\n<\/em>G.K. Chesterton<\/p>\n
Is it possible to be all empiricist, rationalist and nativist at the same time? I wonder if we can combine or wrap up our personal and relative moral leanings as we find our way through our lives by a soulful, natural agreement with an empirical encounter (to be nativist and empiricist by degrees) whilst figuring (the proverbial) \u2018it\u2019 out for ourselves. Perhaps an ‘agreement-between’, a kind of consilience or \u201cjumping together\u201d as was proposed by E.O. Wilson of the evolution of Moral Psychology, out of the hands of one discipline and into the collaborative understanding of more than one [1].<\/p>\n Jonathan Haidt, in his book The Righteous Mind<\/em>, helps us along in understanding our approach to finding certain moral solutions, as he relates how our minds can be divided in the consideration of solutions to moral dilemmas. He uses the metaphor of a rider\u00a0<\/em>(reasoning) on an elephant\u00a0<\/em>(intuition). Haidt reflects on our human minds as very similar to the minds of animals in general (presumably mammals) in that they are perpetually reactionary. Regarding our tendency to intuitively respond and base our responses on what is perceived, he writes that \u2018within the first second of seeing, hearing, or meeting another person, the elephant has already begun to lean toward or away, and that lean influences what you think and do next\u2019 [1]. It seems that we seek to appeal to the empathy of one another, if not by the way we look or sound, by some other way.<\/p>\n Jonathan Haidt, is a social psychologist at the University of Virginia. In \u201cThe Righteous Mind,\u201d Haidt writes in order \u2018to enrich liberalism, and political discourse generally, with a deeper awareness of human nature\u2019 [2]. He is playful with his ethnographic examples, in some cases shared to generate a response of disgust, all intended to challenge our reasoning with regards to what is deemed right and wrong. Where intuition can be clear, reason (or, intuition\u2019s proof) alone can be vague and may only be extended to prove one\u2019s being correct and another\u2019s incorrect as well as, perhaps, strategizing social status. One review, from the New York Times, argues that \u2018his whole book is a deployment of reason to advance learning\u2019 [2] and, his argument is quite persuasive, appealingly cynical.<\/p>\n A sliver of space (and, understandably so given the scope of his study) within a chapter of Haidt\u2019s book, is given to the subject of Psychopathy. Aspects of the psychopath fascinate me, in particular, their lack of feeling and tendency to harm. Haidt explores the moral inclinations (not lack thereof but, certainly deviated) of psychopaths in another more in depth study [3] that interestingly uses the five moral foundations that are also of note in this book. His findings show entire the moral dysfunction (on each of the five moral foundations) of the psychopath with a more obvious digression in the way of an inclination to cause harm and a lack of perception of fairness.<\/p>\n The manipulation of the psychopath is methodical, extraordinary and can come across as very persuasive until, that is, they\u2019re found out. Capitalism seeks to persuade the consumer and politicians the voter; Haidt makes it clear that the most effective way to a person\u2019s heart (their pocket or checkmark\/undivided attention\/loyalty) is through the elephant, intuitive perception. What is the impression that wins our heart, that generates our empathy? Bodies are built in such ways, sermons are manufactured in such ways, brands are developed in such ways, as are political platforms. Watchman Nee, a founding Chinese Church Leader and Christian Teacher, defines the impression as a \u2018mysterious something (that) expresses itself\u2019 (4), something that is beyond our words and actions. When the impression of a person or situation meets with the intuition of another, judgements are made. These judgements will initiate attraction or repulsion. What good liberal democracy occurs when we focus our communication toward the elephant because, when the elephant comes your way, so does the rider. Is this manipulation? Is this strategic coercion?<\/p>\n Over the last week, as in depth as I’ve been able to go (at least, as time has allowed) with this book and its wonderful exploration of choice, choosing and morality, I have to admit that I’m not particularly happy (insecurities arising) with my mind’s efficiency and the its optimal and accurate operation. With all the information that I have had a chance to consider on subjects put forward in Haidt\u2019s book, a robot could do far better than me; at least, given all the information that could be downloaded through programs for decision making and best approaches to moral challenges. The problem with this substitute, the lack of a defining feature characteristic in humans, the soul. I believe that the soul within us, provided it hasn\u2019t been utterly shut down by our refusal to listen, can teach us between right and wrong. Perhaps, the soul has something more to do with the elephant that Haidt speaks of (albeit, the ‘elephant’ he defines clearly as our intuitions or emotions)?<\/p>\n Late this week I was sitting in an office with the door slightly open. The door creaked open slightly further and a woman leaned in. Downcast and in an obvious state of disconnection, she whispered, \u2018I don\u2019t know what to do\u2019. Without a word, at my simple acknowledgement, she welcomed herself in, sat down and she said it again, \u2018I don\u2019t know what to do.\u2019 Through my introduction, inquiry and care for her she kept saying these words, \u2018I don\u2019t know what to do.\u2019 No tears, no prescriptive emotion, simply these words over and over again. Her intuition led her to a safe place where she could iterate \u2018absence of reason\u2019. Umm, where is the rider? Every utterance on my part was met with the same response. Eventually, she left. I intuited the soul of a woman crying out of dark place. And, I\u2019m left wandering (perhaps, in a similar darkness) \u2018I don\u2019t know what to do.\u2019<\/p>\n Watchman Nee continues in his book, the Release of the Spirit, that it is beyond our words and actions that determines \u2018whether we can do the Lord\u2019s work\u2019 [4]. The ability to breakthrough, to connect (without an ulterior motive for making the connection, that is) draws us into a metaphysical engagement, that for lasting impact requires more than mere \u2018reasonable\u2019 strategy. It seems that people yearn for something to believe, someone to follow, a cause to fight for, a team that welcomes them; and, we are the players and, we are the played. Haidt concludes that social intuitionism offers a morality like rationalism yet, with a \u2018truer\u2019 integrity to the human experience [5]. The world around knows this about us and will battle for our attention the next time we are free to be seduced by their songs and colours and bright, shiny-white-perfect-toothed smiles. I don\u2019t think people want to be played yet, this is the game we are born into and the challenge of \u2018dog-eat-dog\u2019, survival of the fittest. What is survival in this system but, slavery?<\/p>\n Jesus beckons us with the option, here\u2019s the shot: \u2018The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it<\/i> more abundantly’ John 10:10 (NKJV). Straightly, Nee acknowledges that \u2018we are not able to edify others if we say one thing and emit from our lives another thing, if we act one way and live another way\u2019 [4]. If it is freedom that we hope for others, the question remains, have we been set free?<\/p>\n Then, perhaps those we care for will not only be open to listen but, truly will be able to hear that \u2018still small voice\u2019 1 Kings 19:12b (KJV).<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Bibliography<\/strong><\/p>\n [1] Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. <\/em>New York: Pantheon Books, 2012.<\/p>\n [2] Saletan, William. “Why Won’t They Listen?” The New York Times<\/em>, March 23, 2012. \u00a0https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2012\/03\/25\/books\/review\/the-righteous-mind-by-jonathan-haidt.html<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/03\/images-1.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n