Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Exodus 19:1-8 (Credibility - Part 3 of 5)

In speaking to the issue of what is the definition of holy, as one part of what holy means, we should all agree that we need to engage our minds in the process.  We should also all agree that it needs to be all of our mind or brain that is engaged.   So let me engage your whole brain.  Who is most credible in the use of their mind? Is it: 1) a person who is very smart and feels little, 2) a person who feels much and is not very smart, or a person who feels deeply and is very smart?  I am convinced the most credible mind for deciding on a definition for holy is that person who both feels deeply and is deeply smart.  This kind of person has a quiet ethical credibility,

Further, I do believe our emotional state does influence our decision making, so that it is best to bring it out into the open and handle it positively rather than hide it or try to subdue it.  It is the person who ignores their emotions and/or the person who ignores their logic that gets in the most trouble.

I continue to be convinced from my devotional reading of Scripture that this is true, since emotions are found in many stories influencing decisions.  From these biblical instances and other evidence, I believe that the person whose thinking is most credible is that person who considers both feeling and logic.  Peter F. Drucker, the great management guru of the 20th century, lays out an obviously logical format for making decisions in his many books on management, but he also acknowledged the need to listen to that voice he called the "daemon" for a short time to make sure we heard its voice and not just the logical voice in decision making.  Ironically, it seems that emotions could most effect those most unaware of them.


[This piece of writing is likely to be broken into 2 parts with one section staying in this post and the other going to my communication basics blog for a more full treatment.]




For a number of years, I have been studying the topic of emotional intelligence alongside of rational or logical intelligence.  The pages in my notebook on emotional intelligence go back to at least 2006, but some of the things on the topic I may have been studying much longer.  Personally, I have been "studying" emotions since I was pulled out of my 3rd grade class to see the principal and then the school psychologist.  Today, I will limit my discussion to psychologists and philosophers, who are also authors, that have especially helped me with my emotional intelligence.  They are: 1) Daniel Goleman, 2) Robert Plutchik, and 3) Aristotle (yes, that Greek philosopher).  To sum up what I have learned, I would say four things directly related to each of them:

1) emotional intelligence is more important than logical intelligence based on biological factors (Goleman),
2) there are basic emotions from which the other combinations of emotions spring (Plutchik), and
3) psychology has been hindered by the notion that fight and flight are opposites and so are both anger and fear, which can easily be shown to be a false set of opposites by its inconsistency with other emotions and other approaches (Aristotle)
4) the important triad of ethos (ethical/credible), pathos (emotions), and logos (logical) have been overlooked to our detriment when it comes to appeals for our decisions (Aristotle).

I find that every one of these lessons is important, but especially the last one.  I find that by ignoring the emotional component when it comes to people's minds being persuaded and by not recognizing that both emotional and logical appeals are necessary for a person to be considered ethical or credible are both critical to defining holy correctly.

Perhaps the biggest hurdle people need to get over is the negative view of their emotions.  I think Daniel Goleman's work on emotional intelligence and his rooting his ideas in the biology of the brain are a big help in cutting edge science of the brain.  But there is also an ancient tradition in rhetoric that shows that ancients like Aristotle also recognized its great role a long time before the latest science.  Not all  have taken a negative or dim view of emotions.  In going through the educational system of the United States, whether private or public, we are tested on our IQ, but there is not an equivalent EQ test.  Goleman's own test is nowhere near a type of compliment.  But the picture below does show importance of the emotional part of our brain that interacts with the logical portion.

There are some helpful things written on emotions, but also some that are confusing or misleading.

On a personal level three people have helped me the most: 1) my mother, 2) my Great Aunt Lilly, and 3) Pastor B. Wayne Johnson.

Three professional people have helped me with my emotional intelligence perhaps the most: 1) Dottie Lideen (the schoool pychologist mentioned earlier), 2) Pastor Jim Learned, and Roger Buck, a Director of Christian Education and Stephens Ministry Coordinator.




In studying under Dr. John S. Piper, Tom Stellar, and Dr. Daniel P. Fuller, I learned to use my own brain more and other people's brains less to keep my own brain from becoming lazy.  This does not mean other views are not important (they are!) for seeing options for biblical interpretation, but what it does mean is what Einstein discovered:

So let's look at the text now that we have a better sense of how our minds work overall.


[while this is still under construction, next week (5/11/14) is when I hope to add to it.]


Sincerely,

Jon

Blessed and Holy: Understanding Them Better Through Exodus 19:1-8 (Credibility - Part 2 of 5)

In defining any words including both blessed and holy, it is important to find a credible source.  Wouldn't you agree?  How do you decide who is credible and who is not?  The second question is a little harder to answer than the first.  There is a clear consensus on the need to discover a credible source otherwise why turn to some sources for your information over others.  Why not settle for the National Enquirer?  Why is it that a Hebrew lexicon or an English dictionary is any better?  What are the conscious criteria?  My sources for credibility are the following: 1) credible appeal, 2) emotional appeal, 3) logical appeal.

Recently, I experienced a situation where my "logical appeal" was spotless and yet it did not appeal to those I was speaking with effectively.  They basically decided not to act.  I was a little frustrated with my failure, so I decided to step back and instead of blaming them for not listening to me, I decided to find out if I had failed in my appeal in any way.  (Keep in mind that you have the advantage of my 20/20 hindsight in realizing that I had made only a very strong logical appeal.)  In any case, I thought maybe I did not effectively address them in terms of their emotions.  So I returned to some ideas I had explored previously on "emotional intelligence", EQ. I found this material helpful in the past and so I returned to it for more insight once again.  This time though I had a little higher "logical intelligence", IQ, than the previous time, so I noticed some things I had previously had not noticed.

Aristotle's rhetoric he spoke of three key means of persuasion.  To transfer his words into English, he spoke of: 1) credibility, 2) emotions, and 3) logic as key parts of persuasion.  It recently dawned on me that this triad could be like another triad that I learned a long time ago in the translation of righteousness, justice, and judgment.  English translators for many years have known that justice is in some contexts the level line of amount and in other contexts it is the vertical and level lines of amount combined and so is translated as judgment.  In their wisdom, they have practiced this for years, but perhaps not as consciously as we could wish.  Perhaps Aristotle was not as conscious as we could wish either when he speaks of his triad.  Could it be that 1) emotions, 2) logic, and 3) credibility are another example of a greater, lesser, greatest triad?  I believe it is.

Think of it this way.  When you desire to find a reliable source for the meaning of holy, would it not be the ideal to find someone is both feels deeply and is very smart.  In other words, they ooze what gives a person credibility.  Just today I read in the book of 2 Samuel about those who are blameless and those who are those who ought to feel shame.  The story is that of Amnon, Tamar, and Absalom.  There is hardly another story filled so much with these emotional appeals.  But these emotional appeals to do not stand alone.  They are accompanied by logic as well.  The story gets its credibility from both helping a person feel deeply as they read it but also see the story very smartly as they see it.  It is a story of relationships with persuasive power.  

[My new writing schedule is this - to begin a piece every day for 5 days and then the following week to try to follow up and finish them.  Thank you for your patience.  Keep in mind that I am writing much behind the scenes to bring out some of it here, but I think it is still valuable.]

In Christ,

Jon