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.

Devoid of Knowledge

Alright, well who knows when I'll have enough time to actually write another post. This is the paper that I wrote on Albert Borgmann's "Holding On to Reality." In no uncertain terms, this guy's brain kicked my brain's ass. Anyway, enjoy. I need sleep...really badly. Oh and I didn't proofread, so if it's ridiculous, kindly let me know before I turn it in tomorrow, haha. Thanks.

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

Introduction

The dynamics of our world are changing dramatically and in some respects, uncontrollably. I say “world” and not society because the effects of the revolution in information are realized within the entire realm of reality and not just human interactions with each other, or peoples’ interactions with others. This idea is the culmination to which Albert Borgmann’s chronicle of information, “Holding On to Reality,” strives. As I began my accompaniment of his thoughts, I was under the impression that the book would be focused on the negative impacts of technology on our existence in the twenty-first century. In actuality, Borgmann’s purpose followed the advice of many an enlightened psychologist in its reinforcement of the positive aspects of information that we have forgotten and must refocus ourselves on to reclaim the true meaning in reality. He starts at an almost certainly irreducible level and establishes that, “Intelligence provided, a person is informed by a sign about some thing in a certain context” (Borgmann 38). This relation, as he describes it, is composed of the five bolded elements which he defines and frequently refers to. The level of detail and exemplification he provides is both rigorous and unique in its own right, despite the apparent straightforwardness of the subject matter.

Overview

Borgmann addresses information before the rise of technology on two accounts, natural information and cultural information. Whereas the former is solely dependent on the world for the definition of its meaning, the latter requires humanity to assign the meaning and relationship between signs and things. He examines the progressions of the production and realization of cultural information from the earliest examples of language to the permanence of writing that language down. In particular he focuses on Plato’s opinions on the advent of written language, mainly its effects on society and learning. It can be reasonably assumed that he agrees with Plato, that writing information down diminishes and replaces the need for intelligence and memory. The acquisition of knowledge is devalued by the readiness of information to jump off a page (or tablet). The three forms of the realization of information that Borgmann focuses on are reading, performing and building. It is at this point that he introduces his concepts of structure and contingency. Contingency by his definition emanates from the realization of structure giving one the experience necessary to fully appreciate structured information. The third section approaches technology from the same angle as his previous subjects, from the bottom up. He builds upon basic physics and mathematics, to digital logic, to the invention of the transistor and the advent of the personal computer. At this point he tends to contrast technological information with natural and cultural information and begins to offer his point of view on the role of technology in the cheapening of information as a whole.

The Contingency

Borgmann presents in this text a wealth of knowledge that is both staggering to behold and difficult to process. To glean the tone, theme and purpose from this work requires not only a careful eye and attentive mind (most likely intentionally given the results of this search), but also patience as he does not begin to address any familiar ground until the third section of the book. Upon reaching his concluding remarks however, it becomes clear that despite the apparent extreme opposition of technology present throughout much of the work, he merely longs for moderation. Unfortunately moderation in current society is as limited in its presence as relying on the stars for navigation. I related to his feelings at first on the basis of the conversation we had in class, regarding the appreciation of music as a form of art, but realized that his conjecture ran deeper to the true value of music as a form of information, both in structure and contingency. Music has no value when lacking in either the structure that gives it form or the realization of its existence via performance. The alternative in today’s digital world is a representation of the frequencies of the sound waves as numbers corresponding to amplitude of said waves being reduced to ones and zeros, effectively stripping the meaning out of the information. Of course, anyone who has attended a performance of a Shostakovich symphony or Beethoven’s “Moonlight Sonata” can attest to the presence of more than ones and zeros. The concepts promoted today revolve around ease of use and availability; In turn, acquiring information no longer takes skill or effort and lacks the substance to be worthy of inclusion in either knowledge or meaning. I do not think this observation could be any closer to the truth. Furthermore, what other approach than the exemplification and examination of the extreme opposition would make clear the magnitude of the expanse between the original dependence on natural information and the effects of technology on our world?

Having been written in 1999 (though in this age twelve years is a substantial time period), Borgmann posed several propositions that indeed were made reality in the first decade of this millennium including the level of commercialization that took place on the internet. I tended to oppose him on several fronts regarding his presumptions about the general public’s presence on the internet, specifically regarding hackers. Whether it is a more pessimistic attitude or just a current familiarity with today’s youth, I am inclined to disagree that hackers will ever “get tired” (214) of opposing the system. I do agree however, that due to the driving force of the capitalist engine corporations will always continue to tighten their grip on the internet. The vast majority of Borgmann’s conjectures based only on examining history up through the 90s were surprisingly accurate. Technological information should exist as a supplement and facilitation of knowledge gained by experience and actual effort. Spoon feeding information to people inhibits the process of learning by teaching the learners not to think. For the sincere thinker, or possibly the curious victim of disillusionment this study of the nature of information provides ample opportunity to expand the bounds of one’s knowledge and understanding of how humans have evolved their methods of producing and realizing information. As with anything, the author’s point of view must be remembered, but Borgmann demonstrates a refreshingly unbiased position on an issue that is famously prone to prejudice.

Return to Affliction

As I have maintained in the past, the eloquence of the Christian life lies in its simplicity. While every single issue is not dealt with explicitly in the Bible, a model is demonstrated to which we may compare our thoughts and actions. Every Christian (and I may almost be inclined to say every sane person) knows what is right. Our desire to further our own goals and perpetuate our inherent selfishness is the sole, and I emphasize sole, cause of the continued argument over morality within the Christian church. Indeed, any opposition to that statement is merely evidence of being jaded to the point of ignorance by one’s own selfishness. That being said, the technology which we are familiar with obviously was not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, but that does not mean it is held to any less of a standard. It is clear that in his teachings, Jesus facilitated wisdom and the ability to think through his use of parables. In fact, the instances of disciples requesting to be spoon-fed an answer pleasantly illustrate the point of Borgmann. Jesus led each inquirer to a path from which he or she could arrive at an answer, not an answer itself, as would reasonably be expected of a teacher. As an engineering student, I am often reminded that I will have an ability to minister to people who would otherwise be unreachable via technical expertise. When the necessity is great and whether people realize it or not, they are much more inclined to listen to someone who has genuine intelligence. The same can be said of our pursuit of learning in general; we should not seek to cheapen the information from which we learn as it cheapens the knowledge which can be acquired. At no point in the Bible are we encouraged to believe that any of our lives will be easy. On the contrary, we are likely not doing what we are supposed to be if each day poses no challenges. To pursue valuable knowledge is to pursue the fulfillment and realization of the potential which we are given by grace and called to seek.

Conclusion

The sheer volume of information which is present (ironically enough) in Borgmann’s writing though at first discouraging provided an opportunity to examine any preconceptions I had regarding the nature of information and its role in our reality. A history, physics, mathematics, philosophy and ethics lesson all rolled into one source represents information itself well in its demonstration of the permeation and universality inherent in the concept. The two most prominent queues I realized as I read were most certainly the ideas of appreciation and moderation. The former refers to being able to step back to a previous age before computers could be used to accomplish all our tasks, but at the same time requires one to go beyond mere recognition of significance and arrive at a recognition of necessity. What I mean to say is that cultural and natural, what I would call experiential, information holds more weight in genuine knowledge than technological information ever could. The latter concept, moderation, is a theme which appears frequently when one sincerely examines the state of current affairs. Our society is bombarded by extremism in one form or another and we must really strive to be educated and aware enough to recognize the lack of rationality present in our culture. To truly possess knowledge, one must seek it. However tantalizing the temptation to interpret “seek” as “Google,” we must hold ourselves to a higher standard of learning that does not depend on ease of use and pure quantity of information, but on quality and sincere effort.

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

For the record, I think that Google and Wikipedia are amazing. They have saved my life on several occasions, but sometimes is just feels wrong to have that much at your finger tips.

The Encore

"It's not the lies that you sing, but what the silence will scream."

It's not like I haven't had enough to do over the past week. It's also not like I don't have enough to be doing right now and tomorrow. I don't need more to think about, or more to waste my precious seconds on at this hour of night, this late in the semester. There are about twenty better things I could be doing right now, sleep not the least of all. My brain is barely running after the ridiculousness that has permeated these last 5 days. I can't even say at this point whether or not I have something interesting to say. So I apologize, but much to Jaron Lanier's horror, I'm gonna write this anyway.

I sometimes wonder how related my thoughts are to the rest of humanity's. With as many people as there are on this planet plus all those who came before us, how can we have unique feelings and thoughts, right? I mean, obviously Aristotle didn't think about when the next episode of House was on, but generally speaking. People deal with feeling guilty, apprehensive, inadequate, etc. We relate to people all the time via some sort of connection. We don't make friends and have relationships just because we are both humans. I think most of the differences that make people unique are in the way they respond to these common thoughts and feelings. It follows then, that people be defined by their actions because actions are always, in effect, reactions to some specific thought or feeling, a thought or feeling that is common to many people. If one were defined by that thought or feeling, one would cease to be unique. I ponder only because it seems we are programmed to believe that we are unique, in the bad way I mean. At some point everyone has thought that their situation was unique to them, like there was no one who understood. In reality, it probably happens all the time. And now I can hear the hypocritical reactions to this statement in my head. "You're saying no one is unique? You're reducing people's individuality." Yes and no. Only within the bounds of defining a common and comforting foundation. The ironic part about the situations that I speak of is that we want to be unique and therefore embrace our plights. We welcome advice of course. No one wants to be stuck in a shitty situation, but the devaluing happens in our mind when someone says, "Oh yea, I know exactly what you mean. I figured it out. You will too." And this is coming from me, who doesn't care when someone makes a "well at least you're not (insert worse situation here)" statement. I don't really understand the existence of those statements though (tangent alert). I mean honestly, I'm pretty sure the person is aware they are not an orphan starving in Africa who inherited AIDS from his or her mother so even if they get food and water....and so on, but how the hell is that supposed to make anyone feel better? Now they are still in their bad situation and feel worse for not being content. Anyway, point being, if you say things like that, they don't help, lol. My general wondering didn't really have a purpose. I just don't understand why so many of the things we do, especially when other people are involved, contradict each other.

The specific part of that wondering is more pertinent to me. Most people have a person that has inspired them to pursue what they do. There's that common childhood mindset of seeing someone or something and wanting to be "just like them." I have realized recently that I have never had that. Probably part of my issue with choosing a major and deciding what I want to do. When I see someone awesome at something, i.e. Stephen Christian's lyrics or any number of people's skills in singing/playing instruments, I never become inspired. In fact, it does the opposite. I think I stated in an earlier post that there is always going to be someone who does what you do best better than you. If that isn't a great example of a negative statement, I don't know what is. The wonderful thing about being hypocritical on the internet, of course, is that most people have no idea that you are acting thusly, but I'll excuse it because I write this as much for me as for anyone else. So the question really is, how does one become inspired? The second question and more important question is, why the hell did I just getting a spam message saying I can browse Jewish singles near me? Phishing has become pretty ineffective if some algorithm thinks there are many Jewish singles to browse in Upland, IN. Anyway, I know that we are in college to learn so obviously people know more than us. I also know that there are areas in which we know more than those that come before us. But how does one go about excelling in an area without committing to living his or her life only in pursuit of gaining recognition? I have had my prof for principles singing praises because I am at such a disadvantage being the least qualified to be in the class yet taking on the most complicated project, but honestly why should that matter? I did my job, rather poorly in fact. I don't want to sound pretentious. I do appreciate it, but everyone else in the class killed themselves to get the project done too. The separation that I see is the people who loved what they were doing versus the people who were just doing a project for class. The people who deserve praise are the ones who are inspired to their fields, the ones who wear their passion on their sleeves. Those are the people who are going to make a difference and excel. If you hadn't figured it out yet, I'm pretty much writing stream of consciousness here. But I do have a couple thoughts to write that aren't part of this train of thought so I am derailing it here.

Don't be concerned, to those of you who are prone to be, by the last paragraph. I am positive that I am an engineer. I would be content with people handing me a bunch of parts and just hooking them up and seeing if they explode for the rest of my life. Well maybe not content, but I'm sure that something within the field is what I am suited for. Granted professional killing is always on the table because when one has a moral flexibility, why not put it to use, right? In all seriousness though, I am recently in awe of how focused people are on "relationships." I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that not many people know exactly who they are when they enter college. fts? Sure, but honestly our generation has become set on consistently finding a new person to define themselves by. I absolutely do not condone having sex before marriage. Not a good idea for many, many reasons, but during college if someone needed to choose between just making out with a bunch of people and dating two or three people for that same time period...just make out. Life, especially college life, is not about narrowing down the pool of potential mates. Whether you're a Christian or not, this is a time of preparation and learning. I am henceforth going to assume the "I came to Taylor to find a spouse" mindset is tantamount to spending 120k dollars to find a man or woman and therefore Taylor is reduced to nothing more than a high class escort service for people who want "the whole package" and not just sex. As with most of my arguments, this is not an attack on the institution in question, it is an attack on stupidity. For the record, I am very happy in my relationship :) haha.

I should probably sleep soon, but I wanted to write about selfishness a little bit because I know that it is one of those common (and largely unconscious) things I was talking about previously. It is very hard for us to not want success in this life. I know that I would love to be able to afford all these wants I have and still have money to put towards the future. On top of this inherent nature, culture consistently bombards us with things that would "make our lives better." I have found that the act of borrowing viciously combats selfishness, but not on the surface level. I know that it takes a lot to knock sense into my own head and only when I am pushed to disgust with myself, can I truly say, "Okay, this has to stop," without rationalizing away my feelings and going on with my life. Borrowing a car for example, as I am still lacking in the transportation department, frustrates the hell out of me. I wish I had the money to afford a car and thus despise my plight of credit card debt which then leads me to hate the circumstances of acquiring the debt and the whole thing just snowballs until I can't stand it and I finally say enough. This may seem unhealthy, but as the circumstances of the self-deprecation are devised with clear intent of improvement, I believe it is actually an act of self-control. And as with most confrontations with selfishness, the result often comes down to a matter of self-control or lack thereof. That is not to say of course that jumping into the deep end is the way to overcome selfishness. But the blatant opposition of this selfishness by engaging it from a distance may decrease the opportunities for selfishness to catch one off-guard. If you know where your crazy stalkerwhoisgoingtomurderyou is hiding in the bushes, running away from the bush isn't the best way to deal with it as there is an abundance of foliage in the world. However, running to the perfect position from which to ambush said stalkerwhoisgoingtomurderthehelloutofyou is a decent strategy if I've ever heard one...and I watch a lot of Asian movies. That's not true at all, but I've seen The Last Samurai, and unsurprisingly, gattling guns in an elevated position beat swordsman on horses. Now after that plethora of imagery, I tire and thusly retire.

...to the bushes ;)

Yea it's 6am give me a break.

You see love is a drink 

That goes straight to my head

And time is a lover 

And I'm caught in her stead

And the sentiment there follows me

Straight to my bed through the night

I've got my life in a suitcase

I'm ready to run run run away

I've got no time

'cause I'm always trying to run run run away

'cause everyday it feels like it's only a game

I've got my life in a suitcase, a suitcase, a suitcase

Edit:

I had wanted to start sharing some of the stuff I have done for classes here because it has (for the most part) a lot of thought put into it. This is the paper I wrote for ethics a couple weeks ago: The Technological Caste System

Enjoy.

Augeries of Ignorance

So today at lunch I decided that I needed a break from thinking to just sit and think. The following is a product of lunchtime thinking at the Grille:

I was sitting writing lyrics, some to already existing songs, some to inspire future songs when I realized that some of them were provocative enough for me to actually think about them and delve a little more behind the scenes to examine why I was writing them. This happens quite often and thus it is not very surprising that I don't really ever finish songs. I'm going to post a bunch of little excerpts in a row so you can kind of see what I was looking at as I was thinking.

"Free though it may be, the draught parches my throat."

"Who guards the guardians? Who watches the watchers? Who shakes the lifeless?"

"An idea, plain as daylight, fragments in my hands and is no more.

If my thoughts are dark I must have seen the light."

"But for lost thoughts and misplaced words

If I were a blackbird I would sing at night too.

I broke my own wings to be like you, bound to earth.

I am the personification of a necessary evil.

We are many and I am you."

I started thinking about our generation again post-songwriting. I know I've written about it before, but I felt like it either needed clarification, or I did not draw strong enough conclusions to be worth the time for thought. The first question that popped into my head (there were many this time around so bear with me) was, "Do we even understand what duty is anymore?" I'm curious as to what young adults feel called to in their lives. For reasons I will make clear later, I don't think that any of us has a clue about what it means to be part of something bigger than ourselves. The loudest generation in history has nothing to say that's worth hearing. There is a reason for this of course: No one takes the time to learn how to think for themselves. Why take the time to learn to think when other people already know how? If there is one thing we, as a generation, are good at, it is taking credit for others' ideas. If there is a second thing that we excel at, it is feeling entitled to things that we have no right to feel entitled to. My next question based on this observation was, "What then is the cause? Selfishness? Ignorance? Pure stupidity?" I imagine the real answer is some conglomeration of the aforementioned, but I don't think that it really matters because it already exists so prevention is beyond our grasp. I do think that the existence of the problem, however, is just that, a really, really big problem. Where have the concepts of "absolute" and "final" gone? Who took the weight and severity out of decision-making? Why do we feel like no one has the right to say "no" to us while simultaneously harping the fact that others' opinions of us don't matter? It is like every single person thinks that every other person should think exactly the way we do and then gets pissed off when they all do. Where's your non-conformity now? I took a minute to be frustrated with people in general and then began again, eventually coming up with an idea that I haphazardly titled, "The Victim-Culprit Duality." This idea, which I will explain forthwith, stems from the idea that there has been a retardation of maturity in our generation. Basically I put together a statement that I felt characterizes, in varying degrees of course, the mindset and subsequent action of young adults today. It is as follows: "I know everything. Therefore, I do not need to create goals. Therefore, I do not need to work towards anything. Therefore, if things are not as I believe they should be, I must be being taken advantage of and I deserve better." Now you might say, "Well that is ridiculous, obviously no one reading this would ever admit to thinking that they know everything." Fortunately, the beauty of the statement is its infinite reductibility. I think that most of us would be able to say with certainty that they acted in what they thought were their best interests. In the context of any situation in which we act as though we are certain, this statement can be applied. Not to say that it does of course, as we do have the ability to not subscribe to this mindset. But, to reiterate, I believe this mindset is very common today driving people's thoughts, most likely unconsciously. The coincidence and the reason for the "culprit" half of my title are both that we are wholly responsible for this problem. As luck would have it, I picked up a News of the Day while sitting at the Grille and someone had written this little narrative paragraph on it that, if satirical, is exactly what I am talking about, but if serious is exactly the problem:

"Don't drink that, Timmy!" cried Mom as she snatched the bottle of drain cleaner out of his hand. He thought to himself in a confused daze that if they didn't want people drinking it, they shouldn't put it in such a pretty bottle. He waited until she left him alone again and went right back to the sink. This time the bleach looked good. He took a drink and twenty minutes later, he died. His mother cried for days, but it wasn't her fault. It was the fault of the company that sold the product. It was just too pretty for children to resist."

Sorry for the harshness here, but guess what? It was the mom's fault. Children have been curious and naive since the beginning of humanity. But for so many people today, the first thought that crosses their mind is not responsibility, it is blame. Let's sue the company, those bastards! This was a very extreme example, but as with a lot of my other thoughts, extreme examples are often reducible and applicable to other less extreme situations. But I digress. I thought of several people in our society that are wonderful illustrations of the varying degrees of my idea. The first would be our infamous overlord, "The Zuckerbeast" (all credit to Matt Inman for the coining). I loved The Social Network, don't get me wrong. Definitely one of my favorite movies that I have seen in a while. I can see a lot of myself in Mark's actions. This is exactly why I think it applies. If I had had the opportunity that he did, I would have been all over it. Screw over some guys and become the world's youngest billionaire? Come on, of course! What am I doing with my life? At the same time, who of us would deny that he is a complete asshole throughout the duration of that movie? Only the naive. It's not like he was required to act the way he did. He could have kept the people involved and still made a fortune, but welcome to the 21st century. My second example is of course Lady Gaga and her "Born This Way" ridiculousness. My question for that whole following is this, "How the hell has humanity survived for this long if we have always been so persecuted?" Regardless, what I want, when I want it, how I want it, and if you don't like it, fuck off. That's the gist. What a way to live. If you think that is what freedom means, you are sorely mistaken. This is simply another shepherd to which we can choose to be a slave.

On a related note, I refer back to an older post in saying it is no surprise that we are suffering in our relationships with God. There is no room for obedience in this mindset. In fact, our mindset becomes, well isn't it God's job to show himself to us? That's what he's there for. We are so caught up with being individual that the need for God cannot exist. This goes back to the idea Jeremy brought up way back when that sin is taking the role of God into your own hands or wanting to be God. I certainly would not want to be the one going through trial and error style figuring out that F=ma works well. Think about the universe where F=2ma. Not a pleasant picture. Anyway, I digress again. This isn't really a "conclusion" type of post now that I think about it, despite my earlier claim. It leaves me pondering the "whys" which is a successful enough result for me. I wish more people pondered the reasons of their behavior because I know that when I do, I am often disgusted by the way I act and therefore seek to become better. In closing, amuse yourself with this wonderfully clever parody of Descartes: Cogito, ergo doleo

As-Salāmu `Alaykum

When I Was Two, There Was A Tidal Wave...

The Calm Before The Storm

I was going to write this blog about moral relativism and how you should not be that kind of "ist," but I decided that instead of being my long-winded self about that issue, I could easily sum it up quick and do something a little closer to home currently. Moral relativism is basically the idea that, "You cannot judge my actions or principles because what is right for you may not be right for me." Not many people would adhere to this on a person to person basis, but culturally it is a very common concept. No sense beating around the bush right? It is common in numerous West African countries to practice female circumcision. I won't describe it. You'll either look it up or use your imagination. Oh, excuse the ex post facto realization of a horribly crude pun. It was entirely unintentional. A cultural relativist would say we have no right (as members of Western culture) to say that this practice is wrong because it is a difference in culture. I won't spell out the rational argument entirely, but say the People's Republic of China decides it is morally acceptable to nuke the United States back into the stone age. We, being the stand-up cultural relativists we ought to be, have no right to defend ourselves. We must die. Logical flaw successfully demonstrated? Okay, good. Argue if you want, but from a rational perspective, there is no argument. So why do I bring it up then? Simply put, people today like to defend themselves saying, even though an argument is rationally nonexistent, there are cases to which it may apply, i.e. exceptions to the rule. Ooh I just thought of a segue into my other topic, haha. We'll get there. I think that rationality breaks down here. Unless two rational people decide to present arguments regardless of exceptions for the sake of reaching some common ground, human free will trumps rationality at some point. Thus, we must go deeper. As Christians of course, our morality stems directly from God. On a side note, see if you can recite all ten commandments right now...

The professor that spoke at our spiritual renewal said that only 7% of his 80+ students per semester in a 300-level theology class could get them correct. I'll bring this up later talking about obedience, but back to my conclusion of the moral issue. If you are inclined to say, "You are taking the example to the extreme," I think that you are naive and in fact, just taking the example to the opposite extreme in being relativist. Saying that female circumcision is wrong does not pass judgement on a people (in the way in which we are commanded not to). It is a judgement on an action, an action like murder or adultery (which we are commanded to do). My two cents: Were the procedures done on willing females in a sterile environment, it is no more wrong that ear piercing. When performed with inadequate instruments, in unclean conditions, or on unwilling females, there are easily morally defensible grounds in opposition. Regardless of your personal feelings, there are intrinsic qualities to life. Without going into ethical theories, my point is this: We are a society of sugar-coating, half-assing, appeasement, and sudo love. Let's face it. How often is the easy way out the best course of action? I'm inclined to say never as I believe in seeking to improve ourselves as we always should be, work is always required.

The Main Event

Okay, so I completely forgot to explain the poem when I wrote the first half of this. It is a characterization of God's relationship with man. The first stanza represents the "human condition" that I so often refer to. The second represents God's revelation of his plan of salvation to us. The third represents the fulfillment of that plan in Jesus. Anyway, I hope this rambling finds you all well. Recently I have been thinking a lot about obedience and how I am really not good at it. I feel like at some level I can trace a lot of issues I have back to the fact that I have a hard time being obedient to God's commands. Being in prayer often, reading the Bible, and loving others how God would love them are three of the things I would say I probably do the least of. I could make excuses of course, but honestly, it boils down to not setting enough time aside to do those things that God says to do. I often think, "Why do I struggle with sin so much? Why can't I be more focused on God?" The answer is, duh, I'm not being more focused on God. An intimate relationship takes making an effort to have an intimate relationship. Not profound, I know, but if it really was simple, the world would look very different. I can religiously do so many things throughout my day. What person over the age of 5 does not have some sort of responsibility to take care of? I mean look at our schedules as adults. Our days are pretty much planned out for us. It is easy to get up and go to class every morning to fulfill our responsibility at school. So why is it so difficult to fulfill our responsibilities as Christians? What's different about the forces behind us on our way to class than the force of God's commands? What consequence is more severe for skipping class than ignoring our Father? There isn't one of course, but yet we let it slip our minds and get up in the morning without giving God what we promised we would when we became Christians. As I've talked with Sam and others about God's character and how our culture has lost accurate knowledge of God I realized that we are the ones depriving ourselves of that awe. We can't just blame the culture. We can't blame anything. We have direct revelation through the Bible, direct conversation through prayer, and direct contact through the Holy Spirit's work in our lives (something like, but not limited to our consciences). So what is the opposing force that keeps us from beholding the glory of God? I think spiritual warfare is probably a decent argument, as is our selfishness and fallen nature. But to be honest, I attribute most of it to laziness. We automatically gravitate towards activities that we see direct benefit from in the near future. There isn't any comparison to our achievements in this life when we think about the nature of our inheritance in heaven, but we are still more concerned with the here and now. All of the big decisions I hear people make tend to be coupled with, "I really just felt this strong will of the Lord that I [insert decision here]," or "I really feel like this is God's plan for me." We are always waiting for a prompt. We are reactionary. What would a life look like that was built on a search for God? If you believe God has a plan for your life, but that it is a plan of you waiting for an invitation from him to act as though you want to be part of that plan, I say think again. Our proclamations of faith are like whispers from our mouths as we incessantly refuse to do what we say we are. Moreover, our actions are worthless for their lack of faith. God is peddled to people today falsely as little more than an invisible hippie who loves us and only wants everyone to be happy. We can quote all we want about his justice and righteousness, but which one of us really knows God. If this seems pointed and a bit vehement, realize that it is the articulation of a self-examination, not a holier-than-thou moment. God has been God for all of history. The God that gave us the Bible is not Bob Dylan.

I suppose this is an appropriate time for an aside. I think the concept of "the fear of God" is an interesting one that is often brought up and then politely discarded even among Christian circles. This isn't a shaking-in-your-boots fear (though I propose that would be a great deal better than the popular alternatives). One of the greatest and most constant descriptions of God throughout the Bible is an equation of God and provision. God is THE source. Forgive my math references, but he is the anti-derivative and the universe in its entirety is derivative of God, the source. Our worship and respect, the sources of our worldviews, and the reasons for our actions are so often dictated by our environment, the "street-smart" we gain while living our lives here on earth. We forget what we're told in the beginning of Proverbs. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." If we derive our lives from God, the source of wisdom, what area of our lives would be lacking? What more would we want? The fear of God is the realization that he is the ideal, he is our model that we should take after. We fear our world and its consequences very well, but it is something special to fear God.

Okay, back to what I was saying. I long for a relationship with God that is as he wills it. God's will and God's plan are two separate things (again, credit to Sam). I don't think we ever need to be "afraid" that we are not following God's plan, especially if we make that distinction. Our goal shouldn't be to keep our feet on a "path" as it is defined most commonly. Our goal should be what we committed ourselves to as followers of Christ, as children of God. If our eyes are on God, if we are seeking him, how then would our feet slip? If we are truly beholding the glory of the Lord, how could we bear to turn our eyes away? God longs for us to adhere to his will the way we adhere to our readiness to jump on command. I really don't enjoy being equated to a jack russell terrier sitting, waiting for the next "roll over" so I can get a treat, but I'm really good at bouncing up and down like one, begging for some direction. God's plan is on his terms and as such, we are really not in a position to comprehend it, but that's okay. No really, it is. Let me know when you have lived your life in search of God and have been filled by his knowledge and wisdom. I would stake my reputation to say that at that point, you will look back and say, "I walked the path," and you'll know that it wasn't the steps you took; you can always look back at your steps in hindsight. So, metaphorical approximations aside, seek God's will and learn about his character. How? Through prayer, reading the Bible and attention to righteous action. Obedience and the fear of God will bring you closer to him. We have the luxury of control over our actions. So, to quote the great bearer of tall, long-footed people to great heights, "Just do it."

Ebbing The Apprehension

I really am going to write more I promise...soon. But until then, ruminate upon my ruminations!

This first is a poem I wrote for our literary magazine. It did not get in. The mail informing me responded thusly, "Erik, we are sorry to inform (blah blah blah) However your characterization of light as iron was interesting." And my response in my head also follows thusly, "Lol." Anyway, I'll let anyone here read first and then when I write an actual blog again, I will lift the apparently very opaque veil. Listen to Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings while reading it, or maybe Mozart's Lacrimosa, or anything by Eric Whitacre, haha.

The Light in Wrought Iron Darkness

The light in wrought iron darkness,

Stifled keys to depose grained void

And breached heart hindering, speared,

The voyeur in white, sown fawn

Aggrieved. And oh the sunset, as

Locked, nameless tapering noise quells.

To me, diamond ocean rally grey

Genesis; strike azure flight the

Temptress. Retreat sever wings flow

Stride profound sinking melisma

Iced nothing cropped tunic catches

Foresight. Darkened with wolves and

Bullets, strophe grace in unending.

Spoken, Faust, injury paged. Call

Safety short from skyline. Forth

And with axiom in symphony,

Vanguard. Accent post destiny

And nurse, father in shelter begin.

In craft, rust, brave tumult sing.

Selfish trunk and starved ghost weave

Content, animal host so bray.

With star and breath, broken hedge,

Extends naught in calm, defy the deep.

And vision opaque, release sour

The ails, quenched tribune afflicted

With silence, proceed and drawn in

Affinity, bound ghost love, betrothal.

Alright, work time. Talk to you all later. Well, sudo talk to you all later...

...And The Rest Will Follow

I need a break from reading so I’m going to write for a while. I have a ridiculously busy week, but I can’t be without my usual quota of thought. I had an idea of what I wanted to write about this week, but it has kind of broadened and changed. As I perused random corners of the internet I stumbled upon a Martin Luther King Jr. quote that I thought accurately supported last week’s blog while segueing nicely into the general vicinity of my new topic, thusly reproduced for your convenience:

We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies.

I’m going to trash the context in conventional Christian vogue in favor of examining the assumptions he uses as a foundation. And yes, I think that if the education system taught context clues better, the number of Christian denominations would be a fraction of what it currently is. Welcome to the jungle; we have arguments for the sake of argument-having. As Dr. King so presumptuously stated, we all want the power to love for whatever reason. Oh, side note: I think Martin Luther King Jr. was beyond brilliant and one of the true heroes of our time. That quote has so many awesome statements, I could be set with writing material for a month. I’m being sadistically satirical in my portrayals for a reason, or maybe satirically sadistic. Anyway, he is right, is he not? Within each one of us exists this desire for “love” by whatever definition you choose to call it. Again, for your convenience, I’ll sum up my definition so you know what I am thinking as I go about writing the rest of this. The most important parts of my definition are those most likely not to be accepted by any english teacher, the definition by negation, or transcendence of two common definitions. The love I am talking about isn’t the physical or emotional aspects, though it does beget the former two. I won’t quote 1 Corinthians because I’m sure pretty much everyone has heard it, but I’ll draw attention to several important qualities. Love is trusting, honest, compassionate, selfless, and sacrificial. This sequence of traits travels from an oddity among humanity to sheer contradiction of the human condition. So, once again, we arrive at this question. Why?

Why do we trust other people with our hearts? It is one of the most ignorant and naïve ideas I can think of. Even from a Christian perspective, we know we are all fallen from grace, from God, from love. Opening up just invites pain and betrayal into perpetuation. How can the benefits outweigh the risks? Do we just comply because trust is a necessary component of love and we are commanded to love? Are we really just seeking gain for ourselves? Are we just clinging to hope? I believe the answer, while beautifully constructed truthfully in the Word, does have a proximate secular précis, illustrated by a voice familiar to most of us. Spake the wise man, “Why love if losing hurts so much? We love to know that we are not alone.” Any guesses? Chock up another point for the C.S. Lewis win-column. It is to him I dedicate that artfully crafted, narrative archaism. Ignoring the group of people who do conform readily to this position, I just want to pull back and look at the other side in which I formerly included myself. This statement suggests that humans are relational at the core, so what about those humans who don’t see themselves as relational? More often than not, I would say that they are probably fooling themselves and are jaded by some sense of arrogant superiority. However, on the off chance that that isn’t the case, I would argue that God pulled the ol’ switcheroo on them. Those people, who likely can accurately be described as introverted, have a much deeper relationship with themselves, the product of more time spent in self-examination. The best way (fortunately for my argument) to examine something is to look at it. The best way to look at something, is to not be the something you’re looking at. For example, say you want to look at your own eye. It’s impossible to do just sitting in your chair, right? *Hires lawyers to defend against all the eye-dislocation lawsuits* You could look in a mirror, but it’s still really difficult to look at any part of your eye that isn’t dead center because you have to move your eye to do so. Which brings me to my probable best solution, *calls lawyer again for all the blindness and undiagnosed epilepsy suits* taking a picture of your eye. And in effect, what are you doing when you take a picture? You are creating a separate entity to examine. Similarly (although substantially less literally barring some crazy advancement in cloning), we examine ourselves by looking from an outside perspective, or even several. I argue that this action is in itself an embracement of the human relational quality even before considering the relationship with God that is inherent in the process. Okay, if you really want me to back up the statement, “No one wants to be alone,” fully, you’ll have to ask me, but trust that I am up to the challenge for now. C.S. Lewis has, in my opinion, defined the "real" human condition perfectly. Why do we love? We are defined by love. We are broken and desperate for love, every single one of us. We cannot not love. Show me one person who has never acted lovingly once in his or her life. Love is written on our hearts and our very being by God and it is by and through that love that we are drawn to him. Think about all the times during the day that you are drawn to compliment or smile at someone that you may not even know instead of stealing their possessions. What is going through your mind? If it’s not, “Oh, if I hurt this person and steal from them, there will be legal ramifications for me,” I can all but guarantee that the impulse has its roots in the way God has painted your identity to lead you closer to him. I think that's pretty cool. So then let's go back and look at the first half of the quote from Lewis. Why does losing hurt? A connection severed is a piece of love being torn away and replaced, most likely, by some form of hostility. Imagine removing a portion of your pillow stuffing and replacing it with thumb tacks. That, but subtler and within our own hearts, the co-source of our identities. Our hearts thrive on love and the characteristics it invites. Doesn't it then make sense that pain ensues from the forcible removal of those traits and injection of the derivatives of hate?

Okay, this is getting obscenely long and I, despite the underground consensus that I am not human, do actually require sleep. I don’t really have a “point” this time per se. This was more or less just food for thought, but I’m guessing and I hope that if nothing else, this got the term “love” spinning around in your brain, which is good. I think having a solid definition of something so engrained in our existence is crucial, and not only a definition, but a sense of how it is involved in our identities and how best to be the writing instrument with which it is written on others’ hearts. That’s all I’ve got. Peace.

Event Horizon

Let me take you on a journey to a place you may not have visited for some time. Think of this place like a cave, but not one of those caves you see advertised all over the southwest to attract tourists. My biggest problem with those kinds of caves, by the way, is not the ridiculous marketing involved, or the fact that the group in your tour is always obnoxious. It’s how the guide acts like it’s his or her job to sell the concept of a cave to you, or worse, the story of a poverty-stricken lad turned spelunker extraordinaire. I mean, I am sure it is a great story, but I go to a cave for the same reason I go to the Grand Canyon, or any other natural phenomenon for that matter, it is art painted by God, and I want to enjoy it. Spend money on lighting the stupid thing correctly, play some classical music, and I’m good. Anyway, I digress. If you’re picturing a cool cave, stop it, or better yet, pretend you’re the poverty-stricken lad turned spelunker extraordinaire. You’re crawling through this pitch black tunnel, barely big enough for you to squeeze yourself through with only a light on your helmet to make sure you don’t impale yourself or fall to your death. Suddenly the tunnel opens into a vast space, but for some reason, whenever you enter the space, your light goes out. No, this isn’t a stupid horror movie with cave monsters, but there is something in the cave. You just have no idea what it is or how to figure out what it is. There is some barrier at the entrance to the cave that bars the shedding of light on any part of this space. Okay, that’s your imagery for the remainder of the blog, so place it daintily in your hippocampus and don’t touch it.

Now, I imagine there are several questions revolving around the scenario, so I will focus on several preliminary ones and the move on to the eventuality, which will hopefully also be a question. The most obvious question is what is the cave? I’m going to skip that one for now because it will be apparent with the answer to the second question; what is in the cave? And moving on, what does it take to genuinely forgive someone?

….sorry, I was waiting until I saw enough light bulbs go on. Also, just so you know, my mind skips like a vinyl sometimes, so if you ever get pissed off while having a conversation with me, feel free to punch me in the shoulder and tell me to focus. No, that doesn’t mean I advocate violence against record players or any other old media; they should be revered for their wisdom. Back to the matter at hand. I feel like we could all use a lesson in forgiveness, not only because it is potentially nigh impossible to accomplish, but also because it is downplayed far too much in our lives. We hear all around us that we are unique and special. We hear that we deserve things to make us feel unique and special. We hear that if people don’t like us for who we are, we should just say, “Screw ‘em,” and ignore whatever they say. Well here’s the issue with that; if you are behind that person in line at the grocery store a year later and overhear that they are five bucks short and can’t pay, how likely are you to give them a hand? Probably about the same likelihood that you’ll lend them the five dollars (see what I did there?). I would like to think I am a generally nice guy, and you know what? If it happened the same day a few hours apart, it would probably be fresh enough in my head that I could consciously forgive the person and help them. That’s not the issue I’m talking about. I’m talking about the caves in our hearts, those instances we have forgotten. Unfortunately, they do not just go away; they weigh us down and believe me, they are heavy. Even if you want to take the stance of, “Erik, I’m pretty sure that in 20 years, I won’t care anymore and I’d be able to treat that person just fine,” I still have three bones to pick with you. First off, your grammar is poor and you shouldn’t settle for just treating someone “fine.” Secondly, depending on what the circumstance was, I call shenanigans and say that we humans are very capable of harboring hostility for decades. Last, and most importantly, my illustration is as literal as it is…illustrative. There is a hole bored into your heart and mind when you bury those situations. That hole is not only a part of your heart that you can’t use proactively, but also a brick in an ever-growing wall between you and others with whom you have and wish to have healthy(ish) relationships. If there’s any other reasons for harboring enmity that you’d like me to shoot down, feel free to inquire within. I must press on.

So if we assume that this is actually a problem (I’m sick of math classes barging in on the way I think, but at the risk of alienating any of you any further, I’ll allow it this one time), how can we go about forgiveness? Well one thing I would suggest, and I apologize if I beat this horse to death and then beat its identical twin brother to death with the recently deceased, is communication. If I have a scoreboard at the end of my life for how many novel ideas I have, most of the points will be for this suggestion because most people will ignore it and still be shocked to find later in life that it actually works. But let us, again, continue our assumptions and say that you have told said offender what happened and he or she either did not apologize, or you are still not satisfied with their apology. I am also going to lump, person-I’ll-never-see-again into this category. If the case follows one of those rules, the burden falls to you. If he or she just didn’t apologize, then you need to make the realization that you may not have the influence necessary to change him or her. Be sad for that fact and do your best to continue to love the person. You may change him or her, you may not, but harboring anger is not worth the cost of happiness and love. Which brings me to the other category, there is something wrong with you. Just kidding, but seriously, not all offenses continue to barrage us because of the other person’s attitude. In fact, I would argue a majority of latent ill will is due to our inability to forgive ourselves or personally deal with the issue. Because these issues are most likely very specific, there is no way for me to give advice on how to deal with them all, but I will at least say a couple things. Looking at another example, someone in passing says he or she could never see him or herself with someone who was overweight. Unbeknownst to him or her, you are very self-conscious about your weight and henceforth cannot stand to be around the person. You forget about it entirely over the next couple years and maybe even move away, but in every subsequent relationship that you have, you can’t help but have a nagging feeling in the back of your mind like this person, whom you may even love and who loves you back, doesn’t find you attractive. What do you do when you don’t even realize what the problem is? To borrow a quote from my professor (no, computer science, actually, before you ask), “Focus on what you know and use it to figure out what you don’t know.” Application: we know what love looks like, no matter if it is romantic or not. We have a perfect illustration of love shown to us in the person of Jesus Christ. Use it. Compare the way in which you feel to how Jesus acted. Why do you not trust this person that loves you when they say that you are attractive? Love always trusts and is always honest. Trace that feeling of inadequacy or fear back. I believe that there is no issue in our lives the cause of which is truly lost to us. When you arrive at the root, above all, do not let it slip away again. Don’t push it back down and whenever it hits you, force yourself to hit right back. Tell the original person who caused it that you’re sorry for basing your image of them on one specific event, out loud or in your head. I know it seems stupid, but it really does help. Then tell yourself that you forgive yourself. Then ask God to take whatever it is away. Rinse. Dry. Repeat. It sounds like something off a shrink’s couch, I know, and for some issues, it’s not necessary, but I know I’ve had to actually do this for something at least once, so I know other people do too. Be consistent and determined in the pursuit of forgiveness and you won’t fail. That’s the bottom line. And I’m not preaching here for the record, nor do I profess aptitude. I suck at forgiving myself and this was cathartic for me as I wrote it, hence the franticness of the last bit there. Anyway, I hope somebody somewhere actually is able to benefit as well. If not, hopefully when Google takes over the world, it will remember my blog and be a more forgiving overlord. Peace.