Falling From Cloud Nine

"Maybe now that it's summer, I'll write hear more often," he says, full of hopes and most likely excrement. I will really try to make this one shorter than a book though. I am positive that I get twenty tl;drs every post. A quick glance at posts past reminds me that I never wrote about the ridiculous evolution scandal on Taylor's campus last year. Seriously, how could I not touch something like that? If you are unfamiliar with aforementioned scandal, it revolves around a VERY poorly written article in our newspaper basically saying that Taylor shouldn't teach evolution in any capacity because it is in direct opposition with the Bible. He was responded to in vehemence in the next issue and so it went back and forth a few times. That's the gist at least. Now let's move into a section called (that's right, you guessed it):

The Beefs

Jedna) This kid was obnoxiously ignorant in his article on a public platform. I don't recall exactly, but I think he was either a philosophy or theology (or one of those other exceedingly pragmatic) majors. He was honestly just extremely uneducated on the subject matter he was writing about. Ergo, he should not have written about it. Yes, I understand free speech and editorials, but ignorance breeds further ignorance in a society of blind followers. I'm not saying our society fits that generalization, but there are undeniable evidences in recent politics, not to mention some of the protesting that has gone on, that a portion of our population can be described thusly. I know people generally always think they are right, but before embarrassing yourself publicly, wouldn't it make sense to talk to someone who actually understands the terms you are going to butcher in your article? At least then you could be wrong, but keep your dignity. Which brings me to:

Dva) This will probably be the most fun of anything I've written about so far. He was just flat out wrong. This was partially because he used some terms incorrectly. He used evolution and darwinism interchangeably. If you really want to know the differences, become a better person and go learn. Evolution is an accurate description of many real phenomena in our universe, plain and simple. Viruses adapt and mutate. If you've ever had the cold more than once, you are living proof of evolution. That being said, what most Christians have a problem with is the concept of evolution "on a scale of separated gene pools." If you really want to argue with me about it, we can. I'll probably win. That's really not what I want to get into...although:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

fun fun. Seriously though, I want to address a couple specific arguments. A lot of Christians will say God could have created the world with fossils like ^those already underground. This is the same argument as God manipulating our perspective to see stars being billions of lightyears away. Like many of my other responses, my response to this is, "sure, he could." On the other hand, did he? Probably not. 

Oh wait, crap. I'm getting to the interesting point without addressing another kind of boring one...

Tři) Should professors at a Christian school be allowed to teach what they want or should they conform to the opinions of a select few humans? Uhh...well, short of "the devil is really cool, guys! Let's all dance naked around a fire and cover ourselves in the blood of a goat!" I think that's a pretty easy one, but it merits mention. Students are at school to learn and learn they should. If they are being taught to learn correctly whilst learning, the burden of whether specific ideas fit into their perspective and worldview is out of the professors hands, as it should be.

Čtyři) Well, this isn't really a fourth point, but damn just look at that word! Isn't it cool? Ahem. As I was saying, there is a part of being an intelligent Christian that is the ability to say it doesn't really matter in the long run. God did what he did and our faith doesn't necessitate understanding of his methods. However, the previous statement is also unfortunately lacking for one very important reason.

The Point

The pursuit of truth ultimately and absolutely is the pursuit of God. 

I mean, one of the names Jesus used for himself was "the truth." That statement should not be that much of a stretch. So why is it important? It is important because it means that science is never going to disprove God. Period. The only reason Christians generally frown upon scientific findings (other than the ridiculous hate perpetuated since The Age of Enlightenment) is because scientists have generally been in opposition of the church (see previous parenthesis). Atheist douchebaggery aside, I have said before that people only see what they want to see. If I want to look at the fossil record or the stars and see proof of God's lack of necessity and therefore probable non-existence, that's what I am going to see. But seriously, look where they have ended up: Our universe is one of an, let me emphasize again, infinite number of universes. That is how a portion of the scientific community has decided to explain away God with chance. They are using the word "infinite" in their theory! It is literally a tiny hop in perspective away of being theism. 

I want to be very clear though. This whole entry is written because Christians are guilty of the exact same thing: unwillingness to admit they don't have all the answers. There is no reason for any follower of God to fear science. The only thing to be wary of is the disillusionment that can be attained through limited perspective.

Eff. This is really long again. Oh well, people never change, right? I hope I made a good point somewhere in there. If not, sorry for wasting your life. Thanks for hanging on my every word.

E.

I Will Welcome The Reaping

I don't get to write anything anymore. Heck, I haven't even had a formal lab report to write up this semester. It sucks hardcore. No wonder all these computer scientists and engineers don't have the ability to communicate. Make all the "riding a bicycle" comments you want, but I know for a fact that after several years of not riding a bike, the first thing I did when I got back on one was not to take a corner at a 45° angle. Sure the basics of a skill stay with you, but not only are those basics generally viewed as pretty mediocre by others, everyone has the same basics and foundation. A skill's unique appearance is defined by what the owner personally adds to it when he or she goes beyond the basics. Maybe I'm going to regret writing this next year for my senior project, but thus far (which is a freakin' long time) I am unimpressed with the communication skills of the computer science department. Anyway, that's not really what I wanted to write about. Wait, last thing. I am also pretty pissed at what communication has devolved to in general. After sending out around thirty résumés (not including all the online applications), I have had two phone interviews with one company that I didn't even contact. Honestly, I don't even care that those are the only times I have spoken to someone. Who wants to talk to people? What pisses me off is that not a single person has responded with a "Sorry, we aren't really hiring interns this year," or even a "F*ck off, are you kidding? Why'd you even apply for this?" How much effort does that take? I will tell you: Two mouse clicks to open the email and open the reply, 49 keystrokes (since pretty much everyone has a signature already appended to all emails), and one click to send the email. I just tested myself - less than ten seconds total. Ten seconds, and I wouldn't be writing about all you HR people, calling you all assholes. Okay, maybe not all assholes. I'll give a couple the benefit of the doubt in a job they hate just trying to hate themselves a little bit less, but the rest of you...do better. </rant>

Moving on, let's do something more fun. I feel like writing about this boondoggle of an election coming up this November. I mostly write with my own generation in mind because this whole two-party thing is NOT cutting it. My wish is that when a person goes to vote, he or she has to listen to each candidate explain *ahem* his or her position on every major issue and then...eh screw it, wouldn't work. I know, everybody lies, the selfish bastards. What I really want is for everyone that votes to be educated on the candidates and actually care (God forbid). Honestly, if every voter cared, I think we'd elect an independent. As clearly as I can state this: we need to elect an independent. Not only have I not been able to put my faith in a single Republican candidate since the campaigning started, but even if I did, not a single one of them would do what they say they are going to do once they get into office beyond pretending to try. So the question must be asked, why do we only ever elect people from these two parties? I have seen a bunch of answers to the question, money being one of the most popular and probably also most correct, but honestly I think it is far more simple (pardon the generalization forthcoming); people, whether they hold, loosely or closely, to conservative or liberal ideologies, are all conservative (read "stubborn as hell"). The vast majority of people vote one of two ways: the way their parents vote, or the opposite way because they have some stupid immature urge to rebel. If you want to be treated like you are unique and special and individual, stop acting like a child.

I am not a conspiracy guy at all. However, I must concede on two accounts:

1) Kony (probably). Screw all the attention that's getting (not for the kids' sakes; it's just not actually about the kids).

2) The people in power have never wanted, do not want, and will never want people to be able to think for themselves.

I'm not saying I wouldn't want something similar were I the person in power. On the contrary, it's much easier to rule people who don't think for themselves and they are much more likely to keep you in power *cough* 50/50 chance *cough*. Fortunately for you all, I am not the person in power. I am the person with the opinion and the voice. Let's take my preferred alternative first: I would much rather everyone learn how to think. Life would be better. Period. On the other hand, I honestly don't give a shit if you choose not to think for yourself. I only ask one thing of you if that be the case: do not do anything that affects me, lol. It's the same mindset I have when participating in a discussion (heated, or not) with someone. I don't care if you disagree and defend your point; I'd be pretty confused if you didn't. Do not, however, blindly spew useless words out at me, or be the mouth from which someone else's bullshit spews. If I wanted to argue with someone else, or a farm animal, I would (though I think I might end up committed for the latter). It's like all those conversations in Friends when Joey tries to say something pertinent and everyone just gives him the "are you effing kidding me?" look. Only it's not cute when you are actually part of the conversation and are talking about things you don't know.

Okay, jeez how do these always end up being so long. No matter. The moral of the story is I really, really, (did I say really) REALLY do not care who is elected into office provided a single condition be met: everyone that put him or her there believes (implied education, knowledge, and understanding) that person has the best chance to do the best for the country at that time. I won't agree with everyone's choice, nor would I expect to. I just want the people that are involved with the choice to not be sheep. Sorry to anyone who was offended by my use of semi-colons, full-colons, three quarter-colons, waning gibbous-colons, evacuated colons, any other colons, and non-uniform point-of-view. I'm not going to proofread so I don't really care that much, but you have my condolences. Farewell reader. I release you from my blog. Go now and live in what way seems best to you.

E.

Die Vergewaltigung des Friedens

~"Where do we go to escape the end of the world?"

I know I haven't written anything about anything yet, so it may seem odd that I am starting with this, but Auschwitz is still at the front of my mind and I feel like I need to start here. I will post about teaching and youth events and all the awesome things that happened in the Czech Republic some other time.

I honestly cannot convey the emotions that Auschwitz invokes, but I don't think that it is entirely necessary to do so for me to make my points. This is a can of worms, no doubt. I just want people to think about things that have been forgotten. I apologize in advance because my thoughts on the matter are all one big conglomerate in my head and it is very hard to get everything out in any particular order that makes sense. I will try to make my thoughts and sights available as they happened and then talk about what I took away from the experience.

The first thing that I thought as I walked through the infamous gate with the words "ARBEIT MACHT FREI" stamped overhead was, "This is a bad place." The air is heavy and it feels like death. There is no other way to describe it. Even more disconcerting was later when the same feeling hung over Birkenau, a wide open field with only low structures. The air felt thick to breathe. Some of Auschwitz I's buildings have been converted to a museum, so most of the two hours that we spent there were spent going in and out of these buildings. The first few of these had multiple placards with information about the camp, but interspersed were glass cases with artifacts from the forties. There was an urn serving as a monument for the people murdered at the camp. There were cases thirty feet long, ten feet deep, and ten feet tall filled with shoes, cases with luggage, cases with pots and pans, cases with children's shoes and dolls and toys. There was a case with all the prosthetic limbs, crutches, etc. confiscated from those with need of them. We were told that anyone handicapped and everyone who could not work (excluding Jews) were immediately taken and killed. Probably the worst of the displays was a case spanning the entire room that was filled with human hair cut from the prisoners as they were processed. After this we were taken outside and shown the firing wall where prisoners were executed. The building next to this wall also served as the camp's prison building. A legend as we walked into the basement informed us of the common causes of death for the people kept in these rooms. Some of the cells were the size of the desk I am typing this on. Into these were dropped four people from above. They would die of suffocation overnight. The much more common cause of death was starvation in the majority of the cells. Following the tour of this building we walked across the camp to the original gas chamber and crematorium. We walked in and out of a room which hundreds of thousands of people only entered, thinking they were going to take a shower to be disinfected. This concluded the first part of the tour and we walked back to the visitors' center to travel to Birkenau. The second part of the camp was built with purpose rather than the repurposed barracks that made up Auschwitz I. The purposes were limited to mass housing and mass killing. The gas chambers and crematoriums at this camp were all destroyed before the Allies arrived, but seeing the rubble was quite enough.

I think I am going to leave it there for the description; there are a thousand other places you can read about the camp. There are three things I want to mention that were hitting me while I was there, or have hit me since. I had twisted my ankle pretty badly a few days before playing soccer with the gypsy boys. Another girl on the trip had hurt her foot as well. We got the opportunity to talk on the flight back to the U.S. As we were both walking around, we were compelled to let ourselves keep hurting. The thought crossed both of our minds that we would let someone cut off our injured feet if it could have saved just one person. I was thinking about that and the end of Schindler's List and realized how selfish we can be even when we are discussing sacrifice. The thought should not be, "I have to give this up." It should be, "Why didn't I give up more?" That is the place from which the ability to serve others comes.

The next thing that struck me was a reaction to a normal Christian reaction to hardship. The "God had a purpose" rationale is far too over-used in situations like this. Don't mistake me, though. That is absolutely true. Unfortunately, this statement has become a vehicle of neglect for many people. God wept for these people, for infinitely longer than anyone on earth can. That does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that we should not grieve and weep for them. On the contrary, if we truly claim to desire God's character to be our own, how can we dismiss his sympathy?

Lastly, people tend to move past the Holocaust and say, "Genocide is happening every day in Africa. We need to focus on that." Again, I agree wholeheartedly. There are some big differences though (at least in my opinion). I think they are best illustrated in the character of Adolf Hitler. This was a man who is arguably "the best communicator in the history of the world" (thanks Britt). He was able to convince the large majority of a society to follow him in a pursuit of perfection here on earth by the destruction of an entire race. This of course was not just any race, but the Jewish race, God's chosen people. There is just something innately spiritual about that course of events than we cannot escape from. I don't have any idea what it is, but I know it's there.

Anyway, those are just a few of the ridiculous number of things I have been thinking about since I got back. More to come.

The Fences Of The Light Are Down

What do you do to further yourself? I believe a moment spent in pursuit of inconsequential ends or of inconsequence itself is a moment wasted. It is a shame that in our lifetime so many moments are squandered and discarded like they have no value, or worse, that they could not have value. The differentiation between the two is merely a critique on the laziness of people today. Not only do we waste our time, but then we rationalize the fact by saying, “Oh, I probably wouldn’t have gotten anywhere anyway.” It seems like a fairly obvious observation that there is no problem with the work in need of completion or the time itself. Then it necessarily follows that there must be a problem with the mindset. How did we get to the point where we could put off work and then explain it away without giving second thought? Even worse, how can we abandon reasonable pursuits for those of no value? The most important question, of course, is posed more in search for a solution to the issues at hand rather than for the sources of said issues, but without knowledge of the source, an analysis of the eventuality would be incomplete and uninformed. With that in mind, I am very curious as to what set of circumstances would allow the potential of great individuals to go unrealized, lost in a cesspool of ultimately useless social networking and ROUS sites. Now I know what you're thinking. "Dude! A bunch of sites dedicated entirely to rodents of unusual size??? Sign me up!" Alas, the reality is far less glamorous. I have characterized sites like 9gag and Pinterest as repositories of useless shit, or *ahem* ROUS. #dreadpirate4life

I know that in my own life, this issue has been the result of control issues, and therefore comes down to pride. No matter how much I enjoyed whatever I needed to be doing, the fact that I "had" to do it took away the enjoyment and made it unattractive. I would abandon physics homework and instead read articles online about new findings in physics and think to myself, "Man I wish I knew how Gauss' law worked so I could understand this," instead of learning about Gauss' law in class. Yea, doesn't make much sense to me now either. Given the popularity of Facebook and 9gag, the issue is still very present. Honestly, people make comics about this issue and how the sites are ruining their lives and then post them on the site. Another possible cause is an inherent sense of rebellion that this generation has gleaned throughout childhood. What I find interesting about rebellion against one's parents is the fact that, in general, we gain most of our worldview and thoughts from our parents at earlier ages. This would lead me to believe that either rebellion is just an ignorant form of attempting to secure one's identity as independent from his or her parents', or it has been taught by parents' actions. I am inclined to lean in neither direction as usual and therefore would maintain that it is likely some combination of the two in the majority of cases. My third postulation regarding the origin of our laziness is one that I have eluded to previously. I think we have a misplaced sense of duty and a sense of entitlement. Again, I am also inclined to throw the blame at parents in this case given the psychological implications of classical and operant conditioning. Unfortunately for the "victim," as that viewpoint may characterize the involved member of our generation, anyone with the faculties permitting observation and logical thought can be rid of this disillusionment. Without strict environment control, the conditioning of humans revolves more around appeals to their selfish desires because the purest forms of conditioning present as logically fallible associations. To that end, after you have the ability to think and the will to claim independence, you must assume responsibility for yourself. It is from that perspective that I will address possible solutions.

"All but the briskest riders thrown"

Unfortunately, many of the ideas that I can think of are all subject to the biases of the mindset in question when they are realized. For example, a major portion of the mindset revolves around rationalization. Therefore, many adhering to the mindset will jump to defend every action of theirs as a pursuit of some higher form of learning. It does not come down to a calculus to ascertain the best possible use of time as it should, but revolves around a blind swing in defense to the first criticism of one's identity. Could a paltry comic depicting a revenge scheme on a cheating ex lead you into an examination of the morals of adultery which would ultimately effect a positive change in your perspective? Without a doubt. Is that the case for even a small majority of the instances in question? Hardly. If you are the person out of seven billion who philosophically analyzes everything he or she observes, I love you. If not, you should probably just admit to yourself that you waste your time (I still love you, just not as much as aforementioned philosoraptor). The bad news, as I have found many times, is that for most positive changes to occur and stick within one's personality, a lifestyle change is normally required. And to be frank, it's a bitch. We come to enjoy those little time wasters that do nothing for us. Whoever invents these things to appeal to people has done their homework obnoxiously well. These things are like crack, seriously. I'm not trying to destroy them though. There are always positive impacts that come from social interactions, but the principle of moderation has long since been abandoned.

I have come to realize that we no longer treat technology as a tool. We have created a sickening relationship with it as if it were a human being. We browse the internet like the internet will feel bad if we ignore it. We refresh message screens and feel bad as if it is ignoring us. The sense of purpose for technology has been lost in the advent of its assimilation into ourselves. 

Oh by the way, I did just realize as I was writing this that it has kind of turned into a rage against technology. I'm not saying that there are not other ways that we waste our time when we could be making ourselves better, but as demonstrated by my reflexive fixation on it, technology is by far the biggest alternative we turn to (and yes you can mock me for posting this on a blog later, but "speak to your audience"). I will leave the application of what I am observing to you and your personal vice.

Honestly what I feel has made my life so much better over the past few months is the application of moderation (with exceptions of course)  and the realization that the internet really is just a tool for us to accomplish the tasks. If I am going to sit down and look at facebook, I read something first before I open the window. It has helped separate me from distractions at whatever level I associated those things with my identity on. Our lives here on earth are either too precious to waste because they are all we have, or given to us with the responsibility to grow ourselves. I don't know if it is the same for everyone, but I feel like the pursuit and acquisition of new knowledge is much more rewarding than momentary amusement. Then again, I may need to delve into the haste of today's society as well. Who wants to read for another hour though, am I right? Maybe next time. Anyway, I hope that you didn't just read this to waste time.

End.

"…and worlds hang on the trees"

All I See

Alright, I apologize in advance. This one is going to be obnoxious. Also for not posting in months. Rest assured that this has been stewing and stirring for plenty of time and is sufficiently unnecessary.

I find it odd that our actions, reactions, judgments and thoughts all tend to revolve around our perception necessarily precipitated from our perspective. Objectivity free from bias occurs about as frequently as Keynesian economics overlap with rationality. It is honestly just a very inefficient way to function when the existence must exist sans perception (obligatory "tree falls in the forest" reference). If we are to be able to have a common foundation on which to examine existence we have to agree that it is by definition always there (obligatory nihilist pun). So if your falling trees are silent and/or you have a dilapidated understanding of Heisenberg, this will not make for a good read, nor good subject matter for conversation. I don't pander to relativists. It is necessary to have an understanding of the motives and definitions of perspective in order to discuss why it is a barrier to grasping anything's true nature. This is an understanding that I will probably not be able to convey very well, but I am going to try to at least spur the horse while it's pointing the right direction. In some respects this will seem like a circular definition because I am going to define perspective with respect to nature and then nature with respect to perspective, but I will maintain and develop the idea that the two are both mutually exclusive and mutually dependent.

Our identities and existences with respect to our environment (the world and everyone/thing in it) are predicated on our perspectives. This is perhaps best illustrated by psychological development from childhood to adulthood. From the point in time that we as humans begin to have opinions, there is a source of those opinions. The progression is well-documented elsewhere, but we normally begin by holding our parents' points of view then gradually shifting to conform to that of our peers. Hopefully from there we form independent identities and avoid the pitfalls of person-dependent identity, but regardless the phenomena I am observing can be thought of relatively accurately as a lens. People (in general) have use of five senses with which to process their environments, but I believe that what we call first-hand perception is in reality a pseudo-first-hand perception. This slight difference is due to our perspectives which are realized as barriers between us and our environment (not physical obviously as this occurs within our minds, but it is helpful to visualize it thus). The result is some form of distortion of reality. Within certain bounds it is possible to predict the results of this distortion; there is not however a commonality of distortion, or even interpretation of the same distortion between individuals. [when all else fails, jump and link].

Excuse the coding joke. Learning seems to be infringing on my consciousness.

I know that that was an incomplete examination and I promise, again, that I will write about perspective at some point. Hopefully I at least made clear a kind of chain illustrating the source-to-result path of it. As an aside, I would argue that most of the negative results come from sources of selfishness or apathy, neither of which are conducive to a functional society as the definition of society implies relational existence. </digression>

Why would it be better to have an understanding of the nature of a given entity (abstract, not necessarily physical)  without relying on one's perception of it? There are two parts to the answer. In reality I think one is a byproduct of the other, but since it is easier to understand the byproduct I am including it. In practical terms, I previously alluded (stated flat out) that society is necessarily relational. I will take the following generality as my elementary state: There exist two parties, an entity which provokes the interest of both and the channel of communication between the two parties. Given this state, the effect of different distortions or interpretations of these distortions with respect to the nature of the entity is applied to the channel between the involved parties. The reaction to this problem is often to say, "One must see X from the other's point of view." While this is likely a good first step on a personal, it is likewise insufficient should the state change. Suppose both parties are able to see the entity from the other's point of view. They may now agree on the nature of the entity, but should any third party become involved, a new distortion is introduced. This also has a new effect on the environment; the third party now faces a majority. I don't want to delve to deeply into the theory of communication, but I think this example is sufficiently extrapolative (best word I could think of).  That was the byproduct in case you were wondering.

The real disadvantage to letting perception distort the nature of anything is illustrated well by the math classes we have all taken, as far back as elementary school. An incomplete answer is not a correct answer, nor is a partially correct answer entirely correct. Three apples subtracted from seven apples does not yield a result of four, but of four apples. Unfortunately for all of us, this is not just arguing semantics...well, it is, but semantics are important. While I think that we are unable to truly remove perception from our understanding of anything, I believe that the pursuit is important. At every possible point, we should seek to expand the understanding that we have by observing others' perceptions and trying to find and remove the anchor points of our own perceptions based on the comparison. 

Okay, that's it. Chew away.

Serenity Now

It has definitely been a while since I've written anything here. I have had a night class all summer prior to this week and just haven't had the time to think about things worth writing about. But no longer do the chains of mathematical tyranny bind me to the community college flagpole and choke the higher learning out of me. I have emerged victorious and ever so slightly aware of the benefits of private universities. The weight of mediocre facilitation and comical repression of practicality have been lifted gently off my shoulders by a fantastical freight train, laden with opportunities for pages and pages of internet memes...pro bono publico.

...Lame anecdotes aside, it was a pretty awful class.

I really have gotten to thinking over the past couple days and nights, however, and thus out of my internet-attention-emaciation, my synapses glow with cute pink strands of would-be points of conversation for anyone lost in the doldrums of motivation-emaciation. I apologize if we get meta up in here. Begin.

One of the most elusive concepts I can observe in our society (worldwide) is what I conceive to be the actual definition of peace. Often I hear people profess to be advocates of peace, but upon examination, I do not understand how they can claim this so. This happens not only on the left, with many, many people opposed to our occupation of foreign countries, but also among the right, specifically Christians who believe that we should be "non-violent." And therein lies the problem for everyone guilty of this (myself included): peace is the correct concept to seek; anti-violence is a fruitless pursuit. I pull the reasoning behind this from several conversations that I have had about perspective and focus, which are really my over-arching themes for this piece. The concept of anti-violence is flawed because its focus is no more well-placed than warmongering at heart. When you focus solely on the opposition of aggression, your only likely outcome will be to resort to aggression yourself. The forms of this aggression are noticeably different from each other and therefore command different reactions from observers. Violence, war, murder, etc. are all concepts that most sane people readily attribute a negative connotation to. However, vehement slander and hate are just as common, if not more, on the opposing side. I don't really want to search the internet with these phrases, but I have seen pictures of mobs with signs saying they hoped all the soldiers were killed. There is apparently a line, subtle to most, that is being crossed between disapproval and opposition. Peacefulness is not about opposition. It is not about a lack of violence either, though wikipedia may claim otherwise. That lack of violence is a stem from the root of peace. The definition I am choosing to work with from this point forward is much closer to a single-word synonym, "harmony."

The reason I am bringing so much attention to the definition of peace is because of the weight in choosing a definition of anything. The definition of a concept creates that concept's state of perfection. For example, were a Christian to search for the definition of love, he or she must look to the characterizations of God, who is the state of perfect love. So how exactly did I arrive at my association between harmony and peace? I believe that harmony comes from a place of selflessness which comes from love. Harmony is not, however, synonymous with selflessness or love, or anti-violence for that matter. The reason I am condemning the use of anti-violence is, as I said before, the focus of the concept. I mean...look at the word; it's got "violence" in it. Let's examine for a second the importance of focus. A man who is available and dating various women attempts to start a conversation early on in the relationship about marriage, more specifically the fact that he is waiting until marriage to have sex with anyone. This is, most people reading would agree I think, not a bad idea, virtuous in fact. It may even be very attractive to the girl who he is wooing. But what is on his mind during this conversation? Sex and marriage. And everyone should agree that the focus of a relationship shouldn't be sex, nor marriage at the early stages. It is about the other person and growing the connection between the two. Similarly, a person who carries on about how we ought not ever invade another country no matter what is happening there is just drawing attention to the concept of violence and war. It is a subtle difference, but as any teacher will tell you, the best ways to learn are immersion and repetition. We as a culture are disgustingly immersed by the arguments surrounding violence every single day.

I feel that a solution is a hard thing to achieve in the society we live in where the radical sides of the polar opposites are the most popular focus. The one thing we know we can control however, is how it affects us and how we react. The goal should be to stop perpetuating the view that everything revolves around conflict. In fact I would wager that if we kept our opinions on those arguments to ourselves and instead chose to approach conversations from a positive perspective, we would easily observe progress. The topic of perspective is a whole huge issue in and of itself, but we should all be aware that our perspective defines us and we act accordingly. As our perspective is largely a product of our experience, we must pursue the ability to adapt our perspective vigorously and become familiar with our methods of reaction. It is not easy and I suck at it, but at some point you start to realize faster and faster that you're ignorant and need to be quiet and listen. As you listen more and let the words and experiences of others sink in as products of different environments, you begin to widen your perspective. A good and appropriately meta-goal indeed. End.

We Are Three Horses Sharing Borrowed Time

I was bored tonight and a couple words and ideas popped into my head, so I wrote.

----------------------------------------------

we are three horses sharing borrowed time
treading the ice, watchers of ghosts
lucid rind of candlelight
our discord, the keeper's sulfur and pyre
to hammer in stone, forgotten
apostles and lover lie

the buried sea and aviary cry
stagnant, desperate I yearn for
that last drop to quench love
to lead the charge, to wring blood from the sky
tranquil a touch, free guide to shore
broken stem enslaved, enough

led by faith and pride stumble blind and stroke
eyes wide, reflected tears, contempt
beacon and foundry offered
from giants' thoughts, essence and power choke
theft and channel tremble without
three in one, brothers time shared

---------------------------------------------

I know I needed to bleed those words out of my mind, but now I really don't have any left. It was a rough week full of disappointment. I was really just kind of irritated all week and aside from the stress, I don't really know why. Motivation in the face of adversity is a virtue I wish I had. Actually, I love overcoming odds, especially when the act is a testament to my passion. What I don't enjoy is the lack of control over the conditions in which I face odds. It is as if I had trained for decades to become the world's best sniper, both covert and deadly at range, but the powers that be decide to put me on gun in a humvee patrolling in a sandstorm. Those conditions breed a narrative demonstrating, at the very least, Murphy's Law, but more likely a great example of the sophisticated adjective "ungood." I'm not saying that professors set students up to fail, but I am very well-accustomed to professors defining class organization by the consequences of not molding to their prescribed method of learning. Obviously the other side of the coin is impossibility of tailoring a course to every individual, but in an age where students are "responsible for our own learning" shouldn't we be able to demonstrate our learning via our strengths? Sure, I hate reading when you are going to basically read me the section the next day in class. Make me suffer for it during the semester, but when it comes time to figure out my grade, I learned the material. Your class is not Life and Following Orders 101 or Remedial Studies of Sheepledom. The hard fact of the matter is, I accomplished every learning goal you set in place in a different way than you wanted me to. I do not apologize. Therefore, I take my walk of shame to summer school gladly, but I will remember you.

Lol, that was fun. Anyway, yea, my profs kinda sucked this semester, but I learned more than I have any other semester because I chose to still find value in the courses despite their inadequacies. I challenge you all to do the same. Take a difficult course. Stop watching Glee. Do something interesting with your life. Be a better person. Step out of your comfort zone. Jesus doesn't like people who make crappy covers of songs. He still loves them, but in a "I am going to sit here and watch you perform because I know it means a lot to you, but secretly I turned my ears off until you are done" way. Seriously, Glee is like the guitar guy at the party who just brings his guitar along so he can try to get your girlfriend to have sex with him. So the moral of the story is: Glee is not a good show. Goodnight.