Alright I'm wrapping this series up, FINALLY! There's this post, another sources post, and a post on theory and Christianity. Maybe a few more. This post is basically to preach and tie up a few interpretative strings.
Thus far has obviously been about not simply news (current events coverage) but our sources for other types information, virtual social interaction, and interpretive aids. There's no fixed boundary, and news agencies themselves incorporate all four. That's because we need meaning for the current events coverage, which these extraneous sources supply. Your task is to direct the flow of what you want and need. It's a hit-or-miss scenario; all sources are to some extent unreliable; no such thing as always hitting, which is why it's a good idea to incorporate highly alternative sources despite requiring a personal filtration touch. Still some are reliably reliable.
Cultivating understanding of issues is a long-term process. At times you'll be unmotivated and that's cool. There are natural rhythms to our engagement, unless we're junkies. On some issues one would have to eat-and-breathe to have the understanding one ideally desires. Most likely we aren't that dedicated. If you're not for instance devoutly reading the Investor's Business Daily every morning, chances are you never will.
I'm the wrong person to talk to. I'm intellectually lazy and don't engage the level of discourse I should. I'm happy with my fries and double cheese burger news. Do what I say, not what I do, and I say be a snob about the level of discourse you surround yourself in, though not to the point that you alienate the folks you have to live with. Find people who are better at it than I. Also there's little dedicated watchdog journalism in what I'm going to recommend. That's a deficiency on my part. Pick your raison d'etre issues and find groups which monitor them. More so than finding "reputable" sources, I hope you find ones you trust or I'll have wasted a perfectly good post for nothing.
Interpretation is not a solitary activity. We are affected greatly by others. It's not determinative (hopefully), but it is a HUGE factor. A crucial aspect of this is open discussion with folks. Now, some people don't enjoy this. That's okay. However, you do need some form of interactive engagement. More so than this, it needs to be with those who will question what you think, otherwise you're going to either fall into groupthinking or an internalized struggle (protest?) that leaves you feeling isolated. OTOH - people need encouragement and affirmation as well. So really you need a mixed bag of engagement. Too often I see folks who simply stagnate. They're smugly comfortable in how they've resolved the tension of their viewpoints and only engage in "safe" conversations. Conversation should move to community that challenges us in being more fully human (I really wish I remember who I was ripping that off of, probably one of those damn post-evangelicals.). Thinking through requires that we defend and question our understandings. Reading a whole bunch of stuff that resonates with you is opinion formulation not thinking.
Be Mr. Universe:
You can't stop the signal, Mal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere.or Mrs. or Ms. Universe.
No comments:
Post a Comment