Okay, so it reads like the headline of an online quiz, but I enjoyed discovering this this morning, and want to share:
We know that human ethical development typically (and broadly speaking) emerges through three stages, which can be defined as preconventional, conventional, and postconventional stages of moral development.
...
At the first or preconventional stage, morals are understood and experienced solely in terms of what the ego demands.
...
But with relatively normal/healthy social development, we move into the stage of conventional morality: where our moral sensibilities are shaped by one or more group identities.
...
Finally, as postconventional ethical consciousness emerges, we begin to think not in terms of conformity to any given group, but begin to define ethical values by universal principles...
It is, as the author says, pretty basic, but there's an art to stating the obvious. I do recommend reading the entire well-written post at Anamchara, and I look forward to reading this newly-discovered blog some more.
The thought passed yesterday - it seems that life is a spiral path, that I keep travelling the same circles, but making upward progress each time around. Back at Catholicism for awhile, remembering its value, finding it both richer and more limited, until I journey, until the next season brings me by again.
Meanwhile, I continue with Fire in the Mind and, slowly, Pronoia. In FitM, I'm reading about Native American cultures, the similarities among creation stories, that as tribes interacted and shared ideas, that they gained gods, rather than having one set of gods war with another. This sort of assimilation is markedly different than Christian methods. The summary in FitM makes me want to get deeper into those belief systems and learn more about cultures to which my exposure has been quite limited.
Four cardinal directions, described by colors, each ruled by an animal. How many cardinal directions might be found in my own spinning? (That sounds a bit Annie Dillard; I like it.)
Yes, I (sometimes) obsessively and (sometimes) unneccessarily search for patterns, for ways to describe them, ways to communicate them with others. Thus we can toy communally with ideas, explore concepts. I'd suppose that everyone has a need to know that they're not entirely alone in their experience, but it may be that that's just me.
10 comments:
1. Damn; I was hoping it was an online quiz. :)
2. Spirals and pre-conventional, conventional, and post-conventional...exactly. And then further up and further in!
3. Mmm, Annie Dillard. I do love me some Annie Dillard.
4. Assimilation...IS it that different from Christianity? Or is it just different from conventional Christianity?
5. Not being alone in the universe: nope, it's not just you. It's probably not just you and me, either; but maybe it is!
Yeah, me too - hoping it was an online quiz!
- - - -
Is spiraling really spiraling? Or circling. A dog chasing its tail. Do you ever wonder?
- - - -
I understand the need to connect, to not be "entirely alone in their experience". It's why I'm here online also. Now there are three of us. Soon to be a worldwide majority, gathering at Julie's blog?
I've always wondered about cycles/circles vs forward evolution/progress. One camp says time is this way, the other, the other.
I've never really thought of it though as a SPIRAL. Cycles/Circles slowly spiraling upward/forward.
I think my fuse just blew. But very cool!
A,
1. I tried to find an online quiz, but didn't. Perhaps I'll create one on one of those free quiz sites. That could be amusing.
2. Further up and further in - Chronicles of Narnia?
3. I've only read one of hers, but keep picking it up and reading a few random pages.
4. Maybe I can expand and you decide? The tribes just added each others' gods to those already existing. Christians insist that theirs is the one true god and all others are idols. On the conventional level, there's a vast difference. You and I may see the individual gods as expressions of the one god, and have no argument. Most people worship the aspects of the one god that they like, anyway, it seems. So, um, from the conventional viewpoint, there's a difference - from the postconventional, not so much.
Thomas Merton, I'm told, "departed" from Catholic teaching later in his life. I've always felt that he hadn't, but had gotten deep enough to where things blend together.
I had tentatively been thinking of myself as transcendent-christian (Catholic), but that term limits christianity/catholicism to the conventional view.
5. It's a real driving force, for me. And I move between more and less secure in not-alone-ness.
Night sky,
See above, I'll work on it :)
I have wondered - as Trev mentions above, there's the cyclical camp and the evolutionary camp. But I find myself returning to the same places, yet further along. The spiral is conceptual but not formulaic - there's room for regression and tail-chasing, too.
It would be nice to connect with people in the real-time tangible sense, but this method does work.
Trev,
I had no idea there were camps! I'm glad you enjoyed this. ::grinning, passes a fuse::
I guess I was thinking more about early Christianity, which incorporated plenty of elements from other religions of the day into its myths and belief system. E.g., from what I understand, lots of gods and other divine figures were believed to be the offspring of a virgin and a god; and baptism used to have a lot more in common with the initiation rites of mystery religions. True, Christianity never incorporated other religions' gods like the tribes you mention, but there was a time when it seemed to have a bit more permeability.
I, like you, go back and forth with the labeling thing. Sometimes I want to embrace wholeheartedly the "Christian" identification; sometimes I want to do so with a big disclaimer; other times I want to keep the whole proceedings at arms' length; and sometimes I just don't care! (This latter is probably the best alternative.)
And, yes, Chronicles of Narnia reference earlier, of which I remain a big fan.
"It would be nice to connect with people in the real-time tangible sense, but this method does work."
Actually, "this method" sometimes does both - intangible plus tangible, or at least verging on the tangible. I first met my blog co-author online on a now-defunct forum for mystics; we've exchanged family photos and now have a joint website. The same for a person I met through a Christian mystics Yahoo group (neither of us are still members of that group) - photos, phone numbers, addresses, snail mail (and a year's worth of emails), and we've talked about getting together in person someday. I had a long lunch with another person from the Christian mystics group, when she brought her daughter to this airport (they live several hours away), and we still correspond by email also. In fact, two of the three above emailed me today.
My kids think I'm nuts, because I've drilled into them how you don't give out personal information to strangers online, and they take that seriously. I'm certainly not recommending people emulate what I did. And I continue to be wisely cautious or over-cautious in all cases NOT INVOLVING SPIRITUALITY. However, I think a deep spirituality is almost impossible to fake, at least to someone who has been drawn to and involved in spirituality/mysticism for almost two decades. :-) (As my blog partner says, "We're older than dirt." Of course, I replied, "Speak for yourself.")
A,
I once started to read a book about how Christianity's teachings have been changed and evolved over the years. It was probably in '99, the book wasn't all that new, and its cover was pink, almost fushia. Never finished, but you now make me wish I had. It's nice to think that maybe Christianity goes through more- and less-permeable phases. Maybe it's just a downward slope, though. Protecting the OneTrueFaith and all that.
At present, I'm reluctant to claim any sort of Christianity. At the same time, I'm glad to have this little circle to remind me of the things I love about it.
***
Night Sky,
I hope that some of us will meet, when the opportunity and time are right. Glad you've managed to!
As far as faking it - anybody can try; some are more easily fooled than others. There's a whole level of communication that occurs someplace below the surface. Where I want to go with that comment is - the mysticism/spirituality thing, those sorts of people seem to be able to recognise each other - or rather, that's my experience.
***
Both of you, thank you for your lengthy and thoughtful responses!
No, you're not alone in that, not at all!
Post a Comment