Lessons from relativity

Over the past weeks a group of us from Solomon's Porch have been meeting to watch a lecture series on quantum Physics. So far we have been recapping the history of classic physics, wading back through history going through each of the monumental discoveries, how they came to be, and discussing some of the philosophical and spiritual implications along the way. One of the primary ideas that relativity insisted upon is that there is no such thing as absolute speed or time. That these terms are always relative to some point of reference.

I so appreciate the way emergent type thinking doesn't fall into the fallacy of the great divorce (in this case referring to both the church and science's insistence that they are incompatible). If the old adage that all truth is God's truth - then how could this ever really be?

Last night we looked at Einstein's special theory of Relativity (1905). For the very first time I think I understand how the time can lengthen relative to the speed of light.

For me the big insights have been tracking scientific theory with theology. The time Einstein was thinking about special relativity also effectively marks the time Christendom toyed with relative theology. That moral and religious absolutes were a construction of humanity and shrank God to small perspectives that made us feel good about how we could explain him.

Not knowing a whole lot about string theory and therefore, where exactly we are heading with this lecture series - I cant help but look forward to tracking how the expanse of modern scientific theory has influenced how we explain and understand creation and therefore God.

Part 3: Individualism

I have lived in Germany, Australia, Singapore, Austria and now here in the US.

Much of my time in Germany and Singapore was as a child. My comments from here on in a based entirely on one years observation of living in Minnesota. They are no doubt incomplete and flawed.

One cultural quality hightened in the US as in no other country I have experienced is individualism.

The US owes much of its ingenuity and accomplishment as a super power to this quality. Employed well it amplifies the strengths of each citizen - and makes it a source of pride rather than shame. Maybe the easiest way to clarify what I mean by contrasting it.

Our kids went to public school in Austria. There, the status quo was the aim. To fit in, to do well, but not excede or fall behind. Dress was smart, but never outrageous. New ideas were often met with "Why should we change?", "What would you know?" Maybe because Austria looks backward to its glorious and safe past and not so much to the future (unsafe) there appeared to be very little esteem for the radical, or the untested.

US culture appears to reward radical and inventive thinking and action much more than any other culture I have been part of. And, I like it. Especially in the area of theology and art. There is great freedom and patience for people to explore ponder andhypothesize.

The downside seems to be a lack of experienced community and need. So many of our everyday relationships begin with need.
I need help, I need freindship, I need peers . . .
Individualism reduces the smallest cultural unit down to the individual. So then logically, if I need something, I am the first one to supply the need. It makes for really small circles of influence, or circles of shallow influence. It is my experience that Americans tend to have more 'friends' but not many if any very deep friendships. Maybe 'need' has some influence here.

Maybe to have 'deep' relationships our first step is to declare need?

Part 2: So . . . how do you like it here?

Of course as western foreigners here we often get asked 'the grading question' that every culture I'm sure asks of those who are invited in to their home culture.
"How do you like it here?"

If you reflect on it a minute, it really is a difficult question to answer. I began by answering truthfully. It didn't take long for me to work out that the person asking the question rarely wants to hear exactly what you think. It is more one of the quiver full of standard questions that any native born asks the alien among them.

Of course the real inquiry behind the questions is "What do you think of us?"

That has helped me to answer the question both truthfully and appropriately. I was reading Jenell's blog this morning and she thought over the whole idea of perfection. Why, for example, high achieving students when presented with a grade of 97% will often beat themselves up over the 3% they didn't get.

The same principle is at work with "the question".
No matter how well you try and answer the question, it will be the missing 3% that people will walk off with in memory.

One year in

We have been living in the US for just over a year now.
I am thinking about posting some impressions and misconceptions that I have discovered by living in the US. For me, the US is the 5th country that I have lived in. 'Lived in' by my definition refers to any time span more than a year. In some sense, my time frame is arbitrary, but I am convinced that anything less is more of a short term stay. It really does take at east a year for some of the intricacies and frustrations of functioning in a foreign culture to work themselves out in character. It always made me laugh when some of the short term missionaries we had come and stay with us would question our summary of what it was like to live as an evangelical in Austria for example.

They had little experience of the meta-narrative with which to compare. This is one of those areas where post-modern analysis of how little entitlement we possess to stand on our opinion as binding that makes complete sense to me.
There is no such thing as a homogeneous experience of foreign culture.
The relativistic principle that everyone's experience is valid to themselves holds weight here.

That said, so much of what we experience as foreigners has direct correlation to what we react to as individuals. ie. When someone says that this culture makes them feel lonely, maybe what they are really articulating is that the way they react to the culture makes them feel lonely. In this respect, cultural reaction can tell us far more about ourselves than we can ascertain about the culture itself. As is so often said, living in a foreign culture is a great leveler. It exposes within us some of our greatest strengths and our most glaring weaknesses, regardless of intellect or social standing.

So when I find myself complaining about some aspect of the foreign culture I find myself in, am I really able to lift myself to a place of objectivism whereby I can 'grade' the culture or is it more of a 'reaction' spotlighting some internal deficit on my part?

Part 2: The Welcome Question?