Learning the A, B, C & Ds of the Human Condition
An Education often Misplaced, Misinterpreted or Misinformed
Human Condition Study
T. Dave Matsuo
©2024 TDM All rights reserved No part of this manuscript may be reprinted without permission from the author Contact: tdavematsuo@4X12.org
|
Introduction
|
||
Sections
|
||
“Where are you?”
Genesis 3:9
When was the last time you attended the school of humanity and learned directly from its teaching about the human condition? The human species has evolved since its origin in ways that are immeasurable by the limits of biological evolution. While its condition has some explanation from the evolutionary dynamic of “survival of the fittest,” its condition teaches us far more about how humanity has evolved and what the human person has become. If we pay close attention to this interrelated how and what, we can learn about the existing human condition to understand that the “fittest” of humanity (and its component human collectives) and the human person have devolved in order to survive. As persons who are parts of human collectives, we all live in the human condition and are inescapably affected by it in one way or another. The urgent question in our everyday life is: To what extent does the human condition influence our persons and collectives? That is, how does any aspect of its A,B,C&Ds define who and what we are and determine how we function? Since no one is immune from its influence, understanding where, when and how we may be infected by it is a critical lesson to learn. Without learning its shaping influence on our persons and collectives, we unintentionally can fall into not only reflecting the human condition but also reinforcing and even sustaining it in our persons and collectives, and thus in the situations and circumstances of global humanity. The subtle dynamics of this pervasive condition escape the mindset of persons and collectives whenever its teaching is rendered unimportant or simply ignored as the top priority for humanity. The consequence is that this education gets misplaced, misinterpreted or misinformed. With its weight bearing down on the sum of humanity, however, the human condition will continue to diminish, reduce and fragment the who, what and how of humanity. It will continue, that is, until intervened and its weight unloaded by viable change. All the situations and circumstances of the human condition provide teaching examples of how persons and collectives are affected. Yet, these effects become teachable only when we give them our close attention and listen carefully to the persons and collectives affected without imposing our presumed bias on their condition. In other words, we need to give them the opportunity to speak for themselves without making assumptions that speak for them. That means we are the students in these situations and circumstances, even though we may be affected by some of these situations and circumstances thereby qualifying also as teachers. The reflexive nature of this educational process is intrinsic to the human condition, which must be engaged for its heuristic outcome. Christians notably have been susceptible to reflecting, reinforcing and even sustaining the human condition. This is the consequence evident when the Christian view of the human condition lacks depth perception because of having a weak view of sin. This lens evolves to form biases of the human condition, which have not been learned fully from the terms of God’s Rule of Law—the basic relational process that is essential for humanity to live (not just exist) to the fullness of its created design and purpose. This consequence has evolved subtly and is easily obscured by a biased lens paying attention to less essential matters both for humanity in general and their own persons in particular. Therefore, whenever Christians have not learned the fundamental roots of life from the heuristic process of God’s relational terms (Gal 3:19; Rom 5:20; 7:7), they will explicitly participate in and implicitly be complicit with the A,B,C&Ds of the human condition. In spite of a faith in Christ and any claim of the gospel, this is the existential reality for Christians lacking the education from the human condition surrounding them, as well as in them by default. Thus, sadly but not surprisingly, they function tethered to the human condition along with the rest of humanity. “Where are you?”
This study extends the session at the school of humanity by focusing on the interrelated A,B,C&Ds of the Human Condition:
1. In order to amplify its teaching for us to learn from the existential heart of humanity and the human person.
2. So that those who learn will know what they are faced with and must deal with both (a) to not reflect, reinforce and sustain the human condition, and (b) to help change its prevailing influence and control on human collectives and persons.
This education is essential for humans:
3. In order not to keep repeating its history, and thereby
4. For transposing its future with turn-around changes at the root of its c condition.
This ongoing session, however, will not unfold at the mere intellectual level of our engagement—no matter how much assent is given. Nor will it advance simply by rehearsing the A,B,C&Ds in our belief systems. Unlike how much of education is conducted (even in theological studies), we will be challenged at the root level to get to the heart of our humanity and our persons. Otherwise, education readily gets misinterpreted or misinformed. Without compromise or apology, the learning process ahead will require engaging issues that are pervading and prevailing, subtle and ironic, any and all of which could be personally confronting and threatening. Therefore, the extent of the education received in this process cannot be assumed, because this learning process is contingent on being vulnerably open to its existential content, and thus is dependent on our vulnerable level of involvement with these issues in order for their teaching to have the significant outcome of life-changing learning.
The following issues are not comprehensive of the human condition. But, along with clearly blatant acts against humanity, what these further issues teach us encompasses the condition of all humanity; and they take us to the roots necessary to provide the perceptual depth and insight for understanding the existential condition of human collectives and persons composing humanity. Each category overlaps with the others, and ongoingly interacts with the others to form an interdependent process that embeds the human condition in human collectives and persons. Their integral sum, however, does not serve as an app to take us through the learning process. Such apps typically assist its users through a facilitated but diminished level of education that does not involve the depths of our hearts. Moreover, the purpose of this learning process is not with the goal of gaining more information. Rather, it directs us to a deeper qualitative sensitivity and relational awareness of our existential condition, and the changes necessary to meet the heart-level needs of humanity. These needs underlie the spectrum of the human condition at any level—needs which will continue to be unmet until transforming changes are made.
From the beginning, the human condition emerged explicitly or implicitly advocating alternatives for human life. These alternatives have evolved with the advocate’s assumption of advancing humanity or having some beneficial value. This assumption is applied not only to positive activity but also to negative activity, thus rendering the difference between them to relative determination by advocates. What is then advocated, however, has always raised questions; such inquiry became the source of argument and dispute for humanity that created a competitive system between the diversity of human collectives and persons. The results keep evolving in a comparative process that render some collectives and persons better and others less, some good and some bad. On the other hand, even without any purpose to survive as the fittest, the human condition in and of itself is counter-productive in contentious ways. Thus, in spite of its usefulness challenging advocates, the human condition ongoingly has a negative presence. Therefore, whatever is advocated (even implied) by the human condition is always arguable down to its roots and needs accountability, which includes holding the human condition accountable for its argumentative nature.
Who advocates what and what is advocated for whom are both arguable. The former can claim to build humanity’s progression, while the latter can be disputed for blocking the growth of the humanity of persons. The former assumes to build on a comparative basis, while the latter ends up blocking in a comparative process. Even with good intentions, efforts to build often result in constructing walls that block the welfare of humanity; this results in the majority of persons bearing the cost for the benefits of a select few. Therefore, building and blocking are critically interrelated in the human condition, and the distinction between them is often indistinguishable in their existential function.
The human condition evolves subtly yet unmistakably in what it advocates for building humanity. This process embeds human collectives and persons in a devolving condition, which eludes their sensitivity and awareness. Moreover, beside the obvious consequences witnessed throughout human history, there are other consequences experienced that must be accounted for. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, what is constructed for human collectives and persons inevitably has collateral consequences locally, regionally and globally. These consequences often are undetected, ignored or simply accepted as part of the cost for building. Furthermore, these consequences can have the appearance of being good or a moral imperative when the human condition is conflated with beliefs and practices that are held to be important for human life. Therefore, conflating interacts with the collateral to create inflection points, which serve to affirm and justify the means of the human condition used to achieve the end advocating to build for human life.
The sum of the A, B, Cs that compose the human condition in all its variations inescapably adds up to the limits and constraints encompassing what is the default condition of humanity in all its collectives and persons. They emerge unavoidably by default in the absence of alternatives of viable alternatives of wholeness, which are not mere advocated alternatives. Whether consciously, subconsciously or unconsciously, all of humanity falls along the spectrum of the human condition by default—that is, by default until changed at its source. All of this condition existing, pervading and prevailing in everyday life, however, is subject to denial; and denial is enacted directly or indirectly, explicitly or covertly, intentionally or unintentionally. Therefore, our existential human condition by default is always deniable by any of us in one way or another, thereby making radical change unattainable and further entrenching us in the devolving human condition.
It’s time for us to learn at the heart level!
© 2024 T. Dave Matsuo
|