The particulars don’t matter. If you start from the wrong place, you can’t get to the truth. We struggle against an entire civilization that builds on the sand of human accomplishment. It’s not that our world cannot get the facts; our world has no idea what those facts mean. Worse, our world cannot possibly make sense of the facts because it regards the bedrock of truth as the enemy. Demanding freedom from the constraints of quantum reality, the world wallows in the quagmire of ignorance.
The medical establishment says I suffer Adult ADD. It’s typical of medical experts to miss the point most of time, even when they do perceive the symptoms correctly. It’s not that no one understands the systems-based approach, but that those experts do not understand how to organize the system in the first place. For now, I’ll continue using their term ADD as a label for a set of symptoms.
Those symptoms are common knowledge. It seems the ADD brain is either too obsessively focused on one thing, or suffers a scattered focus that doesn’t rest anywhere very long. Both are variable effects of a lack of “normal” focus. The theory is that whatever brain chemistry it is promoting normal focus, it is somehow in short supply in those who suffer ADD. These brains can’t afford a normal range of focus (“attention deficit”), so it’s either all on one thing or not on anything at all.
Based on this theory, the experts attempt to treat the brain chemistry. That is, they follow the standard medical model of treating apparent symptoms directly. Because of the peculiar brain chemistry of children versus adults, we give the kids a type of central nervous system depressant that brings their broadly hyper receptivity down to match their ability to focus. For adults who no longer face an accelerated receptivity, the treatment is typically to boost the chemistry for focus using central nervous system exciters. These treatments seem to work, so everyone is happy to keep pushing in that direction.
It’s also all wrong.
In children, the complex of ADD/ADHD symptoms are actually a characteristic response to a range of stressors. Insofar as the proximate cause is brain chemistry malfunction, it’s something else causing the chemistry to be less than optimal. There are multiple causes that have this affect: bad nutrition, stresses that deplete what good comes from marginal nutrition, or a complex of stress factors that include a range of inherited traits. It’s usually a mix of several factors. Frankly, it’s a reflection of the vast moral malaise of our society that kids suffer this complex of symptoms. We don’t know how to live and our social mythology makes us hostile to genuine improvements.
Note that a small slice of those with this complex of symptoms are genuinely different. That is, fixing nutrition and environmental factors won’t resolve all the symptoms. It just so happens those symptoms are associated with a complex of factors that could better be interpreted as a peculiar talent. It’s not abnormal brain activity, but simply different wiring that brings its own range of advantages. Give these few the same improved situation and they simply blossom as a different kind of flower.
A critical failure here is the concept of normal. A social structure based on a high level of enforcement for conformity breeds a badly broken society. Our world demands the wrong kind of conformity to entirely immoral ideals. The radical solution of destroying everything and starting from scratch is hardly good moral reasoning. Humans uprooting the established context will always do it wrong, and for the same reason they do it wrong, what they seek to rebuild in its place will also be wrong. It still assumes a high degree of inappropriate norming.
If you embrace quantum moral reasoning, you’ll understand the single biggest cause of trouble is illegitimate coercion. The proper moral solution is to disable artificial coercion so that it reverts to its natural moral boundaries. Creation was formed on a distinct moral framework, and the boundaries of proper coercion are related to justified dominion. That dominion is restricted essentially to kinship arising from blood or covenant ties.
You can’t get there from here.
To the degree you feel burdened and compelled by God to act, aim at hanging on anchor on all Western government policies and structures. A true servant of God working in government will tie up the whole process as much as possible to prevent anyone coercing anyone else except on the grounds of family ties. No one has any business inflicting their demands on you unless they are related to you.
Since the quantum moral understanding of family ties is so utterly alien to our world, we emphasize covenant ties. The fundamental nature of covenant bonding is that you always retain your personal veto over the leadership. If your submission is not entirely conscious and voluntary at all times, then it’s wrong. Love has to flow from both ends of the connection. You always have the divine right to exempt yourself from the limitations, and the blessings, of leadership. You have every right to move away from the covenant boundaries and go off on your own to find another situation you like better. But no one has the right to hijack an established covenant.
The rest you can extrapolate if you intend to embrace quantum moral reasoning.
Would you give some concrete examples of “kinship arising from blood or covenant ties”? I could assume that blood ties would include things like a mother or father or uncle or grandfather. I’m sure I’m less confidant to define a covenant tie kinship. Would that be like a spouse, or an adopted father/child relationship? Could it also include a pastor/layperson relationship, since attending that “church” and claiming that man as “pastor” is an apparent intentional act to consider them an elder in your life? I appreciate your writing. I’ve wondered for some time about some concrete examples of this phrase I have seen you use here and in the past… just finally got around to verbalizing it. Thanks.
Blood kinship is the obvious shared DNA, extending out into cousins if you are so inclined. Yes, it does depend somewhat on how the family itself views things; it is not meant to be objective. It’s a matter of affection and a felt sense of kinship, not just biological facts. Thus, the biblical image of covenant kinship says that takes precedence over blood kinship. Marriage and adoption are both more legally binding than shared DNA in the Bible. You can disown your natural children, for example, but you cannot ever disown your adopted children.
Churches were meant to be as binding as any other covenant, but our civilization chokes on that idea. We tend to think of churches as legal organizations with all the rules of corporate recognition before the law, etc. In the New Testament, the first churches in Jerusalem were often extended families of both types of kinship. It was recognized that following Christ was declaring covenant allegiance, so that your church was your de facto and de jure clan membership.