor of individual human agency, which suggests that individuals are not born with or given an essence but develop it through their individual existence, which fits nicely with an evolutionary mindset. Most existentialists believe this mindset produces personal freedom and personal responsibility while acknowledging that situations and circumstances do fall outside of our control at times. We can acknowledge that existentialism produces a kind of freedom, but I am not sure we find the responsibility Sartre thought would follow. If we are now living in an existential world, what do we see? Do we see personal responsibility? Do we even see personal freedom? What exactly do we see before us because it is a manifestation of existentialism, but that is a post for another day. This post is already too long so I will take that line of thinking up next time. Until then, please remember, thinking matters! 

Existentialism: Part III

by C. P. Lawrence

Part III: Existentialism and Pavlov’s Dogs

In my last post I referenced Pavlov’s dogs and operant conditioning. That is an incorrect reference, my apologies. The correct reference to Pavlov’s dogs is classical conditioning, which is Pavlov’s foundational theory, which involves pairing a neutral stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus to elicit a conditioned response. In his famous experiment, he found that dogs naturally salivate (a conditioned response) when presented with food (an unconditioned stimulus). What does any of this have to do with existentialism? Let me retrace my steps and bit and explain the differences between operant and classical conditioning and how both become important in existentialism.  

Operant conditioning is a learning process that uses rewards and punishments to modify voluntary behaviors. In operant conditioning behaviors that are rewarded are more likely to be repeated than those that are punished. Naturally, you want to reward wanted behavior and punish unwanted behavior. Operant conditioning is based on the work of Edward Thorndike whose law of effect theorized that behaviors arise due to whether consequences are satisfying or discomforting. Thorndike’s theories were foundational to early public education in this country and are still employed in classrooms today.   

However, operant conditioning differs from classical conditioning in that classical conditioning involves stimuli paired with biologically significant events that produce involuntary and reflexive behaviors This is much different than operant conditioning which is voluntary and depends on the consequences of a behavior whereas operant conditioning depends on the event, i.e., the reward or the punishment, more than the behavior. 

As I said, existentialism, at its core, is about the individual and the individual’s choices in life. As the world becomes more connected, we run the risk of this connectivity being used as stimuli to condition us into certain behaviors. This can only take place if we exist in a bubble where our individual choices become more important than collective choices or commonalities, which I see taking place more and more. In this world, there is no longer a need for the collective or the common because most choices and beliefs are considered acceptable by the world. 

As a matter of point, anything bringing us together actually makes conditioning, both classical and operant, more difficult. The impact is less due to observational learning, where individuals within a group learn through the observation of others within the group. Groups have norms which impact conditioning due to the natural tendency and desire of individuals to adopt the norms and behaviors of the group. In that situation, individual actions are less likely to respond to conditioning due to their natural tendency to focus on the behaviors and the norms of the group in order to be accepted by the group (There is a lot of research regarding group dynamics that supports this assertion.).  

If we live more as individuals and less as a collective group or community, there is a better chance of stimuli be used to manipulated us (either with an unconditioned stimulus or with rewards or punishments), especially if our individual choices are only about us. Eventually, when we make choices and benefit from those choices, as we will when we make choices that are only for us, we become conditioned to believe that our functional order (see my last post) is our moral order when it is not. We are merely living in the moment of our functional order which seems moral due to our actions being our actions, which are the direct result of making functional choices that only benefit us. One author put it this way, “we become ‘just’ by performing ‘just’ acts” but these just acts are merely our acts,” which we believe are just because we can perform them, and they can help us attain what we want. That is not morality. 

Our actions, which we control, root us in our own individual lived existence. Again, this does not make them moral, but because they are our actions, they do something to us. That something takes on greater significance if we live in an existential world, where the individual is the focus at the expense of the community. This isolates us and makes us sensual, pushing us toward living by feelings and comfort, which both tend to be deeply intimate and emotional, while pushing us away from any kind of dissonance, which is necessary for actual learning. In this state, we are never wrong, never challenged and never confronted with new and different ideas. We become our own god, sovereign in all things, always right and unchallenged in any way.   

Inside existentialism and its focus on choices, we slowly become conditioned to think that our individual choices determine our character and impact who we are as a human being and not the other way around. Our choices, in an ideal world, should be impacted by who we are and what we believe, which tends to be impacted by our community. A community thrives when it is diverse but united, but the only way to unite a community is with a common identify. In an existential world, there is no common identity; there is only acceptable identities, which are individual, personal and isolated. This is existence and it produces emotional reactions that divides and never unites. This pushes everyone to examine everyone else with no concern for self; it also pushes us to condemn the past, judge the present and think nothing about the future. This is existentialism and where I see us presently. This concludes this post. Stay tuned for Part IV!  

Existentialism: Part 2

by C. P. Lawrence

Part II: Existentialism and Functional Order

In this section, we dig a little deeper into existentialism. Remember, I am proposing that existentialism is our new foundation for moral order, which is not really a moral order as much as it is a functional order. Let me explain. 

Let’s start with existentialism’s obsession with individual choice. Choice … the choices we make … how we live our lives through choices … all of these are extremely important to existentialism. When we choose, we do so through our own actions, which are matters of power according to Foucault. To choose involves deliberating and, in most instances, our deliberations will only involve those things that we control. One never deliberates over time or gravity. Why? Simple, over those things we have no control. We will only deliberate over individual choices that we can control, which, by their nature, directly affect us, which I am labelling as functional.  

Inside this functional order (my phrase) the choices we make, which we view as moral (even though they are functional), we can and will control. These choices range from the concrete, i.e., where to work, to the abstract, i.e., what to believe. While these choices seemingly look and feel different, they are not. They are all rooted in who we are, and they are all choices that we can control. Therefore, by being in our control, these choices cannot be moral; they can only functional. 

These choices range from political beliefs to scientific beliefs to teleological beliefs; the choices themselves are not good or bad but they do impact us in ways that create and develop us. Let’s not be too hasty as this can also apply to moral order as well. We can turn authentic moral order into functional order in the same manner. The big issue here is operant conditioning. We can, in essence, turn ourselves into one of Pavlov’s dogs, but we will only do this if we worship our individuality and our individual choices, which is what existentialism preaches and pushes us to do.

This is the new moral order is really a functional order. Why? It is really quite simple. We will tend to choose our choices over people. The choice sits at the heart of existentialism, and it is worshiped as if it was a god. When we do this, we are actually conditioning ourselves to worship ourselves and our choices. We think thoughts like … my choices are right. My beliefs are right. My party is right. It’s the other guy who is wrong. There is just one small problem … being right every time is statistically impossible and yet, there will be some who will still insist that their choices are always right, but do not be too hard on these people. Why? Because we are these people! We all do this, especially now, because this is the world in which we live and it is the world in which we have been living in for many years. We are all Pavlov’s dogs! So, how do we deal with this? Well, that is for another time and another post. Remember, thinking matters! 

Existentialism: Part 1

by C. P. Lawrence

Existentialism: The Current Moral Order, Part 1

Are you anxious about the world in which you live? You are not alone. It seems to be all the rage these days. The media bombards us with negative ideas like global warming, melting glaciers, terrorism and global conflicts. They tell us that these things are happening for the first time in our history … that we are the reason for them. Some defy logic while others defy science and yet all are to be accepted without question. Whether they are right or wrong, is for another time, but the facts are that there is little positive in our news these days and even less in our world, at least according to those who are supposed to know these things. Why? 

This begins a series of post that will attempt to make sense of the world in which we live because it is a different world than the one in which I was raised as a child. It seems to me that the change that has taken place over the last ten years is radically different than other cultural change over a similar time frame. I, and I am sure all of you, just don’t know who to believe these days. Who do we trust? The media … the government … medicine … science … the church … all have given us reasons to doubt them, but is it the institutions themselves or is it something else? I think it is something else. I think something has changed in who we are and in the world in which we live. 

My theory begins with our current state, which is this, we live in a world currently dominated by existentialism, which has replaced Christian morality as the foundation for all thought and feeling. It is a stark contrast to the Christian morality or the Christian faith of the past, but in a sense, it is also similar in that it is every bit faith itself in that it is most difficult to explain in tangible terms. In this series, I will try to explain it in ways that we all have experienced to come to a better understanding.  

Most existentialists believe it (existentialism) cannot be explained; it can only be lived. As far as philosophies go, it is one that bases conduct on a belief that must be chosen as an act of faith, due to the belief that no objective moral order exists, independently of or external to human beings. There is no school of thought, no statement of belief nor is there a set of core values to follow. We, human beings, are morality. Our souls, feelings and ideas are to serve us as our own morality. Everyone must live in a way that affirms their beliefs in an authentic way that is rooted in who they are as their own human being. Authenticity is the objective, but it is different for each person. It is a bit like throwing mud at the wall if you will. What sticks today may not stick tomorrow or even be there and every wall is different. 

Existentialism is obsessed with individuality and how we choose to live as individuals. It seeks to reinforce our individuality, which seems positive, but in that individuality, we give up commonality and true community. If you are wondering what’s missing … wonder no more, it is community. It is missing in government, medicine, science, academia … and the list goes on and on. Republicans cannot mix with Democrats or risk losing the next election. Liberals cannot mix with conservatives; Christians cannot mix with atheists … the divide is wide and there are seemingly no planks to bridge the gap. Existentialism has come along and pronounced the gaps as good and given everyone their own island.  

There are many issues but the larger more egregious one, for me, is the thought existentialism produces. It is not higher categorical thought, nor does it have anything to do with dialectic thought, for which so many philosophers advocate or at least used to advocate. Existentialism just wants you to exist in the moment; it believes it is the moment that is the best means of living authentically. To live in the moment is to live for yourself, your choices and your desires. Thinking of others is not condemned but it is not advocated either. If it is authentic for you, great, but if it is not authentic for you, then that too is fine. There is no shame or guilt in this world. There is no personal responsibility nor is there fault. This is the world in which we live and it affects all of us. 

In a very non-existential way, I would love to hear all of your thoughts, especially those that are different. I still believe in a dialectic way of thinking which is why I am putting my thesis out there for all to see. The only way to confirm it as valid is to measure it against an antithesis or two, which are comments and ideas that are different. This is higher categorical thought and why it matters!    

Do We Still Have Common Sense?

by C. P. Lawrence
Common Sense sign card

The other day, in the middle of a conversation, the idea of common sense was presented as something all but gone in our culture. The subject came and went too quickly. It was only after, upon reflection of the conversation, that it came to my mind, and I couldn’t dismiss it. It stayed with me, prompting me to do a little digging as to its origins and to its current reality.

Let’s establish, first, that common sense is not a liberal or a conservative mindset. It is not a particular worldview or political position. I think many of us look at the absence of common sense as positional; to have it one must hold a certain position, usually a position that aligns with our position. That is not common sense.  

The origin of the phrase is found with a school of philosophy, which is said to hold the notion that we should begin our thinking with the fixed beliefs of mankind and move on from there. This phrase or notion, whatever you want to call it, was first penned by Aristotle who believed that all living beings have nourishing souls, but it was only human beings who possessed a rational soul. He believed it was only this rational soul that perceived. Aristotle proposed that every act of perception involved a modification of one of the five senses that then interacted with one’s entire being, when engaged with one of the fixed beliefs associated with all human beings.

Aristotle saw one’s perception as provinces of sensation and believed that human beings perceive by means of difference between the polar extremes contained within each sense. For example, he saw these provinces of sensation as a “kind of mean” between two extremes as in the difference between soft and loud in sound or bitter and sweet in taste. His inference was that human beings perceive by means of difference, but he believed that one sense cannot perceive itself. According to a host of theorists, Aristotle speculated that there must be an additional sense or a “common sense” that coordinated the other senses. He suggested that this “common sense” instituted a perception that is common to all the other senses yet one condensable to none of them. 

Most theorists agree that this common sense, referenced by Aristotle, was not a sixth sense or an additional sense; instead, it was more a sense of difference or a unity of the senses that manifests together when considering something of significance, a fixed belief, if you will, engaging all five senses, which in turn act collectively on one’s being. 

Mention common sense today and most default to the ideas of practical judgement and social awareness as both relate to an individual being living in a world with all beings, but there is a deeper implication … the one with which we started. Do most still have common sense? Or is there still a need for common sense? Both questions have implications socially and culturally. 

First, are there any commonly accepted fixed beliefs to which almost everyone, even in their differences, agree or acknowledge? It is thought that agreement or acknowledgement of these fixed beliefs manifest common sense but if there are a dwindling number of fixed beliefs … what happens to common sense? I am proposing that culturally there is indeed a diminishing number of commonly accepted fixed beliefs but that is due to all individual beliefs being given positions of acceptability. The question not yet answered is this one: does the acceptance of all individual beliefs still produce common sense in the same way a communal acceptance of a fixed belief did in the past?  

When was the last time you heard common sense referenced? I can’t say that I have heard the phrase in quite some time. As I look out at our world, I see an absence of common sense but does anyone else? Common sense seems, to me, to be an individual trait produced by communal membership. Does the absence of common sense signal an absence of community or an absence of something else? I am thinking of submission or empathy, two areas I see less of these days. 

The idea of common sense was the sense that kept you “in the middle of the road,” if you will, kept you connected with all others with your differences intact. It was this “common” amid all your differences that you shared with your fellow men and women in ways of connect-ability. It connected you with others and allowed you to keep your differences while connecting with others who were themselves different. It was “common sense” that tolerated individual differences for the sake of the collective whole. Over time, some individual differences became acceptable to our collective common sense, but what happens when all differences are given equal status of acceptability? Well, first, we lose the need for common sense, and second, I am not entirely sure, but my sense is that we lose something important … something communal … something distinctly human.    

I would love to hear your thoughts? Hit the comment section with them because thinking matters! 

The Changing Context of Wisdom

by C. P. Lawrence

Aristotle once said, “All men by nature desire to know,” which is a statement about being human. What he was saying is that we—human beings—have a built-in thirst to know … to gain knowledge. Is this still the case or was Aristotle mistaken?

To support his statement, Aristotle referenced our senses and our love for them. That has not gone away; I would actually propose that we are more in love with them now than we have ever been. We love to see, taste, hear and feel. We are sensual beings and even more so today. Our senses contribute to our thinking. We input information through our senses, but do we still use all of them?

Consider this: many of us use computers, laptops, iPads and cell phones to think. I, myself, now write on a laptop, which is a change from years ago when I was a pencil and paper thinker. I can’t do it anymore. I need to type on a computer to think. What does that do to the input of information? Well, it actually reduces the use of my senses down to two: sight and sound, with one (sound) delayed. What does this mean when it comes to wisdom?

Wisdom is many things; it is the use of one’s knowledge and experience to make good judgement. It is the ability to make good judgements. Wisdom, ultimately, is the ability to discern, which is a higher ordered form of thinking. What are we discerning when we discern? Well, we are discerning right from wrong, the good from the bad and the wise from the foolish. Can we do that with our senses only?

Can you see right and wrong? Can you hear it or feel it? How about taste it or smell it? Do you just know? Many of us would never admit to being able to do any of this and yet, we say all the time … I feel this is right or I feel that is the wrong thing to do. The fact is alone, your senses are not enough to determine anything. Aristotle thought senses would be dangerous if they became an end in themselves, but is that not where we are today? Do our senses drive us in all that we do? Where do they fit when it comes to experience? I think right now they trump experience, but is that a good thing?

Aristotle saw both experience and the senses as vital to wisdom, which is why he valued the artisan. He saw the artisan as knowing both the how (experience) and the way (sense). Wisdom is not just feeling; it is also not just factual. It is a blend of both, but both do not come together naturally; they need help. How do the senses become married to knowledge? The answer is through the spiritual. We are spiritual beings whether we believe in a Divine Being or in atheism.

Wisdom is a balanced blend of the senses and experience held together by the spiritual through values and beliefs, but I am proposing that wisdom’s context is changing. Why? Well, I believe the context of wisdom is affected by the predominant beliefs and values of the day, which have changed radically in the last ten years. In the past, those were some form of a Christian moral standard, but today, they are more existential, which affects the context of what is wise. What it means to be wise today has changed a lot. Wisdom is now associated with ideology, certain beliefs and certain values. We say we are more tolerate but we are less. We say we are more open but we are more closed. We have less freedom, less excellence, less leadership and way more excuses.

This all comes back to the context of what is wise, which is much different than it used to be and because it is different, who we are as human beings is different. Does it matter? I believe it does, but that is a discussion for another day. For now, thinking matters and today’s thinking involves wisdom. Think about your thoughts on wisdom … have they changed? If so, why? Love to engage with your comments. Until next time …

Tragedy Tends to Confirm

by C. P. Lawrence

As the sun sits in a cloudless sky today, it bares no resemblance to the sky of last week. Last week many of us experienced rain and wind like we have never seen. We became isolated from our world as many of us struggled to find the normal that was just beyond our grasp. And, yet, today, things are slowly returning to normal, for some of us, which prompts me to present a few thoughts.

In the midst of our recovery, the world went on, which prompts a question: what did we see and what did we learn? Well, here are a few lessons I learned. The government is not God and cannot be seen as supernal, especially when it comes to natural disasters. As much as things change, they do stay the same. If you think you have it bad all you need to do is look over at your neighbor. At the end of the day, we all have too much stuff! And, finally, if you need help and ask for it, someone will reach out and give you a hand.

I am very thankful to live where I live. I have a great church, great neighbors and a great school. Yes, the government is made of people just like me, but they have risen to the challenge and I am thankful for them. I am not concerned about their party or ideology; I am only concerned about their concern for the citizens who elected them, and at the end of the day, all I can ask them to do is their best.

Government is made of people, and whether you are red or blue … I hope you will agree that when it comes to people, despite our wishes, people are pretty much the same. So, what have I noticed about government lately. Well, the more things change the more they stay the same. The idea of government solving all of your problems is probably not a good thought and an even worse plan for the future. You see the government is not a for-profit entity. It makes no product and therefore makes no money. All it does is spend your money.

The problem I have seen in goverment in the last 5-7 years is a growing incompetency. Before you get upset, this growing incompetency is not confined to red or blue; it is purple and applies to both sides of the aisle. Let stop before going too far and ask this question: what produces excellence? I mean if you had to guarantee excellence how would you do it? I know what my answer is, but what is yours? Think about it for a minute, and if your answer is government then point me to excellence produced by government. I am not sure you can, but it’s not their fault. It’s our fault.

What produces excellence? Where do you find it? Here is a hint: Find an example of excellence, any example and go backwards until you determine what produces it. My next post will give you my answer, but I would love to get your answers! Leave them in the comments!

So, what truths have I learned in the midst of tragedy. Well, here are a few!

  1. Science is no more the answer than it was 50 years ago.
  2. Meteorologists are never wrong(What’s the difference between partly cloudy and partly sunny?).
  3. There is always hope!
  4. During times of tragedy, we learn quickly who people are.
  5. Blaming this storm on global warming is lazy science. It is impossible to determine the cause of anything in the midst of tragedy.
  6. There is something to be said of a good neighbor!
  7. Churches are always there filling the gap in times of tragedy.

What have you learned? I would love to hear your thoughts! I believe we learn from each other. The path to right thinking is full and occupied! Let’s learn and think together. Until next time …

The World in Which We Live

by C. P. Lawrence
Photo by Ylanite Koppens on Pexels.com

The World in Which We Live Has Changed!

Our world is changing every day. In the last few years we have dealt with a pandemic, inflation and now the threat of a global war. The world in which we live has changed … a lot in such a short period of time. Beyond these macro-issues, we need to ask ourselves a question: what is at the heart of this change? Can you put your finger on it? Can you nail it down to a phrase or a sentence?

If I were asked what is at the heart of the change we see I would have to say that we are no longer moral in respects to our concern for others. Our norm is now entirely about ourselves. We don’t care for other people. We don’t really care about poverty or homelessness. I mean, we do care about those things, but not more than we care about ourselves.

That seems to be the single biggest cultural shift I have seen in my lifetime. Being selfish used to be weird and taboo. Being selfish used to be embarrassing. Oh, sure, people were selfish years ago but they never flaunted it. They tried to at least present a certain humility or concern for others. Now, being selfish is celebrated; it is the norm. We are told to look out for ourselves and to get what we can get. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that summed up this mindset perfectly: the one who dies with the most toys wins.

Why is this bad? Well, first, it does not embrace difference or even care about difference. Second, we do not live in isolation but in community and there is responsibility when it comes to community. There are a whole lot of people who cannot take care of themselves and are dependent on you and me to take care of them. What happens when we want to only take care of ourselves? Well, look out your window because you are seeing the effects of this mindset in real time. Governments want more … millionaires want more … politicians want more and who suffers the consequences … everyone else. What is the answer?

Difference! Look around! Where you see beauty you see difference. Where you see excellence you see difference. Do you find beauty and excellence in sameness? Athletic teams win championships because of difference. Artists are successful because of difference. Sameness produces mediocrity and more sameness. Difference is all around you and there are many who claim to embrace difference and support difference, but all they are really doing is embracing and supporting their own power. Do you want to embrace difference … I mean truly embrace difference? If you do, then forget about equality and celebrate difference. If we celebrate difference than everyone wins because everyone is different!

Thoughts on Difference

by C. P. Lawrence

Thinking about difference …

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Difference … is defined as “a point or way in which people or things are not the same” (Dictionary.com) but that pithy statement does not really tell the story of difference, does it? Difference or different can mean many things. It can mean weird or strange as in “you are really different.” It can be a pause of concern, “that’s different.” It can be a personal statement, “I am different.” Whatever way you use it, if you are like most, you use it in reference to something negative over 60% of the time.

I remember the very first time I traveled to another country and encountered difference. I was surrounded by people who were not like me, did not speak like me or even think like me. My choice was to recoil into my shell and avoid changing (difference) or embrace it and learn something new. What a difference (chuckle, chuckle) it was for me to embrace the difference around me. It changed me and made me who I am today. I learned how to think about the world in a very different way. I learned a new language, new food, and a new way to interact with a world that just doubled in size for me.

Difference is not to be avoided but to be sought. How are we to seek difference? Well, let’s start with social media. If you want to seek difference then you should avoid unfriending or unfollowing anyone who disagrees with you. Instead, you should engage them respectfully to see why their opinion is different. You may continue to disagree but both of you will have learned something from each other. One of the most frustrating things to hear is those who push an agenda of equality but then promote conformity to their standard as a single position. That is not difference but sameness and sameness should be avoided because it leads to many things that are bad. Think about the past and sameness. I doubt you come up with much that was positive.

As I conclude, I want to implore you to think about difference and whether you seek it or avoid it. Your response to it will make all the difference in your own life and the lives of others!