I argue that you do not have to believe in something first in order to be spiritual. I am not using the term “spiritual” interchangeably with religion—I think this qualification is necessary. When children discover for the first time the stars in the sky and are amazed by it, they in fact have a spiritual experience. Their innate ability allows them to have this spiritual experience.

We’ve come a long way since ancient times, at least as far as science, technology, and quality of life go. But what about the quality of our beliefs? Have we become any more rational since Socrates? Are we any closer to truth, or at least believe more truth things than we used to?

Let’s look at the question whether or not any amount of argumentation could convince a really religious person to believe in God, or vice versa. Instead isn’t it the case that reason plays little role in the choice to believe? When talking to people who discuss their spiritual experiences and reasons for believing in God, does it feel like they think rationality and empirical evidence factor into their decision, how believing and believers effect the world, and whether life can be complete without some spiritual entity.

When these often very bright students graduate and enter the professional arena they are taught even bigger lessons, one of which is that they are not supposed to contribute to the narrative of “truth.” Their job is only to be task masters of providing data so the top editorial folks can make them into the “truth in journalism.”
When asked, I usually discourage my top communication studies students not to enter journalism programs, as these programs are morally problematic at best and at worst downright immoral. I warn them that they will be indoctrinated into becoming professional liars. And these lies can sometimes have severe consequences; causing death and destruction of many people (e.g., Weapons of Mass Destruction stories and consequent invasion of Iraq).

However, there is a paradigm shift occurring in the US, and citizen journalism is turning the table on mainstream “journalism” of NY Times, etc. More and more people are paying closer attention to their fellow amateur journalists of all walks of life disseminating the truth and filling in the gaps produced by professional liars.

According to Adorno, “the musical synthesis preserves the unity of our humanity.” I happen to agree with him. But also, the ways in which music can contribute to changes in our consciousness, in other words our fluidity, merits our attention. There is of course universal agreement about music’s ability to produce for us what we often call “nostalgia.” A nostalgic experience is in many ways a form of time travel where we go to the past experiences when we had them. Music can also evoke powerful emotions, which if combined with a well developed intelligence can simply transform us. Just thinking out loud!

Now you take all of these differentiations and integrate them together, what do you get? An enormous  complexity, which goes by the nickname known as America. Any modern society has two major factions; the government and the civil (or civic) society, which from time to time exchange members and/or overlap in their actions. But what is clear is that we as individual members of civil society have different value systems, while at once also having a collective value system. So, generally speaking, what is it about our society that allows for access to decent health care to become a privilege and not a right? Is there a pressing need to reevaluate our collective value system? Every man and woman for himself or herself, is that concept at the center of our value system? But we seem to value patriotism. Is patriotism same as militarism or is it about loving one’s nation deeply enough to sacrifice for it when needed. This would include taxing folks to pay for social services such as health care, public education and so on. Why do we say yes to the idea of decent health care for all, but collectively are reluctant to pay for it by way of taxes and personal sacrifice—when needed.

Why don’t we teach bioethics to our kids at K-12? We seem to value greatly our national security, but isn’t excellent health care for all of our citizens part of that security? Our civil society seems to distrust our government(s) to the extent that we display hopelessness towards any meaningful change. Do we fail ourselves as a result of collective poor ethics? Or are we just a work in progress as a nation and must learn from failures in order to succeed. FDR’s new deal put an end to the gilded age era, and we were on a decent path–concerning bioethics. But since the return of the gilded age some thirty years ago, we seem to be on the wrong path. Or are we just reaching a learning curve, which results in collective punishment of a large part of our citizenry, but will soon teach us ways in which to achieve our goal of excellent health care for all.

In the final analysis, bioethics matters, and it matters a great deal. A human life is not a commodity and ought not to be treated as such. Humanity matters, and it matters a great deal. A sick citizenry victimized by poor bioethics ought to be everybody’s problem and not just the uninsured or underinsured. After all we are all in this thing together, regardless of race, class, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Aren’t we?

How does one achieve satori? The emptiness of meaning that allows for a profound experience to take place. It is said by the “masters” that a steady dose of concentration on seemingly mundane yet instrumental exercises that involve mind-body-spirit to work in an integrative manner will pave the way for satori to occur. And when it does, one knows it. When we experience oneness, which is always there and we are simply not aware of it with regularity, we reach emptiness. Different ways of life can bring this about. For me it is mostly Karate that gives me the training to be able to arrive at satori moments. In other words, Karate helps me be connected in my intellectual activities, and leisure. Karate brings balance and emptiness–satori.

To facilitate social justice we need an ethics of solidarity. On that account, Richard Rorty argues that the process of coming to see other human beings as “one of us” rather than as “them” is a matter of detailed description of what unfamiliar people are like and of redescription of what unfamiliar people are like. Who is responsible for this redescription? Rorty answered, “This is a task not for theory but for genres such as ethnography, the journalist’s report, the comic book, the docudrama [(e.g., cinema and TV)], and, especially, the novel.” As often is the case with such complex conditions, the reality of everyday life and its ethics do not fall in either one camp or the other. The either/or approach never works. Considering the above arguments, perspectives, and your knowledge of other schools of thought (see secondary writings of Kellner, Feenberg, Sandel, Tester, et al.), it is the task of the public intellectuals to offer (in second order) analysis and position of the role of new media in relation to social justice.