Bridges to Convergence in 21st Century Thought

By Kenneth G. Knaggs, Ph.D., D.Div. and R.N.

Bridges to Convergence in 21st Century Thought confronts the struggles contributing to the fractures in today’s society. It tackles the problems arising from this divergence of thought, most notably polarization, fragmentation, and depersonalization in Western society. Arguably, the fractures are the result of a failed three hundred year old experiment that has resulted in the leading philosophies of today’s Western world being secular humanism and scientific determinism. In short, technology now masters mankind rather than serving it, leaving amoral Western man as a dispensable cog in the machine—a commodity more so than a sacred being—and a mass of cells relegated to evolve in a world with no hope or future, values or absolutes. Man has become a something rather than someone. The evolving twenty-first century global society is now demanding a new thought that seeks values and connections but does not exclude the eighty-nine per cent of the world population that does not live in the West, or the eighty-five per cent of the world population that does believe in the religious and spiritual.

Bridges to Convergence argues that a new twenty-first century thought will be a matter of global design and input. This book offers first steps towards that thought through bridges to convergence between peoples, communities, societies, and nations, promoting common sensibilities, values, personhood, dignity, respect and hope.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Word Alive Press
• Release date: Jan 13, 2015
• ISBN: 9781486603787

Book preview

CITED

DEDICATION

To my (late) father, Delbert, and mother, Ella Knaggs, and my father-in law, Fraser, and (late) mother-in-law, Alma Orr, who through their marriages and life examples proved there is a spirit of human dignity, respect, and convergence worthy of pursuit, in which each party leaves an encounter with dignity intact, if not promoted—even when of differing minds.

To Dr. Neil Donen, M.D. and Barb Zunic, RN, who coached me through my first research project, taught me how to develop programs and services, and whose wisdom and support I will always treasure.

To Lorne Charbonneau, on whose leadership skills and willingness to serve as a mentor and confidante I have called so many times, and who remains one of the best minds (and hearts) I call friend.

FOREWORD

Convergence finds its roots in the functionalist perspective, which assumes that Western societies will move toward convergence with other societies that share similar needs and requirements, goals and objectives that must be met if they are to survive and operate effectively [in one global society].1

Convergence can also be defined as the coming together as equal partners seeking a seat at the table of common sensibilities, values, and accord. Without equilibrium bridges, how can we find convergence, conciliation, common shared values, hopes, and foundations for building?

In sociology, convergence theory proffers that societies will gravitate towards other societies that exhibit similar desirable forms of social organization and collective behaviour. This has been evident in historical social movements in which people with like needs, morals, characters, or objectives unite, such as the abolition of slavery. The act of converging in the twenty-first century will be marked by similarity in desires and needs, such as in a new global philosophy and morality; greater social and economic opportunity; more inclusive global language; shared visions and hopes; progress towards fairness, equality, and justice; and establishing a single set of foundational standards that could be used internationally, such as in defining personhood, human dignity, rights, and freedoms. The travails at the start of the twenty-first century—of ethnic violence, unparalleled streams of refugees, global terrorism, global economic woes, powerful natural disasters, and more—all leave mankind with a common need to find greater unity, compassion, and collaboration. For this new twenty-first century convergence to work, it must also have a new twenty-first century foundation and covering, namely a supporting and nurturing twenty-first century thought that does not separate but unites, and does not depersonalize, but rather celebrates, each person.

We need a convergence that allows for the global population to pursue their dreams and desires in a proposed parallel stream of science and spirituality that allows all to participate in a non-fragmented, non-polarized, non-depersonalized model. This is especially true for Western society. The proposed bridges to convergence outlined in this book will counter the divergence observed in the fragmentation, polarization, and depersonalization of current Western society, which I hold primarily as the result of secular humanism, materialism, naturalism, scientific determinism, and its progeny, individualism.

I wish to make the following disclosures. I do not profess to be an academic, but rather a life-long student and perhaps a catalyst for conversations towards convergence. Many will not appreciate the rigor of a scientific paper; however, it will give cause to pause and ponder. Convergence may be defined as coming as equal partners seeking a table of common sensibilities and values. My preferred classroom in life has been the marketplace rather than an academic or religious institution. Second, I am a Christian by voluntary choice, but write this book offering bridges that are accessible and beneficial to all. Third, as a health professional, I share real-life illustrations as they relate to nursing, medicine, and psychiatry that support the concept of convergence.

INTRODUCTION

My life-long interest in philosophy, religion, and spirituality likely arose from observing the marriages of my parents and in-laws. My mother is the consummate philosopher (non- academic), in that the world captures her imagination. She remains fascinated by how things have come to be and open to the mind of man (although I doubt she included the politically conservative mind!). My late father was the seeker of higher thought. He wanted us to attend church, and he extolled living by principles, virtues, and values. He (perhaps because he was in WWII) sought more the why of things that happen, as if he needed to believe in something greater than himself and in the hope of an enduring security.

My in-laws’ roles are the reverse. My father-in-law is more the philosopher, and my late mother-in-law, the religious one. They never seemed to fight or argue over their respective positions—not that I observed, at least. Instead, they were more complementary. The spiritual gave hope, meaning and purpose, a sense of right and wrong, ritual, and connection. The philosopher contributed wonder to explore the world, how things work, and how to live in the present.

I suggest they lived in an open system (both God and science; the supernatural and natural) where all things became possible and all people were recipients of personhood and dignity, and where the future was not just a promise of discovery but of ever-lasting hope. Even though my father-in-law is not overtly religious per se, he respected those with beliefs, understanding that it takes all kinds to move this world and find balance. He chooses to be open to all possible explanations.

This ability to marry religion, spirituality, philosophy, nature, and science speaks to an open system. Open system in the intended context consists of lower thought and higher thought as elements of human history and dynamics that can serve anew. In this new twenty-first century thought model, art, science, and nature once again form part of lower thought, while the religious, spiritual, and philosophical form higher thought. Yet they are not mutually exclusive. Rather than operating in isolation, they run parallel with higher thought covering lower thought, so that lower thought serves the human person and does not master.

It really speaks to bringing greater alignment among all societies by the seeking of convergence in areas of universal appeal such as rights, freedoms, religion and spirituality, and more. Each person has a choice. Each person must choose if they will limit their options to operating in the present world machine blindly, devoid of morality, culture, and standards, such as increasingly the case in Western society, or to follow equally blind, dominant cultural-religious claims used to subjugate the minority.

The proposed new twenty-first century thought model will emphasize a balance of power with equal emphasis on progress while preserving and promoting the personhood and dignity of each person. Rather than dominant societies, the new thought places emphasis on equality of the person and the act of serving one another through a shared value system that does not demand conversion to an ideology or religion, but authenticity of personhood and autonomy. Convergence offers the opportunity to define virtues and social standards that will guarantee a person is master of the machine and not just a cog in the wheel of a machine. Technology, government, and corporations are here to serve the person, not to dominate and discriminate.

Many people from both sides of the argument will challenge the concept of parallel streams, but every person’s life already reflects these parallel streams. Each person places some value, virtue, or moral position in their decision making process. Each feels passion and experience, hope, and beauty. Each has a longing for person to person connections. Each person dreams and has visions, because the spiritual element inspires not blind allegiance, but excellence and participation—not as replaceable widgets in the machine, but as unique, contributing, creative players. Each appreciates their unique historical and traditional identity and context while embracing progress and innovation. Current society demands we be on one side or the other of issues, but as human beings we can no longer be constrained by artificial viewpoints and boundaries. We are the rational seeking rationality. We are persons of this shared planet.

Personhood and Dignity (PhD) Ethos

Personhood speaks to every human being as a person that is unique, sacred*, relationally vital, and connected to all other human beings through shared ancestry, shared bio-psycho-social-spiritual dimensions, and the shared earth. Every human being therefore must be recognized as having the rights of a global citizen and that of a distinct person—chief among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life with equality in status, rights, opportunities, and freedoms.  

Dignity cannot be separated from personhood, and as such speaks to each person as having innate value, and deserving of ethical treatment and respect throughout the life cycle—including existence and death. Only with the PhD ethos intact can bridges to convergence of common values, sensibilities, hopes, and opportunities be constructed.

*entitled to respect whether by religious/divine design and/or shared status as a human being of the global community

PART ONE: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES

Fragmentation, Polarization, and Depersonalization

On the sole basis of rationalism and logic, man has no lasting significance, and man’s existence is becoming meaningless. Increasingly, man seeks an answer in first order experiences. Man with no meaning, no purpose, no significance, and only first order experiences by which to assess his world grows pessimistic.

Man desperately seeks to divert this anxiety by occupying his mind and time with white noise that bleeds off some despair for now. Without morals, hope, historical veracity, cultural continuity, and only a deep sense of naturalistic determinism, man must occupy fleeting time with fleeting thoughts to ease his dis-ease.

By seeking autonomy, man has freed himself from the need for redemption and the rule of the Creator. In this autonomous freedom, the individual becomes the centre of the universe and released from all restraint. Similarly, truth as a universal is gone, and truth becomes what is right for the self-governing individual. Freedom has been replaced by choices and preferences. These new progressive thought forms transform minds to believe what is true is true because it is the right thing at this time. There are no longer conventions; therefore, no one can really sit as judge. In fact, any opposing voice is now viewed as one of hatred and bigotry.

The present day despair and grieving that hangs over much of society is also due to the inability of man to find convergence in science and what is beyond man’s finite senses and the subsequent inability to foster accord within the global society. This anxiety-provoking position does not have to be the only recourse. Modern philosophy must decide whether to continue to ride science’s coat-tails or return to the marketplace to inspire, motivate, and engage humanity. Philosophy can return to its roots as a moral and liberating conscience, as can the spiritual.

Beyond a sense of despair, another by-product of today’s leading Western philosophies, secular humanism and scientific determinism, is fragmentation, polarization, and depersonalization.

Fragmentation refers to the absence, violation, or the underdevelopment of a person and their connections within a family, community, or society. Fragmentation is marked by manipulating to distort and dislocate. In essence, it is an opposing force to unity and convergence. As such, it contributes to depersonalization.

Polarization is a process by which opinion divides and goes to the extremes. In some cases, when a person must choose a side, a group is divided into opposing sub-groups. Polarization generally uses labels, such as right or left. and have or have not—the list is endless. It is marked by a displacement that disturbs equilibrium. In essence, it is an opposing action to equilibrium or collaboration. It is a selective process whereby we have judged and elected to give more credence to one side or position with a corresponding lessening of tolerance for the other side. Polarization has an emotional component that elicits calls of extremism, bigotry, and hatred.

Political Polarization: This became apparent during Egypt’s Arab Spring when the Egyptian population polarized along Muslim and minority lines. In the 2012 U.S. election, the country appeared to polarize along Republican and Democratic political lines. These opposing lines encourage people to defend a cause before fully considering the outcomes.

Religious Polarization: The Church of England voted in 2012 to allow women Bishops, only to witness a polarization along conservative and liberal lines. Polarization in each of these cases led to varying degrees of fragmentation—more simply, the destruction of the cohesion that promotes bridges of connection, collaboration, and convergence. One of the looming religious battles to come may well be the church taking either a progressive or traditional stand on social issues in the twenty-first century.

Economic Polarization: Depersonalization is not limited to politics and religion, but is evident in economies as the haves and have-nots. The main issues raised by the left leaning Occupy Movement circa 2011 were social and economic inequality, greed, corruption, and the perceived undo influences of the financial services sector. In the United States, ninety-nine percent of the wealth is held by one percent of the population. In business, it is managers capturing bonuses in compensation while workers are let go in downsizing. In every case of polarization and fragmentation, there are personhood and dignity violations that precede depersonalization. Polarization and fragmentation involve all manner of attitude and activity at all levels of society. In Western society, we have adopted a values-free science and values-neutral secular humanistic philosophy as the authorities that lead in the political and social arenas. These two sources (science and philosophy) are arguably the largest contributors to the depersonalization we witness today. Depersonalization elements, which in times past were more latent, have become most obvious in everyday life.

Depersonalization has become an all too familiar phenomena in the twenty-first century, particularly at a time when global interdependency and cultural diversity has never been more essential. In psychiatry, depersonalization is a prominent mental health issue today. Depersonalization has the effect of a breakdown of self resulting in an anomaly of self-awareness and self-image. In essence, it is the fracture of the person, their self-image and connection in family, community, society, and the world.

The violation of personhood and dignity leading to depersonalization is traumatic enough, but society appears too ready to go another length down the road towards fracture and even potential violence by describing those who disagree with their position as evil. This takes the opposing thought or position past mere disagreement or contention into the realm of contempt, as if the other party was now the enemy. At this point, the battle is for control and power; it also opens doors to willful blindness and extremism. These tendencies to ascribe evil so readily are disturbingly more common in Western society.

If one believes the individual is the centre of all things (individualism), then how will values and morality find unbiased authority? If man is both subject and object, then who appoints the arbiter? How do we separate ordinary folks from those who are evil or perform evil deeds? Hannah Arendt writes:

… the great evils in history generally, and the Holocaust in particular, were not executed by fanatics or sociopaths, but by ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state and therefore participated with the view that their actions were normal. By what authority do we align our lives and values? If by the then-German state, was such an act immoral? 2

Reicher and Haslam have challenged Arendt’s idea of the banality of evil. They agree that ordinary people can commit evil actions, but they assert: … that it is not simply a matter of blind people following orders. The historical and psychological evidence suggests that ordinary people become evil when they identify with evil ideology. 3

Arendt, Reicher and Haslam suggest it is possible that ordinary people who accepted the premises of their state participated with the view that their actions were normal and that ordinary people become evil when they identify with evil ideology.

Depersonalization occurs wherever a people in society determine a course that subjugates or otherwise uses a source of power, legal or otherwise, over another group in order to achieve a unilateral outcome. It always results in lack of balance and inability to find common ground or convergence. A present day example is the topic of abortion. When vague or absent societal mores exist, legal and political measures are employed—always